(The following are thoughts and ramblings by Todrael. They are in no way meant to be judgements about religion, Zola, or any other inflammatory material. Please keep comments on those topics in other threads. Thank you)
Reading another thread recently (heh), I was thinking to myself about the people ranting against a person who had betrayed and hurt them after a very long time of being their friend. My thoughts drifted for a time as the thread developed (quite quickly), and I was wondering why I wasn't angry, and in fact, was attempting to sort things out in my mind totally irregardless of the specific situation.
What is good, and what is evil?
A very basic question, and yet one that many philosophers and religions have tried many times over to define. Is it just the way one acts? What is best for the group as a whole, or best for each individual come into contact with? Is it helping others, being mean to others? I had a course that covered things like this my freshman year in college, but it didn't answer anything. It only asked more questions.
I find myself asking again: was what this person did evil? Did they do this to do harm? Could they be just as sad and miserable as the people they were talking to in the first place?
Could they have sat down and cried when it was posted that TPB (the player behind) their character had died, knowing that they could never log on again, never say hello to their cherished friends? Were they completely deceitful in everything they did, or were they just trying, managing somehow, to find a better way to enjoy life, so that they weren't so alone, so misguided?
If a person is your friend for ages, can everything they said, even if true, be a lie? Can an evil person do good their whole life, and never reveal that evil? Would that make them a 'good' person afterall, even if in their mind they wished the whole world dead? If an act of kindness is done with thoughts of murder flowing behind it, how can one judge that?
We only see the corporeal world. The actions and "facts" that comprise it are often not in line with what the spiritual or mental world would dictate. Let us not be quick to judge others based on this world's actions, grief caused to us, or pain endured. It is all too easy to turn sadness to hate. Joy and pleasure are just as easy. Although some things may seem horrible and dastardly, we must remember that the death of something good is a loss, even if the goodness was an illusion. When something as abstract as a friend you've only ever known through text is driven away, everyone loses.
Is there really such a thing as good and evil? I would think probably not. The world is what we make of it.
------------------
-Todrael Azz'miala, Ravager
[This message has been edited by Todrael (edited 10-21-2002).]
Good and Evil
Good and evil are nasty words, that should not be allowed on OOC. They are both unstable and undefinable. On any day one person's feeling of good may lead to another man's evil the next morning.
I believe in fate, and if anything - I would say that good is how one defines fate that reflects positively on his view of the world around him while evil is everything that points out the truth of his lot in life.
------------------
The wardens of the cage disallow all commands except say, petition, project and help
I believe in fate, and if anything - I would say that good is how one defines fate that reflects positively on his view of the world around him while evil is everything that points out the truth of his lot in life.
------------------
The wardens of the cage disallow all commands except say, petition, project and help
Hrm, as i believe there is no true evil or no true good, you can be close to either extreme. And while I would like to believe that actions mean more than words and thoughts; in this case I would have to think otherwise.
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
------------------
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'
Dartan tells you 'i own so hard sometimes it makes me want to cry'
-
Gromikazer
- Sojourner
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2002 5:01 am
If you can't tell the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, then why are you not out on the streets killing, raping and looting etc. Good and evil are in every sense of the word clear cut, black and white. I know and see the difference between good and evil, right and wrong. Maybe I am deceived, but I think not.
When you have friends like that who needs enemies?
------------------
Gromikazer Terrorforge -Veldruk- Orbdrin D'oloth
When you have friends like that who needs enemies?
------------------
Gromikazer Terrorforge -Veldruk- Orbdrin D'oloth
If murder is absolutely evil, then nature is evil, because creatures are constantly eating each other for survival. In that case, survival is evil. So the only other alternative is suicide- but I've heard that that's a great sin, too. So it seems that everything in the world is evil. IF everything is evil, then there's no good. How does one even tell evil without good? Seems the lines aren't quite as clear as you make them sound.
------------------
-Yayaril
------------------
-Yayaril
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Yayaril:
<B>IF everything is evil, then there's no good. How does one even tell evil without good? Seems the lines aren't quite as clear as you make them sound.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're quite right that you cannot tell what is evil without determining what is good. Good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good. Evil is defined as what is not good.
In the most simplified terms., If I have a red boat and I like it then it's good. Now if someone comes and paints my boat blue, that's just evil because it's not what was good. If I only had a boat that was blue, then the reverse would be true and red would be evil.
My point, and you can go off the deepend with this, is that the debate of what is good and evil really boils down to the question of what is good. It is both clear cut and open to interpretation I think. It's either red or it's blue, but I don't think Al'queda likes my red boat.
-Lorgan
------------------
The Lord of the Iron Wastes holds his hammer high in the air, shouting a torment... 'Weak fools!'
<B>IF everything is evil, then there's no good. How does one even tell evil without good? Seems the lines aren't quite as clear as you make them sound.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're quite right that you cannot tell what is evil without determining what is good. Good can exist without evil, but evil cannot exist without good. Evil is defined as what is not good.
In the most simplified terms., If I have a red boat and I like it then it's good. Now if someone comes and paints my boat blue, that's just evil because it's not what was good. If I only had a boat that was blue, then the reverse would be true and red would be evil.
My point, and you can go off the deepend with this, is that the debate of what is good and evil really boils down to the question of what is good. It is both clear cut and open to interpretation I think. It's either red or it's blue, but I don't think Al'queda likes my red boat.
-Lorgan
------------------
The Lord of the Iron Wastes holds his hammer high in the air, shouting a torment... 'Weak fools!'
-
kiryan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
if your trying to understand what "evil" is you had better start with defining the context/world view. OBLaden's "evil" and GWBush's "evil" are not quite the same are they.
defined by the Bible, "evil" = absence of Christ. thats why "good" people who do "good" things but without Christ still go to hell for being "evil." however, thats probably not the evil you were talking about =).
------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
defined by the Bible, "evil" = absence of Christ. thats why "good" people who do "good" things but without Christ still go to hell for being "evil." however, thats probably not the evil you were talking about =).
------------------
------
where ara you my rittle raabuuri
I'm probably going to get flamed for this but...
I'm sad
. Sad for the fact that there isn't a sweet housewife struggling to keep things together when things have gone to hell. Sad for the fact that the individual behind this character felt that she needed to lie to feel better about herself while getting the attention she also desperately needed. Sad for the fact she used a lot of people, some for money, others for attention and affection.
I'm also mad
. Mad that this person dragged a lot of people into her lies. Mad for the people that actually DO have terminal cancer and how they would love to have more time with their loved ones. Mad that a woman could drag her daughter/sister/friend or whoever into this illusion.
Was it evil that she did? My husband and I were up late last night discussing whether her actions were deliberately malicious or if it was a desperate plea for help. (He fell asleep, so I don't remember what we concluded).
With me, it's WYSIWYG. My character on the mud is as real to how I live as possible (without the eq of course
). Trying to help people, making friends, enjoying people's company, etc...
I don't know. If I saw Kim on the street, I may just hug her, and then keep walking. Sounds like she needs a hug if she was that desperate for attention, but then I'd move on. I have no room in my heart for people that lie.
------------------
Musi "Desperate to get ress" {-Randgriur-} Waelcyrge Sororitas
I'm sad
. Sad for the fact that there isn't a sweet housewife struggling to keep things together when things have gone to hell. Sad for the fact that the individual behind this character felt that she needed to lie to feel better about herself while getting the attention she also desperately needed. Sad for the fact she used a lot of people, some for money, others for attention and affection.I'm also mad
. Mad that this person dragged a lot of people into her lies. Mad for the people that actually DO have terminal cancer and how they would love to have more time with their loved ones. Mad that a woman could drag her daughter/sister/friend or whoever into this illusion.Was it evil that she did? My husband and I were up late last night discussing whether her actions were deliberately malicious or if it was a desperate plea for help. (He fell asleep, so I don't remember what we concluded).
With me, it's WYSIWYG. My character on the mud is as real to how I live as possible (without the eq of course
). Trying to help people, making friends, enjoying people's company, etc...I don't know. If I saw Kim on the street, I may just hug her, and then keep walking. Sounds like she needs a hug if she was that desperate for attention, but then I'd move on. I have no room in my heart for people that lie.
------------------
Musi "Desperate to get ress" {-Randgriur-} Waelcyrge Sororitas
I like the way good, neutral, and evil are described as on Krynn. Good and evil are on the extreme ends of the spectrum constantly opposed to each other. Neutral is what keeps this whole thing balanced.
How is this similar to the real world? Good and evil form a symbiotic type of relationship. You can't have good with out evil and you can't have evil with out good. These two entities form a balance that is some times tipped one way or the other but always present. This is true in all people, places, things and even nature. I believe every person has the capability to be both good and evil because these two entities live in all of us and in every beast on earth. War is a perfect example. If you don't believe me talk to one of your elders who have been a soldier of war. War makes normally peaceful and very kind hearted (Good) people do very nasty things. Things that even they (the X solder I just described)thought they could never have possibly done. This balance of good and evil tips for everybody back and forth during different times in our lives.
My conclusion: What we perceive as good or evil is this. When this balance is struck between good and evil entities in a person we see them as good. When the scale of good and evil is tipped to the evil side and to some extent the good side then we perceive that person as being bad\evil. This neutral spot that we percieve as good is different for different factions of people and different animals.
[This message has been edited by Abue (edited 10-21-2002).]
How is this similar to the real world? Good and evil form a symbiotic type of relationship. You can't have good with out evil and you can't have evil with out good. These two entities form a balance that is some times tipped one way or the other but always present. This is true in all people, places, things and even nature. I believe every person has the capability to be both good and evil because these two entities live in all of us and in every beast on earth. War is a perfect example. If you don't believe me talk to one of your elders who have been a soldier of war. War makes normally peaceful and very kind hearted (Good) people do very nasty things. Things that even they (the X solder I just described)thought they could never have possibly done. This balance of good and evil tips for everybody back and forth during different times in our lives.
My conclusion: What we perceive as good or evil is this. When this balance is struck between good and evil entities in a person we see them as good. When the scale of good and evil is tipped to the evil side and to some extent the good side then we perceive that person as being bad\evil. This neutral spot that we percieve as good is different for different factions of people and different animals.
[This message has been edited by Abue (edited 10-21-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Yayaril:
If murder is absolutely evil, then nature is evil, because creatures are constantly eating each other for survival. In that case, survival is evil. So the only other alternative is suicide- but I've heard that that's a great sin, too. So it seems that everything in the world is evil. IF everything is evil, then there's no good. How does one even tell evil without good? </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
CircularLogic(TM)!
I don't know about killing being equivalent to murder. It seems to me that animals kill each other because that's their generally accepted way to survive. They expect it, and they don't have alternatives, and so on and so forth. Humans, on the other hand, do not generally need to kill each other - although we still kill plants and animals to survive. So I would differentiate between killing and murder. And yes, murder is frowned upon and considered evil, although YMMV.
Everything in the world being evil is farcical. j00 know that, yaya.
Zen, stop being more humorous than Yaya. Good and evil lose considerable meaning if they are arbitrary. In fact, in In Nomine, that is one of the most common propaganda items spread by The Dark Side... that Good and Evil have no intrinsic meaning or value.
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
If murder is absolutely evil, then nature is evil, because creatures are constantly eating each other for survival. In that case, survival is evil. So the only other alternative is suicide- but I've heard that that's a great sin, too. So it seems that everything in the world is evil. IF everything is evil, then there's no good. How does one even tell evil without good? </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
CircularLogic(TM)!
I don't know about killing being equivalent to murder. It seems to me that animals kill each other because that's their generally accepted way to survive. They expect it, and they don't have alternatives, and so on and so forth. Humans, on the other hand, do not generally need to kill each other - although we still kill plants and animals to survive. So I would differentiate between killing and murder. And yes, murder is frowned upon and considered evil, although YMMV.
Everything in the world being evil is farcical. j00 know that, yaya.
Zen, stop being more humorous than Yaya. Good and evil lose considerable meaning if they are arbitrary. In fact, in In Nomine, that is one of the most common propaganda items spread by The Dark Side... that Good and Evil have no intrinsic meaning or value.
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
Little amy was 'rude' for not saying 'thank you' when she was given a cookie.
Amy was a 'bad' girl when she stole a cookie from the cookie jar.
It was 'horrible' of Amy to cheat on her loving husband.
Amy is an evil person. She hired someone to kill her husband so she could get the insurance money.
------
A relativist would use this example to say that the each word (rude, bad, horrible, evil) only makes sense in relation to the societal norm that was breached by Amy. She only committed a small infraction when she stole a cookie and society isn't ready to condemn her for that, unlike when she killed her husband. It would sound strange for us if we read "Little Amy was 'horrible' for not saying 'thank you'..", just like it would sound strange if she was merely called 'rude' for killing her husband. Of course, if murder was more common and accepted in our society, according to the relativist, such a description might be appropriate.
On the other side of the coin is the absolutist who believes that certain actions can be evil regardless of how society views them. Murder is objectively evil regardless of whether it is accepted by society. A society that accepts murder as commonplace is itself evil. Typically, an absolutist must rely upon his conception of god for being the absolute judge of what is right and wrong, since absolutes can't derive from humans. Among judeo-christians, the 10 commandments provide a framework for an absolute set of morality.
My feeling is you need a little bit of both for a society to run well. The problem with relativism is that over time it tends to liberalize societal constraints and undermine the shared values of people that must live together. Society becomes too flexible in defining its norms because people feel that they do not have the right to judge the actions of others. The problem with the absolutists is that they are not flexible enough. They are associated with religion and intolerance. They wish to force "their" values upon society as a whole.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Amy was a 'bad' girl when she stole a cookie from the cookie jar.
It was 'horrible' of Amy to cheat on her loving husband.
Amy is an evil person. She hired someone to kill her husband so she could get the insurance money.
------
A relativist would use this example to say that the each word (rude, bad, horrible, evil) only makes sense in relation to the societal norm that was breached by Amy. She only committed a small infraction when she stole a cookie and society isn't ready to condemn her for that, unlike when she killed her husband. It would sound strange for us if we read "Little Amy was 'horrible' for not saying 'thank you'..", just like it would sound strange if she was merely called 'rude' for killing her husband. Of course, if murder was more common and accepted in our society, according to the relativist, such a description might be appropriate.
On the other side of the coin is the absolutist who believes that certain actions can be evil regardless of how society views them. Murder is objectively evil regardless of whether it is accepted by society. A society that accepts murder as commonplace is itself evil. Typically, an absolutist must rely upon his conception of god for being the absolute judge of what is right and wrong, since absolutes can't derive from humans. Among judeo-christians, the 10 commandments provide a framework for an absolute set of morality.
My feeling is you need a little bit of both for a society to run well. The problem with relativism is that over time it tends to liberalize societal constraints and undermine the shared values of people that must live together. Society becomes too flexible in defining its norms because people feel that they do not have the right to judge the actions of others. The problem with the absolutists is that they are not flexible enough. They are associated with religion and intolerance. They wish to force "their" values upon society as a whole.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
All of these ethical questions change depending upon our perspectives. There are two basic ethical vectors: deontology and teleology. A deontologist believes in ethical rules and principles such as: 'It is immoral (not good) to lie to others.', etc. A teleologist doesn't follow rules, he or she looks at each possible response to an ethics question, and tries to determine which action will create the most 'good'. What is 'good' is debatable at times.
The classic example is this: I'm sitting on the steps to my house, when suddenly Abue and Cherzra come racing around the corner, looking over their shoulders. They hide in my house, explaining that, "Corth has lost it!" Soon, a gore-soaked Corth races around the corner. He looks up at me while he idles his chainsaw, and asks if I've seen Cherzra or Abue.
If I'm a deontologist that believes that: "It is wrong to lie." Then I would tell the truth to Corth, and Abue and Cherzra's lives would be in danger. If I'm a teleologist, I would realize that if I tell Corth where the two are hiding, I would be contributing to their deaths, and that if I lie to Corth (and maybe direct him to the police station instead) I would be saving the lives of two other people. Deontologists (like Christians, for example, who believe in the 10 Commandments) would point out that there are hierarchical 'levels' of laws, some of which take greater precedence: "It is wrong to kill." In this case a deontologist would refer to his internal set of 'rules' or 'principles' and determine which one is most critical.
A teleologist would consider what is the best OUTCOME and use any means to achieve it. To them, the outcome is of greater concern than the method. Another good example is the shipwrecked boat situation. You're in charge of some people who have shipwrecked on a deserted island, with no food. You don't know when or if you will ever be rescued. The people with you range in all social and economic strata. You have a finite amount of food. Some people would run off into the forest with ALL the food, and say a prayer for those who remain. Their definition of 'good' would be: 'Whatever keeps me alive is good!'
Others would give most of the food to the youngest people, the infants or children. Others would withhold food from people that are sick or weak, under the belief that since they are likely to die anyway, food should not be wasted on them. And so on, and so on. It all depends on your perspective of what 'good' is, and over what perspective. Some people can do seemingly horrible (evil) things, for future results that they consider 'good' - such as denying children candy at the dinner table. The converse, howver, is also true.
In reality, most people admit to being a combination of deontologist and teleologist. I think there's been an increase in moral relativism. Moral relativists believe that there's no point in debating good or evil, since someone's feelings might get hurt over it. An example: ritualized genital scarring! (Try declaring that at the dinner table.) In some places in Africa, women are circumcised when they reach puberty by cutting off the outer labia. This all became an issue a few years back when an illegal immigrant in the U.S. asked for asylum, on the grounds that if she went home to Africa, she would undergo this procedure. Moral relativists rushed to the forefront, declaring that the practice of female circumcision was not ‘savage’ or ‘brutal’ (even though it is non-consensual) – other people’s cultures and morals are not for public discussion, they declare.
This whole relativism idea is designed to keep people from using their own minds and examining their own moral compasses. The core concept that underlies it is the idea that objective truth is not knowable, or discernable. I believe that objective truth does exist.
Now, if someone were to lie about having cancer to others, to gain sympathy, we'd have a number of ethical options, once we discover that the person was lying.
1. We can act as deontologists and decide that it is wrong to lie, under any and all circumstances. Stone the liar.
2. We can see that the person who's lying is doing it because they need to experience the sympathy of others. A deontologist might quote an internal rule that requires them to give to others what they need; be it sympathy, spare cash, whatever. A teleologist might agree that the person is lying, but not care.
If 'good' is defined as maximizing the amount of 'good' for the most people, (meaning some people won't experience it) then the best course of action would be to let the poor soul get the attention they need. Is it deceptive? Yes. But who is it really hurting? Is it really hurting others who really DO have sick relatives?
------------------
- Krogenar
[This message has been edited by Krogenar (edited 10-21-2002).]
The classic example is this: I'm sitting on the steps to my house, when suddenly Abue and Cherzra come racing around the corner, looking over their shoulders. They hide in my house, explaining that, "Corth has lost it!" Soon, a gore-soaked Corth races around the corner. He looks up at me while he idles his chainsaw, and asks if I've seen Cherzra or Abue.
If I'm a deontologist that believes that: "It is wrong to lie." Then I would tell the truth to Corth, and Abue and Cherzra's lives would be in danger. If I'm a teleologist, I would realize that if I tell Corth where the two are hiding, I would be contributing to their deaths, and that if I lie to Corth (and maybe direct him to the police station instead) I would be saving the lives of two other people. Deontologists (like Christians, for example, who believe in the 10 Commandments) would point out that there are hierarchical 'levels' of laws, some of which take greater precedence: "It is wrong to kill." In this case a deontologist would refer to his internal set of 'rules' or 'principles' and determine which one is most critical.
A teleologist would consider what is the best OUTCOME and use any means to achieve it. To them, the outcome is of greater concern than the method. Another good example is the shipwrecked boat situation. You're in charge of some people who have shipwrecked on a deserted island, with no food. You don't know when or if you will ever be rescued. The people with you range in all social and economic strata. You have a finite amount of food. Some people would run off into the forest with ALL the food, and say a prayer for those who remain. Their definition of 'good' would be: 'Whatever keeps me alive is good!'
Others would give most of the food to the youngest people, the infants or children. Others would withhold food from people that are sick or weak, under the belief that since they are likely to die anyway, food should not be wasted on them. And so on, and so on. It all depends on your perspective of what 'good' is, and over what perspective. Some people can do seemingly horrible (evil) things, for future results that they consider 'good' - such as denying children candy at the dinner table. The converse, howver, is also true.
In reality, most people admit to being a combination of deontologist and teleologist. I think there's been an increase in moral relativism. Moral relativists believe that there's no point in debating good or evil, since someone's feelings might get hurt over it. An example: ritualized genital scarring! (Try declaring that at the dinner table.) In some places in Africa, women are circumcised when they reach puberty by cutting off the outer labia. This all became an issue a few years back when an illegal immigrant in the U.S. asked for asylum, on the grounds that if she went home to Africa, she would undergo this procedure. Moral relativists rushed to the forefront, declaring that the practice of female circumcision was not ‘savage’ or ‘brutal’ (even though it is non-consensual) – other people’s cultures and morals are not for public discussion, they declare.
This whole relativism idea is designed to keep people from using their own minds and examining their own moral compasses. The core concept that underlies it is the idea that objective truth is not knowable, or discernable. I believe that objective truth does exist.
Now, if someone were to lie about having cancer to others, to gain sympathy, we'd have a number of ethical options, once we discover that the person was lying.
1. We can act as deontologists and decide that it is wrong to lie, under any and all circumstances. Stone the liar.
2. We can see that the person who's lying is doing it because they need to experience the sympathy of others. A deontologist might quote an internal rule that requires them to give to others what they need; be it sympathy, spare cash, whatever. A teleologist might agree that the person is lying, but not care.
If 'good' is defined as maximizing the amount of 'good' for the most people, (meaning some people won't experience it) then the best course of action would be to let the poor soul get the attention they need. Is it deceptive? Yes. But who is it really hurting? Is it really hurting others who really DO have sick relatives?
------------------
- Krogenar
[This message has been edited by Krogenar (edited 10-21-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Krogenar:
<B>All of these ethical questions change depending upon our perspectives. There are two basic ethical vectors: deontology and teleology. A deontologist believes in ethical rules and principles such as: 'It is immoral (not good) to lie to others.', etc. A teleologist doesn't follow rules, he or she looks at each possible response to an ethics question, and tries to determine which action will create the most 'good'. What is 'good' is debatable at times.
The classic example is this: I'm sitting on the steps to my house, when suddenly Abue and Cherzra come racing around the corner, looking over their shoulders. They hide in my house, explaining that, "Corth has lost it!" Soon, a gore-soaked Corth races around the corner. He looks up at me while he idles his chainsaw, and asks if I've seen Cherzra or Abue.
If I'm a deontologist that believes that: "It is wrong to lie." Then I would tell the truth to Corth, and Abue and Cherzra's lives would be in danger. If I'm a teleologist, I would realize that if I tell Corth where the two are hiding, I would be contributing to their deaths, and that if I lie to Corth (and maybe direct him to the police station instead) I would be saving the lives of two other people. Deontologists (like Christians, for example, who believe in the 10 Commandments) would point out that there are hierarchical 'levels' of laws, some of which take greater precedence: "It is wrong to kill." In this case a deontologist would refer to his internal set of 'rules' or 'principles' and determine which one is most critical.
A teleologist would consider what is the best OUTCOME and use any means to achieve it. To them, the outcome is of greater concern than the method. Another good example is the shipwrecked boat situation. You're in charge of some people who have shipwrecked on a deserted island, with no food. You don't know when or if you will ever be rescued. The people with you range in all social and economic strata. You have a finite amount of food. Some people would run off into the forest with ALL the food, and say a prayer for those who remain. Their definition of 'good' would be: 'Whatever keeps me alive is good!'
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, you REALLY need to play IN. Heh.
We've got the Seraphim, who can never be lied to, but can never lie. And we've got the Elohim, who can sense emotions but are always bound to never let emotions interfere with there judgement.
Result?
We have angels who frown a lot and refuse to answer questions, and angels who calmly kill one man for the sake of a hundred others. (hey, it resulted in the greatest possible good for the most people...)
Incidentally, the Seraph would probably simply refuse to answer Corth's question, or employ conversational misdirection, rather than lying to him.
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
<B>All of these ethical questions change depending upon our perspectives. There are two basic ethical vectors: deontology and teleology. A deontologist believes in ethical rules and principles such as: 'It is immoral (not good) to lie to others.', etc. A teleologist doesn't follow rules, he or she looks at each possible response to an ethics question, and tries to determine which action will create the most 'good'. What is 'good' is debatable at times.
The classic example is this: I'm sitting on the steps to my house, when suddenly Abue and Cherzra come racing around the corner, looking over their shoulders. They hide in my house, explaining that, "Corth has lost it!" Soon, a gore-soaked Corth races around the corner. He looks up at me while he idles his chainsaw, and asks if I've seen Cherzra or Abue.
If I'm a deontologist that believes that: "It is wrong to lie." Then I would tell the truth to Corth, and Abue and Cherzra's lives would be in danger. If I'm a teleologist, I would realize that if I tell Corth where the two are hiding, I would be contributing to their deaths, and that if I lie to Corth (and maybe direct him to the police station instead) I would be saving the lives of two other people. Deontologists (like Christians, for example, who believe in the 10 Commandments) would point out that there are hierarchical 'levels' of laws, some of which take greater precedence: "It is wrong to kill." In this case a deontologist would refer to his internal set of 'rules' or 'principles' and determine which one is most critical.
A teleologist would consider what is the best OUTCOME and use any means to achieve it. To them, the outcome is of greater concern than the method. Another good example is the shipwrecked boat situation. You're in charge of some people who have shipwrecked on a deserted island, with no food. You don't know when or if you will ever be rescued. The people with you range in all social and economic strata. You have a finite amount of food. Some people would run off into the forest with ALL the food, and say a prayer for those who remain. Their definition of 'good' would be: 'Whatever keeps me alive is good!'
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, you REALLY need to play IN. Heh.
We've got the Seraphim, who can never be lied to, but can never lie. And we've got the Elohim, who can sense emotions but are always bound to never let emotions interfere with there judgement.
Result?
We have angels who frown a lot and refuse to answer questions, and angels who calmly kill one man for the sake of a hundred others. (hey, it resulted in the greatest possible good for the most people...)
Incidentally, the Seraph would probably simply refuse to answer Corth's question, or employ conversational misdirection, rather than lying to him.
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
-
Disoputlip
- Sojourner
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Copenhagen
One thing that I beleive is that deep down, and for some people very deep down, all are good.
The "theory" that got me into this was something called ultimate/total movement and is based on the fact that if a kid falls into a well then you will try and save that kid. Every time I see evil then I try to remember that although that person did something I see as evil then that person would save a kid if it was falling into a well.
/Disoputlip
The "theory" that got me into this was something called ultimate/total movement and is based on the fact that if a kid falls into a well then you will try and save that kid. Every time I see evil then I try to remember that although that person did something I see as evil then that person would save a kid if it was falling into a well.
/Disoputlip
-
Disoputlip
- Sojourner
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Copenhagen
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>So this sniper who recently shot a random kid through the chest in front of his school would stop to save the same kid if he fell into a well?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, the theory for me is that he will go for the kid, and then a split second later say. Nahh, Fuck it. Because he thinks about it. But the first movement is instinct, and that is a good instinct.
Forgot to mention:
You can train that instinct, to become a better person. It's usually called its chinese name: Tai Chi or something. (No don't do it myself, just reading the philosophy)
/Disoputlip.
<B>So this sniper who recently shot a random kid through the chest in front of his school would stop to save the same kid if he fell into a well?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, the theory for me is that he will go for the kid, and then a split second later say. Nahh, Fuck it. Because he thinks about it. But the first movement is instinct, and that is a good instinct.
Forgot to mention:
You can train that instinct, to become a better person. It's usually called its chinese name: Tai Chi or something. (No don't do it myself, just reading the philosophy)
/Disoputlip.
diso: "Well, the theory for me is that he will go for the kid, and then a split second later say. Nahh, Fuck it. Because he thinks about it. But the first movement is instinct, and that is a good instinct"
currently reading cs lewis, mere christianity, and he address the issue of instinct. he would say if the kid fall into the well, we have 2 instinct: 1. self perservation 2. herd instinct, but a third independant factor of these two instinct is needed to decide on which course that person will take. one that we should take and one which is failing to take the correct course. (summary of course)
being a christian i believe in good and evil. but i dont believe it's like 2 equal opposing forces because god is greater than all. god was a being that was alway in existence and created all things including heaven and angels. lucifer the greatest of all the angels opposed god, but he cannot defeat his creator. i'm not too well read on this spiritual struggle, but if you have some good suggestions....
currently reading cs lewis, mere christianity, and he address the issue of instinct. he would say if the kid fall into the well, we have 2 instinct: 1. self perservation 2. herd instinct, but a third independant factor of these two instinct is needed to decide on which course that person will take. one that we should take and one which is failing to take the correct course. (summary of course)
being a christian i believe in good and evil. but i dont believe it's like 2 equal opposing forces because god is greater than all. god was a being that was alway in existence and created all things including heaven and angels. lucifer the greatest of all the angels opposed god, but he cannot defeat his creator. i'm not too well read on this spiritual struggle, but if you have some good suggestions....
Dis,
Instinct being absolutely good and thought being corruption. I always assumed the opposite. My feeling has always been that what differentiates human beings from animal is his capacity for intelligent thought. Might I ask if you have you ever read anything by Ayn Rand?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 10-21-2002).]
Instinct being absolutely good and thought being corruption. I always assumed the opposite. My feeling has always been that what differentiates human beings from animal is his capacity for intelligent thought. Might I ask if you have you ever read anything by Ayn Rand?
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
[This message has been edited by Corth (edited 10-21-2002).]
"What a time experiences as evil is usually an untimely echo of what was formerly experienced as good - the atavism of a more ancient ideal."
"To recognize untruth as a condition of life . . . a philosophy that risks this would by that token alone place itself beyond good and evil."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
For me, living beyond good and evil does not mean casting them aside as obsolete. Instead, as we learn to value them not for some imagined inherent virtue they possess, we discover their true worth as the original metric of our humanity. The drive to better ourselves that brought us out of the caves and into our place in the universe had its nascence in our identification of good and evil. They may not exist in fact, but do we need them as yardsticks by which to measure our lives any less?
Mp
------------------
"To recognize untruth as a condition of life . . . a philosophy that risks this would by that token alone place itself beyond good and evil."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
For me, living beyond good and evil does not mean casting them aside as obsolete. Instead, as we learn to value them not for some imagined inherent virtue they possess, we discover their true worth as the original metric of our humanity. The drive to better ourselves that brought us out of the caves and into our place in the universe had its nascence in our identification of good and evil. They may not exist in fact, but do we need them as yardsticks by which to measure our lives any less?
Mp
------------------
Doubt Nietzsche said much of anything that made sense on his deathbed.. he was in the late stages of syphilis and had long since lost his mind. I was a philosophy major and this reminds me of a stupid old philosophy joke i once heard:
Nietzsche: "God is dead"
God: "Nietzsche is dead"
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
Nietzsche: "God is dead"
God: "Nietzsche is dead"
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
-
Guest
Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, not that of any other staff members necessarily.
I define good basically as putting the needs of others first in your thoughts, ahead of your own needs. Not to absurdity, where you're living on the streets and can no longer help others, though.
For instance, I was asked recently, as a Christian, how I felt about murder as self-defense. My answer was that:
1. If it came down to myself, alone, and another person who had broken into my house was intent on killing me, I would rather not use lethal force to stop that person.
2. Same scenario, with others in the house who might die because of my actions, I would likely choose to use lethal force, if necessary to protect the people with me.
This comes from the fact that I would be fairly convinced the person breaking in doesn't hold my beliefs, and that if I am correct in what I believe I would be ending their life in a much different way than they were ending mine.
Good can best be defined that way, I think. Obviously this allows for different actions to be taken under different circumstances. If it's a 'black and white' issue, I hope that you can see my definition does include elements of both. The physical act of killing someone, in and of itself in this case, isn't where the black and white is. It's a question of motivation.
Having said that, judging others actions becomes treacherous, unless you fully understand the motivations behind their actions. I think that's consistent with the text of the New Testament, but that's just my opinion. You're free to disagree or feel I'm silly for even mentioning it.
[This message has been edited by Iyachtu (edited 10-21-2002).]
I define good basically as putting the needs of others first in your thoughts, ahead of your own needs. Not to absurdity, where you're living on the streets and can no longer help others, though.
For instance, I was asked recently, as a Christian, how I felt about murder as self-defense. My answer was that:
1. If it came down to myself, alone, and another person who had broken into my house was intent on killing me, I would rather not use lethal force to stop that person.
2. Same scenario, with others in the house who might die because of my actions, I would likely choose to use lethal force, if necessary to protect the people with me.
This comes from the fact that I would be fairly convinced the person breaking in doesn't hold my beliefs, and that if I am correct in what I believe I would be ending their life in a much different way than they were ending mine.
Good can best be defined that way, I think. Obviously this allows for different actions to be taken under different circumstances. If it's a 'black and white' issue, I hope that you can see my definition does include elements of both. The physical act of killing someone, in and of itself in this case, isn't where the black and white is. It's a question of motivation.
Having said that, judging others actions becomes treacherous, unless you fully understand the motivations behind their actions. I think that's consistent with the text of the New Testament, but that's just my opinion. You're free to disagree or feel I'm silly for even mentioning it.
[This message has been edited by Iyachtu (edited 10-21-2002).]
ahhh i love a good vs evil debate.
I also believe..no..make that...I know for a fact that one mans good is another mans evil.
Redneck inbred christians (not you normal freakish christians mind you) think my girlfriend is evil because they don't understand what it is to be a Wiccan or a witch. gotta love stupid Virginians (not the smart witty ones like we know ere on the mud)Wiccans see christians as evil for the atrocities committed against them, when the central idea of the Wiccan religion is Harm none.
Once again, as I have said before in other places in these forums..its all relative. It's all how you look at it. Everyone has a point of view, and there is always going to be someone that shares that point of view, either in the same manner or a slightly varied form thereof.
Good? Evil? To me they are all about as useful in the long run as time. They are all human inventions that will die out the same day the last humans die out.
Heaven? Hell? Paradise? Who cares. I for one know exactly where I am going when I die. Right back into the earth I was born unto.
Sounds pretty druidic eh? I'm a sun worshiper and a realist. Go figure.
AM I evil?
I know a baptist minister would tell me, "Yer gonna buuuurn in hell boi!"
A Catholic priest would tell me, "Its not too late to repent my son. Learn to love the one true God and believe in the holy trinity"A Wiccan would smile and embrace me for having almost the same natural beliefs they embrace.
A Muslim would call me an blasphemous infidel.
A worshiper of Buddah would smile at me sadly and hope I achieve enlightment
I still feel the group I just mentioned is not large enough for me to compare the whole relativity thing of good and evil, but its all i have had extensive personal experience with in my lifetime thus far.
All these different people could be good or evil by the human standard. There are thousands of different kinds of people in this world and to simply call someone good or evil by our limited knowledge of the way the people of the world works is a waste of brain cells.
I'm not here to compare religious ideals or anything mind you, so don't go off on a spree of My religion is better than yours is. This is about good and evil, and even tho religion has made a huge freakin impact on the programming of people on what is "good" and "evil" everyone must remember, nobody is perfect.
The September 11th tragedy was indeed a sad event for the people of the United States and other countries of the world as well. Were the men that caused the loss of so much life evil?
95% of you will say yes. Why? because we don't sit on the other side of the fence. They think we are evil. Why? Because they choose to in the name of their own beliefs. The fact that they are supporting the will of an madman is merely a mistake that many people in the history of humanity have made.
Another big factor in the "programming" of peoples beliefs in what is "good" and "evil" is media. Media of all sorts. The job of all media is to let you see the side of the story they want to show you. All too many people buy into what media tells them without further researching the subject matter for themselves to get 2nd opinions or alternate points of view. It sometimes saddens me to see the atomotons that are running around believing in all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons because they heard it onthe radio, read it in a book, or saw it on tv.
I could go on abot this for days but i pretty much said what I waned to from my personal point of view. Am I evil? Some people would say I am. Am I good? Some people would say I am. Either way, I know who I am and what I stand for, and what other people think about me means is their opinion weather they are wrong or not. I just hope people will someday learn to not pass judgement, but to understand WHY things happen as they do. I for one am still searching for the answers to the questions that arise every day in life for us all. The key to better understanding is to empower oneself with unbiased knowledge. Its a shame there is so much bias in the world.
Kallinar. Drivers wanted.
I also believe..no..make that...I know for a fact that one mans good is another mans evil.
Redneck inbred christians (not you normal freakish christians mind you) think my girlfriend is evil because they don't understand what it is to be a Wiccan or a witch. gotta love stupid Virginians (not the smart witty ones like we know ere on the mud)Wiccans see christians as evil for the atrocities committed against them, when the central idea of the Wiccan religion is Harm none.
Once again, as I have said before in other places in these forums..its all relative. It's all how you look at it. Everyone has a point of view, and there is always going to be someone that shares that point of view, either in the same manner or a slightly varied form thereof.
Good? Evil? To me they are all about as useful in the long run as time. They are all human inventions that will die out the same day the last humans die out.
Heaven? Hell? Paradise? Who cares. I for one know exactly where I am going when I die. Right back into the earth I was born unto.
Sounds pretty druidic eh? I'm a sun worshiper and a realist. Go figure.
AM I evil?
I know a baptist minister would tell me, "Yer gonna buuuurn in hell boi!"
A Catholic priest would tell me, "Its not too late to repent my son. Learn to love the one true God and believe in the holy trinity"A Wiccan would smile and embrace me for having almost the same natural beliefs they embrace.
A Muslim would call me an blasphemous infidel.
A worshiper of Buddah would smile at me sadly and hope I achieve enlightment
I still feel the group I just mentioned is not large enough for me to compare the whole relativity thing of good and evil, but its all i have had extensive personal experience with in my lifetime thus far.
All these different people could be good or evil by the human standard. There are thousands of different kinds of people in this world and to simply call someone good or evil by our limited knowledge of the way the people of the world works is a waste of brain cells.
I'm not here to compare religious ideals or anything mind you, so don't go off on a spree of My religion is better than yours is. This is about good and evil, and even tho religion has made a huge freakin impact on the programming of people on what is "good" and "evil" everyone must remember, nobody is perfect.
The September 11th tragedy was indeed a sad event for the people of the United States and other countries of the world as well. Were the men that caused the loss of so much life evil?
95% of you will say yes. Why? because we don't sit on the other side of the fence. They think we are evil. Why? Because they choose to in the name of their own beliefs. The fact that they are supporting the will of an madman is merely a mistake that many people in the history of humanity have made.
Another big factor in the "programming" of peoples beliefs in what is "good" and "evil" is media. Media of all sorts. The job of all media is to let you see the side of the story they want to show you. All too many people buy into what media tells them without further researching the subject matter for themselves to get 2nd opinions or alternate points of view. It sometimes saddens me to see the atomotons that are running around believing in all the wrong things for all the wrong reasons because they heard it onthe radio, read it in a book, or saw it on tv.
I could go on abot this for days but i pretty much said what I waned to from my personal point of view. Am I evil? Some people would say I am. Am I good? Some people would say I am. Either way, I know who I am and what I stand for, and what other people think about me means is their opinion weather they are wrong or not. I just hope people will someday learn to not pass judgement, but to understand WHY things happen as they do. I for one am still searching for the answers to the questions that arise every day in life for us all. The key to better understanding is to empower oneself with unbiased knowledge. Its a shame there is so much bias in the world.
Kallinar. Drivers wanted.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by moritheil:
<B> Yeah, you REALLY need to play IN. Heh.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I checked out your post on that earlier. It's a fascinating idea for an RP game. Spirtual Warfare!
------------------
- Krogenar
<B> Yeah, you REALLY need to play IN. Heh.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I checked out your post on that earlier. It's a fascinating idea for an RP game. Spirtual Warfare!
------------------
- Krogenar
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Disoputlip:
<B>One thing that I beleive is that deep down, and for some people very deep down, all are good.
The "theory" that got me into this was something called ultimate/total movement and is based on the fact that if a kid falls into a well then you will try and save that kid. Every time I see evil then I try to remember that although that person did something I see as evil then that person would save a kid if it was falling into a well.
/Disoputlip</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fun Fact: Did you know you after Saddam Hussein throws political dissidents into his dungeons, he often tortures the men by forcing them to watch their wives being raped? That's evil, of the 'deep down' variety. Even if Saddam is really a 'victim' of a rotten childhood, etc., etc. - his actions are still evil, and need to be stopped.
All this talk of 'evil' and 'good' just being relative terms is an attempt to shrug off responsibility. An ethical system that says: "Judge no one's actions! Do not limit yourself in any way!" is not a true system. That's just hedonism. Human beings are inherently evil, not good. Our base instincts are survival, self-preservation. Ask yourself, if someone were to strike you quickly, your first reaction is usually to strike back, or run away. The impulse not to attack in kind requires that we control our impulses, not give them free rein. Only human society and culture, I believe, can pass these ideas on to future generations.
But first we have to get past the coffee shop conceit that there is no real 'good' or 'evil' and be willing to judge each others actions.
------------------
- Krogenar
[This message has been edited by Krogenar (edited 10-22-2002).]
<B>One thing that I beleive is that deep down, and for some people very deep down, all are good.
The "theory" that got me into this was something called ultimate/total movement and is based on the fact that if a kid falls into a well then you will try and save that kid. Every time I see evil then I try to remember that although that person did something I see as evil then that person would save a kid if it was falling into a well.
/Disoputlip</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Fun Fact: Did you know you after Saddam Hussein throws political dissidents into his dungeons, he often tortures the men by forcing them to watch their wives being raped? That's evil, of the 'deep down' variety. Even if Saddam is really a 'victim' of a rotten childhood, etc., etc. - his actions are still evil, and need to be stopped.
All this talk of 'evil' and 'good' just being relative terms is an attempt to shrug off responsibility. An ethical system that says: "Judge no one's actions! Do not limit yourself in any way!" is not a true system. That's just hedonism. Human beings are inherently evil, not good. Our base instincts are survival, self-preservation. Ask yourself, if someone were to strike you quickly, your first reaction is usually to strike back, or run away. The impulse not to attack in kind requires that we control our impulses, not give them free rein. Only human society and culture, I believe, can pass these ideas on to future generations.
But first we have to get past the coffee shop conceit that there is no real 'good' or 'evil' and be willing to judge each others actions.
------------------
- Krogenar
[This message has been edited by Krogenar (edited 10-22-2002).]
-
kiryan
- Sojourner
- Posts: 7275
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 5:01 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA and Flagstaff, AZ
- Contact:
Kallinar go back and read my post. The christian God does not practice or condone wicca. your GF does not practice wicca to serve god. your GF is "evil" from the Christian view point. Shes probably a good person, but she is "evil."
Redneck inbred christians (not you normal freakish christians mind you) think my girlfriend is evil because they don't understand what it is to be a Wiccan or a witch. gotta love stupid Virginians (not the smart witty ones like we know ere on the mud)Wiccans see christians as evil for the atrocities committed against them, when the central idea of the Wiccan religion is Harm none.
Krogenar instinct is carnal. it is of the flesh and borne out of your environment. It is response to environment. I do not believe that it is innately good or evil by many standards. particular instinctual or basic behaviors may be maligned by a certain population, but how many people believe eating is bad?
Redneck inbred christians (not you normal freakish christians mind you) think my girlfriend is evil because they don't understand what it is to be a Wiccan or a witch. gotta love stupid Virginians (not the smart witty ones like we know ere on the mud)Wiccans see christians as evil for the atrocities committed against them, when the central idea of the Wiccan religion is Harm none.
Krogenar instinct is carnal. it is of the flesh and borne out of your environment. It is response to environment. I do not believe that it is innately good or evil by many standards. particular instinctual or basic behaviors may be maligned by a certain population, but how many people believe eating is bad?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Kallinar:
<B>
Redneck inbred christians (not you normal freakish christians mind you) think my girlfriend is evil because they don't understand what it is to be a Wiccan or a witch...
Kallinar. Drivers wanted.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, let the mudslinging begin...
IIRC, there are *some* converted pagans amongst the Christians of the world. Perhaps you should levy this accusation at them?
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
<B>
Redneck inbred christians (not you normal freakish christians mind you) think my girlfriend is evil because they don't understand what it is to be a Wiccan or a witch...
Kallinar. Drivers wanted.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ah, let the mudslinging begin...
IIRC, there are *some* converted pagans amongst the Christians of the world. Perhaps you should levy this accusation at them?
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
-
Disoputlip
- Sojourner
- Posts: 956
- Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 6:01 am
- Location: Copenhagen
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by kiryan:
Krogenar instinct is carnal. it is of the flesh and borne out of your environment. It is response to environment. I do not believe that it is innately good or evil by many standards.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You point out that instinct is 'of the flesh'. The dictionary on my desk defines instinct as, "\In"stinct\, n. 1. Natural inward impulse; unconscious, involuntary, or unreasoning prompting to any mode of action, whether bodily, or mental, without a distinct apprehension of the end or object to be accomplished.
My point is that morally crucial decisions, when performed on an instinctual basis, are often not moral. Humans are uniquely different from animals in our reasoning power, our ability to see beyond the first order of causation. Someone hits me, I hit back, instinctually. A reasoning (non-instinctual) human will ask: what are the future, long term repercussions of striking back? Do they outweigh the current benefits of striking back now?
The action, whether its eating, drinking, etc. is irrelevant to the discussion. The motivation for that action is what's critical here. If I'm struck by someone else in the face, my instinctual response to the pain is to strike back at my attacker - for the purpose of self-preservation. At the heart of any true ethical system is restraint against instinct. Instinct, as we both define it, is hard-wired to flesh - its a response that requires no thinking.
You're heading for moral relativism, which I think is just a snooty way of saying: "Don't judge me or anyone else! Better to just abandon our ability to think critically, than to offend anyone!" So I skip it. But maybe I should restate my view. Humans are not inherently 'good' - that's an ideal that instinct cannot deliver - only reason can deliver morality.
I agree. Our capacity for morality does not make it instinctive. Instinct is inherent in us. But our instinct is not to be moral. That's an reaction that need to be cultivated by culture and society. Can you look at the world around us, and say that humans instinctually do the right thing, that they are instinctively moral? Moral in regards to other people? That our gut reaction, as a species, is to immediately consider the long term consequences of our actions on others?
------------------
- Krogenar
Krogenar instinct is carnal. it is of the flesh and borne out of your environment. It is response to environment. I do not believe that it is innately good or evil by many standards.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You point out that instinct is 'of the flesh'. The dictionary on my desk defines instinct as, "\In"stinct\, n. 1. Natural inward impulse; unconscious, involuntary, or unreasoning prompting to any mode of action, whether bodily, or mental, without a distinct apprehension of the end or object to be accomplished.
My point is that morally crucial decisions, when performed on an instinctual basis, are often not moral. Humans are uniquely different from animals in our reasoning power, our ability to see beyond the first order of causation. Someone hits me, I hit back, instinctually. A reasoning (non-instinctual) human will ask: what are the future, long term repercussions of striking back? Do they outweigh the current benefits of striking back now?
The action, whether its eating, drinking, etc. is irrelevant to the discussion. The motivation for that action is what's critical here. If I'm struck by someone else in the face, my instinctual response to the pain is to strike back at my attacker - for the purpose of self-preservation. At the heart of any true ethical system is restraint against instinct. Instinct, as we both define it, is hard-wired to flesh - its a response that requires no thinking.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">particular instinctual or basic behaviors may be maligned by a certain population, but how many people believe eating is bad? I don't see the basis on which you stake the claim humans are basically evil.</font>
You're heading for moral relativism, which I think is just a snooty way of saying: "Don't judge me or anyone else! Better to just abandon our ability to think critically, than to offend anyone!" So I skip it. But maybe I should restate my view. Humans are not inherently 'good' - that's an ideal that instinct cannot deliver - only reason can deliver morality.
Yes, you could, but that would be silly. I was once chased by a squirrel while in college. I 'faked' having food in my hand. He nipped me, and then chased me for about 40 feet. Evil.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I might use your words to make the claim all animals are basically evil.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> id say the thing that separates humans from animals is their ability to control their actions. So i might further argue that humans are basically "good" as no other lifeform seems to display as much similar ability to do this.</font>
I agree. Our capacity for morality does not make it instinctive. Instinct is inherent in us. But our instinct is not to be moral. That's an reaction that need to be cultivated by culture and society. Can you look at the world around us, and say that humans instinctually do the right thing, that they are instinctively moral? Moral in regards to other people? That our gut reaction, as a species, is to immediately consider the long term consequences of our actions on others?
------------------
- Krogenar
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Disoputlip:
<B>Corth, I have placed "We the living" in my book buffer. I need to finish Kafka's "Amerika" then read Kierkegaards "En forførers dagbog". I did a few checks, and Ayn Rand sounds like an author I have been missing
/D</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dis,
I hope you enjoy it. One thing I like about Rand was that she was a serious thinker who could actually write a good fictional story. "We the living" is a great read, and probably a good choice as an introduction to her way of thinking. Its semi-autobiographical and reflects Rand's own experience living in Russia in the early 20th century. The more ambitious stuff, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" are also good stories, and contain a more developed account of her unique philosophy. If you enjoy "We the Living" I would very much recomend checking out those subsequent stories. The only downside really is she was VERY prolix. Atlas and Fountainhead weigh in at about 1000 pages each.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
<B>Corth, I have placed "We the living" in my book buffer. I need to finish Kafka's "Amerika" then read Kierkegaards "En forførers dagbog". I did a few checks, and Ayn Rand sounds like an author I have been missing
/D</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dis,
I hope you enjoy it. One thing I like about Rand was that she was a serious thinker who could actually write a good fictional story. "We the living" is a great read, and probably a good choice as an introduction to her way of thinking. Its semi-autobiographical and reflects Rand's own experience living in Russia in the early 20th century. The more ambitious stuff, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" are also good stories, and contain a more developed account of her unique philosophy. If you enjoy "We the Living" I would very much recomend checking out those subsequent stories. The only downside really is she was VERY prolix. Atlas and Fountainhead weigh in at about 1000 pages each.
Corth
------------------
Goddamned slippery mage.
I do not believe people are intrinsically good.
However, I do believe people inherently know right from wrong, even if it isn't learned.
The problem that arises really is how they have developed as people in terms of whether or not they plan to carry out their actions in a positive or negative way.
You would be amazed what lengths people will go to to justify their actions. More or less so that they can live with themselves. The problem is these people are never really happy. Generally they are consumed by something, be it rage or anger or revenge, or they are lacking or empty inside. The bottom line is however that they understand what they are doing is right or wrong, but to live with it they then justify it somehow in their head as right.
i.e. I killed those people because they fuel the government that persecuted my people and that I am at war with or I lied to so-and-so because they did this-or-that to me.
It all comes down to right and wrong and how one justifies how they are right when they are not.
Dornax
Jurdex
------------------
The Raven of Wisdom
Est Sularus Oth Mithas
"My Honor is My Life"
However, I do believe people inherently know right from wrong, even if it isn't learned.
The problem that arises really is how they have developed as people in terms of whether or not they plan to carry out their actions in a positive or negative way.
You would be amazed what lengths people will go to to justify their actions. More or less so that they can live with themselves. The problem is these people are never really happy. Generally they are consumed by something, be it rage or anger or revenge, or they are lacking or empty inside. The bottom line is however that they understand what they are doing is right or wrong, but to live with it they then justify it somehow in their head as right.
i.e. I killed those people because they fuel the government that persecuted my people and that I am at war with or I lied to so-and-so because they did this-or-that to me.
It all comes down to right and wrong and how one justifies how they are right when they are not.
Dornax
Jurdex
------------------
The Raven of Wisdom
Est Sularus Oth Mithas
"My Honor is My Life"
Kiryan and Krog maybe what you guys need to do is move away from nature of man being good and evil, to man being sinful and sinless.
For a while it was difficult for me to grasp man as being evil because we were created in God's image. I understood the fall, but Christ DBR would have taken care of that. Also the idea of babies dying and the where they would goes confused me. And I couldnt think of Gandi as an evil man.
But once I moved away from evil/good and towards sinful/sinless, it became clearer.
For a while it was difficult for me to grasp man as being evil because we were created in God's image. I understood the fall, but Christ DBR would have taken care of that. Also the idea of babies dying and the where they would goes confused me. And I couldnt think of Gandi as an evil man.
But once I moved away from evil/good and towards sinful/sinless, it became clearer.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sok:
<B>Kiryan and Krog maybe what you guys need to do is move away from nature of man being good and evil, to man being sinful and sinless.
For a while it was difficult for me to grasp man as being evil because we were created in God's image. I understood the fall, but Christ DBR would have taken care of that. Also the idea of babies dying and the where they would goes confused me. And I couldnt think of Gandi as an evil man.
But once I moved away from evil/good and towards sinful/sinless, it became clearer. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are applying a delusional superstition to help you cheat the important questions in life, and avoiding the intricasies of this argument.
------------------
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
<B>Kiryan and Krog maybe what you guys need to do is move away from nature of man being good and evil, to man being sinful and sinless.
For a while it was difficult for me to grasp man as being evil because we were created in God's image. I understood the fall, but Christ DBR would have taken care of that. Also the idea of babies dying and the where they would goes confused me. And I couldnt think of Gandi as an evil man.
But once I moved away from evil/good and towards sinful/sinless, it became clearer. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are applying a delusional superstition to help you cheat the important questions in life, and avoiding the intricasies of this argument.
------------------
/Jegzed - Sorcere Master - Crimson Coalition
Man is neither good nor evil but a perfect combination of both .. this is what makes the human species so unique, our ability to think, reason, and KNOW right from wrong ..
As children we are taught to be nice to people and they will be nice to you .. What parent teaches their child to be evil to others (baring racists and extremists because they teach their children to hate) Children are such a perfect being, they care not who they are friends with, they love unquestionably, they dont see race religion creed or anything else ... often children are drawn to society's castoffs (the deformed, the invalid) simply because the child sees the PERSON, not the deformity .. WE teach them hatred and intolerance ...
When my daughter was about two, I took her to the mall .. she was a beautiful little girl, long, straight blonde hair pulled into a pony tail ... cute little dress, etc ... anyway she had to go potty so off we raced to the ladies room .. Well there was a long line, coming out the door... the last person in line was a little black girl and her mommy ... my daughter drug me to the line, and reached for the little girls hand, and there we stood, total strangers ... it was SO moving ... the little girl's mother and i looked at eachother and smiled, that our children could bond that way, just reach out and hold hands like it was nothing in the world ...
I wish all people could be that way ... not evil or good but a mix of the two ... look to your neighbor and treat them with respect .. thats pretty simple and naieve(spelling) perhaps, but it is EXACTLY what this world of turmoil needs ..
-Jennifer
As children we are taught to be nice to people and they will be nice to you .. What parent teaches their child to be evil to others (baring racists and extremists because they teach their children to hate) Children are such a perfect being, they care not who they are friends with, they love unquestionably, they dont see race religion creed or anything else ... often children are drawn to society's castoffs (the deformed, the invalid) simply because the child sees the PERSON, not the deformity .. WE teach them hatred and intolerance ...
When my daughter was about two, I took her to the mall .. she was a beautiful little girl, long, straight blonde hair pulled into a pony tail ... cute little dress, etc ... anyway she had to go potty so off we raced to the ladies room .. Well there was a long line, coming out the door... the last person in line was a little black girl and her mommy ... my daughter drug me to the line, and reached for the little girls hand, and there we stood, total strangers ... it was SO moving ... the little girl's mother and i looked at eachother and smiled, that our children could bond that way, just reach out and hold hands like it was nothing in the world ...
I wish all people could be that way ... not evil or good but a mix of the two ... look to your neighbor and treat them with respect .. thats pretty simple and naieve(spelling) perhaps, but it is EXACTLY what this world of turmoil needs ..
-Jennifer
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ambar:
Man is neither good nor evil but a perfect combination of both .. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't call it a 'perfect' combination, but I do agree that we all have some good and 'evil' qualities to our personalities. I don't equate good and evil, or think of them as just labels. They do describe real attitudes.
This comes back to the Nature vs. Nurture argument. If someone is born poor, and gains no educations, and then turns to a life of crime, is it because they did not receive the nurturing they needed (education, a good family life, etc.) or was it a fundamental failing of the person. Most likely, its a combination of both. Most liberals place more emphasis on the nurture end of the equation, because then we're all just blank slates, that society needs to write something meanful on. As for children being 'inherently' good - I think they learn that from their parents.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>mommy ... my daughter drug me to the line, and reached for the little girls hand, and there we stood, total strangers ... it was SO moving ... the little girl's mother and i looked at eachother and smiled, that our children could bond that way, just reach out and hold hands like it was nothing in the world ...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My younger sister, as a toddler, would point out any and all landmarks to my mother. Whether it was someone's very large nose, abdomen, or hair-style, she would still gleefully point and loudly declare: "Biiig nose!" or "Faaaaaaaaat Man!!"
Was she being 'evil'? No, but my mother spent a lot of time distracting her just in the nick of time, to save people's feelings from being hurt. Children are first and foremost, honest. Which many people view as something positive and refreshing. That, and they mimic everything we do - good or bad - whether they realize the moral implications or not. It might have been that your daughter was just mimicking something she had seen you do.
I've also seen children who, upon encountering someone with a disability will glibly ask, "What happened to your face?" or "Where are your legs?" and then look under the wheelchair for them. Usually the handicapped person takes it in stride, and realizes that children are just honest. A child who's had more moral education might broach the subject more tactfully - because they are aware of the other person's feelings.
I think children have some inherent genetic predispositions, but morality is learned. It's too important that they learn morality for us to assume that it might be inherent in them already.
------------------
- Krogenar
Man is neither good nor evil but a perfect combination of both .. </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I wouldn't call it a 'perfect' combination, but I do agree that we all have some good and 'evil' qualities to our personalities. I don't equate good and evil, or think of them as just labels. They do describe real attitudes.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Children are such a perfect being, they care not who they are friends with, they love unquestionably, they dont see race religion creed or anything else ... often children are drawn to society's castoffs (the deformed, the invalid) simply because the child sees the PERSON, not the deformity .. WE teach them hatred and intolerance ...</font>
This comes back to the Nature vs. Nurture argument. If someone is born poor, and gains no educations, and then turns to a life of crime, is it because they did not receive the nurturing they needed (education, a good family life, etc.) or was it a fundamental failing of the person. Most likely, its a combination of both. Most liberals place more emphasis on the nurture end of the equation, because then we're all just blank slates, that society needs to write something meanful on. As for children being 'inherently' good - I think they learn that from their parents.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>mommy ... my daughter drug me to the line, and reached for the little girls hand, and there we stood, total strangers ... it was SO moving ... the little girl's mother and i looked at eachother and smiled, that our children could bond that way, just reach out and hold hands like it was nothing in the world ...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My younger sister, as a toddler, would point out any and all landmarks to my mother. Whether it was someone's very large nose, abdomen, or hair-style, she would still gleefully point and loudly declare: "Biiig nose!" or "Faaaaaaaaat Man!!"
Was she being 'evil'? No, but my mother spent a lot of time distracting her just in the nick of time, to save people's feelings from being hurt. Children are first and foremost, honest.
Which many people view as something positive and refreshing. That, and they mimic everything we do - good or bad - whether they realize the moral implications or not. It might have been that your daughter was just mimicking something she had seen you do. I've also seen children who, upon encountering someone with a disability will glibly ask, "What happened to your face?" or "Where are your legs?" and then look under the wheelchair for them. Usually the handicapped person takes it in stride, and realizes that children are just honest. A child who's had more moral education might broach the subject more tactfully - because they are aware of the other person's feelings.
I think children have some inherent genetic predispositions, but morality is learned. It's too important that they learn morality for us to assume that it might be inherent in them already.
------------------
- Krogenar
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jegzed:
<B> You are applying a delusional superstition to help you cheat the important questions in life, and avoiding the intricasies of this argument.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you, sir, are grossly lacking in respect
His statement is internally and logically consistent. He is not avoiding the argument and "weaseling out," he is suggesting that there is a greater consideration. Much like, if two people were to be arguing about an eq split in the middle of a zone, and the zone was about to repop, I would tell them to stfu until we hauled ass out of the zone.
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
<B> You are applying a delusional superstition to help you cheat the important questions in life, and avoiding the intricasies of this argument.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you, sir, are grossly lacking in respect
His statement is internally and logically consistent. He is not avoiding the argument and "weaseling out," he is suggesting that there is a greater consideration. Much like, if two people were to be arguing about an eq split in the middle of a zone, and the zone was about to repop, I would tell them to stfu until we hauled ass out of the zone.
------------------
Daz group-says 'rofl, moritheil is the mcdonald's of death'
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests