guilt, remorse, sympathy etc. And yes, good evil can are only applicable to beings with conscience.
We are not talking about technological advancements here obviously. By civilisation in context of this discussion, we are referring to spiritual growth and awareness.
Stabbing paralysed ppl means u have to take life away. Something that was once alife is now no more because of your act.

Animals and plants are not equal.

And i dont think you are serious when u question wether its right or wrong to cannibalise another.

And yes, i do consider myself to have superior judgement compare to most.
You do not save someone by killing another unless he volunteered.
If your actions bring grief and harm to others, it is bad. Understand this, if u have to take money from another to help your family, its bad. If you have to choose between hiring a member of your family and a stranger, you may choose to hire your family because then you are forced to pick. You pick the decision that serves more harm than good. Really common sense stuff. However a really noble person will find a way to make as many ppl happy as possible and bring as less misery as possible to those around him.

Wholesome behaviour is good. Actions that brings positive energy is good. The opposite is not good.

And that is what we humans defined being good as. Good would probably be defined as that nice little feeling you get when you see others having the same nice little feeling because of something (good) you did for them


..and bad would be watching others have the not-so-nice little feeling. lulz.

yeah right, robbers, mat rempits, rapist ,snatchers are no evil ? it's just your perception ??

Unfortunately it is, that is why we have intelligence. To a cat, mouse, or a rock, its just something that happens. To society, its evil of course, but to the offenders themselves its just something they do to make a living. Seriously, I can teach children or anyone for that matter to perceive anything evil as something good and vice versa. Its all go to do with the human brain.

yeah right, killing animals, clearing forest, producing megatons of waste/day is not evil? its just your perception?

whats so evil about robbers, thieves, and snatchers? gotta make a living to survive right?

rapist is another level, cause plenty of psychology and mental state factor have to consider.

---

Added on February 7, 2010, 7:10 pmand if some intelligent beings does not feel guilt remorse sympathy at those actions? or feel guilt sympathy remorse at an entire different set of actions that you dont share the same feeling; for example, he feel guilt at having to kill animals/plants to eat. is he evil?

or if there is another intelligent non human race (say, aliens, etc) that feed on human as food, but they are intelligent. are they evil? if cows are intelligent, are you evil by eating them? how about plants?

so how can you show cannibals are less spiritual and aware than city dwellers? but 1st answer this too, is a warmongering high crime society a civilization?

no it isnt, i can always go around stabbing half paralysed ppl in the leg, then stopping the bleeding, and repeat ad nauseum. sick yes, but i can find it entertaining, etc.

sure they are not. its a sliding scale on their "important" and "value" to us. humans are at 1 end, bacteria is at the other. what give you the right to set a point where killing is ok?

consider, A want to kill B. A will not stop unless he is dead. do you kill A to save B, or do nothing and watch B die? which is good? or evil? whats the basis?

is it really wrong to help a family member who you have emotional bond for many years as compared to a stranger who you share no ties with? and what divine rules did you use to make such a judgment?

what is this wholesome behavior you speak of? and what pseudoscience is "positive" energy? can i measure it? can i use it to power my laptop?

This post has been edited by lin00b: Feb 7 2010, 07:10 PM

But either way you will be harming one and saving another.
You do not see the connection of that example because you fail to realise the subjectivity in Good and Bad.

How do you decide if an Art is Good or Bad? Why do some like one but not the other.
Why do some people say Durian is the best thing ever, but some abhor it?

Subjective point of view. You just don't see it, and probably never will.

Judges judge based on evidence. But are evidences always concrete? Is an eyewitness's account always reliable? Does the knife with blood prove conclusively one or the other? If right and wrong is as simple as you think it is, there is no need for court. Do it at the mamak store. Takes 30secs, why spent year and millions is legal fees?

The basis of those decisions should be reasoning, not social conventions.

Your idea of Good and Bad is based entirely on the latter, and none of the former.

My dog demonstrates guilt, remorse, sympathy, happiness, sadness and many more all the time.
Animals do have conscience and do make conscious decisions. You should read more. Darwin's books are a good start.
If we factor ignorance into intelligence, you might not be far ahead of some animals in that department.

"affect", not "effect".

What someone wants, does not equal to what is better.

"Only when it is not a detriment to others?"
So why is robbing Bill Gates off $1000 wrong? No harm done to him. Probably wouldn't know it's gone.

And how, exactly, does one measure spiritual growth? And by awareness, do you mean that you, who don't know the name of your neighbour who lives down the street, is more backward than the South American tribes who live in the jungle but know everyone in their community by name?

What if the cannibalism is towards an already dead human, which you did not kill?

Now comes the hypocrisy. If you take $1000 from Bill Gates and help an entire village get through the famine, which saved 1000 lives in your village, you are NOBLE, but you are still bad?
So we shouldn't do that? We should just sit and watch 1000 people die? Bill Gates really won't feel the pinch, you know?
Maybe your conscience is more civilised, but mine would not let me sit and watch that 1000 people die and not steal $1000 from Bill Gates. Robin Hood is a hero. So is Omar Little.

You contradict yourself. Superior judgment? It seems to me that you are merely following social conventions and not thinking for yourself. If you do, you would not have stated blanket statements such as "harm others= bad." You would have judged each situation individually. Since the Age of Enlightenment, judgments have been made based on reasoning. You agreed that intentions are important. Let me remind you intentions are derived from reasoning. Seeing as how you reject to reasoning, how do you determine one's intentions?

And tell me, do you object to the Death Penalty or to Prison Sentences?

Ah, so that was what 42 meant when the question to Life, the Universe and Everything was asked.

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Feb 7 2010, 08:26 PM

What if human spirits are entrapped in this physical which forever in physical there's a war between good and evil.

The war of Good and Evil , has left us between on choosing sides, by choosing sides we are still entrapped within, hence Karma will be there again and again till we realized the truth.

The aliens of the Goodness who created us and mould us from clay then trapped us into this physical world, BUT there is another INFINITE GRAND architect of Universe who created the Goodness and Evil...he is the Infinite Energy, just like us...the spirit.

cool story bro; can sell to the next fantasy fiction writer for big bucks. "eternal struggle between the forces of good and evil" lol.

if doing good gives you a positive feeling, why would people want to do evil? i mean, everyone wants to be the hero right? who wants to be the villian of the story?

I dont know if he is evil. But the act is. To consciously cause harm to another out of ill will is evil.
Depending on degree. Less evil or more evil.
I'm not here to teach what constitute a civilisation. But yes, warmongering involves killing and that is bad. Isnt that obvious?
Yup, thats sick. You answered it yourself. Now tell me, is being sick a good thing?
I dont set points. I already told you. its all a matter of degree. Less of 2 evils. Try to remember what u read please, else we're going in circles.
We save B. But we do not necessarily have to kill A or even cause him harm if it can be avoided. If killing A is unavoidable, then its different. There are 2 parts to the action. Saving B is good, killing A is bad. Good and bad is independant of the other.
Since when did i say its wrong to help a family member? I said help, but without causing harm to the other.
Now you're going out of context.

It is the intention. The will to cause harm that counts. Thats why accidents are not crime. The subjectivity of exam grades preferance cannot be taken in context of a good vs evil debate, because that anology is more suitable for preferancial arguments. Eg, is this orange sweet? Totally different.
Preferential differences are not what we're talking about here.
I see more than you think...if u follow this thread, i think thats pretty obvious.

your point?

All along i'm talking about reasoning and not social convention, and here u are accusing me of talking about the latter.

happiness and sadness are results. Animals do not feel guilt and sympathy. Get real please.

And no, the ignorance of animals compare to human intelligence is a matter of capability. They just dont have the capability to reach human realisations. C'mon mannnnnn.
Haha, sorry my english not so good. But please dont bring things like spelling mistake into a discussion.
duh.
Stealing is bad. Thats another category of argument altogether. But the concept is the same, what someone used to have is now no more due to your action.

And i dont know how to measure spiritual awareness. And also no...i do not wish to discuss semantics, this is phd section...one would expect ppl to atleast ask some intelligent questions. sheesh.

Thats just sick. As linoob pointed out above.
Good and bad exist independant of the other. Stealing is bad, giving the goods away to save ppl is good. Yes, one action DOES constitute both.

I did address each situation differently. Incase you havent notice, i've been answering posts here on different cases. And when did i ever reject reasoning. It is the short sighted reasonings that fail to see the whole issue that i had corrected.

teongpeng,

http://crime.about.com/od/serial/a/psychopaths.htm

http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforce...-serial-killers

<<They are incapable of normal emotions such as love, generally react without considering the consequences of their actions and show extreme egocentric and narcissistic behavior.>>

Given that serial killers are generally psychopaths and they are incapable of NORMAL EMOTION, so do you consider that as INTENTION or WILL to harm people?? Or, they should TREATED as dangerous animal or sick animal?? Hence, they are NOT evil?? Or, they are evils??

Dreamer

The intention/will to harm is still there. thus its bad.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: Feb 8 2010, 12:25 AM

----

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

lets try to recap and see if i got where you are standing;

in your point of view,
1. any action caused by an intention to harm is evil.
2. to cause hurt or death to others is evil.

to which there are numerous examples given where acts under point 1 or 2 or both is not considered evil by certain individual/society. in response to which you basically say "they are wrong, i am right." what gives you the ability to say what others think are wrong? this is bordering on religious dogma. the fact that there are people who disagree with your definition of good/evil shows that it is a relative thing.

1. A harm/kill B to save C from being killed by B
2. euthanasia, bone setting (cause pain right?), parent denying child of certain wants (cause emotional stress in child)
3. human sacrifice; cannibalism (both done at the point of view of the doer as a "necessity to survive")
4. mass clearing of jungle and natural habitat for housing and industry
5. steal from rich give to poor (robin hood, zorro, et al)
6. glorious leaders of golden civilization (shih huang di, julius ceasar, genghis khan, george washington, etc) that caused many death but bring forth great advancement in human history

oh and there is nothing showing nepotism/cronyism causing any harm to others, yet it is generally viewed as a bad thing.

so i feel that "good" and "evil" is a very political term. a more accurate description of living being behavior would be selfish/selfless.

not everyone is as wise as me says it all.
all of them involve both good and bad cocooned in one intention. The more noble a man is, the less badness he will include in his actions. Saying u are killing for the sake of your country does not abscond u from the act of killing itself.
the act of bribery for instance is a win-win situation. When the situation occurs as a one off, there is nothing wrong. However bear in mind, this one off thing has future consequences. Greed is generated. Unlawful behaviours has loophole to grow. Left uncheck the consequences derived from bribery has far reaching negative potential to snowball. You're a malaysian. You know what i mean.
And like i said, being selfless/selfish is an alternative way to look at morality, in another context. It is by no means more accurate compared to the simple philosophy of not harming others.

Some people are inclined to do things others don't. For them, I guess they get the positive feeling from doing bad unto others? It doesn't make sense to us, but its normal for them.

well, i'm done here then. there's no point in debate with buddha-incarnate here....

ok then. have a good day.

lin00b,

Come on.. Buddha does not believe in absolute morality. I am a Zen Buddhist.

Absolute morality only exist in Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christian-ism, and Islam.

Dreamer

some would say the golden rule is the absolute judge of right wrong in buddhism. see teongpeng.