The thing with that is have you tried to live a life doing no harm?
It's impossible mate, it really is.
On Jul 15, 10:59 pm, allan deheretic <dehere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The original guide line to live by is simply "Do no harm" the question
> comes down to is how many ways and laws do we have to create to justify our
> violations of the guideline and guidance? Like thou shall not commit
> murder,.
> Allan
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Umm that is an interesting take on it Tony.
>
> > I'm a great beliver in the right of the individual to live life how
> > they wish to. It comes as a by product of my other great belife yep
> > the 'Golden Rule' so I must disagree with you about not allowing
> > individuals to cuase unhappiness.
>
> > If an individual wishes to life a live causeing unhappiness for all
> > then that is their choice and they must then take the consequences of
> > that choice, if that be prison or violence or whatever. I would not
> > curtail this right of the individual but then again, I would personly
> > make the choice to counter this individuals actions if turned against
> > me or mine, and I don't doubt that others would make the same choice
> > that I would.
>
> > I also doubt the power of murder to change thinks for the worst for
> > the majority of people, the rate of murder is overall really not that
> > high, so I must also disagree with you on that score.
>
> > For me the evilness of murder stems not from taking somebody elses
> > life, after all we are all destined to die, so death in and of itself
> > I can't see as an evil thing. Nope for me it is the taking away from
> > somebody all future choices, this I think is a great evil.
>
> > To make a man a slave does the same. Again all attributed to my
> > belife in the golden rule.
>
> > On Jul 14, 1:49 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 12, 5:02 am, "leerevdoug...@googlemail.com" <l...@rdfmedia.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Hey Tony,
>
> > > > Indeed and I would go further and say that good and evil are wholey
> > > > subjective.
>
> > > > Ben declares that murder is normaly counted as evil, but sometimes it
> > > > serves the greater good. I would ask you all to consider why exaclty
> > > > is it that the majority agree with this.
>
> > > > In short why is murder evil?
>
> > > Because we desire stability in society, and murder causes pain and
> > > discord, making societal progress hard for us all. Is the murderer
> > > evil? No, I think the murderer is sick, but society must hold the
> > > individual accountable for their actions in some sense, or it will
> > > collapse into chaos. One cannot allow individuals to cause unhappiness
> > > for everyone else, or no one will be happy.
>
> > > Peace,
>
> > > Tony
>
> > > > On Jul 11, 6:31 pm, Tony Orlow <t...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Hi Ben -
>
> > > > > A good question, and not one that I haven't spent much time
> > > > > considering. Here are my thoughts.
>
> > > > > One many levels, good and evil are subjective. When a cheetah kills a
> > > > > gazelle, that is good in the cheetah's eye and evil in the gazelle's.
> > > > > Indeed, our sense of what is good or bad rests first in personal
> > > > > pleasure and pain, and as we mature, is extended by association to
> > > > > include that which helps or hurts an object of attachment. For the
> > > > > rich, the current financial situation is good, and for the many poor
> > > > > it is evil. One's personal judgment is generally dependent on their
> > > > > perspective.
>
> > > > > One the other hand, if we assume some greater good, then actions
> > which
> > > > > encourage it are good, and those that set it back or hurt it are bad
> > > > > or even evil. For instance, for those that believe in evolution and
> > > > > would rather be a trillion human cells able to think on our level
> > > > > rather than a pool of algae, evolution may be viewed as a universally
> > > > > good thing. Actions that encourage it are good and those that impede
> > > > > it are bad. Since evolution happens on all levels, from stars to
> > > > > physical organism to minds and memes, one may view this as a
> > universal
> > > > > good. Of course, this depends on whether one personally believes in
> > > > > evolution, so again, even this objective good is subjectively
> > > > > estimated by the individual.
>
> > > > > Hope that was a valuable contribution. Have a nice day
>
> > > > > Tony
>
> > > > > On Jul 8, 11:16 pm, Ben <artistta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > I do not believe that we can define good and evil without entering
> > > > > > into a philosophical conversation.
>
> > > > > > Good and evil are not absolute rules nor can there be a universal
> > good
> > > > > > or a universal evil.
> > > > > > The concept of what is good and what is evil must be taught to us
> > as a
> > > > > > child, because we are not born inherently good or evil.
>
> > > > > > To murder is bad. However the statement does not speak of a
> > universal
> > > > > > good. Murder in so many cases has been used in good ways.
> > > > > > Euthanization has been used to end a suffering patients life.
> > Abortion
> > > > > > has been used to prevent a child from being born when childbirth
> > could
> > > > > > end a mothers life. To murder is bad in many cases but not all. The
> > > > > > extreme case of the word murder means to kill another human being
> > > > > > under conditions specifically covered in law. We can not define
> > murder
> > > > > > without discussing the implications. There are many instances where
> > > > > > murder must be re-defined as a good not a bad.
>
> > > > > > A child is not born inherently good or evil. Human beings are
> > unique
> > > > > > in the power of our brain. We are able to quickly associate good
> > and
> > > > > > bad. These associations are learned from society, our elders and
> > > > > > peers. A child that is born with no contact from these influences
> > will
> > > > > > associate good and evil with pain and suffering. A child with
> > contact
> > > > > > from these influences will be able to conceptualize good and evil
> > and
> > > > > > apply it to many different aspects of everyday life.
>
> > > > > > Finally, no universal good or evil will ever be agreed upon. There
> > is
> > > > > > no absolute good or bad that we must all follow. One concept can
> > > > > > impede on another and we must accept those societies that have a
> > > > > > rational way of thinking. Each society must continue to evolve
> > these
> > > > > > rules and change the commandments that were made centuries ago to
> > fit
> > > > > > the present day reality of life. To murder is bad, however we live
> > in
> > > > > > a civilized county in which many cases of murder are legal because
> > > > > > they are good. No one is born inherently good or evil and our
> > society
> > > > > > must continue to define every aspect of what could be good or bad
> > in
> > > > > > order to teach our children and they to develop their own, more
> > > > > > complete understanding to be taught to their children.
>
> > > > > > I challenge those of you who have read this to define an absolute
> > good
> > > > > > and evil.
>
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Ben Kaylor- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> (
> )
> I_D Allan
>
> If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
> Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comments:
Post a Comment