----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 10:07 PM Subject: Re: Religion and ethics
> on 5/7/02 9:28 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 2:56 AM > > Subject: Re: Religion and ethics > > > > > >> Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> > >>> There is good in the world and there is evil. And while the world is > > not > >>> painted black and white, I do believe there is some responsibility to > > to a > >>> member of a civilisation to fight against evil. And perhaps against > > those > >>> who enable it. > >> > >> Define 'evil', define 'good'.... :o) I think that you'll find that it is > > very > >> much context dependent. > > > > Evil is the willful causing of harm to people or the delibrate refusal to > > stop preventable harm. Good is the willful causing of benefit to people or > > the delibrate stopping of harm. > > > > I'll agree that in many real life situations, the effects of actions are > > uncertain. Actions may cause both harm and good, and reasonable people may > > differ on the balance. > > > > What I am talking about is the existance of truth: some actions are good > > and some are evil. It is evil to kidnap a young girl, torture rape and > > kill her. It is good to run into a burning building, risking your life so > > that many more may live. > > > > Do you also believe that good and evil are just a matter of opinion? > > It is a matter of fact that different societies in different times and > places have decided that different things are good or evil, and to different > extents. This is true only if you ignore the general thrust of morality across the board and focus on the quibbles and details. IOW you cannot make fair comparisons if you only look at contrasts. > So either good and evil are matters of opinion For the most part they are not. >or most (all) of the > people who ever lived were (are) unwittingly evildoers. Uh....Yes! I think this is a given at least to a moderate degree. Just about everyone has taken a cookie from the cookie jar. > > I find the former view more useful than the latter, since it makes more room > for discussion. Discussion is in no way a basis for morality. Discussion dont mean beans. > > And what is the matter with opinions? It is 'just a matter of opinion' that > Shakespeare is a better writer than Sidney Sheldon (say) - so what? There are 2 kinds of opinions. One is a perception of value that is always subjective and cannot be held to an objective standard. The other is a perception of reality that can be proven or disproven. Discussions of good and evil have the tendency to use both definitions of "opinion" as if they are interchangeable, but they are not. > > It is much better for people to argue about opinions than to blindly accept > authority. The sentence is true in and of itself. But morality does not extend from authority. Morality extends from sentience. xponent Sentience, The Final Authority Maru rob
