Are we all equal?

[Bambi]

Renton, that was a good word you put in.

I've got an awkward mindset I guess, but this was something I could agree with.

 

[Grimfang]

I think my view has been expressed by other people here. Just treat others as equals, despite what their net-worth may be.

 

[Kimmerset]

People should have rights proportional to their value to society, thus eliminating free-loaders, tax-evaders, (useless) government officials, and the other ever-increasing dead-weights of society.

 

[ExTo]

People should have rights proportional to their value to society, thus eliminating free-loaders, tax-evaders, (useless) government officials, and the other ever-increasing dead-weights of society.

Way to start a shitstorm by trying to quantify something subjective.

If you do that you can kiss art and music goodbye

 

[Data_stalker]

Kimmerset.

COMMUNISM DOES NOT WORK
SOCIALISM DOES NOT WORK

RUSSIA, CHINA, VIETNAM, AND MOST OF SOUTH AMERICA TRIED IT

IT IS A FAILURE AS A GOVERNMENT.

 

[FrisbeeRolf]

Eeersh... I guess that depends on one's point of view, but what you say here comes to me as "If you're 'good' at birth, whatever you do, God will be a-okay about that. If you're 'bad' at birth, whatever you do to 'atone', God will smite you with great fury". ._.

What in the hell.

What god are we talking about here? Astroth?

 

[An Sionnach Rua]

One could argue that communism/socialism has failed thus far because it was implemented incorrectly. We have never yet seen a socialism democracy. Perhaps socialism itself is flawed - but that does not mean that some of its core principles are. Don't Americans hate Communism? All that McCarthyism bullshit...

People should have rights proportional to their value to society, thus eliminating free-loaders, tax-evaders, (useless) government officials, and the other ever-increasing dead-weights of society.

That would fail for a very simple reason. What constitutes as "value to society"? Meritocracy is a nice, happy little idea on paper, but it doesn't sound like it would ever work.

I see the value of a person's soul as greater than their deeds, as my God does.

Here you seem to say that a person's soul is separate from their actions. Doesn't the "value" of someone's "soul" come out through their actions? You do seem to say that a person's spirit is unaffected by their actions and has no effect on them, thus insinuating that a person can be good even if they do bad things.

 

[FrisbeeRolf]

Here you seem to say that a person's soul is separate from their actions. Doesn't the "value" of someone's "soul" come out through their actions? You do seem to say that a person's spirit is unaffected by their actions and has no effect on them, thus insinuating that a person can be good even if they do bad things.

No, the value of someone's soul does not have anything to do with their actions; not according to my God.

1 What is good?
2 What is bad?
3 How is a good person good?
4 How is a bad person bad?
5 What makes one good person better than the bad person?
6 How is a good better than another good person?
7 For that matter, how much of a good person do you have to be?
8 Why do you have to be good at all?
9 Why is a bad person bad?
10 What is so bad about being a bad person?

It's all point of view, isn't it? Everyone who reads this is going to have a slightly difference answer to every question, and no one is going to always answer the same thing.

Therefore, actions don't have any effect on a persons soul, because no matter what you do, it's all point of view, isn't it? What's bad for one person is good for another. There is no set law that says doing "this" is bad, is there? Not everyone can or will agree on a set of morals, so how would morals affect someone's soul? I think you are a bad person for saying that someone else is a bad person! I have that right, right? How can you say your opinion is better than mine?

Point is, actions don't affect a person's soul, even though they might effect where they spend eternity. A good person still does bad things. Everyone does. A bad person might be misunderstood. A very bad person in your mind might be the savior of another person. How can you say that their opinion is more valid than yours? Only pompous asses assume they are better than everyone else (and they are often wrong), so you are being just as pompous if you assume you are a better person than someone else. There is no way to say doing "x" is a better deed that doing "y", because you have no idea how doing "y" helped someone as apposed to "x". "X" might not have even mattered to begin with, maybe it only looked good and instead it did nothing but bad. There is no way to know. There is no such thing as "good enough" either. There is acceptable to society, but society is not a great judge of moral value now is it? Otherwise we wouldn't have people fighting over what they want their kids to watch. Otherwise society wouldn’t be changing its mind on what’s acceptable and what is not all the time.

If being "good" means helping others, then there is absolutely no reason to be a good person; it's selfless giving, which doesn't help you a bit. There is no reason to be a good person, all that really matters is surviving and living well, right? That's the way of Mother Nature and that's the way animals are supposed to work. So why is it so bad to do what's best for yourself? Really there isn't a reason why not, other than you are a bad person, which, again, is a point of view. So, again, being a good person and a bad person is all a point of view. Whether it's killing someone for money or sleeping around or lying to the whole world, all that matters is that you survive and get on top, right? But that's just another point of view, how silly of me. So how do moral definitions, something that’s nothing but point of view, affect your soul when there is no set law on what is good and what is bad?

Actions themselves don't, however, sin does. Sin is what I believe actually counts. It doesn't matter how "good" of a person you are, or how "bad" of a person you are, my God will still love you just as much as anyone else, if you will let him. It doesn't matter how good or bad you are to Lucifer either, if you are even slightly tainted with sin, you are his. Once you are forgiven, he sees your soul and pure and holy, something so valuable to him that he died so he could save everybody. He didn't care about the actions of other's, he wanted to purify them because he saw every single human soul as a thing of beauty. He made them after all, and he must have made every soul equal if he thinks everyone has a chance of salvation, no matter what they have done before. No matter what you are guilty of, God will forgive you, and if you live by God's path, you are blessed for he is always watching over you. Why live God's way? Because, first, and foremost, you want to love him back. When you love someone, and they love you back, you will protect them, won't you? That is why we are supposed to be a good person; that is why we are supposed to help others out in their time of need. Love.

This is what I believe, and that is why I believe it. Good deeds are soon forgotten, and there is really no logic in doing good deeds, other than pure love, love for your fellow man. My God is the God of love, everlasting, and all powerful love. Without love, what is there?

Can you find reasoning in this life without love?

 

[An Sionnach Rua]

While it is true that nothing is intrinsically good or bad (or at least, it cannot be proven), your argument is just a bit flawed. Rather sophistic, I might say. It's all a matter of perspective, it's only right or wrong to a certain end... I won't go into that now.

I certainly don't remember asserting that I'm better than anyone else, so you're a pompous ass for assuming I did. I believe I have already stated that no-one is better than anyone else, for various reasons.

Therefore, actions don't have any effect on a persons soul, because no matter what you do, it's all point of view, isn't it?

Now, this is what I have a problem with. I don't actually believe in the soul, but here we'll just assume that it exists. It's just that you really need to make clear your definition of "soul". How can a person's actions not affect their soul? If a soul contains their thoughts or personality, or any such thing, then their actions undeniably have an affect on their soul, whether it is "right" or it is "wrong". What you seem to be saying is that a person's soul is completely separate from what they actually do, yet you assert that they are still judged by God. How then can He judge their souls when those souls were not altered by they said or did? Ah, but you try to cover this later:

Point is, actions don't affect a person's soul, even though they might effect where they spend eternity.

Seriously. I just can't make sense of that.

If being "good" means helping others, then there is absolutely no reason to be a good person; it's selfless giving, which doesn't help you a bit.

That depends on what kind of help you're giving and what sort of person you are. Help is very seldom totally selfless. Usually, you will at least get some gratitude. And even without it some people can feel good knowing/thinking that they have helped in some way. Of course, that again is all... a point of view.

For most of your post, I can see where your coming from, but in that fourth paragraph...

Actions themselves don't, however, sin does. Sin is what I believe actually counts.

Wait, what? So what the hell is this "sin" stuff supposed to be? It's like some kind of green dust that sticks to you, or something? If your actions cannot be good or bad, and cannot have any effect on your soul, then how exactly do you "sin"? Isn't a sin an evil action? Isn't sinning doing something wrong? Please define "sin" more clearly, because that makes no sense.

No matter what you are guilty of, God will forgive you

See? You're doing it again.

Having played the God card, your argument abruptly stops making sense.

if you live by God's path, you are blessed for he is always watching over you.

So you have to abide by certain rules (pardon the negative phraseology) and that makes you "blessed"? Did you just completely write off everything you said before?

Because, first, and foremost, you want to love him back.

Not really, no.

When you love someone, and they love you back, you will protect them, won't you?

Yes, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

That is why we are supposed to be a good person; that is why we are supposed to help others out in their time of need. Love.

But we can't be a "good" person, because "good" doesn't exist, right? And how can we help someone out in their time of need if we "have no idea how doing "y" helped someone"?

Can you find reasoning in this life without love?

Yes. Yes, I can. Logic should be bound by "love". What constitutes as "love" anyways? But I digress.

I can't believe I just wasted another 20 minutes...

 

[Sylvine]

Semantic problem. We don't have a term for what Ethics wishes to express with the phrase "We are all equal".

That being said, it's a philosophical concept. Stripping it off of any environmental context, handling it as an idea -> yes, we are to be treated equally, as in: We have what Kant calls human dignity. Bear in mind, that does not mean that it's not logical or moral to privilege someone based on their actions; however, it is morally wrong to assume a person is fundamentally better or more valuable as a human due to his/her actions. The basic premise is that by assaulting a persons human dignity like that, You are, at the same time, assaulting Your own, as You put human value as something subjective. Paradoxically, by saying we are not equal, You make us all equally worthless. Including Yourself.

By the way, G-D, that's highly unconstitutional things You are saying. Someone should report You and Your teacher to the authorities. I remind You: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...."

(Disclaimer: In case You can't tell, the last bit was not very serious.)

~Sylv

 

[ExTo]

What in the hell.

What god are we talking about here? Astroth?

You know what you said past this post confirmed my first impression.

What's your religion, if I may ask?

 

[Oni]

Are we all equal? No.

 

[parsley]

Of course we're not all equal. Left-wingers don't agree that everyone is equal any more than right-wingers do. Speaking for myself, I believe that we should strive for equal treatment of all people under the law, grant all people equal rights, and at least attempt to create equal opportunities for all people.

 

[FrisbeeRolf]

You know what you said past this post confirmed my first impression.

What's your religion, if I may ask?

You honestly have to ask?

 

[An Sionnach Rua]

Countless different sects believe in the Christian God...

 

[FrisbeeRolf]

While it is true that nothing is intrinsically good or bad (or at least, it cannot be proven), your argument is just a bit flawed. Rather sophistic, I might say. It's all a matter of perspective, it's only right or wrong to a certain end... I won't go into that now.

I certainly don't remember asserting that I'm better than anyone else, so you're a pompous ass for assuming I did. I believe I have already stated that no-one is better than anyone else, for various reasons.

Now, this is what I have a problem with. I don't actually believe in the soul, but here we'll just assume that it exists. It's just that you really need to make clear your definition of "soul". How can a person's actions not affect their soul? If a soul contains their thoughts or personality, or any such thing, then their actions undeniably have an affect on their soul, whether it is "right" or it is "wrong". What you seem to be saying is that a person's soul is completely separate from what they actually do, yet you assert that they are still judged by God. How then can He judge their souls when those souls were not altered by they said or did? Ah, but you try to cover this later:

The Soul is the part of you that can never die. I don't a scientific definition if that's what you are looking for, but a soul is the part of you that cannot die, the eternal part of you. It is the core of you. It's separate from thoughts and personality. It's sort of like the "real" you.

Seriously. I just can't make sense of that.

Read the rest. Sin is what determines where you spend eternity, not the "value" of someone's soul.

That depends on what kind of help you're giving and what sort of person you are. Help is very seldom totally selfless. Usually, you will at least get some gratitude. And even without it some people can feel good knowing/thinking that they have helped in some way. Of course, that again is all... a point of view.

Why should I care about gratitude? If gratitude is all I get back, why should I care if you are in a bad way?

For most of your post, I can see where your coming from, but in that fourth paragraph... Wait, what? So what the hell is this "sin" stuff supposed to be? It's like some kind of green dust that sticks to you, or something? If your actions cannot be good or bad, and cannot have any effect on your soul, then how exactly do you "sin"? Isn't a sin an evil action? Isn't sinning doing something wrong? Please define "sin" more clearly, because that makes no sense.

Google the ten commandments. Yes technically sinning is doing something wrong by the laws of God. Again however, sinning doesn't effect the value of your soul, only who gets to keep it.

See? You're doing it again.

What's so hard to understand about forgiveness?

Having played the God card, your argument abruptly stops making sense.

I thought that happened a while back.

So you have to abide by certain rules (pardon the negative phraseology) and that makes you "blessed"? Did you just completely write off everything you said before?

God wants us to love other's like he loves us. That is why we should be nice to other people and help them out. This explains why you should be a good person.

But we can't be a "good" person, because "good" doesn't exist, right? And how can we help someone out in their time of need if we "have no idea how doing "y" helped someone"?

I never said good itself doesn't exist, I said no set laws exist for good or bad that determine the value of someone's soul. So just being a good person doesn't really matter, because it's all about opinion.

Yes. Yes, I can.

Good for you.

Logic should be bound by "love". What constitutes as "love" anyways? But I digress.

Logic actually defies the idea of love. You don't know what love is? Ouch.

I can't believe I just wasted another 20 minutes...[/QUOTE]Ditto.


Any more questions?

Not really, no.

Good. ^_^

 

[ExTo]

You honestly have to ask?

Facepalm.jpg

What subgroup of Christianity do you belong to? -_-

 

[dietrc70]

Semantic problem. We don't have a term for what Ethics wishes to express with the phrase "We are all equal".

That being said, it's a philosophical concept. Stripping it off of any environmental context, handling it as an idea -> yes, we are to be treated equally, as in: We have what Kant calls human dignity. Bear in mind, that does not mean that it's not logical or moral to privilege someone based on their actions; however, it is morally wrong to assume a person is fundamentally better or more valuable as a human due to his/her actions. The basic premise is that by assaulting a persons human dignity like that, You are, at the same time, assaulting Your own, as You put human value as something subjective. Paradoxically, by saying we are not equal, You make us all equally worthless. Including Yourself.

By the way, G-D, that's highly unconstitutional things You are saying. Someone should report You and Your teacher to the authorities. I remind You: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...."

(Disclaimer: In case You can't tell, the last bit was not very serious.)

~Sylv

It always makes my day to find someone who knows something about Kant.

 

[FrisbeeRolf]

What subgroup of Christianity do you belong to? -_-

I'm what you call a non-denominational Christian. I listen to the teachings of many but I follow no teacher. I despise most denominations for being pig-headed and hypocritical, but I'll go to any church, once anyway. If I had to choose one though, I'd probably be a Pentecostal, even if most of those people are a little crazy.

 

[Oni]

The Soul is the part of you that can never die. I don't a scientific definition if that's what you are looking for, but a soul is the part of you that cannot die, the eternal part of you. It is the core of you. It's separate from thoughts and personality. It's sort of like the "real" you.

If your soul is seprate from thoughts and personality, then that soul is truly NOT you. Your personality and thoughts are major intrinsic parts of you. Your memories are also a major part of who or what is you.

Good for you. Logic actually defies the idea of love. You don't know what love is? Ouch.

I can't believe I just wasted another 20 minutes...

*laughs* Oh? can you give your definition of love and your definition of logic? I think that you are just spewing words which even you do not understand.

 

[gruz]

the definition of equal is balanced or the same
so it's impossible for everyone to be equal we all deserve equal rights thats just common sense but no we are not all equal we vary from person to furson
(lol satan made me^^^)

 

[An Sionnach Rua]

My previous post might not have made sense. I slept crappily that night. Anyways...

I see the value of a person's soul as greater than their deeds, as my God does.

Basically, the problem with what you're saying is that a person's "value" is not affected by their actions because you cannot assign value to their actions, right and wrong being a matter of perspective. However, then you go on to say that the "soul", which is separate from the human's thoughts and personatliy, is judged by God based on its engagement in "sins", which are deeds seen as "wrong" in the eyes of God. Depending on their soul's value, they will spend eternity in either heaven or hell.

This doesn't make sense. Oni has already pointed out that, in this case, your soul would not be you. And if it is you, then you are still assigned value (by God) based on doing bad things.

It always makes my day to find someone who knows something about Kant.

Try the Linux forums.

 

[ExTo]

Just a short note guys :

KANT KICKS ASS THANK YOU

 

[iciewolf]

It depends on how you look at it. The value of a persons life to this world is all equal, in my opinion. As far as rights and mental/and physical appearance goes no. We couldnt be anymore different.

 

[CombatRaccoon]

While I agree with you that equality is a cultural phenomenom, supremacy in humans is in no way based on how much we contribute to society. This is because of our complexcity in what we are capable of conceiving--to different people, the world and all of it's set standards (equality being one) are seen differently.
To you, what you said is true. But to me, I beleive that only each person can set her/his own height, so to speak, in the world. Personally I don't give two flying shits about society. I beleive that a human is separated by others from his/her intelligence. And I don't measure intelligence by an IQ, either. The human mind is too complex to be judged by a simple test... we use less than 10% of it on a regular basis.
Did anyone stop to wonder what else is in there?



ok... the thread is old. But it was an interesting topic. :3