"Good"?

[cantata]

I see moral terms being bandied about willy nilly all the time on this board, without much explanation for what is actually meant by them. Frequently the root of our arguments is our difference of opinion about what these terms mean. So what do you really mean when you say "good", "bad", "morally right/wrong", "moral", "(un)ethical", "evil", "fair", "(un)equal", and so on?

And are there any other terms you have issues with?

 

[GrannieAnnie]

I have a HUGE issue with the word....gay....when I was growing up it meant...happy !!!! I also have an issue with the term for women..MS....once again, when I was growing up a woman was a Mrs or a Miss.........not this something in the middle...MS. It's like a third gender. How I hate the corruption of the English language.

 

[stan1980]

I have a HUGE issue with the word....gay....when I was growing up it meant...happy !!!! I also have an issue with the term for women..MS....once again, when I was growing up a woman was a Mrs or a Miss.........not this something in the middle...MS. It's like a third gender. How I hate the corruption of the English language.

I don't know why you'd have problems with words changing their meaning. It happens, live with it.

As for Ms, I think a lot of women prefer it, as it is more of an equivalent to Mr, and maybe not everyone wants to disclose whether they are married or not, and why should they?

 

[Rebekka]

I have a HUGE issue with the word....gay....when I was growing up it meant...happy !!!! I also have an issue with the term for women..MS....once again, when I was growing up a woman was a Mrs or a Miss.........not this something in the middle...MS. It's like a third gender. How I hate the corruption of the English language.

I like Ms. It's the female equivalent of Mr. You can't see the marital status of males, so it's fair that women have the option of a more neutral term, too.

Dutch has abolished Miss altogether ('mejuffrouw'): all adult females are called Mrs. ('mevrouw') regardless of marital status - so in a way it means Ms., not Mrs.

cantata - I think you will find that 'good' for many if not most people means something that benefits you and doesn't harm others, or something that benefits others/society and doesn't do harm, but that it will mean something more (in addition to this) to believers (of any religion): that which their god(s) have declared to be good.

So believers believe in absolute, unchanging morals (although in some aspects change is possible I think), whereas atheists are more likely to believe in relative morals.

 

[stan1980]

I see moral terms being bandied about willy nilly all the time on this board, without much explanation for what is actually meant by them. Frequently the root of our arguments is our difference of opinion about what these terms mean. So what do you really mean when you say "good", "bad", "morally right/wrong", "moral", "(un)ethical", "evil", "fair", "(un)equal", and so on?

And are there any other terms you have issues with?

I don't have issues with morally right/morally wrong. It normally just means you think something overall is to the benefit or detriment of others, and is really just an opinion.

 

[cantata]

I have a HUGE issue with the word....gay....when I was growing up it meant...happy !!!!

Did you really use it so frequently that its new meaning causes a serious problem? I find it bizarre when people bemoan the loss of this word.

I also have an issue with the term for women..MS....once again, when I was growing up a woman was a Mrs or a Miss.........not this something in the middle...MS. It's like a third gender. How I hate the corruption of the English language.

Why should a woman have to disclose her marital status to all and sundry?

cantata - I think you will find that 'good' for many if not most people means something that benefits you and doesn't harm others, or something that benefits others/society and doesn't do harm, but that it will mean something more (in addition to this) to believers (of any religion): that which their god(s) have declared to be good.

I'm interested in this latter part. What does it mean for something to have been declared good by a supernatural being? How does it change the thing declared good?

 

[Rebekka]

I'm interested in this latter part. What does it mean for something to have been declared good by a supernatural being? How does it change the thing declared good?

I guess it ends being relative for the believer.

For example, as we discussed in the prostitution thread, an atheist may think that adultery is wrong for them, but may be right for others. A christian will probably believe that adultery is absolutely wrong, for all people, because God says so.


Edit: I should add that I assume that someone becomes a christian, or a believer of another religion, if they agree with the moral rules of that religion. But of course it is possible to disagree with one aspect of a religion, so in theory not all christians are against adultery. But christianity is.

Second edit: I should clarify my "if" in the first edit. I obviously do NOT mean to say that agreeing with a religion's morals automatically makes you a believer of that religion.

 

[poohgirl]

For example, as we discussed in the prostitution thread, an atheist may think that adultery is wrong for them, but may be right for others. A christian will probably believe that adultery is absolutely wrong, for all people, because God says so.

True.

I should add that I assume that someone becomes a christian, or a believer of another religion, if they agree with the moral rules of that religion. But of course it is possible to disagree with one aspect of a religion, so in theory not all christians are against adultery. But christianity is.

Well, actually God is against adultery and that would mean they disagree with God.


Blessings

 

[cantata]

For example, as we discussed in the prostitution thread, an atheist may think that adultery is wrong for them, but may be right for others. A christian will probably believe that adultery is absolutely wrong, for all people, because God says so.

But my question was really about what it means for God to say that something is wrong. What effect does that have? Why does he say so? What does "wrong" mean in this context?

 

[Rebekka]

But my question was really about what it means for God to say that something is wrong. What effect does that have? Why does he say so? What does "wrong" mean in this context?

Oh, then I didn't understand your first question.

I don't know why God says certain things are wrong, because I can't read minds. But I assume, since I believe in a good God, that it is for our wellbeing. The effect - well, I think it doesn't please Him when people do things that are bad according to him ("sin"), but I don't want to speculate on heave or hell issues as I don't know, and generally don't like the attitude of "if you do X you will go to hell"- I think no one can possibly know.

I hope it's clearer now.

 

[cantata]

Oh, then I didn't understand your first question.

I don't know why God says certain things are wrong, because I can't read minds. But I assume, since I believe in a good God, that it is for our wellbeing. The effect - well, I think it doesn't please Him when people do things that are bad according to him ("sin"), but I don't want to speculate on heave or hell issues as I don't know, and generally don't like the attitude of "if you do X you will go to hell"- I think no one can possibly know.

I hope it's clearer now.

This is interesting.

It seems to me that if this is the case - that is, if God says certain things are wrong because they are bad for us, and that others are right because they are good for us - then there is no important difference between the average theist's meta-ethical position and the average non-theist's. God's commands seem to make little difference! If you think wrong things are wrong because they are bad for us, and right things right because they are good for us, it doesn't matter at all whether or not God says they're right or wrong too. At best, he is giving you advice about the rightness or wrongness of things, and perhaps enforcing those judgements - but he is not creating them. They would still be right or wrong if he did not exist.

There may be first order differences between the ethics of most Christians and most non-Christians - Christians may regard certain acts as wrong in all situations, while non-Christians might take a more situational approach, for example - but on a meta-ethical level there seems to be little to choose between theist and non-theist absolutist positions.

 

[Futuwwa]

I have a HUGE issue with the word....gay....when I was growing up it meant...happy !!!! I also have an issue with the term for women..MS....once again, when I was growing up a woman was a Mrs or a Miss.........not this something in the middle...MS. It's like a third gender. How I hate the corruption of the English language.

Do you prefer Shakespearian English? Or Medieval English? Or pre-1066 Saxon English? It's not corruption, it's natural development.

 

[stan1980]

I do find some work phrases highly irritating..

"Can you email it over to me by close of play today" - Close of play? eff off, just give me a time

Worst of all though is this one

"I'll touch base with you in the morning" - You are not an effing NASA astronaut.. You will give me a telephone call on your mobile phone, there is no base and you wont be touching it you tool.


There are loads more phrases too, normally only made by pretentious pricks.

 

[300B]

Here's another one Stan: "Have a good one."

Good what? I know what they mean, but why not just say "Have a nice day"?

 

[cantata]

Er, by "words you have issues with" I kind of meant words that people use in debates without really saying what they mean...

 

[Futuwwa]

Well, then "logic" would be one. It is thrown around as a synonym for "reason", with no respect to what it actually is - a mathematical science concerned with relationships between the truth values of statements.

 

[wanderingone]

This is interesting.

It seems to me that if this is the case - that is, if God says certain things are wrong because they are bad for us, and that others are right because they are good for us - then there is no important difference between the average theist's meta-ethical position and the average non-theist's. God's commands seem to make little difference! If you think wrong things are wrong because they are bad for us, and right things right because they are good for us, it doesn't matter at all whether or not God says they're right or wrong too. At best, he is giving you advice about the rightness or wrongness of things, and perhaps enforcing those judgements - but he is not creating them. They would still be right or wrong if he did not exist.

There may be first order differences between the ethics of most Christians and most non-Christians - Christians may regard certain acts as wrong in all situations, while non-Christians might take a more situational approach, for example - but on a meta-ethical level there seems to be little to choose between theist and non-theist absolutist positions.

It's very interesting to me as well. I was raised to believe that being Christian wasn't about being "good" in a way that non Christians weren't... it's about following this ultimate command to love others as God loved us.. an - all sacrificing love.. to meet people where they are, - even those who make our human emotions rage, with that love... it's a rather difficult endeavor. It forces you to approach people on an individual level, and that basically eliminates the notion of an always good, always bad black and white way of making rules. It was startling to me to discover the world of people who see their faith as giving them specific rules not only for themselves but for everyone else as well.

 

[NavyGuy7]

I see moral terms being bandied about willy nilly all the time on this board, without much explanation for what is actually meant by them. Frequently the root of our arguments is our difference of opinion about what these terms mean. So what do you really mean when you say "good", "bad", "morally right/wrong", "moral", "(un)ethical", "evil", "fair", "(un)equal", and so on?

And are there any other terms you have issues with?

I've seen this thread before. It will only end in a definition fight... really. Unless people can just accept that people have their own opinions and can see this as a not-life-and-death discussion.
Peace out, yo! Nah, I don't really talk like that... made me giggle.

 

[NavyGuy7]

Do you prefer Shakespearian English? Or Medieval English? Or pre-1066 Saxon English? It's not corruption, it's natural development.

Actually, you're correct. It's the natural progression of the language due to the people. Some words become archaic, some words are newly formed, and some once meant something else, but have a totally new meaning today.
That's English for you. American English, that is.

 

[cantata]

I've seen this thread before. It will only end in a definition fight... really. Unless people can just accept that people have their own opinions and can see this as a not-life-and-death discussion.
Peace out, yo! Nah, I don't really talk like that... made me giggle.

The intention is to have a definition fight, essentially, and it is a pretty life-and-death discussion.