Like I said based on the motive of their actions and not so much of the actions themselves, humans don't make decisions based on that decision simply being good or evil. For example a poor stealing money can be justifiable if the motive was for the cause of lets say helping to save the life of an ill loved one, but at the same time that was someone else's hard earned cash that got stolen, so how would you judge the person who stole money? I wouldn't necessarily agree with something extreme like say a Death Penalty or Life Imprisonment, but a reasonable punishment based on the circumstances of the situation.
And since there is no justifiable cause for extremes like Rape and Murder then that person would deserve the extreme punishments( Lethal Injection, Life Imprisonment, etc..)
No, I mean on what basis do you say that actions like rape and murder should be punished if you deny the existence of good and evil? If there's no good and no evil then when you punish someone you're punishing them arbitrarily.
Did you mean to say that there's no objective good or evil?
Originally Posted by Fenn
You forgot your F in Modesty.
I'm saying that life is not so much Black and White, but more so different shades of gray. Rape and murder are the darkest shades of gray, borderline black even, and are punishable crimes because they have no benefit to society or life.
That's still asserting the existence of a good and evil, though.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Good and Evil exist, but nothing's objectively good or evil and it won't have meaning if it's not deducted in different points of views... that doesn't make any sense, so i'll just go with a metaphor:
The way i see it, every deed is like a dice, after it is thrown (the deed is done), different sides of it face different people and each side shows whether ugly or beautiful portraits, every person who the ugly side faces will be punished thus revealing the dice to be evil and every person who the beautiful side faces will be rewarded thus revealing the dice to be good... in some cases, the dice might be broken (the deed is done half heartedly) so it won't show some of it's sides to anybody, or the dice might just have more ugly faces than beautiful ones so less people benefit from it (and no one might not benefit at all in some cases like rape).
...that metaphor confused me far more than your initial statement. And I still have no idea what you're trying to say.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Good and evil exist because there is law. It's the same concept as good and evil were there a god of some sort. Also Boze what the hell does all that mean. People can benefit from rape.
So he's claiming that the source of morality is the law? That's obscene.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Abominable a claim as it is, that's essentially how semi-religious simpletons see it.
I wouldn't say 'simpletons'. That's the most common perspective, as shown here. (Stage 4)
If you've gone all cool and post-conventional it looks stupid, but from below post-conventional morality looks like selfishness.
Last edited by Delphinus; 05-31-2011 at 12:04 PM.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks