Perhaps another topic should be started on that exact point? -Quote from Mage that gots me to do this.
So, in the thread "Why do we do what we do?", the topic began to revolve a bit around the idea of why something is necessarily "good" or "bad". Even better with this idea..is it can be asked to both theists and atheists alike!
So..to theists..most of the time the answer tends to revolve around the idea that something is good or not-good because of the deity's decision. It decides what is seen as good or bad..but my question is, why? Or..to go more in depth..is something seen as good (or pious) by the deity because it favors the idea, or does it favor the idea because it is good (or pious)?
To atheists (or apatheists..if we ever get one)..why is it we see something as good or bad? Of course..it could be because of a natural drive for what is best for our species..but what of certain beliefs of good or bad that would go against this idea? (this, of course, would begin the topic of certain groups that have a different inherent set of beliefs than others..example: cannibals.)
Feel free to delve into this topic in anyway you see fit.
[Side note: Read Euthyphro for further thoughts on the subject]
I believe I've explained that if it leads to good, and only good, then the thing or act is good. if it leads to ANY bad at all, it is at least partially bad.
How are you defining good and bad? Least harm? Most happiness? Because what one person enjoys, another might hate.
God wants us to be happy. So pray to God to direct your life and always keep your faith. As long as you do this, anything that makes you happy will be good.
God wants us to be happy. So pray to God to direct your life and always keep your faith. As long as you do this, anything that makes you happy will be good.
God wants us to be happy. So pray to God to direct your life and always keep your faith. As long as you do this, anything that makes you happy will be good.
How is praying to god to direct our lives relevant to being happy? If god wants us to be happy, it shouldn't matter how we attain happiness as long as we do. The way you say it, being happy without being faithful is a bad thing.
And as Emp and pang made clear, people may have different views on what is good/bad or what makes them happy.
Why not keep it simple and say we determine "good" and "bad" by using relatively in the context of social psychology? The element of a deity has NOTHING to do with morality and ethics (Catholic, by the way). We are wired to act a certain way when we are born, and others affect how we perceive "good" and "bad" as we age.
I'm trying to give a chance to justify morality from a god.
With that to expand on my last statement, we are just replacing the word moral with benign and left asking the same question and dichotomy.
I believe I've explained that if it leads to good, and only good, then the thing or act is good. if it leads to ANY bad at all, it is at least partially bad.
In such a case God is then unneeded for morality.
God wants us to be happy. So pray to God to direct your life and always keep your faith.
And if directing my own life and believing things on evidence instead of wishful thinking makes me happy?
Hmm...out of curiosity, how do you define 'evidence'?
Not really on topic but seems like an important point to address.
Evidence would be demonstrable, testable.
Evidence, Person A: "I have a basketball." Person B: "Show me evidence." Person A: Holds up a basketball showing Person B they have one.
or
Person A: "I have a basketball." Person B: "Show me evidence." Person B doesn't see the basketball but hears Person B bouncing it. Person A is able to replicate the sound linking it to the sound a basketball makes when bouncing. Of course Person A could have produced the sound via other means such as a recording or another ball that can produce the same bouncing sound, this would still be evidence in support of the claim that Person A has a basketball. In the second case further evidence would be needed to confirm the existence of the basketball.
Not Evidence, Person A: "I have a basketball." Person B: "Show me evidence." Person A: "If I didn't have a basketball how else could I play Basketball?"
or
Person A: "I have a basketball." Person B: "Show me evidence." Person C: "I saw the basketball."
or
Person A: "I have a basketball." Person B: "Show me evidence." Person A: "Rubber exists therefore my basketball must exist."
Good or Bad is an irrelevant concept based on the idea of unpredictable outcomes.For example the holocaust is an event that many people view as an act of pure evil but I'm sure ALOT of bad people died that needed to die .An example of a different sort occured not but a few a years before the holocaust during WW1.A sniper had spotted a wounded young enemy soldier from the Austrian military.The sniper had lined up a perfect shot but out of mercy didn't take it.What was the name of the Austrian soldier Adolf Hitler.An act of evil and good things came without being intentional just as bad things came from an act of good intention.Since no outcome can be completely predicted and since in some manner good AND bad shall come of it trying to act as though one can be without the other is foolish.
Good or Bad is an irrelevant concept based on the idea of unpredictable outcomes.
Rather than it being BASED on the idea of unpredictable outcomes, it just doesn't factor that in altogether. Morality, you can say, is more so based on intention rather than result (although the outcome is not disregarded at all).
For example the holocaust is an event that many people view as an act of pure evil but I'm sure ALOT of bad people died that needed to die
Just because there was a "bad" minority that died doesn't mean it takes away from the "good" majority, so either way, it was still an act of evil. Also, I think that the most horrible part is that these people were not punished for their crimes, if they had any, they were punished for their religious beliefs, which in itself is not moral.
Since no outcome can be completely predicted and since in some manner good AND bad shall come of it trying to act as though one can be without the other is foolish.
This is arguable in that you've used extreme examples. Let's say there's an old woman that needed assistance in crossing a road. If you were to help her (assuming nothing other than you helping her happens), there would be no "bad" outcomes and that small event stays a "good and moral" decision.
Rather than it being BASED on the idea of unpredictable outcomes, it just doesn't factor that in altogether. Morality, you can say, is more so based on intention rather than result (although the outcome is not disregarded at all).
^This. The outcome doesn't change the intention. Of course there's also the example of someone doing an act perceived as good, but with bad intentions, like it leading to a bad situation for everyone except for the person, who takes advantage. But in that case the intention wasn't good.
And basically, how can we say that an outcome is really good or bad? For after all, it is unlikely that there is a single, finite outcome to an action. Consequences of an action are not restricted in number or time.
And if someone asks how I define good and bad: I don't, or at least not in this post, for the sake of the point I'm trying to make.
Though samiel does have a point, in the end; what he said is part of the reason why I refuse to categorise certain actions as purely good or bad. Maybe it would be better to talk of "helpful/detrimental to a certain situation/condition/..." (relative), instead of "good/bad" (absolute).
God wants us to be happy. So pray to God to direct your life and always keep your faith. As long as you do this, anything that makes you happy will be good.
You know, this is not how you handle life. God wants us to try hard and use our full potential. We cannot live, as God said, on faith alone. We can't put everything on God, and not work or try and just expect everything to go well.
