Debate : 3080


Off-Topic / Debate / 3080	3079 \| 3081

Subject:	Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
Newsgroups:	lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date:	Fri, 31 Dec 1999 16:00:14 GMT
Viewed:	1319 times

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: > > > 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. 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 ever be certain how said sociopath is acting in relation to his morality. That being said, however: "Good" can also be a societal (or ethical) term as well. I find good & evil to be too strong to use when trying to define things as a group, though - right and wrong work better. IMHO, calling someone evil is going to get a stronger reaction than calling someone wrong - and it also implies more judgement of person than judgement of action. James http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/

Message has 3 Replies:

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
(...) Whoops! Forgot the footnote: 1:Which, assuming He exists, IMHO He hasn't(2). When the proverbial omnipotent being wants to provide us with an absolute morality, we will all KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what it is. 2:What He has provided (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
(...) We've been around this particular mulberry bush before and I continue to hold with the stance that "good" and "morals" can be objective, correct ones are based on life affirmation. Further, I hold that I can very well label a particular (...) (25 years ago, 31-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
James Brown wrote in message ... (...) relation (...) In what guise would you expect Him? Could it not happen that someone could formulate their (and His) idea of good, put it into practice, and then people see that it works?! I think that is much (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:

		Re: Goodness of Man? (was: Re: Merry Christmas from the Libertarian Party
(...) 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 (...) (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