the Problem of Good.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Noel's angel']explain to me how good does not exist[/quote]

Waht you call good is relative. There is no absolute meaning of good.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 8 2005, 02:11 PM'] Waht you call good is relative. There is no absolute meaning of good. [/quote]
You cannot justify one truth claim by making another that you offer no evidence for.

Justify your truth claim. That means give a reason (which I kinda guess you did), then present the facts that you used (you have yet to present any facts, what you did was present another conclusion as though it were already proven), and then the principles that you used to interpret those facts to give light to that reason.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 8 2005, 02:11 PM'] Waht you call good is relative. There is no absolute meaning of good. [/quote]
Using that idea, that would mean that what Hitler did was really "good" because he thought it to be.. and it was only bad because we didnt like it.

So were we all really fighting over nothing in order to stop the innocent deaths of people, even though it wasnt really "good" or "bad"?

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 8 2005, 02:11 PM'] [quote name='Noel's angel']explain to me how good does not exist[/quote]

Waht you call good is relative. There is no absolute meaning of good. [/quote]
Human beings are subjective... how does that make Truth subjective? How does one proceed from the other?

[Semalsia]

[quote name='fidei defensor']what Hitler did was really "good" because he thought it to be[/quote]

He probably thought that he was doing something good. I don't, since I have a different idea of what is good.


[quote name='fidei defensor']and it was only bad because we didnt like it.[/quote]

That's correct.

[quote name='fidei defensor']So were we all really fighting over nothing in order to stop the innocent deaths of people, even though it wasnt really "good" or "bad"?[/quote]

We are fighting for those people, not for some ideal of what is good.


[quote name='theculturewarrior']Human beings are subjective... how does that make Truth subjective? How does one proceed from the other?[/quote]

"Good" is a human-made consept.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 8 2005, 04:36 PM'] We are fighting for those people, not for some ideal of what is good. [/quote]
But we were being "good" by fighting for them. It would have been bad not to, just as bad as if we were doing it ourselves.

Wouldnt you be able to assert then, that because truth is based on ourselves, that laws are unneeded? They are just what some people think should happen. The law making it illegal should be dropped because i feel killing certain people would make our lives better. Does that justify me killing someone, and pleading that i feel the law is unneeded?

[Semalsia]

[quote]But we were being "good" by fighting for them.[/quote]

But only because we thought of ourselfs as being good.

Look, I can see why something like death would be a horrible thing to cause for another person. I am a emotional human being (really, I practically cry at everything ). I do feel sympathy and empathy for others. I feel bad when others feel bad. That's what I think goodness is. There is no actual entity called Goodness seperate from human emotions.

The laws exist, because they are needed to make the society a better place for everyone (or most) to live in.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 8 2005, 04:36 PM']
"Good" is a human-made consept. [/quote]
I'd guess that the idea of a "concept" is human made too, as are all ideas and concepts, or at least as we know them.

What bearing does our subjectivity have on reality, ultimately? Because "good" is a human concept, why would that indicate that good does not exist, or is relative?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 8 2005, 05:34 PM'] The laws exist, because they are needed to make the society a better place for everyone (or most) to live in. [/quote]
But according to you, there is no better. There cannot be if there is no good. Better for someone could be worse for another, since there is no good.

I understand what you mean about emotion and things like that.
But the law theoreticaly should not exist, because that is only some persons idea of what is good for him or her.

[theculturewarrior]

No me interesa que la gente me critiquen
si yo he nacido para bailar la rumba

[Ordo.Teutonicorum]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 8 2005, 03:34 PM']
But only because we thought of ourselfs as being good.

Look, I can see why something like death would be a horrible thing to cause for another person. I am a emotional human being (really, I practically cry at everything ). I do feel sympathy and empathy for others. I feel bad when others feel bad. That's what I think goodness is. There is no actual entity called Goodness seperate from human emotions.

The laws exist, because they are needed to make the society a better place for everyone (or most) to live in. [/quote]
That's absolute nonsense. The laws don't exist to make things better for people, they exist because all humans have a pretty good idea of what "good" and "evil" really are. It is innate. Now there may be slight cultural discrepancies, but the overarching principles remain the same throughout any human society: Don't kill. Don't steal. Don't cheat. Don't lie. And I think we all know that ancient peoples didn't come up with these concepts because of a detached, secular philosophy of "The greatest good for the greatest number." Especially since many of these crimes involve just the criminal and his victim.

Modern concepts of the separation of church and state are laughable and outlandish. We're so indoctrinated into the concept here in America, but it is a falsehood, invented by a bunch of pseudo-philosopher revolutionaries. Good and evil cannot exist without absolutes. Secular philosophy doesn't deal in absolutes. Therefore, we cannot base law around secular sensibilities, because, taken to the logical conclusion, they lead us to moral relativism.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum']all humans have a pretty good idea of what "good" and "evil" really are. It is innate. [/quote]

Innate, yes probably. Though, culture is a factor too. Anyways, everything innate is a result of our long evolution. They don't in themselfs mean anything.

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum']secular philosophy of "The greatest good for the greatest number."[/quote]

That seems to lead to possible atrocities. I don't support such a philosophy.

[quote name='Ordo.Teutonicorum']Therefore, we cannot base law around secular sensibilities, because, taken to the logical conclusion, they lead us to moral relativism.[/quote]

Morals already are relativistic. I don't see how that affects our law makings, though. Laws are based on what is desirable by the society and for the society. At least they make more sense that way. Catholicism's ideas of what is good (or bad) is sometimes just arbitrary.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='theculturewarrior']Because "good" is a human concept, why would that indicate that good does not exist, or is relative?[/quote]

It seems obvious to me. I don't know why it doesn't for you.

[quote name='fidei defensor'] There cannot be if there is no good. Better for someone could be worse for another, since there is no good.[/quote]

Some things can be agreed upon.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='May 9 2005, 04:15 PM'] It seems obvious to me. I don't know why it doesn't for you.
[/quote]
It's obvious to me that you don't know!