|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 4, 2017 9:15:14 GMT
...and how do you know?
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Dec 4, 2017 9:29:17 GMT
only actions can be described as good or bad, not people I do not believe that people can be either good or evil as seen in books or movies. In the real world it is more complicated than that. No one can honestly say that they are completely good because everyone has acted poorly and on impulse. Everyone has made mistakes and therefore how can anyone fit the description of "good." Also though some believe that people can be evil, everyone has a reason. Most "evil" people are either mentally ill, had a bad childhood, or there was an event in their life that triggered their behavior. So if we use the logic than anyone can have a little good in them that is overshadowed by their worst nature that was brought about by their life or ever since they were born. With this logic, isn't this person in between despite what people might think. Also, if someone is in between for having a little good in them, then someone can't be completely good because everyone has committed wrongs in their life. The point is that these words shouldn't define anyone because they are too vague. Actions can be evil or good but people can't be one or the other.
I think how we distinguish what bad from good is, is what negative quality or emotion exists to feed that action.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 5, 2017 6:40:56 GMT
Hmm...I say that what is good is what is seen as good by the majority for a better outcome in something. And bad is what is seen as bad by the majority. Like majority say murder is wrong so we have a law against it. And somethinf like charity is seen as good always so doubt anyone would make a law to forbid it. So this is how good and bad can be sought.
|
|
lau
New Member
Posts: 6 
Likes: 8
|
Post by lau on Dec 5, 2017 6:48:23 GMT
Good is everything which causes pleasure, bad what causes hurt. Both are like a massage. The difference is in the intensity.
Bad/pain is a very harmful caress.
Good/love is the most pleasant of the touches.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanCharm on Dec 5, 2017 6:57:33 GMT
Hmm...I say that what is good is what is seen as good by the majority for a better outcome in something. And bad is what is seen as bad by the majority. Like majority say murder is wrong so we have a law against it. And somethinf like charity is seen as good always so doubt anyone would make a law to forbid it. So this is how good and bad can be sought. Well for example, the majority can believe a specific person is better to lead their country when in fact he isn’t. The majority isn’t always correct. Just because the majority thinks something doesn’t mean they are correct or “good”. Also what is good for someone may not be good for others. That’s why people vote for their interests (hopefully). But I agree with most of what you are basically saying. We have to distinguish good and bad feelings from good and bad morality. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 5, 2017 7:37:05 GMT
Hmm...I say that what is good is what is seen as good by the majority for a better outcome in something. And bad is what is seen as bad by the majority. Like majority say murder is wrong so we have a law against it. And somethinf like charity is seen as good always so doubt anyone would make a law to forbid it. So this is how good and bad can be sought. Well for example, the majority can believe a specific person is better to lead their country when in fact he isn’t. The majority isn’t always correct. Just because the majority thinks something doesn’t mean they are correct or “good”. Also what is good for someone may not be good for others. That’s why people vote for their interests (hopefully). But I agree with most of what you are basically saying. We have to distinguish good and bad feelings from good and bad morality. I know that. That is why I said majority but added that the outcome would look positive as a whole or for the majority of people. We can't please everyone of course. |
|
|
|
Post by krulag77 on Dec 17, 2017 4:07:06 GMT
Good is what we like and bad is what we don't. Just a matter of individual POV
|
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 17, 2017 4:55:20 GMT
Good is what we like and bad is what we don't. Just a matter of individual POV POV? What's that? |
|
marduk
Junior Member
Posts: 83 
Likes: 43
Country: India
Location: Pune
Politics: is sophistry so no
Religion: all of them :D
Hero: Carl Jung and Marduk
|
Post by marduk on Dec 17, 2017 6:19:10 GMT
in the context of life anything which adds to suffering or death is considered bad everything which reduces suffering or death is considered good, after all, all of us fear the reaper :D, from a non living perspective nothing is good or bad it just is
|
|
|
|
Post by fschmidt on Dec 22, 2017 7:51:49 GMT
Hmm...I say that what is good is what is seen as good by the majority for a better outcome in something. And bad is what is seen as bad by the majority. Like majority say murder is wrong so we have a law against it. And somethinf like charity is seen as good always so doubt anyone would make a law to forbid it. So this is how good and bad can be sought. The majority is usually wrong. This is why pure democracy (universal suffrage) has historically always been a disaster. "Do not follow a multitude to do evil" -- Exodus 23:2 What is good is what leads to success over time, and what is bad is what leads to failure over time. Therefore the only way to learn about good and bad/evil is to study history. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Dec 22, 2017 7:57:45 GMT
Hmm...I say that what is good is what is seen as good by the majority for a better outcome in something. And bad is what is seen as bad by the majority. Like majority say murder is wrong so we have a law against it. And somethinf like charity is seen as good always so doubt anyone would make a law to forbid it. So this is how good and bad can be sought. The majority is usually wrong. This is why pure democracy (universal suffrage) has historically always been a disaster. "Do not follow a multitude to do evil" -- Exodus 23:2 What is good is what leads to success over time, and what is bad is what leads to failure over time. Therefore the only way to learn about good and bad/evil is to study history. I agree! If you use scripture then I can't disagree  |
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2017 6:08:13 GMT
Categorical imperative
|
|
enarjilisi
New Member
Posts: 15
Likes: 16
Meta-Ethnicity: Nostratic, Borean
Ethnicity: Iberian-Caucasian
Country: Georgia
Region: South Caucasus
Location: Tbilisi
Religion: Atheism
Relationship Status: Divorced
Age: 45
|
Post by enarjilisi on Dec 24, 2017 21:34:03 GMT
Anything that strengthens the mankind, your nation, your family or your body or mind is good. Anything that weakens or destroys the listed items, is bad.
Even more generally, I guess we, the mankind represent a part of the complexity of the universe. So anything that increases the complexity, i.e. total entropy of the universe is good. Anything that does the opposite and is directed against the time arrow, is bad. The problem is, it is difficult to measure entropy or the speed of its increase exactly, so it will be difficult to demonstrate the truth of what I just said. Let it remain intuitive.
|
|
supralycan
New Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqNvIW-us-c
Posts: 44
Likes: 19
Meta-Ethnicity: angel
Ethnicity: caucasian
Location: EARTH
Ancestry: god
Taxonomy: Nature
Y-DNA: other archetype
mtDNA: other archetype
Politics: Natural symbiose
Religion: Nature
Relationship Status: for ever alone
Hero: Nobodie are better than other
Age: ------------------------------------------
|
Post by supralycan on Dec 25, 2017 12:40:20 GMT
MY trick asking myself if he make this to me i enjoy?
if yes thats good & if not thats bad
also if thats destroy or desiquilibre equilibrium thats bad
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2018 14:01:41 GMT
only actions can be described as good or bad, not people I do not believe that people can be either good or evil as seen in books or movies. In the real world it is more complicated than that. No one can honestly say that they are completely good because everyone has acted poorly and on impulse. Everyone has made mistakes and therefore how can anyone fit the description of "good." Also though some believe that people can be evil, everyone has a reason. Most "evil" people are either mentally ill, had a bad childhood, or there was an event in their life that triggered their behavior. So if we use the logic than anyone can have a little good in them that is overshadowed by their worst nature that was brought about by their life or ever since they were born. With this logic, isn't this person in between despite what people might think. Also, if someone is in between for having a little good in them, then someone can't be completely good because everyone has committed wrongs in their life. The point is that these words shouldn't define anyone because they are too vague. Actions can be evil or good but people can't be one or the other. I think how we distinguish what bad from good is, is what negative quality or emotion exists to feed that action. There's some points I'd like to add: A. 'Good' or 'bad' are empty notions. Using them incorrectly leads us to 'natural fallacy' (J. E. Moore); B. Behavior can be ascribed like 'good' or 'bad' according to situation. E.g. Killing people for own stupid ambitions is wrong (we know that Stalin or Breivik did it); C. So, how could we deal with this: 'good' and 'bad' are empty but 'filled' at the same time? R. Swinburne think that we mustn't deny the past, our historical knowledge, and that's why we can't build another system ignoring known facts. Moreover, we shouldn't let contradict situations in future, so we need to start looking for solid principles by duscussing it on more effective methods. He reckons that there're some objective moral principles. |
|
