No, I think it just puts things into more of a black and white for those who can't see the gray. Like good and evil, right and wrong, it just removes the extenuating circumstances and makes it all this or that. To me, not a good way to view.
This is what Bush does. Absolutely. When asked WHY the other nations did not want to go to war, he didn't even know! Four times he was asked. Four times he didn't know. He won't look at it in their perspective, like Clinton would, but only sees shades of Black and White. Sometimes, yes, that is the color they are. But this is deffinately a grey area. So Yeah, it's sort of self serving. That man WANTS to go to war, bad. Because they're wrong and he's right. Black and white.
*steps off her soapbox*
The good and evil perspective is terrible, as it allows one group of people to define another group of people's actions wrong with no reason other than it's "evil." The definition of which differs from culture to culture.
Rather than judging an action as purely good or evil, the effects and cause of such actions as well as the results should be considered instead.
But who decides what the actions are?the majority?the majority can always be wrong.and if its really all arbitrary and no one is wrong about right and wrong,then all of it is a gray area and you cant even critisize someone jusdjing someone else,because that is saying there is a wrong involved(which youve already said doesnt exist)
Majority always decides. Even in black and white world. Only difference is.
In a black and white world, those whom commit such a crime, no matter what the reason or circumstances, or if it was for justifiable reasons is guilty of crime and labelled evil regaurdless of a lack of choice or reason.
As for the majority being able to be wrong. What's your point? You can't change what the majority wants even in black and white world. What can the noble paladin do against an army?
Answer is of course, nothing. Even in black and white world, the neutral majority always wins in the end.
The world is evershifting in shades of grey, sometimes more detrimental, shifting towards the darker shades, and sometimes more beneficial, shifting towards the lighter shades, but always a shade of grey.
All black and white does is create a list of accepted persection, and create a wall hindering what may very well be a necessary change in policy.
As for judging someone's actions. That's done for a very good reason. Things are ever more complicated than just because.
It's instinctual and necessary that we judge. To better create an environment beneficial to ourselves and the propogation of the species.
It's sometimes not obvious for what it is. Especially in humans. However that's what it really is. Humans are different than most animals and it's very complicated to explain.
However, in a more primitive explanation, it's both necessary, and good that humanity has the ability to pass judgement on itself and each other.
There is a good and bad in the world, however, what that good and bad is, changes via circumstance and a changing environment.
Morality must be allowed to adapt as necessary, and what's right and wrong must always be questioned to make sure it suits the environment and it's denizens.
Should we accept everything everyone does, wolf boy, in order to avoid judging people and to respect whatever they decide for themselves is good and evil? I don't think so.
I know very few individuals who dismiss things as evil without any deeper exploration. The government sometimes does it; organized religion sometimes does it; frankly, just about any large group takes this shortcut from time to time, and individuals are fools if they believe it sight unseen.
Majority wins. That doesn't make them right.
I suggest that we are all made up uf god and evil parts, and how we balance these parts determines our path in life. I do not believe that anyone is completely evil or angelic, it's just not human nature... I believe we are made this way ,so we have to make a concious choice to determine our path in life. Of course it's self-serving!!! We make our own way, good or bad.
There's a big difference. One (evil) insituates a defined bad that is constant and never changing, a crime regaurdless of circumstance or reason.
Bad can mean any action which is on the overall more harmful than beneficial and is a very different thing.
Ted Bundy John, Wayne Gacy,
Jeffy Dahmer, Vlad the Impaler, Paul Bernardo. Are all extreme examples of bad people.
However as "evil" does not exist, they are an exceptionally dark shade of gray. Not a single one of them did not have good qualities of one form or another.
They were just on the over all, bad people, more detrimental, rather than beneficial to society.
Though there are those whom would argue Vlad did a lot of good, despite his atrocities. His actions helped the crusades immensely and kept the middle eastern cultures at bay for quite some time.
He was a genius, an expert tactician, and a great motivater of people (granted through fear) The church even freed him at one point.
why keep bringing soceity into it?if your sense of morality is entirelly based from soceital standards,then it is not morality at all.
in the incan civillization,human sacrifice was common.i would say this is an example of evil,it is wrong in every age,no matter what the majority thinks.
If the concept of an unchanging evil is not part of a moral code,then it is not morality.
if there is no constant,then there really is no bad,evil,good,beneficiel,no morality at all.because then it is simply arbitrary.even if something is not good for soceity as a whole,why should i care?if the answer is soceity will provide consequences,then youve established not a morality but a self protection plan.
and for those who say "its bad to judge someone elses moral code,it should be personal" isnt that already imposing your moral opinon that it is a 'bad' action to do?
Stylee I hate to say this but you are sounding like an idiot.
Morality exists (the idea of good and bad) as a gauge for benefice and detriment.
Yes, large numbers of people can be mistaken as to what is and is not beneficial to humanity and the world, but all living things make such mistakes.
The world is a place of growth, adaptation and learning.
Humans are still children, learning about their world, and trying to descover the best way to live here, and adapt to their surroundings. This is an ongoing eternal process, not ending until the day humanity no longer exists.
Morality should be what is learned to be most beneficient to yourself, those around you, and the world.
If you discover a circumstance in which that is no longer the case, then you should certainly be smart enough, and adaptive enough to alter that moral code so as it's most beneficient to all.
Morality should be gauged on what's best for everybody, not some strict rule that may...