Can Anyone Judge What is Morally Right or Wrong?
78
|
The Woman Behind the New Deal: The Life of Frances Perkins, FDR'S Secretary of Labor and His Moral Conscience
Price: $20.64
List Price: $35.00 |
|
The Light of Conscience: How a Simple Act Can Change Your Life
Price: $2.21
List Price: $13.95 |
In a recent quite interesting debate on the forums I was asked 'And what moral authority do you have to determine good and evil?'. The forum topic in question can be found if you visit http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/7848 .
I found this a question that has preyed on my mind, not least of which because I feel that surely what is 'Good and Evil', seems to me should pretty much based on common sense and a conscience. I can't help wondering if everyone feels the same as I do, which is that surely it doesn't take a spiritual leader or a genius to work out the accepted standard for good and evil, right and wrong and acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
To explain my feelings on this I have an immediate list that springs to mind of what every human being should realise is good or evil without much debate. If anyone doubts the sense in these lists then I seriously doubt their sanity, and find it odd that even a so called Christian on the above forum topic had to ask me what moral authority I had to determine good and evil. My immediate thought was, 'Well, I have a brain and a conscience for a start, plus I don't simply blindly follow the words of some religious nut who tells me to do something in the name of the appropriate God whose wishes they profess to be passing on'. Strangely enough I don't think this comment would have been welcomed if I had chosen to voice it in a further post, so I have chosen to write this hub instead and get a more general opinion.
My lists of good and evil, right and wrong, appropriate behaviour and inappropriate behaviour, as I see it basically are as follows:
| No Photo |
AS/A2 Philosophy of Religion and Religious Ethics for O
Current Bid: $11.97
|
|
Comparing Religious Traditions: Ethics of Family Life,
Current Bid: $11.98
|
Good, Appropriate, Moral and Correct Behaviour in my Humble Opinion.
1) Pretty much of all the 10 commandments although I am far from a Bible Basher, I do agree with those guidelines.
2) Being kind to animals.
3) Looking after and respecting the planet and the creatures that reside on it, to the best of your individual abilities.
4) Looking after those less fortunate than yourselves, be it family, friends, neighbours or strangers.
5) Not hurting or being cruel to children.
6) Not bullying weaker people than yourself.
7) Not committing murder, (as in the 10 commandments).
8) Not stealing.
9) Not having affairs with people who already have partners, (much as in 10 commandments also).
10) Defending others when you feel they are in the right and need moral support, or are incapable of arguing their valid case intelligently enough to make their point.
11) Ensuring animals or the products from animals we eat are treated as humanely and naturally as possible before they, or their products, reach our dinner plate.
|
Comparative Religious Ethics: A Narrative Approach
Price: $37.87
List Price: $56.95 |
|
Lost in Egypt
Price: $8.97
List Price: $13.98 |
|
Notes and Queries, Index of Volume 3, January-June, 1851
Price: $3.90
List Price: $3.90 |
|
Bonhoeffer
Price: $17.45
List Price: $29.95 |
Evil, Inappropriate, Immoral and Incorrect Behaviour also in my Humble Opinion.
1) Committing murder, unless you do it as an act of mercy for a dying relative or friend who is having a slow and painful death and asks you to help them die.
2) Being cruel to animals.
3) Being cruel to children.
4) Bullying.
5) Bitching against others, be it at work or in a neighbourhood, especially if you know it might cause another emotional pain if they found out what you had said about them.
6) Stealing.
7) Ignoring the needs of others because you 'have better things to do'.
8) Infidelity, as you always have the option of ending your relationship first if it isn't working, or insisting the person you are interested in ends theirs before you get involved with them.
9) Destroying wildlife habitats without thought for how many species will die out or the effect on the environment. It simply isn't good enough to say such people 'need to make a living' ,as these very actions will ultimately destroy their means of making a living, and then not only will it be too late for the planet and the species destroyed, but these people will still have to find a new way to make a living, so they may as well start doing it now before the damage is done beyond repair.
10) Having a war in the name of religion, especially when no religious book I know of suggests doing this, only the living spiritual leaders of the day use this as a means of calling their followers to kill in the name of their God.
11) Happily eating animals or their products that we know have not had a natural life, or have been cruelly killed, e.g. Veal Calves, Machine Culled Chickens, Battery Hen's Eggs, intensively farmed animals of any variety etc.
|
Right From Wrong
Price: $2.23
List Price: $14.99 |
|
Table Topics Conversation Cards - Right or Wrong Edition (Gray)
Price: $24.99
List Price: $29.99 |
|
Happy Bunny - Right From Wrong Ladies T-Shirt - Small
Price: $18.95
|
These are Just the Basics
Now these are just the basics in my mind, but what is so hard about this that people feel a need to say that we have no right to judge what is 'Good or Evil'. I watch programmes on TV every day that illustrate to me categorically what is good and evil, and I don't need to be a genius to know what feels right or wrong. Surely knowing what is moral or immoral is all part of having a conscience, and not based on blindly going along with what some religion tells you, often misquoted, appropriately interpreted and frequently twisted to suit the requirements of the speaker involved.
I try my best to live the kind of life that allows me to sleep easily at night, knowing I have lived another day in a way that I feel any decent God would approve of. I rescue creatures of all shapes and sizes wherever possible, (mainly from my cats, but also whenever I come across any animal in distress), I try to ensure our fishing lake is surrounded by the most wildlife friendly habitat possible and refuse to allow any shooting of animals on our land. I help others wherever and whenever I can, even if it means going short myself. This makes me feel good about myself, and if anyone can tell me that a God does not approve of this as it is not' Good' by his standards, then I want no part of such a God, and I doubt many would.
So to summarise briefly, I don't think there is anything wrong with being able to say we can judge what is 'Good or Evil', of course we can! God gave us free will apparently, and I am guessing this was a test to see if we could develop enough intelligence to work out for ourselves what 'Good and Evil Behaviour' consisted of, without needing to be spoon fed the common sense required to work it out.
What are your thoughts this, as I would hope to find I am not alone in this train of thought?
- Fresh Wisdom: Breakthru To Enlightenment.
A Handbook Of Ancient Wisdom For Modern Living. Provides Alternative Life Strategies For Health & Longevity, Religion & Spirituality, Relationships & Sexuality, Economics & Politics And Independent Wealth Creation. - Teach your children morals.
Teach Moral Standards To Your Children Calmly And Without Arguments. Discuss Objective Moral Standards.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
I understand where you are coming from, but surely you have a conscience that you live by, and so you already have enough info to make decisions on your own!
Surely I make decisions. But I recognize that I make them on a basis of my own limited knowledge and likes and dislikes, and not on a basis of some universal good-evil scale.
Being not-so-young I had enough time to watch how some of my own beliefs changed to the opposite ones, and I think some of them even made another shift and came back to their original form, but on a higher level of understanding.
Good example would be my opinion about USA. During cold war we all been brainwashed into believing our enemy is evil. Americans "knew" Russians are evil, and Russians "knew" the same about Americans. There were rare exceptions on both sides, but I was not the one. :)
Then "Perestroika" came, and all of a sudden I (and dozens of millions of Russians, too) found out America is not "evil", and there were normal and friendly people living here. More, they were living way better then us at the time. And it is much warmer over here. :)
So America is "good", and I came here, and I lived here for almost ten years already. Now I see what America is doing in the World (and this is not something new, America has been doing pretty much the same thing for at least half a century), and I see that this does not bring any direct benefit to anybody. More, I see it can easily lead to WWIII.
So, I again don't like what America is doing. America did not change, I changed. My way of thinking changed, the amount of information available to me and processed by my brain changed, etc. This has nothing to do with objective "good" and "bad", it's all subjective...
I can easily give you examples of the items on your list turning from "bad" to "good" and vise versa, pick one :)
There are several spelling errors: "a question that has prayed on my mind". This should be "preyed"
I agree with your lists, Cindy, and would probably have come up with much the same points.
I would think that there are certain 'desirable' traits - honesty, truth, for example. Without these, there would be chaos. To make good and evil rise above subjective judging into a plane that's abstract and never-changing would be nigh impossible I should think. I agree to a great extent with Misha - our perception of good and evil can change with time, circumstances, place.
However, I do agree with your list of what is 'desirable' so man can live together in harmony. There could be exceptions though. A starving child stealing. Tribals destroying wildlife simply because they have been forced out of their traditional habitats - and they don't think, they're too busy trying to survive. People having affairs - personally, I think we should be a bit more practical when it comes to relationships between the sexes :)
MXMAN, thanks for pointing that out, error now corrected. Please feel free to point out any other typos I may have made.
Bard, thanks for your comment and glad your lists would be much the same as mine.
Misha, great points all round. I have to say I was thinking more of day to day good and evil of individuals rather than including the judging of entire countries, who are, after all, full of individuals with their own good/evil ideas, and if there is a heaven, then it won't be a whole country that is judged, but the individuals. You asked me for a suggestion for one of the items on my list going from good to bad or visa versa, so as a matter of interest my selection would be, 'cruelty to animals'. I cannot see how this could ever be considered good in any way, but would be interested to hear your take on this.
Shalini, thanks for commenting, and I too agree there are exceptions, as naturally no-one should think of a starving child stealing food as being the same as simple stealing.
Mistyhorizon, very thoughtful hub. I agree with you that we each have a very strong internal understanding of what we mean by good and evil. One doesn't need to be a genius to have that. Even a chimpanzee can state categorically that something is "bad" or "good."
However, we don't actually all have the same values. You and I share many of the same values, as expressed in your list, but not all of them. To me, not hurting others or interfering with their personal rights is what moral behavior is all about. Whether we then choose to help others is a question of choice. To kill someone for no reason is wrong -- but we are not under an obligation to share our food with others who have no food. There is a world of difference between stealing from another -- and giving another cart blanche to draw on what we have "at need".
Beyond that, many people draw the line of which "others" they're obliged to respect in different places. That line is important, but essentially arbitrary. Do you respect the right of all amoebas to live? I don't. I don't go out of my way to destroy life for no reason, but I do have a priority list, as do many people.
Like you, I don't feel that my values come from the authority of anyone. They just make sense to me. However, many traditional religious people don't have morals of their own, so much as accepting the authority of scripture, without which they imagine there would be complete chaos. To understand those people, you have to try and see it from their perspective, too.
We are not all the same. We don't all believe the same things. For some people, authority is a very important issue. The moral ascribed to the Book of Job is all about that.
Thanks Aya, all thought provoking points and I appreciate your comments. I guess if I had food of my own, but I saw another who had none, I would feel the right thing to do was to share my food, however, I am not likely to go out of my way to save an amoeba either, (pretty hard if I can't see them LOL).
Well, you have to define cruelty first, so I can come up with an example that makes sense to you. Without that, first that comes to mind in that area are methods of slaughtering dogs for food some Asian countries use. For a Western person it's cruelty, but it is not so for people who do that, they just want meat to be tender...
You see Misha, I would define that as cruelty and wrong, because we do not need to make an animal suffer to slaughter it, and we don't need our meat to be tender to live on it. In fact it has been proven that if an animal senses or smells death, and is scared or fearful it will instinctively tense it's muscles up, and the end result is tougher meat.
So, you don't like this example Cindy. The fact that some other people honestly do not think it is cruel does not work for you. :)
OK, I can understand that, and definitely I often think pretty much the same. You still did not give your definition of cruelty, and this makes my task even harder. I have to admit that in this case "easily" definitely was the wrong word, and I am having hard time now trying to think of an example for you. But I do appreciate the chance to refine my beliefs, so it is an interesting challenge.
I still need a definition, though. Where do we draw a line? Apparently beating animals to death is cruel on your books. How about cutting their throat? Breaking their neck? Electrocuting them? How about keeping them in cages? Or inside a fence? Feeding them unnatural diet? Or letting them eat grass that has been fed with fertilizer?
Oh, and how about fishing? You seem to like fishing. Isn't it cruel to fish to be killed for human enjoyment? Or fish does not count as animals?
Hi Misha,
My definition of cruelty is if the animal is caused pain, physical pain, such as the kind that we wouldn't like done to ourselves. I also consider it cruel to keep an animal in majorly restricitve and unnatural confinement and wherever possible believe they should be left in the wild, or given as much space as they need to live contented healthy lives, breeding successfully and having the freedom to exercise. If an animal has to be killed for food, then I only condone it if the animal is killed instantly, such as by a shot to the head, a bolt gun or similar instantaneous methods used by well trained experts.
If the animal isn't physically suffering such as the example you gave of the ferlilized grass, then I do not take this as actual cruelty, and in fact here in Guernsey where we are famous for our rich creamy milk from our world renowned cows, the fields in question are only ever treated with natural manures anyway, and the cows are generally kept free in the fields and live contented free range lives.
The fishing one is not relevant in my case, as in coarse fishing the beauty of it is that you don't kill the fish at all. In fact they are handled with incredible care and respect by the anglers before being released back into the lake. Many of these fish go on to live for 50 years or more, and are given affectionate nicknames by the anglers. The hooks we use in coarse fishing are tiny, (no bigger than a woman's stud earring), and barbless, and as the fish are hooked in the part of the mouth that is much like a fingernail, they don't seem to suffer any distress at all, and gently swim away once released.
Thanks, now I have at least some kind of boundaries and can try to come up with something :)
It may take a while.
As for the fishing - I think you have some thinking to do, too :) Imagine you are forcefully deprived of air supply. Just for a minute or half a minute even. Also, imagine you have a rope attached to the hole in your fingernail, and someone forcefully pulls on this rope... ;)
Hi Misha, Okay, looking forward to your response.
As for the fishing thing, well it is a hard one to judge, as firstly a fish such as a Carp can survive out of water for well over an hour, (even though they are usually only out of the water for a couple of minutes), yet a human couldn't survive underwater without air for an hour. Quite often the anglers even unhook the fish without lifting it out of the water at all, so it never does suffer any deprivation of it's natural 'breathing medium'. Also, the fishing line we use in coarse fishing is quite easy to break, and therefore it isn't about simply hauling the fish in to land it, and it takes a good while to "play" the fish until it gently comes in and you can net it to lift it out of the water. Even then they are unhooked on soft unhooking mats to avoid damage to the fish. More often than not the fish escape before being landed, and often that same fish may not be caught again for many months, sometimes years. :)
Heheh...I'm giggling only cuz I know how much that forum just pissed ya off :)
Okay...so here's my take on moral authority and deciding what is good and what is evil...
It all boils down to that ever popular "free will" thing that we have. Everyone is their own personal moral authority. The real trouble begins when others begin to enforce their own moral authority over anybody else.
One of the reasons you and I get along is that we have similar ideas of what is good and what is evil. However, even in our similarities there are differences...
For example, I would list murder as being evil. However, if somebody murdered somebody I loved? I'd be more than happy to inflict a slow tortuous death on them personally...*shrugs* If I were required to defend my home? I'd pick up a gun and blow the person to kingdom come without a second's thought. There are just some scenarios I can live with more so than others...
So now we have billions of people deciding what is good and what is evil...changing their minds as they learn new things or face new challenges...what a mess! No wonder we can't agree all the time.
Now...some people came up with a great idea (or so they thought). Let's make GOD the ultimate authority on what is good and what is evil. Only one problem...you have to accept the existence of such a being in order to accept that He is the ultimate authority on what is good and evil.
I happen to be a bit skeptical about taking the word of people who have had as much direct interaction with this entity as I have...
Yes...I realize that I run the risk of being refused entry into heaven. I also smoke despite the surgeon general's warning.
Instead, I kinda adopted the taoist idea of good & evil...to do good purely for the sake of doing good and not because you believe you'll be rewarded for it in an afterlife. As for what is good and evil, I'll decide that for myself...to guide myself...and not cram it down the throat of everyone around me.
It's the best I can do with what I have at my disposal.
The two great ethicists argue: Kant....we have a hard-wired conscience that judges based on something like the golden rule + treating everyone with dignity. Subsidary rules can be deduced such as do not steal, etc. Moral rationality is universal, and is our human birthright according to this view. The fact that the United Nations agreed on a relatively specific list of "human rights", argues that Kant might have been right. The other ethicist is Mill who argued what is right and wrong can be calculated based on the future consequences of the decision. We should optimize the utility for everyone concerned by minimizing suffering and maximizing utility. Cost/benefit analyses are examples of this type of reasoning, commonly used when politics and legislation is involved.
Thanks for dropping in Spryte, always nice to read your thoughts. Actually I agree with your point about being able to happily murder someone who had just murdered your family member, actually I would like to do it to anyone who murdered my pet, never mind anything else, but wouldn't think this was 'evil', just making sure 'what goes around comes around' :)
Thanks for commenting Barranca, good thoughts, and I can see an element of sense in both arguments. I prefer the Kant opinion given the choice, as not everything bad has future consequences as Mill argued, e.g. someone beats their dog to death and dumps the body and then gets away with the crime. No consequnce to them, only the dog.
I like points 9 and 10. 9, however ideaological, is technically impossible unless you tell Javez in Nicaragua or Ping in China that their environmental problems are harming animals. They'll just laugh you off and remind you that England and America once had similar smog in the name of industrial growth...which then we can retort "we've improved" but then again they will too once they've acheived similar affluence.
10 is my favourite because generally speaking most religious manuals hardly advocate war [in rare circumstances most religions have resorted by means of gaining their 'holy ground']. Oddly enough the NT of the Bible screams the opposite...which is funny that so many 'christian' politicians like war...although I genuinely believe that many mean well and are simply misguided by a little more corrupt individuals. Like...Karl Rove... :P
I tend to think that good and evil are artificially counterposed ideas that hinder rather than help ethical judgment. The concept of evil in particular is so tied into religious tradition that even in a post-Christian society, or among non-religious 'pragmatists', it is still likely to carry too much baggage to be able even to be discussed fruitfully.
My preferred guideline would be "Do as little harm as possible", and when considering the harm that you do, sentient beings should be considered first, as only they 'feel' the harm you do.
If everybody went about their daily life trying to do no harm, there would be far less need for people to actively try to do good (which so often backfires).
"If everybody went about their daily life trying to do no harm, there would be far less need for people to actively try to do good (which so often backfires)." Paraglider, may I quote you.?
Hi Jewels - Please do, with the byline "by Paraglider" ;) Actually, I've been musing on building that into a hub at some point.
Thank you. Awhile ago I began collecting my own words of wisdom (they seem to fall from the sky at times) and those of people I read. There are some pearlers that are very profound and so spot on. Look forward to the hub. It could cover the martyr syndrome, rescueing the victim, hmmm - lots to cover.
I've been following 'that' discussion which also made some good points on judgment. Good fuel for your hub as well.
Quite an interesting list that has made some extremely valid and important points. I personally think that it is largely our intent - as opposed to action - that really defines whether something is "evil" or "good". The most basic guideline I live by: Will my actions cause harm or injury to myself or another? It's like stepping on an ant by accident and feeling badly as opposed to a person who purposely goes out of their way to do so. As with all energy we put out to the universe, it is always returned in some form.
An interesting hub.
Thanks bright_sorcerer, good point about "intent". I agree that stepping on an ant makes me feel bad, and I would not go out of my way to step on one for sure. Even with my terror of large house spiders, I never kill them, only catch them in a glass and release them outside. I even used to go mad if my Mum put poison down for mice and rats, and I used to feed the one rat that hung around my Guinea-Pig hutches, I even gave him a name 'Crunchie'. When I told my Mum how tame he had got she called out the environmental health people and they poisoned him.
I was reading the Bio of Che Guevara today. Here was a man who fought for the people, defended his soldiers, fought for political and economic reform. He also either killed himself or ordered the killing of hundreds of people. Was he good or evil? Can I make a judgment on it? In my opinion he was evil. I just made the judgment based on the info that I had. I have every right to make that judgment. I equally reserve the right to change my opinion at any time I like, after all it is MY opinion, my judgment.
P.S. spryte - you smoke as well. Bit by bit I am learning about the real you and I have to say I am just a little bit disillusioned. However, I have to say that I am with you 100 % when it comes to blowing someone away to save a loved one. Does that leave our world in a mess? Yeah it does. Our world is a mess. But then sunrise is only 10 hours away.
A point well made Brainstormer, we can only judge by the facts we have available, and I agree with your opinion on that man.
I think perhaps we make the rules up as we go along (I guess that's pretty much what Misha said). I don't like the idea of killing anything including spiders or wasps They all have a right to life. But I take great pleasure in killing head lice on the odd occassion that the kids come home with little visitors, and I don't have a problem in hurling snails over the high fence at the back of my garden into the oblivion of the small copse that we back onto.
It's the same with war. I don't believe in war, but I know that if my family or loved ones were threatened or killed I could readily become a one woman army. The ten commandments are great guidelines, but there's always a caveat.
True Amanda, I guess I woudn't have too much problem with killing headlice either, or defending my loved ones, although I think I would need to defend them directly against the person threatening them.
Hey, don't bank on the snails not returning though, as I know of a guy who did an experiment to prove this. Each time he found a snail in his garden he marked it's shell with a tiny blob of paint and then threw it over the wall. When they returned he repeated the excercise so the snail now had two blobs of paint on it's shell, and so on. Within weeks he had snails coming back that now had numerous blobs of paint on their shells, so unless you want to take them for a drive and drop them off a few miles away, I think you will find it is the same snails you are throwing into the copse on a regular basis :)
Ummm, may be snails just like to fly?
Or perhaps they have become experts at pole vaulting back into the garden. :)
Can I just state basic kindness and compassion for ever-y-thing. Would that cover it.
:P Brainstormer -
What a funny world we live in when it's okay to contemplate killing somebody in defense of a loved one...but smoking a cigarette is just simply unacceptable. :)
Smoking gun...Okies.
Smoking cigaratte...OMG!!! NO!!!
Thanks for making me smile...hehehehe.....*walks off chuckling*
Karenlee, yes I think that pretty much covers it. Thanks :)
Spryte, too right, let's smoke everyone to death instead !!!
If you don't drink and you don't smoke you are healthy when you croak :P
It is pretty funny how you can still drink in this coutry that kills many but if you have a cigarette your going to hell, I'll smoke with you guys too!
Jeeesh...You humans how you complicate things. Paraglider you put "sentient beings" before anything else, shame on you!!!!. How do you know what hurts and what doesn't ? I'm with Misha on the fish thing, I wouldn't like my lip pulled on just so some a/hole can brag about how big this fish was! Spryte your not just a pretty face, I almost agree with everything you said!. B'man haven't decided about you yet??? Che eh must read up on him??? Misty even I new wat you meant! Sorry if I missed anyone, but all this readings given me a headache and I'm gonna take a nap in my foxhole. good night all.
agvulpes - I think you need to check on the meaning of sentience: "In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience is commonly seen as the ability to experience suffering." That includes your fish, but probably not your potatoes, OK?
Oh wev'e narrowed it down to animal rights thanks for the clarification Paraglider. I thought the literal meaning was the ability to feel or be capable of feeling. Who has given humans the right to say what or who has a sense of feel (as in pain).
Even so what gives us the right to chop off a chooks head or fire a bolt into a cows head just because wer'e the ones with the weapons.
And thank you for asking my potatos are doing very well, I sing them a lullaby every night.
It gets tricky when you start talking about rights. Humans are the inventors of rights and the only animal to consider them. After all, what gives the wasp the right to sting me or the shark the right to chew my leg off?
LOL, I am guessing from the Shark's point of view you are fair game if you choose to swim in the sea where he hunts and lives. :)
Ah dear paraglider there's the nub of it all. The incidents you suggest indicate a perfectly natural intuition to continue the survival of their species. Hence the wasp stings as a defence mechanism so you will go away and leave him alone, not understanding of course that you will stomp on him. The shark has been misunderstood for many years and rarely unless provoked, will attack unless in its virtually endless quest for food. Most shark attacks you see are usually only one bite, when the shark realizes he has not bitten into a seal or another fish he will generally discontinue the attack unless there is more than one shark and then you might be in REAL trouble. Once again subconciously seeking to keep its species surviving.(as so eloquently expressed by Misty)
Thanks for the compliment agvulpes :)
Well Cindy, I was pondering over it for a few days, and can't really come up with anything but what was obvious from the beginning - cruelty to animals on your terms could be "good" when you don't have other choices in survival situations. Like catching a rabbit and cruelly killing it by bare hands when you don't have anything else to eat. :)
I can't say I am completely satisfied by this answer myself, so there is obviously some more musing to do - but it can take several years, and I don't think you are going wait for the answer THAT long :)
Morality is like opinions, in my book; to each their own and who am I to judge? Just because one person doesn't think the way I do, does that make them bad or wrong? No, that makes them different, and difference is a great way to learn from one another.
And, as always, there are exceptions to every Golden Rule. It was a beautiful hub, and I'm glad you haven't been bashed into the ground for your views. ^_^
Well said Kika Rose, I agree with what you say, but (funny how there's always a but) unless we do discuss things in forums such as this we will not, as you say, have the opportunity to learn from each other. So lets not try to stifle debate rather lets encourage it! Even on my short time on HubPages I have seen certain changes in the way I view things. I believe that one of the important lessons in life is to(for want of a better word) stay flexible, always reserving the right to change your opinions.
Thank you Misha for your thoughts on this subject. I guess I would still argue that I would try to eat fruits of the forest rather than eat meat if I couldn't kill it humanely. If there was absolutely nothing left to eat other than the rabbit (and that is assuming you can catch the damn thing), there is a quick way of killing them by a short, sharp, karate type chop to the back of the neck with the edge of your hand. I am being a bit pedantic here, as I know the rabbit is just one example though, and of course this wouldn't be quite so easy if say a pig was the only thing left to eat. :)
Kika Rose, thank you so much for your kind comments, and I am glad too that I haven't been "bashed into the ground" for my views.
agvulpes, as always lovely to hear your comments, and I agree that discussion is important so that we can learn from each other and perhaps reconsider our own opinions, or at least revise them.
One of the things I see that has been left out of the discussion is insanity. One persons right and wrong may be different just because they are not hard wired the same way as the rest of us. A Serial Killer for example.
In their minds they are completely sane and we are the insane ones. They are just killing to eat in some cases, so does the survival issue take precidence?
The question we need to ask in this situation is why. Was it the environment they grew up in, the chemestry of their bodies, or are they just plain EVIL? Does this make their actions right or wrong and who is judging them. In a society of Evil people they would be considered Law Enforcement or population control and we would be the herd.
I personally think that there is a lot of good in the world and in people on the whole, but one person can influence and change the world through improper education and brain washing. We have seen it in the past but everyone seems to forget it. In the past we have had prime examples of evil in the world and we forget to teach our children. Then they get to repeat the inevitable cycle. STUPID isn't it?
Small things like theft and animal rights are not actually evil or good they just are part of the natural cycle of Human and Nature, Survival and Need. Some people think they have the right to take what they want, is it evil or just stupidity, is it what they grew up seeing or is it the need for attention that causes it. Stealiing to eat is not wrong unless you needed the food to survive too, then we are back to caveman way, MOB rules, one den of cavemen steaiing from the other den of cavemen to survive and what did it lead to? WAR! Was it right? No! Was it survival? No! It was territorial and based on posessions since if they had worked together it would have worked out fine in the long run. Do we still do it? YES! See how silly us humans are!
Everybody does something that someone else in the world would think was evil or wrong. So how do we decide if they are right or wrong.
If I go drink a Beer am I evil?
If I smoke marijuana instead am I evil, or is that just what you have been taught or brainwashed into thinking? (View the movie "Grass" if you think I'm kidding)
I already smoke cigs so I'm used to being treated like a criminal. (GASP!) It amazes me that after 2000 years or so of humans smoking, some for religious reasons, (tobacco was a gift or burnt offering for many a God in the past) that all of a sudden the health freaks have decided they have a better view and everybodies health is more important than allowing for human dignity and the right to pursue happiness. To hell with human history, nobody has any rights to do anything that offends them. If this were true they would already be dead for offending someone else. Besides even without cig smoke their indoor environment is still more polluted than the outside air. So what real difference does it make. New carpets cause cancer too. And DR's killed more people than cigs in the US last year by about 3 to 1 so do we get to ban DR's too?
So you see our growth and environment, Plus what we observe and how we FEEL as we observe it, as we grow up, is more important in instructiing us than anything else in our lives. That is where the Basis for all of our judgement comes from and is the Starting point for all of our decisions in the future, allowiing for rational thought to insert itself in the right place in the future. Does that mean its right? Who knows?
Unfortunationally, I am never rational so I'm in the dark most of the time. LOL!
So everyones definition is going to be different no matter what, even if they are looking at the same exact laws it will always depend on the views of the observer based on their past experiences and what they grew up with.
It is an impossible task you have decided to try and unravel.
Does your fear of something make it Evil?
Does your approval of something make it Right?
Just because you can't see it does it really exist? Can you actually harm it if you can't see it or it doesn't exist? The amoeba would be pissed I can tell you that! LOL
The easiest way to get along, is try to do no harm and hope you get it right! A sense of humor is always a good component of life.
Without a sense of humor we will end up judging everything and learning nothing.
J.G.Wessa
I have enjoyed reading this and have seen some very interesting view points. As always our growth continues hopefully to the betterment of the world.
By the way about the Kant and Mill comments above. What if to get to the right decision you have to combine the views and compromise them. Right and wrong are viewpoints and the Road to Hell is paved with good intentions, so compromise, pick one and hope for the best! (I wish our politicians and leaders would figure this out!)
As the great philosophers Bill and Ted said "Be excellent to each other" ( see "Bill and Teds Excellent Adventure" the movie.)
Be Well, Visit a friend, and Hug someone you care about, everday is a gift to cherish!
Thank you for your response Jwessa, interesting and valid points all round, although one thing I would say is that your quotes about smoking cigarettes, marijuana or drinking beer, are not in my opinion evil because they only effect you personally. I too smoke, (and keep giving up for my own reasons), I drink beer, or more often cider and wine, (separate glasses), and I have smoked marijuana for many years up until a few years ago. None of this is evil, as you only effect yourself, and are not pushing any of these things on to other people.
Also I have to point out that stealing and cruelty to animal is not necessarily about survival and need, as theft is often committed by people who don't need to do it, and more often than not is just an easy living for them rather than getting a proper job. Too often they steal from people worse off than themselves, and more for material gain than to avoid starvation. Cruelty to animals is also frequently committed by those who have simply taken on an animal, and then failed to feed it or care for it properly, causing unecessary suffering that could have easily been avoided if they simply gave up the animal to a local S.P.C.A. charity when they realised they weren't going to bother caring for it, had lost interest, or could not afford to give it the vet care it needed. What about dog fighting or cock fighting, abandoning pets in a locked house and moving away, allowing a dog to get eaten alive by mange without attempting to get treatment? All of these seem to be acts of evil in my opinion, and those people should be made to experience exactly what they put the animal through so they know how the animal must have suffered. Even as a Pagan, I can identify so much with the Bible commandment, "Do unto others as you would like done unto yourself". Is this not surely the ideal most of us should strive for, and if we all worked as a team and shared what we had, there would probably be no poverty or suffering in the world today. Agreed this is easier said than done, but should not be impossible even if this goal takes many years to reach, all we have to do is aim for it and work towards it with serious intent.
Can we just back up the truck there Misty. Are you saying that if an action is evil if you do it to someone other than yourself, that same action is not evil if you do it to yourself. Or are we just talking about degrees of evilness?
Hi agvulpes, I can't really see how doing an action to yourself is "evil" although it may not be a good idea for yourself to smoke, drink etc to excess for example. This does not make it evil though, simply unwise. However, if you were to sell hard drugs to an underage child, then I would consider that evil for obvious reasons. Hope that has clarified my view a bit more :)
I entirely agree. I believe that anyone profiteering from pushing drugs to kids is the lowest form of life and I think truly evil! Dare I raise the death penalty in this Hub?.
So am I to gather from what your saying, it's the ACT of doing the deed rather than what the deed actually is that makes it EVIL?
One small example:- You have a smoke ( not bad)
you give a smoke to friend ( is bad).
I'm not quite sure if I'm making my point?
Well made point, and I agree :)
Misha says:
15 months ago
I frankly don't feel myself in a position to define what is "good" and what is "evil". I think I don't have enough info for that, and can't possibly have it. Call me insane if you wish, I can't really tell :)
That said, I do have my temporal local subjective likes and dislikes that pretty much match yours :)