generally to find the burden of proof, you need to look for the assumptions and count the number of negatives to find out who is making the positive assertion. in this case the burden of proof is on [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION] rather than [MENTION=15318]Saudade[/MENTION] - since she is making the claim that people would behave ethically consistently, while he is pointing out that there's no reason to believe that.
That is not my assertion. Please let go of that assumption because that is not my position. You are projecting an absolute claim onto me.
The burden of proof is on [MENTION=15318]Saudade[/MENTION] for asserting facts. I could say that Hitler was an excellent chef, but if I do not back up that claim, the burden of proof is not on you to contradict that. Saudade was not stating a theory, (s)he was stating specific "facts". If I say that Jeffrey Dahmer loved jello shots, is the burden of proof on me or you for that claim?
i can say that her assertion contradicts my own experience - most people who have done extremely disagreeable and thoughtless acts have plenty of nice acts under their belt, in fact most humans seem to have plenty of both. i've learned that the ones who don't see it seem to do so as a matter of single-perspective framing - to them, they "express their emotions while enacting their right of physical motion" while someone else is in fact getting a kick to the face.
My assertion is
NOT that people are all or nothing. It is true that individuals are not black
or white, but they are also not black
and white. What is happening in the assertions being made based on examples given is that people are equally good and evil. One cardboard cutout is being replaced by two equally shallow cutouts. There are degrees of cruelty that constrain a person's ability for compassion, and there are levels of compassion that constrain a person's ability for cruelty. The concept of the complete dissolution of Self is a theoretical end-point that I assert would result in complete coherency of a person's action. I have
never asserted in the entire history of my posting that a human being is only compassionate or only cruel in their behavior. I have never believed that and have invested literally hundreds of thousands of hours over thirty years analyzing human beings through reading psychological theories and observations to make sense of the inconsistencies, and I am still in the process of making sense of it. Not only am I aware of it, but it is nearly one of my obsessions. It do not make quick judgments about this issue, because it is important to me to understand the underlying systems that drive behaviors.
A human being is not a completely random system, even though we are typically irrational systems. We are the result of genetics and experience, cause-and-effect. We are complex systems, but still systems that operate based on certain premises. If it is being proposed that human beings are capable of pure compassion and pure cruelty within the same mental framework, I suggest that this is an assertion that
does need to demonstrate some psychological basis.