I would have thought that part of the problem with the analogy of stealing the cancer medicine and killing the guard is that you are saying its justified becasue the child develops a cure for cancer. Yet you dont know that beforehand, moreover, what if he didnt, in that case were the actions justified? I would say no. As ususal, the uncertainty is in part what makes us have such rules.
Where do you think good/evil came from?
- Thread starter jcarl
- Start date
When it has been explained to you a thousand times, yes. It is too much to ask. You should go back, read, think and then pose a pertinent question rather than something that had NO RELEVANCE whatsoever like: "So basically what you're saying is that the end result justified the means of getting to the end result. Correct?".
What end results, what means and what result are you speaking of? As far as I can tell, this question is complete nonsense and is as such, incorrect.
So it's too much to ask, yes.
This is quoting a post I wrote earlier:
" 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, 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?"
This is what I meant by end result justifying the means.
Think subjectivity. Yes, the end justifies the means to the people who don't have a problem with the means ya know?
Again, it's relative. Your morals are only really meaningful to you or in comparison to my own (or my lack of them (and in the context of society)) and vice versa.
I don't really feel like picking apart your example because it's pointless to the argument. You first have to define good and bad, thus you have the subjectivity of the issue. You can't just put a blanket statement on the propriety of the actions you hypothesized until you make assertions about right/wrong good/bad, etc. You may do so freely but it's imperative that you realize that others are doing the same thing and likely will not reach the same conclusions as you.
So you would condone the murder and theft in this scenario? Just making sure I don't get the wrong idea about you answer.
You won't agree with this, but this is the definition of good and bad: good, that which is right in GOD's eyes, not necessarily in that of man's. Bad is that which is against God's commandments.
On a math test, doesn't everyone put down what they think is right? But there exists a standard(or right answer) and if your answer, no matter how "logical", doesn't match up, then it's wrong. You might disagree; you'll have your own personal opinion of what is right[as will everyone else on the planet], but that doesn't mean your right.
No, I wouldn't condone any of that. I don't remember your example exactly and don't feel like looking it up. Regardless you're missing the point. The point is that you are living in a complex system and you do not know the extent of your effect. Further, even if what comprises good or bad is scribed on both of our retinas we'll still have different takes on a specific case, or rather, there will be cases on which we have different opinions. In other words, even your ridiculous scripture has to be interpreted... thusly, it's relative.
Of course I don't agree with nonsense. You don't need "god's commandments" to know right and wrong, I'm just saying that due to the nature of the subjective experience, what I think is right and what you think is right will inherently differ in some capacity.
Mathematics has a formalized set of rules. People on a math test attempt to utilize their understanding of those rules. If they don't understand, they will put "what they think is right".
Exactly. Mathematics is systematic interpretation of an abstract. Your attempt to compare that with any form of christianity with which I'm familiar is simply not pertinent. Do you see why?
I didn't think you would. In fact, I don't think any sane person would.
Not so. Pick any passage of scripture. There will be only one true interpretation, that being the author's toward those which he was writing. Any other interpretation is a misinterpretation.
It's not sanity, it's perspective.
So then since the conception of said scripture there has never been a correct interpretation. I can't wait to hear what mystical means that you'll use to contradict that?
Not in the sense you were using it. Right and wrong in the context of mathematics means correct and incorrect. There is no moral element. Inferring, for something to be correct within mathematics it must be consistent with the rules of mathematics. I can't wait for your retort regarding some sort of consistency within the bible or religion.
That is just retarded. Its ridiculousness speaks for itself. You do nothing but stretch the limits of stupidity to justify your goddamn stupid beliefs. Have you considered for an instant that you might be retarded?
argh.
How do you draw that conclusion? In order to correctly interpret the Bible you must consider who the author is writing to and what kind of poistion they were in?
Wait no more; In order for something to be right, it must be consistent with the Bible's teachings. There's just no way around it.
That is just retarded. Its ridiculousness speaks for itself. You do nothing but stretch the limits of stupidity to justify your goddamn stupid beliefs. Have you considered for an instant that you might be retarded?
Why do you have to lower yourself to name calling? It seems as though you would have something more to say other than that.
You cannot BE the author and as such cannot know his exact meaning. Per your analysis, every interpretation other than the original will be incorrect.
If you say so, it is. The problem is that you're making a blanket objective statement and my position directly contradicts it. As such the objectivism and thusly the weight of your argument - vanishes. Your opinion is wrong for people who aren't you unless those people choose to agree with you. I choose not to. As such in a relativer manner your assertion is ultimately nullified.
I've asked you repeatedly to think about what you type. I understand you might not be able to meet my expectations, but it's frustrating. I attempt to admonish you in hopes of motivating you to focus (thusly relieving my attack) and relieving some of the stress the frustration of a conversation with you brings. I suppose the main function is venting.
Not so; if you look at what is said and to whom it was being said. Then, and only then, can you make the right interpretation.
So because somebody has a contrary opinion, that means that objectivity is false? Anyone can think what they want, but that doesn't mean that they're right and I'm wrong.
Actually my opinion is wrong according to people who have a different opinion. Just because we have free choice doesn't mean that objectivity is to be thrown out.
WHAT?????? Dude, you're on crack or something. On what basis do you think that "if you look at what is said and to whom it was being said. Then, and only then, can you make the right interpretation."? Argh, are you a kid or something? That sounds like something a kid might say. Pick a paragraph, any paragraph and ask two different people to interpret its meaning. Regardless of "what is said and to whom it was being said" you'll almost surely get two different answers.
Why do you think that there are tests for "reading comprehension"? ACK. DUDE!!!!!! How the hell do you think you can read the mind of something who's been dead for centuries???? Hell even someone who is alive????? THINK damnit!
No but in this case I'm wrong and you're wrong. What I'm saying is that you make the objective statement (which is really just your opinion) that "there's no way around it" and my contradiction of it and opinion of right and wrong that differes from yours regarding certain issues, proves that you are wrong in your attempt to assert objectivity (as you said "there's no way around it").
So there. LOLIt does when you assert your subjetive take on reality to be an objective truth "there's no way around it". There is a way around it, be someone other than YOU, like me. So you are wrong again.
That doesn't mean that their interpretations are in line with that of the author's purpose.
A typical reading comprehension question would ask you what on the surface does it say(did Jane walk the dog? Why was she tired afterwards, etc.)
We don't have to read their minds if they put down what they are thinking.
Here's an example. In James it talks about faith which is without works is dead. Now Paul said on numerous occasions in Romans about how we are justified in faith and by faith we are saved. Sounds contradictory doesn't it? Indeed on a strictly comprehension test, if you asked if the statements contradicted each other, anyone certainly would agree that they do. However, Paul was writing to the Christians of Rome who believed they were saved as a result of following laws, which is not the way to heaven and to those who were not yet saved.
That being said, let's look at James. James is writing to those who are already born again Christians but who didn't show it by their daily lifestyle. He isn't talking about salvation; he's talking about serving others as proof of your faith.
TWO different audiences.
No but in this case I'm wrong and you're wrong. What I'm saying is that you make the objective statement (which is really just your opinion) that "there's no way around it" and my contradiction of it and opinion of right and wrong that differes from yours regarding certain issues, proves that you are wrong in your attempt to assert objectivity (as you said "there's no way around it").
Objectivity exists, regardless of who has a contrary position.
Look, there must be a moral standard from something not of carnal minds. If there wasn't, if good and evil were relative, then no one ever does anything wrong, and thus no one can be punished. A direct corrolary of that is disinhibition and right there is the breakdown of society, because nobody can be held responsible for their actions. Is that the way your utopia operates?
Last edited:
I think I will get back involved with the conversation/debate.
Firstly, I completely agree with what wesmorris has said, and I am dumbfounded that you cannot look at what he is saying and comprehend what he is trying to get across to you. I am 17 years old and it makes perfect sense to me, but you seem to just be running around in circles jcarl.
Secondly, I want you to know that no matter the interpretation, there is always contradictions in the bible. The book constantly tells you to love you neighbor, and in essence to treat everyone the same. Later on, the people who took the Torah from the Jews and corrupted it's meaning (the christians) made a blanket contradictory statement that all homosexuals are bad and that homosexuality is a terrible thing. Can you tell me that in another context, those are not direct contradictions?
Firstly, I completely agree with what wesmorris has said, and I am dumbfounded that you cannot look at what he is saying and comprehend what he is trying to get across to you. I am 17 years old and it makes perfect sense to me, but you seem to just be running around in circles jcarl.
Secondly, I want you to know that no matter the interpretation, there is always contradictions in the bible. The book constantly tells you to love you neighbor, and in essence to treat everyone the same. Later on, the people who took the Torah from the Jews and corrupted it's meaning (the christians) made a blanket contradictory statement that all homosexuals are bad and that homosexuality is a terrible thing. Can you tell me that in another context, those are not direct contradictions?