RealityCheck said:
The concepts of good and bad ARE arbitrary. But it also turns out that in many ways we as society (or the world at large) agree on what we'll call "good" and what we'll call "bad".
For example, most people agree that killing is "bad." But we tend to be arbitrary about applying that standard. Recently al-Zarqawi was killed in an air-strike. Is that good or bad? Well he was killed. If "killing is bad" is a universal standard, then it was a bad thing to kill him. However, most people in our country agree it was a good thing to kill him. Primarly because he also killed people (brutally) and led al-Qaeda in Iraq. So was killing him good? I think most people here would say yes.
(On the other hand, how do al-Qaeda members see it? Just the opposite.)
Here it really is up to human judgment. We in the US would almost certainly say that killing Zarqawi was good because of how it benefits us.
Let's look very closely at your statement here:
If you disturb your inner recognition of good and bad, you become insane as you can not detect what might kill you or help you live.
What is this inner recognition you're talking about?
Let's look at it this way. I do not have any nut allergies. So if I see a can of mixed nuts, and I'm hungry, I'll eat them. To me, nuts are good.
To someone who has serious nut allergies, that can of mixed nuts is a deadly threat. No matter how hungry he is, if he eats those nuts he runs the risk of death. To him, the nuts are bad.
But in reality, the nuts are neither good nor bad. Those are our arbitrary labels we attach to the nuts based on our own personal perceptions.
[FONT="]It's about time someone woke up.
But in all of your statements you have assumed that if one man sees good as one thing and another man sees good as another, then good has no consistent reality.
This assumption comes merely from not realizing where it all came from. Many do label this thing or that as good as though it were forever good in all circumstances. You are very correct in noting that something labeled good is not necessarily always good. Such labeling is indeed a sin. But this does not conclude that nothing can be labeled as good forever and be exactly accurate.
As science has noted the future is about that which continues and develops regardless of and in compensation to the chaos around it. It is, in essence, about what survives when all else fails. It is about what keeps something in continuance - still living (even if it is only in the form of a government, species or race)
Regardless of any presumed presence of God, the future is defined by what actually succeeds, not what is proposed to succeed nor necessarily what was intended to succeed, but succeeds due to whatever forces might exist in whatever form.
The concept of "good" is thus founded - that which leads to survival of the entity in question.
It is proposed that what leads to the survival of one man might not lead to the survival of another. This is what constricts fundamental good or what has been named "morals" to a very few in number.
It has also been proposed that there cannot be any one thing that will always be good for every man. But this is only the result of not being able to identify one. The lack of a man’s ability to see does not determine what is before him to be seen.
What the religions have been calling the "Holy Spirit" is by its definition whatever effort, in whatever direction, by whatever means, actually and always produces the maximum probability of success regardless of circumstances. Finding and identifying such a design is understandably difficult. Every military attempts to maximize its probability of victory yet must face another that is doing the same.
The concept is to follow the design of greatest probability of success else you will certainly eventually fail. Thus the first rule -
seek it -
TRY
To seek that which helps you to survive regardless of what that might be is the first identifiable "good" which is a good for all life in all circumstances.
It might be that by seeking a means to survive, one causes his own failure. But this is an irrelevant issue because to know when a man is in such a situation, he must respond to the concern of survival and examine his situation. He has already begun his seeking and has an even less probability of success in ignorance and no effort. Even the effort to not try is still an effort to survive the situation.
If the man takes no concern in surviving and allows his own death, then he is not in the future.
Thus the second good that is always a good for every life -
be aware of your situation.
I can go on to give you the complete list of all morals defined by that which always leads to the greatest probability of success. In that list and in its entirety, you view what has been called the “Holy Spirit” (comprehensive effort) and the justification for every religion, including science. But your challenge was only that there could be nothing that is always a "good".
Always good;
1)
TRY to survive - maintain that which is the most essential definition of yourself.
2) keep
AWARE of your situation - identify that which affects you and your future.
There is more to the list but together, they all amount to the most strategic defense of ensuring that an entity will still exist in the future when all else may have fallen and is what the religions of Israel are all about.
If such an effort was not worthy of doing, then why does any government have a military, laws, or leaders?
Good and bad are determined by that which causes your continuance and that which thwarts it. [/FONT][FONT="]Thus is NOT at all arbitrary.
[/FONT][FONT="]At any one time, MOST things might be good or bad and must be determined by the individual at the time. This was the exact message from Jesus to the Jews who refused to listen in favor of their concrete laws.
[/FONT]
