So you meant that you would like it and did not mean that it would be better for others also? IOW one's point of view can still be an opinion about objective improvements. I asked 'Would it makes things 'better'? (gooder) which is not the same thing as asking 'Would you like it more?'
From my perspective, yes. But what about his perspective? What about his starving family's perspective? That is why there is no good or evil...it's all subjective. Without question. The concept of good and evil are childish, and absolve people of personal responsibility. It also allows leaders to use hyperbole to rally his or her people to an unjust cause. It's time to grow up. Good and evil are for fairy tales, not for public discourse.
It sounds like you are arguing that it is 'good' to give up these concepts. I do get the sense you are critical of Good and Evil as archetypal entities and perhaps pure ones, but still, it seems you have notions of what is good - and implicitly what is bad. Can you distinguish your sense of good from the one you do not like?
But you do understand that 'better' means 'gooder' or more good? So if you think it would be good for everyone, what are you talking about, and aren't you contradicting yourself?
Would you not agree that some things are evil?, say somebody enjoyed taking little children locking them up for 20 years while beating them, starving them, sexualy abusing them, getting hot metal pokers and proding them, and made there life a living hell until the day they finaly died from the constant abuse and violent struggle they had to endure. You would in turn say "no that is not evil it is just subjective, it is not good or bad because some people may find it entertaining". This is where society needs the moral and philosophical enlightenment to guide them. Otherwise any evil bastard can get away with anything they want, no matter howmuch torture and harm they inflict upon innocent people. If our society truley did not believe in good and evil these kind of things would be legal because everybody would be so robotic and logical minded that they show no signs of love and compassion. When talking about it in cold hard scientific logic your fine saying there is no good or bad, or love and evil. But if it came to your own daughter being raped and tortured for years on end maybe you would change your attitude and see those sick evil bastards for the deamons they are. Without good and evil to set standards by our society will plunge into complete lawlessness and decay, there would be no science to study, no philosophy to ponder, no cities to improve, no goals to achieve as a working society and community. We would all be doing terrible things to innocent people. I would never see things the way you do I will stand up for what is good and just, I have not lost my integrity or honour and I never will. peace.
I hate when words have 2 meanings. In good & evil, we're discussing morals, motivations, what causes people to do the things they do. It'd be better for everyone is meant like it's better for people to have food than not.
How about I blow all your nutsacks off with a 38 special for no apparent reason and call it subjective. peace.
It's lightweight, practical, easy to maintain, never jams, and blows the nutsacks right off infidels in the name of subjective killing spee's. I shot the devil right in his third horn for being too left wing, he claimed he did things because he enjoyed evil deeds. I told him he was more of a pussy than god is, if he was truley evil he would be such a badass that he was beyond moral evilness, I do things for cold hard logical gains, which is way more evil than evil is. peace.
I think it is very hard to separate the two meanings out, if there really are two meanings. I sympathize with your point, but 'good' for whom? You could say something like 'Humans in general would feel less stress.' IOW try to put it in terms that are not value laden. Then you can say that you, personally, would like a world where people feel less stress. That avoids it, I think. But once you start saying the it would be better in general (ie. for everyone or most people) if the concepts of good and evil are gone I think there almost has to be a contradiction there. People like these beliefs and would not agree with you. Are you sure you know what is really good for them - and damn, there is that word. If you translate that word into something more measurable, it is a different story. But the truth is, I think, that most people who think Good and Evil should be gone think the ideas are bad. And this is a contradiction.
I was role playing from a logical subjective persons opinion, I believe in good and evil. I didn't used to though, I used to hold the "everything is subjective apart from reality" point of view but that has changed now. Im not sure what we gain when life is at it's end, but im staring to believe life is only the starting point. Maybe we gain nothing when all is lost, maybe we gain everything when we lose it all. I cannot see all ends, I do not know much, because I am wise. peace.
That man should consult men of greater income for gifts, if they don't wish to help him get a job, and/or teach him better attitude or education, and/or obtain food for his family or refer him to some one else who he knows would help, then they are working negatively.... Surely you cannot say that greed and gluttony benefit the starving?
Nice try, but I'm not saying it's "good" to give these things up in the good/evil sense. I'm saying that it would benefit us to give them up. Your notion of Good vs Evil isn't Beneficial vs. Non-beneficial, it is an archaic notion of right and wrong. Who says it isn't good? You? It is absolutely subjective, Chi. As much as it pains you, it's the truth. Sounds easy, at least until it's you starving in the street. And no, I'm not saying that greed and gluttony benefit the starving...where did you get that from? All I'm saying is that your simple notions of good vs evil are completely subjective, which makes them completely imaginary in the objective sense. Could it be deemed "good" for an old man to have his way with whichever young boy he desires? Yes, it could be, and it has been. Could it be "good" for a person to rape another? Yes, it could be, and it has been. Now, today's Western societies don't see it that way, but that's just us, that's not everyone.
When regarding morality as subjective, what basis does one have for decrying (I'm not sure what the right word is here) someone's behaviour?
In every way. As long as we're talking about good as it relates to evil. Explain this...how is it beneficial to you to not run inside someone else's house and take their money and jewels and clothes? How does it benefit you to not kill someone? Laws aside, because that's not what we're talking about here, how is it beneficial that you cannot kill a man for looking at you funny, or sleeping with your daughter, or talking to your wife? Of course, it would be beneficial to you to do all of those things. But they wouldn't be "good" in today's view.
JDawg, it seems like your "Beneficial" is just "good" with a different value system, where personal satisfaction is deemed "good". I don't think doing those things would be beneficial, for I would be wracked with guilt over doing such terrible things. Of course, that "terrible" is just in my head, just as the pleasure is in the head of the guiltless murderer/thief when he enjoys his feeling of dominance and his new possession of jewels and cash.
