So all dead better than one dead?

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?

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?

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.

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

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