My interesting philosophy...

[Armanen]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Good and bad are relative, they are not absolutes. There are degrees... nothing is pure good or pure evil. Well.... maybe some things are pure evil

In Christian theology, this is known as original sin. Whether you choose to believe it literally, the Garden of Eden story, or if you choose the esoteric route, that we all have the propensity to do great good, and great evil, is another question.

And colors are relative to one another as well. But when you see a yellow shirt, are you really going to explain it to me by saying it is mixture of other colors as well as its place on the color wavelength? Likewise, if you see a man steal anothers wallet, are you going to say to me, well he could have beat him to death before stealing it (that would be more evil), or he could have let the man know after he stolen the other man's newspaper instead (less evil). Whichever way you choose to describe it to me, the point will remian that what the theif did was wrong.

[Armanen]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Exactly as KanadaHye said, there are "drugs" that cure physical ailments/diseases. So drugs can be beneficial if used therapeutically, in the right amounts. But alcohol is not considered by most to be one of those medicinal drugs, however it's acceptable by society to consume it in moderation. Even Jesus is happy turning water into wine for weddings, and I'm sure in this case, he knows some people are gonna get drunk. Good ol' Jesus didn't seem to mind though!

There are good and bad drugs. Good drugs are called medicine, and you both should have picked up on the fact that that is not what we are discussing.
The point still remains that man ought to treat his body well as much as possible. Regardless of what Jesus may have or may not have done. And who are we to say that it was not for that specific event which Jesus did so. Either way, the point is moot because as I said, alcohol consumption in moderation is fine, it is not ideal, but we do not live in an ideal world and never will!

Yes, you are correct. In my opinion, they describe one's propensity for "consideration for oneself and others", if we are speaking of good and evil in terms of morality, which is probably the domain in which most of us seem to agree upon making judgments of good vs. evil. However, actually being able to do good in ways that don't harm others is not always easy to find in this world. For example, if there was not enough food to feed everyone in your town, but you took the necessary measures to feed your family first. This can be "good" because its done to protect your family. This can be "bad" because it does so at the expense of other families. It seems we struck a compromise between good and bad, in our decision to protect our family. This is where values come in, which we use to justify that what we did was in fact "right", and thus "good" overall.

I agree. There are moral grayzones, and this is indeed where one needs to have some sort of internal moral compass, if you will, that directs them toward making the good decision. And this is why I believe moral relativism, as it is understood by most people, the premise that you think/do as you will and it is correct, I think/do as I will and that is correct, xxxo thinks/does as he wills and it is correct, etc. is bs and harmful to society. Again, I realize that there are many grayzones and there is no simple cookie cutter formula to solve these issues at all places and times. However, where does one draw the line and say no, this is not correct, it is not good, it is bad or even evil? And if you say this, where do you draw your inspiration for knowing something is good or bad/evil from?

Perhaps it can't be destroyed or changed, but what about the fact that it depends on the physical world in order to be understood? Do metaphysical concepts actually point to things that truly exist out there in the world? Or are they functions by which we understand the physical world? For example, what is the metaphysical concept of time, if it has no physical objects to act upon? Time could only exist in such a case if it acted upon objects that are not "physical" in nature, but that is not something we can prove with science to actually exist, we can only imagine and believe in ideas of such things.

Metaphysics may depend on the physical world in order to be understood just by those who see themselves as primarily material. And based on your questions above it seems you do or may believe that time and space do not exist separate from the mind. Am I correct? Also, since mankind is material, (except the soul), has been brought up to think materially, and furthermore, since the majority of the world, but especially Western World, has been dominated by the ideas of the materialistic philosophies dating from the Enlightenment, it is very hard to discuss metaphysics and take ourselves, the material selves, from the discussion. I'm reading up on Gurdjieff, both his work, and analysis of them, and I am slowly coming to the conclusion that it indeed is possible, but very difficult, to think of ourselves immaterially, and as multiple I's as Gurdjieff calls it.

And exactly which process under specified conditions which remains invariant through time and place does it describe?

Well, if you have a gun or some other device that can kill another person, and this person has done no harm either to you nor anyone else, it would be evil to kill him. This stands true regardless of what era/time and place you find yourself.

I am not advocating it in the sense that I think societies should function according to my opinions, that would be an issue for another debate. Looking up moral relativism in wikipedia, I found a position of it which I feel resembles mine:

Relativism leads to apathy, which leads to horrors. So next time you see women being stoned for not wearing a hijab, or a man sexually abusing a child, just describe it, because you know, according to him, that is not immoral. As a people who have suffered Genocide not less than 100 years ago, the last thing we need to be is relative and apathetic.

[KanadaHye]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

one could argue that there is a good measure of controlling behavior, woven into the belief system. If you argue that a member of such a community is still essentially governing themselves, choosing to remain in this position of being controlled, why can't the same be said of our position as citizens vis-a-vis our government?

When you choose to remain "controlled" or live within boundaries, it is a conscious choice knowing that if you don't, you will be forcing a society that will not have trust between its members. This is why we have evolved to putting our TRUST in banks, lawyers and government. Although they are strangers, they aren't involved in our daily lives and don't have enough information on us to be able to do harm on purpose (so it is believed ). If we could trust the people around us to be honest, none of these measures would be needed.

[jgk3]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

You are what you eat. Drinking alcohol, even in moderation, has negative effects on the body. I do not think it is a major issue, if done in moderation, and therefore do not pass judgement on such people. In an ideal world though, it would not happen, however, we do not live in an ideal world and due to man's nature, we never will.

Exactly as KanadaHye said, there are "drugs" that cure physical ailments/diseases. So drugs can be beneficial if used therapeutically, in the right amounts. But alcohol is not considered by most to be one of those medicinal drugs, however it's acceptable by society to consume it in moderation. Even Jesus is happy turning water into wine for weddings, and I'm sure in this case, he knows some people are gonna get drunk. Good ol' Jesus didn't seem to mind though!

I understand your analogy, but again, we are talking about a metaphysical issue. Science can't answer it for us. But we have logic, and therefore we do have an ability to discuss good and evil. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that good and evil are on a continuum. Am I correct?

Yes, you are correct. In my opinion, they describe one's propensity for "consideration for oneself and others", if we are speaking of good and evil in terms of morality, which is probably the domain in which most of us seem to agree upon making judgments of good vs. evil. However, actually being able to do good in ways that don't harm others is not always easy to find in this world. For example, if there was not enough food to feed everyone in your town, but you took the necessary measures to feed your family first. This can be "good" because its done to protect your family. This can be "bad" because it does so at the expense of other families. It seems we struck a compromise between good and bad, in our decision to protect our family. This is where values come in, which we use to justify that what we did was in fact "right", and thus "good" overall.

Metaphysics is immaterial, and as such it can't be destroyed or changed. While we believe our understanding of the laws of physics apply throughout the universe, we have no proof and likely, never will. Physics deals with the material.

Perhaps it can't be destroyed or changed, but what about the fact that it depends on the physical world in order to be understood? Do metaphysical concepts actually point to things that truly exist out there in the world? Or are they functions by which we understand the physical world? For example, what is the metaphysical concept of time, if it has no physical objects to act upon? Time could only exist in such a case if it acted upon objects that are not "physical" in nature, but that is not something we can prove with science to actually exist, we can only imagine and believe in ideas of such things.

Divine Law is the Creator's law. It is found in nature, and can simply be said to be a report on what is. It's a description of a process that under specified conditions remains invariant through time and place.

And exactly which process under specified conditions which remains invariant through time and place does it describe?

Again, I will ask you, are you advocating moral relativism?

I am not advocating it in the sense that I think societies should function according to my opinions, that would be an issue for another debate. Looking up moral relativism in wikipedia, I found a position of it which I feel resembles mine:

Descriptive relativism describes the way things are, without suggesting a way they ought to be. It seeks only to point out that people frequently disagree over what is the most 'moral' course of action.

Good and bad are relative, they are not absolutes. There are degrees... nothing is pure good or pure evil. Well.... maybe some things are pure evil

Drugs can cure or they can harm if you abuse them. The reason there are illegal drugs is because people aren't smart enough not to abuse them. If your society is full of drug addicts, it can't function. That doesn't mean it will be an evil society... it just won't be able to compete with other nations. So making things illegal is actually a form of control that's worse than religion (a religious person governs him/herself and doesn't need big brother to control him/her).

right on! Though in some religious communities (especially cults), one could argue that there is a good measure of controlling behavior, woven into the belief system. If you argue that a member of such a community is still essentially governing themselves, choosing to remain in this position of being controlled, why can't the same be said of our position as citizens vis-a-vis our government?

[KanadaHye]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Good and bad are relative, they are not absolutes. There are degrees... nothing is pure good or pure evil. Well.... maybe some things are pure evil

Drugs can cure or they can harm if you abuse them. The reason there are illegal drugs is because people aren't smart enough not to abuse them. If your society is full of drug addicts, it can't function. That doesn't mean it will be an evil society... it just won't be able to compete with other nations. So making things illegal is actually a form of control that's worse than religion (a religious person governs him/herself and doesn't need big brother to control him/her).

[Armanen]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Alcohol is considered a drug, how do you feel about those who drink it in moderation?



In the case of heat being the lack of cold, and vice versa, what we basically see here are two lexical terms, "heat" and "cold", standing for relative judgments of the same, singular phenomenon of thermal energy, which if measured in degrees, transcends "hot" and "cold". I argue that the same principle of singular phenomenon applies to "good" and "evil", however, given that it's a metaphysical concept, it can't be measured in a scientific manner. That is the only conceptual difference my example coming from physics has, but that is fine, it doesn't make my argument any less plausible.

And what do you mean by "superior"? I supposed it's related to your treatment of physics being "below" metaphysics. What do you mean exactly by such judgments?



What is this divine law?

You are what you eat. Drinking alcohol, even in moderation, has negative effects on the body. I do not think it is a major issue, if done in moderation, and therefore do not pass judgement on such people. In an ideal world though, it would not happen, however, we do not live in an ideal world and due to man's nature, we never will.

I understand your analogy, but again, we are talking about a metaphysical issue. Science can't answer it for us. But we have logic, and therefore we do have an ability to discuss good and evil. If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that good and evil are on a continuum. Am I correct?


Metaphysics is immaterial, and as such it can't be destroyed or changed. While we believe our understanding of the laws of physics apply throughout the universe, we have no proof and likely, never will. Physics deals with the material.

Divine Law is the Creator's law. It is found in nature, and can simply be said to be a report on what is. It's a description of a process that under specified conditions remains invariant through time and place.

Again, I will ask you, are you advocating moral relativism?

[jgk3]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Drugs are bad because they harm the human body, and if you believe that we should not harm ourselves then you would not partake in the use of drugs. The same can be said of anything that harms your body which you choose to do, drugs are just the easiest and most well known objects.

Alcohol is considered a drug, how do you feel about those who drink it in moderation?

You can rephrase that heat is lack of cold, it doesn't matter either way because you are talking about physics, which is below the metaphysical. The immaterial is superior and above the material. Good and evil are not physical objects that one can touch or taste, but we all recognize good and evil when we encounter it. It would be fair to say that without evil, one would not know good, and vice versa.

In the case of heat being the lack of cold, and vice versa, what we basically see here are two lexical terms, "heat" and "cold", standing for relative judgments of the same, singular phenomenon of thermal energy, which if measured in degrees, transcends "hot" and "cold". I argue that the same principle of singular phenomenon applies to "good" and "evil", however, given that it's a metaphysical concept, it can't be measured in a scientific manner. That is the only conceptual difference my example coming from physics has, but that is fine, it doesn't make my argument any less plausible.

And what do you mean by "superior"? I supposed it's related to your treatment of physics being "below" metaphysics. What do you mean exactly by such judgments?

The last part of your post does not address my point and is a very cynical outlook. Moral relativism, which is what it seems you may be advocating, is in part what is leading to our world's destruction. And while I agree with you that some authorities have and do use ideologies and/or hierarchy to do their (evil) work for them, it does not repudiate that there indeed does exist a Divine Law.

What is this divine law?

[Armanen]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Thinking of the abuses of alcohol, drugs and sex, I cannot see how any of these are bad unless they are combined with a lack of consideration for ourselves and others affected by our abuse.

It is abuse, not the substances that is bad, and this applies to all manner of things, not just the taboos we're made most familiar with by society.



What if evil is just "lack of good", just as cold is "lack of heat"? Then how are they opposite, well defined entities that are in constant and universal opposition to one another?



All ideologies which support a hierarchy and prescribe its defense whether in the name of nation, creed, gang, business, race, etc... only pretend to not say it is ok to kill, rape, torture, steal, abuse, etc... because they only mind if it affects them personally.

Drugs are bad because they harm the human body, and if you believe that we should not harm ourselves then you would not partake in the use of drugs. The same can be said of anything that harms your body which you choose to do, drugs are just the easiest and most well known objects.

You can rephrase that heat is lack of cold, it doesn't matter either way because you are talking about physics, which is below the metaphysical. The immaterial is superior and above the material. Good and evil are not physical objects that one can touch or taste, but we all recognize good and evil when we encounter it. It would be fair to say that without evil, one would not know good, and vice versa.


The last part of your post does not address my point and is a very cynical outlook. Moral relativism, which is what it seems you may be advocating, is in part what is leading to our world's destruction. And while I agree with you that some authorities have and do use ideologies and/or hierarchy to do their (evil) work for them, it does not repudiate that there indeed does exist a Divine Law.

[jgk3]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

I understand what you are saying, and don't disagree with the construct theory that you talk about, however, do you not believe that there indeed are earthly pleasures or pursuits that are bad or even evil?

Thinking of alcohol, drugs and sex, I cannot see how any of these are bad unless they are combined with a lack of consideration for ourselves and others affected by our abuse.

It is abuse, not the substances that is bad, and this applies to all manner of things, not just the taboos we're made most familiar with by society.

Good and evil are not relative. They are two opposite, and well defined entities that are in constant, and universal, opposition to one another.

What if evil is just "lack of good", just as cold is "lack of heat"? Then how are they opposite, well defined entities that are in constant and universal opposition to one another?

I do not disagree that there are shades of gray, or moral grayzones, but to say that good and evil are relative is false. Mankind throughout history has had a basic understanding of natural law, regardless of race, time, or location. In the western world we refer to the most commonly known of natural law, as the 10 Commandments. Show me one serious religion or philosophy that says, it is ok to kill, rape, torture, steal, abuse, etc.

All ideologies which support a hierarchy and prescribe its defense whether in the name of nation, creed, gang, business, race, etc... only pretend to not say it is ok to kill, rape, torture, steal, abuse, etc... because they only mind if it affects them personally.

[Armanen]

Re: My interesting philosophy...

Good and evil are not relative. They are two opposite, and well defined entities that are in constant, and universal, opposition to one another.

I do not disagree that there are shades of gray, or moral grayzones, but to say that good and evil are relative is false. Mankind throughout history has had a basic understanding of natural law, regardless of race, time, or location. In the western world we refer to the most commonly known of natural law, as the 10 Commandments. Show me one serious religion or philosophy that says, it is ok to kill, rape, torture, steal, abuse, etc.