Perfection
The Great Head.
Good is what benefits Perfection
Evil is what does not benefit Perfection
Evil is what does not benefit Perfection
Good vs Evil - What does it mean?
- Thread starter Margim
- Start date
Shadylookin
master debater
what are you going to do kill all those that commit suicide
good and evil depends on your perspective of it. If you think it's evil then it is to you and if you think it's good then it's good to you. it's just many people have a similar opinion about good and evil
newfangle
hates you.
Egad, there is an insane amount of subjectivism in this thead 
Good and evil are absolutes based on the fundemntal truth that man, as an individual, lives as a result of his mind.
Good results when man's faculty of reason is complemented.
Evil results when man goes against his faculty of reason. There are two ways this can happen: 1) He can be forced to go against his will, in which case the evil is being applied to him or 2) He can force another man against his will.
Moral relativism is exceedingly dangerous, and the root of evil. For those that believe that morality is completely subjective, their opinions are essentially nullified. Since there are no absolutes, they say, why the hell should I not kill them? Why should we all not kill each other? It just doesn't make sense.
As I have said in many a religious threads, start with what reality has given you, and work up from there. Don't start from nothing and begin to make worthless assumption after assumption. What does saying "I don't know" or "I don't care" or "Nothing exists, so nothing matters" accomplish? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Every single instance of evil in recorded history has been the product of an unthinking man; a beast. Every single instance of good in this world has been the product of man's mind. Black and white. Absolutes. What is, is.
Good and evil are absolutes based on the fundemntal truth that man, as an individual, lives as a result of his mind.
Good results when man's faculty of reason is complemented.
Evil results when man goes against his faculty of reason. There are two ways this can happen: 1) He can be forced to go against his will, in which case the evil is being applied to him or 2) He can force another man against his will.
Moral relativism is exceedingly dangerous, and the root of evil. For those that believe that morality is completely subjective, their opinions are essentially nullified. Since there are no absolutes, they say, why the hell should I not kill them? Why should we all not kill each other? It just doesn't make sense.
As I have said in many a religious threads, start with what reality has given you, and work up from there. Don't start from nothing and begin to make worthless assumption after assumption. What does saying "I don't know" or "I don't care" or "Nothing exists, so nothing matters" accomplish? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Every single instance of evil in recorded history has been the product of an unthinking man; a beast. Every single instance of good in this world has been the product of man's mind. Black and white. Absolutes. What is, is.
Margim
Footy's back.
Newfangle - you referred to black and whites, thinking and unthinking. To quote your words.
"Every single instance of evil in recorded history has been the product of an unthinking man. Every single instance of good in this world has been the product of man's mind. Black and white. Absolutes. What is, is."
But the holocuast was not produced by an unthinking man - it was a carefully constructed systematic anhillation of a people, done not only by one man but a collective organisaton of them.
Who defines what "is".
"Every single instance of evil in recorded history has been the product of an unthinking man. Every single instance of good in this world has been the product of man's mind. Black and white. Absolutes. What is, is."
But the holocuast was not produced by an unthinking man - it was a carefully constructed systematic anhillation of a people, done not only by one man but a collective organisaton of them.
Who defines what "is".
Margim
Footy's back.
edit: sorry, double posted.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
When you say "applied universally" do you mean if everyone followed that code of ethics- e.g. performed act A, or if everyone had act A performed on them, or both?
I mean that if the world was populated by six billion copies of you who all behaved like you. So both, really
What determines these principals, and makes them 'right'?
Depends on YOU again, imagine a world where everyone did the thing in question [for example, lied]. If YOU'd like to live in that world, then it's good to YOU and YOUR personal morality. If not, then it's your idea of "evil". It's all subjective
That implies that there is a purpose for the existance of the human race.
Namely, to survive. Murder is against that principle because if everyone did it, there'd be nobody left
It's really quite simple you create your OWN idea of personal morality based on YOUR idea of whether you'd like a world where EVERYONE did the thing in question [the Rule]. Then society decides to allow or outlaw that act by considering how many people think it's "good" [democracy] but also letting sleeping dogs lie if it's not hurting anyone [tolerance].
With some strange exceptions [polygamy being outlawed is the example I always like to use] that's the society we have today in the West.
Newfangle deserves his own separate post
Quarantine and all that 
I mean that if the world was populated by six billion copies of you who all behaved like you. So both, really
What determines these principals, and makes them 'right'?
Depends on YOU
again, imagine a world where everyone did the thing in question [for example, lied]. If YOU'd like to live in that world, then it's good to YOU and YOUR personal morality. If not, then it's your idea of "evil". It's all subjective That implies that there is a purpose for the existance of the human race.
Namely, to survive. Murder is against that principle because if everyone did it, there'd be nobody left
It's really quite simple
you create your OWN idea of personal morality based on YOUR idea of whether you'd like a world where EVERYONE did the thing in question [the Rule]. Then society decides to allow or outlaw that act by considering how many people think it's "good" [democracy] but also letting sleeping dogs lie if it's not hurting anyone [tolerance].With some strange exceptions [polygamy being outlawed is the example I always like to use] that's the society we have today in the West.
Newfangle deserves his own separate post
Quarantine and all that
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Good and evil are absolutes based on the fundemntal truth that man, as an individual, lives as a result of his mind.
We all agree on SOME things, but on others we can disagree quite a lot. If Good and Evil are absolutes, than on any trivial issue you care to pick, five in every six humans are dead wrong.
Moral relativism is exceedingly dangerous, and the root of evil. For those that believe that morality is completely subjective, their opinions are essentially nullified. Since there are no absolutes, they say, why the hell should I not kill them? Why should we all not kill each other? It just doesn't make sense.
Moral relativism IS dangerous when NOT restrained by the Rule of Universality. There IS a reason not to kill - because you wouldn't like to live in a world where everyone would kill. Of course, you MIGHT like to live in such a world, but then don't expect society not to punish you for killing! Because your morality is against the majority AND it's hurting other people, so it should be punished [if the second condition didn't apply, of course, society would leave you alone].
I'll ask you one simple question. Which is better, monogamy or polygamy? Because there are societies that have either, or sometimes even both. Does your morality system not cover the issue? Because if good and evil are absolutes, then one must be right and the other wrong, correct?
The only result of moral absolutism imho is INTOLERANCE over absolutely TRIVIAL issues.
We all agree on SOME things, but on others we can disagree quite a lot. If Good and Evil are absolutes, than on any trivial issue you care to pick, five in every six humans are dead wrong.
Moral relativism is exceedingly dangerous, and the root of evil. For those that believe that morality is completely subjective, their opinions are essentially nullified. Since there are no absolutes, they say, why the hell should I not kill them? Why should we all not kill each other? It just doesn't make sense.
Moral relativism IS dangerous when NOT restrained by the Rule of Universality. There IS a reason not to kill - because you wouldn't like to live in a world where everyone would kill. Of course, you MIGHT like to live in such a world, but then don't expect society not to punish you for killing! Because your morality is against the majority AND it's hurting other people, so it should be punished [if the second condition didn't apply, of course, society would leave you alone].
I'll ask you one simple question. Which is better, monogamy or polygamy? Because there are societies that have either, or sometimes even both. Does your morality system not cover the issue? Because if good and evil are absolutes, then one must be right and the other wrong, correct?
The only result of moral absolutism imho is INTOLERANCE over absolutely TRIVIAL issues.
Margim
Footy's back.
"It's really quite simple you create your OWN idea of personal morality based on YOUR idea of whether you'd like a world where EVERYONE did the thing in question [the Rule]. Then society decides to allow or outlaw that act by considering how many people think it's "good" [democracy] but also letting sleeping dogs lie if it's not hurting anyone [tolerance]."
So evil is ultimately that thing that most people don't like... Does this mean that evil is a necessary compnent of existance?
So evil is ultimately that thing that most people don't like... Does this mean that evil is a necessary compnent of existance?
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Sure, evil's a choice, just like good.
It's a choice that sometimes people don't mind choosing THEMSELVES. Because when you look at it selfishly, some "evil" things are quite good for YOU [for example, stealing and getting away with it].
But when you look it in the hypothetical scenario of a world where EVERYONE does it, you can easily judge whether it is right or not.
It's a choice that sometimes people don't mind choosing THEMSELVES. Because when you look at it selfishly, some "evil" things are quite good for YOU [for example, stealing and getting away with it].
But when you look it in the hypothetical scenario of a world where EVERYONE does it, you can easily judge whether it is right or not.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Homosexuality is immoral and disgusting.
-Ayn Rand, at her Ford Hall appearance, 1971
I wonder how Newfie gets around that one.
-Ayn Rand, at her Ford Hall appearance, 1971
I wonder how Newfie gets around that one.
floppa21
Crusty Manhole
Bad PP, bad!I thought that was a Bible verse...
newfangle
hates you.
They are both correct under the assumption that all people involved wantto be involved. I don't understand the contradiction you are trying to point out.
newfangle
hates you.
I don't get around that one. It was one of the first things I came across when researching objectivism, and is one of the things Miss Rand is completely incorrect about.
I'd be happy to explain other areas where she was lacking in thought, all you have to do is ask.
Fortunately, it was a personal choice of hers. The fact that she says it DOES NOT MAKE IT CORRECT. Which fits in nicely with this thread. I.E. her conscious is indepedant of OUR reality, just like mine, just like yours.
Harming or killing a man is not a subjective thing, PP. Its wrong.
PS: Gosh darnit your Rand trolls get annoying. I don't believe I've ever claimed my support for her, but rather for many of her fundamental ideas. Add to that the fact that all modern objectivists reject antihomosexuality. Lamewad
floppa21
Crusty Manhole
Same with ma and Anton, Newf. 
newfangle
hates you.
Sorry Floppa, I have no idea who those people are, or what that is supposed to mean.
Mescalhead
Vincebus Eruptum
Many people thought Hitler was good even in light of the extermination.
I'm sure there were countless Hindus who saw Mother Theresa as a missionary of the false Christian doctrine, they would say she was evil.
The followers of Ghengis Khan believed that he was a righteous man for destroying the elevated stature of some of the more fortunate civilized people. They believed that the Mongols should have their fair share and also rape their women.
Tomas De Torquemada may have believed he was doing the work of God, or knew damn well he was trying to destroy non-Catholacism in Spain. Most likely both ideas eventually coalesced.
Vlad Dracul believed that by impailing people and executing nobles, that he could purge idleness and corruption from his lands in order to promote lawfulness and dedicate all focus to fighting the Turks. Many of his subjects believed he was literally a God-send.
Many Communists think Capitalism is a great tool to exploit the under class and believe it nothing more than some sort of modern system to promote a hereditary Oligarchy.
The dogma of the modern Trinity worship paint the Arian Christians as blasphemers.
Michael Jackson thinks that he is not weird.
Everything is relative.
I'm sure there were countless Hindus who saw Mother Theresa as a missionary of the false Christian doctrine, they would say she was evil.
The followers of Ghengis Khan believed that he was a righteous man for destroying the elevated stature of some of the more fortunate civilized people. They believed that the Mongols should have their fair share and also rape their women.
Tomas De Torquemada may have believed he was doing the work of God, or knew damn well he was trying to destroy non-Catholacism in Spain. Most likely both ideas eventually coalesced.
Vlad Dracul believed that by impailing people and executing nobles, that he could purge idleness and corruption from his lands in order to promote lawfulness and dedicate all focus to fighting the Turks. Many of his subjects believed he was literally a God-send.
Many Communists think Capitalism is a great tool to exploit the under class and believe it nothing more than some sort of modern system to promote a hereditary Oligarchy.
The dogma of the modern Trinity worship paint the Arian Christians as blasphemers.
Michael Jackson thinks that he is not weird.
Everything is relative.
Pontiuth Pilate
Republican Jesus!
Harming or killing a man is not a subjective thing, PP. Its wrong.
Of course it's wrong! I said it quite often.
We don't disagree about the end product, just the method. You seem to think there's a right/wrong independent of human consciousness. I think that's bollocks
PS: methinks Floppa means Anton Lavey, the first Satanist.
Of course it's wrong! I said it quite often.
We don't disagree about the end product, just the method. You seem to think there's a right/wrong independent of human consciousness. I think that's bollocks
PS: methinks Floppa means Anton Lavey, the first Satanist.
newfangle
hates you.
Msecalhead, you believe that because a mass of people believe something is right, that makes it right?
That's subjectivism in a nutshell. Sorry to break it to you, but wrong is wrong and right is right INDEPEDANT from man's consciousness. No matter how hard you look at a penis, it won't turn into a hippo. Comprehendes?
That's subjectivism in a nutshell. Sorry to break it to you, but wrong is wrong and right is right INDEPEDANT from man's consciousness. No matter how hard you look at a penis, it won't turn into a hippo. Comprehendes?
Similar threads
