Hell

[Ace Otana]

There are concepts. Science's top objective is to conceptualize the world. What you call facts are science's best concepts.

Nope. Science is to understand the world not to make up concepts and assertions. That's religions job.

Yes, unless, of course, God reveals something to us about how to live.

I'm yet to see evidence of this god of yours.

Maybe you'll be lucky enough to be eaten by man, or just killed for sport - to decorate a trophy room.

What point are you trying to make here?

Some people behave aggressively towards their spouse. Specifically they beat them. Others enjoy humiliating, raping and killing other people. It brings them satisfaction to prove that they are more powerful or cunning or willing to do evil, so they overpower people and look down upon them, and they often harm or kill them.

That can be caused by their upbringing. People who do go around harming others clearly lack a logical mind. I would say anyone who behaves that way is mentally unstable. Once again, evil is only a man made concept.

But if someone wrongfully attacked you, then I would offer you the same assistance that I gave the innocent.

I would do the same. If you attacked others I will act to put an end to it. We both would do the same thing. Our morality comes from the same place. We just have different views on where it comes from.

No one is better off in one over another

I didn't say there is. That's not what I said.

because what rules people remains the same and concepts don't matter.

I agree.

Now you say that apes will fight for different reasons (instincts or concepts?), some instinctive some not. Just a second ago you said we were ruled by instincts alone

When did I say we are ruled by instincts alone? Of course we can act based on thought but we behave the way we would by nature. Doesn't mean we can't do things that may be a little distant from our instincts. Travelling to space isn't exactly natural and yet we go up there anyway. It's our curiosity and our ability to ask questions that ends up building a gap between instinct and thought. We are not entirely controlled be instincts but we are mostly controlled. I'd be surprised if every nation in the world said "ok this clearly is stupid, why not just disarm our nukes and get along? Clearly we'd end up killing ourselves and everything else on this planet". Why do we fight each other? I think instinct plays a role in that. If we had 100% reason/thought and total separation from instinct would we be smarter and be more able to make clear decisions?

So you help others to help yourself?

No, I help others because it's the smart thing to do. If you saw someone about to fall off a bridge you'd instantly go and help them out. I think instinct and thought both play a role in your actions. Thinking of others is natural for us as social animals but also our intelligence tell us to help. I don't think you'd spend 2 seconds thinking about it. If we had no instincts would we react as fast as we would? Would pure intellect be fast enough? A dog would run without thought to chase down a cat. Especially if there are a pack of dogs chasing it. I know because my dog has done that. He is the most friendly animal I know and he'd never chase after anything but the sight of charging dogs chasing a cat told his instincts to join in the attack. No command would get through to him. Instincts do control us and others all the time, we just have a little more thought and we can question our instincts.

So, your point is that conflict should continue since it's natural.

That's not what I said. I've lost count on the amount of times you put words in my mouth.
I didn't say it should continue, I'm saying it's natural. We can prevent conflicts but we tend to be too stupid to do that.

Anti-social humans need to be aware of social standards if they wish to trick others into following them and doing their bidding.

I've....lost you here.

The group may have rules or goals that the individual may disagree with, do you agree?

Indeed. Happens often. Instinct and thought both play a role in that.

--
We do agree with a number of things but not when it comes to where we get our morality. We are both just as moral as each other. We'd both do moral things to save others. Reasons are a little different but the drive to do it is the same. We are more alike than unalike. We just have different views to where we get our morality. We get our morality from the same place, it's only our views that differ.

After typing all that, I think I need a nice glass of wine. Care to join me?