Subject:
|
Re: Good/Bad/Neutral (Was: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?])
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jan 2000 19:45:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> One problem is that those who believe in the inherent goodness of people
> sometimes shortcut things. What we really believe is that everyone has the
> inherent capacity to be good.
Agreed!
> While we may be born neutral (in that as we grow up, we can become either
> good or bad), I think we are born on the good side of the fence.
Fence suggests a dichotomy, besides which, birthing atop a fence could be
dangerous! I am curious as to why you think we are born 'good'. Not arguing,
just curious - my reasoning would initially follow the evolutionary model,
where the child is born trying to grab as many resources as it can (a process
that starts before birth!), jealousy, tantrums, etc are examples of this.
Any good opponent of Dawkins could probably provide you with a reply, but I
haven't found one yet :)
> AD&D also
> way oversimplifies things, and I think that is part of the problem. I think
> a lot of people decide that on average people are bad, because obviously
> they aren't perfectly good, so they must be bad. That's a bad trap to fall
> into.
Surely then, the concept of 'neutral', a state between the realms of good or
bad, is a useful one?
If mending birds broken wings is a good thing, and you do that four times, then
you must be good. If kicking beggars in the street is an equal-value bad thing,
and you do that four times because they make a funny noise.. then good equals
out bad and you're neutral?
Or is there a wide-held perception that you are either good or bad, and nothing
in between?
Richard
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
473 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
|
|
|
|
