Good

[RaBind]

I made a previous post about true evil quite a while ago. I wanted to share some ideas on the other side of the spectrum as well. I know that true/pure states of anything cant really exist in the real world, as everything is only in being relative to everything else. However i find it interesting and it's less complex to avoid the grey.

Good is a subjective moral judgement, it is something that is conjured by an individual and may be a view that is held exclusively by only that one individual.

This suggests that good and bad are human constructs made to give meaning to the physical world which is actually nutural or apathetic. The abandonment of good and bad leads individuals to do as they please, and anyone capable of learning is inevitably going to seek pleasure, and whatever which is beneficial, while avoiding suffering. In a collective scenario people may try to operationalise this as being pursuing what is most beneficial to the majority of humanity, or group.

I would like to hear your views and opinions, especially if you feel there were alternative conclusions I could've arrived to or if there may be an extension.

 

[Hawkeye]

Do you believe in objective morality?

 

[Cognisant]

Ethics, it's all a game, but if you think like that you'll act like that and though rationally you know there's no good or evil, try telling that to those who have been witness to your unfettered behaviour, thus in effect there's no escaping the game as choosing whether or not to play is itself part of the game.

 

[Wolf18]

The problem with good and evil is that it will always be what people tell you it is. If you were told from an early age that killing was "good," would you be doing something bad if you killed someone? Or if you prefer, if you were told that sharing was "bad" by your parents, then thrust into a situation where sharing was "good", would sharing be good or bad?

To sum it up, is it more important to do what you think is right, or what the people you are doing it to think is right? Does it matter if one side doesn't know the whole story? I would very much like to discuss Coventry, and where it would fall.

SW

 

[RaBind]

Do you believe in objective morality?

No I don't. I believe that it is more likely to be a social construct, similar to the norms of each society or situation. I don't have a real reason to believe this but that it seems more plausible than getting morality from an objective source.

Ethics, it's all a game, but if you think like that you'll act like that and though rationally you know there's no good or evil, try telling that to those who have been witness to your unfettered behaviour, thus in effect there's no escaping the game as choosing whether or not to play is itself part of the game.

So there is no escaping the game so long as we are aware of the game's existence? Does that mean morality and the pleasures and sufferings derived from our knowledge of morality comes from our consciousnesses?

To sum it up, is it more important to do what you think is right, or what the people you are doing it to think is right? Does it matter if one side doesn't know the whole story? I would very much like to discuss Coventry, and where it would fall.

Well I'm not opinionated enough in this to say for sure, but I'll stick to the reasoning I used in the OP for arguments sake. The majority's judgement would be right or the group who would benefit the most wold be right. Yes it would matter as the judgement wouldn't or may not be right.

 

[Cognisant]

So there is no escaping the game so long as we are aware of the game's existence? Does that mean morality and the pleasures and sufferings derived from our knowledge of morality comes from our consciousnesses?

No I'm saying it's an intrinsic feature of human interaction, people are inclined towards those that benefit them and away from those that don't, so in theory we should all be nice to each other all the time, except circumstances pit us against each other, thus creating the assortment of double standards that is ethics.

 

[Brontosaurie]

how can the physical world be apathetic if it contains our feelings?

 

[Bonbonnom]

I made a previous post about true evil quite a while ago. I wanted to share some ideas on the other side of the spectrum as well. I know that true/pure states of anything cant really exist in the real world, as everything is only in being relative to everything else. However i find it interesting and it's less complex to avoid the grey.

Good is a subjective moral judgement, it is something that is conjured by an individual and may be a view that is held exclusively by only that one individual.

This suggests that good and bad are human constructs made to give meaning to the physical world which is actually nutural or apathetic. The abandonment of good and bad leads individuals to do as they please, and anyone capable of learning is inevitably going to seek pleasure, and whatever which is beneficial, while avoiding suffering. In a collective scenario people may try to operationalise this as being pursuing what is most beneficial to the majority of humanity, or group.

I would like to hear your views and opinions, especially if you feel there were alternative conclusions I could've arrived to or if there may be an extension.

Good and Evil are not subjective. Right and wrong are. Good and evil are terms based on the idea that there are two definite sides to morality which can not be debated and that is almost always in direct relation to religious context. Right and wrong are the humanistic views of good and evil in which their definition can change from person to person as there is no definite right or wrong, it will change person to person , culture to culture,city to city and country to country.

Good and Evil as well as right and wrong only refer to human action. Anything other than human, which has no capacity to understand morality, can not be included in a conversation about morality without flawing the argument being made.

This is not an idea or opinion, this is the utmost basic knowledge required to carry a meaningful philosophical discussion on the subject. The moment you talk about right and wrong by using the words good and evil, anyone with a philosophy background can take your statement and pummel it into the dirt. Sorry to be blunt about it.

The really shitty thing about this is that the moment you replace the words good and evil with right and wrong, the whole things sounds boring and thus, at least, i lose interest.

 

[Bonbonnom]

I made a previous post about true evil quite a while ago. I wanted to share some ideas on the other side of the spectrum as well. I know that true/pure states of anything cant really exist in the real world, as everything is only in being relative to everything else. However i find it interesting and it's less complex to avoid the grey.

Good is a subjective moral judgement, it is something that is conjured by an individual and may be a view that is held exclusively by only that one individual.

This suggests that good and bad are human constructs made to give meaning to the physical world which is actually nutural or apathetic. The abandonment of good and bad leads individuals to do as they please, and anyone capable of learning is inevitably going to seek pleasure, and whatever which is beneficial, while avoiding suffering. In a collective scenario people may try to operationalise this as being pursuing what is most beneficial to the majority of humanity, or group.

I would like to hear your views and opinions, especially if you feel there were alternative conclusions I could've arrived to or if there may be an extension.

The problem with good and evil is that it will always be what people tell you it is. If you were told from an early age that killing was "good," would you be doing something bad if you killed someone? Or if you prefer, if you were told that sharing was "bad" by your parents, then thrust into a situation where sharing was "good", would sharing be good or bad?

To sum it up, is it more important to do what you think is right, or what the people you are doing it to think is right? Does it matter if one side doesn't know the whole story? I would very much like to discuss Coventry, and where it would fall.

SW

killing is evil. killing under the circumstances you presented, however; is right. Note the difference. Evil is set, there is no grey area with good and evil. right and wrong however there is. Good and evil are like hot and cold if its hot it's hot, that fact does not change. however right and wrong are more like an optical illusion. the more you look at it the more it changes.

 

[Hawkeye]

killing is evil. killing under the circumstances you presented, however; is right. Note the difference. Evil is set, there is no grey area with good and evil. right and wrong however there is. Good and evil are like hot and cold if its hot it's hot, that fact does not change. however right and wrong are more like an optical illusion. the more you look at it the more it changes.

It would be more appropriate to say that killing may not necessarily be wrong, but it is never good. But then this creates another issue because it could be argued that it is neither evil either.

You say that good and evil are fixed, but what are they? What is universally Good? What is universally Evil? If you take these morals from the bible, they are contradictory throughout the written works.

Objective morality is more like the optical illusion here as it doesn't exist. No action is objectively Good or Bad as everything man does is based on subjective reasoning.

Another annoying thing is that wrong is a synonym of evil and right is a synonym of good... :/

 

[Bonbonnom]

It would be more appropriate to say that killing may not necessarily be wrong, but it is never good. But then this creates another issue because it could be argued that it is neither evil either.

You say that good and evil are fixed, but what are they? What is universally Good? What is universally Evil? If you take these morals from the bible, they are contradictory throughout the written works.

Objective morality is more like the optical illusion here as it doesn't exist. No action is objectively Good or Bad as everything man does is based on subjective reasoning.

Another annoying thing is that wrong is a synonym of bad and right is a synonym of good... :/

I'll agree it would have been better to say that. But i'll disagree that it was contradictory on these subjects. There's a fine line between the bible being contradictory and catered toward the situation.

What is Evil is that which is done with malice or ill intent. What is good is the opposite. From a religious standpoint, and i say religious because i hate making everything about the bible because for some reason there are people who act as if it's the only religion out there, evil is usually based on the basic laws or commandments within that religion. with christianity this would be the 10 commandments. Remember the difference between law and ceremony as well, it's an important distinction that helps avoid confusion and unnecessary bickering.

Also objective reality isn't an optical illusion, it's a myth. But within that myth and according to that myth it is fact. You can't talk about good and evil in the correct terminology without going into at least a small amount of religious/spiritual philosophy.

And that is annoying... but the english language isn't exactly a language built for philosophy. also bad is synonymous with bad evil and poor and i find it to be a poor choice of word in this kind of discussion.