Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by LoneWolfy, Nov 7, 2017.

  1. Diretooth

    Diretooth Dire Wolf and Dragon Therianthrope

    I guess I should have said, there are different ways of seeing what is good and what is evil, rather than saying there are different versions. Thanks for checking me.
  2. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    No, there's no middle ground. Just like you can't have a little feces in a sandwich and call it anything less than a sh-t sandwich, you can't have a little evil in good and call it anything but evil. Either you're pure and good or you are corrupted and evil. You can't have "a little" exploitation, inequity, or illiberality mixed in and call it anything other than a system of evil because there it is, the evil, and evil cannot be tolerated precisely because it is evil and it subverts all good by its very nature. Even a child can understand this.
  3. I think it's not the idea that you can have small vices.

    I think it's that circumstances determine more what is good and evil at that time than set rules. Which is true. What can be good in one circumstance could have an opposite effect in another.
  4. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    Don't change the subject. A lot of things people call 'vices' are called so arbitrary and irrationally. Moralism that serves no functional good purpose or only makes sense because of some vandalistic evil act (e.g.: spreading biowarfare agents such as HIV/AIDS, pneumatic plague, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis, or HPV against patterns of lifestyle) is actually just camouflaged evil and a wrongful tool of spiritual enslavement. We were not born yesterday, after all. Historical patterns jump out at us like neon lights in the darkness.
  5. Diretooth

    Diretooth Dire Wolf and Dragon Therianthrope

    Exactly. If I, in seeking to feed my family, steal food from a shop, and thus preventing them from starving to death, my act of evil saves lives. If I see a man about to kill several other people, and I kill him before he can kill them, my act of killing saves many. Morality is not simple, it is a complex, ugly subject. To constrain it to simple good and evil and ignoring the circumstances that change how we act, we ignore what may be necessary. I know people who see things in strictly good and evil with no leeway for simple nature or random chance, I have seen them condemn those who steal so others can live, I have seen them wish death upon those who have killed so others would live.
    I call these people who, in seeing only good and evil, and condemning all else, as themselves being evil because they do not recognize necessity, because they are so rigid they are unwilling to see that good, moral people suffer and make difficult decisions.
  6. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    It's not an act of evil in the first place. The act of evil was in dividing man from nature such that a middleman could exploit starvation for-profit. There's no reason for hunger to exist in the 21st century world except avarice and shockingly dark evil and inhumanity. I'm not sure the people who do that can even be said to be in possession of human souls.
  7. Astusthefox

    Astusthefox The King of Games

    I'll just put one of my favorite quotes from a poem here... for any literate types that get where it's from

    "And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings; Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
  8. Diretooth

    Diretooth Dire Wolf and Dragon Therianthrope

    That, I will admit, is a very good point. At the rate that we produce food, there is no reason for starvation, the idea that something must have a price, and that this price is greater than a life in need, is what I would consider evil.
    However, one could argue that procreation without careful consideration of what we have available is also evil; in that mindless fucking for the sake of pleasure, without contraceptive measures taken, and without careful preparation for the potential new life being brought into the world, we further increase the strain we have on our current infrastructure. I bring this up not because I believe in it, but because it is a point that has been brought up to me many times, often by my younger brother, and I feel it would be beneficial to examine it under these current circumstances.
  9. ChromaticRabbit

    ChromaticRabbit lagomorphic

    I'm glad you made this point, I think it's actually central to humanity's crisis in the 21st century. I'd argue the problem is fascism wanted to create profitable markets, and they do this by encouraging irresponsible population growth in order to cultivate larger 'free markets' for profit. It's quantity over quality in blind service to avarice. They figure human life is cheap, if they run into a population problem, that's what war is for. It's anachronistic mad evil.

    It's as if society and culture themselves haven't gotten the memo that technology and medical science have advanced such that we no longer need to have seven children so that one or two might survive to adulthood. Or rather, they have gotten this message, but depraved fascism astroturfs over it with amplified mass media.

    We must elevate the value of every individual human rather than try to elevate aggregate value (for exploitation) of an unsustainable and growing-like-a-viral-outbreak human population. I'm pretty sure the maximum sustainable human population on the Earth was probably the 1970 population count of around 3-3.5 billion souls. It's not like doubling that figure has doubled our cultural or spiritual worth, but it sure is destroying the planet fast. It's time for people to stop breeding themselves toward the evitable collapse and dieback of human civilization.
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017 at 12:16 PM
  10. Noted but I think all more circumstances in that light must be evaluated and thought about. Even if something saves lives, that doesn't always justify the means.
  11. BahgDaddy

    BahgDaddy Voice of reason

    I am not nihilistic, but I am sarcastic and cynical somethings. Reality and morality have the meanings we give them. We can make life meaningful or not; it is largely our choice.
    ChapterAquila92 likes this.
  12. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. Good and evil are abstractions created by people as tools for them to enforce rules on what they believe to be right and wrong, respectively, yet are nebulous concepts, if not inherently meaningless, when devoid of social context.

    For that matter, ethics and morality are rules and guidelines that people develop and adopt as a means of seeking personal benefit whilst working with others towards a mutual goal; cooperation through selfishness.
    BahgDaddy likes this.
  13. But that's clearly not true, as there are rarely any benefits for doing good beyond social ones, and even then unless you're Jesus or Gaundi you receive little if any recognition for it, and even they at worst were hated for doing good.

    Mass shooters have collaborated to kill innocent people. That doesn't mean what they did was good. Working toward the goal is not the point of goodness; the point of goodness is to achieve a goal that is impossible. A goal that is unreachable, that we aim for anyway.

    Why not every man for himself? We don't need to cooperate, and if we do it certainly doesn't need to be with good intent.
  14. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    Humans are social creatures; it's in our nature to want to belong to a group, and we're generally more than willing to give of ourselves to varying degrees in order to do so. This longing is ingrained into our psyche so much so that those who don't exhibit it are often seen as outsiders from the Uncanny Valley at best, if not outright threats.

    Ultimately, it's the kind of behaviour that cults are built upon, for good or ill.
  15. BahgDaddy

    BahgDaddy Voice of reason

    Um, what those shooters did was most certainly evil. The loss of human life, for no reason, is not justified. In fact, I'm a "just pacifist," so only believe in violence as a last resort. Self defense is fine, but aggression is not, especially as a primary tactic. Many of our mass shooters ARE NOT mentally quackers. They've got a huge grudge against someone and they want to make their last point in a very big way. They know the media has a perverse fascination with mass shooters, so that's their one way ticket to fame.

    And then everyone goes and buys a gun for "self defense" and gun stocks soar.
  16. That was kinda the point I was making.
    BahgDaddy likes this.
  17. BahgDaddy

    BahgDaddy Voice of reason

    Oh. Okay then. :oops:
  18. Hehehe! Cutie x3
    BahgDaddy likes this.
  19. ChapterAquila92

    ChapterAquila92 Resident Bronze Dragon Kasrkin

    I still question this statement of yours:
    Say hello to our negativity bias. As the saying goes, "no news is good news", and decent people generally don't go out of their way to seek recognition for their efforts. There's a time and place for drawing attention to yourself and showing off past glories (i.e. job interviews), but it's going to be because of how you conduct yourself that will determine if others will like and/or respect you for what you've done.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2017 at 2:23 AM
  20. AustinB

    AustinB Active Member

    Biologically, the meaning of life is reproduction and survival. But it really comes down to what you make of it. What meaning you want for your life.
  21. Saiko

    Saiko GTWT Survivor

    You know, that whole "biological meaning of life" thing always bugs me. Rivers run; rain falls; fires burn; and life reproduces. It's not meaning or purpose. It's just what life does.

    Not to say you're really wrong about anything. That wording is just a minor pet peeve of mine lol.
    BahgDaddy likes this.
  22. BahgDaddy

    BahgDaddy Voice of reason

    Yeah, from a biological perspective, there's no real meaning to life. It is just. It just happens. Meaning is what we give things. We decide life has meaning, philosophically speaking.

Share This Page