On Jul 15, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <leerevdoug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Umm that is an interesting take on it Tony.
I take it you don't entirely agree. :}
>
> 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.
We cannot prevent anyone from causing unhappiness. But would you have
someone cause you unhappiness? I'm not sure which Golden Rule you
mean, if so.
Unhappiness happens. You can't make everyone happy. Everyone has the
right to pursue happiness, as long as it doesn't rob osther of their
happiness. So, we come down to a matter of relative pursuits, and to
law, the purpose of which is to arbitrate between different parties'
pursuits, when they can't compromise and maintain peace. In the
Declaration O' Interdependence, we rate them in order: Life, Liberty,
Pursuit of Happiness. So, murder rates above slavery as a crime, and
slavery above general abuse and neglect. We are not to abuse each
other, and so, when conflicts arise, someone has to decide between
parties. That's how "good"and "evil" play out in society. But, those
things are not ultimate good and evil, as they are determined by
humans interpreting laws made by humans.
>
> 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.
You are not disagreeing with me. We have the right to cause ourselves
to have our right to pursuit of happiness revoked, should we cause
greater harm to the pursuit of others. When we are imprisoned, not
only that right is revoked, but the right to freedom. And, in some
places, if you curtail another's right to life, or freedom in some
cases, then you may lose your right to life. Hey! Whatever makes you
happy. You want to lose your rights, go ahead and do whatever you
want.
>
> 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.
Oh. Perhaps you are not taking war for profit as a type of murder,
premeditated killing of thousands or millions of people, in order to
gain more of the power that has already corrupted your soul?
>
> 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.
As if you have any individual choice to begin with... You think you
have freedom of choice? Wherein lies this freedom? You are a slave to
circumstance.
>
> To make a man a slave does the same. Again all attributed to my
> belife in the golden rule.
What about simply making life miserable for others? Isn't there
something wrong with that? You seem to agree with the prison system.
Much to your surprise, I don't.
Peaces,
Tony
>
> 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 -
0 comments:
Post a Comment