Who decides what is good and bad?

[Tavalu]

Yes but at the time they considered that right.

It is civilization and society that sets the standards for good.

Society in the past has always told us what is good and bad.

The Aztec society thought eating people was fine, and so it was alright to do.

Our society deems in bad, so if you do such an act now, you will be labeled as bad.

Society as a whole deems what is good or bad, it wouldn't be bad, if society didn't make it that way.

That still doesn't work, because you said for a civilization to work, morals have to be present, and if civilizations exist on different moral standards, then you saying that morals are a necessity for civilization is false.

And so "Society" is the deciding factor again?
What is society? Your mom and dad and the extended family? The city you live in? The country?
In New York, gay marriage is now moral and legal.
In Texas, gay marriage isn't moral and isn't legal.
Are we not the same society?

And no, Society is on many terms. Yes the United States, the state of Texas, and the city of New York, is all a part of society at large, but there are small society as well. That is why the US government system has worked so well, we deal with specific levels of society.

Society at large sees murder as wrong, therefor the US makes that a crime.

Texas finds the death penalty alright, while other states do not, that is there good or bad standard.

Society is everyone at large, or in a certain area. Yes mother, father, grandma, everyone just accepts what as been laid out.

You may need to study society to fully understand, as it is tough to explain to one who has not studied such matters, but it does make since.

Civilization all has morals, which I did point out and still stick with. What you find wrong is not always wrong, and what I find wrong is not always wrong. In many cases you live by how you feel inside, but at the same time you live by societies morals as well.

It is like a majority type thing, but much more complex then that.

Anyways, I have said Good and Bad are not universal, they vary by culture and such.

[Rambhutan]

Ratings agencies - apparently being kind to kittens has just been downgraded from AAA status to an AA rating.

[Cameroi]

no one DECIDES what is "good or bad".

benefit is benefit and harm is harm.

there is no static condition of good or bad.

there is instead a very real observability of benefit and harm.

(truth is what is always there, when no one is saying anything)

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Who decides? On these forums, me. And a handful of others. Aren't you the lucky ones.

(No, could not resist. Carry on.)

You write the rules?

Levity, Parkus. Bit of. Play on the need for moderators to make judgment calls. Clearly lost in translation.

[Autash]

no one DECIDES what is "good or bad".

benefit is benefit and harm is harm.

there is no static condition of good or bad.

there is instead a very real observability of benefit and harm.

(truth is what is always there, when no one is saying anything)

So if the entire human race is exterminated to save the Martians from slavery, that is purely beneficial and does not harm anyone in any way?

[Octabrinaland]

There was this theory, can't remember the guy who though it up, that human instinct tells us to keep our race alive - a lot like the Asimov's First and Third Laws of Robotics. This theory is that this instinct tells us that anything that seems to effect the progression of humanity in a way that makes it decrease or slow down is immoral or unethical. This can be translated into a stronger emotional feeling through humanities sentience which allows for the same feeling in other things like prized objects and pets.

[Cameroi]

no one DECIDES what is "good or bad".

benefit is benefit and harm is harm.

there is no static condition of good or bad.

there is instead a very real observability of benefit and harm.

(truth is what is always there, when no one is saying anything)

So if the entire human race is exterminated to save the Martians from slavery, that is purely beneficial and does not harm anyone in any way?

there is a very big universe in which neither you nor i, have any more nor less right to exist, then anyone else.
diversity is an equal opportunity inconvenience, and that is precisely what makes it the downfall of every tyrant.

[Vellosia]

'Good' and 'bad' are meaningless ideas, since they are subjective and relative concepts. Something cannot be good unless there is something that is bad. And how bad is bad? How good is good? They are meaningless, arbitary concepts.

[Hippostania]

It's wrong because the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says so.

[Lord Tothe]

'Good' and 'bad' are meaningless ideas, since they are subjective and relative concepts. Something cannot be good unless there is something that is bad. And how bad is bad? How good is good? They are meaningless, arbitary concepts.

I punch you in the face. Unless you're a masochist, you find your condition unsatisfactory. I give you cake. It is not a lie. Unless you have a bad cavity, you find your condition more satisfactory. Not arbitrary concepts.

Individual preferences may vary, but we all know what we find personally more or less satisfactory, and what is more or less effective in gaining a more satisfactory state. As social beings, we can communicate and organize into a society for mutual satisfaction of wants. As reasoning beings, we can deduce natural laws that govern such a society and determine good and bad at both individual and societal levels. lrn2philosophy.

[Vellosia]

'Good' and 'bad' are meaningless ideas, since they are subjective and relative concepts. Something cannot be good unless there is something that is bad. And how bad is bad? How good is good? They are meaningless, arbitary concepts.

I punch you in the face. Unless you're a masochist, you find your condition unsatisfactory. I give you cake. It is not a lie. Unless you have a bad cavity, you find your condition more satisfactory. Not arbitrary concepts.

Individual preferences may vary, but we all know what we find personally more or less satisfactory, and what is more or less effective in gaining a more satisfactory state. As social beings, we can communicate and organize into a society for mutual satisfaction of wants. As reasoning beings, we can deduce natural laws that govern such a society and determine good and bad at both individual and societal levels. lrn2philosophy.

See, you already produce exceptions to your own claims. Thanks.

[Wikipedia and Universe]

You decide.

[Zeth Rekia]

Scenario:
A man kills a man for one reason: he felt like killing. The only reason the man killed the man is because he just felt like it. Period.


Question: was the man wrong or right for killing the man?

If you answer "he is wrong for killing," why?
If you answer "he is not wrong/right for killing," why?
How did you obtain the authority to deem an act either right or wrong?

(Answer from a 'big-picture' perspective, if that makes sense.)

Bears usually have a justifiable motive for their killing. Murder is generally illogical behavior. Murder is murder, and murder is a crime. So, the killer gets prison time with Big Joe in his cell.

*throws law book away*

[Lord Tothe]

I punch you in the face. Unless you're a masochist, you find your condition unsatisfactory. I give you cake. It is not a lie. Unless you have a bad cavity, you find your condition more satisfactory. Not arbitrary concepts.

Individual preferences may vary, but we all know what we find personally more or less satisfactory, and what is more or less effective in gaining a more satisfactory state. As social beings, we can communicate and organize into a society for mutual satisfaction of wants. As reasoning beings, we can deduce natural laws that govern such a society and determine good and bad at both individual and societal levels. lrn2philosophy.

See, you already produce exceptions to your own claims. Thanks.

OK, I murder you. I don't have to listen you your over-simplifications of my already over-simplified forum comments and am thus satisfied, and you are unable to feel dissatisfaction anymore. We both benefit, according to your "logic." Can you argue against that? Note to mods: not an actual death threat, just an illustration. I would find being DEAT-ed unsatisfactory.

[Autash]

So if the entire human race is exterminated to save the Martians from slavery, that is purely beneficial and does not harm anyone in any way?

there is a very big universe in which neither you nor i, have any more nor less right to exist, then anyone else.
diversity is an equal opportunity inconvenience, and that is precisely what makes it the downfall of every tyrant.

But that doesn't really answer my question, does it?

[Zeth Rekia]

'Good' and 'bad' are meaningless ideas, since they are subjective and relative concepts. Something cannot be good unless there is something that is bad. And how bad is bad? How good is good? They are meaningless, arbitary concepts.

Make a chart.

[Vellosia]

See, you already produce exceptions to your own claims. Thanks.

OK, I murder you. I don't have to listen you your over-simplifications of my already over-simplified forum comments and am thus satisfied, and you are unable to feel dissatisfaction anymore. We both benefit, according to your "logic." Can you argue against that? Note to mods: not an actual death threat, just an illustration. I would find being DEAT-ed unsatisfactory.

Again with the generalisations. What about a woman who stabs her abusive husband? And so on. This is my point - 'good' and 'bad' are huge generalisations with so many exceptions and nitty-gritty details that they are, effectively, meaningless. Whether you agree with me or not is your choice, but so far everything you've presented are the very same generalisations that I've been talking about.

[Gravonia]

It's simply about morals.

It's wrong because he killed the man. His reasons weren't justified.

Again, where did you get those morals?
Who said killing had to be justified?

By the way, I think it is wrong. The proportion of theists (precisely Calvinists, which are hard to find in the theist society) and atheists is astonishing, but I'll voice my knowledge anyways.

The reason I know it is wrong is because when the Earth was formed, and Adam was made alive from dust and His breath, he ate the apple from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. His knowledge and his morals are embedded into everyone's mind, and I do not claim to know how after the some 8,000 years (I also do not claim to know the age of Earth, but it is not some ridiculous number with fifty zeros) humans are still born with the morals.

That isn't knowledge - it's bullshit.

From an evolutionary standpoint, if everyone started killing others on a whim then humans wouldn't last too long. So it benefits the species to take dangerous people out of circulation. Either by locking them up or by killing them.

Therefore morals which state killing people for little or no no reason is wrong are just a result of natural selection.

[The Parkus Empire]

Again, where did you get those morals?
Who said killing had to be justified?

By the way, I think it is wrong. The proportion of theists (precisely Calvinists, which are hard to find in the theist society) and atheists is astonishing, but I'll voice my knowledge anyways.

The reason I know it is wrong is because when the Earth was formed, and Adam was made alive from dust and His breath, he ate the apple from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. His knowledge and his morals are embedded into everyone's mind, and I do not claim to know how after the some 8,000 years (I also do not claim to know the age of Earth, but it is not some ridiculous number with fifty zeros) humans are still born with the morals.

That isn't knowledge - it's bullshit.

From an evolutionary standpoint, if everyone started killing others on a whim then humans wouldn't last too long. So it benefits the species to take dangerous people out of circulation. Either by locking them up or by killing them.

Therefore morals which state killing people for little or no no reason is wrong are just a result of natural selection.

More cultural selection than genetic (which "natural selection" indicates) selection, really.

[Gravonia]

More cultural selection than genetic (which "natural selection" indicates) selection, really.

I stand corrected

[Furious Grandmothers]

See, you already produce exceptions to your own claims. Thanks.

OK, I murder you. I don't have to listen you your over-simplifications of my already over-simplified forum comments and am thus satisfied, and you are unable to feel dissatisfaction anymore. We both benefit, according to your "logic." Can you argue against that? Note to mods: not an actual death threat, just an illustration. I would find being DEAT-ed unsatisfactory.

Jumping in! Hope you both don't mind

You claim that the two of you both benefit from your murder of him. This concept of the both of you benefiting is meaningless because clearly, the both of you do not benefit in the same exact way, but in different ways. What are the benchmarks against which you may consider the murder to be beneficial for you, towering above the shrunken body before you with a gruesomely bloodied cleaver in your right fist, quivering with raw, sadistic satisfaction while your savage eyes light up in the grim shadows as you move in for the final blow? And what are the benchmarks against which it can be considered to be beneficial to your victim, now grasping his throat in excruciating pain, veins throbbing with his fading pulse, tainted blood gushing out of his jugular across the remnants of the horribly mangled wreck of his body? Yet of course, he still stands to benefit, by certain benchmarks. What are these benchmarks? These benchmarks ultimately need to be ascertained subjectively and arbitrarily, and there is totally no subjective measure by which you can measure good or bad, right or wrong, as well as the rest of the pantheon of human constructs.

Can anyone tell that I would like to try out RPing? I've never RPed before.

[Jello Biafra]

Scenario:
A man kills a man for one reason: he felt like killing. The only reason the man killed the man is because he just felt like it. Period.


Question: was the man wrong or right for killing the man?

If you answer "he is wrong for killing," why?
If you answer "he is not wrong/right for killing," why?
How did you obtain the authority to deem an act either right or wrong?

(Answer from a 'big-picture' perspective, if that makes sense.)

He was wrong for doing so. I gave myself the authority to deem an act either right or wrong.

[Zarodia]

Scenario:
A man kills a man for one reason: he felt like killing. The only reason the man killed the man is because he just felt like it. Period.


Question: was the man wrong or right for killing the man?

If you answer "he is wrong for killing," why?
If you answer "he is not wrong/right for killing," why?
How did you obtain the authority to deem an act either right or wrong?

(Answer from a 'big-picture' perspective, if that makes sense.)

the man would be wrong, because he does not intend to help more than hurt.

the man killed for momentary pleasure only, not because he knew that the man he killed was a serial killer or something who would go on to cause more damage to others and he wished to prevent this by taking the man's life.
even if the man had been a serial killer, the other man would still be wrong in this instance, because he had no knowledge of this/didn't care and was killing only for his own momentary pleasure, not to prevent future harm.

how I see it though, there's a difference between "right and wrong" and "good and bad".

"right and wrong" refer to a person's intentions, which are made based off of what they know. using the above example, had the man known that his victim was a serial killer who planned to continue his acts, then his intentions would be "right", as he intends to cause more help (preventing future deaths of innocents) than harm (killing one person). but if he hadn't known this, or didn't care, then his intentions would be "wrong", as he intends to cause more harm (killing one person) than help (his own momentary pleasure).

"good and bad", on the other hand, refer to the action itself, and it's overall effect. in this case, whether the man knew it/cared or not, if the victim was a serial killer who planned on killing again then the action would be "good" because it helped (the prevention of future deaths) more than it harmed (the death of one person). if the victim was simply a normal person then the action would be "bad" because it harmed (the death of one normal person) more than it helped (the momentary pleasure of one person).

if any of that makes any type of sense.

[Nacional-Socialist Russia]

well,but since god knows what is going to happen,you would only get fucked on earth,on heaven the reward would be higher,because you prevented the death of 50000000 people.

If God wanted Hitler dead, he would have killed him. God doesn't answer to anybody, but everybody answers to Him. He needs no reason other than "I want to." He is God, He can do whatever His HUGE heart desires. Other He doesn't. He abides, to the letter, the same rules we do, or the rules we should follow, but we (humans) don't.

well,god does not intervene on earth actions,but he knows the evil that hitler was,and well,he would reward someone to preventing the death of 50 million people.

[Italiani a Roma]

I say it is wrong, because it is sin to end another human's life.