1. Joined
    28 Aug '05
    Moves
    1355
    09 Sep '06 15:30
    Just morality
  2. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148418
    09 Sep '06 16:34
    Originally posted by Vladamir no1
    Just morality
    No good or evil, just morality, don't you mean personal taste?
    Kelly
  3. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    09 Sep '06 18:26
    Originally posted by Vladamir no1
    Just morality
    there is no morality there is wtf you want to do and what you dont want to do.
  4. Standard memberspiritmangr8ness
    Doh!!! Or--Are--I
    Springfield, USA
    Joined
    22 Jun '06
    Moves
    5936
    09 Sep '06 22:03
    Is it possible that knowing both good and evil at the same time has a cancelling effect? The end resulting in death or the inability to sustain life.
  5. Joined
    28 Aug '05
    Moves
    1355
    10 Sep '06 14:46
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    No good or evil, just morality, don't you mean personal taste?
    Kelly
    Your personal taste is superimposed 'by' and infused 'with' a morality that embodies you in a totality that you are hardly aware of.
  6. Upstate NY
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    61
    11 Sep '06 12:56
    Originally posted by Vladamir no1
    Your personal taste is superimposed 'by' and infused 'with' a morality that embodies you in a totality that you are hardly aware of.
    I have a question regarding your latest comment: assuming that you are defining "morality" as a moral doctrine or system, do you believe that this system is created by you/society, or do you believe that the system transcends humanity itself?

    Also, to bring the debate down to cases (please forgive me if this sounds offensive, but I can think of no better concrete example): If I presented to you a live human baby and chopped that baby into bits, would you say that I had done something evil?

    Regards,
    R
  7. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    12 Sep '06 11:25
    Originally posted by Ristar
    I have a question regarding your latest comment: assuming that you are defining "morality" as a moral doctrine or system, do you believe that this system is created by you/society, or do you believe that the system transcends humanity itself?

    Also, to bring the debate down to cases (please forgive me if this sounds offensive, but I can think of no better c ...[text shortened]... and chopped that baby into bits, would you say that I had done something evil?

    Regards,
    R
    good example. chopping a baby in pieces cannot be a matter of morality because society doesn't need to think whether or not it is evil because it obviously is. so in conclusion there is evil that doesn't depend on moral standards. so it can be argued that, by opposition, there is also good that doesn't depend on moral standards.

    in conclusion, there is good and evil. morality comes second as a mean to discern between the two.
  8. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49974
    13 Sep '06 03:01
    Originally posted by Ristar
    I have a question regarding your latest comment: assuming that you are defining "morality" as a moral doctrine or system, do you believe that this system is created by you/society, or do you believe that the system transcends humanity itself?

    Also, to bring the debate down to cases (please forgive me if this sounds offensive, but I can think of no better c ...[text shortened]... and chopped that baby into bits, would you say that I had done something evil?

    Regards,
    R
    With respect to your baby example, I wouldn't call it evil, since evil is a completely meaningless term.
    I would call it wrong.
  9. Lisbon
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    2972
    13 Sep '06 03:26
    Originally posted by amannion
    With respect to your baby example, I wouldn't call it evil, since evil is a completely meaningless term.
    I would call it wrong.
    And why would you call it wrong?

    Could it possibly be because it is something evil to do?
  10. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49974
    13 Sep '06 03:35
    Originally posted by xpoferens
    And why would you call it wrong?

    Could it possibly be because it is something evil to do?
    It's wrong because its wrong.
    We have a moral framework that includes the notion of raising and protecting our children. This extends more generally to children and makes an act such as chopping one up morally repugnant.
    It's no more 'evil' than turning a computer on is 'evil' or walking inthe park is 'evil'. Evil is a meaningless term.
  11. Lisbon
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    2972
    13 Sep '06 03:42
    Originally posted by amannion
    It's wrong because its wrong.
    We have a moral framework that includes the notion of raising and protecting our children. This extends more generally to children and makes an act such as chopping one up morally repugnant.
    It's no more 'evil' than turning a computer on is 'evil' or walking inthe park is 'evil'. Evil is a meaningless term.
    Honestly amannion, I don't think you can dissociate evil from wrong.

    All evil is wrong, but not all wrong is inherently evil.
  12. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49974
    13 Sep '06 03:53
    Originally posted by xpoferens
    Honestly amannion, I don't think you can dissociate evil from wrong.

    All evil is wrong, but not all wrong is inherently evil.
    What I'm saying is that nothing is evil.
    Evil is a meaningless concept.
    There are actions that are wrong or bad.
    You might call some or all of these evil - which doesn't stop them from being bad or wrong - but I would say that calling something evil means nothing.
  13. Lisbon
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    2972
    13 Sep '06 03:56
    Originally posted by amannion
    What I'm saying is that [b]nothing is evil.
    Evil is a meaningless concept.
    There are actions that are wrong or bad.
    You might call some or all of these evil - which doesn't stop them from being bad or wrong - but I would say that calling something evil means nothing.[/b]
    If evil does not exist, why does "wrong" or "bad" have to exist?
  14. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49974
    13 Sep '06 05:53
    Originally posted by xpoferens
    If evil does not exist, why does "wrong" or "bad" have to exist?
    Because we live by certain moral and ethical standards.
    We choose to accept that chopping up babies is wrong - that makes it wrong.
    You could imagine a hypothetical society that accepted that chopping up babies was okay - that would make it okay. (Although I can't imagine such a society lasting very long.)

    Wrong and bad don't 'have' to exist.
    They exist because we determine, amongst ourselves, that some things will be wrong and bad.

    Evil doesn't fit into such a schema.
  15. Upstate NY
    Joined
    28 Sep '04
    Moves
    61
    13 Sep '06 13:34
    Originally posted by amannion
    Because we live by certain moral and ethical standards.
    We choose to accept that chopping up babies is wrong - that makes it wrong.
    You could imagine a hypothetical society that accepted that chopping up babies was okay - that would make it okay. (Although I can't imagine such a society lasting very long.)

    Wrong and bad don't 'have' to exist.
    They exi ...[text shortened]... ourselves, that some things will be wrong and bad.

    Evil doesn't fit into such a schema.
    Perhaps a rephrasing of the question is in order:

    If I murdered this baby in the manner I have described, how would you feel? Would you be appalled or would you take it in stride?
Back to Top