Good, evil and neutrality.

[jrrtoken]

In some cultures they say 'love your neighbor'. In some cultures they eat their neighbors. Which 'point of good' do you prefer?

Ah, so a different and alien culture is considered evil, simply due to the fact that it is a far cry from what we are accustomed to in Western society?

 

I believe the conquistadors practiced that very principle when they ended up enslaving, massacring, Chrisitianizing, and toppling a society and its culture. Should this same practice be applied to other alien cultures of today?

[Jae Onasi]

haha I would choose Love your neighbor of course cause I have been thought that way, but if I wasn't maybe I would have picked the other option

I suspect you'd be thinking a little differently if you were going to be the main course for dinner.

 

 

@PastramiX--So you're saying cannibalism or infanticide are not evil? I'm asking if particular activities are evil, and you're answering it with a question that isn't directly related.

 

The Conquistadors' massacres, etc. was evil. Forced conversion to any religion is wrong. Therefore, those activities should not be forced on anyone. The fact that they got away with it doesn't make them 'good'.

 

I don't think anyone truly believes they are evil.

On very rare occasions, I've met people who knew they were evil to the core. They reveled in their evilness. They had no qualms whatsoever about hurting anyone or killing someone to get what they wanted. They were quite frightening to be around.

[jrrtoken]

So you're saying cannibalism or infanticide are not evil?

When done with the intent of causing direct harm to the victim, then yes, I suppose it is evil.

 

Yet, seeing something as evil, although it is simply a norm of a certain society's culture, is ignorant. We can kill and eat cattle in a Western society, yes? Put that same practice through the perspective of an orthodox Hindi, and it is seen as a sin. Should we consider similar practices as evil, or simply as a society's teachings, adapted from one's natural habitat?

[Jae Onasi]

Humans aren't cattle, so that analogy doesn't apply.

 

I would call killing a baby or killing a human so he can be dinner as causing direct harm, wouldn't you?

[jrrtoken]

I would call killing a baby or killing a human so he can be dinner as causing direct harm, wouldn't you?

If it was in the most dire of situations, then how would you act in that manner? Out of imminent danger, then yes, I suppose so, but only if it was that necessary.

 

There have been hundreds of documented incidents of cannibalism in which humans have been pitted against appalling environmental conditions, and have resorted to cannibalism. The same practice is seen in the animal kingdom, where animals have often eaten their own young to survive in the wild. This same instinct is seen within man, therefore, is it nothing more than a carnal survival instinct, or an act of murder?

[Arcesious]

Such things as cannibalism are definitly what a person could call evil.

 

See, here's where I think that the concepts of natural law come into place. Natural law is essentially the naturally derived standards of nature. We humans, being sentient and very intelligent, are capable of creating a far more complex system of natural law for ourselves. We are naturally a social species, and we are a race spread far and wide. So social interaction and cooporation are vital to our survival. To note, what we call 'natural rights' are considerably derived from our own natural law, and the concept of natural rights is even part of the US Declaration of Independence.

 

Different forms of natural law in human society branch from different cultures and group ideologies.

 

Naturally, most people, I suspect; would; if they lived outside of modern society would develope their own form of natural law. Most commonly, the new culture would probably have concepts of 'murder is bad' and stuff like that. We're like a wolf pack- we've got to work together and it's not a good idea to harm the pack.

 

But there are exceptions in the history of the human race. Oftentimes there have been and are 'bad apples' in our culture. As a person's philosophy advances with age, the complexity of our psychology can develope different personalities in people. Hitler became one of those to develope a selfish, arrogant, and genocidal personality.

 

Every person you've ever met, they're different than you, yes? (rhetorical)

 

Every human developes at least a slightly different personality based on the different factors that effect them, their experiences, and decisions as they grow older.

 

Somehow, I suspect Hitler, as a child and up until he was a man, must have had factors influencing his life that caused him to become such a tyrant. Now, I'm not blaming the factors of his life for making Hitler a DB, because humans have a unique ability to interpret situations in very complex ways and easily make naturally errant decisions.

 

Generally it is a good thing to keep a standard of morality for ourselves, knowing what is right and what is wrong.

 

I'll posit one example of a natural law that differs human society from animal society.

 

Due to the natural law established by a few cultures in our society, there is wide-felt beleif that homosexuality or same-sex marriage are wrong. This discrimitory beleif is based on fallacies created by the complexities of human thought.

 

In the animal kingdom, however, there are many examples of homosexuality where heterosexual members of the same species do not 'bully' the homosexual ones. This is due to natural law in the animal kingdom.

 

To say that we should do exactly what the animal kingdom does in the matters of natural law is not my intention here; I was simply positing a comparism of two positions of natural law.

 

In conclusion, it would be unwise to base our society completely on natural law. But here we humans are, so anthrocentric and arrogant. "Oh, we're sentient and uber-smart, so we're better than animals."

 

I still think that if we threw aside our preconceptions of superiority to animals, we could learn a few things about what we consider 'good and evil' and improve ourselves. Just look at dogs and cats. There are numerous examples of dogs and cats domestically living together as 'friends' despite their natural dislike of each other. Why can't we humans, despite all our cultures and ideological differences; get along like my dog and cat do?

[Miltiades]

In some cultures, the elder are left behind so the group as a whole can survive. In some cultures, children were sacrificed to the gods in rituals in many cultures in the past (any different than sacrificing a goat?). Of course it seems barbaric and evil from our (Christian) point of view. But we do as much evil, if you'd ask cultures all over the world.

 

Humans aren't cattle, so that analogy doesn't apply.

Why? Because we are more than animals? Because we are the ultimate product of evolution? We're all nature's creation. We all do what we must to survive.

[Fredi]

Exactly, We are seen it on a different way. As same as we believe that dead is a bad thing. If we look at bad and good, what can you tell me of all the destruction we do to our nature, polluting our world, most don't care. We humans kill and destroy, it's our nature. Evil and Good is something that we created to maintain control among us as a society, and yet we don't apply to our surroundings only on a few cases.

[Ray Jones]

It's pretty hard to dismiss good and evil when you see things like Mother Teresa's altruism or Jeffrey Dahmer's brutal torture, murder, and cannibalism of young boys.

I find it rather quite difficult to judge about who's got the worst fate, the guy who died in a concentration camp, the guy who jumped out of the WTC, or the daughter of Josef Fritzl, who was forced to live in a cellar, for 24 years and to have 7 kids with him, of whom three didn't saw sunlight but once until the case was discovered. No question, immoral acts caused all the pain and death, but is it more immoral to kill a million people in a couple of years, or to incarcerate and rape and whatever else your daughter for over two decades? It seems that those who die face a lighter fate, somehow. It's hard to say, really.

 

However. the reason why I say there is no good and evil is that Teresa's altruism or Jeffrey's cannibalism, the diversity of war crimes, or whatever else, nothing of all this does matter the slightest bit when you're anything but human.

[Jae Onasi]

I believe it does matter. If we didn't stop Hitler or other people who have committed war crimes over the centuries, more would have suffered. If we didn't stop the Taliban, more women would have died from starvation because of the draconic ways the Taliban used the Shari'a to impose their power on Afghanistan, and we'd have others trying to fly more planes into buildings WTC-style. If we didn't say "Rape and incest and locking your daughter up for decades to breed your children in the dark is wrong and evil", Fritzl's daughter and their children would still be living in abject horror in a dark dungeon of a basement. If Mother Teresa and her nuns didn't care for the poorest of the poor, many would have died of starvation, some who were destined to die anyway would have died alone in an alley instead of in a warm bed with someone holding their hand, and others would have died because of a lack of even the most basic health care.

 

If we have no right and wrong, then everything is 'right, depending on your point of view'. That means 'incest is right, depending on your point of view'. 'Murdering your child because you want to is OK depending on your point of view'. 'Throwing people into ovens is OK depending on your point of view'. 'Rolling over peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square is OK depending on your point of view'. 'Torturing people is OK depending on your point of view'. 'Letting people die of starvation is OK depending on your point of view'.

 

We clearly know these things are wrong. You're asking what act is more immoral--that's an entirely different question, and it's like asking 'which woman is 'more pregnant' when they're all 10 weeks pregnant.' Those acts I listed above are all immoral. The acts that lead to the people dying in camps and ovens, or crushed under tons of WTC rubble, or the girl suffering in her father's dungeon for 20 years were all evil. How we punish people for those kinds of acts is not always entirely just, but we must punish evil just the same, or it will continue and get worse.

 

As to your other comment--other animals don't have the full mental capacity required to truly know right from wrong, but we do. That is one of the things that makes us different from other creatures. What other animals think is irrelevant to our unique human state. Humans do care about what's right and wrong, and good and evil, because our capacity to hurt or help each other in unique and varied ways is far, far greater than other animals.

[mur'phon]

We clearly know these things are wrong.

 

How? Because we feel they are wrong? Because they cause us discomfort?

[Drunkside]

This happens every time: someone pulls out the "nazi-card"... Hitler, even him, cannot be dealt with as a purely evil man who just disliked some people like jews and gays and killed them. He hated those things about himself, and he was mentally very unstable.(Theres a debate on wether Hitler had a jewish background, Hitler is a jewish name, and i watched a documentary that showed some evidence on his bisexuality. My history teacher also said that.)

 

Now, to the point: Hitler saved Germany from a serious inflation that was bringing the whole country down. He was a pacifist ( ) and loved animals. Not kidding. And lastly: Nazis helped us people of Finland by selling us weapons to defend our homeland from the Soviet and by lending their air force to us in a couple of battles.

 

 

So my conclusion: There is no "black" and "white", just some shades of grey. Usually very dark shades of grey. People are greedy, selfish and stupid and think first of themselves and after that about others. Now flame me for defending Hitler!

[Arcesious]

This happens every time: someone pulls out the "nazi-card"... Hitler, even him, cannot be dealt with as a purely evil man who just disliked some people like jews and gays and killed them. He hated those things about himself, and he was mentally very unstable.(Theres a debate on wether Hitler had a jewish background, Hitler is a jewish name, and i watched a documentary that showed some evidence on his bisexuality. My history teacher also said that.)

 

Now, to the point: Hitler saved Germany from a serious inflation that was bringing the whole country down. He was a pacifist ( ) and loved animals. Not kidding. And lastly: Nazis helped us people of Finland by selling us weapons to defend our homeland from the Soviet and by lending their air force to us in a couple of battles.

 

 

So my conclusion: There is no "black" and "white", just some shades of grey. Usually very dark shades of grey. People are greedy, selfish and stupid and think first of themselves and after that about others. Now flame me for defending Hitler!

 

I never knew that about Hitler before. It was never even mentioned in the history books in elementary school. If this information you have provided is true, then this puts Hitler in a very different light than I was taught. Now I think Nazi's are as horrible as the next guy, but; how many of us have actually tried to come to an understanding people like Hitler? I'm not very much a studier of history, and I've never actually even heard as much as a summary of 'Mein Kampf', not to mention I've never given much thought to try to understand people like Hitler, Attila the Hun, etc, etc.

[Drunkside]

Heheheheheeey! I got a very, very smart question about this cannibalism you peple like to talk about:

 

You are a member of an army, fighting their enemies in the middle of nowhere. The food supply line has been broken, and all the people in your unit are starving. There are dead bodies everywhere (see where im going:p ). SO: Which is more evil, eat the fallen enemies and friends OR leave the corpses, corpses that care of nothing anymore, on the ground and let say 25 people die of starvation?

[Lord of Hunger]

Definitly a great absolute to live by, but it's not always that simple.

True, which is why I put "generally". There are some areas that you have to rough it.

Ah but what are good, evil, harmory, and chaos but words representing our human interpretations of things? Good does not necessarily equate to harmony, and neither does evil always equate to chaos. The thing we like to call morality is entirely subject to change because the idea of morality is a human construct.

True, morality is a human construct while one that is need for stability. However, the best forms of morality are the ones closest to actual objective truths (which are few but magnificent when you find them).

 

And when I speak of disharmony I do not mean chaos. Chaos is a natural state where there is a lack of order. I refer to disharmony as an artificial state of conflict between man and nature and/or man. And by nature I do not mean Mother Earth or Gaia or the environment. I mean nature as in the system of reality we live in.

Arguable...

Well if you are an atheist or agnostic I suppose it is arguable that there is no progenitor. I've noticed however that most atheists don't have a problem with a progenitor but one that is separate from creation (Abrahamic God in other words). A progenitor that is one with creation seems to be harder to refute because it is more plausible. But that's just my experience.

Those are just the bad ones; but you have to admit, there are good ones too!

I disagree. I've examined many of them, and the problem is always the abstractions. Hell, America's two major political ideologies (conservatism and liberalism) have no grounding in real life whatsoever. They are a bunch of randomly selected positions. By definition, it'd be liberals who would be in support of less gun controls and conservatives who would be against it, liberals who would be pro-religion and conservatives who would be anti-religion. They are all minimally tied to real life, and thus they bring misery. Please, point out some good, non-abstract secular ideologies.

Perhaps, but not when a person 'thinks outside the box'.

Few do, and fewer still truly look outside the box. A lot of people think that they've managed to transcend our society only to be part of another one of its constructs.

 

Wow, my view is bleak, isn't it?

[rhetoric]

Why would I deny/accept my problems when I can confront, dissect, and then correct them?

 

Is truth in us - mere primates, prone to error and irrationality; or is truth in that which is to be learned and discovered?

[/rhetoric]

Or is it truth inside us - God asleep, dreaming that he/she/it is not God at all but some limited primate posting on LucasForums?

This discussion is getting interesting. I think you're approaching the concepts of natural law with these ideas.

There are three paths I see the human race taking:

 

1) Bring man's laws in accordance to the way reality works for maximum efficiency and harmony.

2) Have man's laws unsuccessfully opposed to reality.

3) Have man's laws successfully opposed to reality, leading to the fruitless and empty conquest of reality itself.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. It's an important sounding statement, something you seem to have put some thought into. Care to extrapolate?

As in we are not born with this "dark seed" with in us. We are not built to essentially commit flaws thanks to our two greatest-grandparents eating some magic apple. We make choices or are affected by choices.

Due to the nature of religion there are so many variables involved in perceptual renditions of scripture it is always more academically sound to quote specific references of it and examine those directly. Keep in mind both the Hebrew and Christian religions have been used for political purposes as well as philosophical ones through the ages, and many popularisations of scripture aren't entirely accurate.

True. In fact, everyone thinks that the Crusades were entirely motivated by religion and racism. There was a social, financial, and political aspect involved: extend the reach of the Church, get ride of Europe's overpopulation problems, and let the monarchs consolidate power. The latter two were successfully achieved.

This is a fascinating sentence. I'd like to hear more.

All five religions are but different sections of the overall divine truth. They each have a divine value or virtue they focus on:

 

Christianity - Love

Judaism - Hope

Islam - Faith

Hinduism - Justice

Buddhism - Truth

 

I respect all five religions, but follow Christianity and Buddhism because I'm the kind of person of functions best with Love and Truth.

An excellent rendition of secular Christianity. Very popular from about the Seventies.

I'm part of family of people who think in a very secular way but believe in some sort of progenitor irregardless. Thus we have a thorough understanding what we believe in.

By this state of "harmony" of course you are referring to what secular Buddhists describe as "enlightenment" whereupon a "state of Grace" is achieved via determined although not anxious, personal development. In one sense it is the retention of the incorrupt Self, in another an evolution of the spirit. A state of clarity is one good description, productive behaviour towards other life is a consequence, generally quite some academic potential is inherent.

I would not equate harmony with enlightenment since the later requires absolute harmony, but we're on the same page I think.

But like fundamentalist Christians assert literal interpretations of often third party translated scripture, fundamentalist Buddhists assert that reincarnation is involved until such time as the immortal spirit attains such a state of nirvana, and rather oddly that it is the role of the otherwordly spirit to achieve this enlightenment whilst the human self simply goes through life doing what they are told. Fundamentalism of any flavour just loses the entire plot in my view.

Fundamentalism has the problem of being too limiting. It is only useful for those who are not seeking advancement but to preserve their status quo. The opposite extreme, religious anarchy, has the problem of lacking any form of stability and thus has no point of view at all. A person with a pair of eyes can only see with those eyes. A person with no eyes at all just doesn't see. I learned this from the teachings of Kreia in TSL. You either limit yourself to one perception or don't perceive, but you can search for a world view that fits your lifestyle and is not too limited.

[Arcesious]

True, morality is a human construct while one that is need for stability. However, the best forms of morality are the ones closest to actual objective truths (which are few but magnificent when you find them).

 

True.

 

And when I speak of disharmony I do not mean chaos. Chaos is a natural state where there is a lack of order. I refer to disharmony as an artificial state of conflict between man and nature and/or man. And by nature I do not mean Mother Earth or Gaia or the environment. I mean nature as in the system of reality we live in.

 

I understand what you mean here, that makes sense.

 

Well if you are an atheist or agnostic I suppose it is arguable that there is no progenitor. I've noticed however that most atheists don't have a problem with a progenitor but one that is separate from creation (Abrahamic God in other words). A progenitor that is one with creation seems to be harder to refute because it is more plausible. But that's just my experience.

 

Even though atheism does not imply rationality in an individual, most secular people I know prefer to call themselves 'agnostic atheists', in that they are open to the existence of a deity if sufficient evidence is provided.

 

The thing with this progenitor concept is that its easier to refute than you think. There isn't any solid evidence for a progenitor present. And in all simplicity, no evidence means that the progenitor idea only a hypothesis. And until there is sufficient evidence to support the idea, it will remain a hypothesis. If a person tries to claim that hypothesis to be a theory without evidence, it will be very, very easily refuted.

 

And as I'm sure, all you people have gotten really tired of the "Zomg but you have no evidence!!!" card. But it's a completely valid card to play.

 

I disagree. I've examined many of them, and the problem is always the abstractions. Hell, America's two major political ideologies (conservatism and liberalism) have no grounding in real life whatsoever. They are a bunch of randomly selected positions. By definition, it'd be liberals who would be in support of less gun controls and conservatives who would be against it, liberals who would be pro-religion and conservatives who would be anti-religion. They are all minimally tied to real life, and thus they bring misery. Please, point out some good, non-abstract secular ideologies.

 

Those are political ideologies. The good secular ideologies I am speaking of are those such as secular humanism and freethought. Given, a religious person can be a humanist too, which is called religious humanism.

 

Secular humanism is, by my definition, the philosophy of person who wishes to help other people simply because that person wants to help people, without beleif that a diety wants them to help people. No strings attached, therefore not making it abstract.

 

Freethought is not at all abstract either. Freethought is simply a philosophy of independence and making decisions based on logic.

 

As for the two political ideologies- they aren't that bad. People just take ideologies too far to often. Liberalism is at its core is defined as 'open-mindedness to change'. Conservatism is at its core defined as 'preference to tradition but also willingness to accept moderate change'.

 

 

Few do, and fewer still truly look outside the box. A lot of people think that they've managed to transcend our society only to be part of another one of its constructs.

 

Wow, my view is bleak, isn't it?

 

A realistic POV about people, but I'll offer a different train of thought here:

 

Whenever you have looked at a crowd of people gathered at an event, perhaps a political one, how often have you thought along the lines of 'look at all those sheeple'?

 

As it turns out, the majority of people really aren't truly 'sheeple'. They may do stupid things quite a lot, but how can you or I excuses ourselves of being guilty of 'sheeplism'?

 

For example, take a person from the hypothetical crowd, and become their best friend. You learn everything about them, and they learn everything about you. At first, that person might have seemed like just another 'average joe', but after you get to know them, you'd find that you and that person are far more alike than you first thought.

 

When I first became a full-blown atheist, I was essentially uber-militant to religion, swept up in the 'atheist movement' of modern day. Eventually though, I realized I was becoming as fundamental and 'sheeplist' as I had thought religious people were at the time. I was lumping all the religious together as sheeple and fundamentalists, which was very irrational and sheeplist of me.

 

My point is, in summary; the next time you begin to think 'the majority of people are morons', think again and try to put yourself in their position.

 

Or is it truth inside us - God asleep, dreaming that he/she/it is not God at all but some limited primate posting on LucasForums?

 

I wouldn't go that far... If we go down this road of thought it's just another one of those migraine-causing 'what if the world is the matrix' threads.

[Lord of Hunger]

Even though atheism does not imply rationality in an individual, most secular people I know prefer to call themselves 'agnostic atheists', in that they are open to the existence of a deity if sufficient evidence is provided.

So they are moderating their position? Good on them, they'll generally be less stressed out and angry.

The thing with this progenitor concept is that its easier to refute than you think. There isn't any solid evidence for a progenitor present. And in all simplicity, no evidence means that the progenitor idea only a hypothesis. And until there is sufficient evidence to support the idea, it will remain a hypothesis. If a person tries to claim that hypothesis to be a theory without evidence, it will be very, very easily refuted.

 

And as I'm sure, all you people have gotten really tired of the "Zomg but you have no evidence!!!" card. But it's a completely valid card to play.

The only problem here is not a lack of evidence but the validity of existing accounts. Religious groups point to their respective holy books as their evidence, but atheists will follow the integrity of their position and seek to dispute the validity of these holy books. So far the Book of Genesis has been outright proven to be inaccurate due to the theory of evolution, though that theory in turn is incomplete as there is very little explanation as the why the very first organism came into being. However, I find it best with Christianity to think of the Old Testament as a book of stories rather than a valid account. I hold more stock in the New Testament, whose account of Christ is given more weight by containing four different Gospels.

Those are political ideologies. The good secular ideologies I am speaking of are those such as secular humanism and freethought. Given, a religious person can be a humanist too, which is called religious humanism.

I will dissect these ideologies.

QUOTE]Secular humanism is, by my definition, the philosophy of person who wishes to help other people simply because that person wants to help people, without beleif that a diety wants them to help people. No strings attached, therefore not making it abstract.

For humanism I would point out one teaching of Kreia: charity can be dangerous. In some cases humanism can reverse great injustices, but in others it can create a culture of dependency, such as welfare in the USA. While some sort of safety net is necessary, the essential American spirit is if you got what it takes you may succeed, but if you don't have what it takes you'll fail. Trying to prop up those who fail only hinders both those who succeed and those who fail since there is no reason to succeed any more. The only reason why I'm vaguely okay with our government propping up failed companies right now is because the global economy would collapse. Otherwise, I'd be better for those companies to just fall and someone better succeed.

Freethought is not at all abstract either. Freethought is simply a philosophy of independence and making decisions based on logic.

Um, there is a difference between life philosophy and secular ideology. And this is one life philosophy I also follow.

As for the two political ideologies- they aren't that bad. People just take ideologies too far to often. Liberalism is at its core is defined as 'open-mindedness to change'. Conservatism is at its core defined as 'preference to tradition but also willingness to accept moderate change'.

I've heard it said often that the ideologies are not at fault, people just screw everything up. But maybe it's the other way around, considering the division between left and right has consistently reduced the efficiency and prosperity of the USA.

A realistic POV about people, but I'll offer a different train of thought here:

 

Whenever you have looked at a crowd of people gathered at an event, perhaps a political one, how often have you thought along the lines of 'look at all those sheeple'?

 

As it turns out, the majority of people really aren't truly 'sheeple'. They may do stupid things quite a lot, but how can you or I excuses ourselves of being guilty of 'sheeplism'?

 

For example, take a person from the hypothetical crowd, and become their best friend. You learn everything about them, and they learn everything about you. At first, that person might have seemed like just another 'average joe', but after you get to know them, you'd find that you and that person are far more alike than you first thought.

 

When I first became a full-blown atheist, I was essentially uber-militant to religion, swept up in the 'atheist movement' of modern day. Eventually though, I realized I was becoming as fundamental and 'sheeplist' as I had thought religious people were at the time. I was lumping all the religious together as sheeple and fundamentalists, which was very irrational and sheeplist of me.

 

My point is, in summary; the next time you begin to think 'the majority of people are morons', think again and try to put yourself in their position.

Ironically I've had very similar experiences. Ultimately I did get to know the sheeple better and become good friends with them, but in the end they were still sheeple.

 

It isn't their thought, they've just been raised that way. There is actually a difference between a follower and a sheeple, but over time that difference has been blurred within our society.

I wouldn't go that far... If we go down this road of thought it's just another one of those migraine-causing 'what if the world is the matrix' threads.

It isn't?

[Arcesious]

So they are moderating their position? Good on them, they'll generally be less stressed out and angry.

 

The position does not cause people stress. People cause stress in people. At most, the position indirectly causes stress due to other factors.

 

The only problem here is not a lack of evidence but the validity of existing accounts. Religious groups point to their respective holy books as their evidence, but atheists will follow the integrity of their position and seek to dispute the validity of these holy books. So far the Book of Genesis has been outright proven to be inaccurate due to the theory of evolution, though that theory in turn is incomplete as there is very little explanation as the why the very first organism came into being. However, I find it best with Christianity to think of the Old Testament as a book of stories rather than a valid account. I hold more stock in the New Testament, whose account of Christ is given more weight by containing four different Gospels.

 

Erm, abiogenesis is what tries to explain the origin of life, not evolution.

 

I will dissect these ideologies.

 

For humanism I would point out one teaching of Kreia: charity can be dangerous. In some cases humanism can reverse great injustices, but in others it can create a culture of dependency, such as welfare in the USA. While some sort of safety net is necessary, the essential American spirit is if you got what it takes you may succeed, but if you don't have what it takes you'll fail. Trying to prop up those who fail only hinders both those who succeed and those who fail since there is no reason to succeed any more. The only reason why I'm vaguely okay with our government propping up failed companies right now is because the global economy would collapse. Otherwise, I'd be better for those companies to just fall and someone better succeed.

 

That's only when you take the philosophy to too far of an extreme, IMO.

 

Still, helping people is a great thing to do, and Kreia is just a cynicist.

 

Um, there is a difference between life philosophy and secular ideology. And this is one life philosophy I also follow.

 

Well if you wanted to take it farther, I'd be arguing that religious beleifs (IE: absolutes the religion tries to establish, convictions a person gains, fallacies that the person accepts unknowingly) can hinder freethought...

 

I've heard it said often that the ideologies are not at fault, people just screw everything up. But maybe it's the other way around, considering the division between left and right has consistently reduced the efficiency and prosperity of the USA.

 

That's caused by what we call group mentality/mob mentality.

 

Ironically I've had very similar experiences. Ultimately I did get to know the sheeple better and become good friends with them, but in the end they were still sheeple.

 

It isn't their thought, they've just been raised that way. There is actually a difference between a follower and a sheeple, but over time that difference has been blurred within our society.

 

Indeed. Still, even the most conformist and brainwashed of 'sheeple' can become 'smug, nonconformist, heretical rebels'. Just look at me... I'm the perfect example of a person who has been a sheeplist from both sides of the road and come out of it standing in the middle of the road.

 

Edit: Okay maybe not exactly in the middle...

 

It isn't?

 

Yeah, it has, hasn't it?

 

Wasn't this thread about good and evil or something, though? I think I've gone off-topic with all of this... Maybe we should split this into another thread about sheeplism and ideologies/philosophies...

[Samuel Dravis]

How? Because we feel they are wrong? Because they cause us discomfort?

More likely because that's what "wrong" means. Words aren't independent of the culture that uses them. Jae obviously learned how to use the word in this way; I'm not sure what more is required or expected of her. Even Kant, who is usually respected for giving a "logical grounding" or a sort of justification for what is moral and what is not, didn't try to justify moral concepts as you imply; he just codified moral concepts already extant (IIRC). I imagine the reason for this is simply that there is nothing to appeal to for justification, nothing to decide the issue one way or another (i.e., it's nonsense to ask for justification here since "justification" is undefined in such a context).

 

I for one agree with Jae that there is good and evil, and that some good and some evil are very, very obvious. Emperor Devon springs to mind.

[Q]

Funny, but when I think of obviously evil LucasForumites, it isn't Emperor Devon who springs to mind.

[mur'phon]

SD: Fair enough, though that would be a very relativistic way to look at things (from what I understand, my english is far from stellar), and AFAIK Jae is sorta against moral relativism.

 

Q: Is there a prize for guessing who came to mind first?

[Q]

You get 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

 

Seriously, though, religion aside, wouldn't empathy, or lack thereof, serve as an adequate point of reference regarding good and evil?

[Samuel Dravis]

SD: Fair enough' date=' though that would be a very relativistic way to look at things (from what I understand, my english is far from stellar), and AFAIK Jae is sorta against moral relativism.[/quote']I am against moral relativism also (I certainly do not think e.g., Fritzl's actions as morally neutral), I just refuse to keep going with regards to justification because there's nothing to go to. It's similar to this story:

"William James, father of American psychology, tells of meeting an old lady who told him the Earth rested on the back of a huge turtle. "But, my dear lady," Professor James asked, as politely as possible, "what holds up the turtle?" "Ah," she said, "that's easy. He is standing on the back of another turtle." "Oh, I see," said Professor James, still being polite. "But would you be so good as to tell me what holds up the second turtle?" "It's no use, Professor," said the old lady, realizing he was trying to lead her into a logical trap. "It's turtles-turtles-turtles, all the way down!"

 

But it's not "turtles all the way down"; it's meaningless to ask what is beneath the tortoise if that question's answer is undefined. It's like a child asking, "Why...why...why...why...?" Eventually reasons run out and the question becomes senseless to ask; there is nothing more to ask for. What sort of a question has no possible correct answer, anyway? For we do want the right answer. An illusion-question, a ghost-question, a mistaken-question. Justifications for morals come to an end; if they didn't they wouldn't be justifications. There's a quotation from Faust which I like: In the beginning was the deed. So it is here. Either you act morally or you don't...and that decision is entirely up to you. My essential point is that the question "what is the right action" cannot be divorced from the situation it is asked in; if it is, it becomes meaningless.

 

Edit: Another quotation seemed relevant here, from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics Book 1 section 4:

 

"Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we say political science aims at and what is the highest of all goods achievable by action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being happy; but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour; they differ, however, from one another- and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance, they admire those who proclaim some great ideal that is above their comprehension. Now some thought that apart from these many goods there is another which is self-subsistent and causes the goodness of all these as well. To examine all the opinions that have been held were perhaps somewhat fruitless; enough to examine those that are most prevalent or that seem to be arguable.

 

Let us not fail to notice, however, that there is a difference between arguments from and those to the first principles. For Plato, too, was right in raising this question and asking, as he used to do, 'are we on the way from or to the first principles?' There is a difference, as there is in a race-course between the course from the judges to the turning-point and the way back. For, while we must begin with what is known, things are objects of knowledge in two senses- some to us, some without qualification. Presumably, then, we must begin with things known to us. Hence any one who is to listen intelligently to lectures about what is noble and just, and generally, about the subjects of political science must have been brought up in good habits. For the fact is the starting-point, and if this is sufficiently plain to him, he will not at the start need the reason as well; and the man who has been well brought up has or can easily get startingpoints."

 

For these and similar reasons my view of ethics is conscience-based, i.e., virtue ethics.

 

Edit Edit: I thought of another example that is similar to what I'm trying to say. There have been discussions on this board about what happened "before the big bang." One answer is: there is no "before" the big bang, that being logically impossible given that time started at the big bang (i.e., "before" can only be used in a situation involving time). And this kind of answer is like to my answer here: there is no such thing as "justification" except in a context that provides a framework that allows things to be justified. If one can accept the big bang argument, it should pose few problems to accept mine.

[Jae Onasi]

How? Because we feel they are wrong? Because they cause us discomfort?

My code of right/wrong is based on the Christian religion, that's not secret. Regardless of your religious affiliation (or lack thereof), removing someone's right to live, or harming them, or violating other basic human rights, is wrong.

 

I don't buy into relativism. It's philosophically self-destructive: saying "Everything is relative" is an absolute statement, not a relative one.

[Ray Jones]

If we didn't stop Hitler or other people who have committed war crimes over the centuries, more would have suffered.

But there were more people suffering. A-bombs, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars, WTC, etc.

 

 

If we didn't stop the Taliban, more women would have died from starvation because of the draconic ways the Taliban used the Shari'a to impose their power on Afghanistan

Yes, but now many people died due to military operations. Plus, we now have the Taliban imposing guerilla warfare and terror acts upon the "invaders", and in some regions they gain back some power too.

 

 

If we didn't say "Rape and incest and locking your daughter up for decades to breed your children in the dark is wrong and evil", Fritzl's daughter and their children would still be living in abject horror in a dark dungeon of a basement.

The fact that we do say it's wrong didn't keep him from doing it, actually.

 

 

See, I'm in no way saying let those things happen and go by unimpressed, but I think nothing really got better, whatever we did.

 

 

If we have no right and wrong, then everything is 'right, depending on your point of view'.

Or 'wrong, depending on the point of view', for that matter. However, I said there is no good and evil, not no right and wrong.

 

 

That means 'incest is right, depending on your point of view'. 'Murdering your child because you want to is OK depending on your point of view'. 'Throwing people into ovens is OK depending on your point of view'. 'Rolling over peaceful protesters in Tiananmen Square is OK depending on your point of view'. 'Torturing people is OK depending on your point of view'. 'Letting people die of starvation is OK depending on your point of view'.

I think morality is an absolute thing. Right and wrong, however, is not.

 

 

You're asking what act is more immoral--that's an entirely different question, and it's like asking 'which woman is 'more pregnant' when they're all 10 weeks pregnant.'

Yes, because it's an binary attribute, I think. Either you act moral or you don't. There's nothing in between.

 

 

As to your other comment--other animals don't have the full mental capacity required to truly know right from wrong, but we do. That is one of the things that makes us different from other creatures. What other animals think is irrelevant to our unique human state.

I think it is not irrelevant. To take the 'non-human' world by human measures doesn't seem logical to me.

 

 

Humans do care about what's right and wrong, and good and evil, because our capacity to hurt or help each other in unique and varied ways is far, far greater than other animals.

I'd say otherwise. Empathy is the driving factor, and the will to attain goals.

 

 

I don't buy into relativism. It's philosophically self-destructive: saying "Everything is relative" is an absolute statement, not a relative one.

Most relative things are absolutes anyway.