Altruism could be quantified as a statistic. We have a population and a set of empirical factors that have been observed to elicit altruistic behavior. We then take a look at how much of the population these factors are applied to and how many exhibit altruistic behavior. This in effect could be used as a measurement of altruisim with a population. The some thing could be done for exploitation. Consequently, if we attempt to assign 'degrees' to altruisim or explotation then were going into the subjective I would disagree with the 'Actions which cause...' assertions because we are taking an emotional phenomenon (guilt) which can differ wildly from individual to individual (i.e. what makes one person feel guilty produces an absence of guilt in another). Some people feel no guilt when killing, while some people feel guilt if they relax and watch some TV. -CC
You are just shifting the weight of the definition from altruism to altruistic behaviour. We agreed that good/evil was a subjective distinction. Therefore it needs a subjective definition. The thing about my definition is it only gives us a method of deciding whether our own actions are good or evil. If the mass murderer feels no guilt, chances are, he does not believe he has committed an evil act. If a couch potato feels guilt for watching T.V. that is because in their belief system, watching T.V. is evil. I know its a circular argument, but it does work as an objective definition of a subjective phenomena.
There are not enuogh Christians to make this sub-Forum interesting. Just a bunch of Atheists agreeing with each other. Where are the Christians with all their wacky ideas?
Well... altruism is a behavior after all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!: Agreed. Why would it need a subjective definitiion? The definition doesn't seem to define what 'good' and 'evil' are though. I could just as easly say someones actions are 'polywhump' if it makes the person feel guilty. Let me know what you think. -CC
But she's only one and not a very 'good' one. Too easy. I once spent a year debating this real fanatic that had a working knowledge of philosophy, now that was fun. I miss you Eden of the Mind. Good times. Are people still discussing 'God'? Didn't they hear he/she/it is dead. I guess as new generations come up the same old issues come up as well and must be dealt with. Booooooooring. I've heard it all, said it all. Now I'm just repeating myself. Even this thread was originally posted, by me, in another Forum long ago. I think I'll move on now.
How come I, despite being entirely logical rather than rhetorical on this thread, got judged to be a Christian? I'm appalled.
Maybe because you used 'guilt' and 'evil' in the same sentence, and actually used 'subjective' in connection with truth in a logical argument. Usually only Christians dare to do that.
I made an assertion that you're not an atheist. This by no means condems you to christianity Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
