The nature of good and evil
- Thread starter Mr.Bill
- Start date
Dark Virtue
New Member
You're right, we can't understand it.
Not because it isnt true. BUt how can you understand the feelings of God taking control of your life? I still have ot make the choices, but God influences me to do good. as humans me are born with the desire to do wrong.... But now I have something in me telling to do good, Its not a voice, GOd speaks to the heart not to the ear.
Dark Virtue
New Member
There is a very good reason we don't understand.
Because there is no proof, no evidence, there is no logical reason for us to believe in what you believe.
Because there is no proof, no evidence, there is no logical reason for us to believe in what you believe.
Dark Virtue
New Member
Exactly!
I think you summed it up nicely.
I think you summed it up nicely.
Lets fire this thread up again..
DV, you say that objective morallity is an illusion, but I propose that there are some morals that are objective. Some morals that everyone (in the right mind) agrees on. Consider 'intentionally killing another innocent person is wrong.' Everyone agrees on this. Even anti and pro abortionists. They merely disagree on the definition of a 'person.' Even terrorists, for they merely disagree on the definition of 'innocent'. So in a sense we are both right; like I think I said before, we may believe the same thing, but for different reasons. Maybe the same reasons, and we're just calling it two different things. The point is though, if there are these objective morals, does that not imply that the disparity among moral codes is a result of different interperetations of the same set of rules?
DV, you say that objective morallity is an illusion, but I propose that there are some morals that are objective. Some morals that everyone (in the right mind) agrees on. Consider 'intentionally killing another innocent person is wrong.' Everyone agrees on this. Even anti and pro abortionists. They merely disagree on the definition of a 'person.' Even terrorists, for they merely disagree on the definition of 'innocent'. So in a sense we are both right; like I think I said before, we may believe the same thing, but for different reasons. Maybe the same reasons, and we're just calling it two different things. The point is though, if there are these objective morals, does that not imply that the disparity among moral codes is a result of different interperetations of the same set of rules?
Dark Virtue
New Member
[b said:
Yes it does, but that only backs up my assertion that it is society that defines morality. Each society is made up of individuals that bring their own individual morals to the table. For the most part, each society agrees on a moral standard. There may be issues that vary (like abortion) but as I said, for the most part the individuals agree. Look at the US for example. There was a time that women didn't have equality. Eventualy society changed to accept that. As much, morals changed to match. Every thing that can affect society also affects its baseline morality. I think I just said the same thing 4 times, but you get my point
So each society or culture has their set of morals. If you look at another society, you will see similarities. That is because it all begins with the individual. This is where the "golden rule" comes in. (And by golden rule, I don't mean a specific religious teaching, I use that term because we all know what it means) Beginning with that rule, other codes of conduct are created. That, I believe, explains similarities that exist even though different societies have different religions and cultures.
[b said:
Consider this...Intentionally killing another innocent person is RIGHT. Don't think so? How about in war? That is an example of killing innocent people (combatants) that is accepted and backed by society. Now differences come in how quick a society is to make war, their reasons for war, etc etc. So even those topics that you consider solid have more than one side.
Genesis1315
Ladies
[b said:
If someone choose to fight for a cause are they truely innocent? Again, without starting another thread, just as evidence, someone who chooses to fight with the Taliban and gets killed in the battle that ensues...are they truely innocent?
I think we are talking about two slightly different things. I believe you are saying that there is a universally similar set of rules, and that each society interperets them differently, setting up their own sets of 'morals.' I am talking about where those morals came from. Scratch away all the individual and cultural interperetations, there is some basis for these morals. And I think that uniformity comes from the fact that we are all human. I think we agree, in an odd kind of way. The question at hand here is, assuming that there is a basis for these morallity codes, is there a way to get at it and avoid having to 'interperet' it. I don't think there is, but that doesn't mean that it is not there. So, believing in an objective morallity does not denote that you actually know what those morals are, it is rather accepting that there is a 'right answer' to these moral questions, and striving to find out what that is. It does not mean that you're a dogmatist, as some people wrongly assume, because you will probably never know what your morals are. You can get close, but not quite. I am rambling.. Well anyways, as for war, when is war moral? Just becauses it happens and just because sometimes society thinks it should happen doesn't mean that it's a moral thing to do. Societies of all kinds think different things on the issue of morallity, but they are working from the same set of premises. The disparity is a result of the almost unfathomable complexity of issue, but if you look hard enough, I think you'll see that simularities are more than just coincidence.[b said:Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Sep. 30 2004,8:10)][b said:
Yes it does, but that only backs up my assertion that it is society that defines morality. Each society is made up of individuals that bring their own individual morals to the table. For the most part, each society agrees on a moral standard. There may be issues that vary (like abortion) but as I said, for the most part the individuals agree. Look at the US for example. There was a time that women didn't have equality. Eventualy society changed to accept that. As much, morals changed to match. Every thing that can affect society also affects its baseline morality. I think I just said the same thing 4 times, but you get my point
So each society or culture has their set of morals. If you look at another society, you will see similarities. That is because it all begins with the individual. This is where the "golden rule" comes in. (And by golden rule, I don't mean a specific religious teaching, I use that term because we all know what it means) Beginning with that rule, other codes of conduct are created. That, I believe, explains similarities that exist even though different societies have different religions and cultures.
[b said:
Consider this...Intentionally killing another innocent person is RIGHT. Don't think so? How about in war? That is an example of killing innocent people (combatants) that is accepted and backed by society. Now differences come in how quick a society is to make war, their reasons for war, etc etc. So even those topics that you consider solid have more than one side.
Dark Virtue
New Member
Well let's look at what you said, "someone who chooses to fight with the Taliban and gets killed in the battle that ensues...are they truely innocent?"
If you are talking about Coalition Forces, then I would say no. They enlisted in the armed forces knowing they might have to face combat. So in that case, no, they would not be truly innocent. HOWEVER, what about the villager who wants nothing to do with the Taliban, just live their lives peacefully, but is thrust into combat with them to defend their family? I believe they would be deemed an innocent.
When I made that comment I was thinking more along the lines of WWII, Korea and Vietnam, when there was drafting of troops. It was very plausible that in any given battle you had soldiers on both sides of the conflict that didn't want to be there and had weapons forced in their hands. Those people I consider innocent.
If you are talking about Coalition Forces, then I would say no. They enlisted in the armed forces knowing they might have to face combat. So in that case, no, they would not be truly innocent. HOWEVER, what about the villager who wants nothing to do with the Taliban, just live their lives peacefully, but is thrust into combat with them to defend their family? I believe they would be deemed an innocent.
When I made that comment I was thinking more along the lines of WWII, Korea and Vietnam, when there was drafting of troops. It was very plausible that in any given battle you had soldiers on both sides of the conflict that didn't want to be there and had weapons forced in their hands. Those people I consider innocent.
Dark Virtue
New Member
[b said:
We do agree, one of us must be tired because we're not communicating effectively. I do agree with what you said. Read my post over and see if it makes sense. If not, I'll rewrite it
[b said:
Again, I agree with you, I believe there could well be one set. We will never see that though because we are not one unified society, each society "interprets" it differently.
[b said:
There are definately times when war is a moral decision. Defending yourself from attack is moral. Look at the European theater in WWII. Hitler chose to invade and be aggresive. It was moral for those countries to defend itself. It was moral for the United States to help defend those countries, but support was questionable, which is why it took Pearl Harbor to wake the "sleeping giant".
Hmmm, I don't know DV. If someone put a gun to your head and said that if you did not drown this 2 year old girl they would kill you, and you did in self preservation, does that make killing the 2 year old a moral act? I can see why killing to prevent more killing might be considered moral, but killing to protect yourself...eh..I'm not so sure.[b said:
Dark Virtue
New Member
The difference between our hypothetical situations is that one is during a time of war and one is not.
My situation goes a bit further than one person, it is about the defense of a country.
My situation goes a bit further than one person, it is about the defense of a country.
Mm, but I think the smaller scale should still be applicable here. Countries go to war yes, but countries are made up by people. I think this simple fact is forgotten in the group psychology of it all. Country affiliation does not make much sense to me; I think the world would be much better off if we could devise a way of realistically uniting the entire world 'under one flag,' if you will. We're already moving toward this, with the European union and such. But it'll take years and years and years. Getting off topic though. My point is that just because a country goes to war, for whatever reason, does not make it right. The fact that a country is acting to protect itself does not make those actions by definition, right. I believe that morallity goes deeper than that. What countries decide to do with it is their own business, but it doesn't make what they decide, right.[b said:
Dark Virtue
New Member
I think Jim could address the issue of EU. I was under the impression that it was NOT a popular decision.
Well what should a country do when threatened with invasion? What would be morally acceptable to you?
Invasion is one country asserting its power on another. Take that to the lowest common denominator. Let's use you and I as an example. You asserting your power over me violates the "golden rule". Let's say you shove me. What are my options? Leave? If I leave then I keep the golden rule intact. If I shove back, then I assert that shoving is perfectly acceptable and no doubt, tensions would mount. Now let's say you threaten my life again, a violation of the golden rule. BUT, by threatening my life you have asserted that life taking is a perfectly acceptable form of retaliation, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So go back to the macro scale: if a country invades another, the country under invasion is well within their moral rights to use any means necessary to oust the invaders.
Well what should a country do when threatened with invasion? What would be morally acceptable to you?
Invasion is one country asserting its power on another. Take that to the lowest common denominator. Let's use you and I as an example. You asserting your power over me violates the "golden rule". Let's say you shove me. What are my options? Leave? If I leave then I keep the golden rule intact. If I shove back, then I assert that shoving is perfectly acceptable and no doubt, tensions would mount. Now let's say you threaten my life again, a violation of the golden rule. BUT, by threatening my life you have asserted that life taking is a perfectly acceptable form of retaliation, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So go back to the macro scale: if a country invades another, the country under invasion is well within their moral rights to use any means necessary to oust the invaders.
Gandhi
New Member
[b said:
sry to correct u dv but I've never heard of the taliban being in Iraq. Maybe u ment Afghan
Dark Virtue
New Member
The details are always overlooked first thing in the morning
I went ahead and edited my post...thanks for the catch!
I went ahead and edited my post...thanks for the catch!
I think moral is the wrong word for this. Yes, I believe that a country should have the right to defend itself, but I don't think that the act of defending itself is 'morally' right. It is not 'good' to defend your country. It's just something that must be done to prevent death. Essentially, its an act based purely on self interest. Is this 'wrong'? Of course not, but I would not call it moral either. A better question would be this: is it moral to kill immoral/amoral people?[b said: