Human nature and chemistry of our brains?

Since the advent of philosophers, many people of ordinary people had speculated about human nature. Each generation has succeeded another approach with new arguments, because each generation brings new ideas and speculations to give more credence and understanding to our laws, morals, and involvement in society. For example, a famous quotation from John Stuart Mill: "It is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied, it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool happy, and if the fool and pig have different opinions, because they know only their own views on the issue. The other part of the comparison knows both sides. "
We can continue a long list of similar dilemmas, such as: "It is better to be honest than dishonest and hungry and full," or "It is better to be a poor fit and proper person a rich crook." But the problem is that it is obviously better to be satisfied that a philosopher can enjoy both sides of life, and it is better to be honest and full, rich and convenient. It could be falla-cious than the categories mentioned above are exclusive.
While we understand the point that Mill tried to do, it is preferable to a life high in spirituality intellectual even if the result is uncomfortable or unpleasant, but this assertion is not an absolute certainty. The truism moral and spiritual acceptance does not always mean the discomfort and difficulties. These virtues, apart from their own positivism, are the result not only fun but also ethics of financial transparency.
He is into old habits, be misleading to say that with full knowledge, with all due respect to King Solomon, whose report in yeda rav rav TCAR (great knowledge, great sentence) is a little outdated .
Now we know that our moods and feelings of satisfaction are ultimately regulated by the alchemy of our brain. Most philosophers and thinkers of the past have made great effort to try to discover why their messages had caused severe depression. Fools and pigs are of course not observed the same experiences and have remained immune to the pressures, happy and satisfied.
We can not agree that nature is itself on its shoulders the knowledge of the ancient curse of unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Modern methods of treating depression show that knowledge itself does not cause depression, the cause of depression is stress, which appears as the result of intense thought and the need to analyze concepts complicated. With the correction pharmaceutical appropriately can eliminate side effects, allowing the pleasure of knowledge, to be more intense in rewarding small earthly pleasures. In addition, the satisfaction that philosophy can give to humans results in a deeper happiness than all the ignorance or illusory happiness can offer as a result of a life "rude and stupid."
Let human nature as regards the concept presented above. Every thing we can observe, perform and feel is subjective definitions of good and evil. These definitions are only few criteria that can be written by comparing these two terms, with a sufficient degree of certainty that they are opposing values. Usually, we can analyze the good and evil in pairs, where each side of the same action we find a good share and bad share. It is not uncommon to collect one side in an action good or bad. When one side of an action derives a benefit, it is obvious that the other side takes damage, destruction, where all sorts of side effects and negative. We can establish a universal definition of good and evil, but always in your first few pages of this book, we try at least to determine a specific ideology.
We must make an important point, because normally provide discussing as it may have adverse consequences, for drawing the conclusion that there is no good without evil, in certain circumstances may justify negative actions , arguing that there is no possible action that could be done without causing collateral damage to both sides. To prevent the development of such findings, we must determine what kinds of objects can raise compliance with the terms of good and evil. For example: we can not say, enjoying a sunset there is a co-ty in this adverse action, as the sun loses energy and it is inexorably approaching the end of his life in the universe . This example shows that we can not operate with the terms of good and evil when we are dealing with inanimate objects, which is true unless the consequences of these actions can affect other living things. For example, our impact on global climate can not be seen as bad for the planet and its atmosphere because both are inanimate objects, but the negative result could ter-affecting other objects that are affected by a such impact. We must then decide that these definitions of good and evil have meaning only when the actions or events have a direct or indirect contact with living things. Consequently, we divided nature into two unequal parts, one that encompasses all the inanimate objects in the universe and the second which includes a small portion of objects that we identify as 'live'.
It is also clear that among living things, we can distinguish between good and evil only to the level of the evolution and development of certain species. We can not say that washing hands with soap, which is good for us, cause devastating damage to the microbes that swarm on our skin, and that is an evil act against microbes. However, we ar-Rivon the conclusion that our understanding of good and evil is applicable only to a small fraction of vi-lowing objects that belong to our species and are usually treated with ours. To illustrate this, we can say that it is absolutely wrong to kill a cat, but there is nothing wrong to kill germs and parasites. Of course, this principle is true if this does not cause adverse effects to other living species, such that sustains or benefits from the existence of "bad" species.
We then put his finger on one side more obscure deals that good and evil of human society. The philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote in reference to its inner moral, it fascinated him as much as the starry sky above his head, but the moral of Kant may be regarded as immo-tion for some indigenous tribes in the jungles south American. There is no moral law on earth that could be adopted by all humans at the same time. It is very difficult to give a definition of morality that is the basis of human nature. It is equally hard to define who could be objected by the Socratic method, or who always find something that is not included in the definition, and could jeopardize our ability to challenge nir-good and bad. We also can not use the approach to St. Augustine of Hippo, who said, in re-sponding to the question: "What time?" If nobody asks me, I know the answer, but if someone asks me, I do not know. "Here are two approaches that can not help us identify what is good or evil in human nature.
Why is it so important to identify good and evil? Of course, sometimes we accept that there are areas inde-nis in our understanding of morality, (between white and black, there are gray), for which we accept the possibility that good intentions or actions have a malicious or bad result, and that bad actions can have good items. However, most of the time we try to determine if certain events are absolutely good or bad. Is this a typical human approach? We can not say this because in the animal world we find the same principle trial. For example, imagine yourself trying to fish. When you put the bait in the water, you can see many small fish, so hesitant to bite. It's a real hesitation, as one might see in the scientific process to solve a riddle. How is it possible that in brain as small and cold, we can find the same judging system trying to distinguish whether it's good or not good or bad, whether to bite or not, if there is a danger to life? This means that the moral law of Immanuel Kant's counterparties in relation to biological evolution and she is able to distinguish between good and evil as a natural and positive selection, because if the fish is not able to make this decision, it would inevitably died without any chance of reproduction.
Naturally, it's more complicated when we have case upon human morality, but the difference is not so important one would have thought. Pa example, dedication and selflessness, which are considered acts of the most re-presentation of human nature, are totally proven and documented in animal behavior. We will not find many animals ready to die for ideas as few brave scientists have been burned for their & belief, but we still find many examples of cases of animals ready to sacrifice themselves to protect their children or foster survival of their species. We can say that its animal-crifice is governed by the instinct which is more common among them than in a human society, more individualistic, where individuals are reluctant to endanger their lives for a multitude of reasons.
Good and evil exist it from the perspective of Nature? These categories are they included in the structure of the universe? The explosion of a supernova is it an act good or bad? It is neutral and can be analyzed by humans in relation to moral values only in terms of achieving the consequences.
Good and evil exist it from the perspective of God? No matter how we define God, we choose a definition always compatible with good and evil, with the tools of punishment and reward. Heaven can exist without God? God can exist without the sky? Satan is there no hell? The hell is he without Satan? In a simplified picture of the universe that we inherited from our ancestors, these categories can not exist independently of, one without the other, even the atheists shrink but just use them anyway, and punishment think the reward is part of all the outfits. The problem is that the evil empires is regarded as evil only by the enemy while he is regarded as exemplary by their governors and often most of their people. Just as the story was written by the conquerors, only the eyes of the nations fell into their hands know what their power was bad, while the generations fol-thy remembered them as the larger companies which have never existed.
We would stress that our attempt to define human nature by studying the categories of good and evil has no intention to justify evil acts, because if evil can not be sufficiently well defined, actions are wrong-Ront more acceptable. Our intention is to argue that neither good nor evil, can be used as absolute and universal, but they should always be used on the individual or company who evaluated.
Try to see how we now understand-ing no innate sense of sin. There are two kinds of regret that we feel toward our own injustice. The first is the real regret, as if the same circumstances reproduc-tion, the individual does not remake the same thing even if nobody is looking and there is no threat of punishment or penalty. Another kind of regret, which is not real, is caused by the realization of the injustice by the punishment that sort of regret can not be regarded as the true expression of a personal moral belief. This includes not only the fear of punishment that might come from the soci-ety, that Sigmund Freud was categorized as super-ego, but also the fear of punishment throughout the material life, such as fear of divine power. Although most of these cases are considered sincere regrets, they are not. It is incorrect to argue that the moral law described by Immanuel Kant is a fundamental part of human nature, at least it can not be regarded as fundamental and constant if it takes the leading role.
Our moral laws are flexible. For example, a lack of food can easily justify the theft and the danger can justify aggression against a defensive threat, even murder. There is no moral law ripe or not, morality is constantly changing with the changing needs of our body and character. It is also influenced by external pressures. Humans have a small memory capacity to remember the situations, because our memory is not based on the formation of images in their entirety as a videotape, but on a multi-dimensional impression of events in the brain that can be searched using various associations. Thus the same events can be analyzed and perceived differently ment, a posteriori, by the same individual in different contexts. The lack of stable storage and systems provided for the identification and implementation allow us to chan-ger our moral beliefs in a very efficient, allowing us to adjust our moral behavior so penny-ple in response to internal and external pressures we face. How can we call a moral law, a law, if we change our minds whenever we need it? Most of the time, we do not realize that a change was made, and we are confident to be in constant agreement with our feelings, our ethical codes and question our moral beliefs.
Now, let's see how God will judge the strength of our sins ... Is there really a moral core that could be attributed to the omnipotence? We could tell that cuter of telling us that God has granted privileges and given the freedom to judge our actions, and we might well decide that our actions are good, but how can they be evaluated independently according to moral codes standards ? We are not sinners in the eyes of God, and if we judge ourselves God will confirm our punishments against ourselves in giving us hell for eternity.
This is a very malicious. This sort of argument supports these criminal situations where a killer who re-Grette not enter Paradise proclaim itself as innocent, while a good person who regret a minimal ac-tion would be given hell by all innocent question. This is not a very viable. We've dropped out a simple system of punishment and reward, simply because the truth is much more complicated.
Christian morality is the most developed system of morality that humanity has ever done, because it includes a list of recommendations as if all living persons were to follow, our world would be "heaven on earth". Theoretically, Christian morality should function-ing well, but this is never done. The problem is that we try to encourage people to adhere to a moral code fundamental and unchanging, assuming they are legal-ing blackberries. Instead, we should encourage research and constant monitoring of internal moral values that could improve the virtues of being human, rather than a person with a seemingly inflexible moral belief. We can improve human nature by encouraging the constant search because aware that there is no fundamental moral and constant in our hearts, we go in our irresponsibility every day, every hour, every minute of our lives.