User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 50

  1. #11
    A Bittersweet Symphony... The Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    478 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,367

    Default

    You assume good fights fair?


    I am the Cat who walks by himself; and all places are alike to me...

    Pansexual

    Non Binary/Gender Fluid
    Polyamorous

    Bard/Rogue
    Chaotic Neutral
    Slytherin

    4w3 7w6 8w9
    ESFP
    Sanguine/Full of Goo...Vision Goo.

    Who knows what goes on in the mind of a cat?


  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenebris View Post
    Good and evil do not exist. Realistically, both sides are just as dirty. One is more idealistic, the other nihilistic.
    Good and evil are a true dichotomy. There is not many of those but it is one. Even as you suggest they are both "dirty", which I guess could be a commentary on tactics or methods or application as its not clear, you do recognize that they are different in terms of aims, ie idealistic vs. nihilistic.

    Which kind of is like attacking an axiom but concluding finally with a fresh, only slightly different axiom.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eryn Silverfrond View Post
    You assume good fights fair?
    For the purposes of this discussion, yeah, particularly in terms of lawful good.

    Another way of putting that particular point would be to question is a binding law is strength or a weakness in achieving the good?

    Does law enable or obstruct good? Especially if it is equated with fighting fair?

    Neutral and chaotic will tend to see it as a weakness, I would guess, however, the more lawful the more it will be considered a strength, obviously.

  4. #14
    A Bittersweet Symphony... The Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    478 sp/sx
    Posts
    15,367

    Default

    Seems like you've got it all sorted out with all those strictures on it.

    I don't buy that good, especially lawful good, is some kind of just super heroic angelic force that always fights fair though.


    I am the Cat who walks by himself; and all places are alike to me...

    Pansexual

    Non Binary/Gender Fluid
    Polyamorous

    Bard/Rogue
    Chaotic Neutral
    Slytherin

    4w3 7w6 8w9
    ESFP
    Sanguine/Full of Goo...Vision Goo.

    Who knows what goes on in the mind of a cat?


  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eryn Silverfrond View Post
    Seems like you've got it all sorted out with all those strictures on it.

    I don't buy that good, especially lawful good, is some kind of just super heroic angelic force that always fights fair though.
    I have my own views, which are what seems obvious to me from some of the first principles, but I'm interested in others views too.

    Lawful Good I think can care a little more about the lawful than the good or believe that the law and the good are synonymous, which isnt always the case, hence court room disputes and discussions about the different between the spirit and the letter of the law or good law versus poorly framed law. So I definitely think that I could see lawful good acting in a manner which does not amount to fighting fair.

    I'm not sure that angelic forces are good, they are powerful, most of the time in the old testament angels wind up fighting with humankind, sometimes literally wrestling human champions.

    Good Omens by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaimen tackles the idea of angelic and satanic forces having more in common, at least tactically or in their attitude towards humankind, as they have dividing them. A rogue angel and devil decide to work together to obstruct the hawks in each camp in that story. Old Harry's Game by Andy Hamilton, a radio comedy in the UK, is another very good idea along the same lines, although it portrays heaven as more of a broken bureaucracy than deliberately malevolent. Preacher and Spawn do interesting things along those lines too.

  6. #16
    Digital ambition Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    iNTJ
    Enneagram
    513 so/sp
    Posts
    11,822

    Default

    To be honest I don't really buy this "good fights like ..." debates. Because as soon as you place fighting as important factor in the mix it becomes very questionable if this is really the good we are talking about here.
    Likes The Cat liked this post

  7. #17
    Magus daemonic Sung Jin-Woo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/so
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    3,304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Good and evil are a true dichotomy. There is not many of those but it is one. Even as you suggest they are both "dirty", which I guess could be a commentary on tactics or methods or application as its not clear, you do recognize that they are different in terms of aims, ie idealistic vs. nihilistic.

    Which kind of is like attacking an axiom but concluding finally with a fresh, only slightly different axiom.
    I am saying everyone is human, and their methods are different. "Dirty" implies morality, which is a construct. Moral action in one culture, is evil in another. Therefor good and evil do not exist, because everyone can be good and evil depending on context. A lot of people who claim to be good, are generally idealistic in nature. While those who are commonly considered bad, are often nihilistic or disenfranchised with society and go by their own rules.
    Masculine republics, give way to feminine democracies. Feminine democracies, give way to tyranny.
    - Aristotle

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenebris View Post
    I am saying everyone is human, and their methods are different. "Dirty" implies morality, which is a construct. Moral action in one culture, is evil in another. Therefor good and evil do not exist, because everyone can be good and evil depending on context. A lot of people who claim to be good, are generally idealistic in nature. While those who are commonly considered bad, are often nihilistic or disenfranchised with society and go by their own rules.
    And what if its not?

    There can be powerful cultural influencers or determinants but natural law theory would suggest there remains a universal, innate, moral code, similar to the existence of universal innate syntax.

    You are right about one thing, moral relativism and constructivism are products of nihilism. While the idea of "going by your own rules" or "making things up as you go" generally appeals to a lot of people who dont like to accept authorities, traditions or wisdom beyond, besides or transcendent of their self. It is as absurd an idea as an entirely private language invented by and exclusive to an individual, where is the utility in that? What is the use of that?

    I dont see anything idealistic about recognizing conventional morality or ethics. Its pragmatic and a matter of practical reason most of the time. Even most of the people who declare themselves to be moral relativists (or that morality is just a "fable agreed upon") generally still conform to lawful conduct and refrain from deviance. Consequentialism and the harm principle, which are the basis of much of convertional morality just make universal sense, accord with empathy etc.

  9. #19
    Magus daemonic Sung Jin-Woo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/so
    Socionics
    ILI Te
    Posts
    3,304

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    And what if its not?

    There can be powerful cultural influencers or determinants but natural law theory would suggest there remains a universal, innate, moral code, similar to the existence of universal innate syntax.

    You are right about one thing, moral relativism and constructivism are products of nihilism. While the idea of "going by your own rules" or "making things up as you go" generally appeals to a lot of people who dont like to accept authorities, traditions or wisdom beyond, besides or transcendent of their self. It is as absurd an idea as an entirely private language invented by and exclusive to an individual, where is the utility in that? What is the use of that?

    I dont see anything idealistic about recognizing conventional morality or ethics. Its pragmatic and a matter of practical reason most of the time. Even most of the people who declare themselves to be moral relativists (or that morality is just a "fable agreed upon") generally still conform to lawful conduct and refrain from deviance. Consequentialism and the harm principle, which are the basis of much of convertional morality just make universal sense, accord with empathy etc.
    The only reason the concept of good exists, is due to us being social animals by nature. We are instinctually driven to find community and preserve it (people who share our same values). But once the community breaks down, morality goes along with it and we fracture off into separate smaller groups. That is literally it, there is nothing more. The rest is just philosophical fluff to somehow reason its way out of that simplicity, or make sense of why bad things happen. Occam's razor.
    Masculine republics, give way to feminine democracies. Feminine democracies, give way to tyranny.
    - Aristotle

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    27,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenebris View Post
    The only reason the concept of good exists, is due to us being social animals by nature. We are instinctually driven to find community and preserve it (people who share our same values). But once the community breaks down, morality goes along with it and we fracture off into separate smaller groups. That is literally it, there is nothing more. The rest is just philosophical fluff to somehow reason its way out of that simplicity, or make sense of why bad things happen. Occam's razor.
    That's a nice theory.

    Does it hold in your community, neighbourhood, workplace or family? If not why not?

Similar Threads

  1. [SJ] SJ's, what do you think about most of the time?
    By NewEra in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-17-2017, 09:20 PM
  2. What do you think about the is ought problem?
    By Robopop in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-17-2011, 09:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO