Adapting Good

Adaptations in physical characteristics are easier to note over time. For emotions, behaviors, and more psychological characteristics, transition to new or adaptive characteristics is bound to be much more subtle and gradual. Therefore, when interpreting emotions -- contexts, circumstances, and the surrounding conditions matter a lot in being accurate about intentionality.

In my observation, unless there are at least three to four corroborating factors that align to give a 'click' of certainty, the interpretation of emotions cannot be deemed accurate, at least in daily social navigation. People who study this more systematically and scientifically, have surer methods of deciphering this issue.

Some possible ways in which adaptation or modification of psychological preferences matter over time* may involve the following:

-The social environment should matter which means cultural preferences will matter also

-Behaviors gone unchallenged socially will pass on

-New behaviors merely introduced without authentic and intentional mass adoption will vanish

-At the basic rudimentary level and even outside awareness, people basically recognize whatever encourages a long life. Ideal civil values often become meaningless in the shadow of this basic intent. Unless values are internalized to the extent of deeming them more important than one's existence, the values don't get adopted easily. This generally happens when the value is about prolonging life for more symbolic reasons such as dying for a collective cause, a good universal purpose (e.g., to protect many people or to save someone's life). Particularly, if and when the people engaging in the aforementioned behaviors are few in number, it isn't that the goodness isn't recognized. The behavior, however, is perceived as rare, extreme, or incongruent in relation to the larger context. For this reason, ironically, such behavior is often also discouraged if the good doer survives and behaves like this on a regular basis, making other people feel dilemma that cannot be resolved.

Two main questions linger in the end for me when trying to sort this issue.

a) Would you rather be a norm-abiding person always living in favor of extending your life? or

b) Would you rather be an authentic courageous person whose each life moment is lived and expressed based on norms of universally and personally upheld righteousness even at the cost of living only for a few decades? Living almost like a spiritually or morality minded 'soldier', so to speak in which life years don't matter.

The big question that stumps most people in light of the above is -- What is 'good' anyways?

1. Good can be where most people reside or what most people follow.

2. Good can be any behavior that saves lives. Again, here people sometimes become selective and choose which lives they'll protect to save 'goodness' and which lives are expendable.

3. Good can be what you find to be right based on personal experiences.

4. Good can be whatever is good based on the laws laid out by the relevant civilization or society.

5. Good can be based on universal moral codes, partly also encouraged by most religious traditions.

When the ratio of the good-doers is less than those who carry most people mainly by norms of social power, the norm-followers win because in the absence of life, they can't see anything mattering anymore. In their analysis, the interpretation is, "If there is no life left, values don't matter." In their world, existence is only physical, tangible, and spiritual and ideally symbolic appraisals hold little value.

Hence, returning to the original two questions, what do we end up gaining in case of the authentic courageous person who doesn't care for longevity?

Due to other human qualities of reparation, righteous revenge, and sometimes even group-based dutiful emotions such as patriotism and nobility, some good follows to maintain moral balance. Put otherwise, human beings are likely to feel intrinsically empty and dead if they only live in fear and defense without any other good values nurturing their lives.

From a bird's eye view, a good section of people may not care much for the death of the few good. Justifications usually follow in favor of 'good reasons for why some people die early' which aligns with the famous notion of 'the good dying young' with origins in as far as Greek literature and even in later poetry and novels. This notion takes precedence and the hyper-masculine toxic approach of removing everything that gets in the way of the dinosaur's paws continues to go unquestioned. The dinosaur is seen as the savior and the righteously minded as stupid.

*Behavioral adaptations happen over generations and sometimes centuries, which is why the term 'over time' should be understood with a grain of salt and a greater timespan in mind than usual