Where do you think good/evil came from?

Originally posted by okinrus
When we use relative good it usually implies lack of information.
Click to expand...
Well, um, duh.
We always have a lack of information. The only thing humans known for sure is that we know nothing for sure. 'Facts' always change and with them, what is 'good'.

It is pure ignorance for us to think we can determine was is in the best interest for somebody else, and this would have to be integral to deciding upon a universal 'good'.

I don't think this means that good is actually relative. We are just unable to judge.
The point is that we can NEVER be 100% sure. Even if there is a universal good, who gives a damn... we'll never be able to judge for sure. It is pointless to talk about anything besides relative good, as relative good/bad is all we have.
 
Originally posted by wesmorris
No, when Hitler believed killing jews was good, to him and others like him, it was good. Regardless of our objections, it was good to them. I don't lack the ability to judge, it's easy to see. Why don't you take the example I gave and break them down on a case per case basis rather than make some silly incorrect blanket statement with no real bearing on much besides "what you think" - which is generally unimpressive.

Why don't you try for an actual argument rather than restating the same thing several times.

Let me ask you all:

If it I really think something is good, it IS good to me, right?

For instance, blowjobs. I have had a LOT of blowjobs performed on me and for chrissake man, they're good. I've cherished all but a few. Christian types are supposed to think blowjobs are bad. I'm sure many do. To me though, they have made my life better by relieving a lot of stress.

How can you deny the relative goodness?
Click to expand...


That is a very good example. Just more proof that good can be relative. ;)
 
It is pure ignorance for us to think we can determine was is in the best interest for somebody else, and this would have to be integral to deciding upon a universal 'good'.
Click to expand...

There have to be some objective standards to hold people responsible for. Certainly depriving groups of people of basic essentials like food and water would be bad, however, there is no divine code saying it is 'evil' or wrong (You also have to take into account why we are starving them in the first place.) It should be absolute knowledge that destroying the entire planet would not be beneficial to plant or animal, so I think as a social rule (not a moral or religious rule) this should be considered 'bad'. There have to be standards to create a society, otherwise it collapses.
 
Originally posted by and2000x
There have to be standards to create a society, otherwise it collapses.
Click to expand...

Of course, but there is no absolute good or bad, right or wrong. There is simply "what we've decided we'll go by". Attempts to assert a "higher" authority leads directly to big problems.
 
Last edited:
Of course, but there is no absolute good or bad, right or wrong. There is simply "what we've decided we'll go by". Attempts to assert a "higher" authority leads directly to big problems.
Click to expand...

Of course not. I guess I got confused by all the posts. In history people have distorted these 'what we've decided we'll go by' standards into unequstionable moral laws. The bible for example, simply took laws and distorted them this way.

This is how it works in modern times:

Guy1: "Is it wrong to kill people?"

Guy2: "Yes. It is very wrong. For social and moral reasons."

Guy1: "What do you mean by social and moral?"

Guy2: "It is not right in social standards, because it deprives them of freedom and life. That is why it is a law."

Guy1: "Sounds good to me. I certainly don't want to be killed. But what is 'morally' wrong with it?"

Guy2: "It is morally wrong because it's just not right."

Guy1: "That's not an answer. Do you have faith in god?"

Guy2: "No. I am an athiest."

Guy1: "Then what is morally wrong about killing?"

Guy2: "It just is."

Guy1: "But if there is no dual realm of existence that you adhere to, what is morality?"

Guy2: "I've just been raised that way."

Guy1: "So you don't believe in god, but you believe in morality. So you are a thiest. Dismissed."
 
Originally posted by wesmorris


how about spanking. if I spank my kid is it good or bad? what if i spank them and they grow up to murder the person who would have destroyed the world? do you think there is any relative good in any of that?

what about brocolli? to me, it used to be bad but now it's good.

what about abortion clinics? are they good or bad? i'll bet you'll get some fanatically insistent answers on that one.

what about capitalism? is it good or bad? what about this conversation? what about my motivation to make you think for yourself? which is it? good? bad?

what is good for you isn't necessarily good for me (since our tastes (in all things, laws, women, food, ad infinitum) differ)... wouldn't you agree?

the direct implication is that good and bad are relative. it's pretty much that simple.
Click to expand...

These are opinions, which are relative. Whether or not I think captitalism is good or bad is simply my idea(and I think its the best system we've got).

On a test usually all the answers I put down I think are right, but that doesn't mean that they are right.

Another example; a man's wife is really sick; he has to get her some special medicine that night or else she'll die. The only problem is that the pharmacy is closed. So he breaks in, kills the security guard, and steals the medicine. His wife recovers,who then has a child who goes on to invent a cure for cancer. But does all that still justify the fact that the man not only stole something but also killed a somebody else?
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by and2000x
There have to be some objective standards to hold people responsible for.
Well, there isn't. Each person makes their own standards (even if they are somewhat influenced by someone else's thoughts). Societal standards are just when a bunch of people who agree make it a standard.

Certainly depriving groups of people of basic essentials like food and water would be bad
Not always. Perhaps there is a limited supply. Imagine that if everybody eats, the land will be barren before the next season, and everyone dies. Depriving groups of food/water saves enough food to save 95% of the people. Is it wrong to choose to sacrifice some to save the rest? No.

however, there is no divine code saying it is 'evil' or wrong (You also have to take into account why we are starving them in the first place.)
Yep, I agree.

It should be absolute knowledge that destroying the entire planet would not be beneficial to plant or animal, so I think as a social rule (not a moral or religious rule) this should be considered 'bad'.
But you can think of a situation in which even this would be acceptable. and 'right'. Advance 2000 years into the future. Most people moved off earth, but now earth is attacking all the colonists wth a laser buried in the planet. Is it ok to defend yourselves, yeah. The point is that in the current time, you can not think of a good reason to do it. That doesn't mean their isn't one. We make rules like "don't destroy the planet" to save ourselves... not for some delegated 'right'.

There have to be standards to create a society, otherwise it collapses.
Even without society their would still be standards. But this says nothing to if they are 'right' or 'wrong'.
 
Originally posted by jcarl
Another example; a man's wife is really sick; he has to get her some special medicine that night or else she'll die. The only problem is that the pharmacy is closed. So he breaks in, kills the security guard, and steals the medicine. His wife recovers,who then has a child who goes on to invent a cure for cancer. But does all that still justify the fact that the man not only stole something but also killed a somebody else?
Click to expand...

Okay: Relative in this context means that you'll get a different answer from everyone else.

Don't you think you'll get a unique answer from everyone on that scenario regarding good/evil/truth? Hello?

Good is opinion. ARGH, this is why arguing with theists is SO FRUSTRATING, because you don't have that extra sense that thinkers develop to avoid circular thinking. So like, do you see what you JUST DID? Would it be fair to say that you just argued that "good" isn't relative because "good" isn't relative. Your example in no way supported your point.
 
Originally posted by jcarl
These are opinions, which are relative. Whether or not I think captitalism is good or bad is simply my idea(and I think its the best system we've got).

On a test usually all the answers I put down I think are right, but that doesn't mean that they are right.

Another example; a man's wife is really sick; he has to get her some special medicine that night or else she'll die. The only problem is that the pharmacy is closed. So he breaks in, kills the security guard, and steals the medicine. His wife recovers,who then has a child who goes on to invent a cure for cancer. But does all that still justify the fact that the man not only stole something but also killed a somebody else?
Click to expand...


Yes that can be justified. He took the life of one man, saved another life, and then moved on to save many many many more since a cure for cancer was developed from his efforts to save his wife.

Killing is not always wrong.....it has to be interperted with the situation.


I also agree with you wesmorris, it is hard to argue with a theist since they cannot seem to look at the whole picture...:rolleyes:
 
there's no such thing really as a definite right and a definite wrong, from a completely objective point of view.

there has to be a reference point one can compare with to determine what's good and what's bad.

that reference point is your upbringing... the environment around you... how you are conditioned from the day you're born.

if you grow up in an environment where eating dead people's liver is "good for you" and "gonna make you strong" then it's considered "good" but for you and me it's considered "bad"

and then, there's circumstances (i.e. WHY / HOW did you kill that baby?)

AND the fact that saying "good" and "bad" constitutes an opinion. and there are as many opinions as there are people in the world.
 
"AND the fact that saying "good" and "bad" constitutes an opinion. and there are as many opinions as there are people in the world."

Yup. then the trouble comes when we with all our different opinions try and get on with each other without hideously insulting each other every day. Then we end up with broader more applied ethics, that help us keep cohesion as a society.
 
PC is merely taking it too far, and is as easy a target as raving right wing racists. Take it to the other extreme and we'll have public nudity and all sorts of beahviour that help distrurb "society" eg look at the fuss kicked up about religious practises.
 
wesmorris and all others who responded to my last post,
So basically what you're saying is that the end result justified the means of getting to the end result. Correct?
 
Originally posted by jcarl
wesmorris and all others who responded to my last post,
So basically what you're saying is that the end result justified the means of getting to the end result. Correct?
Click to expand...

No, as usual, not correct.
 
evil came from the north...let us hypothetically say...finland...where the people are cold and heartless.

evil is now spreading with the sales of nokia phones...
 
ok, in my story aobut the guy stealing the medicine to save his wife. No one would argue that stealing and killing the guard in at the very least wrong in the short term. But then his wife gets better and then has a kid who develops a cure for cancer. So you guys say that the murder and theft were justified as a result of what happened because of it. Right? So the end result of the wife getting better and all justifies the means, theft and murder, by which he got the medicine. the end justified the means. Do you agree with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top