The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Azisien]

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

Another problem we face is perspective, and also overdemanding moral schemes. A moral code is useless if a layperson can't apply it in practical situations. This is a common objection to many types of consequentialism; an act can seem good, but have you considered all the angles? If it was good, but caused something evil down the line, does it remain good? Vice versa? Exactly how far ahead of time can we expect someone to plan when it comes to moral concerns?

I mean, I'm not sure of it, but it would seem that the very life I lead is the cause of much suffering for other impoverished people in third world countries. I don't think I'm doing anything particularly evil, I'm just living in my society, and I was lucky to be born here. I happen to live in a rich, greedy, unaltruistic country. On reflection, maybe I am doing some evil in my non-action.

[42PETUNIAS]

It also depends on how dying is placed on your scale, as well as the value of a human life. For example, killing a very evil person to save a very good person would be treated as neither good nor evil by your scale, while pretty much everyone else would see it as heroic.

Also, people technically aren't really unhappy when they die. Does that mean killing people for my own personal amusement is advocated as good by your system?

[Tendronai]

Furthermore, adding to what everyone else said, it is nearly impossible to define good and evil unless one has some sort of point that can be judged as either wholly good or wholly evil. I'm willing to accept the concept of a God who could be entirely good, but even then I believe that there are too many gradation's of any event to ever judge it as good or evil.

[Zuzak]

What if you inserted other things for "happy" in my definition? Ex: Equality, truth, knowlage, freedom, order, and intellegence (and their oppisites replacing unhappy). Granted, to include every value in it would make it very long, and wouldn't define good universally (by which I mean, for everyone).

By the way, I just sort of jumped in here without reading the majority of the tread. Could someone explain why we need to define good/evil?

Also, I believe in God, mainly because I think it's too risky not to. The risk of a possible eternal paradise being replaced with eternal suffering is great enough for me to follow my religion. I'm Catholic, by the way.

I do, however, disagree on a few points. Most importantly, I was baptized before I could speak for myself. I don't see how that can help my soul. If someone is another religion because of their parents and their upbringing, I really don't see why they should be punished eternally.

Anyway, I don't understand how the universe (and life) could have been created without God. As for God's creation, I assume that he exists on a seperate, for lack of a better word, dimention.

[Elminster_Amaur]

Yeah, I've been gone for a week. Don't shoot me. I'll just jump right back in.

I mean, I'm not sure of it, but it would seem that the very life I lead is the cause of much suffering for other impoverished people in third world countries. I don't think I'm doing anything particularly evil, I'm just living in my society, and I was lucky to be born here. I happen to live in a rich, greedy, unaltruistic country. On reflection, maybe I am doing some evil in my non-action.

Circumstances cannot be good or evil in themselves. Without human consciousness to give an event meaning, an event merely happens. Therefore, if you have caused someone harm merely by being born in a rich country, it is not evil to have survived your mother's pregnancy, since we have no proof that human sapience exists in fetuses(feti?).

But the point I really wanted to bring up was your assumption that what you (and most) people call "altruism" is beneficial to those you are "helping". Sure, giving someone who is starving to death food to survive until they can hunt/harvest/buy their own food is helping them, but a lot of the "altruistic" help that nations like the US give to third-world nations merely brings the US further into debt and it brings those nations further from self-reliance. Some countries have actually gotten to the point that, without hand-outs, their country would either starve or fall into anarchy. That's why most rich people don't like democrats(or the current administration, for that matter). By giving handouts regularly, we make people less strong.

There was actually a character who shared my views in a video game I played last year, but this character took it to the extreme, maybe to the point where any action at all could be considered evil. That character? The old hag from KOTOR2. See, the way she explained the Sith philosophy, they [i]were[i] far better people than the Jedi, until they became power-hungry. See (pay attention to this, because the difference between the view the Sith take, and that of the common people on the actions of Jedi is the difference between the people who have everything they want in life, and those who stay in a rut for years on end), when a person is "trapped" in a "situation", there are three basic ways out. The first is the most common: the person will react to, and run from, the situation, which will not go away, and will continue to have the problem until they die. The second way creates dependancy upon people like the Jedi: ask someone stronger for help. The third way, is the way the Sith and the Jedi would act if faced with insurmountable odds: Grow stronger by overcoming this problem, because many like it will make their way to you. The more you consentrate on the avoiding the problem, as opposed to solving it, the more you attract similar problems to you.

Well, I suppose that's enough "Jedi vs. Sith/Poor vs. Rich" ethics lecture for my first day back from da Bahamas that didn't involve space-ships and a bomb threat.

[Tendronai]

Also, I believe in God, mainly because I think it's too risky not to.

I don't think that's really a justified reason for believing in God. That's more playing along for the sake of dodging a potential problem, rather than actual belief.

Coincidentally, I also share many of Kreia's beliefs. I'm not as extreme as she is, but I still think she has many good points. She's also a really good demonstration of the fact that any action can be construed as evil.

[Zuzak]

You have a point. But really that's more of a reason not to change my faith more than to come to it. Maybe I should have said "I still believe in God..."

[Azisien]

Circumstances cannot be good or evil in themselves. Without human consciousness to give an event meaning, an event merely happens. Therefore, if you have caused someone harm merely by being born in a rich country, it is not evil to have survived your mother's pregnancy, since we have no proof that human sapience exists in fetuses(feti?).

It's not so much this, but that now I'm certainly rational and developed, and while I'm not going out of my way to try and harm others, however proximal or distant they might be, I'm also not trying to help others when I know there are people I could help. I suppose under many moral frameworks, I'm not breaking any codes...Except for perhaps virtue ethics, which would classify me as rather mediocre. :p

But the point I really wanted to bring up was your assumption that what you (and most) people call "altruism" is beneficial to those you are "helping". Sure, giving someone who is starving to death food to survive until they can hunt/harvest/buy their own food is helping them, but a lot of the "altruistic" help that nations like the US give to third-world nations merely brings the US further into debt and it brings those nations further from self-reliance. Some countries have actually gotten to the point that, without hand-outs, their country would either starve or fall into anarchy. That's why most rich people don't like democrats(or the current administration, for that matter). By giving handouts regularly, we make people less strong.

Well I don't think I said we should just throw money at our problems, especially worldwide poverty issues. And hopefully you didn't take it that way. No, direct cash has some uses (urgent times, these people need some food now, etc etc), but the longer term the development, the better. Instead of giving them large stockpiles of food, it would be better to educate their farmers in useful agricultural techniques, give them farming equipment, blah blah blah, so they become at least partially self-reliant. Anyway, more of a side point.