-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Apparently, the religious on RF don't even know the difference between good and bad.
- Thread starter Beaudreaux
- Start date
Anti-thesisofreason
Explorer
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Is it?
What if one had the opportunity to kill Hitler before WWII, resulting in saving millions of lives. Would it be evil to kill Hitler?
What if one truly believes that abortion is murder, so goes on a killing spree murdering abortion doctors, resulting in saving many lives (in their view). Would that person be evil?
What if one truly holds a particular belief that by killing people they are, in fact, helping them. Would they be evil?
How exactly do you define someone as mentally deranged whose beliefs are irrational in your view? Can you say that just because they don't hold your view that they are mentally deranged? Where do you draw the line?
Fortunato
Honest
What if I woke up tomorrow with a serious case of religion and believed that god told me to kill people? If I'm a servant of god and go through with his command (with a clear conscience mind you), I might even make the news. Would you be shocked, surprised, or disgusted at my actions? Would you have the same type of reaction if I did some other action, something morally neutral like opening up a can of pop? And if not, then why?
I was raised in a Christian household and was taught very clearly what was right and what was wrong. I find it surprising that so many religious people here can't explain the same thing. I could go back to my church and get clearer answers than have been given here! I'm not calling any religious person here intollerant, I just cannot fathom your logic or morality. If god controls what is moral, then he can change his mind and we might have a different moral understanding tomorrow (which might include genocide, slavery, murdering your family, or whatever). You may not believe god would order those things (he has in the past though), but based on most of the responses here, the religious people would shrug their shoulders and say "OK, if god orders it, then I'll do it" and go off killing or what not. How is that in any way ok? Would you think it ok if someone else did the same thing?
I often go by utilitarian ethics...but as a generalisation I see:
Good = constructive
Bad = destructive
There is good/bad action and there is good/bad intention. The action does not necessarily act to label a person as good/bad but the intention does.
Examples:
Constructive act: 1) saving a life 2) helping old lady cross road 3) being environmentally friendly
Destructive act) 1) killing 2) abusing 3) ignoring the feelings of other
There are of course different levels of good/bad. Nothing is black and white. And doing something bad unintentionally does not make you a bad person.
I will also add, based on my spiritual beliefs, that goodness is founded in love and 'evil' is founded in ignorance.
Good = constructive
Bad = destructive
There is good/bad action and there is good/bad intention. The action does not necessarily act to label a person as good/bad but the intention does.
Examples:
Constructive act: 1) saving a life 2) helping old lady cross road 3) being environmentally friendly
Destructive act) 1) killing 2) abusing 3) ignoring the feelings of other
There are of course different levels of good/bad. Nothing is black and white. And doing something bad unintentionally does not make you a bad person.
I will also add, based on my spiritual beliefs, that goodness is founded in love and 'evil' is founded in ignorance.
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
QUOTE]What if one had the opportunity to kill Hitler before WWII, resulting in saving millions of lives. Would it be evil to kill Hitler?
[/QUOTE]
This is another ridiculous question because it's based on a "what if" scenario that did not and could not happen. You can't kill someone because they MIGHT one day kill someone else.
I believe in this scenario, the abortion doctor is the more evil of the two. I would need to know more about the situation to make any further judgment on it. I believe abortion on demand is horrific.
When do YOU suggest that someone stand up to protect the innocent?
I've already answered the first question.
I think the second question is ridiculous - are you honestly saying that you wouldn't be able to pass judgment on someone whose beliefs were so extreme that they were killing innocent people? I certainly wouldn't have a problem figuring out what to do with them. At that point, frankly it's immaterial whether they are evil or deranged - they need to be isolated from others so they cannot continue to kill.
Others would say the death penalty would be called for. Personally, I believe we have the resources available to prevent them from ever killing again. If we truly have someone who absolutely cannot be controlled by any prison or facility, then perhaps the death penalty would be an option, as a last resort.
[/QUOTE]
This is another ridiculous question because it's based on a "what if" scenario that did not and could not happen. You can't kill someone because they MIGHT one day kill someone else.
I believe in this scenario, the abortion doctor is the more evil of the two. I would need to know more about the situation to make any further judgment on it. I believe abortion on demand is horrific.
When do YOU suggest that someone stand up to protect the innocent?
I've already answered the first question.
I think the second question is ridiculous - are you honestly saying that you wouldn't be able to pass judgment on someone whose beliefs were so extreme that they were killing innocent people? I certainly wouldn't have a problem figuring out what to do with them. At that point, frankly it's immaterial whether they are evil or deranged - they need to be isolated from others so they cannot continue to kill.
Others would say the death penalty would be called for. Personally, I believe we have the resources available to prevent them from ever killing again. If we truly have someone who absolutely cannot be controlled by any prison or facility, then perhaps the death penalty would be an option, as a last resort.
Yes, it would be evil. You cannot judge someone for crimes they have yet to commit. Besides, we do not know what would have happened if Hitler had not come to power. It may have been better, but it may also have been worse. This means that we cannot be responsible people and change history in such a drastic way at the same time, because we have no idea what the consequenses may be.
They would still be murderers, regardless of intent. There are other ways to solve this and fight abortion that does not include murdering doctors.
Problem is that the ends does not justify the means, and the means here are evil.
Last edited:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
The Knight,
If I may take a brief shot at answering your question about slavery...
The whole point of slavery is that the slave is not free. They do not voluntarily give their consent to be a slave. If they did give their consent, and they could "quit" being a slave at any time, it wouldn't really be "slavery" it would be something else (employment, apprenticeship, etc.) Even indentured servitude is a form of slavery, although the indentured servant voluntarily entered into the arrangement at first.
Based on purely "logical" considerations, I agree with you there is no reason such an institution HAS to be evil. There is no reason a dictatorship/monarchy has to be evil. There is no reason an empire, or "traditional" marriage (where the woman is truly the property of men) has to be evil. Theoretically.
However, in the real world, experience shows overwhelmingly that these institutions eventually succumb to bullying and injustice.
Why? Because in all these systems, one party (the slave owners, the king) has been given unchecked power arbitrarily. The fairness of the system relies critically on the party in power choosing not to use the full extent of their power, and respecting the wishes of everyone else, with no mechanism which compels them to do so. That is why a dictatorship or monarchy CAN sometimes be fair and benevolent -- namely, when the INDIVIDUAL monarch is fair and benevolent. But the SYSTEM is evil, because not everyone is always fair and benevolent without compulsion, even good individuals will occasionally do evil, and the system provides the powerless with no MECHANISM (no power) to correct the evil done against them, when it inevitably occurs.
So in my opinion, EXPERIENCE, not pure reason alone, tells us arbitrary power (like the power a master has over slaves, or a tsar has over his serfs) is evil, because it always leads to unnecessary evils. And of course you could break this up into degrees....so for example, you could say more "regulated" slavery, where there are some laws to protect slaves from harsh treatment, is LESS evil than harsher forms of slavery. Maybe there comes a point when highly-regulated "slavery" is actually quite close to a voluntary arrangement, and it is not really "evil" at all. But that sort of watered-down slavery would still be worse, more arbitrary, and less fair than a voluntary arrangement -- if experience is any guide.
If I may take a brief shot at answering your question about slavery...
The whole point of slavery is that the slave is not free. They do not voluntarily give their consent to be a slave. If they did give their consent, and they could "quit" being a slave at any time, it wouldn't really be "slavery" it would be something else (employment, apprenticeship, etc.) Even indentured servitude is a form of slavery, although the indentured servant voluntarily entered into the arrangement at first.
Based on purely "logical" considerations, I agree with you there is no reason such an institution HAS to be evil. There is no reason a dictatorship/monarchy has to be evil. There is no reason an empire, or "traditional" marriage (where the woman is truly the property of men) has to be evil. Theoretically.
However, in the real world, experience shows overwhelmingly that these institutions eventually succumb to bullying and injustice.
Why? Because in all these systems, one party (the slave owners, the king) has been given unchecked power arbitrarily. The fairness of the system relies critically on the party in power choosing not to use the full extent of their power, and respecting the wishes of everyone else, with no mechanism which compels them to do so. That is why a dictatorship or monarchy CAN sometimes be fair and benevolent -- namely, when the INDIVIDUAL monarch is fair and benevolent. But the SYSTEM is evil, because not everyone is always fair and benevolent without compulsion, even good individuals will occasionally do evil, and the system provides the powerless with no MECHANISM (no power) to correct the evil done against them, when it inevitably occurs.
So in my opinion, EXPERIENCE, not pure reason alone, tells us arbitrary power (like the power a master has over slaves, or a tsar has over his serfs) is evil, because it always leads to unnecessary evils. And of course you could break this up into degrees....so for example, you could say more "regulated" slavery, where there are some laws to protect slaves from harsh treatment, is LESS evil than harsher forms of slavery. Maybe there comes a point when highly-regulated "slavery" is actually quite close to a voluntary arrangement, and it is not really "evil" at all. But that sort of watered-down slavery would still be worse, more arbitrary, and less fair than a voluntary arrangement -- if experience is any guide.
Last edited:
In this case, I would be inclined to say so. I can think of exceptions, though. If someone would buy a slave to give him freedom. Or if there was a people that only had the choice of slavery or death, because another people kills everyone of them that are free, and someone would take them in to protect their life while trying to find some way to help them. In these cases the someone I mention would not be evil.It may be immoral but is it evil?
does immorality = evil?
Just wondering.
However, the concept of owning another human being is always both immoral and evil.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
In my view they are both evil, and quite likely "mentally deranged" as well. I can understand that, in both of their minds, their intentions are good. But, this is irrelevant to me, as I don't believe that someone's intentions make their actions evil or not.
You simply happen to agree with the intentions of the guy killing the abortion doctors, so you are less likely to see him as evil. The only differentiating factor is that you don't agree with the intentions of the serial killer, but that doesn't mean his intentions aren't good in his mind - just as I don't agree with the intentions of the guy killing abortion doctors, even though I know his intentions are good in his mind.
I'm not claiming that I do.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Good and evil are relative. What is good to another, is wrong to someone else. A crime in the eyes of one person is a justifiable act to another.
It's like the saying "A terrorist in one nation is a hero to another."
I would take you up on your challenge if I thought it would do any good. But one thing I have learned in my life is that you can't convince anybody of anything they don't want to believe. :angel2:
I agree with Christine on this one. I think this is largely a futile exercise. At best, it provides evidence that some (but by no means all) believers have remedial moral views. But perhaps you could just as easily provide evidence that some (but by no means all) non-believers have remedial moral views. At any rate, the notion that no religious people know the difference between good and bad is absurd.
Last edited:
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
I find it very disgusting that you would be capable of killing innocent people if you had the delusion your God commanded you to do so.
I would never kill anyone intentionally. Even in self-defence. And I abhor war. So I would not want to kill anyone on a battlefield unless they invaded my country and threatened my home, family, and friends. Even then, I would rather they leave and attempt to take prisoners rather than kill.
But there is a world of difference between killing in defence and killing because a celestial dictator told you to. If the word of your delusion is enough for you to kill innocent people en masse, then I sincerely hope you note the error in the way of your thinking before this delusion comes to fruition.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
Answering the OP, I'm a moral relativist. I think "good" is circumstantial.
Giving money to someone in need is not a universal good. For example:
1) They are poor and really need it. It might help feed hungry kids.
2) They may use that money to purchase drugs, doing harm to themselves and/or potentially others.
And even 2) isn't a clear-cut immoral issue. It may be that you don't know/have no reason to believe that this unfortunate person has a drug problem. Thus, you give money with the intention of helping, with the effect of making the problem worse.
Your intentions were good, your actions were not. It's not moral or immoral because of the factor of ignorance.
Speaking generally, I would probably define a "good action" with anything that falls within the parameters of: "Knowingly alleviates suffering while minimizing detriment."
I would probably define a "bad action" as anything that falls within the parameters of: "Knowingly contributes to suffering while maximizing detriment."
Keyword in both is knowingly. Therefore I can only answer your question if I get really specific about an action. I cannot say "killing is wrong" because that is a blanket assertion that doesn't take into account extreme circumstances - like self-defence.
Good action: "Giving food to a hungry family (eating disorders aside)."
Bad action: "Joining the KKK so you can beat on blacks."
In both, you are aware of the need of the family and the nature of the KKK. So you are not ignorant and that covers the "knowingly" part. In the good action, you alleviate the suffering (hunger), while minimizing the detriment (giving food to someone who you know does not have any sort of eating disorder in which that would make the situation worse). In the bad action, you contribute to suffering (beating on blacks), while maximizing detriment (perhaps you use a pipe, or only go after women and children, etc.)
This is why the 10 Commandments that people champion so much are absolutely foolish and I'm surprised religious people don't find this question easier to answer - especially Christians - who are almost always moral absolutists.
"Thou shall not kill/steal/lie/commit adultery" - the big four - are not absolutes and there may be cases where doing those things may be more moral than not. I realize it would be more difficult to make a case for committing adultery than the other three, but I wouldn't doubt that there may be a circumstance where it isn't immoral, but either neutral or actually a good thing.
I will not be the one to make that case, however, as I realize that I'll probably get bombarded with requests for me to pull circumstances out of my *** for every single action to justify how it can be considered moral or immoral and I'll be having to debate each case vigorously. So if you object to what I say, fine. But I'm not going to delve into a game of "Well how can STEALING be a good thing!?!!??!?". Yes, there may be an action that in most - or almost all cases - is immoral. But that's hardly relevant to me because I judge each action individually, taking into account the agent's knowledge, circumstances, consequences of action, rationale of action, benefit to the agent, benefit to the receiver, detriment to the agent, detriment to the receiver, etc, etc.
Giving money to someone in need is not a universal good. For example:
1) They are poor and really need it. It might help feed hungry kids.
2) They may use that money to purchase drugs, doing harm to themselves and/or potentially others.
And even 2) isn't a clear-cut immoral issue. It may be that you don't know/have no reason to believe that this unfortunate person has a drug problem. Thus, you give money with the intention of helping, with the effect of making the problem worse.
Your intentions were good, your actions were not. It's not moral or immoral because of the factor of ignorance.
Speaking generally, I would probably define a "good action" with anything that falls within the parameters of: "Knowingly alleviates suffering while minimizing detriment."
I would probably define a "bad action" as anything that falls within the parameters of: "Knowingly contributes to suffering while maximizing detriment."
Keyword in both is knowingly. Therefore I can only answer your question if I get really specific about an action. I cannot say "killing is wrong" because that is a blanket assertion that doesn't take into account extreme circumstances - like self-defence.
Good action: "Giving food to a hungry family (eating disorders aside)."
Bad action: "Joining the KKK so you can beat on blacks."
In both, you are aware of the need of the family and the nature of the KKK. So you are not ignorant and that covers the "knowingly" part. In the good action, you alleviate the suffering (hunger), while minimizing the detriment (giving food to someone who you know does not have any sort of eating disorder in which that would make the situation worse). In the bad action, you contribute to suffering (beating on blacks), while maximizing detriment (perhaps you use a pipe, or only go after women and children, etc.)
This is why the 10 Commandments that people champion so much are absolutely foolish and I'm surprised religious people don't find this question easier to answer - especially Christians - who are almost always moral absolutists.
"Thou shall not kill/steal/lie/commit adultery" - the big four - are not absolutes and there may be cases where doing those things may be more moral than not. I realize it would be more difficult to make a case for committing adultery than the other three, but I wouldn't doubt that there may be a circumstance where it isn't immoral, but either neutral or actually a good thing.
I will not be the one to make that case, however, as I realize that I'll probably get bombarded with requests for me to pull circumstances out of my *** for every single action to justify how it can be considered moral or immoral and I'll be having to debate each case vigorously. So if you object to what I say, fine. But I'm not going to delve into a game of "Well how can STEALING be a good thing!?!!??!?". Yes, there may be an action that in most - or almost all cases - is immoral. But that's hardly relevant to me because I judge each action individually, taking into account the agent's knowledge, circumstances, consequences of action, rationale of action, benefit to the agent, benefit to the receiver, detriment to the agent, detriment to the receiver, etc, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kathryn
It was on fire when I laid down on it.
I didn't say that people should kill abortion doctors. I said that the abortion doctor is definitely evil though.
So - I really wish you would answer my questions for a change. Are you saying that you think ACTIONS are evil, not people? Can you provide an example of an evil action in which the PERSON committing the action didn't have evil intent?
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
If God ever had to change His mind, He would not be omniscient.
As an aside (and I realize I'm off-topic): How can God be considered perfect if he screwed up in creating humanity :S?
To Kathryn:
How about...
A man is holding a sharp pointed kitchen knife while chopping vegetables. In the kitchen are a number of friends, laughing together happily. One asks a question of the cook, who turns to face his friend and in that moment suffers an enormous sneezing attack that causes him to involuntarily stumble forward, stabbing his friend in the stomach. The friend dies shortly after the incident.
This man is responsible for the death of his friend. Does that make him evil?
How about...
A man is holding a sharp pointed kitchen knife while chopping vegetables. In the kitchen are a number of friends, laughing together happily. One asks a question of the cook, who turns to face his friend and in that moment suffers an enormous sneezing attack that causes him to involuntarily stumble forward, stabbing his friend in the stomach. The friend dies shortly after the incident.
This man is responsible for the death of his friend. Does that make him evil?
:help: