What are halves?

[fearingdeath]

My heart once spoke to me.

In all the things that are truth, and all the things simplified and narrowed down; all the goodthat existed and is to exist, and all the evil that has existed and is to exist; it is self-evident that good triumphs evil, and that righteousness (albeit the lightest heart) outweighs all wrongness, and love can cure one when one is hated by all.

The Father in heaven is great. In the name of Jesus.
​

__________________✟✞✟__________________​

 

[WonderBeat]

The One is never "halved." We are not having this discussion.

 

[fearingdeath]

The One is never "halved." We are not having this discussion.

That's why it's a question rather than a statement. Good outweighs bad, there is no "balance."

 

[DaisyDay]

it is self-evident that good triumphs evil,

I haven't found that to be self-evident at all as a general rule.

 

[Ken-1122]

My heart once spoke to me.

In all the things that are truth, and all the things simplified and narrowed down; all the goodthat existed and is to exist, and all the evil that has existed and is to exist; it is self-evident that good triumphs evil, and that righteousness (albeit the lightest heart) outweighs all wrongness, and love can cure one when one is hated by all.

The Father in heaven is great. In the name of Jesus.​

__________________✟✞✟__________________​

I find it surprising that a Christian would proclaim that good triumphs evil when you consider their belief that everyone is born sinful, and continues to sin; the vast majority of human kind worships the wrong God or no God at all due to evil or Satan, and when you consider those who do worship the correct God, they still choose to do wrong and have to ask God to forgive them of their sins; I mean from a Christian standpoint, on which planet does good triumph evil?

Ken

 

[fearingdeath]

I find it surprising that a Christian would proclaim that good triumphs evil when you consider their belief that everyone is born sinful, and continues to sin; the vast majority of human kind worships the wrong God or no God at all due to evil or Satan, and when you consider those who do worship the correct God, they still choose to do wrong and have to ask God to forgive them of their sins; I mean from a Christian standpoint, on which planet does good triumph evil?

Ken

Haven't you ever noticed the great impact one good thing has compared to the impact one bad thing has. In the end you know that evil will get its punishment, and good will prevail.

 

[Ken-1122]

Haven't you ever noticed the great impact one good thing has compared to the impact one bad thing has. In the end you know that evil will get its punishment, and good will prevail.

I'm not talking about in the end, I'm talkin about right now. I personaly see good having about as much of an impact on the world as evil; but then I'm not a christian.

Ken

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Haven't you ever noticed the great impact one good thing has compared to the impact one bad thing has.

Evil often has more permanent and drastic changes than good.

In the end you know that evil will get its punishment, and good will prevail.

He knows? Isn't that a little presumptuous? Not everyone subscribes to your eschtatology.

 

[fearingdeath]

Evil often has more permanent and drastic changes than good.


He knows? Isn't that a little presumptuous? Not everyone subscribes to your eschtatology.

I'm not speaking of the prominence of good; I'm speaking of predominance of good. When everything is wrong in your eyes, and you only observe the evil and do the evil, you're blinded by the evil and won't see the good. Of course there are more people that choose to do evil, than choose to good. It's like the popular kids in school. They have a bunch of friends to back them up and bully. The Good is left with a more tough life, but becomes much stronger than the crowd that has it easy and their worst issues being a lack of sex or not being able to sleep in. You have a lot of evil things and one good thing. A lot doesn't always mean more and better. The praise of one is more than the praise of one hundred. The slander of a thousand can bring one down, yet the love of one can bring them back to their feet and remove their worries.

 

[decent orange]

Evil often has more permanent and drastic changes than good.

But evil is not what you wish to have done to you. Not one prefers evil, but one only prefers good. Therefore everyone should do good. Let you and I do good to everyone.

He knows? Isn't that a little presumptuous? Not everyone subscribes to your eschtatology.

Everyone does subscribe to it. I can't imagine one would prefer evil over good. What you say doesn't make sense. (This is not an attack)

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But evil is not what you wish to have done to you. Not one prefers evil, but one only prefers good. Therefore everyone should do good. Let you and I do good to everyone.

What if one's person's definition of 'good' differs from yours? What if what you consider 'good' another considers 'evil', or vice versa?

Everyone does subscribe to it. I can't imagine one would prefer evil over good. What you say doesn't make sense. (This is not an attack)

I never said one would prefer evil over good. fearingdeath originally said:

"In the end you know that evil will get its punishment, and good will prevail."

My replay is that this is simply false. It's incorrect to assert that Ken-1122, or anyone else for that matter, 'knows' evil will get its punishment, and good will prevail. One only 'knows' this if one subscribes to a particular eschatology (the study of the end-of-days, particularly in Christian mythology), and not everyone does, so to assume otherwise is presumptious.

I don't know why you think I said that anyone prefers evil over good

 

[decent orange]

What if one's person's definition of 'good' differs from yours? What if what you consider 'good' another considers 'evil', or vice versa?


I never said one would prefer evil over good. fearingdeath originally said:

"In the end you know that evil will get its punishment, and good will prevail."

My replay is that this is simply false. It's incorrect to assert that Ken-1122, or anyone else for that matter, 'knows' evil will get its punishment, and good will prevail. One only 'knows' this if one subscribes to a particular eschatology (the study of the end-of-days, particularly in Christian mythology), and not everyone does, so to assume otherwise is presumptious.

I don't know why you think I said that anyone prefers evil over good

People prefer to have good done to them over evil. I have never ran into a person who preferred to have evil done to them rather than good. Everything you do for everyone around you should be good. You should never be evil to other people.

Goodness is universal and not subject to opinion. Things are good by being desired and pleasing while at the same time not being received to satisfy selfishness or given to glorify the giver in a selfish way. So killing someone's enemy because it will allow them to collect insurance on the dead person is not good for the evil person who desires that even though they might think it's good. Expecting something after giving is also not good even though in reality the giver really does deserve something, because to want is not good.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

People prefer to have good done to them over evil. I have never ran into a person who preferred to have evil done to them rather than good. Everything you do for everyone around you should be good. You should never be evil to other people.

There are people who want things normally considered evil to be done to them, from BDSM (in a non-consenting context, this is evil. Given consent, it's kinky foreplay) to a rape fetish. Another example would be abortion - not everyone who considers it evil doesn't go through with it.

But even if no one wants evil done to them, the question still remains as to what evil is. We may not want evil done to us, but we may have a very different idea of what constitutes evil - I may be quite happy to have something done to me because I don't consider it evil, while you consider it evil and therefore wouldn't have it done.

Consider abortion. A woman who considers it evil probably won't have an abortion, while a woman who doesn't consider it evil wouldn't have those same aversions.

Goodness is universal and not subject to opinion.

Sure it is, see above. Even if there is an objective moral code, there's no way to know what it is. And even if there was, and even if that method was by reading the Bible, there's still ambiguity and personal interpretation - do you take the Catholic, Lutherean, or Protestant Bible? Do you read the vulgur, or the modern English, or the Koine Greek? What do you make of the OT laws - even if you consider them abolished, what do you make of the fact that, at one point in time, God did command us to stone gays and so forth? Should we still do that?

Not only is it unestablished whether morality is objective or relative or absolute or subjective, there's no method of deriving this objective morality nor is there any consensus on what it is.

Things are good by being desired and pleasing while at the same time not being received to satisfy selfishness or given to glorify the giver in a selfish way.

And that is your opinion (and, personally, I can't make heads or tails of it). What if I put forth a different definition, such as "Immorality is the infringement of free will", or, "Good things are only those things which glorify Jesus Christ"? How do we decide which of the enormous number of proposed moral codes is the real one? And how do we decide if there is a real one?

So killing someone's enemy because it will allow them to collect insurance on the dead person is not good for the evil person who desires that even though they might think it's good. Expecting something after giving is also not good even though in reality the giver really does deserve something, because to want is not good.

This may well follow from your definition of 'good', but the origin of your definition is still in question.

 

[decent orange]

All the things you described are done for selfish reasons. The sexual perversion rooted from the self, the abortion because the self wishes to not be burdened by a child so worksorks in their own selfish wants. You guess these things by your own understanding, you see the world according to you, and that is why you can't understand. You think everything is subjective because you allow yourself to be the measurement.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sure it is, see above. Even if there is an objective moral code, there's no way to know what it is

Realise life's value by going with the flow of your evolved nature and fulfil the potential in you for a good life insofar as you can. Its not what you were made for as much teleologically as someone like Aquinas might put it as what you are faced with in a Dawkinsian sense as a survival machine. For example we contrast vonuntary self desecration with a healthy secure lifestyle and you get the broad outline. These are objective value realisables to reflect on as they exist, and will affect you whether you like it or not. They are part of the real world you live in even if that world is broadly speaking a subjective brain based simulation of the "stuff in itself" albeit an aspect of that stuff also. They, choices with differing value consequences, are as objective as your brain is objective. You are faced with feedback so better go with choices that are positive and rewarding ... and you are both hard and soft wired to respond axiologically. This is "goodness" - objectively benign value you face the opportunity of realising through axiologically rational practical conduct. This is more than mere psychology though insofar as it engages all aspects of your being, and the world you engage, your "moods" etc being a contributory factor in the value of the total existential picture, although at times I suppose you could be little but 90% mood and 10% sight according to attention span in given circumstances (like Sartre's famous caught looking through the keyhole example). And even if it is all psychology subjectivist morality is about individual psychology so unless you are individualist then you would not be considered subjectivistic... (eg hedonism is subjective but utilitarianism, hedonism for the masses, is objectivist). Cats,.

<<<>>>

But even if no one wants evil done to them, the question still remains as to what evil is. We may not want evil done to us, but we may have a very different idea of what constitutes evil - I may be quite happy to have something done to me because I don't consider it evil, while you consider it evil and therefore wouldn't have it done.

All this means to me is that value is experienced relative to the observer. As a physicist you ought to believe that does not make that something necessarily subjective does it? Value conflict eg between thief and victim does not mean value is not objective, it just means it is not absolute (objective and universally the same for everyone).

As for sadists or murderers etc I think they may be ordered from an individual standpoint ( in that they have a nature that value can be discovered in being expressed, even if only to the owner of that nature) but disordered from a community perspective (cf the concept of emergent properties) as their nature conflicts so strongly with other's.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

All the things you described are done for selfish reasons.

I disagree. You can either restrict 'selfish' to those things which are immoral, or paint with such a broad brush that you lose the ability to selfish things as immoral.

Consider an abortion done to save the mother's life. You could define that as selfish, but such a broad definition means that you lose any justification in saying, "It's selfish, therefore its immoral".

The sexual perversion rooted from the self,

Most, if not all, people cannot control what they find sexually arousing. It's rare that someone asks or chooses on a whim to find fetish X or kinky Y erotic. Doing that act may be immoral, but having the urge is not.

the abortion because the self wishes to not be burdened by a child so worksorks in their own selfish wants.

That is offensively ignorant of the thousand and one actual reasons women might get an abortion, prime among them being their continued survival.

You guess these things by your own understanding, you see the world according to you, and that is why you can't understand. You think everything is subjective because you allow yourself to be the measurement.

A cute soundbite, but little more. I think morality is subjective because I've taken a hard look at morality, and found little in the way of objective support. Your morality is one of many.

And I notice you failed to rise to my challenge and substantiate your moral code as 'objective', or to explain why different people have different beliefs about what 'the' moral code is. Fancy that.

 

[decent orange]

I disagree. You can either restrict 'selfish' to those things which are immoral, or paint with such a broad brush that you lose the ability to selfish things as immoral.

Consider an abortion done to save the mother's life. You could define that as selfish, but such a broad definition means that you lose any justification in saying, "It's selfish, therefore its immoral".

I understand. Forgive me for stating my perspective, I don't want to cause you any form of unpleasentness.

I decieve myself. I used to wish for independence and self satisfaction. I get hungry, and I eat. If I eat food from the outside, I'm nourished and continue to live. If I feed off myself my stomach is satisfied, but I die because after my body eats of itself, there is nothing left of me. Also, if I rely on my own desires, and form my own morality from my selfishness, it doesn't last. But if I deny myself, and look outward at more than just myself, I see more clearly. All the while I try my best to keep in mind that I don't want others to be ruled by their selfishness either. So I try to make decisions from starting there.

As for the abortion, it would be selfish of me to tell the woman what to do, and it would be selfish of the woman to have the abortion. So I will not tell her what I want if she doesn't see things like that because that would be selfish. That is a complicated thought.

Most, if not all, people cannot control what they find sexually arousing. It's rare that someone asks or chooses on a whim to find fetish X or kinky Y erotic. Doing that act may be immoral, but having the urge is not.

Urges are uncontrolable, this is why they rule us. To be free from them we must focus on satisfying others and not ourselves. Then we can command the urges.

That is offensively ignorant of the thousand and one actual reasons women might get an abortion, prime among them being their continued survival.

I did not mean to come off as inconsiderate. To be more clear, I do believe it is selfish for the woman to get an abortion. But I do not dare judge the woman, because I have not been in that situation. It is inappropriate to judge someone's weakness, such as the fear for their own life. I'm nowhere near perfect, so will not judge. But if she wanted to be perfect, then she would deliver, but again, very touchy, and I do not want you to misunderstand me, or percieve me as inconsiderate, because I understand how a situation like that could be extremely difficult.

A cute soundbite, but little more. I think morality is subjective because I've taken a hard look at morality, and found little in the way of objective support. Your morality is one of many.

I try not and listen to my own morality. Because if I listen to myself, my morality is evil.

And I notice you failed to rise to my challenge and substantiate your moral code as 'objective', or to explain why different people have different beliefs about what 'the' moral code is. Fancy that.

I did not know there was a challenge. I apologize. I rushed into a response a little too quickly and didn't respond to that.

My moral code is objective because I don't get it from myself. If I did say that it was subjective, then I would search myself, and find out what I want, and whatever it is that I wanted would then be my subjective morals. Since my subjectivce morals work against myself and others, I don't put faith in myself, so that I can see the object. Then I see the objective.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Urges are uncontrolable, this is why they rule us. To be free from them we must focus on satisfying others and not ourselves. Then we can command the urges.

Some urges are desireable - the urge to not feel pain, the urge to eat when hungry, etc. Some are not desireable - the urge to lash out when hurt, the urge to be violent over petty grievences, etc. The question is whether an urge is good, bad, or neutral. With regards to things like sexual fetishes, I don't believe they're necessarily inherently evil, not matter how selfish.

I did not mean to come off as inconsiderate. To be more clear, I do believe it is selfish for the woman to get an abortion. But I do not dare judge the woman, because I have not been in that situation. It is inappropriate to judge someone's weakness, such as the fear for their own life. I'm nowhere near perfect, so will not judge. But if she wanted to be perfect, then she would deliver, but again, very touchy, and I do not want you to misunderstand me, or percieve me as inconsiderate, because I understand how a situation like that could be extremely difficult.

Then, why label it as selfish? If the point isn't to say, "It's selfish, and selfish is bad, so therefore it's bad", then what is it?

I try not and listen to my own morality. Because if I listen to myself, my morality is evil.

By what standards?

I did not know there was a challenge. I apologize. I rushed into a response a little too quickly and didn't respond to that.

No worries, I've done it too.

My moral code is objective because I don't get it from myself. If I did say that it was subjective, then I would search myself, and find out what I want, and whatever it is that I wanted would then be my subjective morals. Since my subjectivce morals work against myself and others, I don't put faith in myself, so that I can see the object. Then I see the objective.

Having a moral code come from outside yourself doesn't remove its subjectivity - after all, there are many, many external moral codes, and you just so happened to pick one of them. While I'm sure you have your reasons, what's to stop you from picking a moral code that doesn't suit your whims?

In other words, why doesn't your criticism of introspective morality also apply to your own selection of an external moral code? How do you know that the moral code you picked, isn't just the one that appealed to your own wants and needs, rather than the one that has any sort of objective substantiation?

 

[KimberlyAA]

The One who conquered death wins in the end

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The One who conquered death wins in the end

Death still exists, in abundance and in suffering, which makes me wonder what's so special about Jesus' resurrection - if he conquered death, if he died to wash away our sins... why are we still being punished for Adam and Eve's?