Debate : 3065


Off-Topic / Debate / 3065	3064 \| 3066

Subject:	Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Fri, 31 Dec 1999 07:03:32 GMT
Reply-To:	JOHNNEAL@USWESTsaynotospam.NET
Viewed:	1456 times

James Brown wrote: > > > Wow. You have a fairly radical definition of good, it seems. I tend to think > of good as 'not meaning harm', but that's a very loose and general definition - > don't try to pin me to specifics, please. "Good" in my books is almost > entirely subjective. I like a more objective definition because I hate the trend towards relativism I think we are experiencing these days. If a sociopath considers killing others good, is it? But if good is objective, from who's perspective? God, who is by definition, perfect, and therefore the perfect judge of good and evil. Discerning God's perspective of good is another question, but at least the search for good extends beyond our mortal and imperfect selves. > I tend to think that (by the above) most people are good, most of the time. > However, I also think most people are lazy, even when it is clearly in their > benefit not to be. This is why I think a Libertarian system would be doomed to > failure - it requires too much effort from the individual. You make an excellent point here! I also would add that if people were as good, respectful, and responsible as they would need to be to make Libertarianism work, you would *already* have a utopia. Whether it would be 8 wide remains to be seen;-) -John > > > $0.02 > > James > http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/

Message has 4 Replies:

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
(...) Stuff and Nonsense to the both of you, lazy thinkers!... I have 3 points to make: 1. People aren't as lazy(1) as you think. Most people are industrious and hard working, even in this screwed up society of today. It's only in Legoland where the (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
I am going to ~try~ to make a sensible post... John Neal wrote in message <386C54F9.20331CB5@u...st.net>... (...) think (...) definition - (...) relativism I (...) others (...) is by (...) Discerning (...) good (...) In a huge thread where I (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
(...) Good isn't objective. What we, society as a whole, consider to be "good" is both up for debate in certain areas (I'm specifically _not_ going to mention abrtin here), and it is no more valid than the ideas of other societies, other than (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
(...) Anything based on morals (which "good" typically is) IS subjective, and can never be anything else, at least until God (in whatever guise you like, assuming you believe in Him) provides us with an absolute morality.(1) Neither you nor I can (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
(...) Wow. You have a fairly radical definition of good, it seems. I tend to think of good as 'not meaning harm', but that's a very loose and general definition - don't try to pin me to specifics, please. "Good" in my books is almost entirely (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)

Entire Thread on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:: Nested: All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear: All | Brief | Compact

Custom Search