paladin
Do they exsist or are they just words we use to describe thinks we can't understand?Are humans inheritly evil or good?If you had the chose to live forever, it meant someone had to die what would you choose?These are just a few of the many questions I could ask so please tell me what you th
chamomileess
Granted, if someone has a screw loose in their head, that can change. That, however, is not the norm; people who think that torturing infants is fun would be labeled insane by anyone else.Although there are things that are objectively morally wrong, some things are subjectively morally wrong, and this is where the human potential of evil comes in. Go back to the 1940's and ask a Nazi and an American this question: should all Jews be exterminated?The Nazi, being a good German and all, will respond: "Absolutely. They should all be killed," whereas the American is more likely to respond in a negative fashion.So why are these two people's views so different? It's because we all have a potential for evil which is influenced by our environment. The German people in and of themselves are not evil; rather, it's the thoughts that were placed in their heads by Hitler that made them that way.All people have the potential for Sin and Evil. It's simply a matter of suppressing it. Things like killing the Jews can all be affected by our different viewpoints, hence, it is very subjective.(DISCLAIMER: I mean no offense to anyone when I make my points like this. I especially don't mean to insult any Germans who might be among the forums. In all fairness, I was talking about Nazis specifically. I acknowledge the fact that during WWII, there were sympathetic Germans towards the Jews. Once again, if you feel insulted in any way by this post, it was not my intention, and I'm sor
joshyface
QUOTE (drake @ Feb 19 2010, 06:21 PM) quotecWhat are your thought on good and evil?Do they exsist or are they just words we use to describe thinks we can't understand?Are humans inheritly evil or good?If you had the chose to live forever, it meant someone had to die what would you choose?These are just a few of the many questions I could ask so please tell me what you think.QuoteEndQuoteEEnd1/Good and evil are fancy terms for conflict. 2/Good and Evil are real but are impossible to understand. The reason for this is because good and evil almost always depends on what side you are on not what "right or wrong". (Basically, your interpretation of good and evil all depends on how your life has played out so far.)3/I believe that humans are initially innocent. Meaning that it all depends on what their life plays out to be and people/your interpretation of them. 4/No, because if you live forever you will see all the hardships to come. Also if you live forever you will watch everyone die while you cannot. Giving you a life of sadn
EternalLurker
QUOTE (Chamomile @ Feb 19 2010, 08:37 PM) quotecI believe that humans are inherently good....[E]veryone...will agree that there are some acts that are just objectively and morally wrong [i]f they're mentally sane.Granted, if someone has a screw loose in their head, that can change.QuoteEndQuoteEEndThis is ridiculously arbitrary and is the kind of argument that most believers in morality tend to make. "Humans are good because sane humans don't do immoral things. Some things are immoral because sane people would say that they're just wrong." You're defining morality by the instincts of sane people, and then you're defining sanity by morality. That's a completely circular definitive loop; you could make that sort of argument to "prove" literally anyth
paladin
ho is to choose who is sane many a person is only cosidered insane if they truely beleave they are doing something moral, in are court of law which most beleave protect are moral beleafs so perhaps we are in correct what we beleave moral now could change in the fut
an
Just like almost everything else, I believe human are born with harmful and useful traits to society. So, babies are like a blank canvas. There are high quality and low quality canvas, but you can paint whatever on it. Some will turn out better than the ot
chamomileess
QUOTE (EternalLurker @ Feb 19 2010, 09:32 PM) quotecThis is ridiculously arbitrary and is the kind of argument that most believers in morality tend to make. "Humans are good because sane humans don't do immoral things. Some things are immoral because sane people would say that they're just wrong." You're defining morality by the instincts of sane people, and then you're defining sanity by morality. That's a completely circular definitive loop; you could make that sort of argument to "prove" literally anything.QuoteEndQuoteEEndI see.Well, what's your take on it then? I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.(By the way, thanks for pointing out it was circular... I didn't realize that till you pointed it out to me
EternalLurker
QUOTE (EternalLurker @ Feb 20 2010, 01:32 AM) quotecbelievers in moralityQuoteEndQuoteEEndThat should illustrate my view on things. I'm a believer in morality. I'm amoral.Ideas of what are "good" and "bad" are evolutionarily instilled. Due to natural selection, species are more likely to survive when they can form a coherent society in which members look out for each other. Therefore, it is in our very genes to have altruistic tendencies. This is the origin of morality. Therefore, since morality comes from a time in which we followed very different rules from those of modern society, it is a vestigial trait and unnecessary for daily life. As far as I'm concerned, morality no longer should exist.That knowledge rarely affects how I interact with others (at least so far as they know), since on a scale (ie between friends) morality is still as necessary as it always was even if that doesn't factor in on a larger scale (ala the "dog eat dog" world of capitalism), but you asked about my views on morality, so there ya
chamomileess
It seems EL is the only person who offers a straight answer without beating around the bush, which I admire ^ΒΈ^.In any event, are you saying that Morality on a large scale doesn't exist, (or at the very least, not in the way that I've outlined
EternalLurker
In fact, altruism towards those who aren't close to oneself has now become detrimental to societal function, not beneficial, due to the formation of competition as an economic catalyst. As nice as the core ideals of communism sound, it's pretty hard to make an argument for the practicality of its implementation as compared to that of capitalism, as history has shown. Egalitarian communism isn't comparably stable to egalitarian capitalism in anything but a small, hand-picked population. The simplest flaw with large-scale morality is that individuals breaking the moral code will gain more than the per-capita societal loss. So, since capitalism is the general economic model of choice in modern society and capitalism can't function if everyone tries to be "good" to everyone else, large-scale morality is often societally disadvantageous.On a smaller scale, such as being nice to one's friends, the basic reasons for morality (if everyone is nice to each other, the group as a whole is better off) still matter. But if people are our friends, then by the very nature of friendship we don't really need much incentive to be nice to them, do we? ^_^ So amorality doesn't require alienating friends or anything like t
