Either way its still sacrifice

They should let you head operation of Guantanamo Bay. It'd make your father proud.

Harm others, so that the world population won't grow too much crowded in the end will cause everybody harm.

Do too good to people, but in the end no one appreciate and kills you back.

Satan is what people perceive it is evil, but who knows its origin?

God is what people perceive it is good, God kills people too! read the great flood or even calling abraham to sacrifice his son?

Wait....

read about ENlil and ENki

and then let's discuss what it would be the outcome when this world is BEYOND satan and god.

Simple for you to say. But the question then becomes, which one is the lesser of the two evils? Which leads back to the thread topic, what is evil?

Where's your common sense?

huh? harm others is bad. u mean u dont understand?

again... if tigers dont harm cows, then there would be zillions of cows in this world....

good and bad is only a state to judge our moral reference......

You just don't get it, do you?

Have you seriously not considered ethical questions at all?

If two man drowning, you can only save one, which one is the "right" one?

If I harm a man to save the life of another man, is that bad?


My whole point is that Good and Bad is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. There are different degrees of Good and Bad and almost every event has a Good and a Bad. Both sides of the question have to be considered when the situation arises. Furthermore, what is Good to you may be Bad for him. 75% in an exam may be Good for you but not to a perfectionist. Who are you to determine what is universally Good or universally Bad?

That has nothing to do with intentionally harming others.

Yes.
i agree with what you said regarding exam expectations. But again...thats nothing to do with what i said regarding harming others = bad.

let's have a virtual moral test
here's the train moral dilemma:

1)Put yourself in this situation.

You are at a train track and see five people tied to the track ahead. A switch is in front of you which will divert the train, but as you look down you see a man is strapped to that track and will be killed. Is it permissible to flip the switch and save the five people at the expense of one?

2)Now imagine in order to save the five people, you have to push a stranger in front of the train to stop it. You know for certain it would stop the train in time to save the five people tied to the tracks. Is it permissible to push the man and save the five people at the expense of one?

One should neither push another man nor sacrifice himself in this instance. Not even if it will save the life of a 100.

Its not a very hard dilemma to solve

---

Added on February 5, 2010, 12:06 amnatural phenomenon is neither good nor bad. its just the way it is.


This post has been edited by teongpeng: Feb 5 2010, 12:22 AM

By not saving someone when you can, you are indirectly harming that person too. So that's bad too?

And the exam expectation example is to a great extent related to my point. My point was that Good and Bad is subjective, just like exam expectations. If Good and Bad is so clear cut and simple, why are there court of laws to settle who is guilty and who is not?

You yourself said "lesser of two evils" earlier on. Who decides which is "less evil"? You?

If you know a man is about to go on a shooting rampage, and the only way to stop him is killing him, will you?
If yes, you are "harming others." If no, you are "harming others" too.

Parents scolding their children is harmful to their emotions, but is that evil, if at the end of the day it teaches the kid an important lesson in life?

Who needs judges anyway, right? A waste of taxpayers' money.

no. its different because u had to choose one or the other.
courts of laws are to judge based on evidence. not moral grounds. And i still dont see how exams figure in good vs evil debate.

common sense. to do an 'evil' act you have to consciously intend that act.

Its different because the crazy man has become the cause. But still, killing him isnt always the first solution.
Yes, its harmful. Ask any psychologist. There are proper ways to educate ppl.
judges are ppl who can see between right and wrong....because evidently many ppl on this forum can not.

whats this fixation with good/evil right/wrong?

in nature, there is no such things. you dont say a tiger is wrong for eating the deer.

everything is done in protecting/enhancing either the self or the community. right/wrong good/evil is something humans come up to justify their actions.

things that does against your personal belief gets labeled as "wrong" "unfair" "unjust" or "evil". there is no lesser of 2 evils so to speak. you do what you have to do.

if anything, i feel a better definition would be more/less selfish/selfless

no fixations here. when questions are posed, they get answered.
animals do not make conscious choices, neither do they have conscience.
There is the community norm, and there is universal morality. Show me a community that condones cannibalism and i'll show why how those who condemns are more civilised.
you do what u have to do when there is no choice. But when decisions are presented, there has to be a basis for one to make that decision on.
Thats an alternative way of looking at things, which isnt wrong by the way.

1. i beg to differ on the "animal have no conscience" part. thats just human arrogance to think that we are superior to animals.
2. how is a civilisation that habitually go and kill others of its own species for profit/pride/etc more civilised than a civilisation that habitually go and kill others of its own species for food?
3. i have yet to see "universal/absolute morality". when you condemn others you are doing so from your personal world view.
4. by labeling actions as good/evil; fair/unfair; etc. you are putting judgment on how an action is in line with how things are supposed to be done. that evil/unfairness is somehow abnormal. by labeling actions as selfish/selfless, it describes the action as a degree of self benefit, which is neither right or wrong. as there are times one need to be selfish and times one need to be selfless.

This post has been edited by lin00b: Feb 6 2010, 10:22 AM

Animals have no conscience. We ARE mentally superior to animals. Fact.
Thats why there are legal laws and moral teachings to educate those who are less civilised among us. And wouldnt u agree thats a good thing?
No. Killing other ppl for the fun of it, no matter how u argue, is universally wrong if u have conscience.
If you do harm to others, its bad....selfless or not.

prove it. more intelligent, yes. but since when intelligence=conscience?

who is the less civilised ones? and is being uncivilised wrong? why?

only ppl? how about animals? insects perhaps? plants? and why is it "wrong"?

since you have such a black/white worldview that let you generalize behavior to 1 sentence...

you pushed a person away from a speeding car. person fall on ground and got hurt. you have done wrong by harming person. comparatively, if you do nothing, and the person die from being hit by car. you would have done no wrong because you did not harm that person?

you killed hitler. you are wrong.

similarly, if you help others, it obviously "good" right? cue cronyism and nepotism = helping friends and family.

being intelligent doesnt automatically make one conscientious. But it does effect it. Wisdom effects one's conscience too. And animals arent capable to derive at the level of human in any of these categories.
Do you want to be civilised or uncivilised? do you wish to live in a civilised community or an uncivilised one? why?
all wrong. however plants and insects are less capable to even comprehend pain. I dont see things in black and white. I'm just wise enough to distinguish between them.
ofcoz not. The end result is more positive if u have to compare between being hurt and being killed.
Yes.
Only when its not a detriment to others.

----

This post has been edited by marsalee: Nov 13 2010, 09:40 PM

prove it. how do you test for conscience anyway? and is good/evil only applicable to beings with conscience?

depends on what you mean by civilized. i'm sure many would prefer "less civilized" rural lifestyle compared to the "more civilized" city lifestyle. but really, is a cannibalistic civilization less civilized than a crime infested, war-mongering nation?

so no pain = ok to harm/kill? i'll go around stabbing paralyzed ppl then. given that all life is equal, why is eating animals less right than eating plants? and eating other people that is not from your community even more wrong? you are judging people by your standard if you say cannibals are wrong. what gives you the right? are you really wise enough?

why is it right to hurt someone in 1st scenario, but not right to hurt someone in 2nd scenario? if anything, the amount of lives saved makes the 2nd scenario more "right"

relating to nepotism/cronyism - unless you can see the future, you cant really say your action is a "detriment" to others, as there is always the off chance your friend/relative might perform. and your actions is at the same time always a "detriment" to whoever you pushed out of the way to "help your friend/family"

---

Added on February 7, 2010, 12:59 ami prefer to believe in the great random number generator in the sky (aka luck)

but what is "good" and what is "evil"?

This post has been edited by lin00b: Feb 7 2010, 12:59 AM