Rights and wrongs...

D keeps trying to make people think. I disapprove.

Aww Shlup, did the big words make your head hurt? *pat*

Don't mock my pain. I will comfort myself with an Otter Pop.

Is this thread supposed to balance out my idiotic ones? :p

I remember when I used to enjoy these discussions. Now I just look at it at intellectual masturbation. My peen is already tired of my hand; I don't need my brain to go down the same route.

Wait, I didn't just say that, did I? Damn. >_<

As said "good" and "bad" are abstracts made to tell us what is what we should and should not do. But from my point of view, it all depends on circumstances and severity. I mean someone sounds like a monster when you say "He killed a guy," but when you add on "because he was fighting for his life," it takes on a whole new meaning. So yeah...all in all this is a tough question to answer in black and white terms.

I thinkt he fact that people are interested in discussing what makes us good and bad is a positive thing. As long as people are considering the ramifications of their acts, I think the tendency is toward the good. We're all flawed, but at least if we know it and try despite our failings, we'll be ok.

"All ideals corrupt, fanatic ideals corrupt fanatically."

What BoB said basically sums up what I think. I agree that some things are just WRONG and some things are definitely GOOD, but most things are in the middle and is up to the individual.

There are so many ways to answer this question, I'm not sure which would make the most sense. I'll just try to be brief.

Morality, is a term that I often have trouble grappling with since as so many have said it seems to be more or less relative to a person and an action. There are some acts that can be uniformly classified as "bad" and others "good" but yet there always seem to be exceptions mixed in there.

I think it depends on a given action whether someone's opinion of another's morality changes. If a "good" person kills another in cold blood, I would tend to think they would then be considered a "bad" person. If however, that person killed out of self-defense, that changes the equation altogether. Likewise with someone who is regarded as "bad" doing "good". There is no formula to figure out how many how many good deeds can negate a bad one, or how many bad negate good. Usually, it will depend on the situation, the people involved, the circumstances, the context and all the elements that contribute to our individual beliefs and wills.

I also want to agree entirely with what Eest posted.

Take care all.

I disagree with this idea of Universal "Bads."

Rape:

Rape is basic instint excercised by animals to reproduce.

Rape is justified by tradition/medicine. There's an instance in some primitive African Cultures where men are encouraged to be sexual with children, even babies, because they're ignorant to HIV and have a belief that children are born pure and undiseased and are therefor without risk. (A Kenyan friend informed me of this)

Murder:

Murder is justified though war. There are some "hippies" and "liberals" who of course oppose war, but the state, the law and the general mass populus support the soldier. A soldier must kill or be killed. It's a state of survival.

Murder is justified through criminal punishment. Some individuals and people are murdered in the jusitice system as punishment for their "heinous" acts.

Murder is justified through relief. In some contries people support Euthenasia, killing someone as a form of relieving them of their pain and suffering.

Murder is justified through the right to excercise free choice. Though it's debatable if feti are actually "alive." It is not debatable that some people are deeply against it because it is murder and yet freedom of choice and abortion is supported in several countries.

Murder is justified through necessity. Food. (not people but still murder)

Theft:

Theft is justified by naturalizing colonialization (as well as the post colonial effect) and corporations. We take from the land that is not initially our own and we make a profit off of materials that don't necessarily belong to anyone. For instance, England... has no land but has several buisness's mining and corporations overseas that were established since the Enlightenment period where they expanded their buisness borders to exploit the materials and people of other lands. The people are no longer ... as... exploited, but the land they claimed, the mining fields, the oil fields, the logging stations, the fertile land that they aquired during this period are still theirs despite the fact that they are on land outside of England. If England ever gave back these resources to the according country then England would be quite poor considering they have little - no land of their own to exploit.

Theft is justified through necesity. A person stealing food to survive. A Kidnapped soul stealing a knife to escape. A cop stealing ... (appropriating) a vehicle to take chase of an individual. A cop stealing alcohol, drugs, money from convicted criminals & underage individuals because they've been given the right to steal these items as a response to justice.

Theft is justified by the state. The governemnt it selfs steals information on you. Corporations steal information about you. Taxes.

Lieing

Lieing is justified by the Media. Censorship, they choose what facts and information about a specific tragedy you see, not only that but they choose how you see it. Which in as sense condones all media as liars because you will never be shown an incident as it originally happens or happened. You will see altered tidbits, highlights, pictures accompanied by quotes, news captions and reports.

Lieing is justified by Corporations and The Government, to keep the general populs regulated. Corporations use surreal images and subconcious messages that are lies dressed as life in order to encourage us to consume their product. The Government keeps information from us or only gives us pieces of information concerning several topics in order to maintain civil peace, civil obedience or simply to keep us ignorant.

Lieing is justified by tradtion, folklore, stories and cultures. Lies about Santa Clause which are of course not harmful... but still lies. The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny, Ghosts, Ghouls, Witchs. (Some of you may argue that these are real.) Harmful fun.

Lies are justified by entertainment. Movies, Plays, Poetry, Novels, Paintings, Games. None of it's real, so they must all be lies. Lies used to entertain us. It's all actors lieing or rather, acting, in a fake scenary and forging accounts. Some of these may represent real occurance or real people but the words aren't reality, they're script and the people aren't the real people, they're phonies.

Lies are justified by Religion. Alright, this one is debatable. But if there are so many different religions... then all but the "right" one must be lieing. And if this is not the case, then all of them are lieing. The use of stories, metaphors, allegories. Concepts of characters. Of great powers and great events. This may just be entertainment applied to a following in order to give the religion more appeal and to empassion the sluggish follower who is emotionally stumped.


My point is, that any action can be justified. The only matter is who is justifying it and why. We're regulated. We're kept in state where concepts are naturalized and given exceptions. Essentially we are told what is Good and what is Bad as a way to achieve these goals of regulation.

But if I say killing a random man on the street is justified. It's what is right. Then who is to tell me it is wrong? These people who do all of the above anyways? By acting on that, by saying that it's right I'm stepping out of their boundries they have pre-established for me. I'm thinking for myself. Otherwise I'm following a guideline of concepts and rules disguised as Universal.

However, it's always been that people who think and move outside of the norm never go without punishment.

Early Christians, Heretics, Feminists, Black People, The Nazis, Criminals, Environmental Activists, Peace Keepers, Womans Rights Activists, (Activists in General), Mutaneers, Slaves, Poachers, IRA, KKK, Early Colonists, Prodestants, First Nations. The list is endless.

In th end, there are no rights and there are no wrongs they're are only indivudal actions a person can take to better their own lives which may include following socially acceptable norms.

'Murder' is generally defined as killing without lawful excuse. Same goes for theft and many other crimes, where the qualifier is that those things must be done for a certain reason, if they're to be legal... so the underlying 'act' is still wrong - i.e. killing, stealing, causing some kind of harm to another person - but there are limited circumstances, differing from culture to culture, where it can sometimes be 'right' to do it.

But anyhow... with regard to the original topic, I was thinking of something like this: Suppose someone's got a 'character flaw' - they're greedy, or vain, or arrogant or obnoxious. Does this mean they're not a 'good person'? Suppose someone's environmentally conscious, or is generous to their friends, or does something else that's widely regarded as 'good', yet has one or more of those 'flaws' as well...
Never mind, it's all up to shades of degree and individual perception. I basically agree with everything eest and The Captain said.

Well...start with the fact that everyone has a flaw in some form or another. ie//I am endlessly stubborn. Does that make me "bad?" I don't think so.

Concerning murder, all cultures condemn murder. It's the interpretation that allows them to justify the action in war, capital punishment, etc. It no longer becomes murder, but something else.

All I know is that it is bad to use a riding mower after taking cold medicine. Just don't do it, people.

1+1=Apple. Think about it. There is some sort of awesome truth in these words.