How much good is good enough?

aidan wrote:

Chumly wrote:

Quote:
Ethics is not a funtion of populist notions. Witch burning was considered good by "very many people".

Honestly, I was being facetious Chumley- mainly because I don't think there will ever be a consensus of what is good and what isn't. That was my major point. The part that you highlighted was just me voicing my opinion about the fact that I don't think it's fair for people who are not involved in a certain activity to tell those who are that it isn't good for them- and that if something benefits a fair number of people (and I guess I should have added "without hurting others") then it could be considered to be of some value and maybe even "good" in some way.

But I do think effort should be recognized. As Bella said, if a person is doing the best they can- who can ask more than that? Unfortunately, I think many times people do (ask for more).

Makes sense! It's messy business all this "good" stuff and when I try and discern a poster's timbre on top of that it gets confuseledI like your posts.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

hi Chumly,

Lessee, you don't believe in an objective standard of 'good' or 'right and wrong'; and you don't believe that even a subjective standard can be set by the majority in a community either, apparently, because you're afraid it will lead to 'witch burning'.

Anarchy about all that's left for you?

Hi Real! How the hell are you these days? It's amusing you would want to try and paint me as a lawless immoral heathen destined to burn in hell, simply due to moral relativism, I suggest there are other avenues of consideration besides polarizing things to the point of absurdly in light of the myopic cliché of the religious right.

If you are not willing to leave your Christian sandbox, you could answer me this: What does your god say to you as per how to treat Chumly given I would dare discuss moral terms outside of Christianity?

0 Replies

this thread still going?

....oh very good.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
hi Chumly,

Lessee, you don't believe in an objective standard of 'good' or 'right and wrong'; and you don't believe that even a subjective standard can be set by the majority in a community either, apparently, because you're afraid it will lead to 'witch burning'.

Anarchy about all that's left for you?
Hi Real! How the hell are you these days? It's amusing you would want to try and paint me as a lawless immoral heathen destined to burn in hell, simply due to moral relativism, I suggest there are other avenues of consideration besides polarizing things to the point of absurdly in light of the myopic cliché of the religious right.

If you are not willing to leave your Christian sandbox, you could answer me this: What does your god say to you as per how to treat Chumly given I would dare discuss moral terms outside of Christianity?

hi Chumly,

Good to hear from you. I'm not around much lately due to some projects.

Speaking of cliches, I think you launched a raft of them.

I don't recall mentioning hell, or calling you a heathen, but I simply asked if you don't recognize either objective absolute (universal) standards of right and wrong nor subjective societal standards of right and wrong -- what DO you recognize? No answer from you on that, for pretty obvious reasons.

If you want to call it 'polarizing' for me to ask you to define a position and consistently stick with it, well I guess that's 'polarizing' then.

How does God command me to treat you? I think I've treated you pretty well. I haven't resorted to petty perjoratives like 'why don't you leave the sandbox'

The irony, of course, is that if you don't agree that I treat you well, your own philosophy of moral relativism only allows you to say 'IN MY OPINION, you treat me poorly, RL.'

There's not any consistent way that you can claim my behavior to be 'wrong' in any real sense of the word, is there? Laughing

Discussing moral terms outside of Christianity is just fine, as long as you preface everything you say with 'In my opinion, and this is ONLY my opinion.........' because that's all you're left with.

Condemning, correcting or ridiculing others' behavior is just absurd and contradictory when it comes from a relativist, isn't it?

You've built a house on shifting sand, and by definition nobody's prevented from flooding it either.

Keep up the good (in my opinion) work, Chumly. Laughing

0 Replies

As a team, the Relativists put to the field neither offense nor defense.

Just a Punter named Opinion.

0 Replies

Do you have a question for me amidst your brand of humor?

I'll ask you one; how can there be an "objective absolute (universal)" goodness unless or until it is reasonably proven to be so?

Otherwise all you have is your opinion, thus I challenge you to prove this "objective absolute (universal)" goodness.

Me, I make no such claims of an "objective absolute (universal)" goodness.

What does your precept of an "objective absolute (universal)" goodness say about the morality of oral sex? Is it wrong or is it right? Where is your
reasonable proof?

What does your precept of an absolute goodness say about the morality of anal sex? Is it wrong or is it right? Where is your reasonable proof?

I don't mean the "objective absolute (universal)" goodness of fudge but if you want to argue it on the basis of fudge I'll give you Brownie points.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

The good is that which pleases. Acquinas.

But who or what for? An individual, a society, a class, a lobby group, a football team, a patient in intensive care, a foetus.

And it happens enough that each of us can be a member of all these at once. And more. A family, a neighbourhood, a district.

An abortion is never good for a foetus unless the view is taken that life isn't worth living.

The "good" is a battleground drenched in blood.

Hi spendi! If I spill my seed is that good or bad? If I am to follow Aquinas it's good, if I am to follow the bible it's bad, how can I possibly reconcile this moral dilemma?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

As a team, the Relativists put to the field neither offense nor defense.

Just a Punter named Opinion.

Relavists don't have a team. That would be like having an anarchist political party.

Absolutists, cant even define the extremes of good and bad. From that, I'd comfortably say that everyone is a relavist. It's only relativity to you if someone has a more elastic scale, iterates more, or identifies non-absolute values.

Again, I object to the crafting of this question all together.

0 Replies

good or bad is a concept of the mind. something can only be bad if you believe it is. laws don't stop us doing bad things, they just make us think it's bad, so we tend to not do it.

0 Replies

Acepilot, how much is good enough depends on who's judging.

We use different standards to judge ourselves, our kids, our friends, our leaders, and everyone else, and those standards often change over the course of our lives. Do you think that there can or should be objective standards of "goodness"? If so, who gets to write the standards, and what happens to those who do not measure up?

I have no idea what standards a God (if any exist) would use, but Christian beliefs about judgment seem completely illogical to me, if that's what you are asking.

Chumley wrote:

You can rationalize murder with that logic, all you would need do is believe that action was beneficial for others.

And you can rationalize murder with the belief that God wants you to kill your children, your neighbor, or anyone who happens to believe differently.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Do you have a question for me amidst your brand of humor?

Yes actually I asked you several questions in those posts.

The questions are the ones marked with the symbol that looks like this:

?

after them.

Hope that helps.

Chumly wrote:

I'll ask you one; how can there be an "objective absolute (universal)" goodness unless or until it is reasonably proven to be so?

So, something cannot exist unless or until[/i][/u] YOU have been convinced that it exists, eh? Laughing

Until then, as long as you think something doesn't exist, then it really doesn't exist? O................K....................

Talk to you next week. Back to the project at hand.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

I'll ask you one; how can there be an "objective absolute (universal)" goodness unless or until it is reasonably proven to be so?

real life wrote:

[So, something cannot exist unless or until[/i][/u] YOU have been convinced that it exists, eh?

Until then, as long as you think something doesn't exist, then it really doesn't exist? O................K....................

More dodging and deferring; kindergarten sophistry, please at least try and entertain me! There is a complete vacuum of logic by arguing the generality (your word "something") to the specific (your unproven phrase "objective absolute"). Thus your word "something" is incongruent as per your unproven phrase "objective absolute".

To further the easy exposé of your kindergarten sophistry, I made no claims whatsoever that your so-called "objective absolute (universal)" goodness exists, that's your pretext. Ho-hum prove to me "objective absolute (universal)" goodness exists then your presumably related word "something" might have meaning in this context.

Also it's rather amusing that you would try the lame sophistry of collating my phrase "reasonably proven" to infer that I alone must be so-called "convinced", and that the manner by which I alone must so-called be "convinced" is no way delineated. Come on, step it up a little there buddy!

real life wrote:

The questions are the ones marked with the symbol that looks like this:

?

after them.

Hope that helps.

Only in as much as it amplifies how you continuously dodge and defer, thus I'll repeat:

Chumly wrote:

I'll ask you one; how can there be an "objective absolute (universal)" goodness unless or until it is reasonably proven to be so?

Otherwise all you have is your opinion, thus I challenge you to prove this "objective absolute (universal)" goodness.

Me, I make no such claims of an "objective absolute (universal)" goodness.

What does your precept of an "objective absolute (universal)" goodness say about the morality of oral sex? Is it wrong or is it right? Where is your
reasonable proof?

What does your precept of an absolute goodness say about the morality of anal sex? Is it wrong or is it right? Where is your reasonable proof?

I don't mean the "objective absolute (universal)" goodness of fudge but if you want to argue it on the basis of fudge I'll give you Brownie points.

Can't you at least be a little more creative than simplistic and overt dodging and deferring?

It's not overly entertaining yet, work a little harder please, some adult sophistry perhaps, or how about some scriptural quotes on oral sex or masturbation as per your pretext of "objective absolute (universal)" goodness.

I want real life examples of your "objective absolute (universal)" goodness! Where are these "objective absolute (universal)" goodness examples?

I hope your project is an unqualified success, and I look forward to more family fun!

0 Replies

Nice punt, Chumly.

Again, the questions I asked are marked with :

?

at the end of them.

Ready? Hike!

0 Replies

Your gobble gooke is un real... get a life.

0 Replies

Jesus is good. Jesus is the light to show what is good and what is not. Jesus is the standard.

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Jesus is good. Jesus is the light to show what is good and what is not. Jesus is the standard.

I'm glad you clarified that for me.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Nice punt, Chumly.

Again, the questions I asked are marked with :

?

at the end of them.

Ready? Hike!

Given my thoughtful response how could I be anything but disappointed indeed in yours? Whatever can be done? I suppose I'll never have the moral dilemma of spilt seed resolved by Real Life Who Knows Of The "objective absolute (universal)" Goodness?

Won't you please share your innate knowledge of moral perfection with this Poor Peon of Imperfect Personage?

0 Replies

Bartikus wrote:

Jesus is good. Jesus is the light to show what is good and what is not. Jesus is the standard.

Fair play. I'll allow your example. But doesn't the example of Jesus's absolute goodness only have context as of the world as it was 2000 years ago?

You can only speculate how jesus would behave on more contemporary issues where morality has been used as a litmus.

It would go something like this.

Q: Would Jesus support a war in Iraq?
A: Jesus would support the right thing.

The only other alternative is that someone will try and quote Jesus as to what he would do in a similar (if possible) situation and simply assume that he would say something consistant with the original statement given the opportuity.

If this is the best you can do, then I'd additionally offer for the same reasons the following absolute moral examples.

Dora the explorer
Mr. Rodgers
Santa Claus

Q: What do think about gay people santa?
A: I think the right things, my dear boy!

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:
Jesus is good. Jesus is the light to show what is good and what is not. Jesus is the standard.

Fair play. I'll allow your example. But doesn't the example of Jesus's absolute goodness only have context as of the world as it was 2000 years ago?

You can only speculate how jesus would behave on more contemporary issues where morality has been used as a litmus.

It would go something like this.

Q: Would Jesus support a war in Iraq?
A: Jesus would support the right thing.

The only other alternative is that someone will try and quote Jesus as to what he would do in a similar (if possible) situation and simply assume that he would say something consistant with the original statement given the opportuity.

If this is the best you can do, then I'd additionally offer for the same reasons the following absolute moral examples.

Dora the explorer
Mr. Rodgers
Santa Claus

Q: What do think about gay people santa?
A: I think the right things, my dear boy!

I'll allow your response if not for the sake of humor alone. lol

That was funny.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Nice punt, Chumly.

Again, the questions I asked are marked with :

?

at the end of them.

Ready? Hike!
Given my thoughtful response how could I be anything but disappointed indeed in yours? Whatever can be done? I suppose I'll never have the moral dilemma of spilt seed resolved by Real Life Who Knows Of The "objective absolute (universal)" Goodness?

Won't you please share your innate knowledge of moral perfection with this Poor Peon of Imperfect Personage?

Jesus will. Ask him.

0 Replies

How much good is good enough?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know