PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: Merdarion on November 29, 2004, 07:34:03 pm
-
I have noticed many discussions about Good and Evil. the fight of good and Evil, etc. So I wanna bundle them.
We have two extremes:
On the one hand: The fanatic Rebirth, which target it is to cleanse the world of all evil, fighting five of the evil guids at once.
On the other hand there are the Cabal, annoying, evil guild that tries to harm and disturb anything (Do this name come from Magic: The Gathering ?)
I think that both extremes are ridiculos:
Rebirth will run into the open knife and will be destroyed by the mass of it\'s enemys.
The Cabal will consume themselves, just for fun :P.
-
Obviously you havn\'t read our guilds history/goals or anything on our site ;) I see us as quite the opposite to that description :P
-
I am not even in the Cabal, but the description on their website is really clear enough to understand that they are really organized, not just bad guys doing bad things..
-
*shrugs* You know what we have established this thing you call good vs. evil not just for ourselves but anyone that would like to join in and play. Call it ridiculous but both sides and every other alignment has worked hard to put together what we currently have and our verbal wars and controversy have been a contribution to PS and keeping the guild board somewhat active. I notice you never have anything good to say on the matter so if your not involving yourself with what we are doing just bugger off?
-
You know, it became kinda boring when it stopped being fight caused by different goals and started being fight between titles \'good\' and \'evil\'.
If Dark Empire titled themselves as \'neutral\' without changing goals, they wouldn\'t even be placed in Rebirth\'s enemies list.
- Swords
-
I seriously hope that that\'s not true Drak.
Though...that makes me wonder if the Rangers are only not bothered much because of our neutral alignment...hmmm.
That would be pretty silly.
-
Originally posted by Merdarion
[...]
We have two extremes:
[...]
There\'s a third position
-
When you discus what it means to be good and evil you must realize that both good and evil have different goals in mind that often and usually cause them to clash
-
Ok well to start it off I must say you people are showing an awful grudge against the Cabal. I am not in their guild bu i know that no, they are not the most kind guild in PS, but that doesnt make them wrong, because of course we dont want all the guilds to be good, neutral, and Chaotic. They are very organized as leji said.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Also, there was no question about this forum, no suggestion in the main post, so why respond? he said what he wanted to say and we read it, and the way this is going i see more guild\'s clashing and arguements coming and people being banned forthwith from both game and forums.
-
In my opinion, the extremes are basically bounded to their alignments as to \"very good\" - \'lawful good\' and \'\'extremely bad\" - \'chaotic evil\'. The \"extreme\" alignment by itself automatically sends you into a \"slaughter house\'\' with all the opponents of the not just opposite \"extreme\", but all the opposite alignment.
*goes off to the guild list*
So... on one side we have Defenders (lawful good), but we lack the opposite extreme. Too bad... Even if The Cabal is not extreme, it is considered to be the closest to the extreme so far.
P.S. No offence to other evil guilds.
-
Originally posted by Hatchnet
When you discus what it means to be good and evil you must realize that both good and evil have different goals in mind that often and usually cause them to clash
But not always. And remember that normally guilds wouldn\'t have sticked \'evil\' or \'good\' on their front doors.
Of course we have guilds like
Cabal: \"omgz!!1 were tr00 evuhl!!!!\"
or
IT: \"you chould be evil or you chould die!!!\"
But there are evil guilds which aren\'t actually running around shouting how evil they are...
- Swords
-
Yay for the 2537th Alignment Thread Ever Created!
**Moved to Hydlaa**
-
Why nobody ever speaks about Chaos versus Law. That is big battle with the right settings too ;) And it won\'t be as big cliche as that Evuhl vs Tah Goodz0r zomg lol thing -____-
-
Nah, let\'s just forget about the evil vs good or chaos vs law and go to neutral Kada-El\'s to drink some ale :P
- Swords
-
Juh... Lets go to Kada\'s.. but aren\'t drunken people kinda chaotic.. ?
Blah.. Alignment discussions suck. Lets just forget this thread and look at the archives for previous threads like:
http://www.planeshift3d.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=6420&boardid=19&sid=1a09fa47ece06006e6953e2051dd0905&page=1
http://www.planeshift3d.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=651&boardid=11&sid=1a09fa47ece06006e6953e2051dd0905
Note: These two are randomly taken alignment threads from the past -.-
-
Ok first off, Depth\'s guild is probably the strongest and stuff good guild right now. His guild looks like the only one that currently stands a chance against the cabal or IT. A guild that fights fo good should fight for ALL good, which means destroying all evil.
Many evil guilds like the cabal just do what they want, and hey, who cares its their guild and their members chose to join. So why bother them unless they bother you. The other side of evil you are forgetting is lawful evil. Like The Dark Empire and, yes, Helmora Velsha. These guilds are less likely to destroy themselvs because their goal isnt complete chaos.
You are just saying that these guilds will fall apart...because.
The Cabal has been around over a yar so if it planned on eating its self it would have done it by now, also, Rebirth has a strong leader and I thins THIS time depth wont let the guild go.
-
Originally posted by Efflixi Aduro
Ok first off, Depth\'s guild is probably the strongest and stuff good guild right now. His guild looks like the only one that currently stands a chance against the cabal or IT.
I don\'t think that is fair since the only way we can measure strength right now is by numbers, and there are alot of guilds who have more members than Rebirth.
-
Wow thanks for that compliment :)
Ice- Strength is not in numbers and hopefully the smaller guilds and not just the GOOD stronger ones can prove this fact. I think he meant I have the only good guild holding up its goals actively taking part. *Wonders where the others are to aid Rebirth..oh thats right they are just \"Good\" for the free cookies ;) )
OOC: Chestar I don\'t hate anyone in Cabal, my character DepthBlade does, remeber its all \"Character\"..
-
Originally posted by DepthBlade
Ice- Strength is not in numbers and hopefully the smaller guilds and not just the GOOD stronger ones can prove this fact. I think he meant I have the only good guild holding up its goals actively taking part.
No insult intended, but you really can\'t judge a guilds strength right now except by its numbers. How can you prove your strength, argue each other to death?
As far as activity, yes, you would be the most active, but that still doesn\'t reflect strength.
-
Actually, yes, his guild is very active but I was mainly looking at the good guilds like mirth and some others. They mostly are peace keepers or somthing. None of them actually look like they can put up a fight.
EDIT
And I only pointed out Rebirth because he said it was going to fall apart since it\'s trying to kill ALL evil. Its not like if he spoke about Mirth I would start defending a guild not even spoken about in the thread. I just defended the weak and helpless :D
-
Your right, at this point numbers are the only thing seperating strengths but does right now matter? Hey FESFES don\'t push your luck still going to burn ;)
-
Originally posted by Merdarion
The Cabal will consume themselves, just for fun :P.
For your information ! i do not derive pleasure form eating any my fellow cabalis ! Do you have any idea how long has it been since Savion has taken a bath ! And Satyrulak has mushrooms growing out of his arm pits ! it\'ll spoil the stock ! And dont get me started on Xordan :P j/k
i feel sad for the mods haveing to put up with so many threads like this.
Anyway we\'r \"underground\" now so you never read this post ! :P
-
Originally posted by Efflixi Aduro
A guild that fights fo good should fight for ALL good, which means destroying all evil.
Could you give the logic you used to go with that conclusion?
And then explain how come nature, which consists of good and evil, is in constant harmony, and not chaos (which would be the reason of fight between the two).
Because to me it pretty much shows that they complete each other.
Just like Rebirth, which wants to make evil suffer to make others happy, consists of both evil and good. Even here evil and good complete each other.
Realy, I\'d like to know what made you say that.
btw: Fighting evil by killing evil people is a paradox...
- Swords
-
Draklar nature does not contain either good or evil it contains balance which is the harmony of good an evil.
Every time that evil becomes to powerful good rises up to destroy it and every time good triumps over evil a new evil will arise to destroy it.
(Yes I realise that does not make to much sense at first but if you stop and take the time to think about it you will see what I mean)
-
No, nature is nature. The thing that makes good and evil is humans (or enki, stone breakr, ect.). Both in my opinion are bad becase they both have selfish goals and stuff. I dont know.. its hard to explain. Lets put is this way, humanity is corrupt selfish ect. Not good or evil. Just Corrupted
-
Originally posted by Hatchnet
(Yes I realise that does not make to much sense at first but if you stop and take the time to think about it you will see what I mean)
heh... I stopped and went through many world views in the last few months. And after all the reading, all the observations, all the thinking I came to conclusion that my view that good is fighting evil is just bs (yes, I used to think that they fight each other). Like NewPie said, fight between chaos and law is much more interresting although, again, they seem to be useless without the other factor.
Draklar nature does not contain either good or evil it contains balance which is the harmony of good an evil.
That is a paradox. If it does not contain those, how can it be harmony between the two?
Furthermore, nature destroys and gives new life. All to keep the balance. Destroying is evil, creating life is good.
- Swords
-
Originally posted by Exaero_Fiero
In my opinion, the extremes are basically bounded to their alignments as to \"very good\" - \'lawful good\' and \'\'extremely bad\" - \'chaotic evil\'. The \"extreme\" alignment by itself automatically sends you into a \"slaughter house\'\' with all the opponents of the not just opposite \"extreme\", but all the opposite alignment.
*goes off to the guild list*
So... on one side we have Defenders (lawful good), but we lack the opposite extreme. Too bad... Even if The Cabal is not extreme, it is considered to be the closest to the extreme so far.
The day that the Defenders were called extreme 8o
*runs off to make a mark in the calendar*
Originally posted by Efflixi Aduro
Actually, yes, his guild is very active but I was mainly looking at the good guilds like mirth and some others. They mostly are peace keepers or somthing. None of them actually look like they can put up a fight.
You wish :P
-
Well, evil has the upper hand, they have a manual! :D
http://www.planeshift3d.com/wbboard/thread.php?threadid=7913&boardid=19
But then there\'s me, to take care of the extremes. (all extremists should be shot ;D)
-
Try it this way Draklar:
Good-Balance-Evil
Law-Balance-Chaos
three seperpate things nature contains only balance wich is a harmony between two counters. In the case of alignments these are Good vs. Evil and Law vs. Chaos. A better way to see it may be seeing nature as the balance of birth and destruction; it contains neither but balances the two. Yes Efflixi you are right on one point the true distinction between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos is made by inteligent beings not the animals of nature wich do only what is natural to them and thus keep the ballance
-
Law vs. Chaos.
Well, the \"Secret Service/CIA Guild\" I proposed would probably be law, so who is chaos?
-
Originally posted by Hatchnet
it contains neither but balances the two.
It\'s still paradox...
look at it this way: You can\'t balance what does not exist.
And what\'s with the \'people can be evil and good, while nature can\'t\' theory?
Man is part of nature for Danu\'s sake!
Animals do both good and evil, but they aren\'t corrupted by our dumb society. So they do only what\'s important for them, they have simple life. Here\'s an irony: They aren\'t stupid enough to participate in the \"rat race\".
They kill, they take care of their children... the only difference is that they don\'t do that for money.
And animals are intelligent beings. Just because they aren\'t making weapons of mass destruction or creating medicine that is weakening their natural resistance, doesn\'t mean they aren\'t.
Please, read a bit, especially texts from people who are close to nature -_-
- Swords
-
Remember that the \'evil\' can win. If it does, then it becomes the \'good\' and will eventually have to fight a new \'evil\' ;)
-
Originally posted by Xordan
Remember that the \'evil\' can win. If it does, then it becomes the \'good\' and will eventually have to fight a new \'evil\' ;)
Evil isnt always evil to start with. Many evil rulers wish to have everything their way. Which means the person has a goal and not just killing or anything. Many things tha arent \"evil\" to start with arent relly evil.
-
Draklar I am someone who is close to nature and though animals are \"inteligent\" in one scence of the word they do not do something for purpose of doing something (ie: because you can) which is what seperates good from evil law from chaos in the minds reasoning beings. They do things because it is the natural thing for them to do ex: eating when hungry, protecting the young, fleeing predaters ect. In fact much of this is naturaly ingraned into them and they must be trained to not do if something they do is causeing problems ex: getting into the feed bin after they have found a way in.
-
I guess you wouldn\'t eat when hungry... or protect your children... or flee when someone tries to kill you... wow... you must be addicted mmorpg\'er ;)
killing is evil
protecting is good
is it that hard to understand?
bleh, I\'m having deja-vu... last time I heard that, the next thing was
\"animals are just walking objects\" (as in they have no soul so it isn\'t evil to kill them)
or \"animals were created by God just for our usage\" (as in animal which won\'t be eaten by human has no point in living) ...like cockroach is any usage for us.
- Swords
-
Originally posted by Draklar
I guess you wouldn\'t eat when hungry... or protect your children... or flee when someone tries to kill you... wow... you must be addicted mmorpg\'er ;)
killing is evil
protecting is good
is it that hard to understand?
- Swords
Your missing the point animals do these things out of instinct not logic like we do. And if killing is evil then is it not evil to kill for food? No it is the reason why we kill and why we protectc that makes the act either good or evil. Killing can be an act of good and protecting can be an act of bad depending solely upon the motivations of the person makeing the action. It is this ability to reason that seperates my desire for companionship from my cats understanding that being peted feels good.
OOC:
No I do not always eat when hungry if I did I\'d be fat.
I am willing to protect everyone not just children.
If someone is trying to kill me I am going to be fighting back; weather or not I\'d be willing to kill them in self defence would depend soley on their determination to kill.
-
killing for food - evil, but right thing to do.
protect as an act of \"bad\" - good, but wrong thing to do.
You know what? Animals do fight back when they have any chance. But if they don\'t, running away is the only logical thing to do.
I\'m eating whenever I\'m hungry (unless there\'s nothing to eat around) and I\'m nowhere close to being fat. But you know... I\'m not eating more than I have to and hardly ever eat unhealthy food... most of animals don\'t as well... and they aren\'t exactly all fat.
Animals protect whoever is close to them. Like dog will protect his master. They just don\'t seem to see a point in protecting who they don\'t know.
And I was amazed at how well some squirrels can use logics and learn. Researches showed that many animals can follow logics (even if primitive).
But I don\'t see how that is changing the fact that other animals can do good and evil as well as we do...
Even if it did come out of their instincts.
- Swords
-
Well, That thing with differnt goals isn\'t quite correct.
Often it\'s just the How not the Why, that makes the difference.
A good char would just look that no one, who doesn\'t really have to do with his goal comes to harm.
While evil ones won\'t mind to do that.
And I know that the cabal is organised,
I think that, they are similar to the sith in star wars.
-
\"Life brings chaos, chaos brings war, war brings death, death brings peace, peace brings life.\" Jun -Taoist-
\"To every thing there is a purpose and a season[time] to every purpose under the heavens.\" The book of Wisdom -Jewish manuscript-
Nature lives within these paradign and true good obeys the flow and ebb of life while true evil fights agains it.
Law exists to guide the foolish who by definition will not understand or obey it while the wise have only to listen [with the intenet to obey] and they will not require the law\'s guidance since it will reveal its self to them.
In this sence foolishness and wisdom are not the tangible attributes that we use but instead qualifiers for those who obey and understad as compaired to those who by choise or (by literal foolishness: being their inabillity to understand) refuse the \'natural order\'.
If the thread bothers you pass it by but remember:
\"Theologans and Phylosiphers never have a lack of things to talk about.\"
:)
-
This discussion is so amusing.
Thers that guy who states this and that is evil/good.
Muhaha, good and evil are words made up by humans!
So whatever you define as good or evil is it.
An example: you said protection is good. Now I start protecting a very dangerous flesh eating bacteria, is that good?
Then the animals. Who said they cant think?
We eat when were hungry, sleep when were tired and drink when were thirsty. Good god! Were ruled by instincts!!! Animals on the other hand can think about how to get food from us (begging) can remember punishment and can think about lots of stuff.
Its so funny, because the two subjects fit so well together, just ask an animal whats good or bad! :)
-
the battle we are talking bout good vs evil
is this not an essential part of life as with out this battle there would only be nutral creating bordom
and unbalencing the universe
plus then we would have no baddies / goodies to fight
-
There is no evil.
There is no good.
Where shadows have walked,
And light has stood.
Order and chaos,
They are the same.
The laws were all lined up,
When the winds came.
Future and past,
Circles or lines.
The future is hungry,
As the past dines.
Is life the begining,
Or death the end?
The way must be followed,
Through hill rock or bend.
Justice or vengence,
Which will you choose.
For one to succeed,
The other must lose.
Go back or forward,
On the path I must take.
The choice under the moon,
To forgive or forsake?
-
Originally posted by Jaakon
An example: you said protection is good. Now I start protecting a very dangerous flesh eating bacteria, is that good?
You protect life: that is good.
Why is it that hard to understand that good isn\'t always the right thing to do, while evil is not always the wrong thing to do?
It\'s not like we should always do good and never do evil.
If you want to protect others by destroying the bacteria, then you\'re doing the right thing. But that doesn\'t change the fact that by destroying it, you will terminate life.
Humans are behaving worse than viruses. Destroying everything around in order to live in luxuries.
It\'s not like we, out of all creatures, have the biggest right to live.
It is normal fight for survival. Fight brings suffering. Suffering is result of evil.
Also sure, good and evil are just words made by human, but the words represent specific behaviour:
Evil: \"That which causes suffering\"
Good: \"That which causes joy\"
- Swords
-
Seems you dont understand much of good and evil.
Lets take the bacteria thing as example. (It seems you understand that while Im protecting it the bacteria eats humans)
So for the bacterias Im kind of a good god, while Im evil to human society. This is the whole point. To say something is good you have to stand on a side, so what is good and what is evil depends on your point of view. Thats why its so stupid to say something is plain good/evil.
For further understanding read the poem up there, which is great!
And for the oh so evil humanity, remember that if you destroy something you help new stuff to come up...
-
Originally posted by Jaakon Thats why its so stupid to say something is plain good/evil.
here I partly agree with you.
That doesn\'t change the fact that protecting it would be good, whilst using it as object of destruction would be evil.
so the whole situation wouldn\'t be neither plain good or evil. But such facts as protecting or destroying would...
err yes, without humanity, the nature could regenerate and go back to it\'s harmony? ?(
The poem? I wouldn\'t describe it as \"great\", because saying there is no good or evil is saying there is no suffering or joy...
I\'d much rather call \"great\":
Our quest of the highest theory,
Is controlled by that theory,
So the way we think
Is the closest link?
An expedition through different views
Gives us richly faceted clues,
Let us focus on some of the elements
That\'s a source for endless experiments
again, I advise to read about other views on existance, before actually believing you know the truth.
- Swords
-
\"Good\" and \"evil\" is something that is made up by humans to make sure that our society is working right. But the meaning of it can differ between from where you happen to be at the moment.
What is \"evil\" for us can be concidered good in another culture. It\'s a fact that it was society that created those things to gain control over people. They invented those things we call \"right\" and \"wrong\", since total chaos can be pretty hard to control.
Things like \"don\'t steal other peoples belongings\" or \"you shouldn\'t kill others\" was created. Those who didn\'t obey the rules was punished.
Mostly of us agree that a lawless culture with a large population would be problematic...
In other cultures however people look at \"right\" or \"wrong\" in a different way, and what is good for one, can be evil to another. Therefore there isn\'t anything like \"good\" or \"evil\". It\'s created by civilization.
Do you think Hitler looked at himself as \"evil\"? He though that he did the world a favor by \"cleansing it\" from the jewish people. Do you think he though \"Oh, I\'m so evil, I\'m going to wreak havoc and exterminate a whole people just to mess with the world\"?
He didn\'t, and from his perspective he was the \"good\" guy, and the people with similar thoughts saw him as a \"good\" person. If the Nazis had won the war and the whole world had been Nazi, People would look upon him as a \"good\" man because their perspective about good or evil had changed.
So Cabal can be \"good\" from their own perspective, although us \"good\" people see them as evil and vice versa. That\'s the way it is.
Look at the USA vs. Irac conflict. Both sides belives they fight for \"good\". They fight against what they think is \"evil\", and the \"winners\" (Like if there is any in a war) will be the good guys.
So everything is relative. Everyone has different views on what is right or wrong.
But anyway, I\'m looking forward to the epic battle between \"good and \"evil\" in Yliakum. I am good, what are you? ;)
-
Originally posted by Jadd
\"Good\" and \"evil\" is something that is made up by humans to make sure that our society is working right. But the meaning of it can differ between from where you happen to be at the moment.
I believe causing suffering was present in the world before society gave the name for it...
Just like cows, cows existed before human called it like that. And he gave it the name so our society would be working right. The meaning doesn\'t differ. The meaning behind \"evil\" happens to be same in any dictionary I looked it up.
Words \"good\" and \"evil\" are working same as the word \"cow\". There is speciffic meaning behind those words.
Also they aren\'t relative.
Hitler caused suffering.
Cabal causes suffering.
Mirth causes joy.
The deeds say what is evil and what is good, not the intentions. Thus even if hitler had good intentions, his deeds were evil.
So yeah, here\'s a question: who actually checked in dictionary what is the real meaning of the words (Instead of basing it on religion, games or TV)?
- Swords
-
I already had but I\'ll post it and link.
http://www.m-w.com/
Main Entry: (2)good
Function: noun
1 a : something that is good b (1) : something conforming to the moral order of the universe (2) : praiseworthy character : GOODNESS c : a good element or portion
While
Main Entry: 2evil
Function: noun
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b : a cosmic evil force
2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity
While it is true that we (humanity) use sounds to communicate feelings and emotion it does not change the existance of the emotion, nor does it negate the existance of that emotion.
Evil could well be called Marcell and Good Electric and it would not change the emotion that we would have, from our youth or through learning the languge, associate with it; it would only be a different series of sounds. Even languages that consists of clicks, wistles and the like have \'words\' for them.
How can you make up an emotion?
-
Originally posted by Draklar
[That doesn\'t change the fact that protecting it would be good, whilst using it as object of destruction would be evil.
so the whole situation wouldn\'t be neither plain good or evil. But such facts as protecting or destroying would...
But you cant protect something without destroying.
As thers no suffering without joy.
If you disagree on this give an example!
Originally posted by Draklar err yes, without humanity, the nature could regenerate and go back to it\'s harmony? ?(
What harmony? What so different now?
See its absolute normal in nature that a species grows big, dominating their territory...
Originally posted by Draklar
again, I advise to read about other views on existance, before actually believing you know the truth.
Funny, youre saying this...
-
But you cant protect something without destroying.
But you can protect (good) and you can destroy (evil).
...And you can protect a plant from being stepped on without destroying anything.As thers no suffering without joy.
If you disagree on this give an example!
How much joy can you find in tortures?
What harmony?
Keeping balance between destruction and creation. Good and Evil, which are completing each other...What so different now?
Mass reducing of forest terrains? Leading many species towards extinction by destroying their homelands? Global warming?
See its absolute normal in nature that a species grows big, dominating their territory...
And kills for sport or luxuries. Sure.
Funny, youre saying this...
What\'s so funny? Considering I did actually go through many world views? And by that changing my point of view on many things...
btw: Couldn\'t say it any better, XpYtZ :P
- Swords
-
Originally posted by Jaakon
This discussion is so amusing.
Thers that guy who states this and that is evil/good.
Muhaha, good and evil are words made up by humans!
So whatever you define as good or evil is it.
An example: you said protection is good. Now I start protecting a very dangerous flesh eating bacteria, is that good?
Then the animals. Who said they cant think?
We eat when were hungry, sleep when were tired and drink when were thirsty. Good god! Were ruled by instincts!!! Animals on the other hand can think about how to get food from us (begging) can remember punishment and can think about lots of stuff.
Its so funny, because the two subjects fit so well together, just ask an animal whats good or bad! :)
Would be the opposite good. Killin\' the Bacteria to protect the humans? You would destroy life.
So any action would be balanced between good and evil. And the only thing that differs them are in the heads of humans.
And , thoug, anybody says how useless this thread is, there are many posts.
*<(:-)# Happy XMas
-
Sure its useless, but its fun :)
But you can protect (good) and you can destroy (evil).
...And you can protect a plant from being stepped on without destroying anything.
No, you cant, cause then youll have to stand elsewhere, destroying the other plant. And as soon as this plant is destroying something (every living beeing needs to or die) you made it possible by saving it.
How much joy can you find in tortures?
Dont know what you ment...
Keeping balance between destruction and creation. Good and Evil, which are completing each other...
lol, how is nature supposed to do that if it isnt even as strong as humans in your eyes?
Mass reducing of forest terrains? Leading many species towards extinction by destroying their homelands? Global warming?
Ever heard about grasshoppers eating up masses of plants?
And even the dinosaur changed the shape of the world by reducing forests...
And kills for sport or luxuries. Sure.
Luxury is a human thing, but cats hunt for sports...
What\'s so funny? Considering I did actually go through many world views? And by that changing my point of view on many things...
Havent seen a change since Im here...
-
Well if it\'s fun, it\'s not useless.
And if you kill an animal or so, you make the lifeground for other organism. So no evil can exist. If you let the animal survive the organism can\'t. So there is no good.
-
Sure its useless, but its fun
To you it may be useless. But some people actually like talking about philosophy and factors that rule our world and our behaviour. And what Merdarion said.
No, you cant, cause then youll have to stand elsewhere
how about on side-walk? Or rock for that matter? Glad to see you consider all possibilities before posting.
Dont know what you ment...
You don\'t understand question about how much pleasure you get from tortures?
lol, how is nature supposed to do that if it isnt even as strong as humans in your eyes?
Wow... yet another paradox. How can part of nature be stronger than nature itself?
Could you give any valid argument showing your question has anything to do with keeping balance?
But maybe this will answer your doubts:
Human is (thanks to dumb religion and society) fearsome force of destruction, thus destroying balance in nature. So if destruction is greater than creation, that would mean our Mother Earth goes towards destruction... And you know what? It does!
Ever heard about grasshoppers eating up masses of plants?
And even the dinosaur changed the shape of the world by reducing forests...
Great... the biology classes will come to use :P
In the moment when there\'s too many creatures in speciffic region, their food goes towards reduction. And once there is not enough food, the creatures begin to starve (and migrate, but at some point they can\'t go any further). And since they starve, they die. And since they die, there is less of them. And since there is less of them, the plants can grow once again. Once there is more food, the creatures reproduce more. And we have a circle. That is the harmony \\o/
But human is different. He doesn\'t die out. He just keeps destroying and destroying. And if it keeps on, he will keep destroying untill there is no non-toxic water or air. Making world pretty much impossible to live on...
but cats hunt for sports...
Never heard about that... I always thought they hunt to increase their ability (and chance of course) to survive. Could you please link me to any source proving that? That is, of course, if it isn\'t cartoons...
Havent seen a change since Im here...
No comments...
Merdarion: By any chance checked the definitions?
Bah! I could actually read something worthy instead of wasting my time here. This discussion isn\'t making me any smarter :P
So whatever, right, human doesn\'t destroy Earth, good and evil isn\'t what dictionaries are saying. Heck, these terms don\'t even exist. You\'re absolutely right. There.
- Swords
-
OK! Good & Evil are very, ... , variable. So let\'s go out from our 3 Main D&D Anligments. What\'s the good thing of being Evil? Whats the good thing about being good? What\'s with the neutral ones?
my idea: Good means not willingly harm someone who doesn\'t first harm you, and trying to help someone ho doesn\'t first help you.
Wvil means willingly harming others, and only offer help if you get much more in exchange.
This is a very primitive definition so there are many points to discuss it, but it\'s better than that \"PROTECTION\"-Definition.
-
Do you mean that you want to change to the subject of alignements rather then debating weather good or evil actually exist? If yes then keep reading.
By their definition the D&D alignements tell the other players how your character views and reacts to the world around him.
If you are a good aligned character you will:
* Never attack an unarmed foe, even if he/she is threatening your life.
* Never steal an item, or take anything without express permission.
* Use good manners and treat others with respect.
Etc.
Basicly your character will try and see the world in the best possible light and treat others as well as possible.
This does not exclude other things from happening; a good character may for instance kill someone to keep a friend from being killed. I am not saying they are the ultra pacifist, I am only making a generalization from the D&D idea.
On the other hand an Evil character will:
* Attack without cause or reason, on a whim, sparring no one.
* Steal items just because they can.
* Treat others without any form of respect.
Again generalizations.
Now there are plenty of Evil characters that treat other with respect and keep them selves from obvious forms of evil. These are Devious persons who deal in pain and dispair through actions that fortify themselves or their position without regard for others.
Why are they considered evil though? They are bringing good to themselves and their employees. While bringing all forms of interesting things to the city in which they live. In this case, they are evil only in the eyes of those who they are injuring. Like the wealthy merchant who sells a single loaf of bread to a starving widow for ten times its worth. Is he Evil for that act? Perhaps in the eyes of some, yet to others, those he is using that gold to pay, he may be a hero, allowing them one more day with food or heat.
\"Indeed, who can know the oucome of an action other then the gods.\"
So, from that perspective -the RPG perspective- Evil and Good are extreemly hard to define. Each character decides what is good for their own perspective. From that idea, a good character is one who puts the needs of his fellow players before his own, while an evil character will seek after personal gain and purposely dring pain and anguish on his fellow players.
-
Well, that stealing thing and good chars doesn\'t fit.
Would it be evil to steal some bread from a baron to save someone other from starving?
Would it be bad to steal the ring that gives the power to an evil emperor, so he can be destroyed?
-
To you it may be useless. But some people actually like talking about philosophy and factors that rule our world and our behaviour. And what Merdarion said.
And how is this thread supposed to be usedul then?
how about on side-walk? Or rock for that matter? Glad to see you consider all possibilities before posting.
How old are you? On side-walks and rocks live things too...
You don\'t understand question about how much pleasure you get from tortures?
Someone will, otherwise the torture wouldnt exist.
Wow... yet another paradox. How can part of nature be stronger than nature itself?
This was sarcasm, but if you dont want to understand, thers not much I can do...
But maybe this will answer your doubts:
Human is (thanks to dumb religion and society) fearsome force of destruction, thus destroying balance in nature. So if destruction is greater than creation, that would mean our Mother Earth goes towards destruction... And you know what? It does!
Oh yea, theres nothing humans build up, they are always destroying....
Again, where is the great disaster, I cant see it.
And how do humans destroy this planet???
Great... the biology classes will come to use :P
In the moment when there\'s too many creatures in speciffic region, their food goes towards reduction. [...] Once there is more food, the creatures reproduce more. And we have a circle. That is the harmony \\o/
But human is different. He doesn\'t die out. He just keeps destroying and destroying. And if it keeps on, he will keep destroying untill there is no non-toxic water or air. Making world pretty much impossible to live on...[/qoute]
First he only survived till now because he is NOT destroying everything. We wouldnt have enough food a long time ago, but we learned to \'create\' food by inventing farms and ranches.
And secondly you start saying humans are bad because they dont get to die, then theyre evil because they will die...
Never heard about that... I always thought they hunt to increase their ability (and chance of course) to survive. Could you please link me to any source proving that? That is, of course, if it isn\'t cartoons...
lol, a few posts ago you wrote animals cant think, but now theyre planning their skill-advancement...
Example: My cat doesnt eat what it hunts. It gets much better food from me. Still it goes out hunting.
Bah! I could actually read something worthy instead of wasting my time here. This discussion isn\'t making me any smarter :P
No wonder youre not arguing, or think about arguments, so why should it?
So whatever, right, human doesn\'t destroy Earth, good and evil isn\'t what dictionaries are saying. Heck, these terms don\'t even exist. You\'re absolutely right. There.
My opinion: human arent destroying the planet, they do alot bad to their enviroment, but if it causes problems they try to solve them. And the word ghost is in the diary, so I can assume you belive they exist too...
Ok, sorry for the offend, lets end this.
-
How old are you? On side-walks and rocks live things too...
heh... that reminds me the joke of kid, who when asked why he\'s riding over a puddle with his bike, answered that he\'s killing bacterias :P
Guy can hang himself on a tree or levitate for all I care... :rolleyes:
Someone will, otherwise the torture wouldnt exist.
I assume you believe in a cruel and sadistic god... because I have no other explanation of how can be your (for example) mental, not revealed, intensive suffering, a pleasure to someone else...
This was sarcasm, but if you dont want to understand, thers not much I can do...
Was that supposed to be valid argument, I asked for, showing that what you said had connection to what I said?
Again, where is the great disaster, I cant see it.
(http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/sharemed/targets/images/pho/t012/T012752A.jpg)
lol, a few posts ago you wrote animals cant think
Funny, I thought I wrote that they can...
And the word ghost is in the diary, so I can assume you belive they exist too...
I believe there are deeds that cause suffering.
Also I\'m not denying any believes unless I can find valid proof that the belief is false...
- Swords
-
Draklar in that pic I see no disaster only nature. Also I think he is refering to my post where I said that animals were not inteligent in the same way we are. Jaakon your cat goes hunting even though you feed him because he does not realize that he does not need to. I never said that animals were stupid or could not think I mearly said that they could not reason like we do. So he is not hunting for sport but out of instinct or desire to hunt not because he wants a trophy. This does not make him evil because if he was hungry at the time he caught the prey he would eat it.
-
Originally posted by Hatchnet
Draklar in that pic I see no disaster only nature.
Well I see water filled with toxic wastes. All people who don\'t see the number of pollution as disaster should drink from something like that :P
And I\'d ask in what way killing a living creature is not evil, but I guess I won\'t hear anything new...
- Swords
-
Killing a living creature is not evil when one does it in order to survive. Not that I mind shooting a few rabbits for fun but the general idea about killing stuff to live is that people need organic material in order to live. Since ONLY plants can make organic stuff from light and minerals all other beeings take their organic stuff by consuming another organism totally or partially.
Since killing plants is no fun at all as they don\'t cry for help or react in a visible way ppl kill animals for sport. So ones that are against killing animals are just hypocrits as they kill plants or mutilate them (I preffer the mutilating since the plants suffer more).
Bottom line is that is very nice that humans are on the top of the food chain. Killing is in human nature. You can\'t deny some milions of years of evolution and say you don\'t kill. Yeah, human beeing is the perfect killing machine. So perfect that he even kills himself. Interesting to see that there are no suicide cases at any other species. So no matter what you do you kill something but I find particullary sick ppl who kill themselves. Like WTF? Milions of years of evolution spawns a specimen completly wrong which doesn\'t wanna live as it doesn\'t wanna kill. Fortunately evolution has has spawned another creation called \"the psychiatrist\" in order assure the survival of the human species.
Yeah, don\'t listen to what others say and start listening to your instincts. Milions of years of evolution can\'t be wrong. :) If you feel hungry GO KILL SOMETHING. As dead things are best fresh. :D
-
I see that everyone prefer to ignore XpYtZ\' post:
Main Entry: 2evil
Function: noun
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b : a cosmic evil force
2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity
Now where\'s the difference if you kill for food or not? Does animal suffer any less if you kill it to survive?
I have nothing against killing animals for food, but this is ridiculous!
Why is it hard to understand that when you kill for food, you do two things:
You kill animal - which is evil (killing)
eat animal - which is good (keeping yourself alive)
While all in all it\'s both good and evil, here we\'re talking about fact of killing only, not eating it!
- Swords
-
Draklar all I see in that pic is a bunch of muddy water flowing thru a broken natural dam. If you have evidence of the toxic waste please post it. (Yes that is a tree that formed the dam) And what we are seeing looks to be a wet season flood; although the flood could have been produced by a toxic waste dump but as I said you are going to need to prove it.
-
Then I assume you see what you want to see.
How can someone see just mud in there is beyond me...
That white substance is not made by muddy water...
http://encarta.msn.com/media_461516588/Polluted_River_in_the_United_Kingdom.html
- Swords
-
Originally posted by Draklar
I see that everyone prefer to ignore XpYtZ\' post: Main Entry: 2evil
Function: noun
1 a : the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing b : a cosmic evil force
2 : something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity
Now where\'s the difference if you kill for food or not? Does animal suffer any less if you kill it to survive?
I have nothing against killing animals for food, but this is ridiculous!
Why is it hard to understand that when you kill for food, you do two things:
You kill animal - which is evil (killing)
eat animal - which is good (keeping yourself alive)
While all in all it\'s both good and evil, here we\'re talking about fact of killing only, not eating it!
- Swords
Yeah, I skimmed through the posts but my point is that one is forced to kill. About weather it is good or evil is up to you to decide but for the sake of your mental sanity put killing of certain animals/plants on the good things to do list. If you are forced to kill and feel bad about it makes you go insane so maybe you should finnaly choose if killing an animal is good or evil (can\'t be both) as you mainly see the problem from 2 different points of view (you have double personality?). And yeah, it is a cruel world, if you didn\'t realise till now you can\'t avoid making someone suffer so choosing the what evil to do is the main issue about life.
Oh, and I think that this evil/good discussion has gone past the dictionary definition and gone into philosophical debate. :)
-
I know the post was a while ago but I have been AWOL since I made it.
Well, that stealing thing and good chars doesn\'t fit. Would it be evil to steal some bread from a baron to save someone other from starving? Would it be bad to steal the ring that gives the power to an evil emperor, so he can be destroyed?
Read the post again, I addressed that concern: or better yet, read the entire post if you did not the first time.
As for the muddy watter, I have studied my fair share of Botany over the years and that could just be silt from a heavy flood or clay deposits that have been washed in from a heavy rain.
If it is T-waste than just let me say, \"what a waste.\" Though without a check of what is actually \'in\' the water I would be sceptical of anyone not with a govenment that got that close and lived, -again if all that silt and bacteria are from man-made toxins and not just fish crap and rotting leaves.
Weather or not the action of pollution is \'evil\' should not really be much of a debate since we are killing ourselves, though I do pose this question: Is there a difference between an Evil act by purpose and an Evil act by accident.
I.E. A man takes a walk down the road and happenes to drop some change. Later another man is walking down the street and seeing the change bends down to pick it up. In the course of bending the second man looses his balance and falls on his head, breaing his neck and, even killing him.
Is this event the evil act of the man who dropped the change, the man who bent to pick it up or a malevolent, unseen force (like a god or ghost) or just plain bad luck?
Just post your oppinion, no need to argue weather the event brought pain and suffering on anyone.
-
Philosophical debate usually bases itself on theory/definition. Debate has no sense if everyone are talking about different thing.
And I don\'t go by:
Evil - Don\'t do that!
Good - Do that!
I accept both, so why should I care about the insanity thing?
I can tell good from evil. But why should I stick to only one of them? Nature doesn\'t. I\'m part of nature. So why should I go by different laws?
And as for choosing yourself what is good and what is evil: There\'s no better way to screw up your morality and go by the rule of \"Good is what is good to me\". Pretty egoistic thought. Nothing less, nothing more.
Also creating own definitions of good and evil, was used quite well as an excuse for religious opressions in the past... and still is...
- Swords
-
sigh...
It goes out after eating, catches something and dont eat it.
-
Originally posted by XpYtZ
though I do pose this question: Is there a difference between an Evil act by purpose and an Evil act by accident.
I.E. A man takes a walk down the road and happenes to drop some change. Later another man is walking down the street and seeing the change bends down to pick it up. In the course of bending the second man looses his balance and falls on his head, breaing his neck and, even killing him.
Is this event the evil act of the man who dropped the change, the man who bent to pick it up or a malevolent, unseen force (like a god or ghost) or just plain bad luck?
Well there can\'t be any difference between the acts. No matter what the thoughts are. Thoughts and deeds influence each other, but thought won\'t influence the outcome quality of deed.
For example, if you make ugly painting, will it change anything that you either wanted or didn\'t want to make it look so?
The evil was caused by both men... and people who ever had anything to do with them... and people who had anything to do with those people... and so on. In fact, the only way to not cause any evil would be to never exist...
So trying to do \"good\" only is pretty much pointless... people should simply follow their ethics, trying to do what\'s \"right\", not what\'s \"wrong\".
- Swords
-
Let\'s go down to the primary needs of the human:
Hunger
Shelter
Sleep
Hygenics
Reproduction.
Well then evil could be defined by: making yourself getting as much as possible of all these needs.
And Good: to pass, so someone could live better.
Neutral: Don\'t be a parazit nor a good Samarite
-
Good and Evil are just a difference of opinion.
-
I am not sure Drak that you were speaking to me with but just in case:
It was not my intention to suggest that people should decide for themselves what right and wrong are. I was actually hoping to say that everyone knows already what is right and wrong. The only exceptions that I see to that are people with sociopathic disorders, and there is a reason that we call them disorders.
We usually call it a conscience, though I also believe that our conscience can become scarred or calloused to certain things over time. One of the reasons I shy away from violent movies.
Sorry for the miscommunication on that one.
-
Nah, it wasn\'t pointed to anyone in particular. Just stating my general opinion.
Well some religions and society often try to influence the conscience, in order to have better control over people. It\'s rather hard to keep your own ethics nowadays. As well as block yourself from influences coming from games or TV...
But that brings a question:
Are we born with set of ethics or do we gain it by living in society? Or maybe by observations and experience taken from life?
- Swords
-
Draklar after visiting the site I agree that unless the picture is a hoax the water is probably contaminated however the white substance you are referring to is called white water which is a mixture of air and water (you?ll notice it does not exist on the upstream side of the dam) next time just post the link to the site as the pic could barely be considered proof of anything.
-
Eh? Posting the image was just a way of saying that people pollute water... do you really need a proof in form of website to believe they do that?
- Swords
-
In answer to your question:
It is my personal belief that you are born with a knowledge of right and wrong -with few exceptions. That system (AKA your conscience) is then morphed and changed over time by the ethics tought it in the household and society.
Eventually your own \'set of ethics\' comes into view, however this set will slowly morph over time as well.
For instance my dads ethics are far different in his old age than they were when he was my age. Also the systems that I adhered to as a child are different from those I have come to accept as I have grown.
I\'d have to say however that a large majority of us quelch our consence on many issues and end up, like I said before, angry, jaded and rash people.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Are we born with set of ethics or do we gain it by living in society? Or maybe by observations and experience taken from life?
That would be pretty hard to find out. But i think ethics come when the child grows into an adult. Children and babys have different views and understanding of the world than adults per age period. Babys for example simply take toys of other babys, so it seems they do not understand the concept of stealing or property for that matter.
If conscience is born or taught is another aspect. There are cultures were people donnot feel guilt when they do someting wrong only shame.
And to add to the dictionary view on good evil, the dutch dictionary van dale gives a very general definition of good and evil. But says nothing about suffering. What is considered good and evil varies per culture and society. Even in cultures that have much in common like Europe and the US different ideas exist about right and wrong.
-
XpYtZ: Just few days ago I believed that conscience is formed by society and personal experiences.
But then I came across that text:
Ideas and truths are innate in us -- as inclinations, dispositions, tendencies or natural potentialities. The human mind by its nature contains the basis of certain concepts and theories only to be awakened in appropriate conditions by outside objects.
Quite interesting view and I could agree with your statement. Still have to look into it a bit more...
- Swords
-
I agree with Moogie here.
Take Hitler for example, he thought he was doing good, so did many other people... most saw it as evil though.
Draklar, almost everything about the human mind at birth is assumption, there is no way to know for sure, hence the whole nature vs. nurture debate.
Personally, I believe that we learn ethics and a sense of right and wrong (NOT good and evil). If children innately know what is wrong, why do they do things. Their innocent ignorance has no sign of morality, but they do not realise that not everything they do is acceptable.
This is as I stated, my personal belief.
Though with the character alignment argument... You defined Lawful Good, and Chaotic Evil, they are only the extremes. Robin Hood for example, would be Chaotic Good. He breaks the law multiple times, but for the good of the oppressed.
You need to focus on the shades of grey, not just the black and white.
I\'ve decided to quote the \'Nine Alignments\' from the D&D Players Handbook, v 3.5, pages 104-106.
Lawful Good, \"Crusader\": A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Neutral Good, \"Benefactor\": A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.
Chaotic Good, \"Rebel\": A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he\'s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Lawful Neutral, \"Judge\": A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition or a personal code directs her. Order and organisation are paramount to her. She may believe in a personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favour a strong, organised government.
Neutral, \"Undecided\": A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn\'t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil - after all, she would rather have good neighbours and rulers than evil ones. Still, she\'s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balances road in the long run.
Chaotic Neutral, \"Free Spirit\": A chaotic neutral character follows him whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn\'t strive to protect others\' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organisation as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behaviour is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
Lawful Evil, \"Dominator\": A lawful evil villain methodicallly takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regards for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a heirarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to their race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as a part of duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil is sometimes called \"diabolical\", because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
Neutral Evil, \"Malefactor\": A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with.She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for sport, profit, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following any laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn\'t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities and secret societies.
Chaotic Evil, \"Destroyer\": A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organised. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil is sometimes called \"demonic\" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil.
That took a long time to type. My character Tyralus will be the second variant of neutral. I also thought this appropriate. \"Good vs. Evil\" also on page 104 of that fine book.
\"Good\" implies altruism, respect for life, and a conern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
\"Evil\" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
Also \"Law vs. Chaos\" on, you guessed it page 104.
\"Law\" implies honour, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgementalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behaviour can create a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
\"Chaos\" implies freedom, adaptability and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority and, arbitrary actions, and irresponsiblity. Those who promote chaotic behaviour say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
These quotes discuss the four extremes, of the two scales, but that page goes on to discuss the grey areas implicit in both. It is well worth reading.
-
Originally posted by Adeli
If children innately know what is wrong, why do they do things. Their innocent ignorance has no sign of morality, but they do not realise that not everything they do is acceptable.
You seem to not understand the text I quoted...
only to be awakened in appropriate conditions by outside objects.
And I already answered the hitler example. If good and evil depended on people\'s opinions then both wouldn\'t exist. But they do, isn\'t mass murder evil? So where\'s the relativity? Is an action any less evil because madman sees it as good?
Also why do you seem to point all that alignment stuff to me? I didn\'t talk about alignments in this thread...
\"evil\" is not equal to \"evil alignment\"
That I think is obvious...
-Swords
-
No Darklar, mass muder isn\'t evil. The reason for mass murder can be evil. Actions themselves can\'t be good or evil because it\'s all about the reason why you do it (like killing for food isn\'t evil).
And about the thing you are born with the concept of good or evil why do children when are little are evil? Like they can be the most selfish beeings in the world if not taught otherwise. Morality is too complex to have since birth. Think about different cultures with different moral codes. Not to mention that humans naturally imitate what they see, especially when they are young.
-
Originally posted by Psycon
No Darklar, mass muder isn\'t evil. The reason for mass murder can be evil. Actions themselves can\'t be good or evil because it\'s all about the reason why you do it (like killing for food isn\'t evil).
If you get late for bus, you\'re still late, no matter if you wanted to get late or not.
If you hit someone, you still hit him, no matter if you wanted to hit him or not.
If you do something evil, it\'s still evil, no matter if you wanted to do something evil or not.
If what you say is true, then you can murder, steal and rape... but as long as you see reason behind it as good, you\'re pure good... a saint...
To me saint would be the one who tries to not harm others... no matter what. Not the one who causes suffering in the name of higher good.
Uhm, why children are evil?
only to be awakened in appropriate conditions by outside objects.
And morality being too complex? One might say that paranormal activities are too complex... and yet children experience them more often than older people. When they still have clear mind, safe from all the society bs.
Wouldn\'t it be then quite safe to assume that children have different perception of their existance. And at that their own set of ethics and morals, even if their young age disallows them to fully understand it? Something that could be called a \"Natural Mind\"?
Even if it\'s primitive
right is what pleases you
wrong is what makes you suffer
Rest of your post could be answered by reading what XpYtZ said.
- Swords
-
I don\'t agree, I feel it depends entirely on your intentions, and your perception.
Good and Bad are not the same as Good and Evil.
I\'d wager that if you isolated a child through to adulthood, they would have no morals, as there would be no bearing on what is right or wrong. Saying that it is innate but brought on by outside influences is a contradiction. It is either there to begin with, or you learn it.
I forgot to mention, with Nature/Nurture, many scientists now feel it is a combination of both.
I used the alignment thing because it shows the general ideas behind good/evil, law/chaos. Plus, it may benefit someone who is making a character, it may be OT, but it is still a PlaneShift board.
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Even if it\'s primitive
right is what pleases you
wrong is what makes you suffer
So you finnaly understand something of my philosophy :) although it\'s one towards evil because the point of all the moral laws is the relation with other ppl which will suffer if you think only about yourself.
But the main idea behind any moral laws is not to do whatever you want so you can\'t say children suddenly have a need to be polite etc. not to mention that children which don\'t have contact with another human beeing while little don\'t devellop their brains normally(they can\'t learn to speak) so you can\'t really have a case of genetical induced behaviour since the contact with society has such a crucial part in one\'s life. Instincts play a crucial part in animals but at humans are greatly reduced... and if you wanna be a good person you follow your instincts less and less. You might say that some have the instinct to be good but the truth is that it\'s a reflex develloped by doing good repetatly. It\'s a fact that human reflexes have no boundry in complexity so you can devellop a reflex in everything.
Getting back to the rape and murder etc. so called \"evils\" I must ask you Darklar if you consider for example a cat evil?
Oh and I didn\'t say if you have a reason behind an action than the action is good. What I wanted to say is that each action usually has a reason and if the reason is good than the action is good but if the reason is evil the action will be evil.
-
So you finnaly understand something of my philosophy
oh, I understood it from beginning. I simply disagree with it. Because it seems to show that evil = wrong and good = right. Well at least if you\'d replace \"evil\" with \"wrong\" and \"good\" with \"right\", it would make much more sense.
although it\'s one towards evil because the point of all the moral laws is the relation with other ppl which will suffer if you think only about yourself.
I don\'t see the point where thinking about yourself is evil.
Also a little flaw in understanding of moral laws: the point is relation with all living creatures.
You seem to forget about creatures besides humans (at that, joint narcissism or simple disregard) and that morality is also about the way you behave towards yourself.
You contradict yourself btw: What if causing suffering in others is result of believing that thinking about yourself is good? From what you said, in this case making others suffer is a good action (since the reason is good).
if you wanna be a good person you follow your instincts less and less.
Is that your personal belief or actual fact?
Because I don\'t want to follow my instincts any less. If I\'m in danger I try to escape it, if someone attacks me, I try to defend myself, if I need food, I eat... it is a right thing to do for me, does it make me evil?
Getting back to the rape and murder etc. so called \"evils\" I must ask you Darklar if you consider for example a cat evil?
eh, since cat does both good and evil... no.
What I wanted to say is that each action usually has a reason and if the reason is good than the action is good but if the reason is evil the action will be evil.
yes that\'s what I\'m saying. If someone with messed up mind believes that by killing many people he does something good, then the reason is good. It\'s simple, really, all you have to do is believe that who you kill is evil and by killing them, you become good. Like Depthblade or hitler :P
It seems that you still don\'t understand the quote I gave, so no point in answering other parts of post...
- Swords
-
Just a note but most of the people that were cheering for Hitler\'s actions were praising the way he held his country together by creating jobs, and the like, not the death camps.
Also Relitave Morality just doesn\'t fly. How can every action be good and wrong simultaniously. Are you saying that everytime anyone breaths they are doing an evil act just because it is keeping them alive? That seems a little backwards, since that is also what trees, and other plants that use photosynthosys, require to survive.
Also the \'can\'t be tought to talk\' reference would not be to the \'wild boy\' from England would it? Because he was not \'naturaly\' violent, and generally disliked seeing anything get injured. Sounds like \'right\' to me and no one taught him anything untill after he was found.
-
The wolves taught him XpYtZ. But with their limited reasoning abilitys they only taught him to be what they perceved a good human should be. Remember animals are not barbaric just a part of nature.
-
A: you can call me X. It is easyer.
B: Funny. :D
-
Originally posted by Moogie
Originally posted by Draklar
If what you say is true, then you can murder, steal and rape... but as long as you see reason behind it as good, you\'re pure good... a saint...
That\'s perfectly correct, actually. People who are mentally unstable enough to do these sorts of things don\'t see they\'re doing anything wrong at all. Their opinion of themselves is good, even if everyone else\'s opinion of them is that he\'s evil.
Thus, to reiterate, good and evil is just a difference of opinion.
-
To quote some writeress,
I think that the beginning of essential morality would be to see yourself with the eyes of others.
Also difference of opinion won\'t always happen.
In the moment of earthquake, who will think it\'s good?
Wouldn\'t everyone think it\'s evil?
Of course, looking at everything with your own eyes, makes you pretty much narrow-minded. And looking at yourself with the eyes of others, is just beginning of morality. There are different views.
Just like when killing for food...
- With your own eyes (I got myself some food, that is good)
- With the eyes of others (I killed an animal, that is evil)
- With your own rationality (I killed an animal, but thanks to that I got myself some food. That is both evil and good)
- Swords
-
What is wrong with killing an animal? Fortunately I don\'t see many ppl with this sudden love for animals where I live. Why should I feel bad for cutting the throat of a rabbit? I really don\'t see the point. Yeah, the sight would not be very pleasant with blood and all.... etc but I don\'t feel bad for stepping on the grass, killing a weed, cutting a tree, squashing a fly, not to mention the bilions of bacterias I kill every day by washing my hands. The only reason I agree for not killing animals is not to drive them into extinction. Except for this what\'s the point?
-
I always thought that listening is important part of discussion.
What should I say? Besides that I never said killing for food is wrong? And that I said many times, evil does not equal wrong?
oh yea, I\'ll answer that:
The only reason I agree for not killing animals is not to drive them into extinction. Except for this what\'s the point?
Well here\'s the point: They are alive! They are normal thinking beings!
Really, one day some higher form of life should destroy all mankind just because they are able to. Oh right, sorry, just kill the most arrogant ones to not drive us into extinction...
- Swords
-
They are normal thinking beings!
I really don\'t see the thinking part when animals involved.
-
Yeah, blind people usually don\'t see things...
Others however could notice the behaviour of such animals as dolphins, squirrels or even monkeys, that couldn\'t be result of anything but intelligence.
Really, believing out of all creatures on Earth, we are the only ones that think? How stupid is that?
- Swords
-
I don\'t say animals don\'t think, but I don\'t take their thinking as \"normal\". Human thinking is far more complex than animal one. No animal is aware of some basic things like right and wrong or the feeling of love.
I really don\'t see that beeing alive is a reason not to be killed (beeing dead would be a great one :)) Or the thing that animals have some spark of intelligence (some computers are even more \"intelignet\" than humans). Nature is cruel as death is the main force behind evolution. Animals aren\'t intelligent enough so the death of one will matter (unlike humans) so if you feel bad about me wacking some rabbits I\'ll give you a pair so you could take care of the prosperity of the rabbit population.
Maybe you should kill an animal and then talk about the right or wrong of this action as I don\'t think that at the time there were no supermarkets ppl thought it\'s bad to kill a rabbit for example. Maybe you should go out in the nature more Darklar and really see what animals can or can\'t do... stop applying to them human behaviour as animals are just animals. It\'s more likely to find the animal side in you that the human one in an animal.
-
Lol I have told him many times Psycon that animals are thinking but not reasoning beings but he does not seem to understand the difference.
-
I really don\'t see the thinking part when animals involved.
I don\'t say animals don\'t think
Sure you don\'t.No animal is aware of some basic things like right and wrong or the feeling of love.
I could see that in dog. Any arguments proving it isn\'t so?so if you feel bad about me wacking some rabbits I\'ll give you a pair so you could take care of the prosperity of the rabbit population.
wow... your logic amazes me... what does population grow help when the living being gets murdered?
stop applying to them human behaviour as animals are just animals.
ok, quote me when I apply human behaviour to them. Did I say they steal? kill for no apparent reason? Strive to destroy themselves?
Maybe you should kill an animal and then talk about the right or wrong
ok, that\'s just sadistic... maybe you should kill a human and then talk about right or wrong?
I really don\'t see that beeing alive is a reason not to be killed
So I assume the reason is if something can solve math, speak the way you speak? How illogical, plus primitive way of basing morality on your race... racism against animals?
We should only hope that more intelligent race that uses telepathy wouldn\'t have same views on different races, or we would be pretty much dead... then again, is that a bad thing?
Maybe you should go out in the nature more Darklar and really see what animals can or can\'t do...
Funny, in past, people who really lived close to nature, respected it. Were praying for the killed animal... today still some are praying if they pull out plant from their garden.
The question who has better understanding of nature: those who live in it, or those who spend their time in front of computer, should have obvious answer...
Hatchnet: I\'ve seen animals reasoning...
I really should stop discussing it before I start to hate mankind...
- Swords
-
Originally posted by Draklar
Hatchnet: I\'ve seen animals reasoning...
- Swords
Draklar I grew up around a great many animals of a great many types and while I have seen some very inteligent animals; I have never seen one with the ability to reason. So I say to you be sure you do not confuse an animals ability to assotiate with the human ability to reason.
I really should stop discussing it before I start to hate mankind...
From the way you speak you already do.
-
I don\'t hate mankind... I hate nazism, ignorance and... christianity :P
And imo, knowledge won\'t hit you in face no matter how close you stand to it. You still have to reach for it.
I\'ve seen squirrel learning on its own mistakes... and very quickly I shall add. Many other experiments showed that animals can use their logics. Reason.
But you could simply look at behaviour of dog, which has been taught of right and wrong.
- Swords
-
Originally posted by Draklar
I don\'t hate mankind... I hate nazism, ignorance and... christianity :P
And imo, knowledge won\'t hit you in face no matter how close you stand to it. You still have to reach for it.
I\'ve seen squirrel learning on its own mistakes... and very quickly I shall add. Many other experiments showed that animals can use their logics. Reason.
But you could simply look at behaviour of dog, which has been taught of right and wrong.
- Swords
You moron you just described association not reason; I told you not to confuse them! Association is the ability to learn from what has already happened (an ability tied to instinct) while reason is the ability to make a logical choice based on given knowledge. I almost constantly see animals perform the former and have never seen them perform the later.
-
yay... insults...
Originally posted by Hatchnet
reason is the ability to make a logical choice based on given knowledge. I almost constantly see animals perform the former and have never seen them perform the later.
gee.. and I thought that\'s what I meant by saying
Many other experiments showed that animals can use their logics. Reason.
Scientists came to conclusion that yes, they can use it. But what can I, \"moron\" know about it, eh?
- Swords
-
Draklar scientist are the ones most likely to confuse the two. If you can\'t figure out why then perhaps you are not as smart as you like to think you are; it does not take a brain surgen after all.
-
I\'m sorry, but you throw away everything that might change your world view. You criticize the experiments without even knowing what they were about. You made your observations and thus you are right. No matter if someone made more observations, if he doesn\'t say what you say - he is wrong.
- Swords
-
i hate mankind in total.....i have to work with the genreal public and the sheer mass of ignorance with simple tasks...for example
i work on a moblie phone shop where what we sell is clearly in view.
(did you bring your mobile (cell) phone with you sir so we can check it for you?....oh no i never take my phone out the house) then why have a mobile phone
(hi can i help....yes do you sell hair dryers?) ...
(*woman looking at phone cases* hi there what phone do you have?...oh no i dont own a phone i was just looking at the pretty patterns)