Top | Newest First | Oldest First
ShadowDancer · 41-45, M
It can easily be looked up in the Hong Kong Book of Kung Fu
Casheyane · F
@ShadowDancer I don't have it. What does it say?
ShadowDancer · 41-45, M
@Casheyane It's says "The tree is known by the fruit that grows upon it's branches".
robertsnj · 56-60, M
I don't mean to go sideways on your question but I think that thinking in absolutes like good and evil isn't a strong way to understand the world we live in.
We don't have a context in this specific question but if you interchanged good and evil with altruism and self centerness / greed you probably could get a better yield to most questions with a few more variables added in.
What makes, to use your terms, good and evil, shades of gray in the real world, as opposed to the black-and-white inherent to the term itself is the variable that we live in a world of finite resources. Those resources can be money, land or even someone's affection we end up with layers of complexitity. Even our lifspan is finite with a begining point and a ending point
When you add in durations of effect , numbers affected (1 vs many) and consequences of inaction (which is the action of no action) the like it can get even more gray .
I always liked utilitarian idea of [i]greatest happiness principle[/i] but even that idea needs more layers to be comprehensive.
To not dodge your question completely, I think [i]good and evil [/i] is an idea of absolutes mostly promoted by religion whose natural inclnation is to produce two groups of [i]us and them[/i] Beyond that it is essentially a meaningless, useless term used in tongue and cheek conversation as opposed to any level of actual introspection.
We don't have a context in this specific question but if you interchanged good and evil with altruism and self centerness / greed you probably could get a better yield to most questions with a few more variables added in.
What makes, to use your terms, good and evil, shades of gray in the real world, as opposed to the black-and-white inherent to the term itself is the variable that we live in a world of finite resources. Those resources can be money, land or even someone's affection we end up with layers of complexitity. Even our lifspan is finite with a begining point and a ending point
When you add in durations of effect , numbers affected (1 vs many) and consequences of inaction (which is the action of no action) the like it can get even more gray .
I always liked utilitarian idea of [i]greatest happiness principle[/i] but even that idea needs more layers to be comprehensive.
To not dodge your question completely, I think [i]good and evil [/i] is an idea of absolutes mostly promoted by religion whose natural inclnation is to produce two groups of [i]us and them[/i] Beyond that it is essentially a meaningless, useless term used in tongue and cheek conversation as opposed to any level of actual introspection.
Casheyane · F
@robertsnj While I find that insightful, at the end of the day, you decide what to do when faced a difficult situation. At the end of the day, you make the choice of what counts as acceptable or not, of whether you go on the good or the bad.
So while trying to understand everything and being open is tempting, at the end of the day, we all have to make a choice on what principles we live by. And there might even be a handful of times when there isn't much room nor time for an in depth introspection.
So while trying to understand everything and being open is tempting, at the end of the day, we all have to make a choice on what principles we live by. And there might even be a handful of times when there isn't much room nor time for an in depth introspection.
GeniUs · 56-60, M
Whoever wins the war writes history the way they want it.
ViciDraco · 36-40, M
That which causes the least harm but brings the most joy is typically good.
That which seeks to increase harm is typically evil.
Most things in the world lie somewhere between the extremes. Most actions are close to neutral.
More people attempt to do intentional good than attempt to do intentional evil.
Most people do not intend to cause harm most of the time, and thus most evil is not intentional. Accidental evil tends be far easier to commit than accidental good.
Often we lack the information and context to know the outcome of our actions and are thus unable to predict whether an action might be good or evil. Thus are we at the mercy of history.
That which seeks to increase harm is typically evil.
Most things in the world lie somewhere between the extremes. Most actions are close to neutral.
More people attempt to do intentional good than attempt to do intentional evil.
Most people do not intend to cause harm most of the time, and thus most evil is not intentional. Accidental evil tends be far easier to commit than accidental good.
Often we lack the information and context to know the outcome of our actions and are thus unable to predict whether an action might be good or evil. Thus are we at the mercy of history.
mindlessdrifter · M
I think it is what is in your heart and soul. To me that is the best predictor
SW-User
That which is good will have stronger reasoning in support.
Picklebobble2 · 56-60, M
Opinion and who shouts loud enough
Pretzel · 61-69, M
The majority.
Convivial · 26-30, F
The Victors ....
bijouxbroussard · F
It’s subjective, depending upon the society making the judgment. Personally, I’ve always thought the idea of treating others as one would like to be treated is a solid one, but even [b]that’s[/b] not a universal standard.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment