Discussions
There Is No Good or Bad?
Posted by Dukepro25 • 11/04/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: bad, good
What if I told you there was no "Good" or "Bad" and that everything has a purpose.
Agree or Disagree
Why and Why not?
User Comments
-
Oh, this is hard to decide... can I sit on the fence?-
Ummm...
No!
lol -
I agreed.
There is no good or bad answer to your questions...
My answer above has its purpose. -
lol
Touché
-
-
Purpose, no. Cause, yes. Good and bad, relative.-
Ok - Purpose was probably not the best word.
Purpose would imply an agenda or desired outcome.
Value
Agreed - "Good" & "Bad" are extremely relative.
-
-
What do you mean saying "purpose"? Causality?? -
Clue - Viewpoint/Perspective has a lot to do with it.
-
I would be more apt to believe that there is no good or bad and nothing has a purpose. Of course, that's getting a bit existential.-
that is keeping it real.
-
-
If the universe has expanded from a singularity(Big bang) in all dimensions, then it is inevitable that the universe contains such butterfly effects amongs the things.
Does it mean that the things has a purpose?? -
Good, moral acts are good for everyone and anyone and bad, immoral acts are bad for everyone and anyone.
That's how I define the absolutes of moral and immoral.-
Oh come on Voodoo.
Nothing is absolute.
Yes "Good" by the standards of those who perceive certain actions to be "Good".
Satanic worshipers perceive ritual killings to be "Good".
Does that mean that it really is "Good"? -
And you should also define the moral and immoral. and its origin??
-
In the simplest language, if you give something that you can take yourself, its moral.
Something that you do not need to hide from anyone is moral usually.
If you have had a normal childhood, an act that does not disturb ur inner peace is moral -
wrong place
-
Define "Normal"
Define "Moral"
-
-
Well of course everything(or most of them) has a purpose. Even if I go ahead and try to kill all people of other religions/ believes, I have a purpose, but that does that change anything.
Good and Bad are defined by the moral principles of society and are a product of several million years of existence and learning. Circumstances can sometimes make an offense less offensive or even acceptable, but not right.-
"Good and Bad are defined by the moral principles of society and are a product of several million years of existence and learning."
Agreed
"Circumstances can sometimes make an offense less offensive or even acceptable, but not right."
Define "Right".
-
-
Right is moral!!!!
-
Sooo...
A religious crusade is right because it defends "Good", "Moral" and "True" principles?
-
-
NO!!!
because they are just claimed to be on those. They are NOT.
Like I defined morals:
In the simplest language, if you give something that you can take yourself, its moral.
If one person harms another in the name of HIS god, he should ask first if he can take the same thing himself. If he thinks that even if he kills others and expect heaven, what if others do the same to him. Would it be okay for him to know that they are going to heaven even though they killed him.-
The question you have to ask yourself is...
What is their perspective on Morality, War, Goodness, God, Light, Dark, Love, Evil, Heaven, Hell, Killing, Death, Life, etc.
Example: In Japan, euthanasia is considered a common, honorable practice. Follow that culture in to the past and you see that dying by the sword was the "Best" most honorable way to die. Where as, dying of old age is the least desirable way to die.
Does that mean their culture is "Bad" or "Wrong"? -
No.
I favor euthasia too, under conditions. I consider it one of the things that are ethical yet not legal.
Moreover, culture is not bad or wrong, actions are.
-
-
@earthwire
I think you mean empathy
or in soccer they call it "fair play" -
Follow Up
What is your perspective on Light and Dark?
How does Light and Dark relate to Good and Bad?
Are they one and the same? -
Light and dark, good and bad, take away from the central concept of helping others. Musashi said it even though he was a sword saint and killed a lot of people in duels, "Get beyond good and evil and serve the betterment of mankind." It is hard to know if this an exact right translation. -
Of course nothing is absolute, dukepro!
But in order to avoid absolutes, you must first define them.-
Sooo...
You're absolutely sure there are no absolutes. lol
Ugh! My head hurts.
-
Absolutes only exist in theory, but you must define what they are in order to show that they don't exist in practice.
-
Gotcha!
I think. lol -
I believe absoultes do exist. well, u are alive or there is matter, is an absolute truth.
Though when it comes to morality and culture and other such issues, the defintions vary and become interdependent. -
Anyone who believes in moral absolutes is a suicide bomb waiting to happen.
-
lol
Good one Voodoo.
Governments, Politicians and Religious groups/figures love absolutes!
Right - Left
Light - Dark
Good - Evil
Right - Wrong
Conservative - Extreme
Money, Money, More Money and Wars (Physical and/or Ideological).
Division, Seperation, War, Conflict, Contention, etc.
Aint I just a beam of sunshine. lol
-
-
There is no good or bad and there is nothing in between either!-
@Onchong Do u believe that we just make rules and laws for the heck of it?? people are convicted independent of whether their action was good or bad or nothing!!!
-
-
Killing is in a way good too. You enter this world without anything and leave this world without anything. The phase between birth and death can be considered a process. During this process some are into creating, some are into destroying and some are into both. At some stage during this process you are being 'killed'. I repeat you are being killed (even if it is the so called natural death). If people are ok with natural death, why then do they go for annual health check-up and medical insurance? Given a chance, everyone wants to live longer. But at some stage, life is forcefully taken away from them. They are not given a chance, meaning they are being 'killed' at some stage.
Hence, as the purpose of life is neither known nor uniformly defined, it doesn't matter whether you are 'killed' during pregnancy or after 'n' number of years. At any stage the outcome of the act (killing) does not change the meaning. ie either way the significance of the killed one's presence in this world (whether it is shorter duration or longer duration) in unknown. Nobody knows whether it has got any weightage after life (if at all there is any other process beyond life).
So rather than waiting for the unknown phase to see its 'unpredictable end', there is nothing wrong in terminating it asap and look ahead to the next process (if at all there is one). Doing so, you may save some time in advancing to the next process (if at all there is one). If there is no further process after death, then its cool too...because you have advanced to the next level faster than others! Thus from this angle, killing (at any stage) is not bad !!
...but in a civil society, emotions and collective wisdom carries more weightage. At the end of the day, it feels good to join over a pint of beer, than discussing about the unknown...
Apropos...life is cool, if you don't think beyond the obvious !!!-
"You enter this world without anything and leave this world without anything. The phase between birth and death can be considered a process. During this process some are into creating, some are into destroying and some are into both."
I like that answer. -
You have all rights to decide for your life and kill yourself. BUT you have no right to force your views on others. May be you are curious and want to know what is there after life sooner rather than later, but others are not and you should not force your curiosity on them.
Suicide is fine... murder is NOT!!!! -
//BUT you have no right to force your views on others//
Would you then recommend banning all the marketing campaigns? We all know that junk food is not good for health. But marketing campaigns use all tactics to convince you and force you to consume that junk food. Same is with smoking and many more products & services?
Though we doubt the outcome of a new activity/product, we go ahead and do that because someone successfully sells/convinces us to do that and we willingly agree to be part of that informed activity. In that theoretical sense, if 'x' convinces 'y' about the benefit of leaving this world early and if 'y' buys that point, killing gets justified there !! It is just that you leave a process earlier; like many others have done earlier (abortions, accidents, suicides, war deaths, natural calamities and so on).
For argument sake, i can go on defending my point of view here. But i want to stop here, because being an atheist i don't believe in life after death and being a humanist, i don't subscribe to the idea of fellow human being harmed.
It was just a theoretical point of view. Life will be easy, when certain theoretical point of views are confined only to books... -
@earthwire
What is Capital Punishment?
Killing (murdering) a Murderer.
Does that murderer not have the right to keep on living?
What makes it ok for the judicial system to impose their perception of right and wrong on this person who (in their perception) has done something unforgivable.
And do those killers (that kill the murderers) not deserve to die as well?
Where is the disconnect?
Wouldn't this continue in an unending chain?
Why is killing a murderer perceived as ok?
Shouldn’t it have the same weight and consequence as the other?
Does Dr. Kevorkian deserve the electric chair for helping people die? -
Leaving the process earlier changes the whole meaning. Its not fine if doctors leave the process of operation early and leave the patient without stitching back
final decision has to be of the person whose life is in question. -
@Dukepro25
Yes capital punishment is fine.
Step 1. A kills B for some personal motive
Step 2. C kills A to do justice to B.
Step 2 is valid and justified only after step 1. In absence of step 1, step 2 is not justified as well. Some people are legally authorized to do so. -
@earthwire
What makes that right?
Shouldn’t killing to any degree be given the same weight?
Shouldn't killing in general be “Bad“?
What separates the soldier from a murderer from an assassin from a patriot?
My point is - It is never black and white.
People are to quick to lump everything in the world in to these broad categories of Right & Wrong.
There are always degrees by which the world operates.
There are never absolutes (black & white) in the world.
Only perceptions.
One would be quick to say that religion and church are a good thing?
Well…from someone else’s perspective, religion is a horrible institution with a bloody past and an ignorant future.
People are quick to say that terrorists are bad.
But what’s to say that terrorist isn’t a patriot in his own land?
Some people say that conservatism is good and that radical change is bad.
Yet - On the other side of the fence, there are those who think opposite.
My goal here is to get you to think about all the different perceptions there are.
There is never one “right” perception about a thing.
If there are a circle of people standing around a giant tree, every single person is going to have a different perception about that tree.
One person may see a rotting hole in the trunk, where as another person can see a budding tree limb.
What do you choose to see?
The “Good” or the “Bad”? -
@Dukepro25
What makes that right?
The fact that it was not an action but a reaction.
Shouldn’t killing to any degree be given the same weight?
Degree? I am afraid I do not understand what you mean.
Shouldn't killing in general be “Bad“?
Yes. Undoubtedly. Killing is bad. Sometimes its just becomes justified.
What separates the soldier from a murderer from an assassin from a patriot?
Soldier/ Patriot: One who defends what is rightfully his.
Murderer/ Assassin: One who kills someone for personal gains (that personal gain might be desire to attain heaven)
Agreed in certain cases the lines are blurred. Who was soldier and patriot and right between Iraq-US war is a matter of controversy.
Yes, when two countries are at war, both the soldiers consider that they are right. Soldiers are less to be blamed in this case and politians more. Those who expect the soldiers to give their life for any reason that strikes their fancy.
When the cause is self defense, I consider it right. When it is to get hold of something which is not yours (let it be oil or territory) I consider it wrong.
One would be quick to say that religion and church are a good thing?
Well…from someone else’s perspective, religion is a horrible institution with a bloody past and an ignorant future.
Agreed. You have a right to your belief. BUT when you kill someone coz he doesn't accept your faith or you try to forcibly convert him/her
thats not right, no matter what religion it be. -
@earthwire
If you take time to understand the various processes leading to clinical trials and how they are being tweaked for a GREATER CAUSE, you will then know the 'REAL' DIFFERENCE between good and bad !! -
*smacks head
@earthwire
Lets put it this way...
Anything can be rationalized.
Shouldn't killing in general be “Bad“?
"Yes. Undoubtedly. Killing is bad. Sometimes its just becomes justified."
So...
Carnivores are evil/bad? We are omnivores (herbivore / carnivore). Does that make humanity bad/evil?
What separates the soldier from a murderer from an assassin from a patriot?
"Soldier/ Patriot: One who defends what is rightfully his.
Murderer/ Assassin: One who kills someone for personal gains (that personal gain might be desire to attain heaven)"
So is your perception.
Does all this mean I'm right?
Heeeeck no! I'm just trying to make you think.
All I care is that you stay open minded.
What makes you or anyone for that matter, think they are “Right”?
We would like to think we are “right”, but it is only a perception. -
laughs out loud
lets leave species incapable of thought apart (animals or humans) and killing for fun is not good, for food is fine.
If A kills B just because he wanted to hear him scream would u call it fine? Doesn't he have a right to happiness?
Agreed, we often try to justify our actions with some reason or another or circumstances. But just think if you see from other person's view, is your action justified?
-
-
both are matters of perspective nothing more nothing less.-
I agree perspective is a HUGE part in this.
I would say perspective carries more weight than the actual actions that are categorized as "Good" or "Bad". -
the best example anyone can have of this is Hitler and the Nazi's they honestly believed extermination of the Jews and other less desirable types of people was a good thing for the world. A lot of people agreed with them when it was reasoned out to them, people who ordinarily wouldn't have wanted to do anything destructive or bother anyone else.
You see it in some of these doomsday cults where they all kill themselves to bring on the rapture. Why because they think it is a good thing.
Another fine example is fathers who have sex with their young daughters. As a guy who will have a daughter in his life in the next 24 hours the notion sickens me, but as a guy who has studied sociology and psychology I know that a lot of the fathers who do this honestly believe they are showing their daughters the most sacred kind of love a father can give. While they are certainly screwed up in the head in my opinion, does this make them bad evil people? They certainly don't see themselves as evil. There in lies the problem with good and bad, no one ever does anything they see as wrong, evil, or immoral. Even if it is a behavior that they abhor in others, they don't think they are doing anything wrong because they rationalized it out as being done for a good intent. -
And do perspectives not revolve around and depend upon an reality that is absolute? Is there not a refrence point? Mustn't there be a centralized reference point to hold a perspective of?
-
-
I would dissagree with you on that. Just because all things have purpose dosen't mean they aren't good or bad. A child can be abducted and murdered and result in a namesake foundation and awareness in child safety, but that dosen't mean the childs death was good. -
hmm
Good cannot exist without Bad -vice versa.
If there is no GOOOD how will we know It/there is BAD?-
Good and Bad are simply categorizations.
But true - in order to perceive something, you need to be aware of it's opposite so that you can give that perceived thing or force value and weight.
But Good and Bad are simply perceptions and categorizations that are made so that we as human beings can define and discern certain things, and…as I said, apply value and weight to that thing and/or force. It does not mean that it holds absolute truth in universal reality. These categorizations are extremely relative to the person or thing perceiving them and…for each person that item, force, thing has different values according to how they are perceived. -
So...
In conclusion -
I would say Good & Bad are more accurately defined as Shades of Grey than actual Black & White, because...
Your Good may not be everyone else's Good.
Your Bad may not be everyone else’s Bad.
And so on.
Hence - The blurring of Black & White to make Grey (or Gray - depending on your perception of the more appropriate word between the two).
Good & Bad exist, but not as absolute truth.
More as, relative & subjective perceptions of a greater Truth of universal reality.
-
-
Its all depends time, place, person, environment, the list goes.. -
What purpose? -
Yeah - there's a good and bad, but your bad might be my good; your good might be my bad. There's the trouble. -
There is no trouble for me.
Good is what I say it is.
Bad is what I say it is.
Where is the trouble?
I don't get the confusion! -
Good and bad is subjective.
Universe as a whole is completely neutral.
Cheers,
AVP
avp-blogs.blogspot.com -
Totally agree
Unexplainable though -
My interpretation:
Bad-harms yourself, people or living things.
Good- Improves the enivoronemnt (physicaly or mentally) for yourself, other people or living things.
I remember learning about this is philosphy class, which blew my mind. I have to disagree that there is no good or bad. Because if there was no good or bad then the world would be very chaotic (more then it already is). How would we hold fair trials? What would judges do? What would be the point of laws? I think the world would be a really scary place if people didn't believe in good or bad. -
Agreed, I don't think good or evil exists, I think it's all a matter of opinion. I think that both conceptsa were created by man and so each person has a different, subjective view of good and evil. -
Up & Down
Hot & Cold
Day & Night
Light & Dark
Right & Wrong
Good (Pure) & Evil
Good (appropriate) & Bad (inappropriate)
All one and the same?
How - (do they differ / are they similar) between each other?
Are these forces and/or categories absolute or relative? -
-
Since everything is but an apparition, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter.
Longchenpa -
IT's like saying 'who's to say what's right or wrong'-
Exactly!
So what makes me right?
Ugh! My head hurts. lol
-
-
Well, indeed.
What some consider as bad, like having an abortion, can be life saving for the mothers and be considered good.
Using first stage embryos for collecting stem cells that could help millions of people fighting diseases like Alzemheir can be considered bad by some but good for the people who want to find a cure.
Indeed, there is no right and wrong.-
Agreed!
-
-
If there is such a thing as good and bad then;
When I'm good I'm bad, but when I'm bad, I'm better. -
I disagree!
Because it would be a very very boring world, where I wouldn't be able to can't correct and/or praise, or most importantly... change!/strong>-
Just closing off your tags.
-
-
apparently you've never had a bad clam. that would change your mind licketty split.
-
The problem of eliminating good and bad is one of the purity of the solution beyond good and bad. The nazis made the claim that to forget good and bad and serve the tribe through strength was the highest ideal. In its pure form it was psychopathic. Nietzsche articulated this philosophy but not in the way the nazis did.
There is the transcendence of saints where they forget about themselves and serve others because they are selfless. You might call this beyond good or evil.
To claim there is no good or bad can end with very different results. -
Agree in the spiritual sense, but I'm a bit too tired to explain exactly why.
Let's just say that there is no set good or bad, there are just things that take you into wrong direction or the right direction in regards to where you want to go. In the physical world there is good and bad, which are what we accept and what we don't, what we like and what we don't, but as for "purpose" yes... Every experience is equal in value.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
