Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No such thing as "good", no such thing as "bad".
All labels are relative.
Better terms would be "acceptable" or "not acceptable".
Everything functions on double standards anyway, so why even bother trying to define "good"?
REPLY:
1. 'Relative' to what ?!
2. 'Acceptable or not acceptable' according to Moral Relativism means that to a hormone intensive Football Player who is out on a date with your 16 year old daughter , he would find it acceptable to 'score' ... while you would find that unacceptable im sure . But according to Moral Relativism, you shouldnt react with indignance should you , because your Daughters Suitor thinks it is great if he scores .
3. Are you alright with 'double standards' where your family is concerned or with how you expect others to treat you ? Or...is it imperative we all of a sudden shift to an 'absolute morals' Framework concerning morality and ethics we demand of others regarding how WE are treated (?) .
Last edited by RVlover; 08-19-2009 at 01:39 PM..
Reason: added
In my opinion, 'Good' is a subjective term used to quantify an individual's perception of stimuli to the brain. Whether one talks about any of the five senses in terms of a 'good' touch, feel, taste, smell or sight, it is subjective and unique to the individual.
The constant barrage of external stimuli throughout our lives allows us to make cognitive decisions as to what we deem good, bad or neutral and is often relegated to the circumstances surrounded by said stimuli. As we grow older, we tend to build perceptions and constructs around initial premises of what we deem good or bad.
Sometimes, in order to effectively look at this, one must take a particular aspect of life often deemed harmful or 'bad' within a given society. For example, in many military settings, the idea that one may be prone to such things as stress, depression, and/or quantified ailments such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) has triggered a stigma within the military society that these things are for those individuals that are 'weak.' In effect, the military society has unconsciously laid out the framework that all members be 'strong,' and that you are only as strong as your 'weakest link.' To further add to this capacity of maligned perception, this sociological cue is often promulgated and advanced by members of the military society who are not yet fully matured. Due to the fact that most military members are in their late teens and early twenties, male, and constantly held within close confines of one another, it's not hard to see how something like depression or stress can be used as a starting point for picking out who the 'weakest link' in the group is. Because each individual in this 'society' suspects repercussions of negative consequence by admitting his 'weakness,' the idea of suffering from depression, stress or PTSD can often go untreated for long periods of time because the sociological impression upon which that construct has been built is deemed 'bad.' This is not to say that depression, stress, and PTSD are 'good' things but merely to point out how 'bad' can be determined by societal factors. The same can go for 'good' things.
There are indeed certain relativistic aspects of life that most will agree are 'good.' In any given community of individuals, certain sociological cues can often be promulgated to the effect of guaranteeing mutual commonality in any given interpretation of certain aspects that can be deemed good, bad or neutral.
More often than not, certain actions, deeds, or occurrences may initially be deemed good or bad as a communal whole whereby society, as a collective whole, feels the stimuli provided is collectively positive and affirming to previously held conceptions.
In many societies, as has been indicated on this forum, the idea of worshiping a God is promoted as something 'good' and many may even make the statement that "Whatever God sees as good is good." What one doesn't realize when making that statement, however, is how one determines what God feels is good. It would only take a cursory glance at the Christianity forum to make the cognitive decision that all those worshiping the same God cannot even make heads or tails out of what God finds pleasing or displeasing. The constant infighting over abortion, gay marriage, and many other hot topics plague religious venues over whether or not they are 'good' or 'bad.'
This leads me to the conclusion that people are still deciding for themselves what God deems good or bad. One can take any verse of scripture and contort it to their point of view in order to better try and support viewpoints that are already initially held by the individual. If one disagrees with something like gay marriage because of previously held societal cues, it only stands to reason that they will interject this notion onto their God and what he/she deems to be 'good' or 'bad' anyway. They will then claim that said interjection is "God's Will" despite any claims to the contrary.
One might often find a certain sense of irony in all of this considering that religions throughout the world have used their own constructs and devises to implement and wield vast destruction, murder and vengeance upon those who disagree differently all because it is pleasing to a certain deity. Naturally, this brutality directed towards other human beings is often deemed 'good' by the perpetrators because it's being done at the behest of said deity, while the victims probably rarely feel the same way and might consider their plight and destruction as 'bad.'
We could also look to areas of the world held under great repression and subjugation such as North Korea. In the land of Kim Jong Il, everything about daily life is all at the behest and thanks to the "Dear Leader." When rain falls for the crops the "Dear Leader" is responsible. When people find themselves with electricity during some part of the day or night, the "Dear Leader" is to thank. Anybody found not worshiping the "Dear Leader" is subject to strict punishment and even death in a place where a common man has become nothing short of a deity himself.
This unfortunately sounds uncannily and scarily familiar to the way people promote their religious viewpoints. Some will go so far as to say everything they have in their life is due to "God's Will." For eons, people have thanked God for bringing rain to their crops or handing them a few extra shekels to get by on. Must we also not forget the brutal condemnation and torture many of us allegedly face for not worshiping the "Dear Leader" of the heavens - an eternity in fiery hell and torment.
Sadly, this leads me to only believe that we are either living in a sort of celestial North Korea or the scare tactics used by those who believe are more than likely constructs of previously held values sought after by other means and projected onto the "Dear Leader in the Sky."
Whether we are honest with ourselves in admitting that our conceptions of 'good' are merely the result of personal decision making or we lie to ourselves by refusing to admit that we project our own choices and decisions onto a supernatural entity "somewhere out there," we should all be cognizant of the fact that we, as individuals, are the ones deciding what is 'good' and what is 'bad.' Due to the almost 7 billion people that now populate this planet all formulating an individual conception of what is good and what is bad, I'd say there is no real clear distinction except what we as society guarantee ourselves as saying is 'good' or 'bad.'
So in the absence of any rules, you're telling me that going out and bashing someone's head in with a baseball bat for no reason is neither good nor bad? That's a scary thought. Because, you see, unless you are willing to call it bad or wrong, there is no reason not to do it (in the absence of rules), is there?
There are a lot of people who like to come off with this ‘there is no good or bad/right or wrong’ argument. I think it’s largely bunk.
I once took a postmodernist theory class. The instructor was huge into the ‘anything goes’ attitude. Nothing is good, nothing is bad. She professed to be totally passive about the idea of right and wrong. One day a student asked her what she would do if her neighbor began molesting this instructor's daughter on her front lawn. Would she join in, just stand there watching and clapping, or would she try to stop it? If she tried to stop it, she must consider it bad or unacceptable or wrong in some way. Ultimately, she admitted that the molestation of her child would be wrong (DUH!). She never spouted the ‘no good or bad’ drivel again that semester. Maybe SHE learned something (or rather unlearned something).
Anyone who claims to not see any such thing as good/bad/right/wrong is either a sociopath (indeed, that's in the definition) or a liar.
I never said 'there is no right or wrong'. What I said was that in a modern, secular, multicultural society, no agreed-upon definition of right or wrong can be made....because in a multicultural society, no single 'system' prevails. It truly IS a case of 'anything goes'. I do NOT believe such a society has ever existed, nor do I believe one is possible.
I certainly DO have a notion of "good" and of "evil". That's a product of my belief system, a part of my culture, and a result of my 'upbringing', and the society in which I was brought up. My 'personal morals', though, do NOT neccessarily mean anything to someone raised in a radically different setting....and if we propose to have a society with NO dominant culture...with NO belief system 'in charge'....and with NO group 'beholden' to any OTHER group, because "all belief systems are equal and equivalent", then AT THAT POINT, we will effectively find that for all practical purposes, we have no more "good", and no more "bad". We have not yet reached that sort of society....and I don't think we ever will.
PS Hats off to that student, for calling the instructor on the 'anything goes' baloney. Most of these people cave in very rapidly, when one of their lofty 'principles' comes into conflict with their own personal welfare, or that of their loved ones.
When the biker gang is climbing through your bedroom window at 2 AM, it's sometimes hard to recall why you were so dead-set against the right of a private citizen to own a firearm.
I disagree ; they are not cultural concepts derived by what is popular at the time. There are absolute moral laws that exist in each and every one of us and in all societies thruout the world , fundamentally. People may deny it, they may suppress it , their actions may contradict it, but their REACTIONS (to being morally violated) reveal that they know it. If morals are relative to whatever a culture espouses at a given time, then Hitler was not objectively wrong for what he was trying to accomplish by making his society a better one according to his view.
"Absolute moral laws'? I don't know. Consider 'sex with children'...is it right, or is it wrong? Different cultures have different answers for this. Do we regard the police as 'legitmate authority', or as the 'enemy'? Do we cooperate with those of other religions...or do we 'blow them up'?.. Is a man's wife his 'partner'..or his property? Do we seek redress for wrongs through the court system...or through violent acts of revenge? Is illegal immigration "right"..or is it "wrong"? Is it OK to beat one's wife "if she deserves it"? Or never? Is 'lying' always wrong...or is it OK for a 'good reason'?
ALL of these things divide people, and EACH side of each 'debate' has its adherents. Consider the historic Western definition of the term "martyr". Now consider the contemporary definition used by Muslim fundamentalists. Almost POLAR OPPOSITES, yet each side declares ITS martyrs are 'heroes'. One suffers death at the hands of others rather than renounce his faith...the other kills as many innocents as possible, as well as himself. Yet EACH of these is regarded as a 'selfless hero' by many.
"Right and wrong", "Good and Evil", may be non-negotiable absolutes for me...and perhaps for you. But that doesn't mean our notion is accepted by others. And that's the eternal problem in attempting to have one society, with many cultures. Either one culture must 'bend' to the will of the other, or vice-versa...but there can't be TWO sets of 'right and wrong'....nor 3, nor 4, nor 12. In this case, all you can do is make non-moral 'rules', and leave the 'good and evil' out of it.
Privately, of COURSE I have a strong moral code...I'm only saying it can't be assumed that others accept it. "You can't legislate morality", as the man said.
REPLY:
1. 'Relative' to what ?!
2. 'Acceptable or not acceptable' according to Moral Relativism means that to a hormone intensive Football Player who is out on a date with your 16 year old daughter , he would find it acceptable to 'score' ... while you would find that unacceptable im sure . But according to Moral Relativism, you shouldnt react with indignance should you , because your Daughters Suitor thinks it is great if he scores .
3. Are you alright with 'double standards' where your family is concerned or with how you expect others to treat you ? Or...is it imperative we all of a sudden shift to an 'absolute morals' Framework concerning morality and ethics we demand of others regarding how WE are treated (?) .
Double standards and relativity:
For the USSR to spy on its citizens, that's bad.
For the USA to spy on its citizens, that's good.
there are too many examples to list.
Morals have no meaning to most people anyway. In America morals deal almost exclusively only with sexual behavior. Lying, cheating, deceiving are all okay.
'This leads me to the conclusion that people are still deciding for themselves what God deems good or bad.'
REPLY: They dont need to keep on deciding ; all major issues are spelled out clearly in the Bible what God desires. If just 2 of Jesus' teaches were radically obeyed, it would be enough for any society to have moral prosperity and complete civility : 1. Love God with all your heart mind soul and strength . 2. Love your neighbor (other Human Beings) as you love yourself. Dont you get the impression that most people want there to be 'grey areas' so as to provide as much latitude as possible to do as they wish. (?) Hence : 'All morals are relative' (EACH decides IF they want to be governed my morals and IF and WHEN to apply them . AKA : Situational ethics.
'"Absolute moral laws'? I don't know. Consider 'sex with children'...is it right, or is it wrong? Different cultures have different answers for this.'
REPLY: Theres a difference between what people DO versus what they OUGHT NOT to be doing ; if someone is willing to suppress their moral conscience, anything is permissable ... but they still know it isnt right.
' Do we regard the police as 'legitmate authority', or as the 'enemy'?'
REPLY: We are supposed to be under Authority and thus obey it for our own good. Except when Authority chooses to suppress ITS moral conscience and expect people to be permissable of that.
' Do we cooperate with those of other religions...or do we 'blow them up'?.. Is a man's wife his 'partner'..or his property? Do we seek redress for wrongs through the court system...or through violent acts of revenge? Is illegal immigration "right"..or is it "wrong"? Is it OK to beat one's wife "if she deserves it"? Or never? Is 'lying' always wrong...or is it OK for a 'good reason'?
'
REPLY: As our Declaration of Independence affirms , we have certain unalienable rights given by our Creator --- this IS the moral oughtness code which is written on all our hearts. Regarding the above questions, they are self evident . Regarding the last one...it is only alright to lie if by lieing you preserve a greater good . IE: If a Gunman asks you if anyone else is upstairs , and you lie by answering 'no' in order to save their life, then that was done for the greater good.
'ALL of these things divide people, and EACH side of each 'debate' has its adherents. Consider the historic Western definition of the term "martyr". Now consider the contemporary definition used by Muslim fundamentalists. Almost POLAR OPPOSITES, yet each side declares ITS martyrs are 'heroes'. One suffers death at the hands of others rather than renounce his faith...the other kills as many innocents as possible, as well as himself. Yet EACH of these is regarded as a 'selfless hero' by many.
'
REPLY: Many apply twisted logic to things in order to help justify a wrong committed.
'"Right and wrong", "Good and Evil", may be non-negotiable absolutes for me...and perhaps for you. But that doesn't mean our notion is accepted by others. And that's the eternal problem in attempting to have one society, with many cultures. Either one culture must 'bend' to the will of the other, or vice-versa...but there can't be TWO sets of 'right and wrong'....nor 3, nor 4, nor 12. In this case, all you can do is make non-moral 'rules', and leave the 'good and evil' out of it.
'
REPLY: There may be many cultures within a country, but ALL have the moral code written on their hearts because ALL are human beings have moral prescriptions given by the One Creator. ALL should be expected to live in accordance to the Moral Law by considering what One would want done to themselves from others (moral expectation) . "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" -- Christ.
.
'Privately, of COURSE I have a strong moral code...I'm only saying it can't be assumed that others accept it.'
REPLY: Most dont care to accept it nor consider it because it is seen as an imposition to ones 'freedom' to live as one wishes and the entitlement attitude that accompanies it. It never used to be like this circa 1958 and prior.
' "You can't legislate morality", as the man said.'
REPLY: Singapore does, and from the folks ive talked to that have lived there or visited there, it is a country that by very much obeys Authority leading to greater civility for the populus.
You raised good points. Regards.
Last edited by RVlover; 08-19-2009 at 05:12 PM..
Reason: added
'"Absolute moral laws'? I don't know. Consider 'sex with children'...is it right, or is it wrong? Different cultures have different answers for this.'
REPLY: Theres a difference between what people DO versus what they OUGHT NOT to be doing ; if someone is willing to suppress their moral conscience, anything is permissable ... but they still know it isnt right.
' Do we regard the police as 'legitmate authority', or as the 'enemy'?'
REPLY: We are supposed to be under Authority and thus obey it for our own good. Except when Authority chooses to suppress ITS moral conscience and expect people to be permissable of that.
' Do we cooperate with those of other religions...or do we 'blow them up'?.. Is a man's wife his 'partner'..or his property? Do we seek redress for wrongs through the court system...or through violent acts of revenge? Is illegal immigration "right"..or is it "wrong"? Is it OK to beat one's wife "if she deserves it"? Or never? Is 'lying' always wrong...or is it OK for a 'good reason'?
'
REPLY: As our Declaration of Independence affirms , we have certain unalienable rights given by our Creator --- this IS the moral oughtness code which is written on all our hearts. Regarding the above questions, they are self evident . Regarding the last one...it is only alright to lie if by lieing you preserve a greater good . IE: If a Gunman asks you if anyone else is upstairs , and you lie by answering 'no' in order to save their life, then that was done for the greater good.
'ALL of these things divide people, and EACH side of each 'debate' has its adherents. Consider the historic Western definition of the term "martyr". Now consider the contemporary definition used by Muslim fundamentalists. Almost POLAR OPPOSITES, yet each side declares ITS martyrs are 'heroes'. One suffers death at the hands of others rather than renounce his faith...the other kills as many innocents as possible, as well as himself. Yet EACH of these is regarded as a 'selfless hero' by many.
'
REPLY: Many apply twisted logic to things in order to help justify a wrong committed.
'"Right and wrong", "Good and Evil", may be non-negotiable absolutes for me...and perhaps for you. But that doesn't mean our notion is accepted by others. And that's the eternal problem in attempting to have one society, with many cultures. Either one culture must 'bend' to the will of the other, or vice-versa...but there can't be TWO sets of 'right and wrong'....nor 3, nor 4, nor 12. In this case, all you can do is make non-moral 'rules', and leave the 'good and evil' out of it.
'
REPLY: There may be many cultures within a country, but ALL have the moral code written on their hearts because ALL are human beings have moral prescriptions given by the One Creator. ALL should be expected to live in accordance to the Moral Law by considering what One would want done to themselves from others (moral expectation) . "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" -- Christ.
.
'Privately, of COURSE I have a strong moral code...I'm only saying it can't be assumed that others accept it.'
REPLY: Most dont care to accept it nor consider it because it is seen as an imposition to ones 'freedom' to live as one wishes and the entitlement attitude that accompanies it. It never used to be like this circa 1958 and prior.
' "You can't legislate morality", as the man said.'
REPLY: Singapore does, and from the folks ive talked to that have lived there or visited there, it is a country that by very much obeys Authority leading to greater civility for the populus.
You raised good points. Regards.
You sound like a very good person. Best wishes to you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Most of these people cave in very rapidly, when one of their lofty 'principles' comes into conflict with their own personal welfare, or that of their loved ones.
