What do you think? Everyone living based on Yin Yang , only the person who can strive between the Good and Evil side will thrive , see how successful ppl succeed in life.

Evil is all based on your perception,

even goodness too.

true enough. good or bad is based on the norm of the society. go with norm= good. against norm= bad.

that's why people from different society don't always agree with each other on some values.

about the ying yang thing and juggle between good and evil it all depends on how the society works.

flaw statement dude.....Perhaps u are talking about dualism??

---

Added on January 24, 2010, 4:54 pmAnd i could see what u wrote is nothing more than an observation....Knowledge based on observation is not really knowledge at all

This post has been edited by communist892003: Jan 24 2010, 04:54 PM

Both good and evil are defined by society, and then there further is a degree of good and evil. But unfortunately the irony is karma doesn't always work the way you want it to, and bad people get away with things.


Our political hoo-ha is a testament to that

harm others = bad

Whats so difficult to understand?

harm others = more people get saved. see the conflict? ur mind needs to see beyond wad ur eyes show u

Are u retarded? what has harming others gotta do with saving ppl?

Kill other 'useless eaters' so the remaining resources can be conserved and shared among more deserving and intelligent people.

ok that falls under the BAD category. So obvious.

Anything else?

Successful people, succeed in life?

What are you REALLY trying to ask?

Are you completely HONEST?

This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Jan 25 2010, 04:21 AM

how about utilitarian principle where some must be harmed for the good of the majority?

Just avoid the SEVEN DEADLY SINS and you'll be fine....trust me

Bad.

So all dead better than one dead?

in that case, lesser of 2 evil.

common sense.

He killed 100 people. I killed him before he kill 100 people. Bad or good?

----

This post has been edited by marsalee: Nov 13 2010, 09:24 PM

If you have to kill a person without his own permission, in order to save millions, for me that is still evil.

I agree but still it needs to depends on the situation

Do you sacrifice 100 or do u sacrifice 1.

Either way its still sacrifice, if there is no other way to save all, then pick lesser of 2 evil.

Here's a pop quiz for you: What if 100 ppl intend to kill 1 ppl. Which group shall we sacrifice?

This post has been edited by teongpeng: Feb 2 2010, 08:21 AM

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

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.

lin00b,

The GOLDEN RULE is RELATIVE.

Treat others like how YOU like to be TREATED. It is SUBJECTIVE. It is based on YOUR POV.

BTW, he may not be a Buddhist to begin with. Why would a Buddhist argue with anyone to begin with?? Enlightenment is WITHIN us. You cannot find it outside.

Dreamer

This post has been edited by dreamer101: Feb 9 2010, 09:37 AM

so someone who is willing to be killed is ok in killing others? among other things.

or someone might not be exactly truthful with himself/he may not know himself well. like a bully that goes "might is right" until he gets beaten up and change his POV. so is his new POV right? or is his old POV right?

either way, in reinforce the point that there is no good/evil.

i didnt even bring up buddhism or buddha. You did. Probably from my avatar...i get comments like i'm a zen master, a practitioner of yoga etc ever since i started using dhalsim's picture. lol.

---

Added on February 9, 2010, 12:53 pmFalse again.

Good = spreading postive energy/vibe
bad = spreading negative energy/vibe

It is very clear cut.

the example u gave shows that even a bully once ignorant, may eventually come to a realisation that he was wrong to cause harm. Such realisation can only be realised by an intelligent mind though. the ignorant ones will just come up with excuses eg. "yeah but that was different this is different blablabla".






This post has been edited by teongpeng: Feb 9 2010, 12:53 PM

Previously you stated "harm others=bad". Now you say it is the intention. That is contradictory in itself. Every example given involves someone harming someone else, which by your definition is bad. Yet, all you say is they are different. I sense it is time for you to join this group:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/realizing-yo...26.219233034..1

FYI, if you kill someone without intending to do so, it is still a crime. You get charged with manslaughter. Maybe you should read up first before making uninformed statements.

"Preferential differences" is subjectiveness. It is what I have been talking about all along. It applies here all the same. Good taste, bad taste. Good art, bad art. Good person, bad person. Good action, bad action. How are they any different? You think Robin Hood is Bad, I think Robin Hood is Good.

Happiness and sadness are emotions. Guilt and remorse are emotions too. Get it right, please.

I brought up the difference between affect and effect because I thought you might like to learn. Not to strengthen my argument. But, obviously, you are too wise for that. Too wise to learn. There's a term for that...ah, Smart Alec. (Oh and by the way, it is not a spelling mistake. It is a completely different word. But you are too wise to need to know that.)

Everything is a different category for you. They are all part of the discussion of Good and Bad.

You make unintelligent statements, I ask unintelligent questions. To clarify your meaning. Simple.

Your view on cannibalism is a perfect example of how your views are based on social conventions, not reasoning. It is bad because it is sick? Why is it sick? Don't bring out another adjective.

Yes, I know one event can have both good and bad. Which is my point all along. Does the good outweigh the bad to justify that action? Or does the bad outweigh the good so it should be prohibited? Is that not subjective? I am not aware of a fixed scale that exist to measure good and bad, and allows you to subtract one from the other.

So you are addressing each case individually? So then, you are retracting your earlier statement of "harm people=bad"?
If you are, good on you, and I have nothing else to say, as I was only arguing against that blanket statement of yours, which make it seem like every action is covered by a rule you invented, and there is no need for individual consideration.

But you can't differentiate affect from effect. So I am inclined to think that you are wrong and others are right.

Everything aside, not related, just curious, do you mind if I ask how old are you?

This post has been edited by thesupertramp: Feb 9 2010, 10:04 PM

Harming people is good, from my POV.

Helping people is bad, from my POV.

This makes me a evil or good ?

no it just make u stupid. I'll get to supertramps post tomoro....havent even read it yet.

---

Added on February 9, 2010, 11:18 pmYou are stupid. harming others is bad. the intention part is an expansion. It doesnt change nor contradict the original statement.
Not if its an accident. Manslaughter is only charged if you're guilty of drinking under influence of alchohol or sumthing like that..
Geeez. You should stop seeing things in either black or white. i've explained this before. In case of Robin Hood, it involves good and bad. Its bad to steal but its good to donate. Also, good and bad are not subjective. in terms of morality they are not subjective. In terms of harming others = bad, it is not subjective. They are only subjective to people incapable of having deeper insight. Good and bad isnt a matter of preferance. Like darkness and light...they are definite.
Happiness is the absent of negative emotions. Its a result. guilt and remorse are what causes sadness. See what i mean when i say u lack wisdom?
I already admit my english isnt very good. Now if u have to bring that up in a discussion like this, it shows u got nothing to say.
Good, now u are getting closer. However im not interested in subjective. Its not what i'm talking about. When i say robin hood is both good and bad i see thru both parts. A skill which u obviously lack.

And i did not say cannibalism is bad or good, unless it involves harming another. i said it is sick. You are running out of things to say if u have to nitpick that and use it to back up your lame accusation that i'm basing my entire argument on social convention. What can i say, try harder.
I'm not retracting my ealier statement as that is the basis for all scenarios that that were answered. I really dont think u understand that simple equation because until now, you have not come up with one scenario to refute it.

This post has been edited by teongpeng: Feb 9 2010, 11:24 PM

"Not if its an accident. Manslaughter is only charged if you're guilty of drinking under influence of alchohol or sumthing like that.."

no it isnt. you can be charged for manslaughter if you by your actions cause the death of another human.

from wikipedia

"Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.
The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill, a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing but with a wilful disregard for life.
Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter."

of course, being the wisest human in the world, you must know of this....

---

Added on February 10, 2010, 2:30 amdifferent people will feel differently (good/bad/neutral "vibe") about the same action due to their environment, culture, lifestyle, upbringing, etc. so how can one action be categorized as "good" or "bad" if different people feel differently about it?

you feel bad about cannibalism. which is not wrong. but the cannibals feel pretty darn good about it. who are you to get dictating your terms to them? its the same if some religion come and convert you by force, because that religion feel "good" to them and they decide you are "wrong".

my example is to show that people can change; and what is once good vibe (bullying people) may turn to bad vibe sue to certain events. or it may not. the bully may go "ok, i'm weaker than him, i accept that, time for me to train up so i can get my revenge!" in this case the bully's POV does not change.

This post has been edited by lin00b: Feb 10 2010, 02:30 AM

good people become evil to protect themselves, evil people become good when they feel that there is nothing more they can get from being evil.

----

This post has been edited by marsalee: Nov 13 2010, 09:37 PM

The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.

i think that it's evil not to invent a security measure that will avoid such thing in the first place

Good and evil is definitely perception.
The society sees an act as a norm, it is acceptable, therefore, not evil. If the society sees an act of goodness as the opposite, darn right it is not good.
Good and evil exist only on the conscience of an individual. If you know and ACCEPT that a particular act is evil, and yet you do it, you're committing an evil act. So do vice-versa.
The paradoxical dilemma only occurs when two culture, as in two societies with ultimately different in mentality, clash. Hitler thinks what he did was right, ethic cleansing, by religion, environment, education and acceptance of his society, therefore, to him and his society, he was not evil, but more of the opposite. The rest of the world thought differently. That proved that good and evil is, also, relative.

just my 20cent:
the idea of good & evil just a standard used by the society 2 judge themselves.
p/s: don yell @ me if 'm wrong........

This post has been edited by ErgoProxi: Mar 1 2012, 10:44 PM