This sentence is false.
Mar. 9th, 2002 01:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alchemysticThey don't exist, you know, good and bad, right and wrong, righteous and evil. What is evil for me may be acceptable to you. That which I find virtuous you may find heinous.
I just said the same exact thing three times in a row. And you listened. God, I love semantics.
It kind of makes a mess of the concept of morality, this does. Who is to say what right and wrong are? Oh, right. God. (But see, 'god' is a title, not a name. So which 'god' do you mean? Rama Kushna, Ra, Zeus, Allah, YHVH, Odin? Not that it matters, really, because the point stands regardless of which god or demigod you want to involve.)
If you saw me kicking an ailing old man in the face as he lies on the street, broken and bleeding and spitting out teeth, would you not label me evil? Of course you would. So -- what if I told you that the old man's name was Osama Bin Laden? (Chances are, if you're American, you'd jump in with zest and fervor.)
See, it's all relative. The religious believe that whatever their 'god' deems appropriate behavior is the 'right' thing to do. What, then, of the passages in the Koran (Surah 9.92) that sanctify jihad as a holy and soul-redeeming act? Is it 'right', then to wage religious war on those who do not conform to your beliefs? I don't think so, personally, but who says I'm right or wrong? What about the scriptures in the Bible that condone capital punishment for homosexuality? By whose standard do we ultimately define 'good' and 'evil'?
Simple answer: we don't. What it boils down to is whether or not each act one undertakes will or will not benefit the one undertaking the action. Don't believe me? Consider: self-interest is at the core of everything that is done. Altruism doesn't exist. Even the most selfless person thinks about the reward that they will receive in the next life for their good deeds in this. (Afterlife: yet another delusion spawned from the denial of those who fear death.) I have yet to encounter a situation wherein a selfless act is truly selfless. As long as good old-fashioned greed exists (and it always will), all actions done will be done not for the sake of the act but for the sake of the actor. Therefore, "good" as most define it exists not.
I just said the same exact thing three times in a row. And you listened. God, I love semantics.
It kind of makes a mess of the concept of morality, this does. Who is to say what right and wrong are? Oh, right. God. (But see, 'god' is a title, not a name. So which 'god' do you mean? Rama Kushna, Ra, Zeus, Allah, YHVH, Odin? Not that it matters, really, because the point stands regardless of which god or demigod you want to involve.)
If you saw me kicking an ailing old man in the face as he lies on the street, broken and bleeding and spitting out teeth, would you not label me evil? Of course you would. So -- what if I told you that the old man's name was Osama Bin Laden? (Chances are, if you're American, you'd jump in with zest and fervor.)
See, it's all relative. The religious believe that whatever their 'god' deems appropriate behavior is the 'right' thing to do. What, then, of the passages in the Koran (Surah 9.92) that sanctify jihad as a holy and soul-redeeming act? Is it 'right', then to wage religious war on those who do not conform to your beliefs? I don't think so, personally, but who says I'm right or wrong? What about the scriptures in the Bible that condone capital punishment for homosexuality? By whose standard do we ultimately define 'good' and 'evil'?
Simple answer: we don't. What it boils down to is whether or not each act one undertakes will or will not benefit the one undertaking the action. Don't believe me? Consider: self-interest is at the core of everything that is done. Altruism doesn't exist. Even the most selfless person thinks about the reward that they will receive in the next life for their good deeds in this. (Afterlife: yet another delusion spawned from the denial of those who fear death.) I have yet to encounter a situation wherein a selfless act is truly selfless. As long as good old-fashioned greed exists (and it always will), all actions done will be done not for the sake of the act but for the sake of the actor. Therefore, "good" as most define it exists not.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I second that
Date: 2002-03-09 05:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-03-09 11:02 am (UTC)It's a wonderful theory, but it's something that can never be fully proven or disproven simply because we can't get inside everyone's heads. It's wonderful to be cynical, though.
I agree...
Date: 2002-03-09 02:28 pm (UTC)But I can extrapolate a theory given a set of data. In my experience and the experience of those with whom I have conversed on the subject, an ulterior motive can always be found.
Surprisingly enough, more people get more vehement with me on the topic of selfless acts than they do on the topic of the existence of good and evil. Go figure.