|
|
Are you good or bad? |
Good |
|
46% |
[ 24 ] |
Bad |
|
25% |
[ 13 ] |
.......Just give me poll gold. |
|
28% |
[ 15 ] |
|
Total Votes : 52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:43 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:43 am
|
|
|
|
*re-posting comment now that the thread is here* ninja
I'd say evil is not merely "in the eye of the beholder"-- it CAN be given one solid definition, just not everybody will agree with it. However, just because not everybody agrees on it does not make it wrong or them right. After all, no matter how much somebody believes "2+2=5" that does not make it correct. That definition of "What is evil?" I'd say would be anything/anyone which seeks to undermine and/or destroy the ability of any creature(s) possessing high enough normally functioning rationality (this mainly being humans, and ones that are not under or improperly developed due to things like very young age or disease or accident, but I extend the meaning to say "creature" for in the case of works of fiction primarily where there are often other species possessing intelligence comparable to that of humans) to freely seek the achievement of their own happiness within their own rights. ("within their own rights" again though still allows for things like self defense of course. wink ) Also, it should be noted here that evil is something done purposefully, it's a moral judgment and such things can only be understood by intelligent enough creatures to begin with, meaning only other things/people capable of being victimized by evil are capable of evil in the first place. Something like a storm can not truly be called "evil" even if it kills many people and destroys lots of stuff. It has bad results for people, yes, you are in the right for sure to fight against and/or avoid the damages it could cause, but you really can't call it evil since it has no will of it's own (or in the case of less intelligent animals, they can't understand stuff well enough even if they do have the ability to make choices to an extent) and therefore can't even try to make moral decisions like "Oh hey, it looks like I might kill some people if I zap my lightning bolt right there. Seeing as that's the case, should I really be zapping that lightning bolt right there? Would it really be a good thing for me to do or not?"
(By the way, this topic would fit well in the philosophy subforum. ninja )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 8:17 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2006 4:54 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:41 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:40 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:20 am
|
|
|
|
Well, if someone shoots people randomly, then obviously there was reason behind it, whether it be mentallity, or revenge, there is a reason.
And woh, woh, woh, you have misinterperted the second part about skill. I was merely using skill as an example. In the eyes of one very skilled, they could possibly consider someone less skilled than them, but sitll very skilled, to not be skilled. And so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:05 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 3:14 am
|
|
|
|
Mmm, but though that is what they believe is good does that make it so? Especialy consider that they now act upon this belief. They are out taking away other people's lives when the other person has done nothing to them first. The person doing the shooting thinks this is a good thing he has done, but when it comes down to it he has now excersized his "morality" into reality. And now that it's real, concretized, the effects of his idea of what is "good", you've taken it from a disjointed idea with no connection to reality into something that is tangible. Now that it's got real world implications it can be judged solidly. Actions, consequences, this is where the real problem of just letting it be said that "you can think whatever you want is right" comes in. People's actions are based upon their thoughts. If everybody is as right as everybody else on what's good and what's bad no matter what they believe, even direct opposites, what do you do about laws? "John over hear thinks murder is good, so we can't prosecute a guy for doing something 'good.' But Ted thinks murder is 'not good' though. So what do we do about the murder John committed if both of them are just as right as the other? It may be worth noting we know the person john killed did not want to be killed and thought murder was bad too." To some extent what people think is good and bad may not always get in eachother's ways when things are kept part of their personal lives, but what do you do about them acting upon things that will affect other people? Everybody could be having things done and doing this to others that they think is good but the other person thinks is bad. You have no such thing as "Rights" to dictate lines in the sand where some things just are not OK because to have "Rights" would mean declaring some things are always "right" and some always "not right." It would mean telling some people that they are not right some times, that if they disagree their opinion is NOT as valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 5:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|