The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[ZAKtheGeek]

What is individual growth? Is that literal? What about societal growth? Does that mean population increase?

What is a harm to society? Is species harm a reduction in population?

[Tendronai]

It also fails to answer whether an evil act occurs when the individual is promoted over the society, or vice versa.

[Elminster_Amaur]

You guys are free to make additions, revisions or just plain re-writes of my definitions. Those were just what I thought the broadest possible definitions of good and evil could be, from a stance where good and evil are not defined by a god.

[Tendronai]

To be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure how you can create a definition of Good or Evil without having some figure which can represent one of the extremes. For the sake of the argument, I'd be willing to accept the possibility of a God who represents ultimate Good.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It's not so much that as it is the connotations of "good" and "evil." By that, I mean it's considered that people should act "good" and should not act "evil." Objectively, there's no reason to ever do anything, though.

[Tendronai]

I personally think that there's more reason to act evil than good, since evil is generally for ones own benefit. To be good usually requires some sacrifice (giving your things to charity instead of selling them) whereas being evil benefits just you (lying about a job to get paid, then have someone else do the work).

[Elminster_Amaur]

I disagree. When it comes to giving things away, generally, people who give more recieve more in return. This doesn't even have anything to do with forces outside humanity itself. You see, people's attitudes toward you tend to reflect your attitude toward them. Most of the wealthiest people in the world understand this principle and tend to give away massive amounts of money, only to have money come back to them ten-twenty times. That's major incentive to do good deeds. I personally consider it an evil act to not even attempt to bring yourself into wealth, because you can't give away something you don't have.

[Azisien]

Evil might seem like a good idea on a very small scale, but in making Tendronai's claims you essentially ignore all the possible bad consequences of doing evil deeds, that would be detrimental to you. Plus what Elmin said.

As for defining good and evil, well to me it's identical to defining moral and immoral. And how do you define those? Obviously you need a reference, pretty much anything does. I've personally substituted something like "Cuz God said so" with "Because it benefits me and everyone else to act in such and such a way/because it creates order/what have you."

Objectively, yes we can be nihilists. I don't think it's an avenue that needs entertainment.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Originally Posted by Elminster_Amaur

Most of the wealthiest people in the world understand this principle and tend to give away massive amounts of money, only to have money come back to them ten-twenty times. That's major incentive to do good deeds.

Could you elaborate on this? I can interpret this two ways, and neither make sense. One way is the philanthropist interpretation, that extremely rich people give a shitload to charities. This, however, doesn't have a thing to do with the money flowing back towards them. Indeed, the fact that they are so ridiculously rich is quite a big piece of why many give so much, I imagine... they just don't have much else to do with their riches.

The other interpretation is the capitalist interpretation, where the rich dude invests in something and a lot of money comes back. This is also not even close to being relevant, as this person enters into an agreement where they are able to gain money if the venture succeeds. No such thing happens with a "random act of kindness;" you might get kindness back, but regardless of the efficacy of your gesture, there are no promises. So no, every person that tries to strike it rich on the stock market is not a saintly humanitarian.

--

As for defining morals, like I said, the first thing to do to that end is to establish some sort of goal. The best kind of goal, I think, is objective, simple and obvious. It should be something extremely difficult for anyone to disagree with, so the morals derived from it can have some claim to absoluteness.

[Tommathy]

The standard definitition of evil is selfishness, wanting and needing for yourself in exclusion for others. Thus did Lucifer fall (wanting the light and power for himself), and thus the conjecture that all human beings born into sin (what could be more unmindful and selfish than a baby?).

Good is doing works for the benefit and exaltation of others, and it is something into which one must grow, something which one must learn.