Do "good" and "bad" people actually exist?

[FAST6191]

What is a harm? My leading people away from religion in some places would make me public enemy number one and a complete arsehole (I mean an eternity of fire and flames and whatnot), in others it would be laudable behaviour (don't need those religious people getting in the way of good science and filling the heads of our youth with nonsense).

When you say steals to eat then you might need some qualifiers there -- if I am too bone idle to work despite having the necessary tools, time and talent but can subsist on stolen bread or something then what happens? Equally some might spread the net further and ask why a society allows someone to be in a position where stealing to afford life's necessities is a thing (I am sure the industrial food production capacity or money to do stuff with) of most first world countries is such that you can afford to give everybody, never mind just those that need it, a few thousand calories and other trace elements at a cost that would be a rounding error.

 

[sarkwalvein]

What is a harm? My leading people away from religion in some places would make me public enemy number one and a complete arsehole (I mean an eternity of fire and flames and whatnot), in others it would be laudable behaviour (don't need those religious people getting in the way of good science and filling the heads of our youth with nonsense).

When you say steals to eat then you might need some qualifiers there -- if I am too bone idle to work despite having the necessary tools, time and talent but can subsist on stolen bread or something then what happens? Equally some might spread the net further and ask why a society allows someone to be in a position where stealing to afford life's necessities is a thing (I am sure the industrial food production capacity or money to do stuff with) of most first world countries is such that you can afford to give everybody, never mind just those that need it, a few thousand calories and other trace elements at a cost that would be a rounding error.

The harm I am talking about is related to empathy and is very flexible.
It is also related to emotional intelligence and being able to perceive what makes you feel like shit in the long term, and how you reach destructive behavior.
In this case it would be to be able to understand what makes other persons feel like shit, what do you do for that to happen, how to change to avoid that.
And also, what do you make yourself that makes you feel like shit in the long time, and how would you need to put effort to change that.
It is not so much related to morals, perhaps, but more to empathy. It changes according to the person, and it includes (in an empathy kind of way) the notion of respect.

I don't really think a religious person is good because of being religious, and also someone that follows the law perfectly can also be evil (in a D&D lawful evil kind of way). Religion and law are not really related to being a good person to me, empathy and effort in the other hand are.

Also, there is no white and black, you can say it is light gray (temporarily stealing to eat due to emergency) or dark gray (becoming a leech that doesn't put effort to change that "temporary emergency" status quo).

 

[notimp]

Quote: A bad person is somebody who intentionally harms others for unnecessary personal gain and has the mental capacity to control their behaviour.

Somebody who steals to eat is not a bad person. Somebody who steals to be able to afford luxuries is a bad person.

Essentially - entirely correct. In detail maybe not.

Here we enter the realm of circumstance. For example... There comes the day in every conservatives life, where he/she sacrifices morals, over personal necessity. (The reason why the catholic church instituted the concept of confession. As a means of control.. They knew, that people are fallible.)

Story goes as follows. Capitalism is an entirely strange system, based on the believe, that people can be egocentric, driven by greed, and entirely selfcentered, and will still contribute to the common good. (I'll look up the references later, but the argument goes - you be Scrooge from the Dickens novel - and if you do your job well, the cost of the good you produce will come down, because you want to reach a wider market, and reap automation benefits, meaning - everyone can now afford your product, and everyones happy. Thats the core principal of capitalism without "oversight" (Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism). This is what every "economic liberal" believes in. When ever someone talks about free markets as the only "regulative" this is it.

If you've ever heard the statement, that shareholders should only and ultimately care about share price, this is the underlying economical principle.

Also - it is BS, but nevermind.. Returning to the initial point.

In the life of many people (in capitalism, but you could just as well neglect that.. ), comes the point, where they willingly discard altruism, in favor of personal benefit, or much more common, the benefit of their families.

(Basically: "You have to lie to earn more.")

There are only very, very, very few people in society, that decide to not do that in this circumstance.

("Peter Pan" is this principal novelized in the common narrative. Although he also murdered in the original novel, but thats beside the point.. )

There also is a common understanding about it. Which by the way is why the sicilian mob (back in the days) was structurally successful. "We care about our own (familiy) more" is the functional principle here. And people agree.

Whats also interesting is, that "stealing" especially - regardless of "need" is only seen as a moral offense, if you can make people switch perspective, and put themselves in the shoes of the person that got robbed.

Otherwise the "Oceans 11" narrative triggers (which is much older than Oceans 11.. ), where in fact - everyone loves an ingenious thief.. (Look up Prometheus )

I also think there's a big difference between an indifferent person and a "good" person but that's a discussion for another day.

Yes, maybe... But then you have the "chaotic good" archetype in AD&D... ("You and I have been through that, but this is not our fate, ...." (Says the thief to the joker in the Dylan song.. )) So the people that choose nihilism, because everything else didnt work for them.

edit: Also the "you have to lie to earn more" principle then plays into a bunch of "control mechanisms". ("We all know enough about each other to wreck each others lives." kind of thing. *cough*Bonesmen*cough* But thats personal interpretation.. )

 

[Meteor7]

Well, the terms "good" and "bad" are determined by establishing a condition of desirability, so it's inherently subjective. They aren't going to exist at all, or be congruous between 2 or more parties, unless the same condition is agreed upon as desirable? For example: this program has been updated to launch more quickly. That's good, right? It's good because people generally don't enjoy spending time waiting for a program to launch. The less time spent waiting, the more desirable, so the change which facilitated the shorter launch time is "good", an improvement. If there were a certain person who, by circumstance or otherwise, wanted the program to boot more slowly, then this change would be called "bad" to them. It's incredibly pedantic to step through a simple concept like that, I know, but it's an easy way to illustrate the concept; that good and bad are inherently subjective by their definitions and usages alone.

 

[SG854]

The harm I am talking about is related to empathy and is very flexible.
It is also related to emotional intelligence and being able to perceive what makes you feel like shit in the long term, and how you reach destructive behavior.
In this case it would be to be able to understand what makes other persons feel like shit, what do you do for that to happen, how to change to avoid that.
And also, what do you make yourself that makes you feel like shit in the long time, and how would you need to put effort to change that.
It is not so much related to morals, perhaps, but more to empathy. It changes according to the person, and it includes (in an empathy kind of way) the notion of respect.

I don't really think a religious person is good because of being religious, and also someone that follows the law perfectly can also be evil (in a D&D lawful evil kind of way). Religion and law are not really related to being a good person to me, empathy and effort in the other hand are.

Also, there is no white and black, you can say it is light gray (temporarily stealing to eat due to emergency) or dark gray (becoming a leech that doesn't put effort to change that "temporary emergency" status quo).

Emotional Intelligence doesn't exist. That's made up pseudoscience to make people feel better about the fact that they have low IQ's. Because how do you define High Emotional Intelligence? They say being more cooperative is High EQ. So, are people that are less cooperative and more competitive less intelligent? Like CEO's, Surgeons and STEM workers. People known for working less with people. Especially Nerdy STEM people that have poor social skills but great Engineering skills. Are they less intelligent?

Personality Traits are actually separate from Intelligence and have their own categories that can be broken up to the Big 5 Personality Traits. And the different Personality Trait's depending on what direction you go in aren't necessarily bad. They all have their benefit's and disadvantages depending on the context of the situation. We need cooperative people as well as the opposite of cooperative which are competitive people. They both drive the economy.

Intelligence is different. It's your brains raw processing power to abstract and problem solve. And fun fact, the higher the IQ you have, the faster your reflexes are at pressing buttons. Since your brain send's information a lot faster and High IQ people are better at video games.

 

[notimp]

Emotional Intelligence doesn't exist. That's made up pseudoscience to make people feel better about the fact that they have low IQ's. Because how do you define High Emotional Intelligence? They say being more cooperative is High EQ.

Yes and no.

Yes, I agree that its mostly a made up pseudoscience. No, because I'm highly emotionally intelligent.
More so than high IQ intelligent probably..

I go by this definition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microexpression

And to counteract - here is the pseudoscience that follows, once you tell someone that "they have it" :
http://www.eyesforlies.com/about/

Also, it can be heavily affected by mood and overinterpretation (whats the baseline?), but what individual decision process can not.

In a more practical sense - if you ever get in contact with a recruiter, or HR folks, those are trained to gain your trust within the first few minutes of an interview, because they are payed to actively look for inconsistencies, or lies in your statements - and just as with programmers, there are bad, and very, very good ones..

The good ones, also are faster, btw.. (And thats not "scientific intuition", because there is no such thing (those are simply prejudices.. ).)

So yes, character trait in a sense - on the other hand, I literally laugh out loud, when I see someone "working" on gaining my trust, because its just entirely displaced ("Wait for it... timing." ) in the situation, and I can't watch 95% of TV drama, because of overacting. It actually kicks me out of the reception flow, and I register, "wrong, wrong, ..." if the scene is set up to be highly "emotionally taxing.." Thank god for method acting...

 

[sarkwalvein]

Emotional Intelligence doesn't exist. That's made up pseudoscience to make people feel better about the fact that they have low IQ's. Because how do you define High Emotional Intelligence? They say being more cooperative is High EQ. So, are people that are less cooperative and more competitive less intelligent? Like CEO's, Surgeons and STEM workers. People known for working less with people. Especially Nerdy STEM people that have poor social skills but great Engineering skills. Are they less intelligent?

Personality Traits are actually separate from Intelligence and have their own categories that can be broken up to the Big 5 Personality Traits. And the different Personality Trait's depending on what direction you go in aren't necessarily bad. They all have their benefit's and disadvantages depending on the context of the situation. We need cooperative people as well as the opposite of cooperative which are competitive people. They both drive the economy.

Intelligence is different. It's your brains raw processing power to abstract and problem solve. And fun fact, the higher the IQ you have, the faster your reflexes are at pressing buttons. Since your brain send's information a lot faster and High IQ people are better at video games.

Look, I am not into the topic of cognitive science. So I won't go around the terminology, but the actual concept.
There's an actual quality of people that can deal better with their emotions and the emotions of their peers, keep them under control and avoid anxiety.
Call it whatever you like. But I am not talking about measuring IQs, who cares about that shit.
The thing is that some people deal better with logical problems and math, some people deal better with emotions, language, etc.
And yes, each one of those requires high levels of abstraction to solve them and thus they are different types of intelligence.
It is the way it is. Who cares who is more or less intelligence? This is not an e-peen competition. I am talking about the skills that you need to confront yourself in order to turn into a better person from my point of view.

 

[Coto]

I am talking about the skills that you need to confront yourself in order to turn into a better person from my point of view.

Truly important words there.

 

[SG854]

Look, I am not into the topic of cognitive science. So I won't go around the terminology, but the actual concept.
There's an actual quality of people that can deal better with their emotions and the emotions of their peers, keep them under control and avoid anxiety.
Call it whatever you like. But I am not talking about measuring IQs, who cares about that shit.
The thing is that some people deal better with logical problems and math, some people deal better with emotions, language, etc.
And yes, each one of those requires high levels of abstraction to solve them and thus they are different types of intelligence.
It is the way it is. Who cares who is more or less intelligence? This is not an e-peen competition. I am talking about the skills that you need to confront yourself in order to turn into a better person from my point of view.

So what your talking about is being low in Neuroticism (Negative Emotions). And its regulated with serotonin function in your brain. Negative Emotions depending on context isn't bad. Anxiety can push you to do better. Neuroticism also makes you more self aware. Being Self Conscience is also being high in Negative Emotions. But highly stressful jobs does require you to feel less negative emotions.

When someone feels high Anxiety about their actions then they make changes right. What about people that feel less negative emotions about their actions? They will be perceived as assholes wouldn't they? But wouldn't feeling less Anxiety make you a better CEO so you don't end up breaking down and cry when things get tough?

So how do you define a better person? Someone who feels high anxiety about their actions. And is more agreeable and nice. Or someone who has low Anxiety, doesn't give AF, and can easily fire people without feeling bad (something needed when your a CEO). People will say the guy that doesn't give AF has low people skills, but is that bad for certain careers? Does that make him evil and a worse person? Good or Bad person.

And is serotonin controllable like you say it is? Can emotions be controlled? Doesn't Anti Depressants exists so that it can help people control their emotions since they are unable to. How does one control emotions without drugs?

 

[notimp]

In the traditional hierarchical organisational structures, this is correct. But the problem is, that none of them solved any of a large list of societal problems "correctly".

So in the near future, you can take your "high efficiency proposing CEO" and kick him right into the can, for quite a few years, because in effect, due to a lack of valid information, he's done nothing right.

And no matter how insanely horrid, their decisions were, they still were protected by organizational principles.

Lets take a look at the list, starting with -

- our good friends at the IMF,
- our good friends at Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo
- our good friends in the political establishment, and some in congress
- our good friends in charge of social policies (just homeland population figures)
- our good friends in the military command
- our good friends in charge of the cyber with special props to Obama for defenitely not releasing stuxnet onto the world
- our good friends in world wide economic development
- our good friends "thinking about tha climate"
- our good friends in and around Palo Alto who definitely didn't just ruin democracy -
- our workforce after the AI "revolution"
- global peace and sustenance

There's something of a lingering truth, that in the last 20 years - NONE of the important issues without a playbook from the 60s actually got "solved" (world hunger, malaria - I note down with a "maybe"), and instead we are cultivating escapism, if we are not heavily into crisis hopping.

Also - funnily enough - in that climate "participatory leadership" all of a sudden became a buzzword, because all those fine organizations dont have a heck of a clue - how to react to movements that might consolidate at the ground level - where you have no time to get them into traditional organizational structures.

I understand that this conflicts with the notions of "social control" (implied, or "dreamed up") and "the 3 month Occupy event" that fizzled out into nothingness, after the festivities ended - but then I look at the list again...

All that your efficient CEO types have achieved, was to shift blame and not caring about those externalities. And then the org covered up where they went wrong.

Thats actually a bone I have to pick with the "alpha" myth. Its very entising. Until you see how they handle personal failure. And the fact is - they dont. They get sweaty and scram.

Also - other types of people, dont "break down and cry" in high pressure situations, they react differently, but they certainly don't "poker as well".

That said, I could learn, to bet the house three times in a row, if my corp bails me out of all consequences, three times in a row. I think I'd manage...

On the other hand "firing people if they don't bring the results" - I could use a picture book alpha for that, any day. Buy him a suave three piece suit, fix him a nice office, ...

And is serotonin controllable like you say it is? Can emotions be controlled? Doesn't Anti Depressants exists so that it can help people control their emotions since they are unable to. How does one control emotions without drugs?

You can. But its hard.

On the other hand - we are approaching the point, where people don't want to live in societies anymore, that are only palpable while being on opioids. You must have noticed.. But then legalizing MJ also proved quite popular.. *snark*

 

[Noctosphere]

https://twitter.com/cwthe100/status/979473250404114432

 

[Deleted User]

Like others before me have said, "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective, and differ from person to person. A few have even abdicated the model of good and evil entirely. However, generally, I believe that it is generally agreed upon that the entire notion of "good" is associated with a level of decency and respect towards others (inherently human concepts that may not necessarily have a place among other beings or races), and that the notion of "evil" is associated with undeserved cruelty or disrespect towards others. What necessarily dictates undeserved cruelty or disrespect towards others varies a lot from person to person, though there does seem to be a baseline which all humans abide by when determining morality.

However, dismissing the more rational and subjective viewpoint for a moment, I believe that each person has an inherent alignment towards good or evil acts, determined by their birth conditions and upbringing, or perhaps their genes. However, nothing is set in stone, and people can act in ways that go against their nature. People with an inclination towards evil can be good people, and vice versa. Ultimately, I believe that being good or evil is a choice, and that it's never too late to change your alignment.

Something worth mentioning are the beliefs of the Chinese philosopher Mencius, who believed in the inherent goodness of humans. He likened human nature to a place called Ox Mountain, once lush with trees and vegetation, but by his time, was left barren. He likened the lush, vegetative original state of Ox Mountain to human's inherent tendencies towards righteousness, and that going against said nature to commit bad or evil acts is similar to cutting down one tree on the mountain. Doing it once or twice doesn't ruin the forest, but repeated practice will leave the mountain bare and lifeless. Likewise, if one who once committed evil or immoral acts regularly turns to good, the forest would eventually grow back to its original state. I guess that goes into the matter of self-reflection, with "good" people learning from their mistakes and trying to improve themselves and become better people as a result (a viewpoint I more or less agree with).

I could probably go into more detail about this, but a gaming forum is hardly an ideal place to have deep prolonged philosophical discussions.

 

[notimp]

https://twitter.com/cwthe100/status/979473250404114432

Hunger games the sequel for the "fail fast generation", creating a new society one *lol*, *yolo* comment at the time.

I wish them all the best. And luck.

( Also the series captured 0,5% of the target demographic at its peak... )

 

[Song of storms]

Like others before me have said, "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective, and differ from person to person. A few have even abdicated the model of good and evil entirely. However, generally, I believe that it is generally agreed upon that the entire notion of "good" is associated with a level of decency and respect towards others (inherently human concepts that may not necessarily have a place among other beings or races), and that the notion of "evil" is associated with undeserved cruelty or disrespect towards others. What necessarily dictates undeserved cruelty or disrespect towards others varies a lot from person to person, though there does seem to be a baseline which all humans abide by when determining morality.

However, dismissing the more rational and subjective viewpoint for a moment, I believe that each person has an inherent alignment towards good or evil acts, determined by their birth conditions and upbringing, or perhaps their genes. However, nothing is set in stone, and people can act in ways that go against their nature. People with an inclination towards evil can be good people, and vice versa. Ultimately, I believe that being good or evil is a choice, and that it's never too late to change your alignment.

Something worth mentioning are the beliefs of the Chinese philosopher Mencius, who believed in the inherent goodness of humans. He likened human nature to a place called Ox Mountain, once lush with trees and vegetation, but by his time, was left barren. He likened the lush, vegetative original state of Ox Mountain to human's inherent tendencies towards righteousness, and that going against said nature to commit bad or evil acts is similar to cutting down one tree on the mountain. Doing it once or twice doesn't ruin the forest, but repeated practice will leave the mountain bare and lifeless. Likewise, if one who once committed evil or immoral acts regularly turns to good, the forest would eventually grow back to its original state. I guess that goes into the matter of self-reflection, with "good" people learning from their mistakes and trying to improve themselves and become better people as a result (a viewpoint I more or less agree with).

I could probably go into more detail about this, but a gaming forum is hardly an ideal place to have deep prolonged philosophical discussions.

Please do. I like your interpretation the best so far!

 

[Noctosphere]

Please do. I like your interpretation the best so far!

how do you do to remember that username? damn o.O

 

[Song of storms]

how do you do to remember that username? damn o.O

It's easy if you know where it comes from. And you play a musical instrument

 

[Noctosphere]

It's easy if you know where it comes from. And you play a musical instrument

oh its a song?
I see

 

[notimp]

Ah, we've reached the realm of feels and metaphors - this makes people very excited!

"I feel, that good and bad is like a tree on a hill, and a garden, and spring, but with respect, and non-toxic, and if you are bad twice, you are out for life!"
Quote: Random millenials feels on the internet. (And this is, why we need representative democracy, and not democracy, in a nutshell.)

And I thought for a moment I overreacted in my statement regarding corporate selection criteria...

This is whats so great about the interwebs and this topic - everyone can haz an opinion, no one can be told, that they are completely wrong.

You can post a CW promotional tweet (the channel that brought you Beverly Hills 90210) for a third rate scifi production in the middle of it, without any context at all, and you are still good.

Riveting.

Now let me tell you about religion and state philosophy.

It was only ever used as a control principal. It always ought to convince the common folk that restraint is a virtue, it never was funded enough to really matter (if the king/ruler was actually smart) - almost no one ever believed in it because of the teachings, but because of the big ruse surrounding it.

In the case of Confucius there are documented trips of the guy which took months, where he - out of his own volition - decided to visit several municipalities of the realm, altogether for several years, with his deciples - telling a "Lord" how wrong their behavior was, the Lord didn't care, and neither did the state or the emperor, so Kǒng Fūzǐ traveled on to the next one. Inspiring story isnt it?

The next part is even more inspiring. The teachings of Confucius became only ever "popular" on a "mass scale", once chinese leadership, made them state doctrine, well after his death. Today, in some chinese provinces his "teachings" are repeated in (rural) public broadcasts every day - and school children still have to memorize them as part of the curriculum.

Also nowadays there are saturday evening variety shows, that aim to make the teachings more 2018 - and people like them, because China.

In short - those stories, are always the same, and always end the same.

You could even ask Steve Jobs, how inspired he was after visiting his first indian yogi.

Why?

Because the methodology went as follows:

Proclaim divine superiority. Say that humans have lost it - and that they have to show a little effort, or else the devine ruler will never love them. But otherwise - never openly pick sides. Congratulations, you've been introduced to the institutional principal of a church.

Take a few good for nothing farmers children (mostly the second sons). Teach them how to read. But much rather teach them to read scripture out loud. Send them back into their villages. Profit from their never ending gratitude. But also tell them that they could never have children, so everything they have achieved - dies with them.

Gratitude for what? Well, you build temples. Which were buildings, where the common man for centuries saw:

- their first book
- their first statue
- their first thing made out of gold (uh, shiny!)
- their first "manufactured" music instrument
- and mostly grandiousity/design/splendor

then tell them, that all of this is because of your supreme knowledge, and the only way to obtain it is, to listen to your man second farmers son, who's really leaned so much during his time in the convent.

Then have people pay for learning virtues, and performing rituals. For the love of the devine being, and winning.

But also tell them, whenever they try to succeed - its a sin, and they have to tell you immediately.

Give a third of your profits to the poor. (This is what makes the king tolerate you/dont look at you too closely. Because he has no interest, and yet - he has interest. Perfect private/public cooperation opportunity.)

Even the king will love you, because it gives people a different "ruler/higher principle" to think about, that historically NEVER interferes in politics at all. And where they did - it wasnt very successful for long. Because as people that have actually to run anything other than an imagined empire - turns out, churches werent very proficient.

Sorry - secularism.

Just call the kettle black already, and talk straight about the intended control mechanisms. (Values, Virtues, devine law, ... (See, its written in that devine book, you know, its holy....))

Also - whats it with the western enthusiasm for eastern mysticism/religions? Its "normal" to laugh about your own religions, but as soon as someone talks about a tree on a hill, your middle of the road liberal finds that very interesting. And something that would for sure, enrich their lives.

Also - wanna see a cool monk?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2013/jun/18/thai-buddhist-monks-private-jet-video

 

[notimp]

Lets take a look at the 10 commandments (christianity) at this point, why dont we?

I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
- Oh, Im so great -

Thou shalt have no other gods before me
- Let me be your only one -

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
- don't you dare drawing me (remember most of them couldnt write)-

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain
- don't you dare say anything non PC about me -

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy
- take one day out of your week, to do what the second farmers son in those strange cloths tells you -
--

Those are purely self serving constitutional principals - to make the whole thing work.

--

Honour thy father and thy mother
- listen to your elders, very popular with the elderly, which coincidentally - are also the most conservative people of your society -
In case you were wondering, Confucius says the exact same thing, how curious...

Thou shalt not kill
- Hey, its getting moral! Ok, but mostly don't kill anyone important for the current political state, if it comes to infidels, well hand you your sword, and give you white cloths sporting a cross on your chest -

Thou shalt not commit adultery
- Dont fuck around, which coincidentally also pleases the most conservative elements in your society. Also, pay for your fuck permit, while you're at it (the institution of marriage) -

Thou shalt not steal
- Getting moral again! Also, have you already paid god today? -

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour
- Now this is not exactly you should not lie. It is "you should not lie about your neighbour", which coincidently pleases the conservative elements in your society most, because - hey less hassle -

Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's house)
- less hassle -

Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's wife)
- less hassle -

Thou shalt not covet (neighbour's servants, animals, or anything else)
- less hassle, also in case you were, dont even think about a revolt because heaven or something -

--

Now all the shall principles are the ones they'd then be very interested in hearing you confessing about - because, they tell them whats actually going on in the community.

--


And god told moses, those are some mighty fine societal control principals I gave you, I even added two half moral ones, carry them in honor of my name, put them on a mountain, or something...

 

[notimp]

We cant end there though..

Historically, this is what followed in the west:
(Again, just using a short, simple to understand text. )

Reason: Enlightenment philosophers believed that rational thought could lead to human improvement and was the most legitimate mode of thinking. They saw the ability to reason as the most significant and valuable human capacity, according to PBS. Reason could help humans break free from ignorance and irrationality, and learning to think reasonably could teach humans to act reasonably, as well. Enlightenment philosophers saw reason as having an equalizing effect on humanity, because everyone's thoughts and behavior would be guided by reason.

Enlightenment intellectuals thought that all human endeavors should aim to increase knowledge and reason, rather than elicit emotional responses. They advocated for universal education and secularized learning, said Abernethy.

Skepticism: Rather than being content with blind faith, Enlightenment thinkers wanted proof that something was true. They tested popular notions with scientifically controlled experiments and personal experience, though skepticism of one's own senses was another factor in Enlightenment thought, and caused complicated philosophical conundrums, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Enlightenment intellectuals were skeptical of the divine right of kings and monarchies in general, scientific claims about the natural world, the nature of reality and religious doctrine. "Theologians sought to reform their faith during the Enlightenment while maintaining a true faith in God," said Abernethy. The deist movement became popular during the Enlightenment. Deism holds that God exists but does not intervene on Earth. The universe proceeds according to natural, scientifically based laws. Several of America's Founding Fathers were deists, including Thomas Jefferson.

src: https://www.livescience.com/55327-the-enlightenment.html

That movement then was integrated into the traditional bourgeoisie in the 19th century. Rationality became the leading principle from then on. (Replaced the need for "good and bad" (doctrine) to a certain extent.)