Good and evil
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Please change your TSR password | 23-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- New Member
- Posts: 1
Good and evilHello everyone
The reason for good and evil is? God and the Devil are in a fight for are souls and it is for real, that is why Jesus had to pay us a visit as a man and not as a God almighty that can just turn up and stop all evil for man kind. for when you enter into a fight, there are rules to keep to and that goes for good and evil too. your thoughts on this is welcome. God Bless.Last edited by casseyted; 07-06-2012 at 12:33. Reason: rules of combat -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Location: Home of the CHAMPIONS
- Posts: 4,318
Re: Good and evil(Original post by casseyted)
Hello everyone
The reason for good and evil is? God and the Devil are in a fight for are souls and it is for real, that is why Jesus had to pay us a visit as a man and not as a God almighty that can just turn up and stop all evil for man kind. for when you enter into a fight, there are rules to keep to and that goes for good and evil too. your thoughts on this is welcome. God Bless.
Good and evil are things humans made up.
No problem and all glory to Cailleach goddess of the Underworld!Last edited by Left Hand Drive; 07-06-2012 at 14:04. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Judge, Gentleman and Former Mod
Re: Good and evilIs this really true, though?(Original post by Left Hand Drive)
Good and evil are things humans made up.
It's a popular view in meta-ethics, captured by error theory and emotivist theories of normative language, but I'm not persuaded.
To me, if a judge sees reason to convict person X of something wrong and sentences him to punishment Y for committing morally-non-neutral act Z, then it seems to be something close to a logical inconsistency to convict person A to something other than punishment Y for committing the identical act Z (ceteris paribus). That conviction seems just as unshakeable and just as trivially true as many of our logical axioms that we see reason to trust. In philosophical parlance, there is a supervenience relationship between the descriptive facts and the normative judgement. When we look at moral discourse, the way people reason morally, we are struck by the fact that moral discourse is not anarchic - we cannot set inconsistent rules. Humans do not choose these rules for themselves.
I guess another way to look at it is that I do not choose or construct my moral response to, say, murder. I am a passive recipient. When I see murder, I receive this information and spontaneously pass judgement; when I see a blue chair, I receive information and cannot fail to judge and assert that a blue chair exists before me. These responses are not just "made up".
This view does not commit you to moral realism. Indeed, you could still be an irrealist cognitivist. However, there is a difference between saying that "good" and "evil" are facts of existence and saying that humans make up "good" and "evil". I'm more sympathetic to the former claim and much more sceptical of the latter claim that you're making.
I don't subscribe to the correspondence theory of truth which says that true propositions need truth-makers that are matters of fact and existence, they only need truth conditions (which do not necessarily materially exist, like with numbers). So moral irrealism does not even commit you to moral scepticism.Last edited by Melancholy; 07-06-2012 at 15:43. -
- Reputation:
- Adored and Respected Member
- Posts: 546
Re: Good and evilThere is good and evil and there is not at the same time. What looks white or black could in fact be grey. I believe world is chaos anyway, and everything is up to a random chance including good and evil but you will never know if it is. (I believe in God as well)
-
- Reputation:
- New Member
- Posts: 11
Re: Good and evilThere is a neuroscientist called Stephen Pinker that has very interesting opinions on morals, try viewing his TED talk online.
He doesn't directly call it good vs evil but argues that humanity is becoming more 'good' over time as a whole due to various factors.
In the old days we would confront the next person coming over the hill because they were foreign and would probably try and nick our land and resources, surely this is evil no? But back then it was sensible and opinion from others in your primitive community would represent you as being 'good' because you defended the community.
