Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

It has pretty much already been said. What is good and bad is all really down to the opinion of people you ask. A good point (made above) was that cold blooded murder (in the streets) is wrong, yet in war, you're commended for killing. I know there are significant differences between the two, but murder is murder at the end of the day.

Solders are allowed you go out and shoot someone that *may* be a threat at a later date, but we're not allowed to hang someone who has killed for pleasure because it is inhumane. Give me a break! :rolleyes:

There are some things that, generally, everyone will agree on. A solid 90% of people on this planet would probably agree that things such as Child Molestation, Rape and Murder (of the criminal kind) are wrong, you're always going to have some though, that believe differently (else there wouldn't be anyone around to commit these crimes).

Generally, the people of a nation / country / county are governed by a set of laws. Those laws are usually placed down by the majority, and they are deemed to be the right ones, and they are deemed to split good and bad into the necessary categories. In some cases there is a fine line, but generally speaking, it is common knowledge what is good, and what is bad in your local community.

Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

As the rest said: Society, the majority of a society, decides what is considered right or wrong. Be it through actual law or "simply" being frowned upon. Societies change throughout time, so right and wrong will change aswell. Certain things will almost always be considered "wrong" by a very large majority (murder for example), though the exact definition may change ("if a person is killed because of reason A/B/C it ain't murder" -> "killing in self defence ain't murder" ).

Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

Why do so many humans behave so foolishly. It is far more efficient to deal in absolutes. ei: no exceptions, murder of any kind is wrong. Or: Anarchy ain't that bad, just have fun with it. Currently, society unoffically says: for every human action, there is justification and condemnation. Such a shame. Anyways, a definition of good and bad is society's fault, and can be easily changed with a little independant thinking.





I messed up this whole thing, didn't I?

Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

By how we define good and bad;

Good = creation
Bad = destruction

Good sometimes needs to destroy, but the action itself doesn't mean it's good.
Bad sometimes needs to create, but the action itself doesn't mean it's bad.

Beyond this, the definition of good and bad is ultimately up to a person or body's interpretation of it.

Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

It depends on what the world around you defines as right or wrong. There are always the few who either choose to or are unable to live by what the society says is right, and they are the criminals in their lifetime. You will notice that if the society changes its views, they will all of a sudden be hailed as heroes or visionaries.

Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

This should help..or either provide some comic relief.

Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

It depends at what state the society was.
A person that kills members of his own society without reasons the society condones (even when it undergoes shifts) would still be seen as evil by the societies standards.

They are actually often seen as evil, or impure if the society condones said killings. I.e. the reasons why an executioner was a respected person, but strongly ostracised from society.

It really depends, if a society splits and goes to civil war (usually due to a long term absence of an external enemy, or external enemies not having as much impact as various groups inside the society to garner a need to rally) and a former criminal starts killing only member's of the other side. And more often than only the able-bodied, he will be seen as a hero.
But if he starts killing or stealing from his own side as well, he will be mercilessly taken down once more.

Again, the act of killing human beings is probably the most relative and subjective of acts.
And depends on a number of factors.

A soldier is seen as a hero, as long as he kills "THEM". Today there's a also a difference in most western countries, that the "THEM" is usually only enemy able bodied soldiers as opposed to the civie population and most importantly the elderly, women and children. Although as more women are becoming soldiers this one part slowly changes.

The THEM is generally defined by some small difference. Different religion, skin-color, language, borders whatever. And said differences are only pronounced during war times.

A murderer is seen as a villain, because he does not kill THEM but US. The important thing, that during peace times the US group expands by a large amount. It's unimportant if he kills americans or europeans or arabs. The moment peace ends, the US group contracts once more.
And if a murderer runs crazy among THEM, he might even be seen as a hero by the US.

Also ever heard the teaching that every single society needs it's heretics to function during peace.
It's odd but humans actually need to have a group which they can regard with at least slight contempt for their societies to work to some extent.
The best for this is an external enemy. You might notice that the largest alliances and nations usually form during such periods. The soviet and western bocks during the cold war for instance. Which while still allied to some extent are far more disorganised today.

These heretics of society are rarely hunted and murdered, but they are generally vilified and while they weaken a society at first glance, they strengthen it in fact.
And once a strong external enemy is found, they are quickly reintegrated back into mainstream society and so that the main body never actually suffers.

That's probably the reason why a world government won't ever function as long as we will only have one world. While these heretics help, they can only do so much. To really reduce powerful tension you need give your society a palpable sense of endangerment.

So let's say Earth and Mars were both inhabited, it would only take a short time for either world to declare independence on each other and as long as both believe that an armed conflict is a possibility, both will quickly create some form of a world government.

Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

Exactly my point.

Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

The dictionary has about 40 different definitions for the word "good". I took a few.

Society defines what is truly "moral" between all of the people. Convention tells us that murdering is a "bad" thing. This came to be a LONG LONG time ago when some gathered together and wrote what our now our modern day "laws" about what is good and what is bad. It depends also on what you're perspective is. As was said, a murderer may think what he's doing is "good", but a just person would see that it is "bad".

Common sense also helps in defining what is moral. Common sense would tell you that having an affair with someone is not the best idea in the world. We see what happens because our politicians seem to have issues with this alot. It also tells us stealing is wrong, but how many of us do illegal things on the internet?

But think about it. How many of us in our right minds would kill some innocent person at random? I would hope none of us would. If you can't define what is good and what is bad, then look to what society says is good and bad. Murdering, stealing, raping, "cheating", and such are bad things. There is no law against being happy, kind or gentle with people.

Re: What is Good and Bad?
 

Good: Christians

Bad: Muslims



Any questions?