Allan
On 1 aug. 2011, at 13:51, Lee Douglas <leerevdouglas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Allen,
>
> 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