QUOTE (Upisoft+Aug 16 2006, 03:04 PM)
I thought you're defining Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. Do they change in time? If they do, then they're not Absolute.
They do not. But my definition changes every time I notice it's wrong. Do you understand?
They do not. But my definition changes every time I notice it's wrong. Do you understand?
QUOTE (same+)
If they don't, then you have to predict future, just to put in your definition any possible scenarios, that would be considered as evil or good in that future.
Are you talking about cultural viewpoints? No. Absolute is not based on what people think.
Are you talking about cultural viewpoints? No. Absolute is not based on what people think.
QUOTE (same+)
Yes, there are many holes.
Then let me see 'em.
Then let me see 'em.
QUOTE (Upisoft+)
What is your definition of "harming"?
Harming is the act of inflicting harm. Harm is the act of inflicting displeaser which the person being acted upon finds displeasing.
Harming is the act of inflicting harm. Harm is the act of inflicting displeaser which the person being acted upon finds displeasing.
QUOTE (same+)
The truth? Do you know all the facts?
You didn't give me all the facts. I was forced to make a judgment based on what I knew.
You didn't give me all the facts. I was forced to make a judgment based on what I knew.
QUOTE (same+)
What if the cult leader knew that the guys were about to do something bad with their money, for example to give them to a terrorist organization. And then the cult leader decided to use his skills of deception and take their money to save human lives. Well he may also had other motives, like making himself richer.
That doesn't make him evil. That is because I now have information you withheld from me. Based on the information I had at the time I could only conclude that what he did was evil.
That doesn't make him evil. That is because I now have information you withheld from me. Based on the information I had at the time I could only conclude that what he did was evil.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
Yeah okay everybody agrees except for him then.
Actually, only philosophers agree with you. For al I know, you could be brain washed.
Actually, only philosophers agree with you. For al I know, you could be brain washed.
QUOTE (same+)
The fact is that everything we do can be seen as good or evil, everthing, let me say that again...EVERYTHING.
Yes, people can think that anything is good or evil but that does not make it so. Back in the early years poeple thought the earth was flat. So true at the time, people thought it was round also. According to you, the shape of the earth is relative to the observer. I have a definition of good and evil, it is not based on viewpoint. I'm not saying it's the definition of absolute good and evil, all I'm saying is it's my attempt at one.
Yes, people can think that anything is good or evil but that does not make it so. Back in the early years poeple thought the earth was flat. So true at the time, people thought it was round also. According to you, the shape of the earth is relative to the observer. I have a definition of good and evil, it is not based on viewpoint. I'm not saying it's the definition of absolute good and evil, all I'm saying is it's my attempt at one.
QUOTE (same+)
It all depends on which point of view you are coming from.
Prove it.
Prove it.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Any attempt to define absolute good and absolute bad is an exercise in futility. By raising so many questions and scenarios, I am hoping those who search for the absolute realize this.
I'm stubborn. Give me your best shot.
I'm stubborn. Give me your best shot.
QUOTE (same+)
I am don't think it is possible to minimize evil. With the definition of Evil being different for different people, half the people would undo what the other half is doing.
That's only if you assume you are right. I am assuming I am right and I am nowhere near giving up that belief. You are yet to convince me.
That's only if you assume you are right. I am assuming I am right and I am nowhere near giving up that belief. You are yet to convince me.
QUOTE (same+)
Also, sometimes inaction can be evil.
Only if you have an obligation. Otherwise it's not evil, however bad it looks.
Only if you have an obligation. Otherwise it's not evil, however bad it looks.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
K totally unrelated but who here watches "Lost"?
I quit watching it. They keep killing off the good characters while leaving the shitty ones. Plus, they don't ever show the monster.
I quit watching it. They keep killing off the good characters while leaving the shitty ones. Plus, they don't ever show the monster.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
It's best then to view each situation using all the data available, to try not to make an absolute out of an already admittedly relative act,
But I have a definition that is not based on opinion. Either destroy it or give up this relativity.
But I have a definition that is not based on opinion. Either destroy it or give up this relativity.
The Golden Rule has its flaws: it's only relative. Suppose vkamath is the kind of employer who'd want the very best for his employees. Suppose if he ignored their needs he'd feel bad and want them to go on strike to wake him up. But his employer's not like that. See?
What you need is an absolute definition of good and evil--something that does not require opinion. I believe I have something of the sort. However, I need the errors pointed out to me.
vkamath,
The people in your country would beat you if you decided not to go on strike? All that over money??!!! Tell me what country you live in so I'll be sure not to visit it.
What you need is an absolute definition of good and evil--something that does not require opinion. I believe I have something of the sort. However, I need the errors pointed out to me.
vkamath,
The people in your country would beat you if you decided not to go on strike? All that over money??!!! Tell me what country you live in so I'll be sure not to visit it.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 16 2006, 04:12 PM)
According to you, the police catching robbers is neither good nor evil. I don't agree with that. I think the police are doing Good when they catch robbers.
I did say catching the robber wasn't good (because doing so harms the robber). I also said catching the robber was part of the greater good:
Greater good is harming few to help many where you cannot help harming them. Harming few to help many even though doing so is unnecessary is not greater good.
I did say catching the robber wasn't good (because doing so harms the robber). I also said catching the robber was part of the greater good:
Greater good is harming few to help many where you cannot help harming them. Harming few to help many even though doing so is unnecessary is not greater good.
QUOTE (same+)
I am not sure what greater good means. Is greater good a sub-set of good?
You've never heard of the greater good before?
You've never heard of the greater good before?
QUOTE (same+)
1. vkamath: Why is it neither? I think it is good when police catch a robber.
It's complicated. Obviously, stopping the robber harms him because he doesn't get the money and is thrown in jail. Perhaps what we need in the definition of good is harming evil to stop it from harming others:
Good is helping and giving without receiving or doing anything benefiting anyone other than yourself who has no intent to harm or the prevention of harming the innocent through harming the wicked where there is no greater good in the matter.
How's that?
It's complicated. Obviously, stopping the robber harms him because he doesn't get the money and is thrown in jail. Perhaps what we need in the definition of good is harming evil to stop it from harming others:
Good is helping and giving without receiving or doing anything benefiting anyone other than yourself who has no intent to harm or the prevention of harming the innocent through harming the wicked where there is no greater good in the matter.
How's that?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
2. vkamath: Assume he pulls out a knife and threatens the clerk and asks for money. The police see this and shoot him to death without warning.
Are they supposed to shoot him to death without warning? No. Thus, if it must be either good or evil it would have to be evil.
Are they supposed to shoot him to death without warning? No. Thus, if it must be either good or evil it would have to be evil.
QUOTE (same+)
3. vkamath: Same as #2
Same as #2.
Same as #2.
QUOTE (same+)
4. vkamath: Same as #2
Same as #2.
Same as #2.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
5. vkamath: Why is it neither? I think police shooting at someone without enough reason is bad.
I meant not enough information. I thought it was #1 and not #2.
I meant not enough information. I thought it was #1 and not #2.
QUOTE (same+)
6. vkamath: Why is it neither?
Same as #5
Same as #5
QUOTE (same+)
7. vkamath: Nothing called greater good, either it is good or bad.
Then it was good.
Then it was good.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
8. vkamath: I don't think what the robber did was evil, as he did not have any other options. The police see him robbing the store and shoot him without warning.
What the robber did was evil; what the police did was evil. What you are saying is it's okay to harm others to help yourself. I see no way where that is okay. If it's okay to rob a store to fill your stomach, why stop there? Why not kill someone for their house because you have nowhere to sleep?
What the robber did was evil; what the police did was evil. What you are saying is it's okay to harm others to help yourself. I see no way where that is okay. If it's okay to rob a store to fill your stomach, why stop there? Why not kill someone for their house because you have nowhere to sleep?
QUOTE (same+)
9. vkamath: The robber did not have any options, so what he did was not evil. He shot the clerk by accident.
Then the shooting was an accident but stealing from others is wrong so what he did was wrong.
Then the shooting was an accident but stealing from others is wrong so what he did was wrong.
QUOTE (same+)
10. vkamath: Nothing. Assume that they catch him because they know him to be a robber from past experience.
Then what the police did was good.
Then what the police did was good.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 16 2006, 04:40 PM)
Gandhi fought for the freedom of his country. But according your definition he is not good because Gandhi is benefiting by himself having greater freedom.
Bill Gates donated several million to charity. According to your definition, he is not good because he has got fame and good publicity in return.
Perhaps.
Good is helping and giving without receiving or doing anything benefiting anyone who has no intent to harm or is the prevention of harming the innocent through harming the wicked where there is no greater good in the matter.
???
Bill Gates donated several million to charity. According to your definition, he is not good because he has got fame and good publicity in return.
Perhaps.
Good is helping and giving without receiving or doing anything benefiting anyone who has no intent to harm or is the prevention of harming the innocent through harming the wicked where there is no greater good in the matter.
???
QUOTE (same+)
Police surround a bank robber and the bank robber takes a hostage in self defense. According to your definition his action is not evil, because it is self defense.
Very well.
Evil is harming or rejection of responsibilities in which devastation occurs without an innocent's self defense or without accident where there is no greater good in the matter.
???
Very well.
Evil is harming or rejection of responsibilities in which devastation occurs without an innocent's self defense or without accident where there is no greater good in the matter.
???
QUOTE (Upisoft+Aug 16 2006, 05:14 PM)
Car crash. A man and a woman crashed with their car in a tree close to the road. A doctor arrives, sees the bodies and decides to help. He can help only one of them and he chooses to help the woman.
So, the man dies because the doctor neglected his responsibilities towards him. There is no greater good, because in any case(helping woman or man) one dies. So helping the woman is evil towards the man and vice versa.
But the definition does not say toward everyone. By choosing to help the woman he does not neglect his responsibilities.
So, the man dies because the doctor neglected his responsibilities towards him. There is no greater good, because in any case(helping woman or man) one dies. So helping the woman is evil towards the man and vice versa.
But the definition does not say toward everyone. By choosing to help the woman he does not neglect his responsibilities.
QUOTE (Upisoft+Aug 16 2006, 07:30 PM)
I agree. This was example showing that definition of 555Joshua is still incomplete.
There is one more problem, that 555Joshua can't solve. The problem with available information. Let's suppose that after very hard work he defines Evil and Good well enough that no one objects. This definition, however, will not help you to decide if the action that you're going to do is good or bad. It will not help the people lied by the cult leader.
I agree. What you think you're doing is good might not be good. But where I disagree is that good and evil are just as relative. Only what you think is good and evil is relative.
Evil is intentional harm or rejection of responsibilities in which devastation occurs without an innocent's self defense or without accident where there is no greater good in the matter.
Good is intentional helping and giving without receiving or doing anything benefiting anyone who has no intent to harm or is the prevention of harming the innocent through harming the wicked where there is no greater good in the matter.
There is one more problem, that 555Joshua can't solve. The problem with available information. Let's suppose that after very hard work he defines Evil and Good well enough that no one objects. This definition, however, will not help you to decide if the action that you're going to do is good or bad. It will not help the people lied by the cult leader.
I agree. What you think you're doing is good might not be good. But where I disagree is that good and evil are just as relative. Only what you think is good and evil is relative.
Evil is intentional harm or rejection of responsibilities in which devastation occurs without an innocent's self defense or without accident where there is no greater good in the matter.
Good is intentional helping and giving without receiving or doing anything benefiting anyone who has no intent to harm or is the prevention of harming the innocent through harming the wicked where there is no greater good in the matter.
QUOTE (calnpals+Aug 17 2006, 09:39 AM)
both are relative terms. If someone does something with good intent, that means that from their point of view what they're doing is good. Someone else doesn't have to have the same point of view. So in other words, from someone else's point of view, it could be evil.
That doesn't make it good.
That doesn't make it good.
QUOTE (same+)
Say one day Mother Theresa was feeding an orphan some food, with the intention of preventing the boy from starving of hunger(a good intent). But unbeknownst to her, the boy was deathly allergic to the food, and died from it. Mother Theresa killed this boy, but was her act (feeding the boy the poison)evil? Well we would say no. But the boy's family might think it is.
It was merely an accident.
It was merely an accident.
QUOTE (same+)
Now, on the flip side. Say an assassin was sent to kill this same young man by feeding him food that he was sure the boy was deathly allergic to. But it turns out the boy wasn't and instead he enjoyed it and it helped prevent the boy from starving. Was this act good? Again we would say no, he did it to kill the boy, he just failed, but the boy might think it's good.
I'd say he's evil. He tried to kill the boy. The boy just doesn't know. Once the boy gets all the information (if) then he'd agree with me.
First, the hen has no point of view. Trust me, I live with a whole chicken house full of them. They're dumb as rocks. And secondly, when did we start considering things that don't think/feel in are definition of good and evil?
First, the hen has no point of view. Trust me, I live with a whole chicken house full of them. They're dumb as rocks. And secondly, when did we start considering things that don't think/feel in are definition of good and evil?
Now say that one day all the hens revolted and killed the farmer and all who followed him, in the hen's history books (in the years to follow) how do you think the farmer would be portrayed? As evil ofcourse.
Oh, man. I should watch out. Now that I think about it, these birds are up to something. They look at me real funny like. 
Find one group of chickens that did that.
These are birds! They are animals. Animals do intensely cruel things to one another. When humans do such things we are considered pure evil. Why not animals? Because, they are not included.
These are birds! They are animals. Animals do intensely cruel things to one another. When humans do such things we are considered pure evil. Why not animals? Because, they are not included.
He slaughtered Jews to purify his own "family" and give them a better world. He, nor any who followed him believed he was evil. In fact, he was probably viewed as the most "good" man on Earth by them. His intent, from his POINT OF VIEW was good, just as the farmer's and just as Mother Theresa's. But ofcourse the one's he had to persecute in order to give his family a better world ultimately won so he is now seen as evil...Just as the farmer would.
Are you saying people would think that behavior was good if he won world war two? That's laughable. Americans believed it was pure evil, thus the enthusiasm of the war. And they didn't even know what he was doing to the jews once he rounded them up.
Let me ask you something,
Do you remember what the U.S. did to its Japanese citizens back in WWII? The U.S. rounded them up, sold all their property and sent them off to camps. This was nowhere near what Hitler did but people still find it evil.
Again, my boy:
Good and evil do not depend on what people think. Many people once thought the world was flat while others thought it was round. Did that make the earth's shape relative?
I'd say he's evil. He tried to kill the boy. The boy just doesn't know. Once the boy gets all the information (if) then he'd agree with me.
QUOTE
When a farmer kills a hen to feed his family, thus giving them nutrition and making their lives better, is he evil? Well we would say no. But from the hen's point of view who sees its family members killed and fried day by day to improve the lives of the farmer's own family with no concern to the hen's, is the farmer evil? You but your bottom he is.
First, the hen has no point of view. Trust me, I live with a whole chicken house full of them. They're dumb as rocks. And secondly, when did we start considering things that don't think/feel in are definition of good and evil?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When a farmer kills a hen to feed his family, thus giving them nutrition and making their lives better, is he evil? Well we would say no. But from the hen's point of view who sees its family members killed and fried day by day to improve the lives of the farmer's own family with no concern to the hen's, is the farmer evil? You but your bottom he is. |
First, the hen has no point of view. Trust me, I live with a whole chicken house full of them. They're dumb as rocks. And secondly, when did we start considering things that don't think/feel in are definition of good and evil?
Now say that one day all the hens revolted and killed the farmer and all who followed him, in the hen's history books (in the years to follow) how do you think the farmer would be portrayed? As evil ofcourse.
Oh, man. I should watch out. Now that I think about it, these birds are up to something. They look at me real funny like. Find one group of chickens that did that.
QUOTE
Now does this example remind you of something. I'm sure it does...Hitler!!!
These are birds! They are animals. Animals do intensely cruel things to one another. When humans do such things we are considered pure evil. Why not animals? Because, they are not included.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now does this example remind you of something. I'm sure it does...Hitler!!! |
These are birds! They are animals. Animals do intensely cruel things to one another. When humans do such things we are considered pure evil. Why not animals? Because, they are not included.
He slaughtered Jews to purify his own "family" and give them a better world. He, nor any who followed him believed he was evil. In fact, he was probably viewed as the most "good" man on Earth by them. His intent, from his POINT OF VIEW was good, just as the farmer's and just as Mother Theresa's. But ofcourse the one's he had to persecute in order to give his family a better world ultimately won so he is now seen as evil...Just as the farmer would.
Are you saying people would think that behavior was good if he won world war two? That's laughable. Americans believed it was pure evil, thus the enthusiasm of the war. And they didn't even know what he was doing to the jews once he rounded them up.
Let me ask you something,
Do you remember what the U.S. did to its Japanese citizens back in WWII? The U.S. rounded them up, sold all their property and sent them off to camps. This was nowhere near what Hitler did but people still find it evil.
Again, my boy:
Good and evil do not depend on what people think. Many people once thought the world was flat while others thought it was round. Did that make the earth's shape relative?
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 18 2006, 11:59 AM)
Yes, people can think that anything is good or evil but that does not make it so.
vkamath now I see what you're talking about...
Okay Joshyboy...I'm gonna break this down for you. If someone thinks that something is evil, then in their reality (how they view the world), it is. You can't argue with that, it's their reality. Mind you, things might be different in yours, but then again that's just YOUR reality.
Same if someone says that a food tastes good. In their reality, that food tastes good. You can't argue with that. It might be different in your reality, but you can't say that their reality is wrong. There is no "absolute reference frame" for taste because it is a point of view, same goes for "good" and "evil".
Think about it, if this isn't true that what does make it "so". You don't know. You keep talking about this absolute reference frame but you don't even know what it is, or even how to figure it out, and by your definition can never know because whatever you come up with is just YOUR point of view. So how do you know that it even exists? You can't, you don't. Let it go.
Give me an example, any example, and I'll prove how it can be viewed as good.
How do you know, just because they don't communicate the same way you do? Sorry that's ignorance and it just won't cut it. Good and evil are not just confined to the human way of life, they are universal. If someone kept cats in their house and tortured, strangled and killed them day after day, just for his own amusement, I'd sure as hell say that's evil. People are even in jail for things like that, it's called cruelty to animals.
On a side note...does this ramble sound familiar to anybody? Why yes...slavery!
"Ohhh that negro has no point of view, they're dumb as rocks. They don't think/feel."
They were wrong, ignorance on their part, and now ignorance on yours.
How do you know, just because they don't communicate the same way you do? Sorry that's ignorance and it just won't cut it. Good and evil are not just confined to the human way of life, they are universal. If someone kept cats in their house and tortured, strangled and killed them day after day, just for his own amusement, I'd sure as hell say that's evil. People are even in jail for things like that, it's called cruelty to animals.
On a side note...does this ramble sound familiar to anybody? Why yes...slavery!
"Ohhh that negro has no point of view, they're dumb as rocks. They don't think/feel."
They were wrong, ignorance on their part, and now ignorance on yours.
Are you saying people would think that [Hitler's] behavior was good if he won world war two?
Please tell me that you're not that gullible. Do you really think that if Hitler's regime was in charge now that history would see him as different, good not evil? The winners write the history books. Ever heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Thousands of civilians, murdered by the US. Now was that seen as evil? No because they won. Do you really think if Japan won that the US and that action woud still be seen as good? And there are thousands of other examples I could use. Open your eyes my son.
Again my boy, you're comparing apples and oranges. Facts and point of views...
World is round = fact...cannot differ between point of views
That guy is evil = point of view...can differ from person to person
It's like comparing the phrase "1+1=2" with "Wow, that girl is cute". I'm gonna assume you see the difference.
Again my boy, you're comparing apples and oranges. Facts and point of views...
World is round = fact...cannot differ between point of views
That guy is evil = point of view...can differ from person to person
It's like comparing the phrase "1+1=2" with "Wow, that girl is cute". I'm gonna assume you see the difference.
quit watching it. They keep killing off the good characters while leaving the shitty ones. Plus, they don't ever show the monster.
Oh...you get to see the monster...
That's not the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is meant to be applied to self only; it is not meant for you to address it to anybody. What you have done is to assume it from his point of view, when it can't be applied that way. What you have done is taken an axiom for personal moral equality and assumed it for another instead of merely applying it to yourself. The further error is in his assumed nonapplication of it to you resulting in your own martyred resolution of it. Garbage in, garbage out.
The Golden Rule is not "Do unto others according to your beliefs of what they will then do unto you", but "Do unto others as YOU would HAVE them do unto you" --- REGARDLESS of whether they do or not. The application of the Golden Rule is never contingent on the response you are supposed to get or want to get or should get. It is a selfless mode of operation based on sane fair logical integrity without any thought of reward or punishment for applying it. I mean no animosity here but your confusion/distortion of a simple rule is a fine example of how mankind can obfuscate anything and suffer for it, as you have done with the misapplication of this rule and the sour resolution of your work scenario in your example.
vkamath now I see what you're talking about...
Okay Joshyboy...I'm gonna break this down for you. If someone thinks that something is evil, then in their reality (how they view the world), it is. You can't argue with that, it's their reality. Mind you, things might be different in yours, but then again that's just YOUR reality.
Same if someone says that a food tastes good. In their reality, that food tastes good. You can't argue with that. It might be different in your reality, but you can't say that their reality is wrong. There is no "absolute reference frame" for taste because it is a point of view, same goes for "good" and "evil".
Think about it, if this isn't true that what does make it "so". You don't know. You keep talking about this absolute reference frame but you don't even know what it is, or even how to figure it out, and by your definition can never know because whatever you come up with is just YOUR point of view. So how do you know that it even exists? You can't, you don't. Let it go.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It all depends on which point of view you are coming from. Prove it. |
Give me an example, any example, and I'll prove how it can be viewed as good.
QUOTE
First, the hen has no point of view. Trust me, I live with a whole chicken house full of them. They're dumb as rocks. And secondly, when did we start considering things that don't think/feel in are definition of good and evil?
How do you know, just because they don't communicate the same way you do? Sorry that's ignorance and it just won't cut it. Good and evil are not just confined to the human way of life, they are universal. If someone kept cats in their house and tortured, strangled and killed them day after day, just for his own amusement, I'd sure as hell say that's evil. People are even in jail for things like that, it's called cruelty to animals.
On a side note...does this ramble sound familiar to anybody? Why yes...slavery!
"Ohhh that negro has no point of view, they're dumb as rocks. They don't think/feel."
They were wrong, ignorance on their part, and now ignorance on yours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First, the hen has no point of view. Trust me, I live with a whole chicken house full of them. They're dumb as rocks. And secondly, when did we start considering things that don't think/feel in are definition of good and evil? |
How do you know, just because they don't communicate the same way you do? Sorry that's ignorance and it just won't cut it. Good and evil are not just confined to the human way of life, they are universal. If someone kept cats in their house and tortured, strangled and killed them day after day, just for his own amusement, I'd sure as hell say that's evil. People are even in jail for things like that, it's called cruelty to animals.
On a side note...does this ramble sound familiar to anybody? Why yes...slavery!
"Ohhh that negro has no point of view, they're dumb as rocks. They don't think/feel."
They were wrong, ignorance on their part, and now ignorance on yours.
Are you saying people would think that [Hitler's] behavior was good if he won world war two?
Please tell me that you're not that gullible. Do you really think that if Hitler's regime was in charge now that history would see him as different, good not evil? The winners write the history books. Ever heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Thousands of civilians, murdered by the US. Now was that seen as evil? No because they won. Do you really think if Japan won that the US and that action woud still be seen as good? And there are thousands of other examples I could use. Open your eyes my son.
QUOTE
Many people once thought the world was flat while others thought it was round. Did that make the earth's shape relative?
Again my boy, you're comparing apples and oranges. Facts and point of views...
World is round = fact...cannot differ between point of views
That guy is evil = point of view...can differ from person to person
It's like comparing the phrase "1+1=2" with "Wow, that girl is cute". I'm gonna assume you see the difference.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Many people once thought the world was flat while others thought it was round. Did that make the earth's shape relative? |
Again my boy, you're comparing apples and oranges. Facts and point of views...
World is round = fact...cannot differ between point of views
That guy is evil = point of view...can differ from person to person
It's like comparing the phrase "1+1=2" with "Wow, that girl is cute". I'm gonna assume you see the difference.
quit watching it. They keep killing off the good characters while leaving the shitty ones. Plus, they don't ever show the monster.
Oh...you get to see the monster...
QUOTE
Fast check with "Golder Rule"(GR), notifies me that if I was the employer I would be very unhappy if my workers don't work hard. So I change my intention and actually work hard.
That's not the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is meant to be applied to self only; it is not meant for you to address it to anybody. What you have done is to assume it from his point of view, when it can't be applied that way. What you have done is taken an axiom for personal moral equality and assumed it for another instead of merely applying it to yourself. The further error is in his assumed nonapplication of it to you resulting in your own martyred resolution of it. Garbage in, garbage out.
The Golden Rule is not "Do unto others according to your beliefs of what they will then do unto you", but "Do unto others as YOU would HAVE them do unto you" --- REGARDLESS of whether they do or not. The application of the Golden Rule is never contingent on the response you are supposed to get or want to get or should get. It is a selfless mode of operation based on sane fair logical integrity without any thought of reward or punishment for applying it. I mean no animosity here but your confusion/distortion of a simple rule is a fine example of how mankind can obfuscate anything and suffer for it, as you have done with the misapplication of this rule and the sour resolution of your work scenario in your example.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
I'm stubborn. Give me your best shot.
All your absolute definitions have failed. So it is you who needs to give your best shot (not that giving the best shot would make 1+1=3).
In the end you may have a definition, but there will still be people who don't agree with your definition. So it will be "555Joshua's definition of absolute good and absolute evil". You will not be able to prove them wrong because it is only a definition and not a mathematical proof.
All your absolute definitions have failed. So it is you who needs to give your best shot (not that giving the best shot would make 1+1=3).
In the end you may have a definition, but there will still be people who don't agree with your definition. So it will be "555Joshua's definition of absolute good and absolute evil". You will not be able to prove them wrong because it is only a definition and not a mathematical proof.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
That's only if you assume you are right. I am assuming I am right and I am nowhere near giving up that belief. You are yet to convince me.
I am not sure what it takes to convince you. If you don't understand the concept, I cannot help it.
Read explanation by calnpals, the one which starts with "Okay Joshyboy..."
I am not sure what it takes to convince you. If you don't understand the concept, I cannot help it.
Read explanation by calnpals, the one which starts with "Okay Joshyboy..."
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
vkamath,
The people in your country would beat you if you decided not to go on strike? All that over money??!!! Tell me what country you live in so I'll be sure not to visit it.
err...that scenario was given by Upisoft.
The people in your country would beat you if you decided not to go on strike? All that over money??!!! Tell me what country you live in so I'll be sure not to visit it.
err...that scenario was given by Upisoft.
QUOTE (calnpals+Aug 18 2006, 08:49 AM)
Okay Joshyboy...I'm gonna break this down for you. If someone thinks that something is evil, then in their reality (how they view the world), it is. You can't argue with that, it's their reality. Mind you, things might be different in yours, but then again that's just YOUR reality.
Okay calnyboy...I'm gonna break this down for you. If someone thinks the world is flat, then in their reality (how they view the world), it is. You can't argue with that, it's their reality. Mind you, things might be different in yours, but then again, that's just YOUR reality.
Okay calnyboy...I'm gonna break this down for you. If someone thinks the world is flat, then in their reality (how they view the world), it is. You can't argue with that, it's their reality. Mind you, things might be different in yours, but then again, that's just YOUR reality.
QUOTE (same+)
There is no "absolute reference frame" for taste because it is a point of view, same goes for "good" and "evil".
I know of few people who think salty tastes sweet whereas sweet tastes salty.
I know of few people who think salty tastes sweet whereas sweet tastes salty.
QUOTE (same+)
Think about it, if this isn't true that what does make it "so".
An absolute definition of good and evil where all circumstances can be judged by.
An absolute definition of good and evil where all circumstances can be judged by.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
You don't know. You keep talking about this absolute reference frame but you don't even know what it is, or even how to figure it out, and by your definition can never know because whatever you come up with is just YOUR point of view.
Hows that? I used pure logic to come up with my definition.
Hows that? I used pure logic to come up with my definition.
QUOTE (same+)
So how do you know that it even exists? You can't, you don't. Let it go.
I can and I do and I will never let it go.
I can and I do and I will never let it go.
QUOTE (same+)
Give me an example, any example, and I'll prove how it can be viewed as good.
I'm not saying it can't be viewed as good I'm saying it can't be good. It doesn't matter what people think.
Nonetheless, how's this:
A man takes his son and bashes his head open to get him to stop crying. The boy was crying because his father broke his legs. The man broke his legs because he wanted to. The man knows it's evil, he just doesn't care.
I'm not saying it can't be viewed as good I'm saying it can't be good. It doesn't matter what people think.
Nonetheless, how's this:
A man takes his son and bashes his head open to get him to stop crying. The boy was crying because his father broke his legs. The man broke his legs because he wanted to. The man knows it's evil, he just doesn't care.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
How do you know, just because they don't communicate the same way you do?
Nah, I get that idea from how they fly into walls. They used to do that as chicks because they couldn't tell the difference between blue metal and blue sky. They're easy as hell to trap. If you were to throw a chicken bone into the yard the chickens will jump all over it. Why? They don't realize it's a chicken bone? Maybe so, but if you were to take a decaying chicken, a chicken skelleton and put them with that chicken with the bone under it's foot it will not put two and two together. It can not. It simply hasn't the intelligence. Its brain is far too small.
Hens lay eggs, yes? And from those eggs come chicks, yes? Well, theoretically, the chicken should know this, right? Well, if you give a chicken egg shells it will only be a matter of time before the bird eats eggs. This of course is because they want the shell and chickens do enjoy the insides. Why, if they know (and care) that eggs have their babies, will they eat those eggs?
Nah, I get that idea from how they fly into walls. They used to do that as chicks because they couldn't tell the difference between blue metal and blue sky. They're easy as hell to trap. If you were to throw a chicken bone into the yard the chickens will jump all over it. Why? They don't realize it's a chicken bone? Maybe so, but if you were to take a decaying chicken, a chicken skelleton and put them with that chicken with the bone under it's foot it will not put two and two together. It can not. It simply hasn't the intelligence. Its brain is far too small.
Hens lay eggs, yes? And from those eggs come chicks, yes? Well, theoretically, the chicken should know this, right? Well, if you give a chicken egg shells it will only be a matter of time before the bird eats eggs. This of course is because they want the shell and chickens do enjoy the insides. Why, if they know (and care) that eggs have their babies, will they eat those eggs?
QUOTE (calnpals+)
Good and evil are not just confined to the human way of life, they are universal.
Good God. If you do that then every living thing will be evil. Did you know the yellow jacket rips flesh off living caterpillars?
Did you know lions brutally kill hyenas?
Did you know cats will begin eating their prey without killing it first?
All the barbaric things humans are despised for animals do all the time?
Good God. If you do that then every living thing will be evil. Did you know the yellow jacket rips flesh off living caterpillars?
Did you know lions brutally kill hyenas?
Did you know cats will begin eating their prey without killing it first?
All the barbaric things humans are despised for animals do all the time?
QUOTE (same+)
If someone kept cats in their house and tortured, strangled and killed them day after day, just for his own amusement, I'd sure as hell say that's evil. People are even in jail for things like that, it's called cruelty to animals.
1. Evil is intentional harm to another human being or rejection of responsibilities in which devastation occurs without an innocent's self defense or without accident where there is no greater good in the matter. 2. The killing of an animal where its death is not necessary for personal survival (necessary includes garments) or any needless tormenting of an animal
Fixed it.
1. Evil is intentional harm to another human being or rejection of responsibilities in which devastation occurs without an innocent's self defense or without accident where there is no greater good in the matter. 2. The killing of an animal where its death is not necessary for personal survival (necessary includes garments) or any needless tormenting of an animal
Fixed it.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
"Ohhh that negro has no point of view, they're dumb as rocks. They don't think/feel."
The difference between blacks and chickens:
Blacks have a brain capable of comprehension; chickens don't.
Blacks have a complex language which they use to communicate; chickens cackle whenever they feel like it.
Blacks take advantage of ingenuity; chickens have no idea what that word means.
Blacks have loved ones; chickens do not.
Blacks love; chickens have done nothing to suggest they care at all that the other animal is dead.
The difference between blacks and chickens:
Blacks have a brain capable of comprehension; chickens don't.
Blacks have a complex language which they use to communicate; chickens cackle whenever they feel like it.
Blacks take advantage of ingenuity; chickens have no idea what that word means.
Blacks have loved ones; chickens do not.
Blacks love; chickens have done nothing to suggest they care at all that the other animal is dead.
QUOTE (same+)
"Ohhh that negro has no point of view, they're dumb as rocks. They don't think/feel."
Not many chickens have rallied for animal freedom.
Not many chickens have rallied for animal freedom.
QUOTE (same+)
They were wrong, ignorance on their part, and now ignorance on yours.
Instead of making such remarks why don't you study the animal? You will learn a lot...unless you're in denial.
Instead of making such remarks why don't you study the animal? You will learn a lot...unless you're in denial.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
Ever heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Thousands of civilians, murdered by the US. Now was that seen as evil?
Actually, yes. But people don't talk much about it.
Actually, yes. But people don't talk much about it.
QUOTE (same+)
Do you really think if Japan won that the US and that action woud still be seen as good? And there are thousands of other examples I could use. Open your eyes my son.
I am yet to see one person who thinks that bombing was good.
I am yet to see one person who thinks that bombing was good.
QUOTE (same+)
World is round = fact...cannot differ between point of views
At the time it could. Just like now, good and evil can. When one person thought the earth was round while the other thought it was flat one of them was wrong, but no one knew. Right now, one person thinks an event is good while another thinks it's evil, only one is right, which is it?
At the time it could. Just like now, good and evil can. When one person thought the earth was round while the other thought it was flat one of them was wrong, but no one knew. Right now, one person thinks an event is good while another thinks it's evil, only one is right, which is it?
QUOTE (calnpals+)
It's like comparing the phrase "1+1=2" with "Wow, that girl is cute". I'm gonna assume you see the difference.
One of the differences I see is the one between my comparison and yours. My comparison is right on the money while yours is not.
One of the differences I see is the one between my comparison and yours. My comparison is right on the money while yours is not.
QUOTE (same+)
Oh...you get to see the monster...
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 18 2006, 03:43 PM)
One of the differences I see is the one between my comparison and yours. My comparison is right on the money while yours is not.
You will learn a lot...unless you're in denial
Ohhhkay. I get it now. This says it all now doesn't it. Let me guess, you have a tough time being wrong. Middle child?...nono only child? For some reason you've locked yourself off from all reasoning, and are arguing the same points I(and everyone else here) have proven wrong over the last 18 pages. You get kicked out of class a lot for arguing with the teacher don't you?
Once you get to this point I could show you air-tight mathematical proof that good and evil are point of views and you still wouldn't let it go. It's cool I'm like that sometimes too. But I dunno how else to show you, seeing as you're not even considering what we're saying, just trying to think of ways to argue against it.
So if you TRULY believe that good and evil are absolute, then way to go cowboy, but my guess is that you realize the truth, but just can't bee seen as wrong.
QUOTE
I can and I do and I will never let it go.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I can and I do and I will never let it go. |
You will learn a lot...unless you're in denial
QUOTE
I'm stubborn. Give me your best shot.
Ohhhkay. I get it now. This says it all now doesn't it. Let me guess, you have a tough time being wrong. Middle child?...nono only child? For some reason you've locked yourself off from all reasoning, and are arguing the same points I(and everyone else here) have proven wrong over the last 18 pages. You get kicked out of class a lot for arguing with the teacher don't you?
Once you get to this point I could show you air-tight mathematical proof that good and evil are point of views and you still wouldn't let it go. It's cool I'm like that sometimes too. But I dunno how else to show you, seeing as you're not even considering what we're saying, just trying to think of ways to argue against it.
So if you TRULY believe that good and evil are absolute, then way to go cowboy, but my guess is that you realize the truth, but just can't bee seen as wrong.
Is that the best you got? You're done throwing your philosophy at me and are now dishing personal insults?
QUOTE (same+)
and are arguing the same points I(and everyone else here) have proven wrong over the last 18 pages.
As far as I know you proved nothing. All you said was that good and evil are relative. Period. I said suppose the people who think one thing is evil is wrong.
As far as I know you proved nothing. All you said was that good and evil are relative. Period. I said suppose the people who think one thing is evil is wrong.
QUOTE (same+)
Once you get to this point I could show you air-tight mathematical proof that good and evil are point of views and you still wouldn't let it go.
Show me.
Show me.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
But I dunno how else to show you, seeing as you're not even considering what we're saying, just trying to think of ways to argue against it.
I considered it. But there's nothing to suggest I am wrong. All you are doing is that good and evil cannot be defined because people (in their ignorance) think different things are different sorts. And because I pointed that out I'm fighting something already proven?
I considered it. But there's nothing to suggest I am wrong. All you are doing is that good and evil cannot be defined because people (in their ignorance) think different things are different sorts. And because I pointed that out I'm fighting something already proven?
QUOTE (same+)
So if you TRULY believe that good and evil are absolute, then way to go cowboy, but my guess is that you realize the truth, but just can't bee seen as wrong.
No, I think you're wrong and immensely stubborn and won't listen to reason. That's what I think.
No, I think you're wrong and immensely stubborn and won't listen to reason. That's what I think.
Okay, no more opinions, no more arguing, just facts. Let's dish the facts, with no interpretation.
First lets look at your view. Evil and good as Absolute.
Fact: You say that what people think is good and evil doesn't define it. It's just their opinions.
Fact: It was humans that came up with the very notion of good and evil.
Fact: When those notions were thought up, they were given attributes, according to what the "makers" saw fit.
Fact: The "makers" saw what they interpreted as evil and gave it that name, same with good.
Fact: What the "makers" interpreted was from their point of view/ opinion (unlike mathematics/shapes/other facts...which do not fall under opinion), NOT ABSOLUTE, as all humans are fallible.
Fact: You say that the actions define whether it's good or evil, not people.
Fact: This contradicts the 2nd fact. As it was humans who came up with the very notion.
Fact: Actions have no intelligence, knowledge nor any other deciding power.
Fact: Which concludes that if humans are excluded, it must be something other than the actions themselves that decipher good from evil.
Fact: Following this train of thought, one must conclude that somewhere along the line, good and evil must have grown from their original meanings given by humans (fallible), into an absolute frame of reference that dictates it without question.
Fact: This must mean that an outside force must have morphed these meanings.
Fact: Whatever made this transfer must be infallible by it's very nature.
Fact: There is no evidence of this outside force, and no evidence of an "absolute reference frame"
Fact: No matter how long humans search for this "reference frame", whatever they come up with will be merely their opinion, and by definition cannot be absolute.
Fact: Following these facts , one must conclude that searching and even contemplating an "absolute reference frame" is a notion that defeats itself.
____________________________________________________________________
Now, lets look at it from my (and everyone else's) viewpoint.
Fact: We say that good and evil does differ from point of view to point of view.
Fact: It was humans that came up with the very notion of good and evil.
Fact: When those notions were thought up, they were given attributes, according to what the "makers" saw fit.
Fact: The "makers" saw what they interpreted as evil and gave it that name, same with good.
Fact: What the "makers" interpreted was from their point of view/ opinion (unlike mathematics/shapes/other facts...which do not fall under opinion), NOT ABSOLUTE, as all humans are fallible.
Fact: This concludes that good and evil must differ from person to person, because everyone has a different point of view and opinion, and no-one can speak in "absolute" on good and evil because all humans are infallible.
Fact: Not all people may believe that good and evil have the same characteristics now that they did when the "makers" came up with the notion. EG. Working on Sunday, sex before marriage and not giving human sacrifices were evil.
First lets look at your view. Evil and good as Absolute.
Fact: You say that what people think is good and evil doesn't define it. It's just their opinions.
Fact: It was humans that came up with the very notion of good and evil.
Fact: When those notions were thought up, they were given attributes, according to what the "makers" saw fit.
Fact: The "makers" saw what they interpreted as evil and gave it that name, same with good.
Fact: What the "makers" interpreted was from their point of view/ opinion (unlike mathematics/shapes/other facts...which do not fall under opinion), NOT ABSOLUTE, as all humans are fallible.
Fact: You say that the actions define whether it's good or evil, not people.
Fact: This contradicts the 2nd fact. As it was humans who came up with the very notion.
Fact: Actions have no intelligence, knowledge nor any other deciding power.
Fact: Which concludes that if humans are excluded, it must be something other than the actions themselves that decipher good from evil.
Fact: Following this train of thought, one must conclude that somewhere along the line, good and evil must have grown from their original meanings given by humans (fallible), into an absolute frame of reference that dictates it without question.
Fact: This must mean that an outside force must have morphed these meanings.
Fact: Whatever made this transfer must be infallible by it's very nature.
Fact: There is no evidence of this outside force, and no evidence of an "absolute reference frame"
Fact: No matter how long humans search for this "reference frame", whatever they come up with will be merely their opinion, and by definition cannot be absolute.
Fact: Following these facts , one must conclude that searching and even contemplating an "absolute reference frame" is a notion that defeats itself.
____________________________________________________________________
Now, lets look at it from my (and everyone else's) viewpoint.
Fact: We say that good and evil does differ from point of view to point of view.
Fact: It was humans that came up with the very notion of good and evil.
Fact: When those notions were thought up, they were given attributes, according to what the "makers" saw fit.
Fact: The "makers" saw what they interpreted as evil and gave it that name, same with good.
Fact: What the "makers" interpreted was from their point of view/ opinion (unlike mathematics/shapes/other facts...which do not fall under opinion), NOT ABSOLUTE, as all humans are fallible.
Fact: This concludes that good and evil must differ from person to person, because everyone has a different point of view and opinion, and no-one can speak in "absolute" on good and evil because all humans are infallible.
Fact: Not all people may believe that good and evil have the same characteristics now that they did when the "makers" came up with the notion. EG. Working on Sunday, sex before marriage and not giving human sacrifices were evil.
Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Vkamath claims to be a theist yet this belief in most religions demands personal sacrifice and adherence without question... an "absolute" moral position based on purely parochial concerns.
I am not sure what gave you the impression that I am a theist. I am an agnostic. My philosophical musings are based in logic rather than in religion.
I am not sure what gave you the impression that I am a theist. I am an agnostic. My philosophical musings are based in logic rather than in religion.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Now you may profess this belief but I think in actual fact you have a buck in both camps when the whim takes you.You can adopt any one of many "parochial viewpoints" and so avoid any direct questioning of individual "beliefs".
I don't have any "buck" in the theist camp. Please feel free to question me directly on any topic. Also feel free to quote me from any of the threads on this forum. If you are not able to substantiate your claims, I will assume that you are one of those who like to "hit and run".
I think you have a buck in the following camps
1) The " Call anyone who does not agree with you as a Theist (read religious fundamentalist) , Nihilist (read immoral) or Ant like (read brain dead)" camp
2) The "my word is the final word" camp
3) The "deliberately post in a long winding and cryptic manner so people think you are intelligent" camp
Since the most of your post is based on the wrong assumption that I am a Theist, I don't see any point in responding to such junk. so let me go directly to the relevant parts.
I don't have any "buck" in the theist camp. Please feel free to question me directly on any topic. Also feel free to quote me from any of the threads on this forum. If you are not able to substantiate your claims, I will assume that you are one of those who like to "hit and run".
I think you have a buck in the following camps
1) The " Call anyone who does not agree with you as a Theist (read religious fundamentalist) , Nihilist (read immoral) or Ant like (read brain dead)" camp
2) The "my word is the final word" camp
3) The "deliberately post in a long winding and cryptic manner so people think you are intelligent" camp
Since the most of your post is based on the wrong assumption that I am a Theist, I don't see any point in responding to such junk. so let me go directly to the relevant parts.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Proposing question such as these, given the background of this thread and what we all know, is the intention of this question(s) to clarify or to confuse... no offence but what was your intention vkamath? Are your "good" and "bad"... absolutes?
The intentions of these questions is neither to clarify nor confuse. The intention is to make one think. The questions are deliberately lacking in information, because in real life we are forced to take instant decisions on several occasions without enough information. For Eg: When a police officer sees someone threatening another with a knife, he cannot ask "how many kids do you have?" before taking strong action.
The intentions of these questions is neither to clarify nor confuse. The intention is to make one think. The questions are deliberately lacking in information, because in real life we are forced to take instant decisions on several occasions without enough information. For Eg: When a police officer sees someone threatening another with a knife, he cannot ask "how many kids do you have?" before taking strong action.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
1) There are no absolutes in morality that we can ever know.
There is no debate on this (except for 555Joshua), so you are stating the obvious.
There is no debate on this (except for 555Joshua), so you are stating the obvious.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
2) You cannot define "good" for all people (you cannot define absolute "bad" either)
By your wording, it seems to me that there is something which you are able to define. If so, lets hear it.
By your wording, it seems to me that there is something which you are able to define. If so, lets hear it.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
3) "Evil" must be intended. It matters little if the act occurs or not... it is the intention alone that is evil and that is what must be remedied.
Evil is nothing but a point of view. So what is good from where you are standing may be evil from where I see. So Evil need not be intended.
Evil is nothing but a point of view. So what is good from where you are standing may be evil from where I see. So Evil need not be intended.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
4) Stop attributing "evil" to the vagaries of nature or the stupidity or poor choices made by individuals. Nature is neither good nor evil in itself since there is no "intention". That goes for disease and famine and flood (where there are no human intentions). Of course some famines (not the sole action of nature) are deliberately intended in some countries, so that is definitely "evil" since the authorities who could help actually intend "evil" (and they know it).
Again, stating the obvious with Good Elfisms.
Again, stating the obvious with Good Elfisms.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
5) Stop personifying this natural "evil" in a "patsy", other tribe or nation state.
Again, stating the obvious with Good Elfisms.
Again, stating the obvious with Good Elfisms.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
6) To test for "evil"... Just apply the "Golden Rule" and see if what you intend to do for others is the intention you would have them do for you and your family if the circumstances were reversed.
Upisoft with his Employee-Employer example clearly proved you wrong. Your irrelevant, long winding and cryptic post did nothing to convince otherwise.
Your "Golden Rule" cannot stand up to real life examples.
Upisoft with his Employee-Employer example clearly proved you wrong. Your irrelevant, long winding and cryptic post did nothing to convince otherwise.
Your "Golden Rule" cannot stand up to real life examples.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
7) Stop trying to confuse others with stupid circular arguments that are meaningless . If your intention is deliberately not to solve a moral problem, then your intent is "evil". If you deny this claim and you insist that you are trying to solve a problem... provide the resolution.
If you are referring to me , then let me tell you that I did provide a resolution. My resolution is simply "Do what you think is Good". Read my previous posts.
If you are referring to me , then let me tell you that I did provide a resolution. My resolution is simply "Do what you think is Good". Read my previous posts.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
8) A process of discovery which can be used to determine ways in which evil intent can be minimized in our dealings with others... This must be "researched". These "theories" should be tested... and a "Sample Exchange Program" is to be established to ensure quality and consistency of results independent of race, religion or nationality. These results are necessarily open to challenge and revision by anyone as the system "evolves" toward better ways in which we deal with moral situations.
Moral issues cannot be resolved using "Sample exchange programs", simply because there is no one correct answer to any question that anyone can agree upon. Morality is not a "laboratory sample".
Moral issues cannot be resolved using "Sample exchange programs", simply because there is no one correct answer to any question that anyone can agree upon. Morality is not a "laboratory sample".
555Joshua,
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 18 2006, 02:59 PM)
They do not. But my definition changes every time I notice it's wrong. Do you understand?
Yes, I understand. I know that it works this way. Your problem is that you can't be sure that you'll ever stop noticing things that are wrong. You can't prove that you've noticed all wrong, thus your definition will be incomplete.
Yes, I understand. I know that it works this way. Your problem is that you can't be sure that you'll ever stop noticing things that are wrong. You can't prove that you've noticed all wrong, thus your definition will be incomplete.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 18 2006, 02:59 PM)
Are you talking about cultural viewpoints? No. Absolute is not based on what people think.
Harming is the act of inflicting harm. Harm is the act of inflicting displeaser which the person being acted upon finds displeasing.
Here you're in contradiction with yourself. Is your definition based on what people think, as we can see in second statement, or it's not, as first statement clearly says.
That's not the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is meant to be applied to self only; it is not meant for you to address it to anybody. What you have done is to assume it from his point of view, when it can't be applied that way. What you have done is taken an axiom for personal moral equality and assumed it for another instead of merely applying it to yourself. The further error is in his assumed nonapplication of it to you resulting in your own martyred resolution of it. Garbage in, garbage out.
The Golden Rule is not "Do unto others according to your beliefs of what they will then do unto you", but "Do unto others as YOU would HAVE them do unto you" --- REGARDLESS of whether they do or not. The application of the Golden Rule is never contingent on the response you are supposed to get or want to get or should get. It is a selfless mode of operation based on sane fair logical integrity without any thought of reward or punishment for applying it. I mean no animosity here but your confusion/distortion of a simple rule is a fine example of how mankind can obfuscate anything and suffer for it, as you have done with the misapplication of this rule and the sour resolution of your work scenario in your example.
So, you say that putting myself in the employer's shoes was wrong. I had to ask the question in reverse, without putting myself in his shows.
Then the question follows: "Would I like that my employer don't work hard for me?"
Since my employer don't work for me at all, and I already accepted that, then I must accept that not working hard, and even not working at all, has to be good.
The problem with any Golden Rule is that it's supposed to give answer in true/false form. However, business dealings are about finding a balance.
There can be two border cases of disbalance in employer-employee relations:
1) The employee gets almost nothing, the employer gets lots of money.
2) The employee gets lots of money, the employer loses money.
Obviously both border cases are not good. You can go from 1) to 2) by increasing salary of the employee, so you may think of it as a function with parameter x(salary). Your Golden Rule has to be able to answer the question "For which x, there will be maximum happiness, good, whatever?". But, it can't.
Harming is the act of inflicting harm. Harm is the act of inflicting displeaser which the person being acted upon finds displeasing.
Here you're in contradiction with yourself. Is your definition based on what people think, as we can see in second statement, or it's not, as first statement clearly says.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 18 2006, 02:59 PM)
You didn't give me all the facts. I was forced to make a judgment based on what I knew.
And in most real life situations people do make decisions based on what they knew. They can do something that they think is good, and then find that what they did was wrong. Some can be sorry for what they have done, and some may not feel any guilt at all. Thus, the evilness of the act depends what the person thinks afterwards.
And in most real life situations people do make decisions based on what they knew. They can do something that they think is good, and then find that what they did was wrong. Some can be sorry for what they have done, and some may not feel any guilt at all. Thus, the evilness of the act depends what the person thinks afterwards.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 18 2006, 03:41 PM)
But the definition does not say toward everyone. By choosing to help the woman he does not neglect his responsibilities.
Tell that to the dead man.
Tell that to the dead man.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 18 2006, 05:29 PM)
That's not the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is meant to be applied to self only; it is not meant for you to address it to anybody. What you have done is to assume it from his point of view, when it can't be applied that way. What you have done is taken an axiom for personal moral equality and assumed it for another instead of merely applying it to yourself. The further error is in his assumed nonapplication of it to you resulting in your own martyred resolution of it. Garbage in, garbage out.
The Golden Rule is not "Do unto others according to your beliefs of what they will then do unto you", but "Do unto others as YOU would HAVE them do unto you" --- REGARDLESS of whether they do or not. The application of the Golden Rule is never contingent on the response you are supposed to get or want to get or should get. It is a selfless mode of operation based on sane fair logical integrity without any thought of reward or punishment for applying it. I mean no animosity here but your confusion/distortion of a simple rule is a fine example of how mankind can obfuscate anything and suffer for it, as you have done with the misapplication of this rule and the sour resolution of your work scenario in your example.
So, you say that putting myself in the employer's shoes was wrong. I had to ask the question in reverse, without putting myself in his shows.
Then the question follows: "Would I like that my employer don't work hard for me?"
Since my employer don't work for me at all, and I already accepted that, then I must accept that not working hard, and even not working at all, has to be good.
The problem with any Golden Rule is that it's supposed to give answer in true/false form. However, business dealings are about finding a balance.
There can be two border cases of disbalance in employer-employee relations:
1) The employee gets almost nothing, the employer gets lots of money.
2) The employee gets lots of money, the employer loses money.
Obviously both border cases are not good. You can go from 1) to 2) by increasing salary of the employee, so you may think of it as a function with parameter x(salary). Your Golden Rule has to be able to answer the question "For which x, there will be maximum happiness, good, whatever?". But, it can't.
555Joshua,
Here is the proof that the definition of Evil can never be absolute.
vkamath: I am not saying it is ok to harm others to help yourself. But if someone's very survival is at stake, and they do something "wrong" without any other option, I dont think it is Evil.
So now we have a disagreement on this scenario. So any amount of tweaking you do to the absolute definition of Evil, it will either fail to satisfy me or it will fail to satisfy you simply because our interpretation of Evil is different.
Hence your definition will never be absolute with any amount of tweaking.
Here is the proof that the definition of Evil can never be absolute.
QUOTE
8) Robber is hungry from several days and has no option but to enter store and rob money. Police shoot robber to death.
555Joshua: What the robber did was evil. Why did the police shoot him?
vkamath: I don't think what the robber did was evil, as he did not have any other options. The police see him robbing the store and shoot him without warning.
555Joshua: What the robber did was evil; what the police did was evil. What you are saying is it's okay to harm others to help yourself. I see no way where that is okay. If it's okay to rob a store to fill your stomach, why stop there? Why not kill someone for their house because you have nowhere to sleep?
555Joshua: What the robber did was evil. Why did the police shoot him?
vkamath: I don't think what the robber did was evil, as he did not have any other options. The police see him robbing the store and shoot him without warning.
555Joshua: What the robber did was evil; what the police did was evil. What you are saying is it's okay to harm others to help yourself. I see no way where that is okay. If it's okay to rob a store to fill your stomach, why stop there? Why not kill someone for their house because you have nowhere to sleep?
vkamath: I am not saying it is ok to harm others to help yourself. But if someone's very survival is at stake, and they do something "wrong" without any other option, I dont think it is Evil.
So now we have a disagreement on this scenario. So any amount of tweaking you do to the absolute definition of Evil, it will either fail to satisfy me or it will fail to satisfy you simply because our interpretation of Evil is different.
Hence your definition will never be absolute with any amount of tweaking.
Hi Vkamath, Upisoft,
So sorry... it was Upisoft that is the professing theist.
Upisoft
So many threads and so much to remember... Alright... my post got a little derailed.. I will try and recover by answering a couple of your questions. Obviously I was addressing a practicing theist.
So sorry... it was Upisoft that is the professing theist.
Upisoft
So many threads and so much to remember... Alright... my post got a little derailed.. I will try and recover by answering a couple of your questions. Obviously I was addressing a practicing theist.
QUOTE (Vkamath+)
My resolution is simply "Do what you think is Good". Read my previous posts.
Obviously you can sure do that. What if I thought that my owning all the resources of the Earth was "good"? The remaining people on this planet would rightly conclude I was about to do them "evil". I think this is not so "good" after all.
What personal morality does not do is provide justice. As I have said you can be as moral as you like but in primitive societies you will not receive justice. Almost all society is primitive since justice is "thin on the ground" and is "negotiated" at a price by either "purchasing" the best lawyer or in some countries actually purchasing freedom itself. In other countries the justice system can be circumvented entirely with "plea bargaining". People accept PB because they do not want their family thrown on the streets after paying even minimum court costs. That is the "justice" you seem to think is acceptable. Well I do not and that is why I think the whole deal needs to be thought out again.
What is needed is something that can be clearer and fairer to everyone regardless of race or creed. I have never said that the "Golden Rule" resolves anything at all, only shows clearly what is the intention and to be able to tell if it was evil. That is all. I stated it this way ... a little clearer than some others are stating it I think...
QUOTE
Upisoft with his Employee-Employer example clearly proved you wrong. Your irrelevant, long winding and cryptic post did nothing to convince otherwise.
No.. my proposition is how we must "advance" to a better form of morality than the arbitrary and combative one we now have. As for morality ... we already have several models that "nearly" work. You guys are still trying to work out a definition about "good and evil". I am not sure to what end... do you think it helps? What personal morality does not do is provide justice. As I have said you can be as moral as you like but in primitive societies you will not receive justice. Almost all society is primitive since justice is "thin on the ground" and is "negotiated" at a price by either "purchasing" the best lawyer or in some countries actually purchasing freedom itself. In other countries the justice system can be circumvented entirely with "plea bargaining". People accept PB because they do not want their family thrown on the streets after paying even minimum court costs. That is the "justice" you seem to think is acceptable. Well I do not and that is why I think the whole deal needs to be thought out again.
What is needed is something that can be clearer and fairer to everyone regardless of race or creed. I have never said that the "Golden Rule" resolves anything at all, only shows clearly what is the intention and to be able to tell if it was evil. That is all. I stated it this way ... a little clearer than some others are stating it I think...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Upisoft with his Employee-Employer example clearly proved you wrong. Your irrelevant, long winding and cryptic post did nothing to convince otherwise. |
No.. my proposition is how we must "advance" to a better form of morality than the arbitrary and combative one we now have. As for morality ... we already have several models that "nearly" work. You guys are still trying to work out a definition about "good and evil". I am not sure to what end... do you think it helps?
What personal morality does not do is provide justice. As I have said you can be as moral as you like but in primitive societies you will not receive justice. Almost all society is primitive since justice is "thin on the ground" and is "negotiated" at a price by either "purchasing" the best lawyer or in some countries actually purchasing freedom itself. In other countries the justice system can be circumvented entirely with "plea bargaining". People accept PB because they do not want their family thrown on the streets after paying even minimum court costs. That is the "justice" you seem to think is acceptable. Well I do not and that is why I think the whole deal needs to be thought out again.
What is needed is something that can be clearer and fairer to everyone regardless of race or creed. I have never said that the "Golden Rule" resolves anything at all, only shows clearly what is the intention and to be able to tell if it was evil. That is all. I stated it this way ... a little clearer than some others are stating it I think...
To test for "evil"... Just apply the "Golden Rule" and see if what you intend to do for others is the intention you would have them do for you and your family if the circumstances were reversed.
What personal morality does not do is provide justice. As I have said you can be as moral as you like but in primitive societies you will not receive justice. Almost all society is primitive since justice is "thin on the ground" and is "negotiated" at a price by either "purchasing" the best lawyer or in some countries actually purchasing freedom itself. In other countries the justice system can be circumvented entirely with "plea bargaining". People accept PB because they do not want their family thrown on the streets after paying even minimum court costs. That is the "justice" you seem to think is acceptable. Well I do not and that is why I think the whole deal needs to be thought out again.
What is needed is something that can be clearer and fairer to everyone regardless of race or creed. I have never said that the "Golden Rule" resolves anything at all, only shows clearly what is the intention and to be able to tell if it was evil. That is all. I stated it this way ... a little clearer than some others are stating it I think...
To test for "evil"... Just apply the "Golden Rule" and see if what you intend to do for others is the intention you would have them do for you and your family if the circumstances were reversed.
This of course resolves nothing about disputes of the working classes but it will discover just where the "evil intent" is. You may know something is "evil" but that will not help you gain any justice. The legal system is full of this stuff. Current Affairs shows are full of all those stories where people have been "harmed" either physically or financially and the legal system is 100% behind the one who is perpetrating the harm. This is because the legal system is not interested in anything other than the purely technical juris prudence. It is really a system where the state takes a "piece of the action" from the criminals by charging those high fees for defense, in that way some money stolen from others are returned to the coffers of the State.
Unfortunately this has a seductive side where a lawyer will work his butt ofto see his client freed so he may be able to steal again to pay those fees. Where I live there is a well known system where the "wigs" all turn up at the races and bet on a particular horse in a particular predetermined race and they wll be guraranteed to win in that one race, thus settling any outstanding debts. You can also see how the "Legal Profession" have also become part of the evil system. In the case of the State vs the innocent accused... there is no redress and no proportional compensation... even if the charges are finally dropped.
Unfortunately this has a seductive side where a lawyer will work his butt ofto see his client freed so he may be able to steal again to pay those fees. Where I live there is a well known system where the "wigs" all turn up at the races and bet on a particular horse in a particular predetermined race and they wll be guraranteed to win in that one race, thus settling any outstanding debts. You can also see how the "Legal Profession" have also become part of the evil system. In the case of the State vs the innocent accused... there is no redress and no proportional compensation... even if the charges are finally dropped.
QUOTE
The intentions of these questions is neither to clarify nor confuse. The intention is to make one think. The questions are deliberately lacking in information, because in real life we are forced to take instant decisions on several occasions without enough information. For Eg: When a police officer sees someone threatening another with a knife, he cannot ask "how many kids do you have?" before taking strong action.
My view is rather than leave people in this state of unpreparedness that you believe is OK, a program should be initiated where better outcomes can be achieved. I think you cannot avoid "evil"... the best any of us can do is minimize it in any particular instance. This means on the streets and in the courts. I do not think an adversarial system of justice with a jury system is the appropriate way to resolve these issues. For "gods" sake a country that spends $1/3B a day on a small war in Iraq could invest a little money in a better system of justice for all its citizenry.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The intentions of these questions is neither to clarify nor confuse. The intention is to make one think. The questions are deliberately lacking in information, because in real life we are forced to take instant decisions on several occasions without enough information. For Eg: When a police officer sees someone threatening another with a knife, he cannot ask "how many kids do you have?" before taking strong action. |
My view is rather than leave people in this state of unpreparedness that you believe is OK, a program should be initiated where better outcomes can be achieved. I think you cannot avoid "evil"... the best any of us can do is minimize it in any particular instance. This means on the streets and in the courts. I do not think an adversarial system of justice with a jury system is the appropriate way to resolve these issues. For "gods" sake a country that spends $1/3B a day on a small war in Iraq could invest a little money in a better system of justice for all its citizenry.
Evil is nothing but a point of view. So what is good from where you are standing may be evil from where I see. So Evil need not be intended.
Evil is nothing but a point of view. So what is good from where you are standing may be evil from where I see. So Evil need not be intended.
You seem to embrace the concept of "Irish Evil" which is the idea that evil can be without intent. This requires a religious context for it to be applicable. I prefer a more universal evil which is defined through intent.
Clearly there is a difficulty in the definitions of evil as well as all ideas of our confused state of "morality". "Good and bad" likewise are deficient in any defining ability. It is my contention that evil must be intended otherwise it is not evil. There is the idea of "Irish Evil" where a storm is evil or an earthquake is evil etc. This naturally arises from religious medieval concepts of "angels" that causes all events to occur (not Physics or Natural Laws).
These agencies (angels) are supposed to carry out the will of "God" in all things. Thousands of these angels would attend the falling of a single leaf to see that the will of "God" is fulfilled in every aspect... these are "emanations" from "god" or Sefirot in the Cabbala and are usually very impersonal. So if there is an earthquake it is mitigated by "angels" who intend "evil". Naturally these are usually attributed to the angels that work for "Lucifer"... thus all evil stems from Lucifer and also the concepts of possession and "the devil made me do it".
Therefore evil is personified to cover a whole lot of other phenomena that should never have been included in the idea of evil. Any wonder that today we are totally confused about all manner of "morality", it is a human system without any logical internal consistentcy. Today "angels" are personified and made warm and cuddly and we speak of "devils" rather than "angels" when we refer to Lucifer and his hordes. Of course I prefer the ideas of Physics and Natural Law... How about you?
Cheers
QUOTE
e·vil (ē'vəl) pronunciation
adj., e·vil·er, e·vil·est.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
adv. Archaic.
In an evil manner.
[Middle English, from Old English yfel.]
evilly e'vil·ly adv.
evilness e'vil·ness n.
adj., e·vil·er, e·vil·est.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
n.
1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.
adv. Archaic.
In an evil manner.
[Middle English, from Old English yfel.]
evilly e'vil·ly adv.
evilness e'vil·ness n.
Clearly there is a difficulty in the definitions of evil as well as all ideas of our confused state of "morality". "Good and bad" likewise are deficient in any defining ability. It is my contention that evil must be intended otherwise it is not evil. There is the idea of "Irish Evil" where a storm is evil or an earthquake is evil etc. This naturally arises from religious medieval concepts of "angels" that causes all events to occur (not Physics or Natural Laws).
These agencies (angels) are supposed to carry out the will of "God" in all things. Thousands of these angels would attend the falling of a single leaf to see that the will of "God" is fulfilled in every aspect... these are "emanations" from "god" or Sefirot in the Cabbala and are usually very impersonal. So if there is an earthquake it is mitigated by "angels" who intend "evil". Naturally these are usually attributed to the angels that work for "Lucifer"... thus all evil stems from Lucifer and also the concepts of possession and "the devil made me do it".
Therefore evil is personified to cover a whole lot of other phenomena that should never have been included in the idea of evil. Any wonder that today we are totally confused about all manner of "morality", it is a human system without any logical internal consistentcy. Today "angels" are personified and made warm and cuddly and we speak of "devils" rather than "angels" when we refer to Lucifer and his hordes. Of course I prefer the ideas of Physics and Natural Law... How about you?
Cheers
Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 19 2006, 11:02 AM)
So sorry... it was Upisoft that is the professing theist.
Upisoft
So many threads and so much to remember...
Theist, but not professing.
Unlike you, professing Elfist
What actually I can't agree with you is that we can minimize evil. I think we can't. Only a society can do that.
However, I don't understand how we could measure 'evil'. All we, except probably 555Joshua, agree that 'evil' is relative and personal. So there can't exist absolute measure of it.
Relative measure of evil in some units (let's name them Hitlers), also seem impossible. If you could measure the change in Hitlers/s, you may then integrate the result over time and get absolute measure in Hitlers.
So, if we have no objective data about 'evil', how we can be sure that it decreased? If 'evil' is relative then someone out there may just think opposite, that 'evil' actually increased.
Upisoft
So many threads and so much to remember...
Theist, but not professing.
Unlike you, professing Elfist
What actually I can't agree with you is that we can minimize evil. I think we can't. Only a society can do that.
However, I don't understand how we could measure 'evil'. All we, except probably 555Joshua, agree that 'evil' is relative and personal. So there can't exist absolute measure of it.
Relative measure of evil in some units (let's name them Hitlers), also seem impossible. If you could measure the change in Hitlers/s, you may then integrate the result over time and get absolute measure in Hitlers.
So, if we have no objective data about 'evil', how we can be sure that it decreased? If 'evil' is relative then someone out there may just think opposite, that 'evil' actually increased.
Hi Upisoft,
QUOTE (Upisoft Posted on Today at 6:48 PM+)
What actually I can't agree with you is that we can minimize evil. I think we can't. Only a society can do that.
However, I don't understand how we could measure 'evil'. All we, except probably 555Joshua, agree that 'evil' is relative and personal. So there can't exist absolute measure of it.
However, I don't understand how we could measure 'evil'. All we, except probably 555Joshua, agree that 'evil' is relative and personal. So there can't exist absolute measure of it.
I agree there is no absolute measurement of "evil". If we could do that then there would be a way to test for the total absence of evil... this is 'nonsense" I am sorry to say. This comes with the territory in that we cannot define evil absolutely ... that would be the corollary. What we can do is say in a particular set of circumstances according to the test for "evil"... we can potentially minimize it relative to those who do not try to minimize it. Applying the "golden rule" the Crusaders could have minimized "evil" if they refrained from slaying the women and children of "infidels". Evil still would occur but there would have been less evil if they did just that. They were under direct orders from the Pope to slay everyone, if they had chosen to do otherwise they may have minimized the "evil".
We can't measure evil the same way we cannot test to see that a science fact is "complete". What we do in science is to propose a new extension to the theory and see if it answers more questions and gives a better answer than the previous method. Then that theory is better than the one before. Nothing absolute here either.
Lets not talk about "Hitlers"... this implies that there are some absolute units of evil... this is not possible. Lets just look at the consequences of current methods of handling moral problems and start by saying this result is the original "base" standard. Then we try to simulate other ways of handling the problem. Then relative to the original level of evil, there will be outcomes which will be more evil or less evil than the first "base" outcome. In practice we check to see if the theory matches the facts. If this process saves one extra life or reduces suffering to one family then it will be worth it and less "evil" will occur.
So when we encounter this problem again instead of choosing the "base" response we choose the best outcome as seen in the above tests for the most people applying the golden rule for each of them individually. Evil will still occur but less evil. Next month another better constructed experiment is run in simulation and an even better result is provided with even less proportionate evil. We adopt the new standard.
Not wrong, useless. You don't need to know anything from his perspective to do unto him as *you would have* him do unto you. The point is you're already in his shoes by knowing what you are doing unto him. And it's what you would have him do unto you. The point is you are sharing the shoes; the Golden Rule is a philosophical equality equation. As simple as it gets, the commutative property between 2 people. This is a reasonable and logical and fair way to be. It does not take any random or superfluous future possibilities into account. It does not take his selfishness meanness or wrongness or unfairness into account. The Golden Rule is a guide for living with integrity; you remain consistent regardless of how others may be, even though it's not a fair world.
In my working environment I have to sometimes deal with some incredibly vain and pompous people. I treat them as I would want them to treat me. They don't treat me as they would want me to treat them. I continue to employ the Golden Rule unabated. They continue to treat me with haughtiness. I remain undaunted.
I am being as clear as I can.
It is never to be expected, but it is very satisfying to see a hardened or selfserving person soften and relax in their ways as they continue to be the recipient of the gr. I have seen it much. You gain unexpected friends this way. There is a quality about the gr that asserts itself when employed consistently on a personal basis. Day to day life contains all the details; this is where gr well employed ends up benefitting you. You have to wake up to you every day. Apologies for the little digression, but I truly feel how we enter and exit in all the minutae of each day influences who we are and how we present as we go on.
We can't measure evil the same way we cannot test to see that a science fact is "complete". What we do in science is to propose a new extension to the theory and see if it answers more questions and gives a better answer than the previous method. Then that theory is better than the one before. Nothing absolute here either.
Lets not talk about "Hitlers"... this implies that there are some absolute units of evil... this is not possible. Lets just look at the consequences of current methods of handling moral problems and start by saying this result is the original "base" standard. Then we try to simulate other ways of handling the problem. Then relative to the original level of evil, there will be outcomes which will be more evil or less evil than the first "base" outcome. In practice we check to see if the theory matches the facts. If this process saves one extra life or reduces suffering to one family then it will be worth it and less "evil" will occur.
So when we encounter this problem again instead of choosing the "base" response we choose the best outcome as seen in the above tests for the most people applying the golden rule for each of them individually. Evil will still occur but less evil. Next month another better constructed experiment is run in simulation and an even better result is provided with even less proportionate evil. We adopt the new standard.
QUOTE (Upisoft Posted on Today at 6:48 PM+)
So, if we have no objective data about 'evil', how we can be sure that it decreased?
I do not intend to set down "protocols" here because this is just ad-hoc. Lets take the obvious case of the Crusades and the difference between slaying the women and children and slaying everyone. Then apply the "Golden Rule" to each of the potential victims. In one case I only kill the men of fighting age. I see these as acts of evil according to the "Golden Rule"... 1, 2, 3.. etc
Now I do not slay the others (women and children). I think they may consider that less evil individually... unpleasant but less evil... evil is marginally minimized. Not perfect... just better.
In Police arrests we may use non-lethal means in certain circumstances. I am sad to say a Police Officer here in my country shot dead a distraught woman with a butter knife on an open beach with nobody other than the police around. To me this was "excessive" and was "evil". Macing her would have been possible and still "evil"... but less "evil" than killing her. Police in my country are told never to shoot to maim but always to kill. This is another situation that could be changed. Less evil in the court system would involve a inquisitorial system of justice that does not depend on defense attorneys. If everyone gets the same level of justice then this is less "evil" not only for the alleged criminal but also for the victims. applying the "Golden Rule" will result in "less" evil overall to both alleged criminal and victims.
Cheers
Now I do not slay the others (women and children). I think they may consider that less evil individually... unpleasant but less evil... evil is marginally minimized. Not perfect... just better.
In Police arrests we may use non-lethal means in certain circumstances. I am sad to say a Police Officer here in my country shot dead a distraught woman with a butter knife on an open beach with nobody other than the police around. To me this was "excessive" and was "evil". Macing her would have been possible and still "evil"... but less "evil" than killing her. Police in my country are told never to shoot to maim but always to kill. This is another situation that could be changed. Less evil in the court system would involve a inquisitorial system of justice that does not depend on defense attorneys. If everyone gets the same level of justice then this is less "evil" not only for the alleged criminal but also for the victims. applying the "Golden Rule" will result in "less" evil overall to both alleged criminal and victims.
Cheers
QUOTE
So, you say that putting myself in the employer's shoes was wrong
Not wrong, useless. You don't need to know anything from his perspective to do unto him as *you would have* him do unto you. The point is you're already in his shoes by knowing what you are doing unto him. And it's what you would have him do unto you. The point is you are sharing the shoes; the Golden Rule is a philosophical equality equation. As simple as it gets, the commutative property between 2 people. This is a reasonable and logical and fair way to be. It does not take any random or superfluous future possibilities into account. It does not take his selfishness meanness or wrongness or unfairness into account. The Golden Rule is a guide for living with integrity; you remain consistent regardless of how others may be, even though it's not a fair world.
In my working environment I have to sometimes deal with some incredibly vain and pompous people. I treat them as I would want them to treat me. They don't treat me as they would want me to treat them. I continue to employ the Golden Rule unabated. They continue to treat me with haughtiness. I remain undaunted.
I am being as clear as I can.
It is never to be expected, but it is very satisfying to see a hardened or selfserving person soften and relax in their ways as they continue to be the recipient of the gr. I have seen it much. You gain unexpected friends this way. There is a quality about the gr that asserts itself when employed consistently on a personal basis. Day to day life contains all the details; this is where gr well employed ends up benefitting you. You have to wake up to you every day. Apologies for the little digression, but I truly feel how we enter and exit in all the minutae of each day influences who we are and how we present as we go on.
The Golden Rule, wherever that descended and originated from is *useless* and just another BELIEF of some individuals, not aware or intentionally neglecting "most" of lifely situations.
This rule, does NOT treat but merely lets evolve ALL "evil" and "bad", ignorantly, for respect in the yes of the one who is wrong.
If any individual craves and works towards gaining the respect of another, who is morally flawed, as proselytizing and flattery, then thats proof of this individual being nothing better, let alone completely inane at mind.
Its an extremely of a pessimistic and passive way of "surviving" life, as impotent to creating good, fighting for right, and fighting against "evil".
The use of FALSE terminology and euphemisms is what drives and riddles this approach, where "softeness" basically translates to "uselessness" and "impotence" in complacency.
Firstly, & lastly, it cannot even account for JUSTICE and action towards wrong doing of ANY kind, rendering it foolish and inappropriate Tibetan monkish way of thought. I agree those who like to sit back and take "beef" have the disposition or have nurtured it to be like that, but some of us as active in defense of our legitimate rights, respect and integrity, the main and pioneering Alexander sort of "doers" rather than "followers" and "dependers" love this rule, but we try to SHAPE others into holding the correct, and appropriate beliefs and ways in life, rather than breeding environments of chaos and uncontrolled injustice and "evilness" to prosper by inadequate action where due. I guess this is where "duties" and "interests" come into hand for those with this "GR" stance, and thus our completely antagonistic stance.
Away from this, its just another religious dogmatised BELIEF of individuals to not see the contradictory and highly unrealistic adoption and implications of this "rule" in the human societies, presently fluctuating and thriving; and I know they will be first into maneuvering and twitching the rule with combinations of many other rules, in order to pass on a good reflection of it, as they try ardently to do of themselves, although they're much too far fetched here.
I understand its the "philosophy" of many, & as long as they impose it on themselves as they want, fair enough. But NOT on others, thats stepping over limits to tyranny.
By all means it is applicable in SOME instances, but by no way universal and generalized for every circumstance, situation, culture and society; not even only in Western US alone!
Its the "backwards and "antediluvian" way to go, that I wouldn't except anyone with hindsight or accurate knowledge of "human" psychology and sociology to ever even consider, let alone further. Another very vague, over simplistic, ambiguous and highly cryptic and mythological tale based, corollary it is, unfortunately, though obviously not for some. Although in general dealings with those doing "good", this is of the best ethical laws of communication and correspondence to employ, for EQUAL rights, as long as there is a well prepared judiciary waiting to deal with all wrongdoings, as a precaution; which again sadly there isn't!
Maybe in heaven this "GR" goes, for those believers
If I'm correct, which I have much reason to believe I am on this, it evolves from Buddhism of Sidharta Gautama appearing during c.500BC, which again is more nonsensical stupidity, just like many other religions, I do NOT adhere or subscribe to at all.
I don't tend to function on laws, which act as a rigid "box", rendering the mind tardy & lame, with precompiled assertions, postulates, and answers, preconceptualized and preconceived notions, beliefs, and approaches with preconfirmed and preconditioned answers, views, solutions and "reactions", constricted and very stiff box like shaped thinking in consequence; but try doing good, simple, & nothing wrong! It works perfect, if ones sincere.
As for GR, thats again "interest" based not empathy and decency based mentality and motive behind the "good" acts, which again is never needed for a sane soul to adhere to, like that of a religion regardless of anything of a change in event and situation, but standard sense, reasoning and observational based knowledge with deduction based and imaginative wisdom to be able to charter and concoct scenarios of best conduct, most efficient reap for you and the other part involved.
To have preconceptual and preconceived beliefs in anything and now to say to enter into a valid and open discussion by any means, automatically negates the point of it, where individuals fail to see and realize common sense, due to their emotive and personal involvement, which occurs much too frequently, with all those who do not search "objectively" and open mindedly to a viable solution, in mutual give 'n' take, rather than repeatedly assert and stick on with their initial views or beliefs.
Thanks for reading... great site btw, I & my work colleagues read it often, although theres some highly foolish, mindlessly argumentative, potty mouthed, childish, ad nauseum flatterers, poseurs, belief full "blind", "rigid", extremely egotistical/arrogant & probably very sad and lonely characters on here too, who seem to attract some of the highest feedback ratings as well
However, most members are not and that sonly a critcial analysis, & I agree with what the members vkamath and Upisoft (etc) are stating, as their approach seems highly reflective of reality and pretty perfect in conduct here.
This rule, does NOT treat but merely lets evolve ALL "evil" and "bad", ignorantly, for respect in the yes of the one who is wrong.
If any individual craves and works towards gaining the respect of another, who is morally flawed, as proselytizing and flattery, then thats proof of this individual being nothing better, let alone completely inane at mind.
Its an extremely of a pessimistic and passive way of "surviving" life, as impotent to creating good, fighting for right, and fighting against "evil".
The use of FALSE terminology and euphemisms is what drives and riddles this approach, where "softeness" basically translates to "uselessness" and "impotence" in complacency.
Firstly, & lastly, it cannot even account for JUSTICE and action towards wrong doing of ANY kind, rendering it foolish and inappropriate Tibetan monkish way of thought. I agree those who like to sit back and take "beef" have the disposition or have nurtured it to be like that, but some of us as active in defense of our legitimate rights, respect and integrity, the main and pioneering Alexander sort of "doers" rather than "followers" and "dependers" love this rule, but we try to SHAPE others into holding the correct, and appropriate beliefs and ways in life, rather than breeding environments of chaos and uncontrolled injustice and "evilness" to prosper by inadequate action where due. I guess this is where "duties" and "interests" come into hand for those with this "GR" stance, and thus our completely antagonistic stance.
Away from this, its just another religious dogmatised BELIEF of individuals to not see the contradictory and highly unrealistic adoption and implications of this "rule" in the human societies, presently fluctuating and thriving; and I know they will be first into maneuvering and twitching the rule with combinations of many other rules, in order to pass on a good reflection of it, as they try ardently to do of themselves, although they're much too far fetched here.
I understand its the "philosophy" of many, & as long as they impose it on themselves as they want, fair enough. But NOT on others, thats stepping over limits to tyranny.
By all means it is applicable in SOME instances, but by no way universal and generalized for every circumstance, situation, culture and society; not even only in Western US alone!
Its the "backwards and "antediluvian" way to go, that I wouldn't except anyone with hindsight or accurate knowledge of "human" psychology and sociology to ever even consider, let alone further. Another very vague, over simplistic, ambiguous and highly cryptic and mythological tale based, corollary it is, unfortunately, though obviously not for some. Although in general dealings with those doing "good", this is of the best ethical laws of communication and correspondence to employ, for EQUAL rights, as long as there is a well prepared judiciary waiting to deal with all wrongdoings, as a precaution; which again sadly there isn't!
Maybe in heaven this "GR" goes, for those believers
If I'm correct, which I have much reason to believe I am on this, it evolves from Buddhism of Sidharta Gautama appearing during c.500BC, which again is more nonsensical stupidity, just like many other religions, I do NOT adhere or subscribe to at all.
I don't tend to function on laws, which act as a rigid "box", rendering the mind tardy & lame, with precompiled assertions, postulates, and answers, preconceptualized and preconceived notions, beliefs, and approaches with preconfirmed and preconditioned answers, views, solutions and "reactions", constricted and very stiff box like shaped thinking in consequence; but try doing good, simple, & nothing wrong! It works perfect, if ones sincere.
As for GR, thats again "interest" based not empathy and decency based mentality and motive behind the "good" acts, which again is never needed for a sane soul to adhere to, like that of a religion regardless of anything of a change in event and situation, but standard sense, reasoning and observational based knowledge with deduction based and imaginative wisdom to be able to charter and concoct scenarios of best conduct, most efficient reap for you and the other part involved.
To have preconceptual and preconceived beliefs in anything and now to say to enter into a valid and open discussion by any means, automatically negates the point of it, where individuals fail to see and realize common sense, due to their emotive and personal involvement, which occurs much too frequently, with all those who do not search "objectively" and open mindedly to a viable solution, in mutual give 'n' take, rather than repeatedly assert and stick on with their initial views or beliefs.
Thanks for reading... great site btw, I & my work colleagues read it often, although theres some highly foolish, mindlessly argumentative, potty mouthed, childish, ad nauseum flatterers, poseurs, belief full "blind", "rigid", extremely egotistical/arrogant & probably very sad and lonely characters on here too, who seem to attract some of the highest feedback ratings as well
However, most members are not and that sonly a critcial analysis, & I agree with what the members vkamath and Upisoft (etc) are stating, as their approach seems highly reflective of reality and pretty perfect in conduct here.
Hi soundhertz,
Your forbearance is quite admirable. Yet these are still relatively evil times. To do this all the time (turning the other cheek) makes you "prey" to those who would not only exploit you but could do you and your family a lot of harm. It is better to check this adage (Golden Rule) against the evil intended. As long as you are treated with respect the Golden Rule works well but it is not an enforcement mechanism. If you start to become a victim it is better to partake in a little remedial evil yourself. This way, in our savage times, you supply a lesser degree of feedback when you are not responded to in a favorable way and you do not achieve the amount of respect you deserve from your charity. Some Christian workers want to be martyrs and become an example of perfection in this imperfect world and what will inevitably happen is they will often pay in a very extreme way for their generosity. Nor everyone just the occasional few. This is enough to spoil the social contract. One percent of the people do 90% of the crime. I am not advocating violence but I am saying in the end you do need to stand for your personal space and your right to live and pursue happiness as you choose. Into every life a little rain must fall. One day things may be better... for now the Golden Rule is a good yardstick and will help you and others but it is no guarantor of liberty and justice.
This is why we need better systems to deal with our society ... end to end. This will better allow these natural instincts to help others and to assist in building a better society in the longer run. It is no good being harmed yourself and there will always be some danger when you are open to all. Take for instance Pastor Bill Wilson of Metro Ministries, he has had a difficult life and been assaulted and pistol shot in the head from a barrel held in his mouth and luckily still survives. All because he tries to give the poor of New York some hope. Maybe it is the will of "God" but I am sure if he did not receive the best possible medical treatment possible, he would be dead today. Of course these self sacrificing individuals give and give and only want the opportunity to give some more. The rest of us just want to live.
Of course we all wait for a better world... and I hope that there will be some good people still alive (through their inherited genes) to pick up the threads.
Cheers
Your forbearance is quite admirable. Yet these are still relatively evil times. To do this all the time (turning the other cheek) makes you "prey" to those who would not only exploit you but could do you and your family a lot of harm. It is better to check this adage (Golden Rule) against the evil intended. As long as you are treated with respect the Golden Rule works well but it is not an enforcement mechanism. If you start to become a victim it is better to partake in a little remedial evil yourself. This way, in our savage times, you supply a lesser degree of feedback when you are not responded to in a favorable way and you do not achieve the amount of respect you deserve from your charity. Some Christian workers want to be martyrs and become an example of perfection in this imperfect world and what will inevitably happen is they will often pay in a very extreme way for their generosity. Nor everyone just the occasional few. This is enough to spoil the social contract. One percent of the people do 90% of the crime. I am not advocating violence but I am saying in the end you do need to stand for your personal space and your right to live and pursue happiness as you choose. Into every life a little rain must fall. One day things may be better... for now the Golden Rule is a good yardstick and will help you and others but it is no guarantor of liberty and justice.
This is why we need better systems to deal with our society ... end to end. This will better allow these natural instincts to help others and to assist in building a better society in the longer run. It is no good being harmed yourself and there will always be some danger when you are open to all. Take for instance Pastor Bill Wilson of Metro Ministries, he has had a difficult life and been assaulted and pistol shot in the head from a barrel held in his mouth and luckily still survives. All because he tries to give the poor of New York some hope. Maybe it is the will of "God" but I am sure if he did not receive the best possible medical treatment possible, he would be dead today. Of course these self sacrificing individuals give and give and only want the opportunity to give some more. The rest of us just want to live.
Of course we all wait for a better world... and I hope that there will be some good people still alive (through their inherited genes) to pick up the threads.
Cheers
The Golden Rule is good at reducing intentional evil. If all of us were to follow at-least this rule, the world would definitely be a nicer place.
There is another form of Evil which is not intentional. Let me give another work place example -
I had a manager who was a workaholic. It was obvious from his conversations that work was "sacred" to him. He worked 12 to 14 hours a day and expected the same from his reportees including me. While over work is not evil in itself, preventing a person from spending time with their family to me is evil.
If this manager were to use the Golden Rule to analyze what he did, he would find nothing wrong with making us over work.
There is another form of Evil which is not intentional. Let me give another work place example -
I had a manager who was a workaholic. It was obvious from his conversations that work was "sacred" to him. He worked 12 to 14 hours a day and expected the same from his reportees including me. While over work is not evil in itself, preventing a person from spending time with their family to me is evil.
If this manager were to use the Golden Rule to analyze what he did, he would find nothing wrong with making us over work.
See, some people judging here, the validity of whatever proposal we make. The last post by vkamath and Good Elf, I both support and see as honestly correct, filling in the "rules", in chunks rather than as whole and complete.
See if EVEN 6/10 of you can even agree that this is extremely EVIL in itself at all, and the WMD scandals, and I'd rather not have the government replying here, who are obviously functioning as pure "shills" where there agenda and belief is concerned:
PLEASE SEE
I deem this to be extremely EVIL but of course, MANY of you won't. So disagreement on CLEAR basics, means this boat cannot travel further with these attitudes and minds, pretuned to the current frequency and preset for supporting and opposing scenarios of oneself.
Appreciate it
See if EVEN 6/10 of you can even agree that this is extremely EVIL in itself at all, and the WMD scandals, and I'd rather not have the government replying here, who are obviously functioning as pure "shills" where there agenda and belief is concerned:
PLEASE SEE
I deem this to be extremely EVIL but of course, MANY of you won't. So disagreement on CLEAR basics, means this boat cannot travel further with these attitudes and minds, pretuned to the current frequency and preset for supporting and opposing scenarios of oneself.
Appreciate it
Hi Vkamath and Scand22 et al,
QUOTE (vkamath Posted on Today at 5:06 AM+)
I had a manager who was a workaholic. It was obvious from his conversations that work was "sacred" to him. He worked 12 to 14 hours a day and expected the same from his reportees including me. While over work is not evil in itself, preventing a person from spending time with their family to me is evil.
I see your "sensitivity" but it is not our place to judge others just because we do not like something which in principle has no effect on us. That goes doubly for any practice that is "passive" regarding "evil". Overwork is a lifestyle issue not an issue for the state penal system. I will also say the GR cannot be applied to aspects of "belief" that different cultures internally subject themselves to. We can only deal with these issues that actually physically affect people through intent. Accurately applying the Golden Rule to determine if someone is intending him evil... since you are not forcing him to do this and presumably neither is his family then what is your point?.. no evil here. Why do people climb Mt. Everest... do we force them to do that? ... No! This is not an issue of "evil" even if what they do may kills them.
Now if the family apply the Golden Rule and find this stress is harming them then they may see some evil that their bread winner is causing the entire family. This must be weighed up against any benefit that may result from allowing him to do what he wants... minimize the total evil. If you prevent him from his beloved overwork there may be greater evil done to him directly by the family restriction in his liberty. The GR only tests for your personal evil... I realize that this man may not see his own "evil" (quite frankly I do not see this as evil either) but the way the GR works is he is supposed to ask himself if what he is doing to others is what he would wish for himself and for his family (see my version of the GR)... would he really overwork his own family too... if he cares for them I doubt it. If he discounts his family in this process then he does not apply the test correctly or completely. It also cannot work for moral degenerates and habitually evil people nor does it work for insane people.
The case of possible malefactors of David Kelly is another situation where The Golden Rule does not apply. The only people to whom this applies are the guilty people (if any) who are part of the conspiracy and obviously they know they have done evil with intent when they apply the test to themselves. The Golden Rule does not prevent evil in evil people it just gives honest people a way to detect evil in themselves. Neither is the GR an enforcement tool. If you ask questions of people who genuinely do not know the real story then they are not actually "evil" since intent is required. If they have prevented information from reaching the appropriate sources then they are guilty of "evil" and an accessory after the fact through intent. This is not a perfect society and these mechanisms need to be weeded out of systems since not only will these defenses be used in semi-legitimate circumstances they will also be used in brand new and novel forms of evil invented because of the "loophole" in morality this creates. Give an inch and take a mile.
Cheers
Now if the family apply the Golden Rule and find this stress is harming them then they may see some evil that their bread winner is causing the entire family. This must be weighed up against any benefit that may result from allowing him to do what he wants... minimize the total evil. If you prevent him from his beloved overwork there may be greater evil done to him directly by the family restriction in his liberty. The GR only tests for your personal evil... I realize that this man may not see his own "evil" (quite frankly I do not see this as evil either) but the way the GR works is he is supposed to ask himself if what he is doing to others is what he would wish for himself and for his family (see my version of the GR)... would he really overwork his own family too... if he cares for them I doubt it. If he discounts his family in this process then he does not apply the test correctly or completely. It also cannot work for moral degenerates and habitually evil people nor does it work for insane people.
The case of possible malefactors of David Kelly is another situation where The Golden Rule does not apply. The only people to whom this applies are the guilty people (if any) who are part of the conspiracy and obviously they know they have done evil with intent when they apply the test to themselves. The Golden Rule does not prevent evil in evil people it just gives honest people a way to detect evil in themselves. Neither is the GR an enforcement tool. If you ask questions of people who genuinely do not know the real story then they are not actually "evil" since intent is required. If they have prevented information from reaching the appropriate sources then they are guilty of "evil" and an accessory after the fact through intent. This is not a perfect society and these mechanisms need to be weeded out of systems since not only will these defenses be used in semi-legitimate circumstances they will also be used in brand new and novel forms of evil invented because of the "loophole" in morality this creates. Give an inch and take a mile.
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Thank you for your post. I should alleviate appreciated concern. To the extent my gentle take on how to live implies loss of personal autonomy, fragility, insecurity, etc. I should clarify.
I believe times have always been equally evil throughout history per capita and to the extent culture, technology, communication, etc. enabled it. Turning the other cheek if the first one is getting punched! is foolhardy. We are above all creatures of survival first. Thwarting an evil attempt that could harm me or my family is the right choice. These are things that demand a response. "Do unto others..." is the opposite. It's extending an idea outward first, an important distinction. The gr subtlely implies a peaceful and happy state of mind; peace and happiness are desirable and wanted..In their truest sense, calmness and gentleness imply strength, not weakness, or meekness. I assure you my colleagues have never considered me meek! One can have a quiet gentle way that is very commanding...
Applying the Golden Rule in any way except a personal one is fraught with problems. Well-intentioned purveyors of it would get steamrollered and ramshackled. The gr is not justice, it is a way of living and seeing for single entities. It has occasionally been seen operating en masse, but rarely. A good example was Gandhi. It's not meant to take the place of justice. It has nothing to do with justice. Justice seeks conviction if warranted; the majority of people and those in power believe in the use of punishment to seek revenge on the perpetrator for his offence and as a deterrent in the name of the common good. It has no relation to the gr except through a faulty circuit of 'reasoning'.
The gr is to be used individually to the greatest extent it can. It's a working example of clean intelligent mature reaction taking the place of damaging repeating emotional response. A great example - driving. The simplest and best emotional response to an aggressive driver is none! Am I internalizing my 'justified anger'? Not anymore, not for umpteen years. That driver isn't worth me reducing myself to a raging fool. I am proud of myself that no anger, irritation, annoyance, and especially stupid emotional driving wells up in me. Practicing the gr is just part of the striving for a more a stress-free state. I have to drive 20,000 miles a year. The gr has saved me how much negative emotion and how many ounces of adrenaline to fuel it? Pretty economical impact on mind/body I'd say. This is what I meant by the minutae of the day. The day is filled up with all kinds of events that don't have to be cumulatively harmful.
Scand22 said
I couldn't agree more, so where's the argument? Scand22 said
I couldn't agree more, so where's the argument? Scand22 said By all means it is applicable in SOME instances, but by no way universal and generalized for every circumstance, situation, culture and society; not even only in Western US alone!
Of course, it can't be. We've never allowed it to. Too much mass mistrust.
(To scand22: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the personal comments were not specifically directed at me. However, if they were, were you executing the gr?) Or in other words, let's say in the entertainment vernacular since that's my field: "Wow dude, you really went for it there. You mean all that? It's OK, I'm cool with it, but, well...just wow, man."
******
"If this manager were to use the Golden Rule to analyze what he did, he would find nothing wrong with making us over work."
vka it can't be a universal gauge in just any hands any more than a gun can be a good thing in the hands of a criminal. We can take the same analogy to a person who flagellates himself daily and would expect his followers to do the same; he would want his followers to want him to do it. The gr, in this way, is corrupted, by a corrupted mind. The evil that results, plain or subtle, is the proof of that. No, the gr can only be utilised as a tool, one of several, in one's daily life that promotes strength of character, goodwill to others, resilience to damaging emotions and useless harmful actions they cause, calmness and tolerance in the face of adversity, and the ability to handle intense situations and emerge healthy from them.
Curious that most of us know that, despite how very far we are, as a group, from allowing it.
Good Elf, It's refreshing that we have disagreed deeply enough at times but with polite and mature manner. Appreciated.
Thank you for your post. I should alleviate appreciated concern. To the extent my gentle take on how to live implies loss of personal autonomy, fragility, insecurity, etc. I should clarify.
I believe times have always been equally evil throughout history per capita and to the extent culture, technology, communication, etc. enabled it. Turning the other cheek if the first one is getting punched! is foolhardy. We are above all creatures of survival first. Thwarting an evil attempt that could harm me or my family is the right choice. These are things that demand a response. "Do unto others..." is the opposite. It's extending an idea outward first, an important distinction. The gr subtlely implies a peaceful and happy state of mind; peace and happiness are desirable and wanted..In their truest sense, calmness and gentleness imply strength, not weakness, or meekness. I assure you my colleagues have never considered me meek! One can have a quiet gentle way that is very commanding...
Applying the Golden Rule in any way except a personal one is fraught with problems. Well-intentioned purveyors of it would get steamrollered and ramshackled. The gr is not justice, it is a way of living and seeing for single entities. It has occasionally been seen operating en masse, but rarely. A good example was Gandhi. It's not meant to take the place of justice. It has nothing to do with justice. Justice seeks conviction if warranted; the majority of people and those in power believe in the use of punishment to seek revenge on the perpetrator for his offence and as a deterrent in the name of the common good. It has no relation to the gr except through a faulty circuit of 'reasoning'.
The gr is to be used individually to the greatest extent it can. It's a working example of clean intelligent mature reaction taking the place of damaging repeating emotional response. A great example - driving. The simplest and best emotional response to an aggressive driver is none! Am I internalizing my 'justified anger'? Not anymore, not for umpteen years. That driver isn't worth me reducing myself to a raging fool. I am proud of myself that no anger, irritation, annoyance, and especially stupid emotional driving wells up in me. Practicing the gr is just part of the striving for a more a stress-free state. I have to drive 20,000 miles a year. The gr has saved me how much negative emotion and how many ounces of adrenaline to fuel it? Pretty economical impact on mind/body I'd say. This is what I meant by the minutae of the day. The day is filled up with all kinds of events that don't have to be cumulatively harmful.
Scand22 said
QUOTE
but try doing good, simple, & nothing wrong! It works perfect, if ones sincere.
I couldn't agree more, so where's the argument? Scand22 said
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| but try doing good, simple, & nothing wrong! It works perfect, if ones sincere. |
I couldn't agree more, so where's the argument? Scand22 said By all means it is applicable in SOME instances, but by no way universal and generalized for every circumstance, situation, culture and society; not even only in Western US alone!
Of course, it can't be. We've never allowed it to. Too much mass mistrust.
(To scand22: I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that the personal comments were not specifically directed at me. However, if they were, were you executing the gr?
) Or in other words, let's say in the entertainment vernacular since that's my field: "Wow dude, you really went for it there. You mean all that? It's OK, I'm cool with it, but, well...just wow, man." ******
"If this manager were to use the Golden Rule to analyze what he did, he would find nothing wrong with making us over work."
vka it can't be a universal gauge in just any hands any more than a gun can be a good thing in the hands of a criminal. We can take the same analogy to a person who flagellates himself daily and would expect his followers to do the same; he would want his followers to want him to do it. The gr, in this way, is corrupted, by a corrupted mind. The evil that results, plain or subtle, is the proof of that. No, the gr can only be utilised as a tool, one of several, in one's daily life that promotes strength of character, goodwill to others, resilience to damaging emotions and useless harmful actions they cause, calmness and tolerance in the face of adversity, and the ability to handle intense situations and emerge healthy from them.
QUOTE
The Golden Rule is good at reducing intentional evil. If all of us were to follow at-least this rule, the world would definitely be a nicer place.
Curious that most of us know that, despite how very far we are, as a group, from allowing it.
Good Elf, It's refreshing that we have disagreed deeply enough at times but with polite and mature manner. Appreciated.
Hi soundhertz,
You are welcome... I am sure one day when we really need to, then some system of real Justice will be instituted where everyone will be given an even and just access to conflict resolution and instead of "punishment" we will have a social remedy that has been tailored to suit the particular problem that is fair and equitable to all. It is my view that society can only advance technically as far as its morality will allow. One day the benefits of such a morally advanced society will be made evident and that society will inherit the Earth. At the moment (without a biblical linkage) we are reaping what we have sown.
Cheers
You are welcome... I am sure one day when we really need to, then some system of real Justice will be instituted where everyone will be given an even and just access to conflict resolution and instead of "punishment" we will have a social remedy that has been tailored to suit the particular problem that is fair and equitable to all. It is my view that society can only advance technically as far as its morality will allow. One day the benefits of such a morally advanced society will be made evident and that society will inherit the Earth. At the moment (without a biblical linkage) we are reaping what we have sown.
Cheers
soundhertz,
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 20 2006, 08:09 AM)
Not wrong, useless. You don't need to know anything from his perspective to do unto him as *you would have* him do unto you. The point is you're already in his shoes by knowing what you are doing unto him. And it's what you would have him do unto you.
I'm trying to understand... So GR is about what I want to be done on me by the subject we're talking about. And after I find out that, I just do it on the subject and that's good. So in the employer-employee scenario I'm supposed to rise salary of my boss? That's meaningless too. I can't do it.
Or let me give you another scenario.
A is a young man using GR to see what's right to do in his life. B is gorgeous blonde . A finds B ultra attractive and sexy. Now A asks himself what he wants B to do on him. Anyone, who have lived on Earth, can answer this question easily. A does unto B what he thinks is good to do.
GR failure.
I'm trying to understand... So GR is about what I want to be done on me by the subject we're talking about. And after I find out that, I just do it on the subject and that's good. So in the employer-employee scenario I'm supposed to rise salary of my boss? That's meaningless too. I can't do it.
Or let me give you another scenario.
A is a young man using GR to see what's right to do in his life. B is gorgeous blonde . A finds B ultra attractive and sexy. Now A asks himself what he wants B to do on him. Anyone, who have lived on Earth, can answer this question easily. A does unto B what he thinks is good to do.
GR failure.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 20 2006, 08:09 AM)
The point is you are sharing the shoes; the Golden Rule is a philosophical equality equation. As simple as it gets, the commutative property between 2 people. This is a reasonable and logical and fair way to be.
As you can see from examples above it's not logical(rising the boss salary) or fair(young man-blonde scenario).
As you can see from examples above it's not logical(rising the boss salary) or fair(young man-blonde scenario).
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 20 2006, 08:09 AM)
I am being as clear as I can.
I hope that I didn't misunderstand the GR again.
However, any GR that gives results in the form right/wrong, true/false, good/evil, etc. is doomed to fail. The world is more complex that that. Most of the problems, people tend to have, are about finding balance, compromise, golden mean, etc.
And, finally, I also want to be as clear as I can. I'm not against GR. In some cases it could do good, maybe in most. However, there clearly are situations that GR can't help or even may cause evil. We are normal people, probably sane. We can understand that some situation is unsuitable for GR and use other means for making decision. However, that means we have to judge the outcome of GR, before starting to apply it in the reality. And I think, that judgment is what all we're talking about. Unfortunately, it can't be solved by GR.
I hope that I didn't misunderstand the GR again.
However, any GR that gives results in the form right/wrong, true/false, good/evil, etc. is doomed to fail. The world is more complex that that. Most of the problems, people tend to have, are about finding balance, compromise, golden mean, etc.
And, finally, I also want to be as clear as I can. I'm not against GR. In some cases it could do good, maybe in most. However, there clearly are situations that GR can't help or even may cause evil. We are normal people, probably sane. We can understand that some situation is unsuitable for GR and use other means for making decision. However, that means we have to judge the outcome of GR, before starting to apply it in the reality. And I think, that judgment is what all we're talking about. Unfortunately, it can't be solved by GR.
Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 19 2006, 02:10 PM)
Lets not talk about "Hitlers"... this implies that there are some absolute units of evil... this is not possible. Lets just look at the consequences of current methods of handling moral problems and start by saying this result is the original "base" standard. Then we try to simulate other ways of handling the problem. Then relative to the original level of evil, there will be outcomes which will be more evil or less evil than the first "base" outcome. In practice we check to see if the theory matches the facts. If this process saves one extra life or reduces suffering to one family then it will be worth it and less "evil" will occur.
You easily dismissed absolute units of evil, proposed by me. That's right, I also don't think that there is absolute units.
However, you also proposed your own units, without naming them. You have defined them as number of lives lost and families suffering.
Yes, I tend to agree with you that this is good criteria. Unfortunately we can't prove to ourselves that we're right, what about proving it to others.
You easily dismissed absolute units of evil, proposed by me. That's right, I also don't think that there is absolute units.
However, you also proposed your own units, without naming them. You have defined them as number of lives lost and families suffering.
Yes, I tend to agree with you that this is good criteria. Unfortunately we can't prove to ourselves that we're right, what about proving it to others.
QUOTE (calnpals+Aug 18 2006, 01:19 PM)
Fact: You say that what people think is good and evil doesn't define it. It's just their opinions.
Yes, and they may just be wrong.
Yes, and they may just be wrong.
QUOTE (same+)
Fact: It was humans that came up with the very notion of good and evil.
Yes, to define actions as either one or the other. This was probably an attempt toward civilization. However, different people base their viewpoint of good and evil on their culture. That is not absolute, thus cultures differ definitions. One definition of right and wrong, based not on culture but logic, would be required to properly define the matter.
Yes, to define actions as either one or the other. This was probably an attempt toward civilization. However, different people base their viewpoint of good and evil on their culture. That is not absolute, thus cultures differ definitions. One definition of right and wrong, based not on culture but logic, would be required to properly define the matter.
QUOTE (same+)
Fact: When those notions were thought up, they were given attributes, according to what the "makers" saw fit.
Yes, but I say they were wrong. They made good and evil/right and wrong what they saw fit. It was pretty damn barbaric, too. I say we need to work together today to make a proper definition for tomorrow.
Yes, but I say they were wrong. They made good and evil/right and wrong what they saw fit. It was pretty damn barbaric, too. I say we need to work together today to make a proper definition for tomorrow.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
Fact: The "makers" saw what they interpreted as evil and gave it that name, same with good.
Correct, and as I've said before, I doubt they were right.
Correct, and as I've said before, I doubt they were right.
QUOTE (same+)
Fact: What the "makers" interpreted was from their point of view/ opinion (unlike mathematics/shapes/other facts...which do not fall under opinion), NOT ABSOLUTE, as all humans are fallible.
Yes, but I see where you're going with this. How do we know by making the definition of good and evil they weren't wrong? That's what I'm saying. Can you deny that?
Yes, but I see where you're going with this. How do we know by making the definition of good and evil they weren't wrong? That's what I'm saying. Can you deny that?
QUOTE (same+)
Fact: You say that the actions define whether it's good or evil, not people.
I say people define intentions. A person's intentions may be to do harm but may end up actually doing good.
I say people define intentions. A person's intentions may be to do harm but may end up actually doing good.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
Fact: This contradicts the 2nd fact. As it was humans who came up with the very notion.
Actually, it does not. I can define a concept such as love, does that mean people and not actions determine whether or not those people are in love? No. Besides, I said intentions determine whether or not people intend to do good or evil, actions determine whether or not those actions where good or evil. You can't expect me to believe that what Hitler did was absolutely good because he thought it was, though, that was his opinion. He was just wrong, as well as everyone who agree(d) with him. People today believe the use of the atomic bomb in WWII was evil, despite what you say and despite the U.S. winning WWII.
Actually, it does not. I can define a concept such as love, does that mean people and not actions determine whether or not those people are in love? No. Besides, I said intentions determine whether or not people intend to do good or evil, actions determine whether or not those actions where good or evil. You can't expect me to believe that what Hitler did was absolutely good because he thought it was, though, that was his opinion. He was just wrong, as well as everyone who agree(d) with him. People today believe the use of the atomic bomb in WWII was evil, despite what you say and despite the U.S. winning WWII.
QUOTE (same+)
Fact: Actions have no intelligence, knowledge nor any other deciding power.
And they do not require such. I'm not saying the action was good or evil as in "shame on you action", I'm just defining the action as good or evil. It's still the person's responsibility. It's just that the person's intentions could have been good but their actions (what they did) were evil.
And they do not require such. I'm not saying the action was good or evil as in "shame on you action", I'm just defining the action as good or evil. It's still the person's responsibility. It's just that the person's intentions could have been good but their actions (what they did) were evil.
QUOTE (same+)
Fact: Which concludes that if humans are excluded, it must be something other than the actions themselves that decipher good from evil.
Fact: I have already explained this away.
Fact: I have already explained this away.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
Fact: Following this train of thought, one must conclude that somewhere along the line, good and evil must have grown from their original meanings given by humans (fallible), into an absolute frame of reference that dictates it without question.
Fact: This must mean that an outside force must have morphed these meanings.
Fact: Whatever made this transfer must be infallible by it's very nature.
Fact: There is no evidence of this outside force, and no evidence of an "absolute reference frame"
Fact: No matter how long humans search for this "reference frame", whatever they come up with will be merely their opinion, and by definition cannot be absolute.
Fact: Following these facts , one must conclude that searching and even contemplating an "absolute reference frame" is a notion that defeats itself.
Fact: I've explained away this, too.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Fact: This must mean that an outside force must have morphed these meanings.
Fact: Whatever made this transfer must be infallible by it's very nature.
Fact: There is no evidence of this outside force, and no evidence of an "absolute reference frame"
Fact: No matter how long humans search for this "reference frame", whatever they come up with will be merely their opinion, and by definition cannot be absolute.
Fact: Following these facts , one must conclude that searching and even contemplating an "absolute reference frame" is a notion that defeats itself.
Fact: I've explained away this, too.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
QUOTE (same+)
Fact: We say that good and evil does differ from point of view to point of view.
I do not disagree.
Actually, this does not qualify as a fact. It is merely a conclusion. Everyone has a different point of view about liars and murderers, whether or not they are such. But liars and murderes do exist. We just don't know who. We disagree on who because we have different opinions. Opinions are based on perspective. Perspective is limeted.
Actually, this does not qualify as a fact. It is merely a conclusion. Everyone has a different point of view about liars and murderers, whether or not they are such. But liars and murderes do exist. We just don't know who. We disagree on who because we have different opinions. Opinions are based on perspective. Perspective is limeted.
Fact: Not all people may believe that good and evil have the same characteristics now that they did when the "makers" came up with the notion. EG. Working on Sunday, sex before marriage and not giving human sacrifices were evil.
I agree. And I used to be among the many that believed certain things were evil without logic. Now I do not. If you say it's good/evil I must ask shy. If I grew up believing something was good/evil I now ask why. I am on a quest to find absolute good and evil using the logic I possess. Will I ever find it? I believe I'll be closer to it than so many people who believe what their culture tells them.
I do not disagree.
QUOTE
Fact: This concludes that good and evil must differ from person to person, because everyone has a different point of view and opinion, and no-one can speak in "absolute" on good and evil because all humans are infallible.
Actually, this does not qualify as a fact. It is merely a conclusion. Everyone has a different point of view about liars and murderers, whether or not they are such. But liars and murderes do exist. We just don't know who. We disagree on who because we have different opinions. Opinions are based on perspective. Perspective is limeted.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Fact: This concludes that good and evil must differ from person to person, because everyone has a different point of view and opinion, and no-one can speak in "absolute" on good and evil because all humans are infallible. |
Actually, this does not qualify as a fact. It is merely a conclusion. Everyone has a different point of view about liars and murderers, whether or not they are such. But liars and murderes do exist. We just don't know who. We disagree on who because we have different opinions. Opinions are based on perspective. Perspective is limeted.
Fact: Not all people may believe that good and evil have the same characteristics now that they did when the "makers" came up with the notion. EG. Working on Sunday, sex before marriage and not giving human sacrifices were evil.
I agree. And I used to be among the many that believed certain things were evil without logic. Now I do not. If you say it's good/evil I must ask shy. If I grew up believing something was good/evil I now ask why. I am on a quest to find absolute good and evil using the logic I possess. Will I ever find it? I believe I'll be closer to it than so many people who believe what their culture tells them.
QUOTE (Upisoft+Aug 18 2006, 01:56 PM)
Here you're in contradiction with yourself. Is your definition based on what people think, as we can see in second statement, or it's not, as first statement clearly says.
I am not contridicting myself. Harm is relative. This is because what one person thinks is harmful another will not. Where you went wrong is by thinking harm = evil. Evil is the act of harming, always (vage description). Though different people think different things are harmful, doing what anyone finds as harmful is always evil (vage description).
I am not contridicting myself. Harm is relative. This is because what one person thinks is harmful another will not. Where you went wrong is by thinking harm = evil. Evil is the act of harming, always (vage description). Though different people think different things are harmful, doing what anyone finds as harmful is always evil (vage description).
QUOTE (same+)
And in most real life situations people do make decisions based on what they knew. They can do something that they think is good, and then find that what they did was wrong.
Yet it always was wrong. My point exactly.
Yet it always was wrong. My point exactly.
QUOTE (same+)
Some can be sorry for what they have done, and some may not feel any guilt at all. Thus, the evilness of the act depends what the person thinks afterwards.
Perhaps, but does it really? Two people could murder in cold blood. One later cries in regret, while the other laughs, smiles and wishes he could have done more. Im my opinion, the one who regrets is less evil. But people will find his actions less evil, too. Even though they did the same thing. Is that fair? Should how you react afterward be added to the absolute definition? Does how you react afterward actually determine what is evil?
Perhaps, but does it really? Two people could murder in cold blood. One later cries in regret, while the other laughs, smiles and wishes he could have done more. Im my opinion, the one who regrets is less evil. But people will find his actions less evil, too. Even though they did the same thing. Is that fair? Should how you react afterward be added to the absolute definition? Does how you react afterward actually determine what is evil?
QUOTE (Upisoft+Aug 18 2006, 02:01 PM)
Tell that to the dead man.
Well, if the dead man is a reasoner, he'd agree. Though, at the very least he'd wish the docter refused to neglect his responsibilities to the man, instead. Or maybe he'd have told to doctor to help her and not him. Wouldn't you? Provided you didn't dislike the woman.
Well, if the dead man is a reasoner, he'd agree. Though, at the very least he'd wish the docter refused to neglect his responsibilities to the man, instead. Or maybe he'd have told to doctor to help her and not him. Wouldn't you? Provided you didn't dislike the woman.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 18 2006, 03:11 PM)
So now we have a disagreement on this scenario. So any amount of tweaking you do to the absolute definition of Evil, it will either fail to satisfy me or it will fail to satisfy you simply because our interpretation of Evil is different.
Hence your definition will never be absolute with any amount of tweaking.
You do understand that one of us could just be wrong. Thus, my whole point of argument stands. I stand on the logic that two people cannot disagree and both be right.
Hence your definition will never be absolute with any amount of tweaking.
You do understand that one of us could just be wrong. Thus, my whole point of argument stands. I stand on the logic that two people cannot disagree and both be right.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 21 2006, 12:05 PM)
Yes, and they may just be wrong.
Yes, but the thing is, who says that they are wrong or not? You? Me? The Government? That would just make it our opinion. Who's to say that we aren't wrong and they are right? Who decides that? No-one since no-one is infallible. It's just different opinions, since that is all the notion of good/evil is.
So you're saying that logic determines good/evil absolutely? But who's logic, mines, your's, the governments? Still all our opinions. No absoluteness to be found.
So you're saying that logic determines good/evil absolutely? But who's logic, mines, your's, the governments? Still all our opinions. No absoluteness to be found.
Yes, but I say they were wrong. They made good and evil/right and wrong what they saw fit.
But you're doing the exact same thing they did, basing good and evil as you see fit. And again, what makes you right and them wrong? What they saw as good and evil was their opinion, and what you see is your opinion, and the fact that they used "culture" to define it and you use "logic" doesn't make any difference when it comes to absoluteness, because logic can differ between people as readily as culture can.
Well I think they were wrong, and so do you, and so does pretty much everybody else in this day and age. But that's just our opinions.
Well I think they were wrong, and so do you, and so does pretty much everybody else in this day and age. But that's just our opinions.
I say people define intentions. A person's intentions may be to do harm but may end up actually doing good.
Okay, you've just gone to arguing two completely different points here.
1st point: People define intentions - Absolutely agree here. If a person is about to do something that in his opinion is "evil", then he intends to do evil (from his point of view).
2nd point: May actually end up doing good - Same problem as before, who decides if it's good or not, the person doing it? the person who ordered it? The person who it's being done to? Still all opinions, no absoluteness there either.
Again, actions have no deciding power. It's people who look at the actions and then determine if it was good or evil. From their OPINIONS.
Again, actions have no deciding power. It's people who look at the actions and then determine if it was good or evil. From their OPINIONS.
You can't expect me to believe that what Hitler did was absolutely good because he thought it was, though, that was his opinion. He was just wrong, as well as everyone who agree(d) with him.
Of course I don't expect you to believe that. It's your opinion, you can believe whatever you want to. Hitler, and everyone who followed him simply had a different opinion.
That's good, you're starting to think for yourself. But whatever you come up with is still or opinion.
Nowhere in any of you're statements have I seen any proof or even evidence of an "absolute reference frame", all you've given is different opinions. But you do battle hard, I'll give you that.
Yes, but the thing is, who says that they are wrong or not? You? Me? The Government? That would just make it our opinion. Who's to say that we aren't wrong and they are right? Who decides that? No-one since no-one is infallible. It's just different opinions, since that is all the notion of good/evil is.
QUOTE
One definition of right and wrong, based not on culture but logic, would be required to properly define the matter.
So you're saying that logic determines good/evil absolutely? But who's logic, mines, your's, the governments? Still all our opinions. No absoluteness to be found.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| One definition of right and wrong, based not on culture but logic, would be required to properly define the matter. |
So you're saying that logic determines good/evil absolutely? But who's logic, mines, your's, the governments? Still all our opinions. No absoluteness to be found.
Yes, but I say they were wrong. They made good and evil/right and wrong what they saw fit.
But you're doing the exact same thing they did, basing good and evil as you see fit. And again, what makes you right and them wrong? What they saw as good and evil was their opinion, and what you see is your opinion, and the fact that they used "culture" to define it and you use "logic" doesn't make any difference when it comes to absoluteness, because logic can differ between people as readily as culture can.
QUOTE
Yes, but I see where you're going with this. How do we know by making the definition of good and evil they weren't wrong? That's what I'm saying. Can you deny that?
Well I think they were wrong, and so do you, and so does pretty much everybody else in this day and age. But that's just our opinions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, but I see where you're going with this. How do we know by making the definition of good and evil they weren't wrong? That's what I'm saying. Can you deny that? |
Well I think they were wrong, and so do you, and so does pretty much everybody else in this day and age. But that's just our opinions.
I say people define intentions. A person's intentions may be to do harm but may end up actually doing good.
Okay, you've just gone to arguing two completely different points here.
1st point: People define intentions - Absolutely agree here. If a person is about to do something that in his opinion is "evil", then he intends to do evil (from his point of view).
2nd point: May actually end up doing good - Same problem as before, who decides if it's good or not, the person doing it? the person who ordered it? The person who it's being done to? Still all opinions, no absoluteness there either.
QUOTE
actions determine whether or not those actions where good or evil.
Again, actions have no deciding power. It's people who look at the actions and then determine if it was good or evil. From their OPINIONS.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| actions determine whether or not those actions where good or evil. |
Again, actions have no deciding power. It's people who look at the actions and then determine if it was good or evil. From their OPINIONS.
You can't expect me to believe that what Hitler did was absolutely good because he thought it was, though, that was his opinion. He was just wrong, as well as everyone who agree(d) with him.
Of course I don't expect you to believe that. It's your opinion, you can believe whatever you want to. Hitler, and everyone who followed him simply had a different opinion.
QUOTE
I agree. And I used to be among the many that believed certain things were evil without logic. Now I do not. If you say it's good/evil I must ask why.
That's good, you're starting to think for yourself. But whatever you come up with is still or opinion.
Nowhere in any of you're statements have I seen any proof or even evidence of an "absolute reference frame", all you've given is different opinions. But you do battle hard, I'll give you that.
555Joshua,
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 21 2006, 03:21 PM)
I am not contridicting myself. Harm is relative. This is because what one person thinks is harmful another will not. Where you went wrong is by thinking harm = evil. Evil is the act of harming, always (vage description). Though different people think different things are harmful, doing what anyone finds as harmful is always evil (vage description).
For any action you do, one probably can find person that thinks it is harmful. Maybe most of them are considered insane and located in the appropriate clinic. Insane or not, some of them will disagree with people considered sane. So, you'll probably have to add sanity/insanity in your definition, but doing that is stepping on a thin ice.
For any action you do, one probably can find person that thinks it is harmful. Maybe most of them are considered insane and located in the appropriate clinic. Insane or not, some of them will disagree with people considered sane. So, you'll probably have to add sanity/insanity in your definition, but doing that is stepping on a thin ice.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 21 2006, 03:21 PM)
Perhaps, but does it really? Two people could murder in cold blood. One later cries in regret, while the other laughs, smiles and wishes he could have done more. Im my opinion, the one who regrets is less evil. But people will find his actions less evil, too. Even though they did the same thing. Is that fair? Should how you react afterward be added to the absolute definition? Does how you react afterward actually determine what is evil?
My example wasn't about cold blood murderers. It was about doing something that you consider moral and good, but it turns out to be mistake, because you acted without having enough knowledge.
My example wasn't about cold blood murderers. It was about doing something that you consider moral and good, but it turns out to be mistake, because you acted without having enough knowledge.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 21 2006, 12:29 PM)
You do understand that one of us could just be wrong. Thus, my whole point of argument stands. I stand on the logic that two people cannot disagree and both be right.
Two people can disagree and both be right.
Example: I can find a certain girl to be beautiful, but you may not think so. So both of us are right.
1) In scenario 8, how do we determine which one of us is right?
2) How will your definition of evil be absolute, if it does not satisfy one of us?
If you cannot give a definition for absolute evil, then such a thing does not exist.
Two people can disagree and both be right.
Example: I can find a certain girl to be beautiful, but you may not think so. So both of us are right.
1) In scenario 8, how do we determine which one of us is right?
2) How will your definition of evil be absolute, if it does not satisfy one of us?
If you cannot give a definition for absolute evil, then such a thing does not exist.
Hi Upisoft,
QUOTE
Yes, I tend to agree with you that this is good criteria. Unfortunately we can't prove to ourselves that we're right, what about proving it to others.
Only reasonable people who use logic can discuss these topics and not come to blows. It is not my right nor is it my desire to wander about like Gandhi or Jesus performing "miracles" as needed to get the fickle attention of the masses, and then delivering the "product line" to the Saturday afternoon crowds on the slopes of Mt. Eremos. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, I tend to agree with you that this is good criteria. Unfortunately we can't prove to ourselves that we're right, what about proving it to others. |
Only reasonable people who use logic can discuss these topics and not come to blows. It is not my right nor is it my desire to wander about like Gandhi or Jesus performing "miracles" as needed to get the fickle attention of the masses, and then delivering the "product line" to the Saturday afternoon crowds on the slopes of Mt. Eremos.
You easily dismissed absolute units of evil, proposed by me. That's right, I also don't think that there is absolute units.
However, you also proposed your own units, without naming them. You have defined them as number of lives lost and families suffering.
You easily dismissed absolute units of evil, proposed by me. That's right, I also don't think that there is absolute units.
However, you also proposed your own units, without naming them. You have defined them as number of lives lost and families suffering.
I really do not know how much suffering Hitler put people through and I will not try to asses that. I do not know as some have said (555Joshua) if an evil person weeps after committing an evil act or not. For some this is great theater and clouds a fair assessment of the original crime. Before a jury the victim cannot plead his/her case and ask for those passing judgment to consider the personal suffering and loss for him/her and for his/her family. I prefer to count corpses and think nothing of the one who does evil but more of the plight of the forgotten victims... they are easy to count... World War II = 60 Million victims. Number of tears Hitler shed???... sorry about that... I am not moved and I do not care.
Cold blood or hot blood, religious or ethnic motives or simple "payback". The evil deeds can be counted but the remorse cannot reverse any act or atrocity, nor is it any indicator of future reparations. I think in the case of murder the family of the victim actually deserve a lifetime of reparations by the perpetrator to try and restore some of the loss that family has suffered and that aspect is missing from justice today (of course it has never been a part of justice in most of the Western World). There is a certain deficiency in those individuals who kill.
There is always hope that one day someone will try a different way to look at this problem and come up with more meaningful answers. If society was at liberty to do so I am sure it could rise to the occasion. I am afraid there is a heavy weight of evil tradition and history being dragged around by all of us and is holding us all back. Yet we can take heart that the most serious evil is only committed by a tiny proportion of the population. I am for separating these individuals from the society physically forever, not necessarily by jails or gallows. This would be good for the rest of us and would allow society to continue without the most unredemptive element. Their separation from everything they hold dear without any hope of return would be an appropriately severe punishment. They could "start again" in a society based on similiar individuals to themselves all carrying this "mark of Cain". A penal colony on Mars perhaps where they may choose to do some good and really make up for their acts.
Cheers
Cold blood or hot blood, religious or ethnic motives or simple "payback". The evil deeds can be counted but the remorse cannot reverse any act or atrocity, nor is it any indicator of future reparations. I think in the case of murder the family of the victim actually deserve a lifetime of reparations by the perpetrator to try and restore some of the loss that family has suffered and that aspect is missing from justice today (of course it has never been a part of justice in most of the Western World). There is a certain deficiency in those individuals who kill.
There is always hope that one day someone will try a different way to look at this problem and come up with more meaningful answers. If society was at liberty to do so I am sure it could rise to the occasion. I am afraid there is a heavy weight of evil tradition and history being dragged around by all of us and is holding us all back. Yet we can take heart that the most serious evil is only committed by a tiny proportion of the population. I am for separating these individuals from the society physically forever, not necessarily by jails or gallows. This would be good for the rest of us and would allow society to continue without the most unredemptive element. Their separation from everything they hold dear without any hope of return would be an appropriately severe punishment. They could "start again" in a society based on similiar individuals to themselves all carrying this "mark of Cain". A penal colony on Mars perhaps where they may choose to do some good and really make up for their acts.
Cheers
Hi upisoft,
No, no and no. ( )
You are still misapplying it. Actually, it can function if misapplied but you won't get the results you want.
I know you are a very practical thinker and through your rigor and discipline you test and gauge things very straightforward and accurately. This can't work that way. There are real fuzzy edges that won't clarify. This is a philosophical approach which by nature has a nebulous, undefined mechanic that has to be filled in by you. The dots have to be connected by you. It isn't an equation as much as a property. You are not supposed to use it as a defense against fear of scarcity (this is the only sort of eg you've given so far). It implies a state of mind to operate from. This is a different level than attempting to use it as a drafting tool to decide specific outcome. It has more to do with correct action on your part, and nothing to do with the other as far as your action goes. But it does have to do with your treatment of him and your own reaction to your treatment of him.
Remember, "as you would have him do to you" does not mean you are "doing unto him" to 'get' something. You just adulterated it's raison d'etre. It is above all a concept that describes respect and equality towards another by knowing you would want that if you were the other. As such, it is not a concrete law that can be enforced by the court, it is an abstract law that is enforced by an individual's using it. Do you wish to be a 'tyrant'?. Very well then, it can be misused for that purpose or ignored for that purpose. Either way, the purpose's will be done. Do you wish to grow and evolve? This law sets a standard for personal integrity that you can springboard from. I believe wisdom accrues within a collected mind. Intelligence and various avenues of smarts are taken for granted here, but wisdom is another thing entirely. I believe the gr is part of a way to learn compassion tolerance and understanding of others and their conditions. Such I believe helps form the road to wisdom, which can be used to help self and others.
No, no and no. ( )
You are still misapplying it. Actually, it can function if misapplied but you won't get the results you want.
I know you are a very practical thinker and through your rigor and discipline you test and gauge things very straightforward and accurately. This can't work that way. There are real fuzzy edges that won't clarify. This is a philosophical approach which by nature has a nebulous, undefined mechanic that has to be filled in by you. The dots have to be connected by you. It isn't an equation as much as a property. You are not supposed to use it as a defense against fear of scarcity (this is the only sort of eg you've given so far). It implies a state of mind to operate from. This is a different level than attempting to use it as a drafting tool to decide specific outcome. It has more to do with correct action on your part, and nothing to do with the other as far as your action goes. But it does have to do with your treatment of him and your own reaction to your treatment of him.
Remember, "as you would have him do to you" does not mean you are "doing unto him" to 'get' something. You just adulterated it's raison d'etre. It is above all a concept that describes respect and equality towards another by knowing you would want that if you were the other. As such, it is not a concrete law that can be enforced by the court, it is an abstract law that is enforced by an individual's using it. Do you wish to be a 'tyrant'?. Very well then, it can be misused for that purpose or ignored for that purpose. Either way, the purpose's will be done. Do you wish to grow and evolve? This law sets a standard for personal integrity that you can springboard from. I believe wisdom accrues within a collected mind. Intelligence and various avenues of smarts are taken for granted here, but wisdom is another thing entirely. I believe the gr is part of a way to learn compassion tolerance and understanding of others and their conditions. Such I believe helps form the road to wisdom, which can be used to help self and others.
However, that means we have to judge the outcome of GR, before starting to apply it in the reality. And I think, that judgment is what all we're talking about. Unfortunately, it can't be solved by GR.
I don't know if you can agree with me yet, but according to what I said above, no we don't. It's not a meter you hold in your hand. It is a tool to strengthen character, to say the least.
QUOTE
I'm trying to understand... So GR is about what I want to be done on me by the subject we're talking about. And after I find out that, I just do it on the subject and that's good. So in the employer-employee scenario I'm supposed to rise salary of my boss? That's meaningless too. I can't do it.
No, no and no. (
)You are still misapplying it. Actually, it can function if misapplied but you won't get the results you want.
I know you are a very practical thinker and through your rigor and discipline you test and gauge things very straightforward and accurately. This can't work that way. There are real fuzzy edges that won't clarify. This is a philosophical approach which by nature has a nebulous, undefined mechanic that has to be filled in by you. The dots have to be connected by you. It isn't an equation as much as a property. You are not supposed to use it as a defense against fear of scarcity (this is the only sort of eg you've given so far). It implies a state of mind to operate from. This is a different level than attempting to use it as a drafting tool to decide specific outcome. It has more to do with correct action on your part, and nothing to do with the other as far as your action goes. But it does have to do with your treatment of him and your own reaction to your treatment of him.
Remember, "as you would have him do to you" does not mean you are "doing unto him" to 'get' something. You just adulterated it's raison d'etre. It is above all a concept that describes respect and equality towards another by knowing you would want that if you were the other. As such, it is not a concrete law that can be enforced by the court, it is an abstract law that is enforced by an individual's using it. Do you wish to be a 'tyrant'?. Very well then, it can be misused for that purpose or ignored for that purpose. Either way, the purpose's will be done. Do you wish to grow and evolve? This law sets a standard for personal integrity that you can springboard from. I believe wisdom accrues within a collected mind. Intelligence and various avenues of smarts are taken for granted here, but wisdom is another thing entirely. I believe the gr is part of a way to learn compassion tolerance and understanding of others and their conditions. Such I believe helps form the road to wisdom, which can be used to help self and others.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm trying to understand... So GR is about what I want to be done on me by the subject we're talking about. And after I find out that, I just do it on the subject and that's good. So in the employer-employee scenario I'm supposed to rise salary of my boss? That's meaningless too. I can't do it. |
No, no and no. (
)You are still misapplying it. Actually, it can function if misapplied but you won't get the results you want.
I know you are a very practical thinker and through your rigor and discipline you test and gauge things very straightforward and accurately. This can't work that way. There are real fuzzy edges that won't clarify. This is a philosophical approach which by nature has a nebulous, undefined mechanic that has to be filled in by you. The dots have to be connected by you. It isn't an equation as much as a property. You are not supposed to use it as a defense against fear of scarcity (this is the only sort of eg you've given so far). It implies a state of mind to operate from. This is a different level than attempting to use it as a drafting tool to decide specific outcome. It has more to do with correct action on your part, and nothing to do with the other as far as your action goes. But it does have to do with your treatment of him and your own reaction to your treatment of him.
Remember, "as you would have him do to you" does not mean you are "doing unto him" to 'get' something. You just adulterated it's raison d'etre. It is above all a concept that describes respect and equality towards another by knowing you would want that if you were the other. As such, it is not a concrete law that can be enforced by the court, it is an abstract law that is enforced by an individual's using it. Do you wish to be a 'tyrant'?. Very well then, it can be misused for that purpose or ignored for that purpose. Either way, the purpose's will be done. Do you wish to grow and evolve? This law sets a standard for personal integrity that you can springboard from. I believe wisdom accrues within a collected mind. Intelligence and various avenues of smarts are taken for granted here, but wisdom is another thing entirely. I believe the gr is part of a way to learn compassion tolerance and understanding of others and their conditions. Such I believe helps form the road to wisdom, which can be used to help self and others.
However, that means we have to judge the outcome of GR, before starting to apply it in the reality. And I think, that judgment is what all we're talking about. Unfortunately, it can't be solved by GR.
I don't know if you can agree with me yet, but according to what I said above, no we don't. It's not a meter you hold in your hand. It is a tool to strengthen character, to say the least.
Heyall,
The terms right and wrong, used dozens of times here, seem to be being treated as absolutes themselves. If they are absolutes, then an absolute of evil should logically be deduced. Unless right and wrong are not absolutes, which is the logical deduction if good and evil are not absolutes. Is there a catch-22 here?
The terms right and wrong, used dozens of times here, seem to be being treated as absolutes themselves. If they are absolutes, then an absolute of evil should logically be deduced. Unless right and wrong are not absolutes, which is the logical deduction if good and evil are not absolutes. Is there a catch-22 here?
soundhertz,
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 22 2006, 07:18 AM)
I don't know if you can agree with me yet, but according to what I said above, no we don't. It's not a meter you hold in your hand. It is a tool to strengthen character, to say the least.
I still don't know if I agree with you, because I still don't understand how I'm supposed to use the GR. You can help me by imaging that you were chosen to create GR definition for first universal humanoid robots produced in the future. Robots are strict and will follow exactly the definition. So, can you create definition about GR that can be put in a robot without fear that the robot will start to do terrible things?
I still don't know if I agree with you, because I still don't understand how I'm supposed to use the GR. You can help me by imaging that you were chosen to create GR definition for first universal humanoid robots produced in the future. Robots are strict and will follow exactly the definition. So, can you create definition about GR that can be put in a robot without fear that the robot will start to do terrible things?
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 22 2006, 07:34 AM)
Heyall,
The terms right and wrong, used dozens of times here, seem to be being treated as absolutes themselves. If they are absolutes, then an absolute of evil should logically be deduced. Unless right and wrong are not absolutes, which is the logical deduction if good and evil are not absolutes. Is there a catch-22 here?
I think we used "right" and "wrong" as we're using them in our daily speech. If you listen to people you may arrive to the same conclusion about "evil" and "good". I think that "right" and "wrong" are relative too. Even if we speak mathematically I hold my position. For example, one can say that Pythagorean theorem is right. Yes, it is right in Euclidean geometry. I.e. it's relative to the set of axioms you're applying it to.
The terms right and wrong, used dozens of times here, seem to be being treated as absolutes themselves. If they are absolutes, then an absolute of evil should logically be deduced. Unless right and wrong are not absolutes, which is the logical deduction if good and evil are not absolutes. Is there a catch-22 here?
I think we used "right" and "wrong" as we're using them in our daily speech. If you listen to people you may arrive to the same conclusion about "evil" and "good". I think that "right" and "wrong" are relative too. Even if we speak mathematically I hold my position. For example, one can say that Pythagorean theorem is right. Yes, it is right in Euclidean geometry. I.e. it's relative to the set of axioms you're applying it to.
QUOTE (soundhertz+Aug 22 2006, 04:34 AM)
The terms right and wrong, used dozens of times here, seem to be being treated as absolutes themselves. If they are absolutes, then an absolute of evil should logically be deduced. Unless right and wrong are not absolutes, which is the logical deduction if good and evil are not absolutes. Is there a catch-22 here?
"Right and wrong" does not mean the same thing as "good and evil". For example, I thought you were my sister, I was wrong, am I now evil? No of course not.
Right and wrong deal in fact, I assumed something, my assumption was either correct (right) or incorrect (wrong). You have a contradicting assumption, we both cannot be right, at least one of us is wrong.
Good and evil deal in point of view. I think Communism is evil. You think Communism is good (just an example), which one is right? It's an opinion, no right and wrong.
Good and Evil are subjective. Right and wrong are objective. No catch-22 here.
"Right and wrong" does not mean the same thing as "good and evil". For example, I thought you were my sister, I was wrong, am I now evil? No of course not.
Right and wrong deal in fact, I assumed something, my assumption was either correct (right) or incorrect (wrong). You have a contradicting assumption, we both cannot be right, at least one of us is wrong.
Good and evil deal in point of view. I think Communism is evil. You think Communism is good (just an example), which one is right? It's an opinion, no right and wrong.
Good and Evil are subjective. Right and wrong are objective. No catch-22 here.
Hi calnpals,
QUOTE (calnpals Posted on Today at 10:46 PM+)
Good and evil deal in point of view. I think Communism is evil. You think Communism is good (just an example), which one is right? It's an opinion, no right and wrong.
Is the Statue of Liberty "good" or "evil"? Answer: it may be "good" to some but it can't be evil. Since the statue is an inanimate object it cannot have intent so it cannot be "evil". "Evil" applies to living sentient beings only. Communism is an ideology so it may be good to some and bad to others ... as an ideology. This concept was played out very directly in that movie 'Ghostbusters 2". See... we could have learned something but we did not. Everything that goes "bump in the night" usually is more than just a natural phenomena to us and it makes our skin crawl. By the same token the Statue of Liberty strolling along the streets of New York has a quite different emotional content on humans with the right "conditioning". It is irrational but can be "good" or "bad". Only we can show "intent" both "good" and "bad".
It is not good to hit a dog with your open hand this is because the hand is associated in the mind of a dog with its owner and thus the intent of the owner to harm the dog... this can cower the dog against the owner. If you use a rolled up paper the dog associates the "intent" with the rolled up paper and thus fears the paper and not the one who uses it. This way the dog can love its owner and not associate the "evil" intent when it is struck by the rolled up paper. So it believes the intent originates from the inanimate rolled up paper. It is a very "primitive" concept but humans it seems are not immune to this emotion... such is our very primitive emotional makeup. Mankind sees "intent" in things and objects (even in ideology as noted here) because we are "savages". We have a belief system based in an all loving "god". Yet this all loving "god" can cause "evil"... Irish evil... through natural forces. This is reconciled as a "personification" of this evil as I have written above in "Lucifer" and his hordes (daemons). All the good things people experience in nature we perceive as "morally good"... another personification that is attributed to a "god" or his agencies (angels). In this respect many humans are no better morally than our dogs. he he he! That was what I was saying above.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=116742
Now can we teach people morality? Probably. Are there many people with morality right now... not many... since they have no idea what it is. What a lot of people substitute for morality is emotional responses of love and hate, these are far more satisfying that the concept of "justice" and abstract "morality". I note it is easier to train a dog than to argue these points successfully with a human because it is loaded with emotion as you may have noticed in the example above ... a very deep primitive and bone chilling emotion that is hard to relinquish and most people do not want to relinquish. In such a state you can experience religious ecstasy, ultra-violence, transcendence, comradeship, "spiritual miracles", trance like states, possession, schizophrenia, multiple personalities, voices, a feeling of being like "god" or the opposite. Exceedingly primitive and to many compelling... in the end maybe madness. Yes you can teach people morality ... how to know the difference between "good" and "evil" but then as noted in the bible... you are cast out of the "Garden" and you must choose for yourselves without "god" speaking directly to you, this is the rational mind vs the primitive but "noble" savage.
I am reminded of Homer Simpson in an episode when he joined the NRA and used his handgun as a household accessory.... he was asked by Marge to put the gun away. He said something like "Aw Marge, don't you know just how this makes me feel? When I have a gun in my hand it makes me feel just like the way god must feel when he has a gun in his hand". He he he... for some it is a very warm and cuddley feeling pulling that trigger... with intent.
Cheers
See... we could have learned something but we did not. Everything that goes "bump in the night" usually is more than just a natural phenomena to us and it makes our skin crawl. By the same token the Statue of Liberty strolling along the streets of New York has a quite different emotional content on humans with the right "conditioning". It is irrational but can be "good" or "bad". Only we can show "intent" both "good" and "bad".It is not good to hit a dog with your open hand this is because the hand is associated in the mind of a dog with its owner and thus the intent of the owner to harm the dog... this can cower the dog against the owner. If you use a rolled up paper the dog associates the "intent" with the rolled up paper and thus fears the paper and not the one who uses it. This way the dog can love its owner and not associate the "evil" intent when it is struck by the rolled up paper. So it believes the intent originates from the inanimate rolled up paper. It is a very "primitive" concept but humans it seems are not immune to this emotion... such is our very primitive emotional makeup. Mankind sees "intent" in things and objects (even in ideology as noted here) because we are "savages". We have a belief system based in an all loving "god". Yet this all loving "god" can cause "evil"... Irish evil... through natural forces. This is reconciled as a "personification" of this evil as I have written above in "Lucifer" and his hordes (daemons). All the good things people experience in nature we perceive as "morally good"... another personification that is attributed to a "god" or his agencies (angels). In this respect many humans are no better morally than our dogs.
he he he! That was what I was saying above.http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=116742
Now can we teach people morality? Probably. Are there many people with morality right now... not many... since they have no idea what it is. What a lot of people substitute for morality is emotional responses of love and hate, these are far more satisfying that the concept of "justice" and abstract "morality". I note it is easier to train a dog than to argue these points successfully with a human because it is loaded with emotion as you may have noticed in the example above ... a very deep primitive and bone chilling emotion that is hard to relinquish and most people do not want to relinquish. In such a state you can experience religious ecstasy, ultra-violence, transcendence, comradeship, "spiritual miracles", trance like states, possession, schizophrenia, multiple personalities, voices, a feeling of being like "god" or the opposite. Exceedingly primitive and to many compelling... in the end maybe madness. Yes you can teach people morality ... how to know the difference between "good" and "evil" but then as noted in the bible... you are cast out of the "Garden" and you must choose for yourselves without "god" speaking directly to you, this is the rational mind vs the primitive but "noble" savage.
I am reminded of Homer Simpson in an episode when he joined the NRA and used his handgun as a household accessory.... he was asked by Marge to put the gun away. He said something like "Aw Marge, don't you know just how this makes me feel? When I have a gun in my hand it makes me feel just like the way god must feel when he has a gun in his hand". He he he... for some it is a very warm and cuddley feeling pulling that trigger... with intent.
Cheers
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 22 2006, 01:52 PM)
Hi calnpals,
Is the Statue of Liberty "good" or "evil"? Answer: it may be "good" to some but it can't be evil. Since the statue is an inanimate object it cannot have intent so it cannot be "evil". "Evil" applies to living sentient beings only.
Hey GoodElf,
You're right, in this case it's not the actual object that is evil. The Statue of Liberty cannot be since it has no intelligence, moral knowledge, or even consciousness.
However, this also means that it cannot be good either. All it physically is, is a massive body of concrete, it is no more "good" or "evil" than a statue of the anti-Christ or Buddha would be.
What is "evil" is what us humans, beings who are conscious, intelligent and have moral knowledge, associate with this object. It's what the object stands for which is seen as good or evil by people.
Pavlov's dogs all over again. It's all about association. And yes, humans have it too. If we are walking down the street and see a ticking briefcase sitting there on the sidewalk, most people will get nervous, turn around and book it as fast as they can. Even though all the briefcase could have anything in it, we have been bred to associate it with a bomb.
Is the Statue of Liberty "good" or "evil"? Answer: it may be "good" to some but it can't be evil. Since the statue is an inanimate object it cannot have intent so it cannot be "evil". "Evil" applies to living sentient beings only.
Hey GoodElf,
You're right, in this case it's not the actual object that is evil. The Statue of Liberty cannot be since it has no intelligence, moral knowledge, or even consciousness.
However, this also means that it cannot be good either. All it physically is, is a massive body of concrete, it is no more "good" or "evil" than a statue of the anti-Christ or Buddha would be.
What is "evil" is what us humans, beings who are conscious, intelligent and have moral knowledge, associate with this object. It's what the object stands for which is seen as good or evil by people.
QUOTE
If you use a rolled up paper the dog associates the "intent" with the rolled up paper and thus fears the paper and not the one who uses it. This way the dog can love its owner and not associate the "evil" intent when it is struck by the rolled up paper.
Pavlov's dogs all over again. It's all about association. And yes, humans have it too. If we are walking down the street and see a ticking briefcase sitting there on the sidewalk, most people will get nervous, turn around and book it as fast as they can. Even though all the briefcase could have anything in it, we have been bred to associate it with a bomb.
QUOTE (->