Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

How is this thread any worse than the 2x pages long threads that spawn from religious discussions?

[Tack]

I have to say, some of the most evil shit in the world is on the internet.


And possibly the most good. Buut, I'd rather go to a monastery to look for that.

[Josephus]

No, you look for beer in a monastery. Monks have the best beer.

[Il Palazzo]

Somebody explain it to me because over the years of self development free of outside influences, I've lost the ability to grasp the concept.
What is good, and what is evil?
Is good worth pursuing?
Is evil worth pursuing?
What are the differences, and similarities?
Why are things that are considered pleasant also considered evil?
And why are unpleasant things good?
What makes good good and evil evil?
Why I don't have the same morals as anyone else?

I have found the pursue and understanding of evil (You heard right) ultimately a rewarding good experience. When I know what other people consider evil, and well not do it when I feel like it, I find at the end of the day I'm a better person. Arrogance included in the mix, but ignore that for now.
I have thought some more, and came to conclusion that people that are told their whole lives what is good and evil and to pursue only good are well... pretty lost people. With the perfect example of teenagers drinking and smoking more and more.

If you disagree with me on the thought that good and evil actually don't exist and are man made, then I will not disagree with you. After all it's your perception. I have mine.

And don't bring the argument of "how would you like to be killed?". I'm fully aware of that and I stay by my ideologies. Some people might even come to conclusion this has something to do with Nietzche, and the like, and yes is kind of does.

Why won't you try reading some philosophers(other than just Nietzsche) and see what they came up with? I recommend Epicurus, as his views on morality were exactly the opposite that of what you assume to be the current status quo - that is, what's pleasant is good, what's painful is bad.
http://www.epicurus.info/etexts.html
You might want to try St.Augustine, as he's not overly preachy for a Christian philosopher.
http://www.ccel.org/a/augustine/
I also highly recommend Harvard's Michael Sandel's lecures on morality and justice.
http://academicearth.org/courses/justice-whats-the-right-thing-to-do
There's also a plethora of other lectures concerning a wide range of subjects - philosophy or not - on that site, which is the best thing since slice bread, if you ask me.


Of course, reading philosophers and listening to online lectures might be considered an intelectual masturbation, which is considered bad(evil?) by at least some people.

[Josephus]

No, he's not engaging in fruitless debate, he's improving his mind by taking into account many different viewpoints. Always good reading a book. (Or online walls of text, whatever.)

[Criptfeind]

Perhaps I used the term incorrectly, I meant to say do not lock yourself away and then make theories on reality and morality based on teenage angst. Go read from smart (or not so smart, how am I to know?) men learn but never think you know.

[smigenboger]

If someone didn't already say it, there's no such thing as good and evil. It's all a matter of perspective. If you want to say there is a definite good and evil, you'd have to ask whether intention or effect makes you good or evil. Being good and, say, donating food to a starving country would cause more economic pressure on their farmers, so you'd have to ask if the intention made you good, or if causing further economic turmoil makes you a little more evil while blindly thinking you've done good.

[fenrif]

If someone didn't already say it, there's no such thing as good and evil. It's all a matter of perspective. If you want to say there is a definite good and evil, you'd have to ask whether intention or effect makes you good or evil. Being good and, say, donating food to a starving country would cause more economic pressure on their farmers, so you'd have to ask if the intention made you good, or if causing further economic turmoil makes you a little more evil while blindly thinking you've done good.

Morality is a relative thing, but there is such a thing as good and evil. Some things are just inexcusable regardless of the intention. Or are you going to explain to me some situation where rape is morally ambiguous?

Your example of donating food to starving countrys is extremely shallow and not very well thought out. If a country is starving the farmers aren't worrying about the economy, and even if you donate an infinite amount of food the farmers can switch crops and grow something else. At any rate they aren't going to complain that they are slightly poorer (staving countries generally aren't very wealthy) because all their friends and family are able to live without fear of malnutrition.

[ChairmanPoo]

Morality is a relative thing, but there is such a thing as good and evil. Some things are just inexcusable regardless of the intention. Or are you going to explain to me some situation where rape is morally ambiguous?

Obviously. The rapist might well see rape as a just punishment for some real or imagined slight from the victim's part or his or her surroundings. Or as the rapist's just reward for something. Or even as a "favor" from the rapist to the rapee (because he or she was "asking for it", in the rapist's mind). It's as relative as the rest of situations.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Morality is a relative thing, but there is such a thing as good and evil. Some things are just inexcusable regardless of the intention. Or are you going to explain to me some situation where rape is morally ambiguous?

Rapists exist. They consider it an acceptable behavior. They are sick and twisted individuals in the opinion of the modern world, but they still reached that conclusion. If they can, so could have we. I can only hope that we never, ever will.

You need only look at the ideas of our far-flung ancestors to see a moral code that seems totaly and fully alien. But they were people, just like us. And a thousand years from now, we may get the exact same treatment. People like to think their ideas are strong, and set in stone, but they are wrong. The ideas of the day are fragile, and will fall away in no time at all. There is no such thing as fact within the realm of good and evil.

[ChairmanPoo]

They are sick and twisted individuals in the opinion of the modern world

And depends on which parts of the modern world, and which situations, do you consider. There are plenty of  societies that don't consider spousal rape to be rape at all (because, in their opinion, the wife has a "duty"). And that's just one example of widespread acceptance of rape in a society.

[Soadreqm]

The problem with moral relativism is that if you let me put my thumb on the scales of good and evil, I can create a hypothetical situation where you have a moral duty to torture a child to death. Say some messed up terrorist threatens to destroy some city or other if you don't. Or it's the only way to keep some ancient demon or whatever imprisoned. Like religious human sacrifice, mandated by the gods and absolutely required to make the sun rise in the morning. Sure, putting bloodthirsty Aztec gods in thought experiments might be seen as kind of unfair, but it's not actually forbidden until you craft an exception for them in your philosophy.

Donating food to starving nations is a different problem altogether. On one hand, it doesn't solve whatever problems caused the starvation in the first place and lets them get even worse so you need to keep donating more and more food and the nation will still be starving. On the other hand, you have food and they are starving, and by donating food you are saving people from starving to death.

Also, saying that good and evil are subjective sounds like avoiding the question to me. Yes, there have been differing opinions on good and evil during history, no one cares about that. Taste in films is also subjective, but you don't tell people that when they ask if you think they should go watch the new Twilight movie. If everyone has a unique view on what is right and what is wrong, why aren't you sharing yours?

[3]

How is the description you have just made of moral relativism a "problem" as such? It's easily solved by either 1. considering the evidence at hand and passing judgement on a case-by-case system or 2. perscribing to the views of society on the whole and/or the views of the person(s) in best a position to pass judgement... which is exactly what happens in modern-day life as it stands.

[ChairmanPoo]

Yes, there have been differing opinions on good and evil during history, no one cares about that

Actually this is what the whole thread is about, so you must be wrong.

Taste in films is also subjective, but you don't tell people that when they ask if you think they should go watch the new Twilight movie. If everyone has a unique view on what is right and what is wrong, why aren't you sharing yours?

Because it's not what the thread is about.

Ok, to be fair, I think I understand what you are coming about with that last message: that the subjetivity and relativity of our moral values should not impede us to defend them. And I agree. The fact that there are societies and people in the world that accept and condone rape does not mean that I don't consider it a loathshome practice, or that I dont think it should be persecuted and prevented.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Also, saying that good and evil are subjective sounds like avoiding the question to me. Yes, there have been differing opinions on good and evil during history, no one cares about that. Taste in films is also subjective, but you don't tell people that when they ask if you think they should go watch the new Twilight movie. If everyone has a unique view on what is right and what is wrong, why aren't you sharing yours?

There is nothing being avoided. This is just how it is. We come to conclusions based on the input from our enviorment, and use that to base what we think is good and evil. We are never right, and we are never wrong about what is good and evil. But we try to be right anyway. I don't know why. There may even not be a why.

I do indeed bring up that taste in films is subjective, in the event someone tries to tell me about how "Twilight is so super awesome and you have to see it!" or the like.

I'm not bothering to explain my entire worldview on right and wrong becasue it would not do anything to improve the debate. It could very well assist me if someone were to take issue with an area of my moral code, but it would waste too much time to be worth it.


In debates about the very nature of good and evil, it is vital that you forget your opinions for a time. Otherwise, we just get a silly mix mash going back and forth about singular concepts.