unforum

[THe_Smakus]

Very good points all around. I must state my deep regret for not being able to post as much as i would've liked over the last few days.

Now, onto the meat of my post:
The consensus of our collective civilization is what determines what is and is not correct human behavior. There may be, and most likely always will be those that rebel to established laws and practices, but most of us understand and obey what we know to be right.
As social animals, we the people have -through the ages- banded together in common societies in order to protect ourselves. The protections that being a part of a larger group provides are multitudinous. With established monetary brackets, provisions for physical security, and even national pride and other factors as rewards for belonging to groups, it's not surprising that this is a core behavior for our species.
These organizational groups have thusly become complicated organisms all their own. Most people ascribe to being a part of many different communities: whether they be city/municipal, statewide, or federal governments; religions, and organizations within a greater religious organization; a neighborhood watch; or even your own voting region. The prime glue that cements groups of people together through extenuating circumstances is that there's a codified way that group members are to interact with one another, as well as non-group members.

In America, this pertains to the domestic and foreign policy making practices of our federal government. It's illegal to kill another American citizen. It's illegal to steal, or commit sexual congress with minors, or jaywalk. There's an order of magnitude of crimes, and a punitary system that adjusts accordingly. There's also a similar set of rules determining or government's allowed behaviors towards other countries. -_- Sadly though, many of those very same rules are being broken, and no public figures are being held accountable. This shows that there is error in the system, but i digress.

The one factor that makes the laws of our groups so important (or consequently, unimportant) to each and every one of us is that each of us has a set of laws in our minds, in our hearts. We follow these, our laws, to the best of our ability as well. This is the positive, proactive, and law-abiding aspect of the human personality. There's also a less proactive, less law-abiding aspect to our personality. It's the scolded child in us that wonders: "Why can't i just take what i want, when i want to?" It's the curiosity in our hearts that likes to press the envelope, and see what we can get away with, without getting caught/punished.

There are some though, who haven't had the life experiences necessary to write for themselves a code of behavior that fits closely with what society accepts. Hitler, Napoleon, Genghis Khan... there's an endless list. These people had not only a different concept of "good and evil' than most, but also the ambition to create a society that conforms to their rules, rather then them conforming to any preexisting society.

Anyone can have a "wrong" view of "right and wrong." Whether they become a dictator/despot or a convict relies primarily upon how strongly the moral consensus of the world around them is ready to resist their desire to impose their own worldview unto others. If one is unable to define an acceptable concept of good and evil, then they must be restrained from acting on their own volition, for the good of greater society.

But such a course of action begs the question, when does a society stop acting for the good of its members, when it doesn't allow its members to think for themselves?
(And yes, i know i'm a horrible person for ending nearly every post in a self-contradictory question, but that's the burden of imposing one's own opinion on others: one must be ready to question one's own logic, and be prepared for the insightful answers of those that listen.)

[Nightmare Tony]

And as an interesting aside, even in the set criminal examples you mentioned, in different ages and societies, those would be viewed as not necessarily criminal but as a necessary part of society. It really depends on the society as a whole. Some of the moral behaviors exhibited within the storyline we are being presented with are from FUTURE societies; who knows how they compare to today's age of morality?

As quoted within Larry Niven and Steve Barne's book Dream Park; "One must always learn religious and moral laws in all places and times." (ok, its a paraphrase, but you get the idea...)

[THe_Smakus]

One of my favorite quotes if from a rather obscure online author whose name i can't at the moment credibly link (yes this annoys me to no end)
"To the enlightened mind, there is no offence, only information of greater or lesser value."

In my worldview, this also applies to the endless concepts of evil. If i choose to victimize myself over the "evil" actions that have been perpetrated unto me, then i place myself in a position in which i'm unable to learn from the experience, and take something positive away from it. I don't live in a world of opposites: everyone has actions and intentions, and i can choose to benefit from those which affect me... or i can choose not to benefit. Obviously, the greatest benefit someone can have is by allowing/helping me to learn something new about myself or about the world around me.

For example, i'll relate to the bullies who made my life a living hell (even though i no longer believe in Hell) in Jr. High School. Perhaps it's a petty example at first glance, but it illustrates my point. I hated them back then, and though i wished i were morally superior to them, i also resorted to the acts of bullying those weaker than me. I did this to vent anger and rage i felt at others, and i also did it because those were dark/unhappy times for me. I no longer view the "necessity of the moment" as a viable justification for the horrible things i've done, but i don't regret doing them for many reasons. 1) I cannot change the past, so instead of obsessing about it, i must do my best to learn what i can from those past lessons and move on. 2) It lets me empathize with the Bullies i would otherwise still have negative feelings for; perhaps my justifications were not their own, but i stooped to the same level as they, and can no longer look down upon them. I understand them better, and am able to better come to grips with the things that happened to me. 3) I also can feel empathy for the abused, for I was both the victim and the victimizer, though in different circumstances. This helped me gain a better perspective on the situation as a whole.

Most people wouldn't take such an in-depth look at the seemingly minor events in their distant pasts, but events precisely like these can be what compose a person's greater worldview. Seemingly insignificant occurrences, especially ones that pertain to moral decisions, can change a person's view of right and wrong. My analysis of my past decisions have revealed to me, not that i've made mistakes, but only instances in which i could have been more right. This helps me shape my decision forming process, so that i can make the "most right" choice of the moment (as i perceive it) in every moment of my everyday life. My concept of right and wrong, as it were, isn't right and wrong at all. It's simply right, and more right. The true challenge for me is learning/understanding/perceiving just how right the world is for my own mental and spiritual growth. Taking something positive away from every situation is harder than it sounds.

[Edit] Congratulations Tony! It seems that even if for different intentions, we've both been able to acheive the same, prosperous ends. From my heart i say this: bravo. [/edit]

[Nightmare Tony]

More or less recently, was finally able to get over the pain of a bullying bunch, a website group with a charismatic leader. I broke away because I did not like my friends being systematically destroyed by this bunch out of the simple jealousy fact that one of my friends makes regular TV appearances in a field of expertise that this bunch wishes they could appear on that for (an d iironically, the news media knows this bunch as the type to stay away from fr spouting off on self deluded fictions in the media, which embarassed one too many news reps).

Anyhoo, the important thinmg, life has held much more blessings after finally getting over the tactics and simply ignoring them. They are still stuck in an endless rutt with flame wars and repeated bashing of those they envy. And ironically, lrthe new blessing include some of the very things that they strive with all their might for, such as media coverage, or in my own case, an upcoming major film.

A friend had counseled me to avoid doing their tactics which I was sucessful in that. The trick was ato avoid wasting time and stress on these types because while one can advance, those types will only hold you back from your own true destiny in life.

[Kagehi Kossori]

Re: Evil

[Phaedra]

Re: Evil

[rose]

evil

[Hyacinthe]

wow

[thebruce]

Ok, after reading Phaedra's last post, I too feel that this is getting way off topic, but I already wrote up my response here... I'd suggest that if there's a disagreement, PM the user(s) in question, and let's keep the thread on topic...

Re: Good vs Evil, once again...

We group for comfort with people of similar beliefs and convictions. the line is drawn by the general consensus within a group. If there's enough disagreement, another group is formed. If there can be no line drawn between good and evil, our groups will continue to break until we are left to each his own. By splitting into groups, even countries, we are already acknowledging that in this world, lines cannot be drawn by we humans. Total freedom and safety can only be found in a united world, a united humanity, and with that can come only one set of lines that separate good and evil.

But, you may say, if we as countries can learn to live with each other and respect each other, then we can have unity! Alas, I respond, can you guarantee that NO country will EVER have extremists who hate another country's ways? If so, would you not wish to separate those people from your own country in order to allow your country to live in piece? Are you not then creating another group of people - your country which believes something and agrees to live in harmony with other countries - and this new 'outcast' group who believes the same thing as you, but does not want to live in harmony with those who disagree? Are these not the 'terrorists' of today? Did many Islam believers not outwardly state that those terrorists fighting for Islam against the west were not setting the true example of the harmony Islam is intended to bring?

If those specs are true, then there can never be true harmony or freedom in this world. There can never be a guarantee that the lines drawn from country to country will be fully adhered to, with no discord between differing belief systems. No matter how much you fight for the freedom to set your own laws and 'rights and wrongs', or 'good and evil', humanity will never be united with every human respecting each other's beliefs. It cannot happen.

So we come down to a decision of all or nothing. There is no in between. The ultimate destiny of any 'in-between' worldview is utter chaos. The only downfall of a single definition of good and evil is disrespect, untrust, hate, towards the entity (organization or person) which sets that line in place. For example, I live in my country because I trust in my leader(s) enough to know that the laws are in place to secure my freedom and rights. If it gets to the point where I no longer can agree with my leader(s) then I'll very likely move to another country.

In the same way, I know that if I lived in a world where, say, one God, set the absolutes for right and wrong, and I trusted him with every fiber of my being, knowing that nothing can harm me in this 'country' of His, that I have absolute freedom knowing that every one else is bound to the same guidelines, and I have no desire to go beyond, or break these guidelines, then why would I ever want to move?

In a sense it's an oxymoron - total freedom in a limited environment. Freedom cannot be defined and applied to everyone if its definition is the the ability for any single person to have and act on every desire of their hearts without worry of ridicule or oppression. That can and will only lead to utter chaos.

I believe real freedom can be defined by the ability for one person to live to their hearts desire knowing that everyone else's desires are bound to the same realm of possibilities as their own, that there will be no disagreements, no worry of discord.

Anyway, this getting extremely deep, and there's too much more to talk about with this topic and I still have 10's of threads to catch up on from the weekend...

[Master of 7s]

Re: Evil

[Scumbag]

Good and Evil are simply terms. Terms everyone - everyone - will disagree on.

Upwards, someone posted a definition. If I disagree with the definition, then whatever falls under that definition is not Evil.

I can assuredly say that someone, somewhere, thinks Thin is a cool-ass guy. I'm not him. But whoever does proves that the concept of Evil is a subjective term.

[Nightmare Tony]

Master of 7s, I would have to diisagree with you fairly violently in terms of your claims of non sentience of wolves. Wolves tend to be social animals with a strong family habit, not merely instrinct. They also have their own language which does have meaning to other wolves within hearing range. Now, if you were talking about a protozoan or a starfish, there is still the matter of their various levels of interaction and levels of thought.

And speaking of language, there are those who claim dogs to not have sentience, as would be on the level of wolves. You may have heard reports of a border collie who is able to understand a vocabulary of over 200 words. I can see this as a friend has a border collie who is quite intelligent.

[SuperJerms]

Heh.

Seems to me we have two different discussions going on here, one about personal conceptions of right/wrong, and one about absolute truth.

Of course we will not agree on the first issue, and the first issue colors our individual conception of the second, so this debate is unlikely to go anywhere.

The intellectual idea that there is no absolute good/evil is nice to think about, but highly unlivable. I'm just sure you'd view a wolf's behavior as ultimately a good thing right after it mauled your child. I'm sure you'd be totally impassionate about the Shoah if it was your grandpa who was burned in chemical weapon experiments. And I'm sure that your first impulse was as even-keeled as that worldview calls for when you heard the sound of james gasping for his last breaths.


As for me, I forgive Kinkle. I'm certainly not happy about what he did, and I am deeply saddened for James, Jannisary and Gillie. I personally feel that, given the right circumstances, I am capable of doing any evil thing imaginable. Regardless of what happens to Thin (and there are concequences for actions), I forgive him.

[Daddy]

Umm, can we please get back on topic and save the sermons for the preachers on Sunday? I mean it's cool to get deep, but this convo is doing nothing to help unravel our little ILB story..

[THe_Smakus]