RE: Is human good or bad by nature? Is there justice?
Not really because those are perceptions about real objects, we may perceive them differently but smells and objects exist apart from humans ability to perceive them
The first thing to define is that they are not "real objects", they are "material objects", what is "real" and what is "unreal" is exactly what we are discussing about it.
It will be impossible to sustain with logic that if in a world nobody is able to see, there is something that is visible, because "visible" means exactly what can be seen, and if no one can see something, then it cannot be seen, it is invisible, it is not visible, because as I explained in the previous comment, it is necessary for someone to see and something that is seen, so that the vision exists.
In the same way, if there is no one who can see, smell, touch, listen, or perceive in any sensible way, there can be nothing that is visible, smellable (that can be smelled), touchable, listenable, or perceptible in any sensible way, then we would enter into a curious case; Can exist something that is not visible, smellable, touchable, listenable, or perceptible in other sensitive way?
I say yes, that's why I believe that ideas, which cannot be sensible perceived (touch, smell, see, etc.), although they can be perceived in an intelligible way (understanding), do exist. In the same way, if you take away any living being, the world will not disappear, only that it will be impossible for it to be perceptible in a sensible way, since there is no one who can perceive it in a sensitive way.
"justice" does not.
The difference between "justice" and a "chair" is that the first is perceived in a intelligible way, while the latter is perceived in a sensitive way. The first you think about it, you discover it, and you understand it, at the second you touch it, you see it, you smell it.
I don't understand the bit about "hatred".
lol… misspelling, I talked about the ear and the listener, I fixed it.
There are many living beings that are not humans. That's a good way to tell the difference between human constructs and things that objectively exist, a cat wouldn't understand "justice" but would smell and see real things, albeit differently, that people see and smell.
So we can say that ideas are human constructs, and in turn, that objects are living beings constructs?
The fact that we perceive different things as "justice" tells us that there is ignorance about it, and not that "justice" is a construct. In the same way, we can see that there are different types of colorblinds that perceive the sensitive in a different way, Does that mean that color is a construct? There are also people who have vision problems, Does that mean that visible things are a construct? No, it means that they have problems to perceive that which is sensitive, that exists independently of them, but that they don't perceive correctly.
If the "truth" did not exist, there would absolutely nothing exist. When you say that "the world exists", you already affirm that the truth exists, because if the truth did not exist, what you say is a lie. By simply existing one thing, the truth must instantly exist.
An excerpt from a publication I made a few weeks ago:
When someone affirms that the truth does not exist, he is not denying the existence of the truth, on the contrary, he is accepting it and is appropriating it, since he is making an affirmation. If someone says that the truth does not exist, and believes that what he is saying is true, then we can notice that gigantic contradiction. On the contrary, if he believes that it is a lie, then he is accepting that there is a truth.
Again, you must differentiate between constructs and discoveries.
You can see the matter, but that does not mean that there is such a thing, because there are madmen who see things that don't exist, the difference is that if you are sane, you are discovering something that exists materially when you see it, and if you are madman you are building something that does not materially exist.
How do you know if you're sane? You reach a consensus with other people, and if many can see the same, you can conclude that this is real. The same with the other senses. You can never be sure if there is no collective madness and we are seeing material things that don't exist, but you trust that it is not so.
In the same way, you can perceive the ideas, but that does not mean that this idea exists, because there are ignorant people who believe things that don't exist, that is, they are not true, the difference is that if you are wise, you are discovering something that exists ideally upon perceiving it, and if you are ignorant you are constructing something that does not ideally exist.
How do you know if you are wise? You reach a consensus with other people, and if materially the agreement was reached in a sensitive way, by sight, hearing, smell, etc., then the agreement with respect to ideas is reached through logic, through dialectics, even through mathematics.
You and I can know that 2+2 = 4, and this is not a social construct, since various civilizations that had no contact with each other also used mathematics, like the ancient Greeks, the ancient Chinese, and even the ancient pre-Columbian Americans. These civilizations reached similar conclusions in some fields, for example, the Chinese and the Greeks discovered the Pi number autonomously.
Likewise even an alien race to the earth could easily notice that if you add two rocks with two other rocks, the result will always be four rocks.
But, can you touch the 2 or hear the 3? And I'm not talking about the graphic representation of the number, but about the underlying idea that is represented by a number.
Since the 2 can refer to rocks, shirts, cars, ideas, people, and a long etcetera.
In the same way, you may not touch the "truth" or see the "justice", but there is an idea that underlies those words, and that is why we invented such words.
Man is a rational animal, animal by the body, and by the perception of the physical, and rational by the mind, and by the perception of reason. The other animals are not rational, that is why they don't perceive ideas, not because ideas are a human construct.
If an animal can distinguish colors that man can not, it is not because it is a construct of that animal, but because it can perceive colors more precisely.
Grey parrots and smarter dogs can do math, and aliens can do math, but would a parrot or alien be able to understand whatever you are calling justice? A Tralfamadorian would have a real hard time understanding any of our varying human concepts of "justice". My overarching point is that any discussion of "justice" is essentially a semantic discussion.
We are reaching an agreement, because if you accept that animals can do maths, then you accept that numbers are not human constructs, but discoveries, so that there is something invisible, untouchable, and so on.
The disagreement that we would have is whether other ideas are a constructs or not, and the problem we have is that there is no other rational animal that we can know, so we don't know if an alien could understand concepts that are so complicated even for some humans.
Some animals do understand concepts such as "justice", there is an experiment done with monkeys, in which one is annoyed to do the same as another monkey and receive a different prize.
Notice that the video uses the word "fairness" and I use the word "justice", that is a semantic problem, or that some in the comments totally misinterpret the reaction of the monkeys to believe that fairness or justice have something to do with material equality.
Now, even the monkeys understand that there must be "justice" or "fairness", they have learned it from the same nature, the monkeys get upset if they receive different prizes, not because there is inequality, but because they are being rewarded in a different way, even though they did the same.
Nature gives each one what corresponds to him, nature does not discriminate, no matter your race, sex, intelligence, or absolutely nothing for nature, as long as you act in X form, you will receive X result.
So, I see no reason for there to be some ideas such as numbers, but others such as "justice" or "good" don't, even when other animals with less rational capacity than the human also understand them. Remember that you should not confuse the truths with the opinions, each person has an opinion, that does not mean that he is right.
there are no guarantees in nature nor is their justice or fairness.
Does it seem to you that nature responds to the same actions in a different way?
If that is the case I can add two rocks with two other rocks, and see that the result is four, but then when you do the same, then you will see that you only have three rocks.
You will see that the error is not in nature but in man, in nature there are certainties, and there is justice, not in man, if man maintains a different opinion to nature, he is wrong and not nature.
If man knows nature, he knows that there are guarantees in nature. You will not take a pot of boiling water and throw it in your face and hope it does not burn you, there is a guarantee there, and that is that you are going to burn.
But I'm going to leave the conversation until here, which has lasted long and gone by the bush.
Greetings.
You're talking about physical laws of nature...if you jump off a bridge, gravity will show you consequences, I agree. Physical actions are verifiable through our senses. Math only becomes physical when we apply a ontological method of quantification to objects, it's not something that can be seen.
When it comes to moral or ethical questions, I don't believe there are natural laws governing conducts between species. I believe only in individual self-interest, or what is called egoism. The law of equal freedom has been proposed as a natural law: "each has freedom to do all that he wills provided that he infringes not the equal freedom of any other". I agree with this, not because I think it's the natural state of things or some "law", but because it's the a good doctrine to live successfully as individual beings which is what beings strive for.
The way I understand what is commonly understood as "justice" or "rights" is that it's based on generalizations of social norms, by a collection of individuals. Besides having the ability to pursue ones self interest, there are no other universals in regards to what is "justice"—it's a culturally relative term. People in the west think it's wrong for people in Asian countries to eat dogs but think it's normal to eat cows or other animals.
Something similar to the physical laws of nature, but not limited only to physics.
You mention individual self-interest, and I think you are partly right, since I believe that our first property is the body, and therefore, it is our responsibility to take care of it.
You are free to take care of your body or not, nobody forces you to anything, but if you don't take care of it, nature punishes you by weakening you, on the contrary, if you take care of it, you will be in a better condition which will give you better health and a considerable amount of benefits.
Thus, nature encourages a behavior and punishes another, I think it is best to follow nature, being that nature can not have errors, unlike human, therefore, benefiting the human of the natural order.
Keep in mind that the example I put is not precise, and I only use it as a demonstration, however, nature has that reciprocity with all things. Nature benefits certain types of attitudes and punishes some others, those things to which nature benefits, is the good, those things to which it punishes, is the evil.
The different morals of the peoples, both in the past and in the present, have partially had some of this natural moral, that is why, regardless of the great cultural differences, from the Americas to the Far East there have been some similar moral norms, but in turn, and on the contrary, all these morals also have something of human invention, which makes each of these morals different from each other, and that has more opinion than truth.
Therefore the human must understand through observation, contemplation, through logic and reason, what are these things that encourages nature to follow them, which in turn will bring the greatest personal benefit, and must recognize which nature punishes to avoid them, which in turn will bring the least personal suffering.
The "justice" to which I refer is that which exists in nature, because if we follow what nature encourages, which means acting well under natural morals, then our results will be good, and if we follow what nature punishes, which is to act badly under the natural moral, the results will be bad, and this happens with everyone regardless of who they are, therefore, the nature is just because it gives each one what corresponds to him.
Thus, and if we carefully observe nature, we will find that there are a lot of these ideas as "justice" or "good", that exist independently of the human, and that we can only notice if we understand nature.
I don't have a concept of "nature" that would give it agency to "respond". I am sure in the future we will take this up again, at this point I don't even know where we started! ;)