Honestly not sure what you are posting about Bolshevick, so I'll pass your post, perhaps another will hop right on it.
I was talking about 'branding/marketing' equating a word Christian with "good." Or I could have used neighborly, or decent. or giving. whatever
Branding is about the sound bite, the immediated reference or connotation, not the depth of an issue. Is it really a good idea to take the word Christian, a large, diverse belief sysem, and brand it 'good, neighborly etc until the word Christian would equate to a value like neighborly? We here at GSC already know that not all things labeled Christian are actually good or neighborly, some are destructive to their followers.
Obviously I am not communicating what I was trying to say. I give up. Things to do.
The idea of subjective morality is very problematic. . . . . . the discussion of evolutionary morality vs. a moral law giver is probably more relevant. . . . . it acknowledges the existence of value to begin with. . . the idea of a moral vacuum is one thing. . . no morality another.
Evil exists. . . I could give you graphic examples. . . good exists. . . Tom gave us a nice example. . . I could give you many more. . . they are not the same thing. . . something in us allows us the ability to tell the difference. Where it comes from and what it is. . . . therein lies the debate. :)
What makes an action valuable may in turn depend on the ethic values of the objects it increases, decreases or alters.
Ethical value may be regarded as a study under ethics, which, in turn, may be grouped as philosophy. Similar to that ethics may be regarded as a subfield of philosophy, ethical value may be regarded as a subgroup of the more broad (and vague) philosophic value. Ethical value denotes something's degree of importance, with the aim of determining what action or life is best to do, or at least attempt to describe the value of different actions. It may be described as treating actions themselves as abstract objects, putting value to them. It deals with right conduct and good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively highly, valuable action or may be regarded as good, and an action of low, or at least relatively low, value may be regarded as bad.
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "
=============
For those who are curious where their own personality might rank on good-evil, law-chaos axes,
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "
Well stated.
Obviously I agree with you here. . . but, welcome to a Postmodern world.
Ironically those unwilling to define something as evil or bad. . . . when met with it face to face. . . often change their tune quickly. Everyone knows the number 911 and will use it when they need help. Robbery, rape, torture, home invasion, kidnapping, and the like are all very bad if they happen to the individual. Justifiably, they are the first one's to cry foul.
The moral argument is difficult to avoid when talking about whether or not God exists. . . . and is often very helpful in explaining actions such as Billy's. Also, atheists can be fine upstanding moral people, and usually are. . . Why is that?
Although good and bad can be defined by a 5 year old with an unvarnished innate sense of justice. . . adults who embrace relativism seem to stumble over this one.
As you probably know, we call this the The Axiological Argument, that values. . . morals. . . and good exists in more than a subjective manner. . . . it is an argument somewhat problematic for the relativist.
I used to have these discussions quite a bit. . . IMO they are not eww, but interesting and really helpful in establishing one's own understanding as well as communicating with someone on more than a surface level. Kinda fun. :) Pretty handy in the times we live in. . . . where things are relative, but people have rights?? Go figure. . .
"morality" and "values" are usually obvious when you're surrounded by people who think just like you. We all know what is generally considered "good" and "bad" in our culture.
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "
. . .
See would meat-eating animals be considered evil? They do kill for sport and for fun. Does it care about "good" and "evil"? Respect for life?
"good" and "evil" is applied by those with ulterior motives or concerns. Just trying to add more rhyme and reason to an existance that obviously doesn't have as much as people try to give it.
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "
=============
For those who are curious where their own personality might rank on good-evil, law-chaos axes,
See would meat-eating animals be considered evil? They do kill for sport and for fun. Does it care about "good" and "evil"? Respect for life?
If you'd taken a moment and followed the link, you would have seen an answer
in less time than it took to post the question.
"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior."
That may not be a PERFECT answer, but it is a decent working definition
and is not only clear but concise and to the point.
"good" and "evil" is applied by those with ulterior motives or concerns. Just trying to add more rhyme and reason to an existance that obviously doesn't have as much as people try to give it.
No.
The fellow who posted the website had no "ulterior motives or concerns."
Preteens playing RPGs can grasp this system fairly well and apply it.
It's just adults who are "too smart" to manage it.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Hebrews 5:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Ecclesiastes 12:14
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
"good" and "evil" is applied by those with ulterior motives or concerns. Just trying to add more rhyme and reason to an existance that obviously doesn't have as much as people try to give it.
Nihilistic much? You must love to read the book of Ecclesiastics. . . . if not. . . you should check it out. . . you just might relate to it.
Eeewwee, I am lost in translation. Give me Billy any day.
Me too, I got lost awhile back in the "strifes of words".
I am just tired of aholes who want to tell me what wonderful christians (or any other group) they are by hammering me with some bible verses all the while they are being general nuisances and DO nothing or next to nothing in a practical sense for the betterment of their communities.
Me too, I got lost awhile back in the "strifes of words".
I am just tired of aholes who want to tell me what wonderful christians (or any other group) they are by hammering me with some bible verses all the while they are being general nuisances and DO nothing or next to nothing in a practical sense for the betterment of their communities.
I dont care what you call him --I'll take a Billy
Why is it on a discussion forum. . . .the exchange of thoughts and ideas is considered "strifes of words"? I thought it was the whole purpose. I am genuinely interested in Bolsh's perspective. . . . . . although I don't agree. . . I like to read it.
And I agree Mstar. . . these are human values. The question then becomes. . . where do they come from? I thought that was what we were discussing in a civil manner. No?
I posted that before coffee, Im a little slow in the morning and foraging through what initially seemed simple was getting a bit (way) over my head at the time---probably a bad choice of words--plus i was little grumpy at the time due to this biblical plague of mosquitoes in my area...I rarely venture down here-it usually gets too complexticated for me in a hurry.
where do they come from?
Seems like natural behaviour (part nature, part nurture) to me but then again what would I know
I posted that before coffee, Im a little slow in the morning and foraging through what initially seemed simple was getting a bit (way) over my head at the time---probably a bad choice of words--plus i was little grumpy at the time due to this biblical plague of mosquitoes in my area...I rarely venture down here-it usually gets too complexticated for me in a hurry.
Seems like natural behaviour (part nature, part nurture) to me but then again what would I know
Aaaaah yes. . . they have arrived here too. On the plus side. . . summer has decided to join us. . . . 90 degrees and sunny today my friend. . . enjoy it! :) And BTW. . . I love it when you venture anywhere to post. . . Go Sox. . . is it time for te Dropkick Murphy's and Tessie yet?
Nihilistic much? You must love to read the book of Ecclesiastics. . . . if not. . . you should check it out. . . you just might relate to it.
Although it would be an interesting read (although it's been awhile yes I have read it once or twice), I don't know how I could truly accept any conclusion it draws.
If you'd taken a moment and followed the link, you would have seen an answer
in less time than it took to post the question.
"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior."
That may not be a PERFECT answer, but it is a decent working definition
and is not only clear but concise and to the point.
. . .
About a week or two ago an acquantance of mine proceded to explain to me that humans are not a noble creature. He said a dog will save a human from drowning even if nobody told him too and he'd never met that person. Dogs are therefore a more noble creature than humans.
Course I just nodded and was thinking about the video of a wild leapord nursing a baby baboon. Ah how cute. The leapord had previously ate the mom.
My acquantance is a stuanch atheist who hate's all religions and republicanism. I think his view is just weird. (Dude lies awake at night because he can't understand why people are mean to each other.) Where does he get this extreme concern for all life? Doesn't he know that life survives by taking other life?
So where do morals and values come from? I would think a number of places. I don't think their fixed, and probably vary.
another girl I talked to the other day, I asked if she like the show "whale wars", where you basically sign a contract that you're willing to die to save a whale. She was like, "well, people die to save people, what's the difference?"
I was like, "well, how would I know if the whale lived a good life? Maybe it was a jerk whale."
No, I think a lot of people don't see any moral differences between "man" and "beast".
Chaotic Neutral- A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal. However, chaotic neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.
Chaotic Neutral- A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal. However, chaotic neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
8
11
6
19
Popular Days
Aug 20
13
Aug 11
11
Aug 16
8
Aug 15
7
Top Posters In This Topic
WordWolf 8 posts
geisha779 11 posts
cman 6 posts
Bolshevik 19 posts
Popular Days
Aug 20 2009
13 posts
Aug 11 2009
11 posts
Aug 16 2009
8 posts
Aug 15 2009
7 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
"How droll" is an observation. . . not a pejorative or questioning of your response. The only way it becomes one is if you assign it a motive. We wouldn't want to that, because we may then have to def
WordWolf
I agree. All this sophistry and dancing around just to avoid saying someone did a "good deed." Heck, any Boy Scout in the USA should be able to give you examples of a "good deed" or of "doing a good
cman
Witnessing this person doing the things he does as Tom pointed out is also done quite often yet not noticed. Tom saw it as a christian value, which is not bad. A hindu would see it as a hindu value.
Bramble
Honestly not sure what you are posting about Bolshevick, so I'll pass your post, perhaps another will hop right on it.
I was talking about 'branding/marketing' equating a word Christian with "good." Or I could have used neighborly, or decent. or giving. whatever
Branding is about the sound bite, the immediated reference or connotation, not the depth of an issue. Is it really a good idea to take the word Christian, a large, diverse belief sysem, and brand it 'good, neighborly etc until the word Christian would equate to a value like neighborly? We here at GSC already know that not all things labeled Christian are actually good or neighborly, some are destructive to their followers.
Obviously I am not communicating what I was trying to say. I give up. Things to do.
But I did think Billy sounded like a great guy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
The idea of subjective morality is very problematic. . . . . . the discussion of evolutionary morality vs. a moral law giver is probably more relevant. . . . . it acknowledges the existence of value to begin with. . . the idea of a moral vacuum is one thing. . . no morality another.
Evil exists. . . I could give you graphic examples. . . good exists. . . Tom gave us a nice example. . . I could give you many more. . . they are not the same thing. . . something in us allows us the ability to tell the difference. Where it comes from and what it is. . . . therein lies the debate. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Witnessing this person doing the things he does as Tom pointed out is also done quite often yet not noticed.
Tom saw it as a christian value, which is not bad.
A hindu would see it as a hindu value.
A jew would see it as a jewish value.
and so on....
This value is not exclusive as I'm sure Tom and all know.
The value itself is not determined by one religion or another.
I'm just trying to say that I think Tom's point is about the value seen, and not about a religion or no religion, christian or whatever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
He saw an action, and interpreted it as a value?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
What makes an action valuable may in turn depend on the ethic values of the objects it increases, decreases or alters.
Ethical value may be regarded as a study under ethics, which, in turn, may be grouped as philosophy. Similar to that ethics may be regarded as a subfield of philosophy, ethical value may be regarded as a subgroup of the more broad (and vague) philosophic value. Ethical value denotes something's degree of importance, with the aim of determining what action or life is best to do, or at least attempt to describe the value of different actions. It may be described as treating actions themselves as abstract objects, putting value to them. It deals with right conduct and good life, in the sense that a highly, or at least relatively highly, valuable action or may be regarded as good, and an action of low, or at least relatively low, value may be regarded as bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Eeewwee, I am lost in translation. Give me Billy any day.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I agree. All this sophistry and dancing around just to avoid saying someone did a "good deed."
Heck, any Boy Scout in the USA should be able to give you examples of a "good deed" or of
"doing a good deed every day."
Perhaps it's all because the person who's so reluctant to call an action "good" is covering
a reluctance to do good to others, or to face one's one moral standing.
Being able to explain "good" vs "evil" really isn't that hard for a lot of people, even without
bringing in any religion into the explanation.
http://easydamus.com/alignment.html
"Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. "
=============
For those who are curious where their own personality might rank on good-evil, law-chaos axes,
they can take this "alignment" quiz:
http://easydamus.com/alignmenttest.html
For those who are curious where their own personality would fall among D&D characters,
they can try this character quiz:
http://easydamus.com/character.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Well stated.
Obviously I agree with you here. . . but, welcome to a Postmodern world.
Ironically those unwilling to define something as evil or bad. . . . when met with it face to face. . . often change their tune quickly. Everyone knows the number 911 and will use it when they need help. Robbery, rape, torture, home invasion, kidnapping, and the like are all very bad if they happen to the individual. Justifiably, they are the first one's to cry foul.
The moral argument is difficult to avoid when talking about whether or not God exists. . . . and is often very helpful in explaining actions such as Billy's. Also, atheists can be fine upstanding moral people, and usually are. . . Why is that?
Although good and bad can be defined by a 5 year old with an unvarnished innate sense of justice. . . adults who embrace relativism seem to stumble over this one.
As you probably know, we call this the The Axiological Argument, that values. . . morals. . . and good exists in more than a subjective manner. . . . it is an argument somewhat problematic for the relativist.
I used to have these discussions quite a bit. . . IMO they are not eww, but interesting and really helpful in establishing one's own understanding as well as communicating with someone on more than a surface level. Kinda fun. :) Pretty handy in the times we live in. . . . where things are relative, but people have rights?? Go figure. . .
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
"morality" and "values" are usually obvious when you're surrounded by people who think just like you. We all know what is generally considered "good" and "bad" in our culture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
See would meat-eating animals be considered evil? They do kill for sport and for fun. Does it care about "good" and "evil"? Respect for life?
"good" and "evil" is applied by those with ulterior motives or concerns. Just trying to add more rhyme and reason to an existance that obviously doesn't have as much as people try to give it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Sometimes killing is good as well as destroy.
Depends......
That's why it's people and not a book that live values and willing to think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
If you'd taken a moment and followed the link, you would have seen an answer
in less time than it took to post the question.
"Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior."
That may not be a PERFECT answer, but it is a decent working definition
and is not only clear but concise and to the point.
No.
The fellow who posted the website had no "ulterior motives or concerns."
Preteens playing RPGs can grasp this system fairly well and apply it.
It's just adults who are "too smart" to manage it.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Hebrews 5:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Ecclesiastes 12:14
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Nihilistic much? You must love to read the book of Ecclesiastics. . . . if not. . . you should check it out. . . you just might relate to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Me too, I got lost awhile back in the "strifes of words".
I am just tired of aholes who want to tell me what wonderful christians (or any other group) they are by hammering me with some bible verses all the while they are being general nuisances and DO nothing or next to nothing in a practical sense for the betterment of their communities.
I dont care what you call him --I'll take a Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Why is it on a discussion forum. . . .the exchange of thoughts and ideas is considered "strifes of words"? I thought it was the whole purpose. I am genuinely interested in Bolsh's perspective. . . . . . although I don't agree. . . I like to read it.
And I agree Mstar. . . these are human values. The question then becomes. . . where do they come from? I thought that was what we were discussing in a civil manner. No?
Edited to add an s to ideas and an h to where. :)
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I posted that before coffee, Im a little slow in the morning and foraging through what initially seemed simple was getting a bit (way) over my head at the time---probably a bad choice of words--plus i was little grumpy at the time due to this biblical plague of mosquitoes in my area...I rarely venture down here-it usually gets too complexticated for me in a hurry.
Seems like natural behaviour (part nature, part nurture) to me but then again what would I know
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Aaaaah yes. . . they have arrived here too. On the plus side. . . summer has decided to join us. . . . 90 degrees and sunny today my friend. . . enjoy it! :) And BTW. . . I love it when you venture anywhere to post. . . Go Sox. . . is it time for te Dropkick Murphy's and Tessie yet?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Although it would be an interesting read (although it's been awhile yes I have read it once or twice), I don't know how I could truly accept any conclusion it draws.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
About a week or two ago an acquantance of mine proceded to explain to me that humans are not a noble creature. He said a dog will save a human from drowning even if nobody told him too and he'd never met that person. Dogs are therefore a more noble creature than humans.
Course I just nodded and was thinking about the video of a wild leapord nursing a baby baboon. Ah how cute. The leapord had previously ate the mom.
My acquantance is a stuanch atheist who hate's all religions and republicanism. I think his view is just weird. (Dude lies awake at night because he can't understand why people are mean to each other.) Where does he get this extreme concern for all life? Doesn't he know that life survives by taking other life?
So where do morals and values come from? I would think a number of places. I don't think their fixed, and probably vary.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
another girl I talked to the other day, I asked if she like the show "whale wars", where you basically sign a contract that you're willing to die to save a whale. She was like, "well, people die to save people, what's the difference?"
I was like, "well, how would I know if the whale lived a good life? Maybe it was a jerk whale."
No, I think a lot of people don't see any moral differences between "man" and "beast".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Chaotic Neutral- A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it. Chaotic neutral is the best alignment you can be because it represents true freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal. However, chaotic neutral can be a dangerous alignment because it seeks to eliminate all authority, harmony, and order in society.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detailed Results:
Alignment:
Lawful Good ----- XXXXXXXX (8)
Neutral Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXX (12)
Chaotic Good ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
Lawful Neutral -- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (19)
True Neutral ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (23)
Chaotic Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (30)
Lawful Evil ----- XXXXXXXXX (9)
Neutral Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXX (13)
Chaotic Evil ---- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (20)
Law & Chaos:
Law ----- XXXX (4)
Neutral - XXXXXXXX (8)
Chaos --- XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Good & Evil:
Good ---- XXXX (4)
Neutral - XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (15)
Evil ---- XXXXX (5)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Harry Potter would be proud! Hey, whatever works for you. . . .???
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
seems kinda weird rating "good" and "evil" on a linear scale. Still nebulous terms IMO.
Just look at TWI, bunch of folks set out to do "good", accomplished absolutely nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
I read chaotic neutral and this brain of mine immediately thought of jumbo shrimp. Ya know, kinda oxymoronish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.