good is. bad is. that's all there is too it... they're just what they are.
or so my philosophy teachers have told me.
or so my philosophy teachers have told me.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
The act of stealing in and of itself is bad. And the burning down of the criminals house is bad (it still costs your tax money to get the fire department there and they might be needed elsewhere too, plus a house burning down pollutes a lot). But your house not being burnt down is good.
ZV
Depends on culture and many many other factors. It's different for everyone. No absolute truths about this. However, most ppl will probably agree killing is bad? Maybe not.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Link to the rest of the text I'm quoting.
"I believe the educated public is rightly worried. The problem is that a particular cluster of ideas, and a concomitant sensibility, have gained currency in some academic circles. If the ideas are not identified, understood and refuted, they can seep like slow, cumulative poisons into the larger society, with large and lasting consequences in our politics, our governance and our tradition of civility.
The ideas advance under the banner of "postmodernism." That is a faith with many factions, but it claims to have had one founding prophet. His name was Nietzsche. He proclaimed the words that postmodernists have made their core tenet. His words were: "There are not facts, but only interpretations."
Now, Nietzsche is here conscripted as a prophet without his permission. In fact, regarding Nietzsche the postmodernists are guilty of philosopher-abuse. They are saying something silly: Nietzsche was no. He was not asserting, as postmodernists do, a kind of epistemological despair arising from a radical indeterminacy about reality. Rather, he was making a sober epistemological point. It was that facts are never only facts, naked and pristine and self-evident and immediately apprehended by all minds in the same way in all circumstances and contexts. Rather, he said knowledge is conditioned in complex ways by the contexts in which what we call facts are encountered, and by mental processes, not all of them conscious mental moves, that can be called interpretations.
The postmodernists' bowdlerizing of Nietzsche distills to a simple, and simple-minded, assertion. It is that because the acquisition of knowledge is not a simple process of infallible immediacy, there can be no knowledge in any meaningful sense. Therefore, we are utterly emancipated from rules of reasoning and may substitute willfulness for rationality. All interpretations are let loose to play in a theater of unrestrained semantic egalitarianism.
Not that postmodernism has an almost comically unpromising beginning in its understanding of Nietzsche. Postmodernism is erected on the rickety scaffolding of what is less a paradox than an absurdity. It is the assertion that it is a fact that there are no facts. Unfortunately, the fact that something is absurd does not mean it is inconsequential. Indeed, much of modern history is a sad story of absurdities that managed to become cloaked with power.
...
Concerning these ideas, let us not mince words. The ideas are profoundly dangerous. They subvert our civilization by denying that truth is found by conscientious attempts accurately to portray a reality that exists independently of our perception or attitudes or other attributes such as race, ethnicity, sex or class. Once that foundation of realism is denied, the foundation of society based on persuasion crumbles. It crumbles because all arguments necessarily become ad hominem; they become arguments about the characteristics of the person presenting a thought, not about the thought."
Taken from a speech given by George Will.
ZV
Originally posted by: Skoorb
That would be a good analogy if gravity was the same thing as morality, which it isn'tAsking what is up and down is a bad question, since gravity which clearly changes, dictates the answer.
Well, that isn't true. Either God does exist or doesn't. Subjective is one's belief of the fact. In regards to the rest of your post if you truly believe in God it's probably a good idea to defer to him on what's right and wrong.
Gravity does dictate the answer. And the answer is perception. What's truely up and down is perception.
Morality does dictate the answer. And the answer is perception. What's truely wrong and right is perception.
If you believe that the sky is up and I don't, does that make you right because when you drop a coin it hit's the dirt instead of the sky? Yes, and no. In your mind, and the mind of countless others, you are right. But is that really the truth?
Same thing with morality. To say something is good or bad, you must first know the truth of what is good and bad. And in all honesty, we don't. We all have our own ideas and they are right to some and wrong to others. It's good to have something to believe in because it gives you answers to unanswerable questions.
Foolishness is bad, Wisdom is good.
The ever brightening path away from foolishness makes the dark look all the darker as you get closer to the light.
We are trapped by the shackles of the darkness that keeps us from going on the ever-brightening path, by unification with Christ we are purchased by God at a price and become servants of truth.
The fear of the judgment of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, the love of the mercy of the Lord is the beginning of walking the path.
Nothing, taken by itself, it absolutely bad or absolutely good. It's all relative, and defined by context.
The problem with this discussion is the mixing up of absolutes with definitions and preferences.
I.E.:
Concerning the "preferences" confusion - for example, the situation given in this thread, when the burgular who stole your TV's house burns down is "good" - that's the wrong "good".
The "good" we're talking about is a "morally right". On the other hand, "good" in that example is "pleasing", or "acceptable".
Don't get things confused - what we're talking about is moral relativism/absolutism, not semantics, or "what comes around goes around".
Further notes:
Your space analogy is flawed, because up and down is dictated by gravity, whereas in space, there is no gravity (well, let's ignore the technicalities behind that statement). Therefore, absolutes don't exist. The nonexistance of absolutes does not translate into relativism.
Like SWScorch said, our perception of "good" and "bad" depends on if it negatively affects us, or others.
My quoting of his post was just to nef
Back to the topic - If, say, exhaling in a downwards direction was bad, well, that would be a senseless code of ethics, wouldn't it? The morality I live by, as provided by the Bible, and as followed by the greater portion of Western civilization and society, is made such that it prevents us from being hurt or put down (persuant to proper following thereof).
Theft is still wrong, regardless of chance ramifications of such an action. He eventually reaped what he sowed, but that nullify the ill effects of his initial transgression. This same argument can be used to discredit the following:
Okay, I think I'm done now.
:wine:
*edit* All this effort and I haven't answered the OP's question.
.
~fin~
I.E.:
The "up/down" issue you put forth here is a matter of definitions. You have to work by one set of definitions for this discussion to make any sort of sense. If we change the meanings for "good" and "bad", nothing else changes, so this whole deal is moot.
Concerning the "preferences" confusion - for example, the situation given in this thread, when the burgular who stole your TV's house burns down is "good" - that's the wrong "good".
The "good" we're talking about is a "morally right". On the other hand, "good" in that example is "pleasing", or "acceptable".
Don't get things confused - what we're talking about is moral relativism/absolutism, not semantics, or "what comes around goes around".
Further notes:
What about hurting yourself?
See my post.
Yes, you are hungry. At least, you are experiencing a feeling of hunger. From where it stems from is no matter, you are still feeling hunger, you are still feeling the psychological effect.
Your space analogy is flawed, because up and down is dictated by gravity, whereas in space, there is no gravity (well, let's ignore the technicalities behind that statement). Therefore, absolutes don't exist. The nonexistance of absolutes does not translate into relativism.
*hands in pockets, whistling*
Theft is bad. Breaking property is bad. Let's agree on that.
Like SWScorch said, our perception of "good" and "bad" depends on if it negatively affects us, or others.
My quoting of his post was just to nef
Back to the topic - If, say, exhaling in a downwards direction was bad, well, that would be a senseless code of ethics, wouldn't it? The morality I live by, as provided by the Bible, and as followed by the greater portion of Western civilization and society, is made such that it prevents us from being hurt or put down (persuant to proper following thereof).
Originally posted by: XZeroIIOriginally posted by: conjur
If someone willfully inflicts injury (or death) upon another person (and it's not self-defense) or takes something that belongs to another person without permission, then, yeah, that's bad.
mmmmkay?
But what if there were some sort of wiring flaw in your TV and in one week, it's starts on fire and burns down the criminal's house. It would have happened to you, but it happened to the criminal instead. Was him stealing your stuff good or bad?
Theft is still wrong, regardless of chance ramifications of such an action. He eventually reaped what he sowed, but that nullify the ill effects of his initial transgression. This same argument can be used to discredit the following:
The fact that you were given a blessing after the act doesn't make the act good. It may make you feel good, but theft is still bad regardless. It led to a good thing, but the theft in and of itself was still a moral wrong.
Okay, I think I'm done now.
:wine:
*edit* All this effort and I haven't answered the OP's question.
I'm going to discount this, only because time travel is outside the scope of this discussion. However, I'm going to say that if you lived during Hitler's time, and you murdered him before he did anything, then that murder is still wrong. Whereas if you killed Hitler after his atrocities, it would be an act of justice (vigilante or not), unless you killed him simply out of spite. What I'm getting at, is that the motivations matter also. If you killed him to save the lives of countless Jews, then it's justifiable. If you murdered him because he stiffed you $10, then it's wrong (although it has beneficial aftershocks).
I believe lying to protect the innocent/good is protected in the Bible (i.e. Rahab and the walls of Jericho). Not sure what it's defined as, but that would be put under "good"
You still did the right thing at the time. No way to know if he was evil or what. The "What if?" game can be played with everything. What if it turned out that the Jew you were harboring was Einstein? What if the German who was sent out to look for him was executed for not finding him, and said German would've been Hitler's next-in-command, and a tactical genius/fanatical Nazi? And so on...
I gauge them against my standard, which is the Bible. Like it or not, your standards are largely based off of Biblical teachings, also. I just happen to take it as Gospel
.No problemo!
~fin~
It would be bad. Time travel has too many risks involved, it would be very irresponsible.
Lying to our government isn't bad.
That would be bad.
Yes. Porn is good. Copy protection is bad. The internet is good. Rap is bad.
not necessarily. If they knew you did it because you anted to, then they might be a-ok with it
I inflict pain upon myself daily. whether it be through running, or ravine jumping, or jumping into a blackberry bush, I enjoy pain. I'm a bit of a masochist, but then again you have to be in order to run cross country.
that doesn't hurt anyone emotionally.LETTING GO OF COMPARISONS
Chapter 2 of the Tao De Ching
We cannot know the Tao itself,
nor see its qualities direct,
but only see by differentiation,
that which it manifests.
Thus, that which is seen as beautiful
is beautiful compared with that
which is seen as lacking beauty;
an action considered skilled
is so considered in comparison
with another, which seems unskilled.
That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed.
In comparison, the sage,
in harmony with the Tao,
needs no comparisons,
and when he makes them, knows
that comparisons are judgements,
and just as relative to he who makes them,
and to the situation,
as they are to that on which
the judgement has been made.
Through his experience,
the sage becomes aware that all things change,
and that he who seems to lead,
might also, in another situation, follow.
So he does nothing; he neither leads nor follows.
That which he does is neither big nor small;
without intent, it is neither difficult,
nor done with ease.
His task completed, he then lets go of it;
seeking no credit, he cannot be discredited.
Thus, his teaching lasts for ever,
and he is held in high esteem.
</tao>
Good and bad are simply products of our imagination based on perception. Hitler thought that he was doing good by eliminating all of the jews, but we all know how good he was.
Everything is.
Chapter 2 of the Tao De Ching
We cannot know the Tao itself,
nor see its qualities direct,
but only see by differentiation,
that which it manifests.
Thus, that which is seen as beautiful
is beautiful compared with that
which is seen as lacking beauty;
an action considered skilled
is so considered in comparison
with another, which seems unskilled.
That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed.
In comparison, the sage,
in harmony with the Tao,
needs no comparisons,
and when he makes them, knows
that comparisons are judgements,
and just as relative to he who makes them,
and to the situation,
as they are to that on which
the judgement has been made.
Through his experience,
the sage becomes aware that all things change,
and that he who seems to lead,
might also, in another situation, follow.
So he does nothing; he neither leads nor follows.
That which he does is neither big nor small;
without intent, it is neither difficult,
nor done with ease.
His task completed, he then lets go of it;
seeking no credit, he cannot be discredited.
Thus, his teaching lasts for ever,
and he is held in high esteem.
</tao>
Good and bad are simply products of our imagination based on perception. Hitler thought that he was doing good by eliminating all of the jews, but we all know how good he was.
Everything is.
Can you honestly say what is good or bad? It makes you think about just common everyday things that you do. You think you are doing good, but are you really? When you think someone is doing something bad, are they really?
I gauge them against my standard, which is the Bible. Like it or not, your standards are largely based off of Biblical teachings, also. I just happen to take it as Gospel
Can you think of instances where theft might not be bad? If a dictator kept all the country's resources to himself, and the people were starving, wouldn't a Robin Hood type theft, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, couldn't that be perceived as good?
Also, your point about the Bible.. I agree the Bible sets a lot of standards that are good... but your statement kinda implies the Bible was the first to make them. Could it not be that the Bible was written based on a notion of good or bad that our earliest ancestors had?
PlatinumGold has probably made the most intelligent post in this thread so far. How do you judge good or bad? Based on utilitarianism? Hedonism? Something else?
Suppose we judged good or bad based on an individual's perspective. If I don't like you, and it would make my life so much better if you were dead, in my own perspective, maybe it would be a good thing to eliminate you. That obviously doesn't seem right.. So looking at it from a more global point of view, maybe the pleasure I get from killing you cannot offset the pain you feel from dying.. The net gain is more hurt than pleasure, so murder is wrong. But lets say a thousand people hate you, and each would get a little bit of pleasure from seeing to gone. Maybe the sum of a thousand people's pleasure might outweight your pain... but again, that doesnt seem quite right either. Maybe murder has such a large pain value that no matter how many people enjoy watching you die, the net gain is still bad. Then you get into a question of, ok.. since I can't achieve a net good from killing you, maybe we'll all watch you get tortured then. Or maybe just humiliated....
It can get quite complicated with all the different scenarios that can be dreamed of. Can good and bad be formulized? It seems like it should be, given a set of circumstances, with everything being the same, we should be able to say, 'In this situation, this is the right action, and this is the wrong action.'
Personally, I think Scorch's original statement is far too broad for practical use.
However, I'd like to point out that while killing is displeasurable, it is many times justified (i.e. war against oppressive tyrant, etc.), or allowable. On the other hand, murder is the unlawful killing of another. I deliberately did not use these two words interchangeably in my long-o post, but I did use them frequently, because of the differences.
Further extrapolation, therefore, suggests that so long as the harm is caused with the intent of justice, or with the condoning of law (not necessarily that nation's, mind you), then it is perfectly allowable.
Originally posted by: SWScorch
not necessarily. If they knew you did it because you anted to, then they might be a-ok with it
I inflict pain upon myself daily. whether it be through running, or ravine jumping, or jumping into a blackberry bush, I enjoy pain. I'm a bit of a masochist, but then again you have to be in order to run cross country.
I was talking about self-mutilation and suicide and the like. Not pain stemming from lactic acid.
I'm basing my arguments off of the Bible, but my knowledge only extends so far. I make an effort to not go beyond what I know, though, so I'm not making anything up. Extrapolating and suggesting logical steps, but that's about the extent of my extensions.
Originally posted by: marquee
Can you honestly say what is good or bad? It makes you think about just common everyday things that you do. You think you are doing good, but are you really? When you think someone is doing something bad, are they really?
I gauge them against my standard, which is the Bible. Like it or not, your standards are largely based off of Biblical teachings, also. I just happen to take it as Gospel
Can you think of instances where theft might not be bad? If a dictator kept all the country's resources to himself, and the people were starving, wouldn't a Robin Hood type theft, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, couldn't that be perceived as good?
It's still thieving, even if the intent is good and noble, and the benefits far outweigh the bad. However, everything changes in a "war", such as it may be, so it largely depends on the situation. The same set of morals still applies, but that set of morals has a section set apart for this specific situation (sort of like that guide you mention later in your post)
Also, your point about the Bible.. I agree the Bible sets a lot of standards that are good... but your statement kinda implies the Bible was the first to make them. Could it not be that the Bible was written based on a notion of good or bad that our earliest ancestors had?
Yes, but the Bible is the single greatest influence out there. Much of what the Bible says is simply universal understanding (well, most, concerning morality and the like), so it's definitely not the first, but it was the basis for Western morality as we know it, so that's why I said what I did.
PlatinumGold has probably made the most intelligent post in this thread so far. How do you judge good or bad? Based on utilitarianism? Hedonism? Something else?
Well, my main point thus far is that I hold myself to the standards put forth in the Bible, which are pretty all-encompassing.
Suppose we judged good or bad based on an individual's perspective. If I don't like you, and it would make my life so much better if you were dead, in my own perspective, maybe it would be a good thing to eliminate you. That obviously doesn't seem right.. So looking at it from a more global point of view, maybe the pleasure I get from killing you cannot offset the pain you feel from dying.. The net gain is more hurt than pleasure, so murder is wrong. But lets say a thousand people hate you, and each would get a little bit of pleasure from seeing to gone. Maybe the sum of a thousand people's pleasure might outweight your pain... but again, that doesnt seem quite right either. Maybe murder has such a large pain value that no matter how many people enjoy watching you die, the net gain is still bad. Then you get into a question of, ok.. since I can't achieve a net good from killing you, maybe we'll all watch you get tortured then. Or maybe just humiliated....
It can get quite complicated with all the different scenarios that can be dreamed of. Can good and bad be formulized? It seems like it should be, given a set of circumstances, with everything being the same, we should be able to say, 'In this situation, this is the right action, and this is the wrong action.'
Now you're getting confusing (the verbosity and all) but the long and short of it is that it's just another musing on application of relativism with a dab of situational morals (I think). I have to go do other, more better things now (
The moral relativism you promote is one of the main reasons for the moral decline of the western world. Since there is a Creator who decides these things, Moral absolutism is the only proper answer to this question. The perfect rationality of Christianity answers the question of good and evil. Consult the Holy Bible for additional enlightenment.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter