Posts: 501
Threads: 7
Joined: June 3, 2013
Reputation:
13
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:05 am
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2013 at 11:07 am by Savannahw.)
Personally I see a good person as someone who had the intentions of being good.
Evil person intentions of being mean or evil.
Evil act is something that harms.
Good act is something that helps.
So a good person can do an evil act.
An evil person can do a good act.
and an act can be both good and evil.
Although truthfully I see the world as more gray and not as black and white. (Good vs evil)
Posts: 67586
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:14 am
(June 7, 2013 at 11:05 am)Savannahw Wrote: Personally I see a good person as someone who had the intentions of being good. Indeed, we are not capable of controlling the entirety of the consequences of our actions. Often enough, evil follows from what was intended to be goodness.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:15 am
(June 7, 2013 at 10:50 am)Rahul Wrote: This is an entirely different discussion we need to hash out.
I don't think that someone that commits one evil act or even several evil acts is an evil person. OK, feel free to revise your definitions.
Posts: 935
Threads: 16
Joined: July 3, 2011
Reputation:
5
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:18 am
(June 7, 2013 at 11:05 am)Savannahw Wrote: Personally I see a good person as someone who had the intentions of being good. The problem here is the subjectivity of using the term "good". I'm pretty sure Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour by incarcerating and executing Jews. His intentions one could argue, was good.
Posts: 2142
Threads: 35
Joined: June 3, 2013
Reputation:
32
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:21 am
(June 7, 2013 at 11:15 am)John V Wrote: OK, feel free to revise your definitions.
Good person = Someone that avoids causing mental, physical, or financial harm to another person but tries to alleviate such harm if it occurs.
Evil person = Someone that intentionally causes mental, physical, or financial harm to another person for no other reason than to cause mental, physical, or financial harm.
Good things = Helping other people not experience mental, physical, or financial harm or suffering.
Evil things = Anything that causes people mental, physical, or financial harm or suffering no matter the perceived intention behind the act.
Revised and updated.
Posts: 67586
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
161
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:24 am
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2013 at 11:25 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(June 7, 2013 at 11:18 am)ideologue08 Wrote: The problem here is the subjectivity of using the term "good". I'm pretty sure Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour by incarcerating and executing Jews. His intentions one could argue, was good. It's only a problem if you agree with Hitler's personal assessment of his intentions (hypothetical). So long as you and I are having the discussion, for example - and so long as our idea of what is or is not good is similar..we require no objective standard by which to assess the actions of another.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 6851
Threads: 76
Joined: October 17, 2012
Reputation:
31
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:27 am
(June 7, 2013 at 11:21 am)Rahul Wrote: (June 7, 2013 at 11:15 am)John V Wrote: OK, feel free to revise your definitions.
Good person = Someone that avoids causing mental, physical, or financial harm to another person but tries to alleviate such harm if it occurs.
Evil person = Someone that intentionally causes mental, physical, or financial harm to another person for no other reason than to cause mental, physical, or financial harm.
Good things = Helping other people not experience mental, physical, or financial harm or suffering.
Evil things = Anything that causes people mental, physical, or financial harm or suffering no matter the perceived intention behind the act.
Revised and updated. By these definitions, a person such as your mother is neither good nor evil. She's not good, as by voting against gay rights she's not avoiding causing mental, physical, or financial harm to another person, and not trying to alleviate such harm. She's not evil, because she doesn't vote that way with specific intent to cause harm.
Posts: 501
Threads: 7
Joined: June 3, 2013
Reputation:
13
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:28 am
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2013 at 12:07 pm by Savannahw.)
(June 7, 2013 at 11:18 am)ideologue08 Wrote: (June 7, 2013 at 11:05 am)Savannahw Wrote: Personally I see a good person as someone who had the intentions of being good. The problem here is the subjectivity of using the term "good". I'm pretty sure Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour by incarcerating and executing Jews. His intentions one could argue, was good.
Really we went from a general discussion of people being good or bad to Hitler? 
Fine. When you have a person who ends up committing evil actions over and over either
A- They do not understand the the difference in good and evil.
B- They do not have the ability to comprehend how their actions are good or evil.
C-They are crazy and demented. (Crazy people should not be included in the conversation of good and evil. They have issues which does not allow them to do a or b)
EDIT: By committing evil actions over and over, they are indeed evil regardless of intent. If you need further explanation see above.
Quote: She's not good, as by voting against gay rights she's not avoiding causing mental, physical, or financial harm to another person,
Ughh I disagree.
Posts: 4940
Threads: 99
Joined: April 17, 2011
Reputation:
45
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:37 am
(June 7, 2013 at 10:38 am)John V Wrote: You still have the problem that, based on the definitions presented, a good person doing evil things is an impossibility.
I think you're either missing the point or just trying to get caught up in semantics. It's not that the people doing evil are necessarily evil and not good, it's that the people doing evil still see themselves as good as do the rest of the people in their church.
Christian apologetics is the art of rolling a dog turd in sugar and selling it as a donut.
Posts: 935
Threads: 16
Joined: July 3, 2011
Reputation:
5
RE: Classic
June 7, 2013 at 11:37 am
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2013 at 11:40 am by ideologue08.)
(June 7, 2013 at 11:24 am)Rhythm Wrote: It's only a problem if you agree with Hitler's personal assessment of his intentions (hypothetical). So long as you and I are having the discussion, for example - and so long as our idea of what is or is not good is similar..we require no objective standard by which to assess the actions of another. But the number of people that agreed with Hitler is astronomical, why would you put us in a position of moral authority over them? They genuinely thought it was a righteous cause, they had at the very least good intentions, would you not agree?
(June 7, 2013 at 11:28 am)Savannahw Wrote: Really we went from a general discussion of people being good or bad to Hitler?
Fine. When you have a person who ends up committing evil actions over and over either
A- They do not understand the the difference in good and evil.
B- They do not have the ability to comprehend how their actions are good or evil.
C-They are crazy and demented. (Crazy people should not be included in the conversation of good and evil. They have issues which does not allow them to do a or b) But you're missing the point; you are the one defining what good and evil entail here, why can't you give that authority to someone like Himmler?
|
