BF2S Forums Ethics and Man - Good, Evil, and Neutrality

Seriously Chef, you are getting worse every day.  I feel like I've gone through the five phases - from denial, anger, etc etc to acceptance.  I've skipped over your posts, replied to some, and now I read your posts because it's like a train wreck - I have to look.

Specifically, 'Slinger respectfully stated a different opinion...
"these are just feelings, nothing concrete.  there is no such thing as just knowing anything.....at least the way I see it."

You also posted:
"It is.  And it makes perfect sense to me.  Whereas other theories i'm reading here don't make good sense to me. "to me" being key words.  this is a great debate."

You are both being respectful, because at this point you are stating your own opinions.

Then comes the fastball:
"Things pertaining to God can only be known through spiritual means.  It's that simple.  It's intended to be that way for a reason.   Billions of people throughout millenia have discovered this "truth."  Some who haven't learned how spiritual things work naturally are suspicious.  But when discounting them as false...is as responsible as Bush discounting the Lancet  report as being uncredible."

So basically you have isolated 'Slinger as an outsider, since he isn't a member of the Billions who have discovered this truth (your beliefs).  Second, you state that those who haven't learned this are suspicious (did you mean ignorant?).  And third...discounting them as false...basically telling 'Slinger he hasn't attempted to understand Christianity at any level.

That's pretty lame.

'Slinger's POV is that good & evil are relative to the participants.  His definition of good and evil are, as it appears, is different than yours.  You need to respect his beliefs, just as others respect yours.

Me, on the other hand have another idea to float in front of you:
Your quote:
"if you've seen a newborn, of just had children, you'd know that they are born perfect, good, without sin, etc.  I've seen and held many babies, and I've had 3 of my own.  as they age, their learned evils and their accountability towards them grows."

Using 'Slinger's logic:
Is the child growing evil with age, or is it infact the parent/society labeled their behavior as evil?

As for me, society sets the mores and defines good & evil.  It just so happens that most societal mores are based on religious ideals...but it's not religion.

Xietsu wrote:

What stance do you have on the moral foundings and inclinations of man? Is man naturally good, evil, or neutral in a sense?

I believe that, as dictated by genetic DNA, certain tendencies are particular to an individual. One may come off as being both good and evil, as their reponsive construct has developed an intrinsic, primal method of approach, varying from person to person. To judge man as being originally and exclusively either good or evil is to demonize the human species, as one is most likely, innately, resemblant of the two axes. Discush fohkz.

Genetics and instinct certainly play a role in human behavior, but so do environment and culture.

I'd say man is naturally selfish, which isn't really good or evil, but as others have said -- a matter of survival.  We're programmed by instinct to be self-serving, although the intention of civilization should be to help each of us to evolve to a higher mental state composed of rational self-interest.

Granted, what more often occurs is that people succumb to complacency, greed, and blind traditionalism.

Last edited by Turquoise (2006-10-14 18:43:19)