Quote:
I am struggling with the concept of GOOD and EVIL at the moment, and having so many problems with that...
Simple.
Good is what you agree with, evil is what you don't. It's very subjective.
"Setanta" whenever we talk I feel like am talking to a Jedi night...
I want [ed] 2 sa hello 2 "Doktor S" too... I am so angry at the moment...
Listening to ****""""""" from so many (PEEPS)...
It is hard to say my point, but I will try.
BTW - none of you would be able to challenge my God, and I don't mean that in a bad way - no offence meant...
*I am a GOOD man inspirit...
**I didn't know if we had to open this 2 artificial intelligence - bring all da levels into play, since you guys think experts...
***I really apologise for being so angry 2nite. It's just listening to so much rubbish.......
Baph,
Although I do not agree wth Dr S. here he makes part of a valid point...that "good" and "evil" are meaningful only with respect to your own circumstances. However what the Doc does'nt cover is that persons function as part of a social system. What you "think" can never be divorced from the forces of consensus which operate in your social environment. "You" are socially defined. Conflicts arise when "you" have allegience to two or more groups.
In terms of the first Weinberg quotation the implication is that some "sub-groups" can be sociopathic with respect to "humanity at large".
Doktor S wrote:Quote:
I am struggling with the concept of GOOD and EVIL at the moment, and having so many problems with that...
Simple.
Good is what you agree with, evil is what you don't. It's very subjective.
So, then it
is evil for the Yankees to win the pennant.
fresco wrote:Baph,
Although I do not agree wth Dr S. here he makes part of a valid point...that "good" and "evil" are meaningful only with respect to your own circumstances. However what the Doc does'nt cover is that persons function as part of a social system. What you "think" can never be divorced from the forces of consensus which operate in your social environment. "You" are socially defined. Conflicts arise when "you" have allegience to two or more groups.
In terms of the first Weinberg quotation the implication is that some "sub-groups" can be sociopathic with respect to "humanity at large".
I wanted to thank you for the time you took to reply, and I really do agree with that viewpoint. The point I was trying to make in a very unsubtle way, using multiple reference points was who actually controls system? [I FEEL that is different for different individuals]
That was my whole point yesterday. For the individual that is very conflicting. I hope you realise the simplicity and truthfulness of that statement.
My anger was up last night, and I do apologise if I caused anybody any offence. Although I think anybody is the wrong terminology in this debate. I hope you don't mind me saying that. I feel that there are multiple minds at work.
Because of this there will was be conflicts...
For today I intend to be more cautious and use my intellect and not limit myself to basic beliefs...
Unfortunately though I realise that I will have to change that and keep it to just a humourous intellectual level... :wink:
Although I do not agree wth Dr S. here he makes part of a valid point...that "good" and "evil" are meaningful only with respect to your own circumstances. However what the Doc does'nt cover is that persons function as part of a social system. What you "think" can never be divorced from the forces of consensus which operate in your social environment. "You" are socially defined. Conflicts arise when "you" have allegience to two or more groups.
I agree with Fresco that we must, in our understanding of individual behavior, consider that behavior as, in good part, a SOCIAL expressions. Individuals, in a formal sense, occupy statuses and roles within social systems, and those positions have considerable influence over their actions. Moreover, their values and ethical judgements occur with reference to anticipated responses/evaluations of significant others (what sociologists call "reference others" or "reference group").
Nevertheless, social systems are complex, meaning that built into them are rules, values, ideals, etc. that are sometimes vague, contradictory, requiring that individuals choose between them within circumstances of ambiguity--or complexity. Individuals within systems, therefore, are not completely "programmed" to make decisions in unambiguous and predetermined ways. Choice, ambivalence, competition, contradiction, invidiausl interpretations reflecting variable perspectives and the like are components of all social systems.
Doktor S wrote:Quote:
I am struggling with the concept of GOOD and EVIL at the moment, and having so many problems with that...
Simple.
Good is what you agree with, evil is what you don't. It's very subjective.
Is cannibalism evil, DS?
Or is it just someone's opinion?
Are societies that practice cannibalism to be accepted as simply 'different'?
If morality is simply one's own opinion, or at most, the consensus opinion of one's peers, is there any basis on which a society that accepts cannibalism should be opposed?
I don't know if DS would share my answers, but I'll play...
real life wrote:Is cannibalism evil?
No.
real life wrote:Or is it just someone's opinion?
Just an opinion.
real life wrote:Are societies that practice cannibalism to be accepted as simply 'different'?
Yes.
real life wrote:If morality is simply one's own opinion, or at most, the consensus opinion of one's peers, is there any basis on which a society that accepts cannibalism should be opposed?
Why are you picking on cannibals, just because you don't like it? You think it's 'evil'?
There are obviously people in a cannibalistic society who don't think it's evil, or they wouldn't be doing it. They have a different opion than you do about cannibalism. Therefor the judgement of the action is subjective, just as we've been saying.
rosborne979 wrote:I don't know if DS would share my answers, but I'll play...
real life wrote:Is cannibalism evil?
No.
real life wrote:Or is it just someone's opinion?
Just an opinion.
real life wrote:Are societies that practice cannibalism to be accepted as simply 'different'?
Yes.
real life wrote:If morality is simply one's own opinion, or at most, the consensus opinion of one's peers, is there any basis on which a society that accepts cannibalism should be opposed?
Why are you picking on cannibals, just because you don't like it? You think it's 'evil'?
There are obviously people in a cannibalistic society who don't think it's evil, or they wouldn't be doing it. They have a different opion than you do about cannibalism. Therefor the judgement of the action is subjective, just as we've been saying.
All right, Ros.
Then if cannibalistic societies are 'just different', what about Muslim cults (societies) who fly airplanes into buildings?
Aren't they 'just different'?
Should we simply accept them as 'different'?
real life wrote:All right, Ros.
Then if cannibalistic societies are 'just different', what about Muslim cults (societies) who fly airplanes into buildings?
Aren't they 'just different'?
Should we simply accept them as 'different'?
I'm not saying we have to put up with it RL. I'm just saying it's not inherently 'evil'.
Everyone and everything is just doing what they think is right RL. There is no inherent 'evil' in the world. Evil is a judgement you place on things.
Muslim cult dipshits who fly airplanes into buildings probably think they are doing the right thing also. But that doesn't mean we have to 'accept' it, or put up with it.
In our society, we believe it's right (good) do defend yourself, so we do it. Cannibals can do the soylent green trick all they want in their own little worlds and I don't care, but if they land on the beach in Cape Cod and start eating tourists, then they're gonna have to put up with one of our traditions; killing them. Same with suicidal murderer fundamentalists.
Hey real life,
I reckon them cannibals could use a good missionary to set them straight.
I'll give you a good reference....!
Eorl wrote:Hey real life,
I reckon them cannibals could use a good missionary to set them straight.
I'll give you a good reference....!
Yeh, he's good when taken with a grain of salt.
I got a 150 gallon cast iron kettle I can chip in, but only FOB my loading dock - I ain't paying to ship it. I can toss in some garden-fresh herbs and veggies, and a long-handled ladle, though.
If the cannibals had been doing their job years ago, they would have eaten all the missionaries when they had a chance. They could have saved the world a lot of trouble.
Today's missionaries are much faster runners. That's how evolution works.
Cannibalism is not so bad with garlic and a nice chianti. Otherwise, it's grotesque. But morality has nothing to do with it.
JLNobody wrote:Cannibalism is not so bad with garlic and a nice chianti. Otherwise, it's grotesque. But morality has nothing to do with it.
No morality involved in killing someone, JLN?
Its very basic, RL - no use beating your head against the wall. Some people believe that good and evil exist in the universe, some think its all a construct of the mind.
If it makes you feel any better, I believe evil exists.
Is it immoral to eat someone? What if they don't die? (probably depends on which end you tackle first, and how good your appetite is)
Recently there was a case in Germany (I think) where the defense tried to claim that the victim only died as an unfortunate consequence of the cannibalism, rather than being murder. I think they even got away with that ....for a little while, then it was overturned.
snood, no I don't think good and evil exist. Tell me, when you do something wrong, do you blame "evil" for making you do it, or is your own doing?
real life wrote:JLNobody wrote:Cannibalism is not so bad with garlic and a nice chianti. Otherwise, it's grotesque. But morality has nothing to do with it.
No morality involved in killing someone, JLN?
This coming from someone who supports the death penalty?
