thepixiesrock Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 So what are we even arguing now? Lou Gutman, P.I.- It's like I'm not even trying anymore!http://theatomicdanger.iforumer.com/index....theatomicdangerOne billion b-balls dribbling simultaneously throughout the galaxy. One trillion b-balls being slam dunked through a hoop throughout the galaxy. I can feel every single b-ball that has ever existed at my fingertips. I can feel their collective knowledge channeling through my viens. Every jumpshot, every rebound and three-pointer, every layup, dunk, and free throw. I am there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidesco Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Whether one person's happiness is worth 16 dead people, I guess. It's all about quantifying good and evil. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian touristI am Dan Quayle of the Romans.I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.Heja Sverige!!Everyone should cuffawkle more.The wrench is your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cycloneman Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 (edited) Yes, every action has a positive and negative element, sure. But an action which has a significantly greater positive element is good, and an action which has a significantly greater negative element is evil. If an action, say, makes me happy, but causes the wanton killing of sixteen people, then it's obviously evil. What if all those 16 people don't have any family nor friends, and are suicidal? Wouldn't it be a good deed, then? Hint: look up the definition of "wanton." But an action which has a significantly greater positive element is good, and an action which has a significantly greater negative element is evil. No, it is only mostly "good" or mostly "evil." Good and evil are opposites. Something is either good or evil. What's next, something is "mostly hot" or "mostly cold"? Something is "mostly fast" or "mostly slow"? Edited March 23, 2008 by Cycloneman I don't post if I don't have anything to say, which I guess makes me better than the rest of your so-called "community." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Good and evil are opposites. Something is either good or evil. What's next, something is "mostly hot" or "mostly cold"? Something is "mostly fast" or "mostly slow"? I have a cup of coffee here. I wonder if it is good or evil? That is, I don't really believe the world to be that black and white. Maybe you you can have actions that are perceived as good or evil by a majority of people? According to my own experiences, people perceive good as that which they agree with and evil as that they disagree with. That is based emtirely on subjective observation and not any deep philosophical reasoning “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humodour Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 According to my own experiences, people perceive good as that which they agree with and evil as that they disagree with. That is based emtirely on subjective observation and not any deep philosophical reasoning You'd be mostly correct. But you'd also be misleading. Why do people agree/disagree with an act? I think you'll find that the reasoning is startlingly uniform, which suggests something higher than human whim or selfishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 According to my own experiences, people perceive good as that which they agree with and evil as that they disagree with. That is based emtirely on subjective observation and not any deep philosophical reasoning You'd be mostly correct. But you'd also be misleading. Why do people agree/disagree with an act? I think you'll find that the reasoning is startlingly uniform, which suggests something higher than human whim or selfishness. *nods sagely* "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadly_Nightshade Posted March 23, 2008 Author Share Posted March 23, 2008 (edited) Something is either good or evil. I disagree. What's next, something is "mostly hot" or "mostly cold"? Something is "mostly fast" or "mostly slow"? Mildly cold, medium hot, we do that already. Edited March 23, 2008 by Deadly_Nightshade "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I don't believe it is reasonable to describe an action as 'grey' or mildly good. Because acts are composed of discrete concomitants. If I move a mountain, and thereby ease one village and throw another into darkness then you could argue this is neutral. However, it is good and bad at once. The importance of this is that it leaves clear the fact that my act could be better if I were able to prevent one village being too shady. If we call teh act merely neutral then we diminish the evil and the good needlessly. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadly_Nightshade Posted March 23, 2008 Author Share Posted March 23, 2008 But every act has both a positive and negative aspect, so, using your logic, there are no non-neutral acts. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 But every act has both a positive and negative aspect, so, using your logic, there are no non-neutral acts. Nonsense! *he continues affably* If you are sick with fever, and I kick a stone into a lake, that would be neutral. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadly_Nightshade Posted March 23, 2008 Author Share Posted March 23, 2008 But there is no direct connection between those two events. A better example would be: You kick a stone into a lake, this act makes you feel good but also kills a rare fish. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorth Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 But every act has both a positive and negative aspect, so, using your logic, there are no non-neutral acts. Nonsense! *he continues affably* If you are sick with fever, and I kick a stone into a lake, that would be neutral. It depends... shouldn't you be trying to do something to help him cure his fever rather than kicking stones into the lake. Is not taking action the same as taking action as far as morality goes? >_ “He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” - Albert Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humodour Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 But every act has both a positive and negative aspect, so, using your logic, there are no non-neutral acts. Uh, no it doesn't. lol I see an old lady who needs help crossing the street. I help her across. She isn't one of those psycho baby-killer grannies. Where's the negative aspect here? Also, 'neutral' is a bad term to use because you lose information, as Wals said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Architect Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 (edited) Exactly. If I see a pigeon on my fence and shoot it dead with a spud gun, where's the positive aspect in that? Edited March 24, 2008 by The Architect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walsingham Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Exactly. If I see a pigeon on my fence and shoot it dead with a spud gun, where's the positive aspect in that? I completely misread this as 'on my face'. The image was hilarious. "It wasn't lies. It was just... bull****"." -Elwood Blues tarna's dead; processing... complete. Disappointed by Universe. RIP Hades/Sand/etc. Here's hoping your next alt has a harp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Exactly. If I see a pigeon on my fence and shoot it dead with a spud gun, where's the positive aspect in that? It is no longer on your fence. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Architect Posted March 26, 2008 Share Posted March 26, 2008 Hahahaha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now