|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:20 pm
Wertish What Baul is trying to say (Atleast how I understand it) Is that the reasons for shooting would be good for the person who is doing the shooting while we would extrapolate our other interactions with other people and "normalicy" and base the shooter's actions upon just a comparison and find that he is bad. But to the shooter himself, he is not a bad person, but a normal person doing normal things. For instance if the whole world were raise to kill and ask later, wouldn't a humanitarian look the outcast and to be a "bad" person? He's got it. Just like how people used to believe the world is flat, reality is but what we think of it to be.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:17 am
Oh yeah, people used to think the world was flat, really believed it, but that does not mean it was truely flat, like you could just MAKE the world flat for thinking it was. It was really round the whole time. Unless you want to tell me you're a Flat Earther and DO still hold that the world is and always has been flat and the "round world" is all a conspiracy? xp Just because you think something is the truth doesn't mean your right. Just like how people find out they've been lied to all the time. "Suesy thought Carol was going to visit an aunt on Friday and that was why Carol would not be at her, Suesy's, birthday party. She then over heard Carol on the phone telling Beth about coming late to Suesy's birthday party to surprise her and because the gift that had been gotten wouldrequire extra time to transport to Suesy's house." Learning an old belief was wrong does not mean you should just throw out the window all possibility of anything or anyone ever being right or knowing the truth or that there even is a truth. Knowledge, like that learning the earth was round and not flat, is cumulative. It builds off what we already know and new information and ways of gathering information. These new things can prove us right or wrong, if wrong we can get a new answer which better fits what we now know then the old answer. Often, that we have wrong answers is merely because we've either made the best estimate we could with insufficient information and the problem was that we just didn't have enough information at the time, OR people just want to be stubborn and try to deny things because the real answer does not satisfy them.
And to your post before that, NO. Exactly the opposite. People have rights, those rights should be respected, and it's because of this that you can't just say "everybody no matter what they believe is good and bad is just as right as the next person" because if that's the case then when somebody acted upon their beliefs and violated somebody's rights, as long as you want to uphold people's rights (as you should) you're going to HAVE to tell somebody that their actions, which were based on their beliefs, were wrong/bad. Because if what they did was really "good", where would be the justice in punishing them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 8:18 pm
But that's exactly my point!! Even if they were wrong, and the real truth was out there, the majority still believed what they wanted to! Well, until they were proven wrong. But my point is, no one can ever truly be deemed good or evil, because there will always be some hidden details that could entirely change one's view upon the situation.
VV-Replying to second paragraph.
Aah, now that makes more sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 4:45 am
The point of the first paragraph is "Knowledge is cumulative, that's it's strength, not it's weakness. And some people are just idiots with unqualified opinions. That everybody HAS opinions does not mean they have CORRECT opinions and on certain subjects some people WILL have reasons to know better then others." It's like how maybe a class of average first graders will think Pluto should still be a planet but that doesn't mean they are as "right" as the group of scientists that voted it shouldn't be. (True story by the way.) The scientists know a lot more on the subject upon which to base their opinion. xp
Glad the second paragraph made sense to you. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:18 pm
Wait, wait wait... Kids actually stood up and challenged Scientists upon the idea of Pluto being a planet? My goodness, protesters nowadays really have nothing else to do!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2007 6:47 pm
Actually, what happened was a really stupid first grade teacher. She decided she was going to teach the class about democracy by having them take votes on things to sort of "decide for themselves" where the class has underqualified opinions, wasn't asked, and doesn't count any way. If she wanted to teach the class about voting upon things they should have been voting upon something like what game the class should play at recess where it's something they will be the ones impacted by the decision, have enough knowledge of the subject, and they are the only ones concerned in the matter only so there is no outside sources they're voting against. OR just even have them vote on small and simple enough things that would be government matters any way since that's the primary place where people's votes are taken to decide things. Really, the same teacher claimed to have had her class vote upon the year before wether this other body out in space past Pluto should be a planet or not too. It's really a bad way to teach democracy by having the kids vote upon scientific matters they don't fully comprehend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2007 11:00 am
I'm not so sure i understand what you mean my "evil". Are you looking at it as a human nature or like Plato does and as evil steming from a lack of knowledge. Because if you are looking at it as a fact of human nature and including revenge in it, you aren't so much looking at philosophy but social and psycological factors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:15 am
I think you're confused because I didn't suggest either. wink Only humans may be CAPABLE of evil since evil is something that is a moral thing and only humans are capable of morals, BUT humans are not by nature evil. They're also the only ones capable of good too as good is a moral judgement. I think also that moral judgement is about concious choices (as if there were really much of any other kind) made by those who are capable of knowing full well what they're doing when they do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 13, 2007 2:52 pm
Well, for the idea of killing and revenge...killing is wrong, but there are some excpetions. If someone to hurt one of my future kids, I'd probably go after them, but lets not go extreme here, I'm not saying this little kid hit one of mine so I'd go and kill them. I'm talking about rape, bad injury, or killed. That would go for my close family and friends too. I'd go and kill the b*****d myself. I don't believe the court system does justice for those who kill, or badly hurt on purpose. Think of all those who are hurt from that! It's ridiculous! Now little revenges like things that don't hurt anyone or anything in the meantime are evil, but okay I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:06 am
Why is it the court system - which does have the death penalty - isn't doing enough for serious crimes yet you killing them is now good enough? ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 9:14 am
I think she means the alleviating circumstances. Often the criminals get away with their crimes if they have a mental illness, the victim was dressed provokingly, the victim did something that made the criminal do it...
I guess it's worse to see the criminal who violated you or someone close to you get away with all the things they've done, all the while the victims suffering continues.
I'd say humans should act more on the scale of what's good to them, act more selfish.
At first this might sound harsh and stupid, but think of it. If you go out and kill people, you'll get caught and put into jail. That isn't acting for your own good now is it?
I don't think there is any "good" and "evil". There are just gain, benefit and inconvenience, handicap.
Something I do for myself might cause minor inconvenience to someone else, so I'd most likely want to make sure the loss to the other won't hurt me later. I'd want to seem a nice and likeable person, so people wouldn't have any reason to treat me badly.
If someone comes and attacks, hurts or causes discomfort to me, I have every and all rights to try and avoid it. If I can't I think I do have every right to fight back and defend myself, stand up for myself.
And when I act seemingly "unselfisly", like am nice to someone or help someone, it's still deep down selfish because I'm doing it either because it fits my moral code and acting on it makes me feel good - which in itself is a benefit - or being nice to others makes people want to be nice to me, which also benefits me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:54 pm
I think evil is an opinion, not a fact. Let's say for example, an old man is miserable in his old age, and he wants nothing more than to die. So his grandson suffocates him while he sleeps, allowing the man a peaceful death, the fulfillment of his wish. Some people might say this is evil, but the old man probably thought of it more as a blessing; a bit of mercy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:59 pm
HoofFoot, I largely agree with that, though I's just say that that benefit IS the good and that which is the handicap IS the bad. 3nodding
Grim Reaper Lady, that sounds to me more like you just should get the whole story before passing judgment rather then saying judgment is not passable. xp The specific case you gave would at first sound like murder, but the whole story is more like assisted suicide. I'd have to ask though in this specific case why the old man really needed his grandson to suffocate him, since that's not a fun way to go at all and he could have done multiple things to kill himself without another person getting involved which would have been easier and less traumatic. (Though I know once your dead being traumatized doesn't matter much, but you get my point, right?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 9:08 am
I don't think the benefit is good and the handicap bad, I think the benefit is a benefit to the one getting the benefit and the handicap is a handicap to the one being handicapped.
If it was, like you said, the benefit being the good and the handicap being the bad, we'd be doing bad things while we do good things.
It's always someone losing and someone winning, all there is to do is to make sure the loss isn't overwhelming without a good reason, if you hurt someone for your own benefit, but people hate you for that, it's no benefit at all.
It will cause difficulties to you later on.
If they're your enemy and they're getting handicapped because of your actions, it's not doing evil to them. It's doing what benefits you.
And if other people see them as evil, it will make you look good and benefit you even further.
Everything is an act of selfishness and humans see selfishness being a bad thing, so following this logic, everyone is evil.
Humans aren't capable of pure unselfishness, there is always a motive behind their good actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:37 pm
xd I chuckle because though you think we disagree, I really do agree with you. I'm saying acting for your own benefit IS a good thing and I'm already taking into account side effects like doing one thing that seems beneficial at first then comes back to smack you in the face when you see it caused something else that was a larger handicap for you then the benefit you gained. Those cases are examples of just not thinking things through well enough and trying to do something good, but in the end the result is pretty much just bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
