 |
Here is a good one.
How do u difrence between good and bad.
If a bad action can bring something good what kind of action is it?
I have heard a lot of sentences like, why God permits bad things to happen, well maybe they are not bad as we think they are. Maybe it is possible that there is no good and bad, it is only..
What do u think?
There is only right and wrong choices. If it works out great! If not rethink some of your choices. It is possible to direct your thoughts, using positive thinking, in order to get the best possible result.
I like your way of thinking :) good point
Which wrong choice did a baby make if it dies?
Are you referring to good and bad as a result of one's action or good and bad as something intrinsic in human actions?
"Good" and "Bad" are the dichotomies on a scale.
While some things hit the extreme and can be deemed "absolutely good" or "absolutely bad", most are in the gray area in between and vary greatly between people because of our perceptions of them.
It depends if a good thing come of a bad action it is still a bad action but a good outcome
Really it depends on the perspective of the person weather it was good or bad I don't think you can Diferenciate between good and bad in a descusion as people will have different views and lookes at the outcome but you can make personal decisions.
But all in all no matter how you look at it you need both.
Nindzha,
The question regarding what is bad or good depends on your moral compass and the basis of one's own personal philosophy. Many questions can be right or wrong but not all things are subjective. If a person likes the taste of italian food to that of greek is that wrong, of course not. Some things are not morally based beliefs. Everyone has a moral compass as to which to determine what is good or bad. The question you ask is very deep and not something that is resolved quickly. It takes time in determining one's philosophy.
As an example the moral relativist would say that everyone is right and no one is wrong because there is no absolute truth, so do whatever you want as long as you do not cause harm to anyone else. So if that is the case is killing wrong if there is no objective truth, is stealing wrong as the same way? If there is no objective truth then how does a moral relativist determine what constitutes "harming" someone else. If you decide in your own life that it is OK to kill another human being in certain circumstances then it is OK to do so. Well is it OK for one person to say that killing is wrong and the other say it is OK to kill in certain circumstances? That would lead to chaos, because everyone would walk around determining for themselves, in what circumstances is it right to kill another human being and those circumstances would be different for everyone and can everyone be right and no one be wrong??
Which brings us to the point, God as creator of everything that exists as we know it, created us as human beings, because we do not have the knowledge to create ourselves, and I am not talking about the physical human body. I am referring to the human person, the mind, soul which exists within the body. So if we can not create the human person, something bigger than ourselves had to in some way create us, as beings. Therefore, as God created us in His image and likeness, meaning giving us the ability to choose between good and bad. So if using God as a moral compass in basing one's personal philosophy, one can say, as the laws given to us by God, there is an objective truth, known as God and in following the laws of God we must discern through history and what is written as to what is right and wrong and always strive to do good and avoid bad. As far as God allowing bad things to happen, people have the freewill to choose good or bad and we as people have that choice to make in our actions and thoughts. God does not want bad things to happen, but we have the freewill to choose what we do and say, good or bad, such as killing and stealing.
Things happen in this world that we cannot control, are they bad things or good things? Is an earthquake good or bad? It cannot be bad or evil, it just simply is, just as a sunset or sunrise is. They exist as a part of the created world or universe. Why they happen there are scientific reasons but if it is created outside of our control then it is somehow a part of this creation and we have no way on knowing the philosophical reasons. We can explain how an earthquake happens but the question of why may never be answered because we cannot understand the existence of God and the created world around us, just to know that something exists outside of our existence that created all that we know and things like, earthquakes and sunsets will happen as they exist in the natural laws of our existence here on this earth.
I hope this helps, by no means does it answer you question but it may open up other doors and questions.
Someone said this. I'd check but I'm too lazy. " There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so."
Hamworld,
Good quote, it's from "Hamlet" by William Shakespeare.
Oh, yeah! I remember. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Willie was one hell of a man. :)
Actions are neither good nor bad, they are simply actions. It is man who judges whether they are "good" or "bad" based on his current world view.Quote:
Originally Posted by nindzha
I think this was partially answered in my last post to your first question. God does not permit bad things to happen. We as created in His image and likeness, have the freewill to choose good and bad. It is our action that we take not God. God permits us to act either good or bad, if He did not give us the freewill then we would be robots walking about not having a choice or having the mind and brain to think but just act. Things happen outside of our control such as earthquakes that cannot be bad or good they simply happen.
When you post your question especially when it comes to philosophy you have to explain yourself with some examples and further explanation. If you do not you leave it open to any and all philosophical views. Example you mentioned good and bad are you referring to good and bad within the realm of the existence of God or not. A person can expound on this in either direction and it would take eight hours to explain either view.
A moral relativist will say that it depends on one's own philosophy, because they do not believe in "Objective truth," and everything is relative to that what that person deems good and bad.
A person who believes in "Objective truth," will state what is good and bad based on those laws written upon their heart by The Creator.
Using an example, Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 40's. Can you say that what hitler was doing was a good thing or bad thing? He wanted to create a perfect german state. He was doing such a great job for the economy and the country of Germany that Time Magazine named him Man of the Year. Now the idea of a perfect state is good, however you cannot do something bad as murder to bring about a perfect state. If the taking of innocent life is wrong/evil/bad then there is no ends to justify the means. You cannot do something bad to bring about something good. A father who takes a loaf of bread after asking his neighbor and being denied, to feed his starving family, commits a crime, the act of taking the bread is wrong/bad etc. regardless of the reason.
Something is either bad or good it cannot be both or can it be a little bad or a little good. There is no such thing as a "Little white lie," A lie is a lie and it is wrong regardless of what the intentions behind it are. It is wrong to say I am going to lie to save someone's feelings because I do not want to hurt them. So lying to them and allowing them to think one thing when you know the truth. That is simply absurd and there is a mental disconnection to think and act, accordingly.
When you begin to talk about good or bad you are talking about morality and in doing so you have to first determine which area a person is coming from, objective truth or moral relativist. Then you can begin to dive deeper into the good vs bad issue.
P.S. Try to provide more information, examples and background to you questions and/or assertions, to be able to better respond.:confused:
It is with the assumption gained by norms of the societyQuote:
Originally Posted by nindzha
How do you explain the Indian Ocean tsunami that killed 300,000 people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairjer
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Explain it what terms, how?
It is an earthquake that occurs on the floor of the ocean and generates waves throughout the water.
Is that something good or bad? Please explain.
From a theological and epistemological view, that is absurd.>
I am from Ft. Lauderdale Florida and I lived less than a mile from the beach when hurricane Andrew hit Florida and destroyed south Florida. Now did I choose to live that close to the beach and take the responsibility that comes with living that close to the beach. I did not live there thinking that it was or was not going to happen it was a chance that I took. The same can be said about those people that near the Indian Ocean. I understand that some of them perhaps did not by their own choice live there, but the vast majority chose to live there regardless of what could happen. Because we live in a created existence by, from and through God things happen beyond our control and we choose to live in certain area's and by certain conditions.
Are tornadoes evil, because every spring and summer the midwest part of the U.S. gets hit by them. There are people still living there. Does God permit tornadoes to hit this area and kill people directly? These are natural disasters a part of our human existence and we have to live with them as a part of our existence, that is beyond our control.
So when it's a good thing that happens (someone survives cancer) then it's God that healed the person but when a bad thing happens (300,000 innocent people die in a massive wave) then God has absolutely nothing to do with it. Is this correct?
Just a theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
If we presume that God allowed this to happen. Than his action would be a bad one from our point of view. If he is the "caretaker" as many believe than his actions are not really good. So from this point I think that God doenst interfier in our lives. The only point in doing that is that we see only this life and we value it too much. If our soul is immortal than "we have nothing to loose". Maybe the nature was designed this way as a tool on the computer to keep a balance on the hardware - earth so it is not overloaded.
A story...Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairjer
There was a miner who worked in a mine that collapsed. He broked his spine and couldn't walk any more. When a priest came to see him, the miner said: Where was your God when the mine collapesed, go to hell with your preaching.
A few years later the miner devoted himself to God.
When he met with the priest again he said: I thank the day when I have broken my spine.
What are you talking about said the priest. The miner answered if this wouldn't happen I would be still walking on the wrong path and would never have met the God in me.
What do you think of this.
PS: I am not a christian. I believe in my "own" God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
I am saying that everything comes from and through God, we cannot control such things as earthquakes and hurricanes. Is cancer bad? How can it be bad?
If what you are saying is that anything that takes human life is bad?
Because human life is intrinsically good and if it is taken by such conditions it is bad or is it that we who are left to pick up the pieces of what is left feeling alone or sorrowful because something that we value is taken from us and thus we associate it as bad because it makes us feel such? From a purely human standpoint I will agree because that is what human nature is, we mourn when we loose something that brings us joy.
But the earthquake or hurricane itself is not bad or good, it is the loss of life that is bad or sorrowful.
Breaking this question into basic components I reach this inescapable result:
Good and bad are inherently self defining while right and wrong are human kinds socially manifested and highly subjective attempts at subverting the general acceptance of behaving good vs. bad by applying opinionated and rationalized constructs of what is generally acceptable as being "right" and everything else being incompetently opposed as "wrong".
In basic terms: Good and bad are self defining and obvious to rational mature humans. Right and wrong are subjective definitions created by humans seeking to profess their superior ability to judge others or inequitably seeking to deceive others for personal gain. Those in power tend to maintain their social position using this subversion of opinionated and judgmental evaluation of "right" and "wrong". So,, let he who is without sin cast the first stone... judge not lest you be judged... vengeance, [based on righteous unquestionable judgment] is mine says the lord...
What human is truly capable of passing unquestionable judgment on the actions of another?
There is none among us capable of doing so.
Whether you believe in GOD or not makes no difference here. We as individuals or collectedly do not truly posses the ability to intelligently, fairly or justly pass judgment on ourselves let alone others of our species. So those in power of the day assign right and wrong to the construct of acceptability along constructs beneficial to themselves. Human nature... flawed by design but also correctable which is why we are at our best when situations are at the worst.
Hence the pragmatic distinction between the self defining and indisputable concepts of good and bad, and the socially human assignment of right and wrong. See my post at page 3 of this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairjer
Theology, specifically presented or purported in terms of a divine and all powerful/knowing and controlling superior being, only serves to cloud the subject matter presented by the OP. The idea in question has to do with the general linguistic description in terms of static evaluation and assignment of "good" or "bad" in contrast to the dynamic and subjective assignment of "right" or "wrong" the former being based on an ever changing opinionated definition of convenience as it is applied to a "line of demarcation" ever changing in terms of the social constructs of the time when the definition is put forth. [Out of breath yet ;-) ] Point being that the adjectives, good and bad, regardless of language, are human concepts being labeled n a manner intended to represent static, unchanging and non-subjective self defining qualifications similar in nature to terms such as on and off. Right and wrong are adjectives linguistically developed to provide a dynamic buffer providing for subjective evaluation based on a dynamic line of demarcation; a function of which is assigned based on the time, place and social constructs of the statements being made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nindzha
Hello dgray,Quote:
Originally Posted by dgray56
Are you putting forward an argument for a meta-ethical point of view?
Regards
Tut
Positive is good Negative is bad
A Positive Thinking Person:
Accepts Personal Responsibility
Is Happy & Optimistic.
Sees Possibilities not Obstacles.
Overcomes Doubts.
Looks for the Good in others.
Does not look back.
Lets go of the Past.
Forgives others
Lets go of hurts.
Does Not hold a Grudge.
Looks forward .
Is always happy to help another.
Gives Unconditionally,
Loves Unconditionally.
Has no ulterior motives.
Does not like or want Conflict or Arguments.
Does not Judge.
Always shows Gratitude.
Loves life.
Knows when their thinking is negative and sets about changing it.
Lives in the Present Moment.
Overcomes Jealousy and Envy.
Deals with Anger constructively...
And Much Much More...
Negative people are the opposite of the above...
Poor me, blamers,
Controlling, judgemental,
Always complain, critical.
Unhappy, pessismists
Never admit any faults
Don't accept responsibility
Argumentative
Envious
Greedy
Blah blah blah...
Hello n:
There is no good or bad. There's only what happens and HOW we assess it.
excon
Hi positiveparent,Quote:
Originally Posted by positiveparent
These types of statements in relation to morality are better known as Metaethical Subjectivism. As you statement suggests they are from a subjectivist point of view. It is irrelevant as to whether the subject/person is positive or negative in their outlook. In the end they are an EXPRESSION rather than a REPORT on morality.
There is an important difference between expressing and reporting a state of affairs. For example, if someone trod on my foot I might say 'ouch'. 'Ouch' being an expression of my mental state at the time. Reporting my mental state would be more like. ' That hurt, get off my foot'
A problem arises when two metaethical subjectivists have a debate about a moral issue. All they can do is expresses their feeling toward an issue. For example, 'I don't feel or believe that fines are high enough for drivers that speed'. The other metaethical subjectivist might reply, ' I believe that speeding fine are adequate at the moment'.
Right or wrong, good or bad- from the metaethical subjectivist point of view all we have is an expression of feelings. What we end up with is a situation where you feel that it is right and someone else feels that it is wrong. There is little movement towards an objective point of view.
Regards
Tut
Just read the above POSITIVE THINKING PERSON, quoted above, what happens to the in between? I used to be very positive and fit that definition to a tee, most that know me think I still do. However I do not fit in the negative either, I have come to the conclusion during the past two years or so that I just no longer care, either way. I think I have come to believe that it doesn't matter one way or the other, right or wrong, good or bad, because either way society continues on its path to where and what exactly no one seems to really know. I used to care a lot because I really thought there was a purpose, and believed that if humanity could figure out that if we all just treated each other and spoke to each other just as we would want to be that the entire world would change for the better for everyone. I lived in that delusion of false hope for 40 years, and was content. Recently read a reply of yours Tut where you were discussing evolution and consciousness, and in my admittedly lesser educated mind could not figure out if you personally believe that we humans are merely more evolved than say dogs and chimps,hence leaving the door open for the latter to become more or as evolved as humans are in the future? More important to my personal crisis, if there is a reason with intent behind it for humans to have become more evolved,. why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cdeering05
Hi cdeering,
I wish I knew the answer to your question, it would help me a lot too. There are billions and billions of people in this world much smarter than myself who could do a much better job answering your question.
All I can do is give you my point of view. Sorry, but it's all I got.
Consciousness is probably the most hotly debated topic in philosophy, biology, psychology and just about every other discipline.
Even if we could leave aside phenomenological consciousness (what it is like feelings) and concentrate on access consciousness (why organisms behave the way the do) there would still be much debate.
Nonetheless, it is still possible to put forward an evolutionary argument for the development of access consciousness. It would go something along the lines of...
An organism is conscious if it is awake as opposed to being asleep or comatose. To say an organism is conscious of something, is to say that it perceives something. We can say that a rabbit is conscious of a ferret outside its burrow but we wouldn't say a mosquito is conscious of being squashed by a human hand. It doesn't weight up the possibilities before it lands on an arm.
It seems possible to provide an evolutionary explanation of consciousness in terms of advantages afforded to organisms. That is, in terms of the ability to perceive. Again, such an explanation is not without controversy.
What is even more controversial is phenomenological consciousness and the claim that such a consciousness has a distinctive subjective feel about it. I am bias towards a religious explanation so I want to claim that phenomenological consciousness cannot be explained in terms of function even though it could be seen as a product of a function. Again, evolutionary biologists would strongly disagree with this claim. However, some evolutionary biologists would probably go along with the following quote...
'It is by no means easy to see or understand how the property of phenomenological consciousness, feelings or what it is like experiences could be realized in the neural processing of the brain and nor is it easy to see how these properties could ever have evolved'
I see phenomenological consciousness as a by-product of neural processing going on within the brain. Now, none of this would matter if phenomenological consciousness were simply a slightly annoying outcome of thinking. If you remember the "Star Trek" series Mr. Spock lives his life with emotions only being a slight annoyance to him from time to time. As he kept telling us throughout the series his decisions were rational rather than emotional.
I don't see any good evolutionary reason why humans couldn't have evolved similar to Mr. Spock.In fact, I see some very good advantages for civilizations which lack phenomenological consciousness. The disadvantage from my point of view is that it would give God nothing to do.
Your question was, 'Do I believe... that humans are merely more evolved than say dogs, or chimps, hence leaving the door for the latter to become more or as evolved as humans in the future?"
Do chimps and dogs have, what it is like experiences? I don't know. You may find Thomas Nagel's ' What it is like to be a bat' interesting.
I guess the bigger the mammalian brain the more likely the organism is to have phenomenological consciousness. If a dog had certain developed features of its brain( similar to a human) then I guess it would have phenomenological consciousness similar to our experiences even though it is physically different. The extent to which physical differences play a role? Nagel's article may be helpful.
From my point of view phenomenological consciousness has developed as far as it is going to. Brains of organisms human or otherwise may get bigger in the future but this won't have an impact on phenomenological consciousness. It will remain the same. Why do I adopt this position which obviously cannot be proven one way or the other?
The answer is for religious reasons. I think God has a role to play in human affairs. I also believe that he will continue to have a role in the future. I don't think we will 'evolve him out of existence'.
I guess this is probably doesn't help you much but it is the best I can do.
Regards
Tut
Tut, somehow you have just made Spock sexy. However, no that didn't help, but thank you and I will check out Nagel. While in Catholic schools the nuns used to say I asked too many questions and it always annoyed me, lately though I believe there is a contentment in blind faith, if we don't know the answers we never to need to acknowledge how little we truly know and how insignificant we truly are. Sad. For all but Spock . Where does our soul fit into your consciousness studies? Does the little voice in our heads originate from our evolved consciousness or our soul? I used to think the two were one.
Hi again cdeering,Quote:
Originally Posted by cdeering05
Soul,Self and consciousness can be used interchangeably. This is assuming there is such a thing. Many people would argue there are only physical things and such ideas are simply illusions. I guess it's pretty obvious that you and I are not physicalists. My assumption on your position was confirmed when I read your post on reincarnation.
Perhaps the best way to address many of your questions at once is to look at the existence or non-existence of the Self.
There are some interesting parallels when it comes to Eastern and Western philosophy.
Both philosophies talk about the possibility of a Self. Teravada Buddhism, Lock and Hume reject the idea that there is such a thing as Self.
Hinduism is probably more recognizable from a Western point of view because it believes there is such a consciousness/soul/Self. Such an entity(s) are distinctive and endure over time. It is something which will continue to exist even when we are dead.
Western religions tend to see time as something that has a beginning and end. I think Hinduism would go along with this but would say that the end marks the beginning once again. I guess this is where the idea of reincarnation comes in. Birth and death of the universe and ourselves is seen as and endless cycle.
From my limited understanding of Eastern philosophy/religion I would say that Teravada Buddhism is a little more problematical, especially if we want to claim that there is no Self. If there is no Self - what gets reincarnated?
No- Self theorists would say that we are a bundle of experiences which consist of many parts changing over time. They reject the idea there is a special Self/soul/consciousness as a single unchanging indivisible entity.
From my point of view I want to say,'the little voice inside our head' is the result of evolution while at the same time wanting to say the voice is not subject to evolution. Highly debatable and probably contradictory, but this one way I try and make sense of science and religion.
Regards
Tut
Thank you Tut. I believe I am looking into Hinduism! I have been told since a young girl that I had a very old soul, and I believe that is true for too many reasons for this answer, however I am equally aware that my soul is tired. I am considered very fortunate, blessed and I know some in our circle envy my life. I am loved and surrounded by an army of people that would kill if anyone threatened me. But, the earliest memory I have and the most consistent thought that has always been with me is that I don't belong 'here' and that I would rather be alone. Always. I tolerate people, and no one knows it. I used to believe that we each came here with a purpose, something we needed for our souls journey, that belief got me through my teens and my child raising years. But now I feel I have completed what I believe I was here for. I actually know that in my heart. Now after reflecting I have made up my mind that if our souls are forever evolving, then at some point in that cycle our soul decides on a new journey for what ever purpose. I want my soul to not endure this again. No, I am not depressed, bi polar or any of those labeled personality flaws that they throw drugs at. I take no drugs. I will occasionally have a drink if we go out but I never understood the idea of clouding my thoughts or self-control with any mind altering substance. I live by two rules, do unto others and if you can't say something nice, don't. And anyone will tell you do not cross me or one of mine, I am capable of tearing you apart with words put so nicely you wouldn't even know it until you were bleeding on the floor. I can't recall ever raising my voice or saying anything I didn't mean. Ever. I am looking for answers that I fear are not available. Prayers are not enough, I want a promise. I sincerely appreciate your replies, I enjoy your lack of 'fluff ' although when I saw the reference to Spock I did wonder.. I am off to study hinduism, again,thanks.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:37 PM. |