195 replies to this topic

[icepyroX]

thereisnosaurus: I apologize for several reasons. For one, I misunderstood your representation completely. This is rather obvious and thus threw off everything I had to say. For two, as I mentioned, I had literally been working on trying to make my point for over a day during breaks at work because the company is going through major additions and changes. As such, this is not a request to overlook my poor logic, but rather I just wanted it known that my reply was far from fairly thought out and proofread with each break from typing it got further offtopic and illogical.

As such, I will not sit here and argue this at this time, but you can be fairly sure I'll resurrect the topic when I have proper time for a proper discussion and that is not this week (maybe even a couple weeks) unless I see something obvious I can comment on in the 5 mins here and there I get to do so.

[thereisnosaurus]

Thank you! The greatest gulf that we must leap is the gulf between each other's assumptions and conceptions. To argue fairly, we must reach consensus on the meanings and values of basic principles. If I failed to do that, it is my error, not yours, so thanks for your time in trying to debate an impossible topic

[The Phoenixian]

The greatest gulf that we must leap is the gulf between each other's assumptions and conceptions. To argue fairly, we must reach consensus on the meanings and values of basic principles.

I've been following this topic for some time and while I have yet to come across a point where I can enter it, I would like to say that I find that to be an excellent thought and as such, have sigquoted it.

*Returns to lurking*

[Aeg'air]

More to the point, an evil government will easily make tough decisions. Making difficult choices does not need to be easy; it only needs to be prompt. A government that doesn't look for other options is a failure.

Ermmm... I can't see your point here.

"Good" does not mean "Pacifist", nor does it mean "Loner".

Morally speaking from my stand point a 'good' governent would be pacifistic and even if it wasn't it would rather talk out it's problems and so be cut down where it's standing.

Innocence is not a prerequisite of good. Far from it - in order to truly be good innocence must be abandoned. It's a hard line to follow, but you can hunt monsters without becoming one.

I disagree with you here, by my definition of 'good' you can not be uninnocent and good as innocence is the essence or goodness.

What the majority wants changes over time. Five years ago the majority wanted the government to make them feel safe. Today, the majority wants the government to cut back on smothering them and stop screwing the pooch.

Which Governemnt and which country are you on about because by my opinion this is about as correct as a triangle made entirely out of right angles.

[Arala]

As much as that would be nice, it is an equally illogical attitude. I might tentatively suggest that, if what I am saying doesn't add up, but you can't put your finger on why, it might, just might, be because there is nowhere to put your finger, but that admitting that involves having to rethink what you believe in.

I don't put these huge arguments and intricate situations down because I just love being complicated and arcane. I do it because it's necessary to lock down every logical gateway you have and give you a simple choice- think or believe.

If you choose the former, it will take time and effort, and you'll end up a different person in the long run, but probably a happier and less conflicted one.

If you choose the latter, I can accept that, I can never force you to change what you believe in. But you cannot expect me to accept what you say in a debate on what we should expect of other people, because when it comes to anyone but ourselves, the only thing we can base our judgment on is reason.

The agree to disagree compromise is not one that works in the long term, at least, not in this situation- only when the evidence is very much 50/50 and the only variables we can call are personal is it a legitimate compromise.

Well honestly, I don't think the internet is the best place for higher level discussions. If we were to meet in person, I would love to thoroughly debate this with you. But if I can't analyze your argument completely accurately, it's because as I skim through your rather long posts, I'm also trying to participate in about eight different threads on this site, and reading through a number of things on others. (Not that anything is wrong with your posts, the length just makes it difficult to get everything from them while I'm doing so many other things.) So while I would never do so face to face, I will again offer to agree to disagree. You can continue arguing anyway if you'd like, but I won't be responding after this.

[DaveK]

I would have thught that to be truly good you would have to have the choice, in full understanding, to not be good. The way I see it, those who are innocent have not yet made that choice, and so are quite possibly only good because they don't know any other way.

[Aeg'air]

I would have thught that to be truly good you would have to have the choice, in full understanding, to not be good. The way I see it, those who are innocent have not yet made that choice, and so are quite possibly only good because they don't know any other way.

But that's the essence of goodness I'm getting at... This world is full of shadows and darkness, the only way to be the light is to now know of the dark.

[Knight of the new moon]

But that's the essence of goodness I'm getting at... This world is full of shadows and darkness, the only way to be the light is to now know of the dark.

I have to disagree. If you only do good because you do not know that there is any other way then, your actions are completely empty. Making the choice to do good, even when it is far from the easiest option, is where the real essence of "goodness" lies; just as the opposite holds true for evil.

[Aeg'air]

I have to disagree. If you only do good because you do not know that there is any other way then, your actions are completely empty. Making the choice to do good, even when it is far from the easiest option, is where the real essence of "goodness" lies; just as the opposite holds true for evil.

That's just doing the right thing... a truly good thing wouldn't know any better.

[Pippi]

That's just doing the right thing... a truly good thing wouldn't know any better.

How would this person know how to do anything then? And who would define what "good" is?

[Knight of the new moon]

That's just doing the right thing... a truly good thing wouldn't know any better.

I'm sorry but that concept is just absolutely ridiculous. What is your logic behind this idea that the only way to be good is to be ignorant of evil?

[thereisnosaurus]

Good and evil is a pretty simple one to solve. Dawkins did it pretty well in the selfish gene by exploring the concept of iterated games of prisoner's dilemma, using the studies of David Axelrod.


Essentially, the essence of being a strong 'good' morality system- one that accepts or tolerates anything which does not outright harm it, and uses the minimal amount of negative force needed to ensure it is not taken advantage of or betrayed- is portrayed in the iterated program '[censored] for tat'

it works like this- in the first round of the game, you always cooperate. From then on, you mimic what the opposing player did last round- if they screw you, next round you screw them. If they are nice to you, next round you be nice to them.

Out of all the proposed morality systems- including 'be nice all the time' or 'be selfish all the time' or 'be nice until someone [censored] you up and then don't trust them ever again'- [censored] for tat won, convincingly, overall

For those of you unschooled in logic, the implications of that are startling.

You don't have to be nice and forgiving because that's a moral thing to do. You can be nice and forgiving because statistically, that is the most effective stance to take if you want to get as much selfish gain over your lifetime as possible

This is why I love Jesus, the man was an utter genius. He came up with this stuff about 18 centuries before anyone actually had the brains to be able to explain it properly. EVERYTHING Jesus can be reliably assumed said (says in multiple gospels etc.) and that cannot be easily explained due to social and political climates at the time, makes a level of mathematical, scientific and sociological sense that people are only now beginning to prove. The guy was unbelievable. No wonder his teachings spread so fast, because everything he said made absolute sense on a deep level, god or no god. If anything he was the greatest proponent of secular morality we have ever had.

So, it's pretty simple- Never, ever knowingly screw someone over unless you are certain they have screwed you over knowingly immediately beforehand. You are then entitled to retaliate with the minimum amount of vehemence needed to level the score (if you don't, others will be exploited in the same way, so you cannot be moral and apathetic), but the moment they make moves to be conciliatory or back down, you back down as well, if you've caused them some penalty or problems in return.

Not only is that absolutely admirable as a moral system, it is shown to work astonishingly well as a logical system. Even good and evil are pretty easy to work with if you bother thinking about it for any length of time

Well honestly, I don't think the internet is the best place for higher level discussions. If we were to meet in person, I would love to thoroughly debate this with you. But if I can't analyze your argument completely accurately, it's because as I skim through your rather long posts, I'm also trying to participate in about eight different threads on this site, and reading through a number of things on others. (Not that anything is wrong with your posts, the length just makes it difficult to get everything from them while I'm doing so many other things.) So while I would never do so face to face, I will again offer to agree to disagree. You can continue arguing anyway if you'd like, but I won't be responding after this.

That's better. Thanks for reading what you have, and may we meet in order to rip this stuff someday over a cup of tea perhaps


Edit: holy heck, this thing autocensors t i t. WTF. W. T. F. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SMALL BIRDS WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. *storms off*

[Aeg'air]

How would this person know how to do anything then? And who would define what "good" is?

We each have our own definitions of 'good' and 'bad'. Mine just happen to not be synomous with light and dark. And that's why by my reasoning there is noone who is 'good'.

I'm sorry but that concept is just absolutely ridiculous. What is your logic behind this idea that the only way to be good is to be ignorant of evil?

If you knew what evil is then you must have been involved with it and in order to be involved with evil you can not be 'good'. And yes I am talking in extremes.

[Pippi]

We each have our own definitions of 'good' and 'bad'. Mine just happen to not be synomous with light and dark. And that's why by my reasoning there is noone who is 'good'.[/quote]

I promise I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't really know of anyone who defines "good" and "bad" with "light" and "dark". I gather from your other posts that your definitions of "good" and "bad/evil" are centered around the level of experience one has, and that once you have experienced "evil", you can no longer be "good"? By definition the very knowledge of the existence of "evil" irrevocably taints a person, rendering them "less good"?

[Aeg'air]

We each have our own definitions of 'good' and 'bad'. Mine just happen to not be synomous with light and dark. And that's why by my reasoning there is noone who is 'good'.

I promise I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I don't really know of anyone who defines "good" and "bad" with "light" and "dark". I gather from your other posts that your definitions of "good" and "bad/evil" are centered around the level of experience one has, and that once you have experienced "evil", you can no longer be "good"? By definition the very knowledge of the existence of "evil" irrevocably taints a person, rendering them "less good"?

In the cases of extremism then yes. But just not being good and not being bad/evil doesn't make you the other... No human can be good or bad in the extremist case because of the ways humanity lives yet you can class people as being light or dark... Though in some cases you can't class certain people in either even if they are 'badder' or 'gooder' than what most people expect as a 'gooder' person can still be of a dark nature.

[Knight of the new moon]

If you knew what evil is then you must have been involved with it and in order to be involved with evil you can not be 'good'. And yes I am talking in extremes.

You seem to have the same simplistic childish view on good and evil as the man in your avatar. You don't need to be involved with evil to know what it is. Using that logic then anyone who knows about Jewish Mysticism must BE a Jewish Mystic. You can't just think in black and white like that, because it leaves an entire ocean of shades of gray out of your reach, and inside that ocean is where our whole world lies.

[thereisnosaurus]

@ Aeg'air: Nice as it would be, unfortunately your premises don't work. The notion of good only exists so long as there is a notion of evil- you define 'good' by saying 'not evil', just as you define evil by saying it is 'not good'. Without one, the other ceases to become definable, in the moral sense anyway.

So, someone who has no notion, comprehension or understanding of evil CANNOT be good. It's not even a 'they can't be really good' or 'they can't be properly good'. Good, for them, does not exist just as evil does not exist. There is nothing they can do to be good.

WE can call them good, but they *are* not good. If we were not there, they would cease to be good, so the choice of attributing goodness or evilness lies solely within us, not them

I do agree with you, however, that good and evil are hopelessly outdated concepts which I use only because people seem to like them since they seem to make things simpler than they have any right to be. The consequences of attributing good and evil have, sadly, been predominantly evil.

[krid]

Ermmm... I can't see your point here.

Tough choices aren't supposed to be easy. Failing to consider the possible options is willfully negligent.

Now, if you had intended to speak of situations where the best solution is unpleasant, that's a different issue. Still, a 'good' government is not forbidden from making unpleasant choices.

Morally speaking from my stand point a 'good' governent would be pacifistic and even if it wasn't it would rather talk out it's problems and so be cut down where it's standing.

Bullshit.
In order for a government to be 'good', it must always act in the best interests of its people and the world at large. Being pacifistic endangers both the nation and its allies, and thus fails to act in the best interests of the people.

You know that line? "All that is needed for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing"? Yea, that applies here.

I disagree with you here, by my definition of 'good' you can not be uninnocent and good as innocence is the essence or goodness.

Ignorance means a lack of understanding, leading to moral ambiguity. A person who is innocent can no more be good or evil than an inanimate object.
Being good requires that something have internalized the society's system of morals and consider it while making decisions.

Further, a government that doesn't know of evil can't protect its citizens from it, thus it would be failing to act in the best interests of the people.

Which Governemnt and which country are you on about because by my opinion this is about as correct as a triangle made entirely out of right angles.

United States of America.
For a period of time after 09/11/2001 the government was given carte blanch to pass whatever laws it so desired with almost no public opposition, including quite a few serious intrusions on civil rights. Further, government actions which were in blatant violation of the law were considered acceptable by most citizens.

However that period has been waning, and now citizens are no longer in favor of such acts and laws. In fact, in the past few years there has been a noticeable and strengthening backlash.

[MidorLune]

Including quite a few serious intrusions on civil rights.

Name them.

[thereisnosaurus]

I would hazard the right to a trial by jury and to not be detained without all attempts being made to arrive at this as the main one. Admittedly, most of the people who got gulagged weren't American citizens, so a nitpicker could argue they had no civil rights, but some were, and were denied them.