I do it manually... I can understand what you are getting at, understanding that good and evil is but a continuum with lots of gray area called "neutral". However, that couldn't possibly explain why evil exist. One of the reason why I correlate evil and good is to address this particular question. dann and I were having this huge logic question long before, assuming that God is logical, then were does evil comes from? The absence of God? The absence of will? It's just gotten out of hand that way. However, I do not believe that there's this thing called neutral, that's why I can comfortably say that good and evil are two sides of the same coin. Neutral is but an excuse for not doing every last thing you can, drawing a theoretical/abstract line where your good would stop. When good stopped, does that automatically means that it's evil? Maybe not, but one CONSCIOUSLY chose to NOT do good can means evil strictly speaking. To me, not helping the beggar is evil regardless of whether he's just a beggar or a dying man because one didn't chose the good deed of helping the beggar. I don't think it's "not wise" per se, as long as you keep an open mind to other interpretation there's no problem to choosing one definition over another. Well, I know my definition isn't perfect either, just that it served me well. I guess it also contributes to my agnostic beliefs.
Omg I cant believe.... you do it all manually.. =0 the existence of neutral doesnt need to explain the existence of evil it is just one more option added to good and bad, even if it does not exist it wouldn't explain why evil exists but the thing it can do is express the fact that evil can be non existent yet allow us to still see good as good. The newborn baby does not know the difference between good and or evil, he just simply exists. what would you define his action as? and what if you did not conciously know that you were not doing good? for instance you were just sleepy that day and you didnt realize that man needed help? is it evil to be sleepy? Thats what makes me believe that you can be neutral as well. Because I dont believe that being ignorant can neccesarily be considered as evil. and again big ups for doin it all manually thats pretty hardout =P
I am just anal about certain things pertaining to organization... -tongue2 But the "new born baby" is in fact a bad example, partially because I don't buy into the whole "babies are innocent and embodiment of good" shite. I believe babies to be evil, now hold your flaming, let me finish first. Do you ever wonder if babies are able to do selfless acts? Do good deeds except for "looking cute and cuddly"? To me, the answer is an obvious no. Babies are evil because they inflict THEIR need with total disregard of others (they don't look at the clock and think "daddy and mommy are sleeping, I'll put off my hunger for another hour") Some explain that it's because they don't know how to read. But studies have shown that babies are extraordinarily intelligent: 1. They can recognize right and wrong: as shown by the "watch a clip with stick figure and see if the baby would show favourable reaction towards a character who doesn't help = evil or one who does = good; 2. They can recognize beauty: they have a preference for "faces" which are symmetric: and 3. They can detect emotions from other beings: it was shown that even if the adult do not make a sound or touch the baby, the baby would be in a bad mood if the adult in the room is in a bad mood, coincidence? In all, it's our own fabrication that babies are neutral or even good, I studied papers on how children are sacralized by the Western societies, they were not always perceived as good throughout time. Just because they are perceived as innocent now doesn't make it necessarily true. If sleepiness clouded over your judgment to do good, then yes, sleepiness is evil. To a certain extent I am a purist. That "sleepiness" is just an excuse, a way to get yourself comfortable with the fact that you didn't do good. And ignorance is evil because it allows one to act with disregard of others. It's kind of like asking if murder is evil? That would be a yes, I take it? How about murdering someone in self-defense? In a case where it's a "it's either you or me" fight? Is it evil to protect oneself? I think it's a matter of relative term, depending on who's the winner, one who survive to have the last word, who would take the case in his/her own hand and build it from there.
I didn't say they were good. I merely stated that I dont think they're evil. Oh my haha you really got me just as I read that =P I don't think that Babies are evil any more than I think that it is wrong for a Lion to kill an antelope for food, what it shows I guess to a lesser extent is natural brutality. It's about life and death. Before good and evil can come about one needs to be able to survive. The babies conciousness is solely on its own survival, It may be able to see the actions of right and wrong but it may not be able to understand it in a way that does not include its own existence. It showing favourable reaction to the good man may simply be the reasoning that this man will treat ME nicely (a neccesary attribute for the babies survival). So no, when it comes to survival I dont think it is wrong to be selfish, good and evil can only manifest itself if there is some vehicle for it to be expressed (as far as i know.. human beings). Perhaps then there maybe some reason why in christianity Adam and Eve existed before they ate the fruit that could discern good and evil ? So yea I guess it all depends on how you see it, I dont condemn survival as a evil, we need to exist and I dont condemn the animals in this world for killing other animals for food. (however I am in a self debate if for instance infanticide in dolphins would be considered a evil, but thats another story I guess) Must suck to be a purist in this world hehe, I wouldn't say that being sleepy is a sin. Because being sleepy is natural and it happens to everyone. Do you think that the ideas of a purist can exist in this world? in us? If part of being a purist is being human then sleepiness is not a sin, it's just part of being human. But if you think that sleepiness is a evil then can a human be able to embody the idealogy of a purist? hypotheticals with no basis on reality are really quite useless, I guess a purist being that could exist would be ....God? =P Yes blatant murder is evil, But when it comes to a life or death situation it is no longer about good or evil but about existence. I think everyone has a right to fight for their own existence, there is nothing wrong with that. I think Law also understands that to some extent. That is why they allow room for the self defence defence and for people with a diminished capacity to understand good or evil they allow for the mentally impaired defence. Existing is neither good or evil and it comes before we are able to discern anything thus in that state an example of neutrality exists. Hope my quoting worked ehehe
It works -^_^ I know it. People get unnaturally aggravated at that proposition. But how do you define survival? Giving that beggar a hand wouldn't hinder one's survival would it? I am sure one wouldn't miss that 5-10 minutes of ones life, then does that mean it's a road not taken, the road to "good", meaning it's evil? And being selfish... Or being "human" as you put it, isn't it a way to manifest a choice? What constitute as "being human"? That is a concept we define from our own experience, we call everything which we cannot morally address into "being human": "why can't you just let yourself be killed?", "why can't you give share your wealth with the world?", "why don't you stay loyal to one company which pays cr*p but instead, move to another which pays better?"... We call them "human nature", yet as I have said before, it's just an excuse for morally questionable behaviour, an excuse. Why are they killing the baby dolphins? Share As I have said before, human beings NEED very little to survive, they don't NEED another iPod, nor computer, nor the latest car, yet somehow many are convinced that these WANTS are their NEED, making the term "survival" very questionable in definition. Naw, you don't need to be a God to be a purist. You just need to realize that human failings are human failing, and you yourself is no exception from them. A lot of retrospective helps. I believe existing can be neither good nor evil, yet, there can be situations where existence itself is an evil... Consider overpopulation, one more life is one more mouth to feed, to those who share the meager amount of food, that additional existence can be said to be evil or antagonistic to the already-existing ones can't it? Of course, it is generally an act which can be classified as good or evil... Yet the existence of the gray shade of neutrality is very subjective where one can classify everything within that particular spectrum, or one can draw a line dividing black and white, good and evil. This is getting really weird, this discussion. Is it still about God? LOL He is going to be very lonely at this rate.
ZOMFG!! I just wrote all this shite and spent my time doin the multiple quoting and shit and IE ended up closing on me OMFG OMFG OMFGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG GAHHH I'll rewrite wat I said sometime later omg i've lost my motivation for now =.=
I wouldn't say its unnaturally "aggravated" hehe I mean your view on babies is not what the general status quo thinks (at least where I come from) so its natural for me to raise an eyebrow to your proposition =P I was using survival to represent why I do not think that babies should be considered evil, because they do not know when the hunger that is in their stomach can be satiated, they dont understand that mum can feed them after she has had her sleep and therefore in their minds it's not evil for them to shout their helpless self out in search of the sustenance that they need. However I do not think it good that they do this as well (because of my definition of good i guess... ya know treat thy neighbour as thyself etc etc) I did not put it in terms of being human at all, survival is a much broader term than that. It does not just encompass humans. It encompasses every living thing, the selfishness that I speak of as being acceptable is not the human selfishness but more of the selfishness of staying alive, filling the whole in your stomach or quenching your thirst. I dont think fulfilling those needs are a good thing, neither do i think they are bad. But i think these needs have to be fulfilled before good and evil can be discerned As for most of the questions that you asked as examples I dont think most of them are addressed to the aspect of survival at all and more to do with our excuse of human nature (which I do agree is highly questionable). All but one. "Why can't you just let yourself be killed?" the answer is because if you disregard your life say for instance when a killer tries to kill you then you are not doing good, or neutral your actually doing evil. Why so? because if for instance your definition of good is love thy neighbour as thy self then by allowing yourself to die so easily it means that you also do not hold your neighbours in regards at all, it means that you believe their life should be as disposable as your own and I think thats the wrong mentality to have. As i stated before I don't think existing is good nor evil, but I do think that destroying the existence of anybody unnecesarily is a evil. They think that the dolphins (bottlenose specifically) are killing the infants of female dolphins in order to mate with them (when dolphins raise their calves they are sexually inactive for that time usually round 3 to 4 years i think) I think dolphins are also one of the only species of animals who have sex for enjoyment as well. They have been seen practicing their killing techniques on a smaller species of porpoise which are about the same size as the calves, I dont think that there are many animals who kill for fun which is why it interest scientists alot i guess... however good and evil in animals is a totally different forum topic haha. The definition of survival is not hard to define, Its the amount that you need to keep you alive. simple as that. But people do confuse surviving with thriving and so yes stealing for food because you have no other means to get it is neccesary for survival. Stealing a ipod because you THINK you need it is not. In the end its not about what you think is necessary for survival that defines it but what you actually need. It'd be interesting to talk about the existence of perfection someday =P or are our failings that which make us perfect? I wouldn't say that existing in desperate times is an evil. But i guess you could consider the parents of that child to be evil for not controlling the urges of their loins in such desperate times =P but if you believe that existing can be neither good or evil then doesnt that confirm the idea of neutrality? all you need is one instance where you think neutrality can exist and thats all it takes to prove the idea of good bad and neutral. hell yea this discussion is getting weird haha but i dont think God cares too much =P Geez finally i have finished! its so annoying retyping sigh.... Dann's rubbing it in =.=
Babies arn't evil hiake. It's more survival mechanism then concious decision when babies cry out to be fed. We don't label the very same actions evil when baby animals do it. In the animal kingdom which we're a part of there are two categories that babies belong to, one dependent from birth and the other self sufficient and left to fend for themselves. We belong to the first. It's nature. It's just a survival mechanism thats sole purpose is for survival. The idea of good and evil apply to conscious decisions we make and actions we take as individuals with the ability to fully understand the reasons, consequences, and repercussion of our actions. An infants cry is no more evil than its need to breathe or its natural ability to instinctively close off its airway and slow its oxygen usage down when its submerged under water to keep itself alive longer.
I know, I remember the looks of WTF I see when a discussion on "child sacralization" It was almost fascinating to see how socialization works, in not-so-mysterious ways... But fascinating nonetheless. Subjectively, survival is a good thing. Yet survival often create a rippling effect in how OTHERS survive. So I can accept that it is a mix of good and evil (because of the number of independent decisions and actions amounted as a result of one single "choice") What if the killer is a neighbour of yours? Just hypothetically speaking. Yes, dolphin is another species (besides human) which have sex for no practical reason (other than sheer enjoyment). I found that fact fascinating, as long as I don't get to the dolphin!sex part -tongue2 And I don't know the ACTUAL difference between dolphins and porpoises... -unsure I don't know, hypocritically speaking I know people who cannot SURVIVE without an LV, but that's another discussion. And no, I didn't spell "hypothetically" wrong, I MEANT "hypocritically" because I myself had been guilty of a similar sin. Perfectly imperfect, that's us human. I can understand where that neutral comes in... It's the mix of good and evil that were affected by that particular choice... If at all, then again, that's my view. Congratulations -clapclap He always makes sure he does -tongue2 Partially that just goes without saying... We all attribute it into "nature" (and later in life "human nature"), yet where does this particular nature comes from? There are babies which are less troublesome than others, keep regular schedules of feeding and whatnot (as its parents), so what is the difference between an "easy-going" baby and a "difficult" one? So only INFORMED decisions are classified as good or evil? Does that mean that if one doesn't believe in climate change (trust me, it is not a rarity to NOT believe in climate change), one can contribute to climate change without being "judged"?
omg...i would really like to contribute but it would require me reading all these essays that have been written. hiake, moth, rain, u guys are all nuts. i think if i was in an argument with someone i would just forfeit if all this reading was required. well, unless i get money for it. haha
Hey, it's nice having an actual discussion... Intellectually stimulating (as I missed my chance at taking more philosophy/classical studies classes) = Awesome. And I get to practice my articulation = Double the awesomeness.
hiake:the brainiac...haha philosophy....i remember those classes. all those tutorials. u woulda LOVED it!!! i remember a lot of heated discussions about something and getting all fired up about it but then as soon as i leave class, i would totally forget wat we were arguing about. took this one class called the 'meaning of life'. i don't remember ever actually discussing anything that would in any way try to answer that question...but i still enjoyed it nonetheless.
I loved my first year philosophy class... But later course become too heavily ridden with individuals with complexes who are high on things which I cannot possibly pronounce... So I kind of gave up on that... I still have yet finish all of Nietzsche's work... And of course, impossible to read all of Marx's writing (because it comes in 50 TOMES, complete with a trolley with which you lug it around with) Metaphysics was adorably awesome.
haha...i know what u mean. i took 1st and 2nd year philosophy classes...i took some 3rd years ones thinking that they would be enjoyable like the others...but it just got insane. but i must say, philosophy was prob the most enjoyable course i ever took, that and culture and racism. the arguments in those two classes were worth every penny i had to spend to take those course. my god hiake...only u would put metaphysics and the word adorable together.
-thumbs up- we got some high-class philosophers here on PA. interesting topic ... pondering pondering pondering.
