Root of all evil

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Root of all evil
Arancaytar Law Bringer Member # 2984	written Friday, January 21 2005 04:36 Profile Homepage #50 Worship of worthy people who do not want it is not a unilaterally bad idea (as long as it does not corrupt them). People worthy of worship usually have a lot of trouble in their lives and could probably go with a token of appreciation. :P --- I see "evolution" used with reference to culture. Note that originally it referred to biological and physiological development of species, not mental and cultural development of civilizations. The latter happens a lot faster than the former. -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 \| Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Friday, January 21 2005 04:47 Profile #51 Another note about the whole morality/good/evil thing. As some have already said, there is no such thing as "evil" except as a subjective assessment of an event or behavior. So what we are left with is the concept of morals or ethics. ANimals, going as far back as the dinosaurs even display the same sorts of morals we do. Morals are part of being a social animal. The only reason humans are even around today is because we learned to cooperate against predators and the environment. CHimps, wolves, dinosaurs, dolphins...all of these creatures have(or HAD in the case of the dinos) moral codes they enforce(d). Anthropologists and paleontologists have discovered fossils of predatory dino's which had suffered broken legs but did not die until long after the injury had healed. THis indicates that the beast was part of a social group who watched over the injured creature while it recuperated, rather than leaving it to die. We humans are mostly differentiated by the fact that we have brains which allow for some pretty powerful imagining and rationalizing. The downside is that our brains are wired against "loose ends". If we don't have an answer for something(even if the question itself is a fallacious one) we will make one up. We feel that every "why" question MUST have an answer(which is not true). That is how we end up with thousands of gods, spirits, boogeymen, urban legends etc. Superstition once kept us alive by keeping us from wandering into tar pits at night(re: "Beware the evil spirits of the darkness!"). Problem is that nowadays we have flashlights and guns and medicine. We don't need the spirits adn we can plainly see they are not there. But evolution is a (mostly)gradual process adn it will be some time before we see a world relatively free of religion and such. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Friday, January 21 2005 04:56 Profile #52 quote: Originally written by Of Valinor and Eldamar: Worship of worthy people who do not want it is not a unilaterally bad idea (as long as it does not corrupt them). People worthy of worship usually have a lot of trouble in their lives and could probably go with a token of appreciation. :P AH but we are talking about GOD(s) here! You may think it is fun to go worshipping your neighbor even though he has asked that you not do so(for whatever reason) but to do this to God...? If you("you" generally, not specifically) actually believed in him, you wouldn't. quote: I see "evolution" used with reference to culture. Note that originally it referred to biological and physiological development of species, not mental and cultural development of civilizations. The latter happens a lot faster than the former. Nah. Even chain letters evolve. THe only stuff that doesn't evolve is stuff that is perfectly suited to it's niche/environment adn it's environment is not changing. Sure if you are discussing physical anthropology or biology then you will be discussing biological evolution(natural selection, punctuated equilibrium etc.) but culture evolves by the same(pretty much exact) processes. The reason why CHristianity is one of the two or three major "super powers" of religion is because the cultural environment changed so that polytheism adn whatnot were less able to survive and thrive. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
Arancaytar Law Bringer Member # 2984	written Friday, January 21 2005 05:07 Profile Homepage #53 quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: AH but we are talking about GOD(s) here! You may think it is fun to go worshipping your neighbor even though he has asked that you not do so(for whatever reason) but to do this to God...? If you("you" generally, not specifically) actually believed in him, you wouldn't. Actually, we were talking about "sentient things". I'm avowedly agnostic, and from the premise that it is sentience that matters, I did not distinguish between human beings and deities. Then again, you're right about Gods. Mainly because a God, being much more powerful, can wreak a whole lot more havoc, and, being immortal, usually lacks that dash of humility that might put all that worshipping into perspective. Plainly, it'll be much harder to find a God who doesn't want to be worshipped than a human. quote: Nah. Even chain letters evolve. THe only stuff that doesn't evolve is stuff that is perfectly suited to it's niche/environment adn it's environment is not changing. I did not suggest Culture did not evolve, just that it did so faster. :) [ Friday, January 21, 2005 13:11: Message edited by: Of Valinor and Eldamar ] -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 \| Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Friday, January 21 2005 07:01 Profile #54 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: Doesn't seem like a universally acceptable definition. There are plenty of religious types around (and a few non-religious ones as well) who think the things they themselves enjoy are evil. quote: Thomas Hobbes, "The Elements of Law", Chapter 17, "Other Laws of Nature" 14. Every man by natural passion, calleth that good which pleaseth him for the present, or so far forth as he can foresee; and in like manner that which displeaseth him evil. And therefore he that foreseeth the whole way to his preservation (which is the end that every one by nature aimeth at) must also call it good, and the contrary evil. And this is that good and evil, which not every man in passion calleth so, but all men by reason. And therefore the fulfilling of all these laws is good in reason; and the breaking of them evil. And so also the habit, or disposition, or intention to fulfil them good; and the neglect of them evil. And from hence cometh that distinction of malum paenae, and malum culpae; for malum paenae is any pain or molestation of mind whatsoever; but malum culpae is that action which is contrary to reason and the law of nature; as also the habit of doing according to these and other laws of nature that tend to our preservation, is that we call VIRTUE; and the habit of doing the contrary, VICE. As for example, justice is that habit by which we stand to covenants, injustice the contrary vice; equity that habit by which we allow equality of nature, arrogance the contrary vice; gratitude the habit whereby we requite the benefit and trust of others, ingratitude the contrary vice; temperance the habit by which we abstain from all things that tend to our destruction, intemperance the contrary vice; prudence, the same with virtue in general. As for the common opinion, that virtue consisteth in mediocrity, and vice in extremes, I see no ground for it, nor can find any such mediocrity. Courage may be virtue, when the daring is extreme, if the cause be good; and extreme fear no vice when the danger is extreme. To give a man more than his due, is no injustice, though it be to give him less; and in gifts it is not the sum that maketh liberality, but the reason. And so in all other virtues and vices. I know that this doctrine of mediocrity is Aristotle's, but his opinions concerning virtue and vice, are no other than those which were received then, and are still by the generality of men unstudied; and therefore not very likely to be accurate. EDIT: quote: Another note about the whole morality/good/evil thing. As some have already said, there is no such thing as "evil" except as a subjective assessment of an event or behavior. So what we are left with is the concept of morals or ethics. Morals (in terms of the individual) are dependent on the individual's definition of good/evil, right/wrong. Morals (in terms of a society) are dependent upon the society's collective definition of good/evil. I do not mean "collective" as in the entire society, just the group whom the society depends upon for decision making, if it exists at all. Also this topic isn't (correct me if I'm wrong) directed toward evil in humans, but towards all beings capable of it (which hasn't quite been defined yet.) [ Friday, January 21, 2005 07:23: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Sticky Infiltrator Member # 4256	written Friday, January 21 2005 07:57 Profile #55 I almost find myself offended by the blatant assertions. quote: There is no such thing as "evil" except as a subjective assessment of an event or behavior Please, the best that anybody can do is say that they don't know if there is real good and real evil. You can know something exists, but you can not know that it doesn't exist. To say that it just evolved is stating that there are no other possibilities. quote: The downside is that our brains are wired against "loose ends". If we don't have an answer for something(even if the question itself is a fallacious one) we will make one up. Very true, but this can apply to what you are saying as well. Evolution is "made up". Every theory is "made up". Without the ability to "make up" answers humans would not be able to solve problems, come up with theories, or anything of the type. I hardly call this a downside. To complement this ability sentients( or at least humans) have the ability to sort out the good theories from the bad theories. If a sentient didn't know what caused thunder he/she/it would take data from its own experience and "make up" a reason, based on what it had experienced and what it knew caused a sound such as that. Either that or it would believe in the reasons that were told to it by those that should know. However if new experience informed it otherwise, the sentient would revise his theory, or possibly even make an entirely new one up. Posts: 564 \| Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Friday, January 21 2005 08:24 Profile #56 To add on to what Macrsp wrote: Humans do not, by nature, assume, but we do, by nature, see patterns, including the truly accurate and purely coincidental. It can be put to conjecture that animals do this too, but they do not seek out the reasons for the association, so new more complex ideas can be formed. Humans can and do for good reason (already been said). These ideas (called Complex Ideas by Locke) once created should be proven to actually be true, but this sort of thinking did not even start to come about until the 17th century. Before then we assumed, and now we still do, but human evolution did not cause it, since obviously there are those who do not assume. Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Friday, January 21 2005 10:03 Profile #57 quote: Originally written by Of Valinor and Eldamar: [quote=SkeleTony] [QBAH but we are talking about GOD(s) here! You may think it is fun to go worshipping your neighbor even though he has asked that you not do so(for whatever reason) but to do this to God...? If you("you" generally, not specifically) actually believed in him, you wouldn't. Actually, we were talking about "sentient things". I'm avowedly agnostic, and from the premise that it is sentience that matters, I did not distinguish between human beings and deities. Then again, you're right about Gods. Mainly because a God, being much more powerful, can wreak a whole lot more havoc, and, being immortal, usually lacks that dash of humility that might put all that worshipping into perspective. Plainly, it'll be much harder to find a God who doesn't want to be worshipped than a human. [/qb][/quote]My point is simply that worshipping things as gods is a bad idea because in order for the entity to be deserving of worship, he should not WANT to be worshipped. Such a being would find other sentients behaving this way to be distasteful(at the very least). I am a strong agnostic(Huxlian) as well as a strong atheist(was a weak atheist and strong agnostic up until a few weeks ago) when it comes to supernatural gods(i.e. not the Sun or Moon or a divine emporer or anything else bound by the laws of physics). -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Friday, January 21 2005 10:30 Profile #58 quote: Originally written by Macrsp: I almost find myself offended by the blatant assertions. quote: There is no such thing as "evil" except as a subjective assessment of an event or behavior Please, the best that anybody can do is say that they don't know if there is real good and real evil. You can know something exists, but you can not know that it doesn't exist. First of all you are employing a second usage of teh word "existence" which differs from the one by which someone will assert(for example) that "God exists" or "Trees exist". There are two types of "existence". Dependent adn independent existence. Things which have a dependent existence only exist as concepts or ideas or activities. Concepts in particular, only exist because sentient, brained entities exist just as "walking" only exists as something that legged things can do. The idea of "evil" only exists because we evolved with these abstract-thinking brains. "Evil" has a dependent existence. My brain has an independnet existence(i.e. my brain does not only exist as an idea in someone else's head). Secondly, we most certainly CAN say that some things do NOT exist adn are quite impossible. It was this realization that drove me from weak atheism(re: lacking a god-belief) to strong atheism(re: Supernatural Gods cannot exist). I can say this because of a little thing called the law of non-contradiction. "God" cannot exist for the same reason that round squares cannot exist. SOmething cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once. I KNOW that there are no street legal automobiles made entirely of gelatin anywhere on earth even though I have not examined every single automobile on earth to verify this. I do not apply these same arguments for or against "evil" because "evil" is merely a concept, not an independently existing thing. You cannot point to an "evil" and say "Duck! Evil is headed right for you!". You can only point out an entity who is behaving in a way you deem "evil". quote: [b] To say that it just evolved is stating that there are no other possibilities. If there were other possibilities then they are so remote that they should be ignored. For example, it is possible that John Edward is actually using psychic powers to speak with the dead. However Occam's razor would dictate he is using simple stage magic/cold-reading. Until the simpler/mundane explanation is ruled out, we do not give crerdence to the "extraordinary" explanation. quote: [qb] quote: The downside is that our brains are wired against "loose ends". If we don't have an answer for something(even if the question itself is a fallacious one) we will make one up. Very true, but this can apply to what you are saying as well. Evolution is "made up". Every theory is "made up". Without the ability to "make up" answers humans would not be able to solve problems, come up with theories, or anything of the type. I hardly call this a downside. You misunderstand. Theories are not "made up" in the way you imply. A hypothesis would be close(r), but not a theory. A theory in science is simply the explanation that best describes what is occuring, mechanistically for a given phenomenom. THey are subject to revision with teh influx of new information, yes but they are in no way comparable to "spiritual" explanations which have no basis in experiment, testing or repeated concurent observation. Superstition has no regard for rules of inference. quote: [qb]To complement this ability sentients( or at least humans) have the ability to sort out the good theories from the bad theories. If a sentient didn't know what caused thunder he/she/it would take data from its own experience and "make up" a reason, based on what it had experienced and what it knew caused a sound such as that. Either that or it would believe in the reasons that were told to it by those that should know. Agreed. quote: However if new experience informed it otherwise, the sentient would revise his theory, or possibly even make an entirely new one up.[/b] The only contention I have is that you seem to be employing the common erroneous definition of "theory". The one that non-scientisits often invoke to mean a "wild guess" or a "belief" or "a hunch". A theory in science is an explanation of a fact. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Friday, January 21 2005 11:23 Profile Homepage #59 Another little point is that change and evolution are not the same. Religion and culture, for example, are memes that change quickly and erratically, but not necessarily for the better. There is hardly any pressure towards cultural "fitness," and one would be hard pressed to define an evolutionarily fit meme. Language, incidentally, does the same. There's no real reason why the way we speak now is superior to the way we spoke hundreds or thousands of years ago. Things just change. Polytheism went out of style in the western world, but millions and millions of Hindus would disagree if you asserted that monotheism is more fit. In fact, a great deal of conversion came by way of adaptation of previous monotheistic religion and militant mass conversions by the sword. Religions do not, for the most part, affect how well they spread. Other things do that. A particularly fit religion might be one that mandates the forcible conversion of all infidels, but that's arguable. [Edit: Speek goood!] —Alorael, who would also argue that trying to say that gods are or are not worthy of worship based on human standards is starting from a false premise. Gods aren't human. The western monotheistic God is presumable incorruptible and does not need worship for any purpose that humans can know, but He demands worship anyway. Can you claim to know better than God, assuming He exists? [ Friday, January 21, 2005 11:25: Message edited by: All-American Alorael ] Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Stugri-La Guardian Member # 3521	written Friday, January 21 2005 11:56 Profile #60 The root of all evil lies within the human spirit; it is the tendency to extremes- extremes of emotion and obsession with material goods and pleasures, among other things. In my belief, this material world is no more than a test, created as a testing ground for our souls to grow and mature over millions of lifetimes. As souls mature, they grow more and more even-minded, and less likely to lose this stable contentedness of mind out of overpowering desire for the attractions of the material world. And Alo, Hinduism is no more polytheistic today than any of the Abrahamic religions. It has evolved substantially over time. The archaic gods and goddesses of ancient Hinduism are now thought by modern Hindus to all be merely earthly manifestations of a single, formless entity, also known as the Brahman. -------------------- *Stughalf* "Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."- The Bhagavad Gita. Posts: 1798 \| Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Friday, January 21 2005 12:47 Profile #61 quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: "God" cannot exist for the same reason that round squares cannot exist. SOmething cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once. Obviously if something is true, its complement cannot be true, but this proves absolutely nothing of the existence of any god or anything else for that matter. All this says is that God must either exist or not exist. Please clarify the reason for why you believe god does not exist, and on a further note, why you follow such a religious form of atheism. quote: Originally written by A Cool Half Million: The root of all evil lies within the human spirit; it is the tendency to extremes- extremes of emotion and obsession with material goods and pleasures, among other things. This makes perfect sense, although targeting the human spirit seems a little too specific for me. EDIT: Does this tendency to extremes come from a certain philosphy? [ Friday, January 21, 2005 12:54: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Arancaytar Law Bringer Member # 2984	written Friday, January 21 2005 13:10 Profile Homepage #62 quote: Originally written by All-American Alorael: Another little point is that change and evolution are not the same. Religion and culture, for example, are memes that change quickly and erratically, but not necessarily for the better. There is hardly any pressure towards cultural "fitness," and one would be hard pressed to define an evolutionarily fit meme. Possibly for the better in adapting to the current circumstances of society, but the current circumstances (unlike environment and climate) change so fast it would be near impossible to tell. quote: Language, incidentally, does the same. There's no real reason why the way we speak now is superior to the way we spoke hundreds or thousands of years ago. Things just change. I wrote an essay on that. :D [ Friday, January 21, 2005 13:10: Message edited by: Of Valinor and Eldamar ] -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 \| Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, January 21 2005 13:36 Profile Homepage #63 quote: And therefore he that foreseeth the whole way to his preservation (which is the end that every one by nature aimeth at) must also call it good, and the contrary evil. And this is that good and evil, which not every man in passion calleth so, but all men by reason. Okay, that takes care of the religious types. What about atheists who hold a utilitarian or other altruistic ethical system and firmly believe that certain things are good, despite the fact that they stand to gain nothing personally from them? They clearly don't believe that what's "good" is defined solely by what's best for them. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Friday, January 21 2005 13:45 Profile #64 I'm not sure I understand. Can you provide a specific example? EDIT: If you mean pure altruism, well Hobbes (and others) thought this was impossible ( see the first excerpt I posted ) as this would mean the being is completely and utterly good. According to Hobbes, an altruistic ethical code is based on some good being transferred to the practicioner. In other words (according to Hobbes) people who do good things expect that it will bring them good sometime in the future. [ Friday, January 21, 2005 14:09: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Friday, January 21 2005 14:10 Profile Homepage #65 Whew, this topic is spiraling out of control, as I expected it would eventually. A few thoughts: quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: However Occam's razor would dictate he is using simple stage magic/cold-reading. Until the simpler/mundane explanation is ruled out, we do not give crerdence to the "extraordinary" explanation. This is a hideously inaccurate understanding of Occam's Razor, and it is made no less inaccurate by its being common. Occam's Razor states, simply, that all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the truest. It is a rule of thumb, not a law, and it applies to simplicity of explanation, not whether something is mundane or extraordinary. quote: Originally written by A Cool Half Million: And Alo, Hinduism is no more polytheistic today than any of the Abrahamic religions. It has evolved substantially over time. The archaic gods and goddesses of ancient Hinduism are now thought by modern Hindus to all be merely earthly manifestations of a single, formless entity, also known as the Brahman. I suppose it's worth pointing out that Hinduism is so completely decentralized that while this may be a general trend, it's hardly universally true. quote: Originally written by KernelKnowledge12: Obviously if something is true, its complement cannot be true, but this proves absolutely nothing of the existence of any god or anything else for that matter. All this says is that God must either exist or not exist. Please clarify the reason for why you believe god does not exist, and on a further note, why you follow such a religious form of atheism. I was under the impression that he deliberately didn't explain. I also think that it would counterproductve for him to explain. Let's not go there with this discussion. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, January 21 2005 14:38 Profile Homepage #66 quote: If you mean pure altruism, well Hobbes (and others) thought this was impossible ( see the first excerpt I posted ) as this would mean the being is completely and utterly good. According to Hobbes, an altruistic ethical code is based on some good being transferred to the practicioner. In other words (according to Hobbes) people who do good things expect that it will bring them good sometime in the future. Oh, I won't deny that it's probably impossible to act purely altruistically, but it's still possible to hold beliefs that regard pure altruism as morally required. Look at Peter Singer - he believes we have a moral obligation to donate almost everything we earn to charity, keeping only enough to keep ourselves alive and perhaps to purchase whatever things are necessary in keeping our jobs (so we can keep donating). (Singer actually does donate about a fifth of his income, which is a lot, but nowhere near what he argues is necessary. A cynic could argue he's doing the minimum necessary to not seem hypocritical.) [ Friday, January 21, 2005 14:39: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, January 21 2005 14:42 Profile Homepage #67 Sorry about the double post, but I'm quoting two separate posts and want to keep them separate. quote: This is a hideously inaccurate understanding of Occam's Razor, and it is made no less inaccurate by its being common. Occam's Razor states, simply, that all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the truest. It is a rule of thumb, not a law, and it applies to simplicity of explanation, not whether something is mundane or extraordinary. The confusion probably arises from David Hume's argument against the existence of miracles, which was essentially that any event extraordinary enough to count as a miracle was too extraordinary to be believed at all without an equally extraordinary body of evidence behind it. [ Friday, January 21, 2005 14:43: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Friday, January 21 2005 18:37 Profile #68 Perhaps it is neccessary to further divide the mentioned definition of good/evil into two subcategories (following the same template of Hobbes' please/displease definitions): good/evil thoughts and good/evil actions. This would explain the above situation, and compensate for the free will of humans. Not exactly sure if someone else thought of this. If so I doubt it was Hobbes; maybe Locke or Paine. Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Sticky Infiltrator Member # 4256	written Friday, January 21 2005 19:12 Profile #69 quote: Whew, this topic is spiraling out of control, as I expected it would eventually. A few thoughts: Sorry bout that, I tried to keep my tone down but apparently failed. And I do know what a theory is. :P Anyways, back on topic. What is the root of all action? What is the ultimate end? Power? Sex? To be Happy? The True, The Good, The Beautiful ? quote: Perhaps it is neccessary to further divide the mentioned definition of good/evil into two subcategories (following the same template of Hobbes' please/displease definitions): good/evil thoughts and good/evil actions. This division (or the refutation of it) is somewhat biblical actually. Indeed any human being would probably use that distinction to defend his "immoral" thoughts. Posts: 564 \| Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, January 21 2005 19:22 Profile Homepage #70 The thought/action division strikes me as problematic, and not really solving the original problem. Which kinds of good things are now supposed to be the ones that benefit us; good thoughts or good actions? If the former, do I really regard my thoughts as "good" if holding them somehow benefits me and "evil" if they do not? Altruists would, I imagine, rather strongly object to the idea that from their perspective, their own ethical systems are evil. If the latter, we're essentially running into the same problems as before. Again, if actions which are "good" to person A are those which benefit A, altruists are acting evilly toward themselves. Maybe this is satisfactory if one is a fan of Ayn Rand, but if we're attempting to characterise good and evil as the words are used in common language, this seems a wholly inadequate state of affairs. Part of the problem is that we're mixing subjective and objective thinking. As long as we define a person's idea of good or evil in terms of perceived benefit or harm to them, the absolute best we can hope to do is "good for A" or "evil for A". Given how often people disagree, this is not a satisfactory basis for a universal definition of "good" or "evil". -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Friday, January 21 2005 20:03 Profile #71 I assume it is currently accepted that Hobbes' definition of good/evil is correct. If not let it be so for at least the duration of this post. Good thoughts are thoughts that directly "please" the person who has them. The altruistic thoughts of a person with who is pleased at the thought of helping someone would fall into this category. The opposite goes for evil thoughts. Good actions are actions that directly "please" the person who has them. The specific action an altruistic person takes to help another would fall into this category. The opposite goes for evil actions. These definitions are not meant to be independent of each other as they are just types of the broader "good/evil". A person can have evil thoughts and yet still act in a way that contradicts his/her thoughts, hence "hypocrisy." This is all just a proposal. Tweak it if you deem neccessary. Hope this makes things clearer. EDIT: Think this supports my case: quote: Thomas Hobbes, "The Elements of Law", Chapter 7 "8. There are few things in this world, but either have a mixture of good and evil, or there is a chain of them so necessarily linked together, that the one cannot be taken without the other, as for example: the pleasures of sin, and the bitterness of punishment, are inseparable; as are also labour and honour, for the most part. Now when in the whole chain, the greater part is good, the whole is called good; and when the evil over-weigheth, the whole is called evil." [ Friday, January 21, 2005 20:12: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Friday, January 21 2005 20:18 Profile Homepage #72 quote: Originally written by KernelKnowledge12: I assume it is currently accepted that Hobbes' definition of good/evil is correct. I don't know where you would get an idea like this, but no, it's not, really. There have been a few hundred years of thought since him that have been spent supporting, refuting, and ignoring him. If there's one broad generalization one can make about the state of philosophy and moral thought, it's that there is no consensus, like, at all. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Custer Bob's Big Date Member # 3151	written Friday, January 21 2005 20:25 Profile Homepage #73 I refuse to acknowledge anything Hobbes says as correct, for instance. I refuse to have any truck whatsoever with his damnedable social contract, and I'm sure as hell not going to drop to my knees and start beating off because the poor are not directly subject to the hungering of wolves. Name-dropping is essentially useless in philosophy, and I'm certainly not going to condone a 'philosophical' discussion which focuses so damned heavily on ontology; while there is a time and place for the nature of being in this kind of discussion, under most circumstances getting into that turns it into a debate-class circlejerk where actual truth becomes meaningless and the only particular criterion for success is greater experience in sophism. Any such debate is about as worthwhile as mounting a birthday cake and bragging about being able to eat whatever the birds didn't get because no one else wanted to put food which you had rubbed your sinful bits on in their mouths. And if you turn this into a debate on what purpose debate ought to serve, I'm going to lynch you. [ Friday, January 21, 2005 20:31: Message edited by: Bad-Ass Mother Custer ] -------------------- The biggest, the baddest, and the fattest. Posts: 2367 \| Registered: Friday, June 27 2003 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Friday, January 21 2005 20:49 Profile Homepage #74 quote: I assume it is currently accepted that Hobbes' definition of good/evil is correct. If not let it be so for at least the duration of this post. I was actually under the impression that we were still in the process of working out generally acceptable definitions for our terms. For me, the problem with Hobbes's definitions is that while they may be adequate for what ethicists like to call natural good and evil, they fail to capture the concept which many people have of moral good and evil. (I don't happen to draw a distinction between the two, but I'm very much in the minority there, and language is a democracy.) -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00