Good and Evil

Remove all ads!

Yes, but they probably don't have as much fun as we do either

 

One small caveat, Arkados: relative morality does not preclude the existence of absolute morality.

To reuse a cosmic analogy, perceptions are relative to your viewpoint. However, some things in the universe are absolute (e.g., the speed of light), and it is these fundamental constants of nature that allow us to work and study science together, rather than being separated by our viewpoints. Similarly, although morality is relative to each conscience, there are overarching truths that form a basic moral foundation for society.

 

To Capstone: Not to get technical or anything but the speed of light was a poor example. http://www.news.harvard.edu/science/current_stories/18.Feb.99/light.html

So. Humanity made a mistake to say that the speed of light was constant. Could we have made more "obvious" mistakes? Is anything absolute? I know I know, I am teasing.

 

Mollusken, you think?

 

This, you realise, is one of the oldest debates ever, and one which will never be concluded. I spent two years doing a philosophy/ethics a-level and I think that I have only touched the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
One question; why do many of you people seem to be so black and white about this topic? A lot of you seem to think that morality is completely either teleologically based (relative - things are right/wrong because of the consequences they have and not in themselves) or deontologically based (absolute - actions are either right or wrong in themselves, whether or not they have consequences which may be good/bad). I would tend towards a middle-road view; both are relevant. There are more ethical theories than most of us will have hot dinners, and most, if not all, have their advantages and their flaws. An act utilitarian, for example, believes that what is good is what gives the most happiness (in the eyes of the hedonist Bentham who initially set out this theory, happiness=pleasure) to the greatest number of people. This may seem a good default ethical theory, but it can lead to acts which most people would say were bad i.e. in a predominantly white racist town the lynching of a black man could provide the most happiness to the most people, but the majority of people would find the idea abhorrent. It also ignores motive, personal obligations and relies upon the difficult task of determining what the ultimate consequences of any one action may be.
Immanuel Kant based his moral decision-making process (known as the test of the Categorical Imperative) upon reason, wheras Friedrich Nietzsche based his upon the advancement of the individual's power (to put it very loosely; I expect flames from rabid Nietzsche disciples for my overly-brief summary of his extremely complex theory).
*Pant* and thats nowhere near all of it... Basically, the point I am making is that one cannot put forth a comprehensive general ethical argument in one post without herculean patience and some reason for not writing a thesis on it instead.

 

It is my belief (and some others') that the world was built on a scale of balance to best suit the human race. Though we like to think that doing "good" things and eliminating "evil" will create a perfect world, I believe that it will merely destroy the balance, and with it will crumble the emotion of excitement. I agree with Extremist on this point, that the world is simply based on action and consequence. If a roller coaster brings pleasure, but has the potential to break, thus killing those on it, is it evil?

An overbalance of good will eliminate excitement, bringing a state of boredom to the world. Is this debate, since bringing us pleasure, good? Is it evil? It simply is. An overbalance of evil will destroy good, thus destroying the chance of the balance being restored, forcing us to live in a world of suffering and chaos. Is that good? Is it evil?

Since school/work can enlighten us, but can also be monotonous and displeasing, good or evil? Many things can be beneficial and yet displeasing, or pleasing and non-beneficial. How do you define these things in the terms of "good" and "evil"?

In a religious point of view, "good" is bringing happiness/pleasure to others, and "evil" is bringing suffering/pain to others. Thus, the balance will not/cannot be destroyed, for ultimately, someone will be pleased and someone will suffer. The balance can be tipped, perhaps lost sight of, but it will never be destroyed.

(Did anyone enjoy that rant?)

 

I did mention that both relative and absolute morality exist.

Nobleman... I was aware of that study. I was gambling that no one else was. That's what I get. Any rate, it has yet to be conclusively demonstrated that c is actually decaying.

 

I'm a bit confused. That study doesn't seem to prove anything about c. As BTA says, any high-school physics student knows that light gets slower in dense media without affecting c, the speed of light in vacuum, (Schnell's law or something -talk about nominative determinism!) it's about 2* 10^8 in glass. There was an article in a New Scientist or something once, which said somehting about certain Big Bang theories needing c to have been faster back at the big bang - as always, it seems there's the possiblility that a new theory will be more accurate and do away with the need for that - or the possibliity that a new theory will eventually mean kids in school will no longer be taught that c is constant.
To get back to the morality thing, point 3 is interesting. A general kneejerk reaction among "the moral majority" is to condemn something as evil because "It's unnatural", but it's interesting to think where we'd be if we didn't do anything unnatural - raw meat, anyone?

 

TO WILL;

I love that sentence. I hardly think You would get any flames. both because of the rules on this board. http://www.sorcerers.net/ubb/faq.html (yeeha; I got to post that link) and because this is a roleplaying board. You expect many of us to remember the laws of Nietzsche? I can't even spell his name without peeking in Your Quote.

TO AVALANCE Nice points. Have You thought of allowing a concept "NEUTRALITY" into Your theory.?

TO IRONBEARD This is Exactly Why the speed of light is such a good example. The majority of mankind thinks of light as an absolute constant because they are not AWARE... even Capstone made a gamble (thanks capstone) that we wouldn't notice.It Could be, that there are other things the majority of mankind is NOT AWARE of, even though its true. (hence God's ultimate influence in good Vs. Evil debate)

This debate is a deadbeat. in another 50 post we wont agree any more than now. Perhaps a few have swayed. But not the same way.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 02, 2001).]

 

Exactly.

 

Good point about Neutrality there, but the whole rant was basically about it (thus I didn't feel the need or the want to say the word at all...it would have been a bit redundant in my opinion). It's good to see people debating on a subject such as this, though...

 

Dern, I've confused the issue. Nobleman, I apologize for not reading your link the first time; I made an erroneous assumption as to which study that referred to. BTA, I'm well aware that the c is the speed of light in a vacuum. I thought everyone else was too...

The study I was referring to was one I just heard of on NPR a few days ago. Scientists have been studying the pulses from quasars and have found that the characteristic radiation from elements such as hydrogen and sulfur are slightly off -- all by the same amount. These are only preliminary results however; considerably more evidence must be produced to convince scientists that c has decayed over time.

Note that this does not fit perfectly with the Big Bang theory, as it predicts a much larger change in c. Scientists are still puzzled as to what might be causing this small change and what implications that has on Einsteinian physics.

As I mentioned before, the implications are rather large, but it is hardly conclusive yet.

 

Yowwwwwch; physics causes my head pain! Cheers for the mental workout folks

 

TO AVALANCE I try to be redundant in my posts. Just to make sure.

To Capstone Interesting. I am sometimes frustrated that I can't understand all interesting scientific news. Physics is a bit out of my reach. Does this mean that the big bang was different in any way? Perhaps God is teasing us.. Even God may pull some humor sometimes..

Anyway. So our conclusion on this thread is not to conclude anything? Very cool.

[This message has been edited by Nobleman (edited September 04, 2001).]

 

Not the conclusion of this thread, exactly, since we're rather far off topic at this point. To be honest, I've always been a bit skeptical of the Big Bang theory. The question they haven't answered is what was going on before Planck time (when the Big Bang happened) and what caused the existence of the original supercritical point of mass-energy. Admittedly, however, it's been awhile for me on all these cosmological topics; I need to refresh. *sigh* I'm sure BTA could add some information on this. Maybe I'll get inspired enough to research it again. As I'm working two jobs now though, probably won't happen soon.

 

That is why I tought we hade concluded. Because we had drifted away. Anyway I know nothing out of the ordinary about the big bang so I hope BTA will pop by.

 

BTA, what would be randomly fluctuating in a vacuum?