Originally posted by Vladamir no1I 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?
Your personal taste is superimposed 'by' and infused 'with' a morality that embodies you in a totality that you are hardly aware of.
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
Originally posted by Ristargood 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.
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
in conclusion, there is good and evil. morality comes second as a mean to discern between the two.
Originally posted by RistarWith respect to your baby example, I wouldn't call it evil, since evil is a completely meaningless term.
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
I would call it wrong.
Originally posted by xpoferensIt's wrong because its wrong.
And why would you call it wrong?
Could it possibly be because it is something evil to do?
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.
Originally posted by amannionHonestly amannion, I don't think you can dissociate evil from wrong.
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.
All evil is wrong, but not all wrong is inherently evil.
Originally posted by xpoferensWhat I'm saying is that nothing is evil.
Honestly amannion, I don't think you can dissociate evil from wrong.
All evil is wrong, but not all wrong is inherently 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.
Originally posted by amannionIf evil does not exist, why does "wrong" or "bad" have to exist?
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]
Originally posted by xpoferensBecause we live by certain moral and ethical standards.
If evil does not exist, why does "wrong" or "bad" have to exist?
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.
Originally posted by amannionPerhaps a rephrasing of the question is in order:
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.
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?