The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion - Page 72

Tendronai · 03-24-2007, 11:00 AM

Just on the whole, I don't believe that there could be any absolute definition of good and evil. Even if you accept selflessness as inherently good, if you give up your gun so someone else could kill someone, I don't think that your generosity makes that a good act.

ZAKtheGeek · 03-24-2007, 08:35 PM

To further the example, what if all your actions are to the benefit and exaltation of somebody who acts mainly in an evil way? Are your actions still good? Even if so, they're probably leading to evil results, creating a paradoxical situation where, even if we strive to spread good and not evil, actually doing good and abstaining from evil might not be the best ways to do so. In other words, even if you accept this system, you still wouldn't be bound to act by it.

Tendronai · 03-26-2007, 12:19 PM

So we either have the problem now that the definitions which we have been giving each other for good and evil are incorrect or otherwise inaccurate, or we can agree that there cannot really be a concrete definition of morality. I'm in favour of the second one, but if anyone wants to try again I invite them to do so.

Zuzak · 03-27-2007, 03:44 AM

This may be going backwards a bit, but I'd like to elighten everyone on my personal way off deciding if something is always moraly good: The Bomb in the Orphanage Test. Take an "absolute" moral truth, and decide if you would sacrifice an orphanage for it.

Ex: Denying your faith is a sin. There's some crazy guy with a bomb in an orphanage. He says "I hate [insert your religion here]! If I see another [person of your religion], I'm going to blow us all up! Are you a [insert your religion here]?"

If the proposed moral truth passes, replace the orphanage with, say, the U.S.

In my opinion, this clearly proves that there can be no absolute moral truths.

Azisien · 03-27-2007, 07:54 AM

Your test sounds oddly like a Kantian universal maxim test. It's good in many practical applications, but like any normative theory it still tends to fall apart at the extremes.

Which I guess is a good thing, otherwise us philosophers wouldn't have jobs.

Tendronai · 03-28-2007, 08:57 AM

Yup, thank God that my minor still has a purpose. There cannot be any example which encompasses all extremes. Nothing stops us from trying, though, because it passes the time.

Zuzak · 03-29-2007, 09:33 PM

The problem with attempting to define good and evil is that people have different views on what is right or wrong, and how right or wrong it is. But here's an attempt to define them from an Atheistic standpoint:

Good: Something that makes more people happy than unhappy, and/or makes the happy people more happy than the unhappy people are unhappy

Evil: Something that makes more people unhappy than happy, and/or makes the unhappy people more unhappy than the happy people are happy

42PETUNIAS · 03-29-2007, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zuzak

The problem with attempting to define good and evil is that people have different views on what is right or wrong, and how right or wrong it is. But here's an attempt to define them from an Atheistic standpoint:

Good: Something that makes more people happy than unhappy, and/or makes the happy people more happy than the unhappy people are unhappy

Evil: Something that makes more people unhappy than happy, and/or makes the unhappy people more unhappy than the happy people are happy

Well, thats a good general framework, but it doesn't always work, at least by many arguements. For example, take white lies. They generally don't hurt anyone, and both sides win, but many people would argue that telling a white lie is wrong because you are deceiving people. The same goes for things like giving people false hope.

Zuzak · 03-29-2007, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

Well, thats a good general framework, but it doesn't always work, at least by many arguements. For example, take white lies. They generally don't hurt anyone, and both sides win, but many people would argue that telling a white lie is wrong because you are deceiving people. The same goes for things like giving people false hope.

The only arguement I have for white lies and false hope would be that eventually, if discovered, they would make the person unhappy. I guess this is pretty weak, but, like I said, people have different standereds for what is good and evil.

GOD OF IRONY · 03-29-2007, 10:32 PM

ok lets say one of my firends is a total villen fan (ie Sepiroth) she thinks that the villen should always win for thay are better than the hero. Another friend likes Heros more but thinks evil shuld atleast get a tie. so who is good and who is evil? answer: none there is no good there is no evil there is no right and wrong also there is no normal and purfect. ALL. IT.OF.IT.IS.POINT.OF VIEW. ie if hitler won ww2 than the jews would be "evil" but he didnt so there.

03-24-2007, 08:35 PM	#712
ZAKtheGeek Worth every yenny Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: not my mind that's for sure! Posts: 1,299	To further the example, what if all your actions are to the benefit and exaltation of somebody who acts mainly in an evil way? Are your actions still good? Even if so, they're probably leading to evil results, creating a paradoxical situation where, even if we strive to spread good and not evil, actually doing good and abstaining from evil might not be the best ways to do so. In other words, even if you accept this system, you still wouldn't be bound to act by it. __________________ Pyro Icon - It needs your love. I haven't looked at it in months.

03-27-2007, 03:44 AM	#714
Zuzak Outcast of society Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Right behind you. Posts: 56	This may be going backwards a bit, but I'd like to elighten everyone on my personal way off deciding if something is always moraly good: The Bomb in the Orphanage Test. Take an "absolute" moral truth, and decide if you would sacrifice an orphanage for it. Ex: Denying your faith is a sin. There's some crazy guy with a bomb in an orphanage. He says "I hate [insert your religion here]! If I see another [person of your religion], I'm going to blow us all up! Are you a [insert your religion here]?" If the proposed moral truth passes, replace the orphanage with, say, the U.S. In my opinion, this clearly proves that there can be no absolute moral truths. __________________ Heaven is where the police are Brittish, the chefs Italian, the mechanics German, the lovers French, and it is all organized by the Swiss. Hell is where the police are German, the chefs are Brittish, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss, and it is all organized by the Italians.

03-29-2007, 09:33 PM	#717
Zuzak Outcast of society Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Right behind you. Posts: 56	The problem with attempting to define good and evil is that people have different views on what is right or wrong, and how right or wrong it is. But here's an attempt to define them from an Atheistic standpoint: Good: Something that makes more people happy than unhappy, and/or makes the happy people more happy than the unhappy people are unhappy Evil: Something that makes more people unhappy than happy, and/or makes the unhappy people more unhappy than the happy people are happy __________________ Heaven is where the police are Brittish, the chefs Italian, the mechanics German, the lovers French, and it is all organized by the Swiss. Hell is where the police are German, the chefs are Brittish, the mechanics French, the lovers Swiss, and it is all organized by the Italians.

03-24-2007, 11:00 AM	#711
Tendronai I will crush your economy. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Magical mystical land of Canada. Posts: 1,364	Just on the whole, I don't believe that there could be any absolute definition of good and evil. Even if you accept selflessness as inherently good, if you give up your gun so someone else could kill someone, I don't think that your generosity makes that a good act.

03-26-2007, 12:19 PM	#713
Tendronai I will crush your economy. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Magical mystical land of Canada. Posts: 1,364	So we either have the problem now that the definitions which we have been giving each other for good and evil are incorrect or otherwise inaccurate, or we can agree that there cannot really be a concrete definition of morality. I'm in favour of the second one, but if anyone wants to try again I invite them to do so.

03-27-2007, 07:54 AM	#715
Azisien wat Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,177	Your test sounds oddly like a Kantian universal maxim test. It's good in many practical applications, but like any normative theory it still tends to fall apart at the extremes. Which I guess is a good thing, otherwise us philosophers wouldn't have jobs.

03-28-2007, 08:57 AM	#716
Tendronai I will crush your economy. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Magical mystical land of Canada. Posts: 1,364	Yup, thank God that my minor still has a purpose. There cannot be any example which encompasses all extremes. Nothing stops us from trying, though, because it passes the time.

03-29-2007, 10:32 PM	#720
GOD OF IRONY Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: somewhere in this head of mine Posts: 51	ok lets say one of my firends is a total villen fan (ie Sepiroth) she thinks that the villen should always win for thay are better than the hero. Another friend likes Heros more but thinks evil shuld atleast get a tie. so who is good and who is evil? answer: none there is no good there is no evil there is no right and wrong also there is no normal and purfect. ALL. IT.OF.IT.IS.POINT.OF VIEW. ie if hitler won ww2 than the jews would be "evil" but he didnt so there.