B
Bahman
Guest
First why people has such tendency toward such an action? That depends on how the first and second person feels. If both feel content then that is a good action.
- Status
D
DanAl
Guest
isn’t this emotivism? So, if like Ted Bundy, one takes pleasure in necrophilia, murdering women and does not feel guilt (or a very weakened form of guilt), then, the action is good?
T
tonyrey
Guest
There is a difference between being wrong and doing wrong! Ignorance is only wrong when it is culpable, i…e. when a person doesn’t want to know the truth.
B
Bahman
Guest
We act based on our state of mind. A person who kill another person with pleasure while another person suffering is performing good prime, it is not good act. Whether the action is wrong or not is subject of discussion. In principle a good action also could be wrong. A person like him most likely need physiotherapy.
M
MPat
Guest
So, did you really just say that feeding the hungry is evil…? Or is that a strange typo (or something)…?
I wonder if we are not dealing with a case that someone described by something like this: “It is hard to discuss Mathematics with someone who uses ‘twelve’ to denote what other people call ‘eleven’.”…
B
Bahman
Guest
Ignorance is only wrong but not culpable. There is not such a thing that a person doesn’t want to know the truth, the problem is that people think that they know the truth.
B
Bahman
Guest
It is simple my friend. There are two side in most of actions. You certainly don’t feel pleasure when you see a person needing food, you suffer which is evil. But the person who receive your help most likely feel pleasure which means that your act is evil prime. It is evil prime since one side suffer and other side don’t. An evil action is like a chess match that both side suffer and give suffering. A good action is like when you giver and receiver are pleased. Good prime is another example. Non of these action are wrong or has advantage over another, what is wrong is ignorance which could be caused by good action too, such as raising up a spoiled kid.
What evidence have you that all suffering (or even just this empathy described) is evil?
Again, evidence?
M
MPat
Guest
OK, so, if I am somewhat unhappy that you did not give me a direct answer to direct question, you would conclude that your action in answering me in that way was “evil”, right…?
Anyway, I think you would do well to define what you mean by “good”, “evil”, “right” and “wrong”… It looks like you use those words in some different way…
For other men “good” and “right”, “evil” and “wrong” are mostly synonymous, while it doesn’t look like they are to you… Thus we do get into problems described by “It is hard to discuss Mathematics with someone who uses the word ‘twelve’ to denote what other men call ‘eleven’.”…
So, out of those four words (as you use them), which denote actions one should do, and which denote the actions one should avoid…?
B
Bahman
Guest
Evil is mind state of alert when we are facing to a ambiguous/dangerous situation which lead to a problem. Suffering is unavoidable in an evil situation since we are dealing with a problem.
An evidence for evil?
B
Bahman
Guest
Exactly. So evil could be right or wrong depending on the situation and outcome.
Yes. Evil is not wrong and good is not right, it could depend on situation.
It is situational, we should avoid the one which is wrong depending on the situation. Nevertheless we use them all the time.
No, you are attempting to control the vocabulary to support an untenable position.
Evil is an act contrary to the will of God.
M
MPat
Guest
In other words, what you call by names “good” and “evil” (“Bahman good” and “Bahman evil”, if you wish) have nothing to do what the rest of the world calls “good” and “evil” (in this case - “moral good” and “moral evil”). As you have yet to show any case where thinking about “Bahman good” and “Bahman evil” has any practical importance, I don’t see what is there to argue about. You say that lack of “Bahman good” doesn’t lead to “Bahman evil”…? Well, why should anyone care…?
I’d say that if you want to have a discussion that is enlightening, interesting, useful, fun or otherwise worth having, you should start by trying to use the words in the way that the rest of the world uses them…
B
Bahman
Guest
Can you define what is will of God? Or what is good?
No.
But I do not need to. God provided His word, His Son, and His Church to aid in matters of discernment of his will.
B
Bahman
Guest
And suffering is good or evil?
M
MPat
Guest
To define? Sure.
“Will of God” in this case is whatever God wills. Easy, isn’t it…?
“Good” - in this case “moral good” (there is also “ontological good”) - might usefully refer to actions. A “morally good” action is the one we should do, a “morally evil” action is the one we should (ought to) avoid.
As you can see, finding out if the action is “morally good” or “morally evil” has practical importance. And Cathechism has some guidelines, for example:
Of course, more specific guidelines would be much longer.
“Suffering” is not an action. It cannot be “morally good” or “morally evil” in that sense. It is undefined, just like the answer to the question “Is 0.5 even or odd?”.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
Yes, but if they aren’t intentionally good or evil, they are not ‘morally’ good or evil, but just good or evil in their effects.
For example, I cook a stew with carrots, and someone eats it who is allergic to carrots, and gets sick. Now, objectively it is a ‘bad’ act, since it caused harm and pain. But, it is not a sin, as it wasn’t done with the intention of causing harm.
Of course, everyday we do things which cause either good or bad results. And you are right, that often we can’t be aware of what those results are. Perhaps it is better to use the term “good and bad”, rather than “good and evil”, which imply some kind of intention or moral responsibility.
H
HardRockGTR
Guest
Zoroastrianism/Manichaeism/Taoism.
- Status