1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfMost certainly does not make them good, just good enough for us, until they are not.
98% good sounds like 'basically good'. People being flawed or imperfect does not make them "evil and wicked" as your religion has made you believe.
Originally posted by @kellyjayI think calling me a liar over and over again was just deflection and dodging.
What you claim, what you really were in the past has nothing to do with
this, you know that truth I don't. I can form an opinion it doesn't mean it is correct.
What I do know is that if there is some action we call good, and we don't do it we fall short
of being good. If there is some bad, evil, wicked action we know to be so and we do those
things w ...[text shortened]... as you score 98%. Grading
on a curve is accepting bad behavior as being good enough, for good.
Originally posted by @kellyjayThere is only "us", KellyJay. Morality seeks to make our interactions work. If Christian mythology (nurture) or a New Age pamphlet (nurture) or Hindu folklore (nurture) in combination with your essential self (nature) results in you being basically good, then that's a good thing for all of us.
Most certainly does not make them good, just good enough for us, until they are not.
Originally posted by @kellyjayI don't much care whether you refer to whatever your standard of good is as being "a real standard of good". We will judge each other and interact with each other according to whatever moral standards we have absorbed, developed and apply.
...it is not a real standard of good, it is instead, just what we can call acceptable.
What is "real" to you may not apply to me and vice versa. You can bandy about the word "real" to your heart's content - but I have reason to believe the thing you are referring to as "real" is, in fact, a mish-mash of superstitions and self-sanctified opinions that is only "real" in the most subjective way.
Originally posted by @fmfMorality is just a word, it isn't a being seeking to do anything, or a force seeking to do
There is only "us", KellyJay. Morality seeks to make our interactions work. If Christian mythology (nurture) or a New Age pamphlet (nurture) or Hindu folklore (nurture) in combination with your essential self (nature) results in you being basically good, then that's a good thing for all of us.
anything either. I've made myself clear in my opinion, you are not addressing the topic of
good, instead making it about me. If that is where you are going we can end this.
1 edit
Originally posted by @fmfIf you are your own scale of what is good and isn't, you can accept whatever you want
"Acceptable" to whom?
and reject whatever you want. If something needs to be a 100% good to be good, than
that can never be the case, it must reject anything falling short. If you can accept a little
evil or little wickedness, and still call your standard of good and evil, good, I'd say you
have a flaw in your reasoning.
Originally posted by @karoly-aczelIgnorance can also be a choice.
I think it's important to see the difference between 'evil' and 'ignorant' . To me 'evil' or 'wicked' is a choice. Those who choose to manipulate the world to suit their own ends without considering others are bad people. There are degrees of this no doubt.
Originally posted by @kellyjayIt is you who keeps mentioning my behaviour on this message board and you who keeps saying you think I am not good. By contrast, I have defined 'morality' and I have defined 'good'. I have also defined what I understand by "basically good". You have done none of these things and seem determined to talk about how you don't like how I post on this forum. Stop deflecting. Stop running away. Define your terms, like I have.
I've made myself clear in my opinion, you are not addressing the topic of
good, instead making it about me.
Originally posted by @kellyjayThis is not an answer to my question "Acceptable" to whom?"
If you are your own scale of what is good and isn't, you can accept whatever you want
and reject whatever you want. If something needs to be a 100% good to be good, than
that can never be the case, it must reject anything falling short. If you can accept a little
evil or little wickedness, and still call your standard of good and evil, good, I'd say you
have a flaw in your reasoning.