janus :

The way I word it is that killing is not bad, but killing without justification is bad. So murder is evil, but self defense is an adequate justification.

I believe that good and evil do exist. However, there is a massively large gray area between the actions we see as inherently evil and inherently good that is constantly debated. There's a lot of subjectivity that goes into good and evil actions, and what is classified as such. As has already been mentioned, murder is an evil action, but there are excusable circumstances that allow for it to be seen as not immoral. And note that I said immoral. Illegal actions do not always mean that those actions are immoral. Running a red light is obviously not an immoral act, in and of itself. However, what if, because of that, you get into an accident and kill two people? People have made cases that the decision to run the red light was, in itself, an immoral decision (note that I don't agree with this, but I have seen this argument made).

Every person has differing views over exactly what is right and what is wrong, and I'm not sure what the perfect answer for that is. However, it's clear it does exist, even if it's also true that society can have an effect over what is perceived as such.

SWTerra : Vocabulary actually reflects what a language thinks about good and evil. Murder has not the same connotation has self-defense for a reason.

As for morality: I love Ayn Rand's objectivism, which states that morality consists of preserving someone's selfish interest. In other words, it promotes the use of reason rather than for or coercion.

I believe both good and evil do exist. But when you go deeper into context about these subjects they can go either way. Killing people for amusement or terrorism, torturing innocent people, etc. These are examples of evil deeds and evildoers. Helping someone when they need help the most, being generous, donating, etc. These are examples of good actions or a good person. Here's an example that can go either way. Fighting in war to protect your country. You are killing people, yet it's for the good of others. Don't get me wrong, killing is bad no matter who or what is being killed. But when you do it to prevent even more people from being killed, it can be seen as a good deed. Although war just kills more people regardless, so it can also be seen as a bad thing. I'm sort of in the middle on this, depending on the situation. IF the war started because of a terrorist attack of some sort, then we should fight back only if necessary.

janus :

Ayn Rand is an interesting choice for "reason" based ethics when she's a completely egoistic. Do you really think that you are the only ethical end? Are other people only good insofar as they contribute to your success?

I see my own advantage as attached to the success of others not because they can benefit me, but because we become more and more like each other. The things that benefit me simultaneously benefit them, and there is less and less conflict. Their sense of justice and my sense of justice become the same sense.

Txgangsta : ALL humans act to further their goals, be it to do business or win "heavenly points." However, it IS in our interest to cooperate with others, otherwise we (almost) can not do anything on our own. You last paragraph describes what (objectivist) egoism is. Her philosophy is, in my view, a very accurate description of my favored economic theory (Austrian): humans act to change an unsatisfactory situation.

I just read your post and no. it isn't something we are taught. Take a look at the Aztecs and the Mayans - how they tore out a person's heart *while they were stile alive) and then raised it to their god in the sky.

Also how about Hitler and his views? He would have ruled the world (in his opinion) if not for someone stopping him


I think I have to go now... i had other stuff to add. it will be later then

janus :

So many Christians do good works in order to win those "heavenly points"... It makes me want to vomit. Those don't actually exist. It's even in scripture, but people just don't seem to care... Ughhhh...

But to the topic, it is to my own interest to cooperate, but only insofar as it benefits me. If some kid is drowning in a lake, should I not jump in and save him? There is no benefit to me in doing so. In fact, it only puts my life in danger. Because I gain nothing, strict egoism would not permit the action as moral. You consent to this?

Here's a link explaining the dilemma (though it's based in Singer's egoism, not Rand's)

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/07/rand-and-the-drowning-child/

Txgangsta: if rescuing the child endangers your life, then no there is no point in doing it. If not, then you might still have an interest, if only for the satisfaction of having preserved another life.

Also, "gaining nothing" is not the same as sacrificing your life (altruism). I gain nothing in doing volunteer work per say, but as long as I do it on "my" terms (number of hours, when) and I am not sacrificing something more important, then I do it "egoistically"

However if it is YOUR child the story is different. You have a special connection and duty towards them and, just like Galt asking Dagny to kill her if things turn sour, your ultimate sacrifice will be "worth" something. When she talks about it in her books (I can not remember which), she gives the comparison one saving your wife or 10 women you do not know.

tRIUNE : of COURSE we have to learn about it. Reason is NOT something innate. To take it to an extreme: zombies in The Walking Dead are reduced to the most basic human instinct: eat to survive.

janus :

I'm not technically a proponent of altruism, so basic life exchanges are not valuable in and of themselves. The "no, I'll die instead" thing is something I don't think fits, unqualified.

As it becomes increasingly dangerous to jump in and save the kid, I think it becomes increasingly unethical to do so. However, if there is no risk, yet there is no direct particular gain to me, I still think that it is ethical to save the kid. I don't mean permissible, but beneficial, just not directly. The kid and myself both share a common human nature, and what benefits the kid benefits me. The life of the kid is valuable to me indirectly because of the kid's common rationality. The same things I call "good" have to be valued regardless of the subject in question.

Spinoza is great, btw.

janus : I'm not sure what you mean. I really did have to leave in the middle of my last post, so I don't remember where I was going with it.

I personally think that we are born innocent, and around the the age of 11 or 12 is when we become responsible for our thoughts and actions. We become evil as we get older; it's not a matter of being a good person because we are born with an evil nature—a sinful nature.

tRIUNE : This is pretty much what I understood, sorry for the confusing wording. Children are born innocent, but they can be taught good from evil because, like all humans, they have reason (unless they have mental problems or retardations).