Some people still believe Earth is flat. Wtf?

[Queen Bee]

And I think it's sad to see someone reject obvious wisdom out of hand based on it's source. I got news for you, some of the greatest wisdom comes from cartoons and children's shows. My new sig is an example of this. And when you think about it, superheroes are a modern version of the Greek mythology, much of which was comprised of parables rife with allegory and metaphor used to convey some of the greatest wisdom of the time. Just because Batman said something, that doesn't make it any less true.

[polluxval]

Robin: "You can't get away from Batman that easy!"

Batman: "Easily."

Robin: "Easily."

Batman: "Good grammar is essential, Robin."

Robin: "Thank you."

Batman: "You're welcome."

[ChancellorKremlin]

If there is one thing I can definitely say as a scholar of history, it is that "evil does not dissolve itself naturally if left to its own devices." - if that were the case, we'd be living in wonderland.

 

As for cartoons and that form of information transmission, what about the fables of Aesop, or even Dr.Seuss or the writings of Roald Dahl? Do we dismiss them outright simply because of their relatively infantile and child-orientated providence?

 

Is it not true that "Many truths are often said in jest?"

 

Aren't we engaging in the same type of closed minded dogmatic and automatic rejection of facts, that you accuse modern science of itself, on no other basis than the origin of the facts, regardless of their accuracy or applicability?

 

We must be wary of double standards, lest hypocrisy and duplicity become our watch words of the day.

[polluxval]

Robin: "If we close our eyes, we can't see anything."

Batman: "A sound observation, Robin."

 

---------

 

being serious... i completely agree with the chancellor. he stole the words from my mouth. (or my hand? oh, whatever...)

[Queen Bee]

If there is one thing I can definitely say as a scholar of history' date=' it is that "evil does not dissolve itself naturally if left to its own devices." - if that were the case, we'd be living in wonderland.

 

As for cartoons and that form of information transmission, what about the fables of Aesop, or even Dr.Seuss or the writings of Roald Dahl? Do we dismiss them outright simply because of their relatively infantile and child-orientated providence?

 

Is it not true that "Many truths are often said in jest?"

 

Aren't we engaging in the same type of closed minded dogmatic and automatic rejection of facts, that you accuse modern science of itself, on no other basis than the origin of the facts, regardless of their accuracy or applicability?

 

We must be wary of double standards, lest hypocrisy and duplicity become our watch words of the day.

[/quote']

 

Very well said. It's funny, Boyfriend brought up Aesop when I mentioned this thread. He also pointed out Grimm's Fairy Tails. And so what if a lot of this stuff is aimed at children today? What better age to teach someone moral lessons that will last them the rest of their lives? It's why I teach 8-year-olds, they're far more receptive than teenagers who think they know everything (c'mon, you know you do).

[AgentChicken]

You think someone believing that the worlds flat is bad?. I had a Girl in high school who believed there is a fish that when it was in water it was a normal fish, but as soon as it came out of land it had fire on its back like a Cyndaquill from pokemon.

[R733]

And I think it's sad to see someone reject obvious wisdom out of hand based on it's source. I got news for you, some of the greatest wisdom comes from cartoons and children's shows. My new sig is an example of this. And when you think about it, superheroes are a modern version of the Greek mythology, much of which was comprised of parables rife with allegory and metaphor used to convey some of the greatest wisdom of the time. Just because Batman said something, that doesn't make it any less true.

I'm not biased toward cartoons in general (although if person treats cartoons as main source of his/her wisdom, I wouldn't call it a good thing), I'm biased against mainstream media/cinema which is (next to the monetary system and religion) main tool of control and manipulation. The only cartoon I have -some- respect for is "drawn together"; in fact it was a bit too smart/informative so they had to ban it.

 

Just because Batman said something, that doesn't make it any less true.

 

In theory yes, but if you seek for philosophical wisdom from a character who dress as a 6 ft bat and spends money gained from exploitation of working class to futher abuse/scare the shit out of that working class -if they try to honestly steal money (inhonest stealing is called business)-... ehhh, this exacly what most rich peole do... Anyway what batman say does not (probably) make any sense as batman is a schisophrenic sociopath. Do me a favour and learn critical thinking; by the way you didn't posted contrargument to support your claim that inside dosen't matter (inside doesn't matter, wait a minute, that's the conclusion of main character from "American Psycho"...) If "outside" (actions) is not manifested by inside then what is the cause of behaviour? Even if you try to reduce it to enviromental level you still need to decribe the cause of enviroment, more you would be dealing with system without free will so any judgment of behaviour would be illogical.

 

Very well said. It's funny, Boyfriend brought up Aesop when I mentioned this thread. He also pointed out Grimm's Fairy Tails. And so what if a lot of this stuff is aimed at children today? What better age to teach someone moral lessons that will last them the rest of their lives? It's why I teach 8-year-olds, they're far more receptive than teenagers who think they know everything (c'mon, you know you do).

Jesus Christ. Can you even define (in a coherent way) morality? What's your base to describe what is evil and good? I'm sure they have coverd it in cartoons so you shouldn't have any trouble with the answer...

 

If there is one thing I can definitely say as a scholar of history, it is that "evil does not dissolve itself naturally if left to its own devices." - if that were the case, we'd be living in wonderland.

"Evil" is result of human creation (intent); where is no human there is no "evil", just balanced progress toward higher complexity and cooperation. Only the lowest organisms (insects, viruses) are so aggressive/destructive as human kind. In fact, if we create this reality with our intent, even predatory patterns in nature may be reflection of "evil"/primitive intent of human kind.

[Queen Bee]

R733, I will say that I agree with you on your assessment that evil is a human construction, but only because we possess the higher brain function to understand the difference. We look at harm done to another and we recognize it as something we wouldn't want done to us, and we call that evil. Ants and bacteria are far too simple to grasp the concept. We don't call a plague "evil", because a plague doesn't know any better. We call the child molestor who raped a 12-year-old evil because he does.

 

Also, you have a weird concept of morality yourself if you think stealing can be honest.

[Dude500X]

The earth is about as flat is Katy Perrys chest.

[Kilgos]

Hi. I don't post at all.

 

But after reading this thread, I just had to post.

 

What the heck is going on?

[Queen Bee]

Hi, Kilgos. What's going on is yet another thread has veered way off topic and we find ourselves arguing over random shit. Welcome to Lovers Lab!

[R733]

Hi, Kilgos. What's going on is yet another thread has veered way off topic and we find ourselves arguing over random shit. Welcome to Lovers Lab!

Everything is interconected and randomness is just illusion of our perception. There are things that are more and less relevant though. I think that ducks are less relevant than defintion of evil (which plays important part in philosophy/behaviour), but I can be wrong...

R733, I will say that I agree with you on your assessment that evil is a human construction, but only because we possess the higher brain function to understand the difference. We look at harm done to another and we recognize it as something we wouldn't want done to us, and we call that evil. Ants and bacteria are far too simple to grasp the concept. We don't call a plague "evil", because a plague doesn't know any better. We call the child molestor who raped a 12-year-old evil because he does.

 

Also, you have a weird concept of morality yourself if you think stealing can be honest.

First of all, your understanding/definition of evil is incoherent (as predicted) and seems to me like it was based on primitive religion. We are different and to think that what is good/evil for you is good/evil for others is illogical. I think it's so obvious I don't need to give examples here.

 

I think that as a teacher (especially teacher of youngest kids where their minds are most soft and vulnerable) you should have coherent definition of "evil" if you want to preach them about morality. I hope you'll make second attempt to define evil in a meaningful, consistent way.

 

There is one interesting point you made about awareness; It dosen't matter for the victim if predator thinks that what he does is evil - it's only important for the development of the predator. Lmitation of definition of evil to pureposeful/conscious act is uncalled for as it does not explain need for sufferning that was caused "unconsciosly". Ignorance is not excuse; animals that evolved toward more predatory form of behaviour may not contain consciousness, but are reflection of negativity of consciousness.

 

As to my "concept of morality" I would spoil your challenge to answer my question about definition of evil by saying that. Yes, stealing can be honset if you do it openly -you don't camfulage your (possibly) abusive intention by laws ; this is my definition of honesty (as characteristic of expression not as another phony norm of behaviour enforced by ignorant society) ; You don't hide your agenda, opinion or intention. Or in other words, you don't hide under a mask. World of business is a battlefield; deception is primary warfare. I wouldn't call a guy who has robbed a bank in ski mask as honest, but I'd call his act more honest than activity of businessman hiding behind his lawyers.

 

Frankly, I think that there is nothing wrong (evil) with stealing as ownership is just abstract, illogical concept of ego. I guess ownership is an attempt to semantically justify fallacy of control. More correctly there is no such thing like stealing (as there is no really -except abstract definition- ownership), there is just abuse/misuse of resources or control over resources in order to maintain control over population that require those resources for survival. So, there is no such thing like ownership, there is just -temporary- level of control over the system.

[Tefnacht]

Defining good and evil is actually very simple and Queen Bee already used a variation of it in post #108. The golden rule: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

 

Queen Bee used the negative (inverted) form of the golden rule by saying: We look at harm done to another and we recognize it as something we wouldn't want done to us.

 

In other words: Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. ... well, I assume this can be phrased more elegantly but there you have it. The golden rule is present in virtually every religion and every code of conduct worldwide in one form or another.

 

If you follow this rule you're “good” and if you don't then you're “evil.”

 

Of course life is never that simple. For example, the golden rule doesn't work on a suicide bomber who wants to die. I don't want to die so I cannot kill him without becoming evil in the process. On the other hand, he wants to die, so killing me is perfectly fine and “good” for him.

 

If I had a gun and shot this guy before he could detonated his explosives, I would still think of myself as “good”, even though I just broke the golden rule.

 

Living up to it isn't easy, sometimes even impossible. Though if you want a robust and simple definition of good and evil, there you have it.

 

... and boy did I just go off topic

[R733]

Defining good and evil is actually very simple and Queen Bee already used a variation of it in post #108. The golden rule: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

 

Queen Bee used the negative (inverted) form of the golden rule by saying: We look at harm done to another and we recognize it as something we wouldn't want done to us.

 

In other words: Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. ... well, I assume this can be phrased more elegantly but there you have it. The golden rule is present in virtually every religion and every code of conduct worldwide in one form or another.

 

If you follow this rule you're “good” and if you don't then you're “evil.”

 

Of course life is never that simple. For example, the golden rule doesn't work on a suicide bomber who wants to die. I don't want to die so I cannot kill him without becoming evil in the process. On the other hand, he wants to die, so killing me is perfectly fine and “good” for him.

 

If I had a gun and shot this guy before he could detonated his explosives, I would still think of myself as “good”, even though I just broke the golden rule.

 

Living up to it isn't easy, sometimes even impossible. Though if you want a robust and simple definition of good and evil, there you have it.

 

... and boy did I just go off topic

 

You just openly admitted that definition you try to defend is self-contradicting (illogical) and does not have any apply in reality(you can broke the rule without being "evil"); what the fuck is the use of the rule that has no apply in reality, more, even as abstract concept it is incoherent (self contradicting). I'm intrested in meaningful (containing information) and coherent (logical) definition of "evil" which could have some apply in reality and enchance our understanding-> enchance quality of our choices. Jesus fucking chirst.

[Queen Bee]

First of all, your understanding/definition of evil is incoherent (as predicted) and seems to me like it was based on primitive religion.

No. It's actually a very basic definition that even we atheists hold. I don't want someone to hurt me or take my stuff, so I don't do it to others. It's called empathy, dude. If you don't have it, then you're what people call a sociopath.

 

I think that as a teacher (especially teacher of youngest kids where their minds are most soft and vulnerable) you should have coherent definition of "evil" if you want to preach them about morality. I hope you'll make second attempt to define evil in a meaningful, consistent way.

I don't preach morality in my classroom. I'm sorry if you felt I was saying that I was. I do try to instill a basic sense of respect between classmates and uphold a standard of conduct, but that has less to do with morality and more to do with helping them figure out how to grow up. These are fundamental aspects of maturity (hopefully) everyone learns. Also, my definition of evil is consistent, it's just also flexible. It's possible to be both. C'mon, you understand physics. Show me one rule in physics that doesn't have any exceptions.

 

As to my "concept of morality" I would spoil your challenge to answer my question about definition of evil by saying that. Yes, stealing can be honset if you do it openly -you don't camfulage your (possibly) abusive intention by laws ; this is my definition of honesty (as characteristic of expression not as another phony norm of behaviour enforced by ignorant society) ; You don't hide your agenda, opinion or intention. Or in other words, you don't hide under a mask. World of business is a battlefield; deception is primary warfare. I wouldn't call a guy who has robbed a bank in ski mask as honest, but I'd call his act more honest than activity of businessman hiding behind his lawyers.

Wow, I...actually agree with this. Go figure.

 

Frankly, I think that there is nothing wrong (evil) with stealing as ownership is just abstract, illogical concept of ego. I guess ownership is an attempt to semantically justify fallacy of control. More correctly there is no such thing like stealing (as there is no really -except abstract definition- ownership), there is just abuse/misuse of resources or control over resources in order to maintain control over population that require those resources for survival. So, there is no such thing like ownership, there is just -temporary- level of control over the system.

Eh, I disagree. What is mine is mine because I did something to deserve owning it. I own my body because I was born in it and live in it, I own my computer because I worked hard for the money to buy it, etc. It's a nice idea, us not owning anything, but it would create more problems than it solves. What if everyone decided to take everything of yours? Your food, your clothes, your car, your home? Why not? It's not yours. And what if someone refused to share their food/clothes/car/home with you? Why should they? It's not yours.

 

There is one interesting point you made about awareness; It dosen't matter for the victim if predator thinks that what he does is evil - it's only important for the development of the predator. Lmitation of definition of evil to pureposeful/conscious act is uncalled for as it does not explain need for sufferning that was caused "unconsciosly". Ignorance is not excuse; animals that evolved toward more predatory form of behaviour may not contain consciousness, but are reflection of negativity of consciousness.

Forgive me for answering this part last, but it required a lengthier response and I didn't want to break it up with the previous responses.

 

If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that even animals should be held accountable for their actions. In a sense, I agree. We put down dogs that consistently attack people. We capture wild animals that have wandered into human civilizations and export them back to where they came from (or into preserves, if they're endangered). If we know that a particular bear or lion is targeting humans, we hunt it down and stop it. We don't just shrug our shoulders and say, "Eh, what can you do? It's just an animal, it doesn't know any better." We act to protect our own.

 

But when we do go after the man-eating tiger, we don't (or shouldn't) do it with malice in our hearts. It's just a tiger, it's eating us because it's hungry, or it's attacking because it feels threatened. Maybe it does it because it enjoys it (it's been proven to be true in the past), but even then we can't hold it to the same standards as we do humans. You can't rehabilitate a tiger, it's always going to attack people even if you were able to somehow stop whatever caused the initial aggression. It's in its nature.

 

One could argue it's in our nature as well, and they'd be correct to a certain extent. We are animals at our core. But we also possess the higher brain function to grasp the concept of morality in the first place, the idea that in order to function in a functioning society, we have to give each other the same rights and privileges we would want for ourselves. Forgive me for citing a fictional character again, but even Dexter understood that, and he's a psychopath.

 

But on the subject of psychopaths, I understand that there are people that can't help it, humans who act on predatory instinct to do things like rape or kill. Those people are broken. They lack the ability to grasp empathy or respect. They are animals. It goes back to how we would treat an animal that has consistently proven themselves a threat. We put dangerous animals in cages, or we put them down. I don't like capital punishment, but there are instances in which I think it's not only completely justified, it's the only choice.

 

You may think this harsh. I do, too. This is an example of the extremest of the extreme, situations that go beyond normal lawless behavior. I don't consider the guy stealing a car or holding up a convenience store to be evil, and I believe those people are still capable of rehabilitating and returning to society. It's why we don't execute purse snatchers. But the worst of the worst, the Hitlers and Bin Ladens and Charles Mansons of the world, the ones who should know better and do it anyway, they're what I'm talking about when I use the word "evil". It's the only word that fits.

[Queen Bee]

 

 

 

Defining good and evil is actually very simple and Queen Bee already used a variation of it in post #108. The golden rule: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

 

Queen Bee used the negative (inverted) form of the golden rule by saying: We look at harm done to another and we recognize it as something we wouldn't want done to us.

 

In other words: Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. ... well, I assume this can be phrased more elegantly but there you have it. The golden rule is present in virtually every religion and every code of conduct worldwide in one form or another.

 

If you follow this rule you're “good” and if you don't then you're “evil.”

 

Of course life is never that simple. For example, the golden rule doesn't work on a suicide bomber who wants to die. I don't want to die so I cannot kill him without becoming evil in the process. On the other hand, he wants to die, so killing me is perfectly fine and “good” for him.

 

If I had a gun and shot this guy before he could detonated his explosives, I would still think of myself as “good”, even though I just broke the golden rule.

 

Living up to it isn't easy, sometimes even impossible. Though if you want a robust and simple definition of good and evil, there you have it.

 

... and boy did I just go off topic

 

You just openly admitted that definition you try to defend is self-contradicting (illogical) and does not have any apply in reality(you can broke the rule without being "evil"); what the fuck is the use of the rule that has no apply in reality, more, even as abstract concept it is incoherent (self contradicting). I'm intrested in meaningful (containing information) and coherent (logical) definition of "evil" which could have some apply in reality and enchance our understanding-> enchance quality of our choices. Jesus fucking chirst.

R733, I'm starting to realize how much of an all-or-nothing guy you are. I used to be the same way myself, an idealist who refused to allow compromise of any kind. I didn't understand that you can hold yourself to a standard and still be flexible. I'm not singling you out for this, I believed this well into my 20s. A lot of people see the world this way. But it's what I consider one of the main problems with humanity.

 

Tefnacht is being consistent with his explanation of morality. Yes, morality in general terms can be very subjective. The suicide bomber, the man killing an intruder to protecting his home, the man stealing bread to feed his starving family...each believe themselves right, in spite of whatever laws govern their society. And it's true that sometimes the law is what's wrong, not them, (Jim Crow laws, anyone?). But what Tefnacht is saying is even taking into consideration various factors (society, religion or lack of it, government, region), the basic fundamental "golden" rule sets the standard.

 

Sometimes it really does come down to intention, even if the result is the same. The man blowing himself up to kill the enemy invading his homeland isn't evil, I don't think. But if that same man blew himself up to kill school children and old ladies just to make a religious/political statement, then he's evil as shit. One man was protecting against an aggressor, the other was attacking innocent people. It's a subtle difference sometimes, but it's there and we can't ignore it.

 

I don't want to be murdered. I'm sure you don't, either. So we accept the bargain of society that says "You don't fuck with me, I won't fuck with you." It's not the only reason we function as a society, but it's a big one. Even if we were stripped of all empathy tomorrow, it would still hold true.

 

Sometimes it really does come down to the greater good.

[R733]

 

 

First of all, your understanding/definition of evil is incoherent (as predicted) and seems to me like it was based on primitive religion.

No. It's actually a very basic definition that even we atheists hold. I don't want someone to hurt me or take my stuff, so I don't do it to others. It's called empathy, dude. If you don't have it, then you're what people call a sociopath.

 

This mean than you're not familiar even with basic logics; your definition of good as "treat others like you would like to be treated" is false. What is hell for some is heaven for others. Some people like to kill for example, so they join military/police force where they can do it legally. Are they evil? Of course they are (according to my definition of evil at least).

 

While soldiers/nature of their service is evil, it would be evil to not allow them to kill each other (they have right to express themselves). Most casualties are civilians but civilians are the one who paid for the damned war so they should recaive their well deserved suffering, death and poverty. Hey, at lest unemployment will be reduced; less people and more jobs in military sector (capitalism rocks).

 

Eh, that wasn't good example, but I hope you understand that you shouldn't treat people as equal as they're not equal; they differ. Some are less or more similar to each other but your concept of moralitry would be only coherent to identical robots. While mainstream psychiatry/biology do consider humanity as robots (organical machines) it's quite obvious that humanity is unpredictable, very diversed system. This is main reason why normalized psychiatry is performing so poor in its predictions; so called "soft" science.

 

As for empathy it's one of greatest mistakes of our culture. There is a reason why it is preached so intensively by christianity; It creates immature behaviour patterns. If there is an advanced benevolent species (and I think there are many) they grow out of empathy toward allowance and total self rule. When you help someone who chooses ignorance and submission you feed that dysfunctional pattern of behaviour. By helping ignorant, submissive people you're slowing down their learning process (suffering can/should motivate the search for alternative solution), more you're becoming entagled victim of the person you rescue.

 

This is main reason for cultivation of suffering and sacrifice(rescue) in religion. Suffering is sympton of dysfunction, nothing more; priesthood (knowingly or not) glorifies suffering to fool people into thinking it's inevitable and something that will be rewarded.

 

So, your defintion of "socipath" is in fact reflection of primitive philosophy that has largely contribiuted to the misery and mental stagnation of this species. Philosophy based on empathy and rescue will always lead to fascism.

 

 

I don't preach morality in my classroom. I'm sorry if you felt I was saying that I was. I do try to instill a basic sense of respect between classmates and uphold a standard of conduct, but that has less to do with morality and more to do with helping them figure out how to grow up.

 

 

How can you teach them to grow up if you're obviously immature yourself? Unless by grownig up you mean being conformistic robot which is free to do as it's told to.

 

 

Eh, I disagree. What is mine is mine because I did something to deserve owning it. I own my body because I was born in it and live in it, I own my computer because I worked hard for the money to buy it, etc. It's a nice idea, us not owning anything, but it would create more problems than it solves. What if everyone decided to take everything of yours? Your food, your clothes, your car, your home? Why not? It's not yours. And what if someone refused to share their food/clothes/car/home with you? Why should they? It's not yours.

 

Idea that you have to do anything to deserve any services that current technology can allow is irrational to me. Animals don't work yet they take from nature whatever they want. While greed can be result of competition oriented ambition it's mostly result of scarcity; where is abundance there is no need for ownership as there is no motivation to accumulation or taking stuff "owned"(used) by others. I suggest you to research Venus Project.

 

 

If I'm understanding you right, you're saying that even animals should be held accountable for their actions. In a sense, I agree. We put down dogs that consistently attack people. We capture wild animals that have wandered into human civilizations and export them back to where they came from (or into preserves, if they're endangered). If we know that a particular bear or lion is targeting humans, we hunt it down and stop it. We don't just shrug our shoulders and say, "Eh, what can you do? It's just an animal, it doesn't know any better." We act to protect our own.

 

That's not what I meant; if animals are not conscious (contain consciousness capable of making decisions) they as organic robots are not evil but intent that manifested them is evil. At this point I have to diverse between "evil" (term i use to describe objectively malevolent action) and low level consciousness (less complex, less coherent consciousness).

 

I'll use analogy; weapon as object is not evil but intent behind its creation is evil; it's designed to destroy/participate in conflict. I'm not stating that participation in all kind of conflicts is evil (act of defense) but conflict does not exist amongst high consciousness - highly complex, logical behaviour patterns have no place for primitive game of competition. War is illogical; cooperation is more effective/beneficial for all.

 

 

But on the subject of psychopaths, I understand that there are people that can't help it, humans who act on predatory instinct to do things like rape or kill. Those people are broken. They lack the ability to grasp empathy or respect. They are animals. It goes back to how we would treat an animal that has consistently proven themselves a threat. We put dangerous animals in cages, or we put them down. I don't like capital punishment, but there are instances in which I think it's not only completely justified, it's the only choice.

 

You may think this harsh. I do, too. This is an example of the extremest of the extreme, situations that go beyond normal lawless behavior. I don't consider the guy stealing a car or holding up a convenience store to be evil, and I believe those people are still capable of rehabilitating and returning to society. It's why we don't execute purse snatchers. But the worst of the worst, the Hitlers and Bin Ladens and Charles Mansons of the world, the ones who should know better and do it anyway, they're what I'm talking about when I use the word "evil". It's the only word that fits.

 

Since you have quoted dexter (which is another shitty show where coherence of main character falls completely at the end of second season) I'd like to tell you this; IF YOU PAY TAXES, YOU ARE FINANCING WARS; YOU ARE MASS MURDER. You may bullshit yourself that you're a decent person 'cause you gave a buck to that homeless guy, but it's just false image you create to ptotect yourself from atrocities you have/are participating in. Have a nice day.

[ChancellorKremlin]

R733, I'm going to have to ask you to tone down your rhetoric.

 

I don't care if you think you're right or wrong, your attitude is out of line. I'm also quite curious as to why, if you consider such people as beneath your intellect, why you choose to engage with them, and moreover - that you choose to condemn shows they watch, but you obviously watch yourself.

[Queen Bee]

R733, I want so badly to keep arguing this, but oh god, why am I concerning myself with the opinions of an obviously crazy person? I don't even know if I should be offended anymore. You're either being intentionally obtuse to troll me or you're just nuts. I'm betting on the latter.

[Dude500X]

So, how did this go off topic anyway.  I mean, I thought this was about dickheads thinking the earth was flat?

[Captain Cobra]

So, how did this go off topic anyway.  I mean, I thought this was about dickheads thinking the earth was flat?

Because people reply to R733 seriously.

[Queen Bee]

Yeah, from now on I'm going the duck route with people like him. Morality? Ducks don't have morality and they get along fine! We should all be ducks!

[Dude500X]

Well if everyone turned into Ducks except me I wont mind.  I like duck, good kai when done properly.. mmm duck.

[DemonKnightRaziel]

Defining good and evil is actually very simple and Queen Bee already used a variation of it in post #108. The golden rule: “One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.”

 

Queen Bee used the negative (inverted) form of the golden rule by saying: We look at harm done to another and we recognize it as something we wouldn't want done to us.

 

In other words: Don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. ... well, I assume this can be phrased more elegantly but there you have it. The golden rule is present in virtually every religion and every code of conduct worldwide in one form or another.

 

If you follow this rule you're “good” and if you don't then you're “evil.”

 

Of course life is never that simple. For example, the golden rule doesn't work on a suicide bomber who wants to die. I don't want to die so I cannot kill him without becoming evil in the process. On the other hand, he wants to die, so killing me is perfectly fine and “good” for him.

 

If I had a gun and shot this guy before he could detonated his explosives, I would still think of myself as “good”, even though I just broke the golden rule.

 

Living up to it isn't easy, sometimes even impossible. Though if you want a robust and simple definition of good and evil, there you have it.

 

... and boy did I just go off topic

Are you really breaking the golden rule by shooting him, though? The suicide bomber wants to die anyway, and I don't know about you, but if for some inane reason it was me who was about to kill dozens of innocent people, i'd want someone to kill me before I did so(considering i'd have to have completely, irrevocably gone off the god damn deep end to do something like that, and my current sane self would want that mad dog to be put out of it's misery). Technically killing him wouldn't break my own 'golden rule' in this situation.

[Queen Bee]

I'd say it's unlikely even suicide bombers want to die. Or maybe they do, I dunno, but it feels more likely they're just willing to die for what they consider the greater good. For instance, I would take a bullet for any of my students. I'm not suicidal, I just believe in protecting them with my life. But it goes back to what I said earlier, the difference between someone blowing themselves up to kill vs blowing themselves up to protect.

 

So if I were in the unlikely scenario where I had a gun and could shoot a suicide bomber before he could detonate, then I would and I wouldn't consider it a violation of my morals. I'm doing it to protect, not to spread suffering. Trust me, if there was another way, I'd take it.