Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

What is Truly Good or Evil?

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 10:01:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Personally I believe that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Good or evil is part of the social regulation, it occurred when a lot of people believe some thing is benefiting or threatening to their way of life so they encourage or discourage other people from doing it.

Overtime it become a norm and t oldest norm become moral.
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 10:07:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 10:01:38 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Personally I believe that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Good or evil is part of the social regulation, it occurred when a lot of people believe some thing is benefiting or threatening to their way of life so they encourage or discourage other people from doing it.

Overtime it become a norm and t oldest norm become moral.

I agree, since nearly everything that doesn't happen out of insanity is justifiable, nothing is truly good or evil.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 12:47:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 10:07:08 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/15/2013 10:01:38 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
Personally I believe that there is no such thing as absolute morality. Good or evil is part of the social regulation, it occurred when a lot of people believe some thing is benefiting or threatening to their way of life so they encourage or discourage other people from doing it.

Overtime it become a norm and t oldest norm become moral.

I agree, since nearly everything that doesn't happen out of insanity is justifiable, nothing is truly good or evil.

You can say that. But what I said is not in fervor of total anarchistic approach either. It is not like 'nothing is true, everything is permit', the fact that there is no absolute morality doesn't mean that you shouldn't follow it. If 90 percent of your friend said you should not steal from the weak, I will respect that opinions.

The lack of absolute morality should only mean that morality is not something that will last forever, when the people changed, the society also changed and you will need a new code of moral that is fitting to the new situation.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 3:31:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

What bad comes from "treating others as you want to be treated"?
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 3:46:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 3:31:37 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

What bad comes from "treating others as you want to be treated"?

Maybe some could argue that even if someone respect's you, you don't owe them your respect until they visibly earn it. I disagree with this, but it could be argued, could it not?
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 5:04:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"What is Truly Good or Evil?"

I find it fascinating that people have to actually ask this question.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 7:01:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

I think both good and evil threads are asking the same thing, so I'm just going to paste the same response here.

I think you are asking if "good and evil" have objective existence, which will always be problematic because "objective" existence implies an ontological of objects, necessarily located in time and space. They are better considered as directions in which to go, the dichotomy of good and evil are more like the dichotomy of east and west, we live on a sphere, east only have meaning from a specific point and in a specific context, and west is the other direction, it is the same with good and evil. Disassociating good and evil from context is like asking if "above" or "below" have objective existence, they are terms that are relational to a dynamic context rather than ontologically existing as independent entities. For good and evil to have any meaning at all they must relate to an absolute value that is related to human nature, which implies they exist in the context of free will and human agency. Asking if they objectively exist independently of human nature and consciousness is meaningless, they are terms that can have no meaning if you try to detach them from human nature which implies consciousness, free will, and human agency.

Once placed in context of the human condition, and recognizing that they have ontological existence as contents of human consciousness; then they do in fact have ontological existence by virtue of their ability to have causal effect in the word through our actions. The question then becomes can extract generalizations about the human condition that make good and evil something more than purely subjective judgments or societal norms, and I think we can. Good lies in the direction of what human beings generally find desirable and evil lies in the direction of what is undesirable.

Then it becomes a matter of determining what human beings generally find desirable and undesirable, and that isn"t all that hard to do, science can certainly speak to humanity"s physical and psychological needs, and there are things that almost everyone values. No list will be exhaustive or unanimously agreed upon, but certain things are generally desirable such as life, liberty, charity, freedom, love, dignity, justice and certain other things are undesirable such as harm, humiliation, pain and suffering. One way of looking at it is good actions are ones that produce consequences that contribute to well-being.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 8:05:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 7:01:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

I think both good and evil threads are asking the same thing, so I'm just going to paste the same response here.

I think you are asking if "good and evil" have objective existence, which will always be problematic because "objective" existence implies an ontological of objects, necessarily located in time and space. They are better considered as directions in which to go, the dichotomy of good and evil are more like the dichotomy of east and west, we live on a sphere, east only have meaning from a specific point and in a specific context, and west is the other direction, it is the same with good and evil. Disassociating good and evil from context is like asking if "above" or "below" have objective existence, they are terms that are relational to a dynamic context rather than ontologically existing as independent entities. For good and evil to have any meaning at all they must relate to an absolute value that is related to human nature, which implies they exist in the context of free will and human agency. Asking if they objectively exist independently of human nature and consciousness is meaningless, they are terms that can have no meaning if you try to detach them from human nature which implies consciousness, free will, and human agency.

Once placed in context of the human condition, and recognizing that they have ontological existence as contents of human consciousness; then they do in fact have ontological existence by virtue of their ability to have causal effect in the word through our actions. The question then becomes can extract generalizations about the human condition that make good and evil something more than purely subjective judgments or societal norms, and I think we can. Good lies in the direction of what human beings generally find desirable and evil lies in the direction of what is undesirable.

Then it becomes a matter of determining what human beings generally find desirable and undesirable, and that isn"t all that hard to do, science can certainly speak to humanity"s physical and psychological needs, and there are things that almost everyone values. No list will be exhaustive or unanimously agreed upon, but certain things are generally desirable such as life, liberty, charity, freedom, love, dignity, justice and certain other things are undesirable such as harm, humiliation, pain and suffering. One way of looking at it is good actions are ones that produce consequences that contribute to well-being.

I agree with this for the most part... What is most helpful for the community is all that lower animals are concerned with (e.g., ant colonies, ecosystems, etc.) but intelligence breeds individuality, and unfortunately the capacity for selfishness and self-superiority.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Cyrano
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 8:28:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 7:01:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote::
I think both good and evil threads are asking the same thing...

Yes, the two threads seem to be asking the same question " are morals objective in the sense that they are innately known and not the result of natural learning, or are they subjective, i.e. learned. My thread just went about it in a different way.

If they are not objective then an omnipotent being, I believe, would not be omnibenevolent.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2013 11:56:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 7:01:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

I think both good and evil threads are asking the same thing, so I'm just going to paste the same response here.

I think you are asking if "good and evil" have objective existence, which will always be problematic because "objective" existence implies an ontological of objects, necessarily located in time and space. They are better considered as directions in which to go, the dichotomy of good and evil are more like the dichotomy of east and west, we live on a sphere, east only have meaning from a specific point and in a specific context, and west is the other direction, it is the same with good and evil. Disassociating good and evil from context is like asking if "above" or "below" have objective existence, they are terms that are relational to a dynamic context rather than ontologically existing as independent entities. For good and evil to have any meaning at all they must relate to an absolute value that is related to human nature, which implies they exist in the context of free will and human agency. Asking if they objectively exist independently of human nature and consciousness is meaningless, they are terms that can have no meaning if you try to detach them from human nature which implies consciousness, free will, and human agency.

Once placed in context of the human condition, and recognizing that they have ontological existence as contents of human consciousness; then they do in fact have ontological existence by virtue of their ability to have causal effect in the word through our actions. The question then becomes can extract generalizations about the human condition that make good and evil something more than purely subjective judgments or societal norms, and I think we can. Good lies in the direction of what human beings generally find desirable and evil lies in the direction of what is undesirable.

Then it becomes a matter of determining what human beings generally find desirable and undesirable, and that isn"t all that hard to do, science can certainly speak to humanity"s physical and psychological needs, and there are things that almost everyone values. No list will be exhaustive or unanimously agreed upon, but certain things are generally desirable such as life, liberty, charity, freedom, love, dignity, justice and certain other things are undesirable such as harm, humiliation, pain and suffering. One way of looking at it is good actions are ones that produce consequences that contribute to well-being.

I was quite disagree to this idea of yours. I think if you try to relate absolute good or evil to human nature that is wrong in the first place because we are not the only conscious race in this world. There are many other being capable of higher cognitive function: Ape, Dog, etc. We can't even prove that we are the only civilized race exist on this universe.

If we believe what we're feel comfortable as absolutely good with no space for modification (or revolution) concept that is the first step toward evil. Remember, the white men used to think their idea is absolutely right and so treat people who are not one of them like an animal.

So righteousness, when it is hold as absolute became evil. This logical conflict is what convinced me that absolute morality is unattainable. There is only the comparative morality that only served certain society for a moment and change as perception and practice in that society evolved.

In other word it s the law, and we should treat it like a law: a tool of man not the holy command from heaven.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 5:38:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 3:46:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/15/2013 3:31:37 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

What bad comes from "treating others as you want to be treated"?

Maybe some could argue that even if someone respect's you, you don't owe them your respect until they visibly earn it.

They are allowed to have that opinion, but they just fore fitted respect from me unless their actions speak different than their tongue.
natoast
Posts: 204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 12:52:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

I feel like the answer is in your own question. Oppression, murder, and genocide all create unhappiness in the population they're applied to. charity, respect and kindness all create happiness in the population they are applied to. It is the same with any action considered moral or immoral. So I apply to utilitarianism in the sense that I define morality as the action that creates the most happiness. Unless or culture changes to the point that we enjoy things like oppression and genocide, (which I suppose could be possible, I don't know) then certain things are objectively moral.
YYW
Posts: 36,426
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 1:05:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil?

Good- concept that (according to Nietzsche) originated on the basis of self-identity and comparison of the self against that which is unlike the self.
Bad- That which (according to Nietzsche) was recognized as unlike the self.

Evil- Term that replaced "bad" upon the rise of asceticism and the morality it confers, which stemmed from the sociocultural arrival of the concept of the "soul."

Bad =/= Evil

Read the Genealogy of Morals. I highly recommend it to all Christians.

Is there a definite boundary of good and evil?

Depends on who you ask. I say there is. Others disagree. Bloody cultural relativists...

Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world?

No, but your next sentence seems to suggest that you are using insanity to describe something other than mental illness. Do clarify what you mean by "insanity."

Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it?

There is evidence to suggest that when certain electrical signals/chemicals don't work properly in the brain that the capacity for human empathy (where empathy is that emotion that prevents people from harming others) is abrogated. There are also very good philosophical arguments which challenge the very basis of absolute human accountability for individual's actions. So, there are versions of science and philosophy that reach the same conclusion from totally different frameworks/perspectives.

Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things?

Oh yes, that doesn't erode the basis of good and evil though -only human understanding of it.

Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil?

Depends on how you evaluate good and evil. Kant would say no. Bentham would say yes. I say it depends.

My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

Before you answer that question, you first have to ask yourself where morality comes from. If majoritarian impulses are sufficient to articulate morality, then yes. If morality is something which is above human capacity to manipulate, then no.
Tsar of DDO
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 2:18:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 5:38:45 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 2/15/2013 3:46:02 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
At 2/15/2013 3:31:37 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

What bad comes from "treating others as you want to be treated"?

Maybe some could argue that even if someone respect's you, you don't owe them your respect until they visibly earn it.

They are allowed to have that opinion, but they just fore fitted respect from me unless their actions speak different than their tongue.

I understand, but this is the tough thing about the premise of morality. Even if one person disagrees with what you consider as good, it no longer is set in stone as good, even if you consider donating money to charity good, along with 99.6% of the world, if the other 0.4% have some halfway legitimate reason to justify why it is 'bad', or 'evil', or simply 'not good', then it is no longer purely good.

Also, morality in itself is only the basic human perception of what is good and what is bad, but since the definition of morality only highlights what can be perceived as moral and not directly what is or isn't moral, I still believe that morality in itself is not set in stone in any way or form, and there is no such thing as real morality, only what people perceive to be moral or immoral.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Cyrano
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2013 8:01:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/16/2013 2:18:38 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I still believe that morality in itself is not set in stone in any way or form, and there is no such thing as real morality, only what people perceive to be moral or immoral.


It seems most, if not all, the posters on this thread agree that morals are not objective in the sense that they are not handed down by god. Everyone seems to be of the opinion that morals are subjective in that they are a product of the beliefs and mores of society, and thus could change over time, or differ from one society to another.

So things like genocide was seen, during WWII, as not being evil by the Nazis but a morally good thing to do for the best interests of the human race. It is therefore possible to at least conceive of the same rationalisation being applied to the act of child rape, abhorrent as that may seem to us here and now in our society. The extreme example makes us understand that a society perceiving child rape as not necessarily being evil is hard to fathom, but not logically impossible.

So then an omnipotent deity would not be omnibenevolent. Nor would it be omnimalevolent. It would, by definition of its omnipotence, be omnieverythingvolent!

Many Christians, notable William Lane Craig, advance philosophical and well-considered arguments for the belief that morals are, in fact, objective and are handed down as divine command.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 6:32:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 11:56:24 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 2/15/2013 7:01:10 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/15/2013 9:52:20 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
Are good and evil simply indicators of what the majority perceives to be good or evil? Is there a definite boundary of good and evil? Is insanity evidence of the entity of evilness existing in the world? Is senseless murder and crime via that insanity evil, or is there a scientific explanation for it? Can good and evil be twisted by the majority so badly that what we now perceive as evil (Oppression, murder, genocide, etc.), that we might eventually find reasons to justify such things? Are things that we now consider good (Charity/Giving, respect, etc.) able to be twisted by the majority in to being evil? My basic question is, do good and evil actually exist, or are they simply perceptions of what the majority believes to be good/evil?

I think both good and evil threads are asking the same thing, so I'm just going to paste the same response here.

I think you are asking if "good and evil" have objective existence, which will always be problematic because "objective" existence implies an ontological of objects, necessarily located in time and space. They are better considered as directions in which to go, the dichotomy of good and evil are more like the dichotomy of east and west, we live on a sphere, east only have meaning from a specific point and in a specific context, and west is the other direction, it is the same with good and evil. Disassociating good and evil from context is like asking if "above" or "below" have objective existence, they are terms that are relational to a dynamic context rather than ontologically existing as independent entities. For good and evil to have any meaning at all they must relate to an absolute value that is related to human nature, which implies they exist in the context of free will and human agency. Asking if they objectively exist independently of human nature and consciousness is meaningless, they are terms that can have no meaning if you try to detach them from human nature which implies consciousness, free will, and human agency.

Once placed in context of the human condition, and recognizing that they have ontological existence as contents of human consciousness; then they do in fact have ontological existence by virtue of their ability to have causal effect in the word through our actions. The question then becomes can extract generalizations about the human condition that make good and evil something more than purely subjective judgments or societal norms, and I think we can. Good lies in the direction of what human beings generally find desirable and evil lies in the direction of what is undesirable.

Then it becomes a matter of determining what human beings generally find desirable and undesirable, and that isn't all that hard to do, science can certainly speak to humanity"s physical and psychological needs, and there are things that almost everyone values. No list will be exhaustive or unanimously agreed upon, but certain things are generally desirable such as life, liberty, charity, freedom, love, dignity, justice and certain other things are undesirable such as harm, humiliation, pain and suffering. One way of looking at it is good actions are ones that produce consequences that contribute to well-being.

I was quite disagree to this idea of yours. I think if you try to relate absolute good or evil to human nature that is wrong in the first place because we are not the only conscious race in this world. There are many other being capable of higher cognitive function: Ape, Dog, etc. We can't even prove that we are the only civilized race exist on this universe.

I don"t see why that is relevant; the discussion is about human conception of good and evil, what does the fact that other beings have cognitive functions have to do with it? Why would we need to prove that we are the only civilized race in the universe for the human conception of good and evil to exist?

If we believe what we're feel comfortable as absolutely good with no space for modification (or revolution) concept that is the first step toward evil. Remember, the white men used to think their idea is absolutely right and so treat people who are not one of them like an animal.

Nobody said there was no space for modification, I said it was based on a conception of human nature, that conception will never be static in time, it does and always has evolved in time.

So righteousness, when it is hold as absolute became evil. This logical conflict is what convinced me that absolute morality is unattainable.

Yeah, as I said it is an idealized conception, a direction in which to go rather than an achieved state of being.

There is only the comparative morality that only served certain society for a moment and change as perception and practice in that society evolved.

As I already said, yes, our conception of humanity does evolve, but it is a progressive evolution in the direction of an ideal. The morality is comparative in time, but its direction is not random, it naturally progresses towards the ideal in time.

In other word it s the law, and we should treat it like a law: a tool of man not the holy command from heaven.

Not necessarily, as I said, "For good and evil to have any meaning at all they must relate to an absolute value that is related to human nature, which implies they exist in the context of free will and human agency." In the end the absolute value that good and evil are related to must be based on a conception of human nature, which can be, and usually is a function of holding to a transcendent ideal of supreme good, and transcendent ideals are usually religious in nature, so it is natural to treat it like a transcendent law rather than just a tool of man.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2013 6:47:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/15/2013 5:04:36 PM, sadolite wrote:
"What is Truly Good or Evil?"

I find it fascinating that people have to actually ask this question.

Yeah, me too.

I think it is somehow related to group think and Einstein's Theory of Relativity, somehow this translated into a common belief that Einstein said "everything is relative" or something. He didn't, and it certainly doesn't translate into any kind of idea that there is not anything that is absolute, his theory was based on an absolute in fact, and he actually considered calling it the theory of invariance. Foe some reason there is a common conception that Einstein proved everything is variant, but he didn't. The special theory of relativity was a formula that said certain things must be relative to each other because there is an absolute, and C is the absolute in his equations, it didn't say everything is relative to everything else by any stretch of the imagination.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
jambone
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:50:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/17/2013 6:47:11 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 2/15/2013 5:04:36 PM, sadolite wrote:
"What is Truly Good or Evil?"

I find it fascinating that people have to actually ask this question.

Yeah, me too.

I think it is somehow related to group think and Einstein's Theory of Relativity, somehow this translated into a common belief that Einstein said "everything is relative" or something. He didn't, and it certainly doesn't translate into any kind of idea that there is not anything that is absolute, his theory was based on an absolute in fact, and he actually considered calling it the theory of invariance. Foe some reason there is a common conception that Einstein proved everything is variant, but he didn't. The special theory of relativity was a formula that said certain things must be relative to each other because there is an absolute, and C is the absolute in his equations, it didn't say everything is relative to everything else by any stretch of the imagination.

All meaning is relative to biology, all meaning is property of a conscious subject, all objects may not be relative to a conscious subject, if this remains so, the object remains meaningless, the physical world in the absence of a conscious subject is utterly meaningless, thus good and evil, are biologically dependent.
jambone
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2013 9:12:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What comes closely to being defined as good collectively, are those things humanity finds supportive of the health and continuation of its common biological self. The human systems basic needs fulfilled, this can be considered as close as one might get to the meaning of true/absolute goodness.