Debate What is the true meaning of Good and Evil?

Time to back up your theory. Give me one sensible reason (or even just a speculation) on how fish could possibly relate to two plus two, and I'd be more inclined to contemplate this.

How do we come to believe that 2+2 is another way of phrasing 4? Albeit that its universally accepted, but why can't it apply to fish?

If the morality of the matter was commonly known, there wouldn't be a 10 page (I haven't browsed through that thread in awhile, so excuse my inaccurate estimate) thread discussing the merits (or lack of) of abortion. Conflicting opinions are abound throughout that thread, not because half the debaters are immoral, but because it isn't a black/white issue.

Is there? That's what this entire debate is centered around, at least in terms of values. Is morality "good" existent, or just a perspective differing amongst conflicting viewpoints? (Likewise with evil).

I'll try to better explain this. Personally, I don't think some situations *can* be placed into one of two vague categories, because not all issues are strict black/white affairs. I've given multiple examples, plus I'm too lazy to concoct another antidote, but what I'm saying is that good/evil are societal labels that all instances can't be categorized into.

 

Let "fish" be an arbitrary thing and let "2+2" be an arbitrary thing. Then, "fish" and "2+2" are related, because they are both arbitrary things.

What does 2+2 mean to your perspective? All right. Tell me, how can 2+2 related to fish? Is it possible?

 

Congratulations, you just answered your own question. Either way, two plus two isn't tangible, it's an equation. Besides, I'm an arbitrary thing and an earthworm in Cambodia is an arbitrary thing, but while we share similarities (inhabiting the same planet, for instance), we aren't associated with one another the way 2+2 = 4 is.

And you don't seem to be grasping the concept I'm trying to communicate, or else you're misinterpreting my earlier point. The fact that it's unknown to you is a clear indicator that good/evil are perspectives, seeing as while your opinion on the matter (whatever it may be) is certainly legitimate, it's not neccasarily accurate. Some issues can't be determined (in terms of morality).

How virtuous of you.

 

"An arbitrary thing + "An arbitrary thing" = "You and An earthworm in Cambodia"

Good and evil are perspectives, as well as they are defined properly and discretely.

 

Well that's just x + y. However 2 + 2 have DEFINED values, and as such cannot answer Fish, because fish is not a number.

 

"fish" needs not be a number, but can be a variable that equals to 4 or equals to "You and An earthworm in Cambodia" in order to satisfy the equation and let "an arbitrary thing" be 2.

 

The word fish has a meaning in our language. It is not some random jumble of letters, and a fish is most definitely not me and an earthworm in cambodia.

 

While I agree whole-heartedly on the first part (I've been stating that for the better part of this thread), good and evil are vague, the definitions for such (according to the thread author) being "doing something nice" and "doing something bad". For the last time: some instances are decisive enough to fall into a single category for the majority of the population, but some are morally indecisive seeing as they're not strictly good/bad issues. What I've been trying to get across is that a grey area does exist within the confounds of morality, and not everything can be either good or evil due to conflicting perspectives and viewpoints.

 

Then, we are speaking from open minds as we try to see from the various angles of perspectives all of such define good and evil, not just simply they are from a state of mind but they are not arbitrary conditions set to a theme.

 

You realize that's been my perspective for the entirety of this debate, right? If we share duplicate viewpoints, what exactly are we debating about?

On a side note, you fancy the word arbitrary, don't you?

 

Uh. Er. Huh? Hmmm. Are you sure?

I still find that good and evil are clear and objective by definition, because the definition of good and the definition of evil are set.

You say that the notion of good and the notion of evil are defined by varying individual perspectives. Subjective and unclear, right?

Is it reasonable to conclude that both opinions seem to be the case?

As a side reply, I do like it arbitrarily. :bleed:

 

Its all a matter of positive and negative matters. I mean it would definetly be good is something is affecting you positively and something is evil if it is harming you.

 

Well, now its a matter of perspective. For instance, if you were the guy or chick who killed that person "for the good of the many" than s/he would that something good has been done. The person getting kill probably will take it as and evil thing. From here on out you can only chose sides i believe...

 

Evil and Good is something that is relative to the individual. To say something, lets just say that someone is trying to kill you, is evil. It is evil only because someone is doing it to you. If someone was trying to kiss you, and you see that as good, then therefor the good is in the kissing. The only problem is that since these ideals on Good and Evil are relative we are not left with a definate answer to this question. That is why we turn to religion, usually this gives us a better idea. For instance, a Catholic (which I am) would see Evil as something that isn't towards the benefit of the general public, and displeases God. It takes both of these ideas to complete the cycle.

The final question is to find an ideal on morality that fits what you believe. Decide.

 

Not everybody turns to religion. And by the way you used religion in your statement you just repeated yourself.

 

1) Yes your right, and that is entirely up to the individual. I am not saying that you should choose a religion, but saying that you are Agnostic means that you are a part of a religion. Just because a religion doesn't have a church doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a religion.

2) I repeated myself? My memomy is pretty faded these days, so please explain.

 

To start off, Iam sorry...you didnt repeat yourself. I just realized it that you were using it as an example. And the reason that I said that not everybody turns to religion is because " Thats why we turn to religion" now I dont know who we is and it could have been me.