Results 1 to 6 of 6
Thread: Nature of good and evil
-
10-12-1998, 05:38 PM #1BenandAmyGuest
Nature of good and evil
Tim said--"In its most basic and barren principals, good and evil can be
broken to two
basic principals: Selflessness versus Selfishness.
"
Well done on this post!!
The above statement, however, is not entirely true.
A person who advances himself and achieves his goals is acting in his
own self interest. This is not evil. Not unless he is hurting someone else
in order to do it. Therefore, I'd have to say that good and evil are not
implicity tied to selfishness and selfness. In fact, some of the most evil
acts I can think of lie at the extreme edge of altruism.
Evil depends on whether the act does harm to oneself or someone else.
-
10-13-1998, 10:14 AM #2James RayGuest
Nature of good and evil
I think the orignal author meant "selfishness" and "selflessness". EMail
me privately about "evil altruism", i WOULD like to hear more.
Evil hinges upon a LOT more than WHO is the principle recipient of an
actions negative consequences. Evil implies a degree of pragmatism to
which no Good character should sink.
- ----------
> From: BenandAmy
> I'd have to say that good and evil are not implicity tied to selfishness
and selfness. In fact, some of the most evil acts I can think of lie at the
extreme edge of altruism.
> Evil depends on whether the act does harm to oneself or someone
else.>
-
10-13-1998, 11:18 PM #3Tim NuttingGuest
Nature of good and evil
> The above statement, however, is not entirely true.
> A person who advances himself and achieves his goals is acting in his
> own self interest. This is not evil. Not unless he is hurting someone else
> in order to do it. Therefore, I'd have to say that good and evil are not
> implicity tied to selfishness and selfness. In fact, some of the most evil
> acts I can think of lie at the extreme edge of altruism.
> Evil depends on whether the act does harm to oneself or someone else.
I can't remember if it was in that post or another, but I believe I detailed
the view further. These are basic principles, the easy way to sum a thing up.
A person cannot be totally selfless, because he does not then care for himself.
That is wrong (I can quote scripture and verse, but not necessary). Niether
can a person be totally selfish. There is a fine balance, but charity is a
necessity as well.
Tim Nutting
-
10-14-1998, 10:44 PM #4Kenneth GauckGuest
Nature of good and evil
Any discussion of morality depends upon agreement on several assumptions
before specifics can be meaningful. Most of what has passed has contained
all kinds of implicit assumptions which render the whole arguement futile of
these assumptions are not held by the reader.
Suffice it to say that religion and philosphy have provided numerous
assumptions upon which to carry these dialogues (or interrupted monologues)
forward, but the differ enough that universals cannot be stated.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
-
10-14-1998, 10:58 PM #5Tim NuttingGuest
Nature of good and evil
> Suffice it to say that religion and philosphy have provided numerous
> assumptions upon which to carry these dialogues (or interrupted monologues)
> forward, but the differ enough that universals cannot be stated.
And can you point to me any valid philosophy that supports adultery, murder,
rape, lying, dishonoring self and family, and any other thing that we have
futile in labeling as evil being good? I have already submitted my opinion of
"valid" philosophies, but suffice it to say that for it to be considered it
must be one that has withstood the test of time, not an invention of the last
40 years (i.e. Value Neutral Education - there is no good or evil)
All major religions and philosophies tend to agree on what is good and what is
evil, including moral atheism.
If I read it right, I think you just said that there is no good and there is no
evil because it's only religions that say that and as they are flawed to begin
with because there is no god, then they can't possibly judge good and evil,
right?
Tim Nutting
zero@wiredweb.com
-
10-15-1998, 11:04 PM #6Kenneth GauckGuest
Nature of good and evil
At 03:58 PM 10/14/98 -0700, Tim Nutting wrote:
>> Suffice it to say that religion and philosphy have provided numerous
>> assumptions upon which to carry these dialogues (or interrupted monologues)
>> forward, but the differ enough that universals cannot be stated.
>
>And can you point to me any valid philosophy that supports adultery, murder,
>rape, lying, dishonoring self and family, and any other thing that we have
>futile in labeling as evil being good? I have already submitted my opinion of
>"valid" philosophies, but suffice it to say that for it to be considered it
>must be one that has withstood the test of time, not an invention of the last
>40 years (i.e. Value Neutral Education - there is no good or evil)
Well you must keep in mind you selected terms that imply a pejoritive
viewpoint. Take the value loaded terms away and look at the behaviors, and
yes I can show you societies and cultures that support what many people
would call adultery, murder, rape, lying, dishonoring self and family, and
many others.
1) adultery: Spartiates claimed there was no adultery in Sparta because it
was common and approved for a man to offer his wife (with her consent) to
another man who he respected. Keeping in Greece, let's note that in Atehns,
the brothels were state run, and it was considered perfectly acceptable to
have a mistress, as long as you never took her into your house (the wife's
domain).
2) murder: You may be aware that what alot of what constitutes murder in the
other 49 states does not in Texas. If the victim used "fighting words" or
was killed on your property, the charge is not murder, and they may in fact
be no crime. Mosaic law says "thou shall not kill". Yet at Jericho it was
proclaimed [Joshua 6:17] "No one is to be spared except the prostitute
Rahab." And was not Saul threatened with being deposed for not killing all
things brutally at Amalek? See 1 Samuel chpater 15. I especially like
verses 32 and 33: Samuel [the prophet] said, "Bring Agag king of the
Amalekites." So Agag came to him with faltering step and said, "Surely the
bitterness of death has passed." Samuel said, As your sword has made women
childless, so your mother will be childless among women." Then Samuel hewed
Agog in pieces before the Lord at Gilgal. I can go on.
3) rape: the key here is not whether the victim considers it wrong, but
rather whether she has culturally sanctioned redress. In 18% of socities
identified by Peggy Reeves Sanday, rape is an accepted practice used to
punish women or as part of a cerimony. Societies include Kikuyu,
Marshallese, and Omaha.
4) lying: Our own society condones lying for a great number of reasons, to
protect the feelings of another, in advertising (only false claims are
prohibited), and as the lubricant for any number of social interactions
where the truth is unpleasant.
5) dishonoring the self or family: Well since the concept of honor is
aristocratic and directly incompatible with bourgeois values which promote
the acceptance of more practical values for obtaining money, fame, and
power, this is an anachronistic value. In 20th century America it is very
hard to find any kind of shame outside of small towns. Shame and dishonor
are things of the past.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
Power Of Nature
By Arjan in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 11-05-2011, 01:01 AM -
Knowledge (Nature)
By Sorontar in forum MainReplies: 0Last Post: 07-22-2008, 01:07 AM -
Good And Evil In Anuire
By Osprey in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 76Last Post: 10-07-2003, 03:03 AM -
The Nature of Divinity in BR
By Birthright-L in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 2Last Post: 09-03-2002, 05:41 PM -
How do you deal with evil without being evil yourself?
By Lord Eldred in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 63Last Post: 04-06-2002, 01:38 PM
Bookmarks