Harte
Senior Member
- Messages
- 4,562
Is stealing food for your starving children bad? You can be convicted for it. It's relative.I put no words into your mouth. I asked you a question that apparently you didn't want to consider the answer to. That, by the way, is quite revealing.
I am only forcing to see that good and bad are relative. I did this by providing examples. The examples I provided are the same ones offered in any first-year ethics course, it's not some weird idea of mine that I'm trying to "force" on anyone.
What's good to one person can be utterly evil to another person.
That's what "relative" means.
Harte
I know this game. This is where every response i give gets shot down and the words "revealing and reflective" is used. This is to make the other person extremely conscious about what they write next. i have been writing for thousands of forums as i find it awesome to read what others write. But to be pacified is never fun. But your response i think was also interesting.
Good and bad is not relative. If it was it can be argued that every criminal should be free because based on their perspective they where justified. An action isn't relative it is an action. As far as actions go it is pretty simple and self explanatory. When a car crashes into a wall forces spend energy. You are left with a crashed car. Thus the fact that the car has crashed into a wall is now a absolute.
Is a car crashing into a wall good or bad? How would you define that?
Is the justice system the final arbiter between good and bad? That's certainly not their goal.When a criminal goes into a home and take the victims belongings then wishful thinking does not change the fact that the belongings are taken. Why the criminal took the belongings may effect his case in court but it doesn't change the fact that a physical happening occurred.
"Relative" doesn't mean not factual. And I've given many arguments - all as examples - in basically every reply I've made (including this one.)What i find interesting is you have yet to give a counter argument as to why good and bad is a perspective. My argument is, it is not a perspective it is not relative because when something enters into the physical world it becomes fact.
Motive has no part in whether an act is good or bad?You see motive becomes irrelevant when it comes to a the actual action. Motive is relevant as to why the action took place but it does not change the fact. It may support the fact or even go against the fact but it cannot change the fact.
What has that to do with it?good and bad isn't just a emotional construct on human perspective. When a individual is wronged emotionally and or physically it is because that person experienced the situation on a physical level. Not only did the individual experienced it, the body experienced it on a Biochemical level.
Sure - and that is a bad act from the position of the one doing the cannibalizing, assuming cannibalizing is done to keep from starving.Now you wish to tell me that it is perspective and relative. Well sorry no... It is not. It is physical. Even in cannibal cultures people got upset when it was people that they care about become a victim. They still do to this day. Please do the research yourself. You will find that in cannibal cultures people do fight to protect themselves and the people they care about. It is well documented.
Harte