|
Good vs Evil/Moral Absolutes
|
|
| EmSeeD |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 0:16 AM | Message # 1 |
Heads
Posts: 11464
|
Is it just me or is it easier to do Evil than it is to do something good? Why is Good harder? Is it because the fact that Good takes a bit more effort than evil make the good dead even better? Is that the whole point of Good the fact that it takes an effort? Why is evil easier? Is it because we are all sinners? Do we live in a word of sin? Do you believe in moral absolutes? I don't know about you guys but i do believe there is moral absolutes, what do you think?
http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
|
|
|
|
| EmSeeD |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 0:30 AM | Message # 2 |
|
Heads
Posts: 11464
|
since no one has anything to day here are some random videos about it that i haven't even watched 
http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 0:35 AM | Message # 3 |
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
I'm glad you presented this topic. These are things that I think about alot, especially when deciding upon my actions and thought processes. I believe it is easy to do bad because nature is full of bad. Through an evolutionary perspective, most means of survival are "bad." I believe morals are emphasized to try to make us less animal. I believe there are morals if you want to call them that, but I don't think they are absolute, and I don't think of them as morals. I believe in what is most reasonable and what makes sense. Some "morals" are based on what makes sense and some are not. The fact that I believe in what makes sense does not make me a moralist though just because some morals are based on what is most reasonable and what makes sense. For example, it makes sense not to kill a man for any reason because it solves nothing. Not because it is wrong. In nature, there really is nothing wrong with murder. But few animals kill for no reason. They kill for food or out of fear, which are elements of natural survival. Well we don't need to kill other men, because outside of protection of ourselves there is no reasonable justification for murdering someone. Therefore it makes no sense, and is what society would call "wrong" or "bad," but what I would call "unreasonable." The same logic can be applied to stealing, raping, or other things that potentially harm someone. This shit goes way deeper in my mind, I have a feeling it will be summed up in this thread so there's no need to go any further with it at this point (and get off topic).
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| EmSeeD |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 0:44 AM | Message # 4 |
|
Heads
Posts: 11464
|
yeah that makes a lot of sense to me, i was just wondering about it
http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
|
|
|
|
| I_Guy |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 1:00 AM | Message # 5 |
|
Heads
Posts: 1792
|
Keep in mind that there are some neutral acts that are neither moral or immoral. For example, casual sex is one. It doesn’t hurt anything and it doesn’t do any good either (unless involving pregnancy). So it is neural, and therefore is just as reasonable to do or not to do. I feel you have to consider the worth of everything and the stakes that the worthy have in the operation of all else in order to determine "morals." You have to also consider every action and the value it has when effecting the overall value of the effected. This is where I conflict with my belief in nihilism. Nihilism says that there are no objective morals and that life has no intrinsic value. Well that may be true, but there is something beyond that. For example, let's say that this planet is the only planet in the universe that has life, well that would give us value wouldn't it? But valuable to whom? Our subjective selves. But then again, the fact that we are rare and against extreme odds makes us valuable mathematically and statistically, so in a way there is an intrinsic value. But that is if we are the only life in the universe. The more life there is, the less valuable we are. If we are among other life, our uniqueness may seem valuable, but uniqueness can be subjective, but then again, we may be completely different from any other life out there, therefore making us absolutely unique by evidential fact. Here again we can become valuable. But all of this can only function within our knowledge of the universe. As of now, we know of no other life in the universe, so at this point, we can consider ourselves valuable to the best of our knowledge. But we must also keep in mind that we are potentially invaluable. To take this a bit further, let’s say we are the only life in the universe and we are to a degree mathematically and statistically valuable. If this is the case, we have to also consider our function in this universe. If we do not effect the universe in any way or serve as an essential building block within it, then we are again invaluable -functionally, because we serve no purpose. Now if we are not the only life and are within this same situation, then we are even less valuable due to our deminished value of not being the only. On the other hand if we somehow do operate as a cosmic utility then we regain a degree of absolute value. (But then you have to start thinking of the even bigger picture of what's outside of the universe, if anything.) All this philosophy goes further but these are the logical contradictions that I struggle with as a supporter of nihilism and existentialism, because these contradictions exist inside and outside of these two philosophies. It is difficult to sort out and combine these perspectives to produce a clear and definite outlook.
We all know that each of our end is near; the question is do we accept the end of our living existence, or do we accept our existence as dead men...
|
|
|
|
| EmSeeD |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 1:40 AM | Message # 6 |
|
Heads
Posts: 11464
|
Quote (I_Guy) For example, casual sex is one. It doesn’t hurt anything and it doesn’t do any good either surely pleasuring someone you love because you love them counts as good, well i guess that's where the moral part comes in in religion, its only moral in marriage because doing it out of love is good.
http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
|
|
|
|
| EmSeeD |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 1:56 AM | Message # 7 |
|
Heads
Posts: 11464
|
but a lot of humans live as though they are the most important thing on the earth, its like some people want to be at the top rather than all live as just a part of the universe or just the world
http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 7:24 AM | Message # 8 |
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
Quote (EmSeeD) but a lot of humans live as though they are the most important thing on the earth, its like some people want to be at the top rather than all live as just a part of the universe or just the world well that has to do whit the socio-political climate in the world the western world is built on constant competition and strife that's why i posted that book called Mutual Aid because the world seems to forget that the mere survival of the human race depends on cooperation and mutual aid our economic systems drains everything from our bad side in our world capitalist competition is encouraged and cooperation is mocked this constant greed has to do whit our societal infrastructure. and Moral absolutism was used to justify slavery in the US in general we can see what is wrong or right whit the naked eye but in general is relatively and depends on the demography , culture and so on .
|
|
|
|
| Uncharted |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 1:53 PM | Message # 9 |
Emcees
Posts: 4766
|
Quote (EmSeeD) Is it just me or is it easier to do Evil than it is to do something good? Why is Good harder? Is it because the fact that Good takes a bit more effort than evil make the good dead even better? Is that the whole point of Good the fact that it takes an effort? Why is evil easier? Is it because we are all sinners? Do we live in a word of sin?
Do you believe in moral absolutes? I don't know about you guys but i do believe there is moral absolutes, what do you think?
i always thought about this too
....
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 7:07 PM | Message # 10 |
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
I do not believe in terms like "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad" in the context in which it is being used here because, as I_Guy said, these values do not exist intrinsically in nature. I believe all morals are subjective. I completely disagree, however, on your point, I_Guy, that any of those factors come into play. My question to you is what value? Seriously, what is the meaning of "value"? How do we equate value? Do we equate value in an objective manner? Please explain how it is objective. And yes, I read your explanation. It still doesn't explain the objectivity of your system of denoting values through the scarcity/rare and uniqueness of life on earth, even when you add the extra factor of our usefulness in the functioning of the universe. That logic is similar to the logic used to make whites seem like an Aryan race even before Hitler invented the term. Sure, any truly intelligent person who is considerate to the rest of humanity wouldn't twist the ideas you presented in such a way, but regardless this surely makes the argument you present invalid. So let's make an analogy. Just as Earth life may be unique in the universe regardless of the existence of other life (only if other life is vastly different on other planets, which is likely considering the different climates inherent on other planets), white people ARE unique on planet Earth in many ways, more so than simple skin complexion as well. Additionally, just as if theoretically Earth life is of great use to the universe in it's current functionality it is of greater value depending on it's level of usefulness, white Aryans in NAZI Germany were thought to be of greater use to society than any other culture and were therefore said to be of more value than any other. Now regardless of the moral implications of such an ideal, this is obviously completely subjective and it parallels the idea you presented. So again I ask how is the idea you present an example of objective value? And moreover, how does this tie in with morality/ethics (I think ethics is the better term. The term "morals" tends to have a religious connotation)? I am truly curious.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 7:17 PM | Message # 11 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Btw, ftr, I do feel we can live morally, but I feel objective morals are null. I feel subjective morals are sufficient to exist morally. All we need is a sense of moral relativity -- do unto others only as you wish to be done upon you. And the building block of such an ideal is what makes it pretty fool proof: you would not like to have something done to you that you dislike or are unfavorable to, so do not do anything unfavorable to anyone else.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 7:18 PM | Message # 12 |
|
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
Quote (eboyd) I_Guy said, these values do not exist intrinsically in nature. oh they exist and in fact that's what keeps some species alive listen to this Erik it's a good excerpt from Mutual Aid it fits very well to the subject at hand ohh and i see on your last comment that you and Peter Kropotkin have the same idea about morality
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 7:32 PM | Message # 13 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
I'm on my phone now. I'll check it when I get home. Btw, I've heard of Kropotkin. I'll check his work some time.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| eboyd |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 7:36 PM | Message # 14 |
|
Heads
Posts: 13145
|
Btw, Menace, no disrespect, but do you ever formulate your own opinions? I mean I agree with you on just about everything, but it seems to me like you have an archive of videos, books and various quotes and instead of presenting an argument you present one of the various excerpts, quotes or videos as your argument. I'd like to hear what you think directly from you more often.
my new theme song
erikboyd60@hotmail.com
"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"
-T.S. Eliot
battle record:
7-0-0
|
|
|
|
| Menace |
Date: Tuesday, 09/Jun/09, 8:06 PM | Message # 15 |
|
Heads
Posts: 6764
|
i am like Chomsky a fellow traveler i travel whit others on the path to enlightenment the deck is already set some ideas are already spoken and written I'm just a librarian preserving the truth i read a lot of books and that's what happens when you are so deep into them maybe is something about me but when there is an argument it's like a ding in my brain and i remember i saw an answer for that in a book maybe this happens because I'm a library rat and I'm a political guy quoting giving excerpts are the daily basis as you already know ohh not to say that as a political profession i am a propagandist on the real maybe that's why i always quote and give speeches
|
|
|
|
