Turn on thread page Beta

Good Vs Bad & Right Vs Wrong: Just a matter context and opinion watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Take a serial killer, put them into the context of a war and they become a hero.

    Our perceptions of right and wrong, good and bad are nothing but a construct of our time and our environment. Ultimately, nothing is truly good or truly bad.

    Do you agree?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    no
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Futility)
    Take a serial killer, put them into the context of a war and they become a hero.

    Our perceptions of right and wrong, good and bad are nothing but a construct of our time and our environment. Ultimately, nothing is truly good or truly bad.

    Do you agree?
    Speak for yourself

    No, good can, i think as Kropotkin outlinded in mutual aid, be defined as an act beneficial to the collective society or species at large. This is somewhat the status quo throughout nature itself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wilson_smith)
    Speak for yourself
    I was talking about society's response as a whole, i.e. those who kill many people in the context of a war are reverred as war heroes and awarded medals etc.
    Offline

    10
    I guess really it's about if you're being offensive or defensive...a murderer is being offensive, a soldier is being defensive.

    Sometimes that view is warped...like if a girl hits a guy she is being offensive but if he hits her back, he is actually being defensive, but it's seen as offensive.

    If one guy goes to have another fight with another guy and starts it off and is being offensive, if the guy who is defending himself wins, he is seen as offensive.

    So basically people have a perception that if you're weak you can't be offensive only defensive...if you're strong you can't be defensive only offensive.


    All in my opinion of course!
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by Futility)
    I was talking about society's response as a whole, i.e. those who kill many people in the context of a war are reverred as war heroes and awarded medals etc.
    It's a tricky enough one, and I've always found it difficult to present a good case for objective morality, even though I feel it's there. I agree with the above view, that something is good if it benefits 'society' (however you define that), but it's not the be-all-and-end-all. With regards to this example, though, I would never revere someone who, say, butchered a lot of unarmed prisoners. This would probably be the closest parallel in wartime to a serial killer murdering unarmed civilians.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.