What Is Right And Wrong?

[Pendragon]

What is Right and Wrong?

I have a few questions of great importance to ask here. But before I get to the questions, I am imposing a couple of rules concerning the way you answer. Understand that these are my own rules, that I was not in any way coerced to make them. In fact, forum standards are always the one and only true regulation. I believe that you will find that my conditions as stated are designed to adhere to forum regulations entirely.

This section of the forum has a tremendous amount of locked threads. In setting forth conditions for answering my questions, I hope to avoid having this one locked. My conditions are very simple. When you answer the questions that I will ask:

1.) If you are intending to espouse the merits of one religion over another, please do not proselyte, as that is not the purpose of the questions.
2.) If you are intending to espouse the merits of rational thought verses any sort of religion, please refrain, since that also, is not the purpose of the questions.

So what are these momentous questions? Simply put, they are: What is it that makes a person good or bad? Is it possible that even the vilest are not beyond redeeming humanity, and that the most virtuous are capable still of hypocrisy?

Having asked my questions, many of you are already rushing off to answer them, with conviction in your soul that you have the correct answers. As soon as you read the first question, something began to stir inside of you, something that grew and began to formulate into words. Yes, you began your answer right then, before you complemented the first of my questions. Some have even left this page, perhaps, to begin to type an answer. But I have a final question for you.

Just for a single moment, place yourself in the shoes of the person you have in mind. Yes, you have someone in mind with whom you are comparing yourself, even as you consider the questions before you as to what is good or bad. All of us tend to somehow use ourselves as the measuring stick with which to compare others. Now here’s the final question. Do you really think that yourself flawless enough that you could make the call as to what is right and what is wrong? :angel:

[PeterL]

You might just look at the "Objective Moral Values" thread in Philosphical literature for answers to most of these questions. I recently wrote a blog on these questions, because a friend, who is teaching a course on good and evil in literature, asked for my thoughts, so I will just summarize my responses.


What is Right and Wrong?
So what are these momentous questions? Simply put, they are: What is it that makes a person good or bad? Is it possible that even the vilest are not beyond redeeming humanity, and that the most virtuous are capable still of hypocrisy?

Good and evil depend on one's point of view. If I do something that is advantageous to me, it may harm someone else. That isn't important, because that other person is not me, and I did gain something from the action. Similarly, if someone does something that helps me, that person is good to me. If someone does something that harms me, that person is evil to me. As long as one is true to oneself, how canst one be hypocritical?




Just for a single moment, place yourself in the shoes of the person you have in mind. Yes, you have someone in mind with whom you are comparing yourself, even as you consider the questions before you as to what is good or bad. All of us tend to somehow use ourselves as the measuring stick with which to compare others. Now here’s the final question. Do you really think that yourself flawless enough that you could make the call as to what is right and what is wrong? :angel:

Yes, every person must make moral decisions almost constantly, and we have no choice but to make them from our own perspective.

[Nightshade]

So what are these momentous questions? Simply put, they are: What is it that makes a person good or bad? Is it possible that even the vilest are not beyond redeeming humanity, and that the most virtuous are capable still of hypocrisy?


Do you really think that yourself flawless enough that you could make the call as to what is right and what is wrong? :angel:

Gosh good questions and ones that bear(bare?? :confused: ) thinking about before shooting off an answer.
The last one is a case of glass houses and throwing stones right??

As for the second question
Is it possible that even the vilest are not beyond redeeming humanity, and that the most virtuous are capable still of hypocrisy?
can I ask what you mean by "redeeming humanity" but as for hypocrisy Im afraid the answer is yes, that is virtue doesn’t lift you up ( cant think of the phrase Im looking for exempt you maybe??) from hypocrisy, IMO ( course your not asking opinions but there you go its all I can offer) they are not necessarily related at all.
:D:D

[Pendragon]

The last one is a case of glass houses and throwing stones right??

As for the second question
can I ask what you mean by "redeeming humanity" :D:DYes, what it all comes down to is we all live in that glass house. If we are using ourselves as the main measuring stick, what's good for us alone, then we shouldn't complain when others do the same. Everyone is "someone else" to someone.

What I mean by "redeeming humanity" is this: Is there in the worst of people a spark of good that would make them not the monster that their deeds have made them, but still a human being? Can such a person rise above the evil that seems to rule them and ever do something right for once in their lives, or are they a complete loss, a throwaway? And do I, who will admit from the start that I am far from perfect, have the right to say?

I will apologize here for confusing people with big words in my original post. I wanted to carefully word it, and find I still made a grammatical error or so. Basically the two rules are 1.) We are not here to preach to each other, but discuss this. And 2.) It’s not a debate over religion versus science. Good and bad go beyond the church door and beyond the classroom. But they are forever ingrained in religious matters, and philosophy.

PeterL, I am not your judge. I may disagree somewhat with your statement. But I respect and would defend your right to have it. If doesn’t stand upon one’s own belief, then one is doomed to fall for every thing that comes ones way. My hand in friendship, mon ami. http://www.industreal.spb.ru/smiles/libra.gif

[Bookworm Cris]

I think that good and evil are matters of one's values; what may seem good for one person, may seem evil for another (for example, how we behave and act in business, or with friends). But of course, when it comes to harm or kill someone, almost everybody will say it´s evil. The few ones that don't, we could call them "monsters". But I think that even those persons could find deep in themselves, some spark of good (given the "right" person, occasion and condition, they could say); for I think nobody is 100% good or 100% bad. And IMO, nobody´s a throwaway.
And about if I am perfect to judge, no, I´m not, neither is anyone. But we can watch, learn with other person's mistakes, help others, and do what we think is good, whatever it may be.
Anyway, it´s just my opinion, and I may be wrong.

[PeterL]

I will apologize here for confusing people with big words in my original post. I wanted to carefully word it, and find I still made a grammatical error or so. Basically the two rules are 1.) We are not here to preach to each other, but discuss this. And 2.) It’s not a debate over religion versus science. Good and bad go beyond the church door and beyond the classroom. But they are forever ingrained in religious matters, and philosophy.

I agree that moral values have nothing to do with religion. Religions may have been established, in part, to endourage and enforce moral values, but fundamentally moral values are human values. What is good for humans is morally good.



PeterL, I am not your judge. I may disagree somewhat with your statement. But I respect and would defend your right to have it. If doesn’t stand upon one’s own belief, then one is doomed to fall for every thing that comes ones way. My hand in friendship, mon ami. http://www.industreal.spb.ru/smiles/libra.gif

If you disagree, then please explain what disagreement you think that you have. I suspect that you will discover as you try that, that you don't disagree with me in any substantial way, but you probably would like it stated in a less forthright manner. What do you think good and evil to be?

I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it. Was that Thomas Jefferson?

[Pendragon]

If you disagree, then please explain what disagreement you think that you have. I suspect that you will discover as you try that, that you don't disagree with me in any substantial way, but you probably would like it stated in a less forthright manner. What do you think good and evil to be?

I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to my death your right to say it. Was that Thomas Jefferson? Your statement was this:


If I do something that is advantageous to me, it may harm someone else. That isn't important, because that other person is not me, and I did gain something from the action. Similarly, if someone does something that helps me, that person is good to me. If someone does something that harms me, that person is evil to me.

Taking what you say at face value, to me (and recall I have already deemed myself no man's judge), this is selfish. This is the statement of someone who has decided that only they are important, that what helps them is fine, and it does not matter if another comes to harm in the process. If someone harms them, nothing is considered about intent, that person is immediately deemed evil or bad. It sounds a lot like my younger brother talking, as that is his outlook on life. I cannot agree with this viewpoint on life, but I would, indeed, defend your right to have it. The quote is from Voltaire, BTW. God bless. :wave:

[PeterL]

Taking what you say at face value, to me (and recall I have already deemed myself no man's judge), this is selfish. This is the statement of someone who has decided that only they are important, that what helps them is fine, and it does not matter if another comes to harm in the process. If someone harms them, nothing is considered about intent, that person is immediately deemed evil or bad. It sounds a lot like my younger brother talking, as that is his outlook on life. I cannot agree with this viewpoint on life, but I would, indeed, defend your right to have it. The quote is from Voltaire, BTW. God bless. :wave:

Yes, it is selfish. I contend that humans are, and must be, selfish. In my comment I oversimplified. I didn't consider accidental results, etc., but that which is good is that which helps people, whether as individuals or as a group. Evil is that which is contrary to good. Different people have broader or narrower views of the world, or of what is important enough to them that they would consider advantages for that to be good.

Although you "have already deemed myself no man's judge," you have judged my comments, which is fine with me, but you have not presented definitions of "good" and "evil" that are different from mine. I am curious as to what you consider good and evil to be. If you think deeply on the matter, I think that you may find yourself giving definitions that are similar to mine.

I promise that I will judge your comments, because I judge everything.

[holograph]

Right and Wrong are subjective ideas that man created to organize society. it is wrong to kill because then there would be no order and right to aid others because then there is order. but in truth, neither exist. what is right is wrong to someone else and what is wrong is right to someone else. however, both ideas are the same. nothing is right and nothing is wrong. it just is. :nod:

[ElizabethBennet]

What deep questions, Pendragon. I won't claim to have all the right answers, so I'll just give my opinion. I believe that you cannot exist in this world without interacting with others and therefore every decision you make affects other people around you. It is very hard - actually impossible - to make a decision that will please everyone, but the one that hurts others the least is the best. Am I making any sense? I'm just saying that you should always treat others as you want to be treated yourself, and if the outcome is happiness for everyone, we're doing good deeds. Evil is when you hurt another person and therefore hurt yourself. There are some "monsters" who claim to have no compassion for others, but they all have an original mind which pursues goodness deep inside them. All you have to do is know how to reach out to them.
That's basically what I have to say and I don't want anyone to be offended.

[Pendragon]

Yes, it is selfish. I contend that humans are, and must be, selfish.

Although you "have already deemed myself no man's judge," you have judged my comments, which is fine with me, but you have not presented definitions of "good" and "evil" that are different from mine. I am curious as to what you consider good and evil to be. If you think deeply on the matter, I think that you may find yourself giving definitions that are similar to mine.

I promise that I will judge your comments, because I judge everything.No. I did not judge, I merely answered your question as with what I disagreed. I could not do that whithout explaining why.

As for what I think is "good" or "evil", it is a question I have wrestled with for years as a Minister. I conclude the following: I am unfit to make that call on a person. Morals are a matter of individual basis, and if one carefully reads the Bible it reflects this. The outside of a person may not reflect what is truly in the heart. What seems evil may be good, what seems good may be evil. There is many a masquerade out there, of both directions. I've seen a lot of crazy things done in the name of right. And I've seen people that I knew were as cold-blooded as they come become nice if treated like people.

[ShoutGrace]

Right and Wrong are subjective ideas that man created to organize society. it is wrong to kill because then there would be no order and right to aid others because then there is order. but in truth, neither exist. what is right is wrong to someone else and what is wrong is right to someone else. however, both ideas are the same. nothing is right and nothing is wrong. it just is.

These statements are only correct given a certain condition, one which hasn't been satisfactorily established. That is why the question can even be asked.


Yes, it is selfish. I contend that humans are, and must be, selfish.

Surely a percentage of humans are selfish; perhaps most people are selfish.

Why must humans be selfish? Isn't it only to achieve certain aims? I don't think that humans need to be selfish at all.


Morals are a matter of individual basis, and if one carefully reads the Bible it reflects this.

I guess I haven't been reading the Bible carefully enough. :rolleyes: For my own benefit, could you point out the evidences for this interpretation, Pendragon?

[bhekti]

Right and Wrong are subjective ideas that man created to organize society. it is wrong to kill because then there would be no order and right to aid others because then there is order. but in truth, neither exist. what is right is wrong to someone else and what is wrong is right to someone else. however, both ideas are the same. nothing is right and nothing is wrong. it just is. :nod:

I think there is right and wrong. If not, why do people quarrel? Here I'm borrowing C.s. Lewis' argument about the real existence of Right and Wrong. Lewis said: "Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football."

[Pendragon]

I guess I haven't been reading the Bible carefully enough. :rolleyes: For my own benefit, could you point out the evidences for this interpretation, Pendragon?Well, we can take these scriptures to heart:

Romans 14:14 "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] inclean."

Black and white. If you believe it's wrong, it's wrong for YOU.

Colossians 2:16-23 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days];

"Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

"Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshiping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.

"And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.

"Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,

"(Touch not, taste not, handle not;

"Which all are to perish with the using; ) after the commandments and doctrines of men?

"Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and in humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh."

Again, black and white. Why let people judge what you do? Why a long rule book? Whose rules are they?

Romans 14: starting at verse one reminds us not to judge what others do.

And there are more examples.

Jesus himself, from Matthew 22:35-40

"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.

"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

"On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

But we are human, and we tend to make it so hard. We fill books with rules and regulations as to the way. Loving God, Loving Each Other. Live a simple life. Pray. Do what you can for others. Be not hasty in judgement. God bless. :angel:

[holograph]

bhekti, i am speaking in a philosophical and impractical tense. essentially, i do not believe anything to be right or to be wrong. practically, as in LAW, SOCIETY, SCHOOL, ESSAY-WRITING, BAKING A CAKE, ETC. there is a right and a wrong way to do it. you cannot decide to bake a cake without flour eggs and sugar, just like you cannot kill someone and feel free to be right and not prosecuted by law and society. but in essence, there is no good and no bad and no right and no wrong, as someone mentioned jim casey's response from grapes of wrath, "there's just stuff people do." if you want a biblical analysis, look at cain vs abel. was cain wrong in killing abel? i do not think so. was he right? no. hence, there is no real explanation of either. but thats a bad example--the bible was written to teach right from wrong in order to continue the human race. blah. :)

[crisaor]

I don't think the distinction is that hard to make at all. Sure, there are plenty of examples of situations that really complicate matters, but that happens with most of things. If the question implies reference to those kind of situations, I didn't get it.

Personally, I find it curious that people believe that right or wrong things/actions depend on the people who commit/analyse them. They remain the same, what might change is the reason because they are commited, or the general view of such actions. I'm not trying to pose as judge here, the judgement of an action does not necessarily apply itself to the person who committed it. In short, there isn't a general law in order to pass judgement that guarantees failproof. The question topic is of a nature so general that allows any response to be refuted with but a simple example.

But, that doesn't mean that since the matter in question can become debatable, then things immediately become so relative that no opinion can be issued about them. Since this is the Religious forum, I take it that right and wrong are to be understood in such a context. For starters, I'd like to make a difference between this case and a non-religious one. In my mind, I perceive the first case to be a matter of morals; the second one, of ethics. The first case is more debatable, given the wider variety of religions and their own series of interpretations. The second case is more general, and more practical when it comes to analysing. Debating morals can be a lenghty thing, and very prone to heated discussions, as we all know.

Somehow, I don't believe I adressed much of Pendragon's concerns. Sorry about that.

[PeterL]

I don't think the distinction is that hard to make at all. Sure, there are plenty of examples of situations that really complicate matters, but that happens with most of things. If the question implies reference to those kind of situations, I didn't get it.

Personally, I find it curious that people believe that right or wrong things/actions depend on the people who commit/analyse them. They remain the same, what might change is the reason because they are commited, or the general view of such actions. I'm not trying to pose as judge here, the judgement of an action does not necessarily apply itself to the person who committed it. In short, there isn't a general law in order to pass judgement that guarantees failproof. The question topic is of a nature so general that allows any response to be refuted with but a simple example.


The you are of the opinion that it would be morally wrong for you to steal some food from me, if you hadn't eaten for a week? On the other hand you don't want to make decisions about the matter? Have I summarized your position correctly?

If that is not correct, then could you define in simple terms what right and wrong are? If so, then please do.

[crisaor]

The you are of the opinion that it would be morally wrong for you to steal some food from me, if you hadn't eaten for a week? On the other hand you don't want to make decisions about the matter? Have I summarized your position correctly?
No. The example you point out is one of those I would include in those I mentioned in the first parograph of my initial post. Even though I would do such thing were I in such position, it does not refrain me from thinking that stealing is something that is best left undone.
I thought I was clear. The fact that I make a decision on the matter doesn't mean that I will stand by that position no matter what. Read my previous post again, if you will.
And no, I don't think you summarized my position correctly.


If that is not correct, then could you define in simple terms what right and wrong are? If so, then please do.
I already did. The question is so abstract that any answer is bound to change when dealing with a particular situation. If you're asking me to give you an absolute definition, you won't get that. If you're just asking for my opinion on the matter, I'm afraid it is rather obvious and evident (ie. killing is wrong, helping people is right, etc.).

[subterranean]

Posted by Shout Grace: Surely a percentage of humans are selfish; perhaps most people are selfish.

I always think that the first humans, Eve and Adam, were selfish. God created people with this "selfness" since He created the first humans. As Christians believe in the so-called inherited sin, then all humans who came after them, IMHO, are all selfish :)


Since Pendragon posted this thread in the religious text section then, from my point of view, the question should be answered from the religious perspective. So, in my personal opinion (from religious point of view), what makes people good or bad depends on the person's belief/religions. If you submit yourself to a certain religious teaching then, I think, it's because you're agree to its values, in which would likely include the definitions/distinctions between good and evil. And this, of course, creates diversity in definitions of good and evil because of the diversity of religious teachings. I mean people with same faith also often have different opinion about what their own teaching.

This is something I read today, which I think can be used as an example:
Romans 13:1-2
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

From what the scripture says, it is clear enough that rebelling against authority is rebelling against God because God has instituted that authority. I think these verses also apply, even when you (as Christian) disagree with your government or the priest at your church! But since you have submit yourself to Christianity and you believe that the Bible is the word of God, you must believe these authorities are there because God wants them to be there, and you have to put respect on them. If you disrespect them, then you're disrespecting God and that makes you a bad person. Now, you most likely have different opinion on the subject of “respecting authorities” if you have different religious belief.

IMHO, if Pendragon posted the thread on the philosophical section, my personal answer would have been different. Also, I think the debate would expand much wider, in which most of the good answers posted here would only be the beginning :)

[PeterL]

No. The example you point out is one of those I would include in those I mentioned in the first parograph of my initial post. Even though I would do such thing were I in such position, it does not refrain me from thinking that stealing is something that is best left undone.
I thought I was clear. The fact that I make a decision on the matter doesn't mean that I will stand by that position no matter what. Read my previous post again, if you will.
And no, I don't think you summarized my position correctly.


I already did. The question is so abstract that any answer is bound to change when dealing with a particular situation. If you're asking me to give you an absolute definition, you won't get that. If you're just asking for my opinion on the matter, I'm afraid it is rather obvious and evident (ie. killing is wrong, helping people is right, etc.).

OK, then you do think that there is no general principal that define right and wrong. That makes it difficult to make decisions in particular situations.

[bhekti]

bhekti, i am speaking in a philosophical and impractical tense. essentially, i do not believe anything to be right or to be wrong. practically, as in LAW, SOCIETY, SCHOOL, ESSAY-WRITING, BAKING A CAKE, ETC. there is a right and a wrong way to do it. you cannot decide to bake a cake without flour eggs and sugar, just like you cannot kill someone and feel free to be right and not prosecuted by law and society. but in essence, there is no good and no bad and no right and no wrong, as someone mentioned jim casey's response from grapes of wrath, "there's just stuff people do." if you want a biblical analysis, look at cain vs abel. was cain wrong in killing abel? i do not think so. was he right? no. hence, there is no real explanation of either. but thats a bad example--the bible was written to teach right from wrong in order to continue the human race. blah. :)

Ah, now I see your point. You are trying to say that an act in itself (that is to say before any kinds of judgments being applied to it) has no inherent value signifying Right or Wrong. Am I right?

If I am right, then I agree with you. I am not wrong for having committed murder. I am wrong only when a law that says murder is wrong is being applied to me. In other words, the wrong is not in my having committed the murder, but in my act of violating the law that says murder is wrong. In the eyes of this law I am then wrong.

(Can I nullify the law, for example, by not believing in its existence? I can't. Something in deep inside me always believe that people should not murder me, that to murder me is wrong. I have then applied the law to other people, which means I cannot avoid from acknowledging the existence of the law. If I forced myself to do so, then I shouldn't have thought about what people do to me, I should have let people do whatever they want to do to me. No, I cannot escape from the law as I cannot prevent myself from preserving my life)

[Pendragon]

(Can I nullify the law, for example, by not believing in its existence? I can't. Something in deep inside me always believe that people should not murder me, that to murder me is wrong. I have then applied the law to other people, which means I cannot avoid from acknowledging the existence of the law. If I forced myself to do so, then I shouldn't have thought about what people do to me, I should have let people do whatever they want to do to me. No, I cannot escape from the law as I cannot prevent myself from preserving my life) And this is a very worthwhile point of view. Going back to the question asked by ShoutGrace to which I replied with examples, we see that right and wrong become abstract until something makes us face the point. Does this rule or regulation if fact apply to me or in this particular theoretical incident that I am examining? Only a person who cannot see beyond him or herself would then be able to truthfully say "I always know what is right and what is wrong." We cannot escape our own humanity, and the surety that we are going to make errors in judgment and do things we will wish that we could go back and change. Knowing this about one's own self, it becomes harder to say that there is nothing inside of the worst human derelict, that might not in the end make he or she capable of bravery or self-sacrifice for others sake. Or vice-versa, that the most gentle person may harbor a monster inside.

A case in point. A two-time loser, on death row for rape and murder of a second victim while out on parole for the rape and murder of his first victim, was involved in a daring escape from the prison. The inmates seized a female employee of the prison, forced her to strip to the skin, and held her hostage for their freedom. It worked, and the woman was released, scared to death, but unharmed. Her testimony was that if not for this double murderer, she would have been raped and murdered herself, but he protected her. All were recaptured and eventually executed, although the lady and others tried to get the man’s sentence commuted to life without parole. The question is, why did he protect this woman? He was already to the point where he had nothing to loose, since they cannot execute you twice. He had to know that if recaptured, clemency was pretty much out of the question, as he had dumped the second body within three-quarters of a mile of the first. So, Why?

[holograph]

Ah, now I see your point. You are trying to say that an act in itself (that is to say before any kinds of judgments being applied to it) has no inherent value signifying Right or Wrong. Am I right?


Yes, that is more or less what I mean. :cool:

To answer your question: death perhaps is something complex. yes, we all have innate preservational instincts, so death and murder play a role hand in hand. but there is still no right and no wrong in that. if you were raised to believe killing is right, then killing to you is right. this is debatable. but in all other cases, there is no right or wrong present as universal laws. we create the right and the wrong. before, children were forced to write with their right hands becuase that was RIGHT and the left hand writing was WRONG. with time, we realized that both wer perfectly right. if you use that example in both a literal and metaphorical sense, that is what i mean. it doesn't matter what hand you write with. it just doesn't matter, there is no right way to write., just like there is no correct way to live or to think. hence, nothing is right and nothing is wrong. it just is what it is. :p

[lucimi]

It says:"when you are in a good mood,the sky are clear and it is a sunny day even when it rains with the heavy wind"This explains that why you are so happy when it is dogs and cats.Just like this,I think you aslo can consider the same situation to decide "what is right and wrong?"The elder usually told us the regual principles to give something the standard and let us to think it is wrong or it is right.But does it really have the power to make you believe?Usually it can't.Because your own principles are different from the common principles.If so,it makes us feel upset and doubt.Because we don't know the truth.But what the truth?I still believe the psychologiest.They say :"IN THE WORLD there is no absolutely right or wrong."The only thing you can make sure is that how you feel?In the Bible,it usually put the religion in th first place.It usually want to make the people to believe the god and reversely to himself or herself.If wrong,he or she will suffer the punishment from his or her psychology.So I can't obviously understand why people say "it is right or wrong?".I DON'T think there are the only answer.It really matters is that how you think......

[Orionsbelt]

For me the key is the moment of choice. Where one regards your own interest over one or many others. There are three paths. 1) All for my benefit. 2) None for my benefit 3) some compromise. The degree of good or evil may correspond to the level of willful disregard without the possibility of compromise. I agree however that the choice is always from my point of view, based on what I know, and faithful to what I believe. I don't think anyone is totally good or totally evil. I prefer to think of it as undisciplined or unable to (in greater or lesser degrees) to put off satisfaction by force of will.

[Mary Sue]

What a great question, yet how hard and perplexing a one to answer! Moral/ethical values vary from person to person, from culture to culture, from religion to religion. And with all these divergent and contradictory definitions of what GOOD is, it's no wonder that we have so many debates.

Plato in his dialogues talked about Ideal Forms, implying that whatever good we see in this imperfect world is just a flawed copy of the real thing. Not a very comforting thought! Theists would argue that only God is TRULY good, and that though we should try to emulate Him, there's always going to be human fallibility, ergo "sin." Atheists, in turn, would probably contend that GOODNESS is irrelevant; that it's simply a concept invented by Man to justify and uphold his own self-serving actions!

So what do I really think? Myself, I picture GOODNESS as total, unconditional love. The more you have of that, the better you are. But then my definition is totally subjective, isn't it? And as definitions go, it carries no more or less weight than anybody else's!

[geetanjali]

In reply to the question WHAT IS IT THAT MAKES A PERSON GOOD OR BAD ? I wish to say ---circumstances in life makes a person good or bad. Now many things determine these cirumstances; not only personal but also political, geographical, climatic .....post Katrina the victims ransacked every possibility for food & basic essentials. They were not thieving but there were some who tried to gain monetarily from the calamity without understanding the implication of the same. Now that is the difference between good & bad. Good & bad are not distinct in human nature. They are intermingled & relative. Nobody is born good or bad. Even the so called vilest person has all the goodness in him as the most good one but his goodness remains recessive & the bad characteristics dominate. Thus the most good can stoop to the level of the vilest. I read somewhere " LOOK UP AT ME YOU SEE THE LORD, LOOK DOWN AT ME YOU SEE A FOOL, LOOK STRAIGHT AT ME YOU SEE YOURSELF ". Comparing human beings is as futile as defining the shape of an amoeba !!!!

[Boris239]

It's impossible for me to define good and bad. There are certainly some deeds that are, in my opinion, purely evil. One of them is rape- I can't imagine the situation where it can be excused. Another is child abuse and molestation.
Murder sometimes can be explained. First of all there is self-defense. Then there is revenge. I'm sure that a lot of people don't condone it and I also don't support it, but if a guys sister/mother/wife was killed and raped, and he knows that the law can't get the guilty person... I can understand that kind of murder and won't call this person bad.
It's even more difficult to define purely good characteristics- kind, selfless, generous are some of the variants, but one can argue.
There were talks about egoism- personally I think that a good person( just good, not a saint) should be reasonably egoistical. I care mostly about myself, my family and my friends. I am ready to do more or less anything for them. Do I care about evrybody else? I do, but not much. If I can help some random guy, without hurting myself too much, I'll do it, but I'm not ready to sacrifice a lot. I'm not St. Martin and won't give half of my coat to a stranger- I would give half to my friend most surely and I think that it's normal.

[ShoutGrace]

Murder sometimes can be explained.

I think that there is a distinction between murdering and killing.

[Pendragon]

You all are contributing well to the thought, and I thank each of you for taking time to consider the questions. There are many points of view that have strong merits. Take, for example, the question of circumstances. How much leeway should be allowed in view of the circumstances of the misdeeds? I too, saw the footage of the looting during Katrina. I felt much as did Geetanjali, that people taking food and things to drink were only doing what was necessary for survival, especially the drinks. But others were taking wide-screen TVs, computers, and such things. Why? You would think survival would be uttermost in their minds. There was no power, no drinkable water, and no sanitary facilities. You cannot eat or drink a TV, computer, or other electronic device. Can it be that sometimes bad even outweighs a person's ingrained sense of survival? :nod:

[mtpspur]

Good/Bad--usually in the eye of the beholder. I opinion is of little value as I tend to think in simple terms. Bottom line I'm not God--never will be and my wife will do what she thinks best anyway or in spite of what I think. The older I'm getting the more shallow I've discovered my convictions are--I'll sell out at the first major blow to my security. The only measuring line that I can point anyone to that has value is the 10 Commandments as contained in the Holy Bible. And afyer meditatiing on those within your own souls--then I would point you to the Lord Christ and let Him speak to your hearts.

Basically when I try to determine good and evil--evil tends to win but when I look to the Lord He has a way of straighting things out in ways that contunue to amaze. I'm 6 months into surviving a MAJOR mid-life crisis and have learned more of the depravity of my own heart and moral code and the forgiveness of firneds and loved ones I've betrayed and disappointed then the past 30 years of lip service to Christianity. Enough on that--make of it what you will.

[Pendragon]

The older I'm getting the more shallow I've discovered my convictions are--I'll sell out at the first major blow to my security.

I'm 6 months into surviving a MAJOR mid-life crisis and have learned more of the depravity of my own heart and moral code and the forgiveness of firneds and loved ones I've betrayed and disappointed then the past 30 years of lip service to Christianity. Enough on that--make of it what you will.

These two lines, mon ami, are causing me some distress. They seem to somehow be a cry for help; that you find yourself dealing with things you cannot understand and find little solace from others. I may be reading you wrong, I am only human, and I claim no paranormal powers. It's just that I've been there myself, and the self-questioning I went through was what made me start this thread to begin with. If you just need someone to talk to, PM me; I promise to listen. I don't have all the answers. I don't even claim to have ANY of them. But I know I would have given my arm for someone just to listen to me a time or two. Take care and God bless. :angel:

[Mary Sue]

To mtpspur:
Thanks for the honest admission. It takes moral courage to look deep into yourself and admit to so much. But...well, welcome to the human race! You're no better or worse than any of us. We're all flawed, after all. As St. Paul once put it, "The good that I would I do not but the evil that I would not, that I do."

When things are going well it's easy enough for us to just coast along, thinking smugly "what good Christians or good Jews or good whatever" we are. But when put to the test, we're all liable to fall short. Out of weakness, out of fear, out of ignorance, we all make terrible mistakes. And mid-life is an especially hard time, since that's when we begin to tally up the account.

Forgive yourself. That's the main thing. And hang in there. IMO, faith in a higher power gives us an ideal towards which we can strive, as well as a reservoir of positive creative energy (God's love) to draw from. Call it Jesus or Jehovah or Buddha or whatever, the label doesn't really matter. But stick to that ideal and tap into that energy. Also, be inner directed. Just because people close to you may compromise THEIR integrity, that's no reason to forfeit your own. Mid-life just means you're halfway there, so you have a ways to go yet, my friend!

Enjoy the trip.

[mtpspur]

To Pendragon and Mary--much thanks for your thoughtful comments. Though my late mid-life crisis is real things are under control and have been dealt with in a decisive though at times unpleasant manner. I read your posts to my wife and we both think I may have drama queened it a bit. Was never my intention to worry anyone. I have this horror of being considered a "good" Christian when I am very far from that and probably emphasize my sins too much rather then my salvation experiences with the Lord Christ--they are many and varied.

Pendragon when I get my thoughts more organizedI may take you up on your PO offer. I suspect we are kindred spirits in the area of introspection and contemplating where our lives are brought us to.

[ShoutGrace]

Since Pendragon posted this thread in the religious text section then, from my point of view, the question should be answered from the religious perspective. So, in my personal opinion (from religious point of view), what makes people good or bad depends on the person's belief/religions. If you submit yourself to a certain religious teaching then, I think, it's because you're agree to its values, in which would likely include the definitions/distinctions between good and evil.

Well worded! I agree (except for the part I highlighted - but I like the part after it too). :D


Romans 14:14 "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that [there is] nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him [it is] inclean."

Are the terms “unclean” and “morally unacceptable” synonymous?


Black and white. If you believe it's wrong, it's wrong for YOU.

Meaning no offence or personal encroachment, Pendragon, I heartily disagree with that statement being used in any broad distinction.

Again, I want to talk about murder. One of the Ten Commandments, and surely one of the oldest and most universally admired and favoured human maxims, states “You shall not murder.” That seems awfully black and white to me.

According to Biblical principles, is there any situation in which murder is an acceptable human practise? Is it right and proper for some people, but wrong for others? If I find murdering an encouraging and worthwhile activity, for ME, does that nullify anyone elses right to make a moral observation and declare that my behaviour is morally wrong?



Romans 14: starting at verse one reminds us not to judge what others do.

I'm sure that there are different ways of interpreting the nuances and whole of that chapter, but one distinction I think is clear: it deals with men and other men. Is “right and wrong” restricted in such a way? You said:


Morals are a matter of individual basis, and if one carefully reads the Bible it reflects this.

I am quite certain that this isn’t true. I think the above examples illustrate this. Am I misreading what you wrote? What you wrote after it (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=247361&postcount=11) didn't justify it in my opinion.



Again, black and white. Why let people judge what you do? Why a long rule book? Whose rules are they?

This one I acknowledge with just as much passion as I did in disagreeing with the previous one. :) I don’t consider myself to be bound in any philosophical sense by the ordinances and ideas of other men. Obviously, there is such a thing as government and established law, but I wouldn’t feel morally obligated to begin thinking that theft was an allowable hobby just because the law said that it was.

I would, and do, however, submit myself wholly to the fundamentals and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and will do so (or attempt to do so) to the end of my days regardless of the commendation, respect, inconveniences, sufferings, afflictions or agonies resulting from such a conviction.

That is why I believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. I also believe that these morals are knowable and objectively valid. Maybe killing in self defense can be justified, perhaps stealing to feed your family “evens out” in some grandiose metaphysical equation, I don’t know.


Loving God, Loving Each Other. Live a simple life. Pray. Do what you can for others. Be not hasty in judgement.

You sound as if you're reading from the book of Jesus. :D Those are my favourites. :D Except I think maybe being complicated is alright also. ;)

[subterranean]

Well worded! I agree (except for the part I highlighted - but I like the part after it too). :D


Indeed, that part should be revised. It takes more than an "agreement" to submit yourself to certain belief ;)

[caesar]

I simply wish to second the opinions of PererL and Holograph as stated in their first posts. I'm in complete agreement with them.

[Pendragon]

Are the terms “unclean” and “morally unacceptable” synonymous?

I would say, David, that "NO" is usually the proper answer, but when we get to judging things we almost always take it too far. There certainly are morals, but I've seen people take the Bible and twist it to justify the way they choose to live, so I choose not to judge, and leave that up to God.




Meaning no offence or personal encroachment, Pendragon, I heartily disagree with that statement being used in any broad distinction.

Again, I want to talk about murder. One of the Ten Commandments, and surely one of the oldest and most universally admired and favoured human maxims, states “You shall not murder.” That seems awfully black and white to me.

According to Biblical principles, is there any situation in which murder is an acceptable human practice? Is it right and proper for some people, but wrong for others? If I find murdering an encouraging and worthwhile activity, for ME, does that nullify anyone else’s right to make a moral observation and declare that my behavior is morally wrong? I can find no situation in which murder, as opposed to killing, could be justifiable. You might have to kill to save your own life, or to protect someone else, or in the line of duty as a soldier or officer of the law. But not murder. There are morals, as I said. But in reading The Sermon on The Mount, you will find that Jesus extended this commandment to even this: Matt. 5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother Rà-ca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Rà-ca means “Vain Fellow, good for nothing.”




I'm sure that there are different ways of interpreting the nuances and whole of that chapter, but one distinction I think is clear: it deals with men and other men. Is “right and wrong” restricted in such a way? You said:



I am quite certain that this isn’t true. I think the above examples illustrate this. Am I misreading what you wrote? What you wrote after it (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showpost.php?p=247361&postcount=11) didn't justify it in my opinion.




This one I acknowledge with just as much passion as I did in disagreeing with the previous one. :) I don’t consider myself to be bound in any philosophical sense by the ordinances and ideas of other men. Obviously, there is such a thing as government and established law, but I wouldn’t feel morally obligated to begin thinking that theft was an allowable hobby just because the law said that it was.

I would, and do, however, submit myself wholly to the fundamentals and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and will do so (or attempt to do so) to the end of my days regardless of the commendation, respect, inconveniences, sufferings, afflictions or agonies resulting from such a conviction.

That is why I believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong, good and evil. I also believe that these morals are knowable and objectively valid. Maybe killing in self defense can be justified, perhaps stealing to feed your family “evens out” in some grandiose metaphysical equation, I don’t know.



You sound as if you're reading from the book of Jesus. :D Those are my favourites. :D Except I think maybe being complicated is alright also. ;)Well, I never said I had all the answers, or that I was 100% correct. You just asked a question and I tried to answer it. There most certainly is a right and a wrong, and I didn't start this thread to argue about what IS right and wrong. I started it really to get us thinking about how we stand in the light of right and wrong. That's why I asked the final question. Why do we think we can judge what is right and wrong? Haven't we already proved that we are as human as the next person and just as subject to failure?

[Orionsbelt]

I don't think we can ever judge... so I avoid absolutes. Some comment on Judas would be interesting. Lets say Jeffrey Dahmer was attacked and murdered in a robbery attempt on the night of but prior to his attempt at another victum. During the investigation all of this come to light. Life in prison or a gold medal? We judge because we must not because we have the right to do so. All of the great teachers have said simply to judge with compassion when you must judge. This leaves things still fairly wide open.

[ShoutGrace]

There certainly are morals, but I've seen people take the Bible and twist it to justify the way they choose to live, so I choose not to judge, and leave that up to God.

Okay, I can see more of what you are thinking . . . but where do you draw the line? Do you just personally choose not to judge? What do you think about courts and law?

We all try not to judge . . . but I can absolutely look at certain acts and declare them to be morally wrong, to ANYBODY, in any time period, in any culture.


Why do we think we can judge what is right and wrong? Haven't we already proved that we are as human as the next person and just as subject to failure?

Surely we are subject to failure, but just as surely we need to evaluate others actions! Obviously we can't judge every right and wrong, and we agree on that point, because we aren't omniscient or an arbiter of moral realities. But where would we be if we didn't judge others actions?

(Thank you for responding to my earlier posts, Pendragon; I commend you all due honour and respect. But I do need to talk about this :D )

[PeterL]

I don't think we can ever judge... so I avoid absolutes. Some comment on Judas would be interesting. Lets say Jeffrey Dahmer was attacked and murdered in a robbery attempt on the night of but prior to his attempt at another victum. During the investigation all of this come to light. Life in prison or a gold medal? We judge because we must not because we have the right to do so. All of the great teachers have said simply to judge with compassion when you must judge. This leaves things still fairly wide open.

The Jeffrey Dahmer example is excellent. I won't speculate as to what a judge and/or jury might do in that situation, but it also points to the uncertainty which we face whenever we must make a decision or a judgment. We have little choice but to decide based on the facts that we have, but we never have all of the facts.

Several years ago I horrified and/or perplexed some people about Judas. Although I was brought up as a Christian, I am no longer one, and the way that Judas has always been treated by Christians is one of the reasons why.

[Pendragon]

Okay, I can see more of what you are thinking . . . but where do you draw the line? Do you just personally choose not to judge? What do you think about courts and law?

The courts and law are there for the lawless and the despensing of justice. That is the high purpose of it, anyway. Justice is usually depicted as being blindfolded, with a scale of balance with which to weigh evidence. In a perfect world, that would be the case. Unfortunately, he who can afford the better lawyer will most likely come out better in court.


We all try not to judge . . . but I can absolutely look at certain acts and declare them to be morally wrong, to ANYBODY, in any time period, in any culture.

Surely we are subject to failure, but just as surely we need to evaluate others actions! Obviously we can't judge every right and wrong, and we agree on that point, because we aren't omniscient or an arbiter of moral realities. But where would we be if we didn't judge others actions?

(Thank you for responding to my earlier posts, Pendragon; I commend you all due honour and respect. But I do need to talk about this :D )

Yes, an act perhaps. An act may be reprehensible. But the person is a different story. Is the person defined by his acts, or do acts come about as a result of environment, and with a change of environment can a person be rehibilitated? If not, prison programs designed for rehibilitation are a waste of time, this person will never learn.

[subterranean]

But the person is a different story. Is the person defined by his acts, or do acts come about as a result of environment, and with a change of environment can a person be rehibilitated? If not, prison programs designed for rehibilitation are a waste of time, this person will never learn.

I suppose both, Pen. However, in general, I think it is the environment's definition that influence and mostly affect us in how we behave towards ourselves and our environment. Of course, we often heard that the urge to change must come from within, but I think in many cases (like drug addicts rehabilitation) outside supports give significant contributions in the process.

[PierreGringoire]

I disagree with holograph's pure subjectivism. But I respect his opinion. Ever try solving that Rubix-Cubed darned device? It gets me so frustrated that I don't know the 'code'. So I'm twisting right, left, up, down; and it strikes me that my will outdoes my understanding. I'd never believe that all the colors had the capability to match up perfectly if they weren't in that starting condition when I first bought the cube. There is an equation to it though. I just don't understand it. Is trying to solve the cube meaningless just because I can't interpret the equation? On that note (which counters pure subjectivism), I shall proceed to daringly exhume what Good and Evil are in so far as my understanding is capable. A Good man’s pride in his reputation is non-existent. A Good man talks as if everyone was listening. He acts on behalf of all men; He is every Human at all times. And he can’t clearly distinguish himself Being in any other way. Evil is the individual. Evil is self serving and self gratifying…….. Read between the lines. I’m afraid all of us build Cubes and Mazes because we don’t understand. So many of us have a self-made maze that ourselves can’t even figure out. We think we are thinking when we are merely shifting prejudice, if you will. We are Human. And if this Be a Race, it is a race with strings attached on all our ankles. I cannot win this race; but We can.

[Pendragon]

We are Human. And if this Be a Race, it is a race with strings attached on all our ankles. I cannot win this race; but We can. I like this part of your statement, mon ami. I think you come nearer to the solution. If humans could only see themselves as the "WE" of your statement, things would be so much better. Unfortunately, this is becoming more and more an "I" world, where people want what is best for them, and them only. Did anyone notice there is not an "i" in "human"? We are a family. Not everyone will be shining examples, perhaps few will be. Perhaps some will be loathsome. We are not the one's harvesting the crop. :)

[Madhuri]

Can a person/thing be only good or bad? What about the in-between, where you cant decide if the person/thing was either of the two?

[PeterL]

Can a person/thing be only good or bad? What about the in-between, where you cant decide if the person/thing was either of the two?

It's all shades of gray.

[subterranean]

It's all shades of gray.

And it's all depend on the context?

[PierreGringoire]

No one deserves to be punished by another man, only loved all the more. No one deserves to be judged by another man, only loved. And if the world is so corrupted that it won't ever HEAR love's appeal; Its appeal for universal acceptance; and you happen to be in that absurd and insane world; you are evil; Because a world is in each of us; and we define that world of ours;And believe me when I say; intent means EVERYTHING. Never label a man "good" or "evil." It is that which seperates us. Don't ever label yourself "good" or "evil." Instead do good for another, to no one in particular and if you want my advice. Forget yourself. Loose yourself. You don't exist. Only the power of human conformity does. Everyone in the human family. Everyone. Handle them with good intent. Handle each of them as you would a perfect human being. That's my utopia.

[Pendragon]

Did anyone notice there is not an "i" in "human"? We are a family. Not everyone will be shining examples, perhaps few will be. Perhaps some will be loathsome. We are not the one's harvesting the crop. :)I would like to clarify the last part of my statement here. It does not matter whether one believes in any form of religion or not for that last statement to be true. If we assume that Death, The Grim Reaper, ends all things (and I believe there is life after death, for the record), then the death of the individual may show something about them. A condemned criminal who goes to his death still ranting and raving seems to have learned nothing. But one who goes calmly, apologies for his crimes, asks to pray before he dies, maybe he learned a lesson. But in either case, I am not the Judge, and I will never be. I'm not the Reaper and I am certainly not God.

[PierreGringoire]

I preached on my last post because I believed I could not get it through any other way. But all I have to say is the world is a kalidascope. I truly doubt any two people look at the same object in the same way, or ever have. Near, similar, but not exactly. Jamesian, not trying to contend with you, but egotists or whomever will end up leeching off somebody else. Someone will get hurt (in the objective sense) (since every monetary thing is absurd or more clearly put, since everyone is insane.) What is better for the individual? To hurt somebody in ignorance but with the right intent or decisveness with a heart full of contention? A person can only do the best he can. But, I believe we are not even arguing the same matters, Jamesian. I can only word my statement (trim it) the best I can in order to be most clearly understood. But I will never be understood. And I will never understand. But as one who accepts his unknowingness, I can trial and error, and try.

[Pendragon]

Jamesian, expression of one's thoughts with enough explanation to make them clear is not "preaching" per se and will require no apology, although I appreciate your honesty. The questions I presented perhaps have no clear answer. I have already succeeded in what I set out to do, which was to make people think. I wanted to make people look at the other man and perhaps see them with different eyes for a change. If one puts oneself in the others place, and faces life from that perspective, one learns.

I was a hellfire and brimstone preacher without much real concern for people. I thought I was concerned for them, but I was playing the part I had become. Then I was stuck down by an illness that church people I was associated with could not understand as an illness. They labeled me "devil possessed" and excommunicated my family and myself. I could have lashed out at God, but I didn't. I learned more in the time since than I ever knew. One is as important to God as 1000. But man sees it different. I now will go for the one, no matter who or what they are. I found out I was selfish. Hey, I was thinking I was going to heaven and if others didn't want to go, fine! See, that wasn't how Jesus would have been. He always went out of His way for one. Right and wrong is a judgment call I can't make. But I'll help anyone who will let me. (Sorry for my sermon!) :angel:

[PierreGringoire]

"Perhaps you should look into Atlas, PierreGringoire. It illustrates why people who claim to uphold that system of values actually require people who do exist to leech off of in order to carry on with the convenient life of the modern world."-Jamesian

First of all I need you to elaborate more on this. You said a selfish man(an egotist) is able to not harm anyone. While I establish my man, who "lives for others," explain what kind of "man who lives for others" (with examples) that you would consider " a leech."

[PierreGringoire]

Those who hurt others with a heart full of contention
A man who is always after the lion's share. Who crushes his opponents out of fear that they will do the same to him.
Those who hurt others with ignorance but with the right intent
St. Augustine called this an erraneous conscience. One can only do the best they can...yadie-yada. We already agreed on that.
Everyone is insane because no one knows completely what the consequences of their actions are. People set limits in their minds and then charge everything outside those limits as heretic and odious. Just because they themselves do not dare go beyond those limits and see eye to eye with their heretic. Insane meaning "unknowing."
Every monetary thing is absurd because the nature of man is insane. see above^
What makes a man insane is further established by Pascal, the source being "Thoughts":
"If a man has greater knowledge than another man about the universe is he not always infinitely removed from the end?"..."In comparison with Infinity all Finites are equal."
Those who respect the individual rights of others still leech off of others in this sense; he is a member of society. Citizens are always dependent on other citizens in a society.
And yes I still have to paint a better picture of a selfless man.(which will be a tedious attempt)(which is why I tried to make it to the point in a few lines; believing in some natural force that binds humanity would reveal what I was trying to say.)jk But we have a wise guy on our hands;) jk. You pointed out a lot of errors from my minute explanations.

[Verbatim]

right: Justice

Wrong: Injury without Reason.



as a afterthought, if the answer for "what is right and wrong" can be determined by 19 people continusouly arguing on the internet, you sir, are the greatist philosopher who ever lived.

[bhekti]

May I state my personal credo on this matter?

IT IS RIGHT WHEN GOD SAYS IT IS. IT IS WRONG WHEN GOD SAYS IT IS.

My trouble is...I just believe, I don't hear…
And when I hear, I don't believe...
And when I can hear and believe, I don't do, only thinking of reasons til I get very tired and sick. And this becomes a very boring cycle that I will remember every time I happen to believe again.

[subterranean]

May I state my personal credo on this matter?

IT IS RIGHT WHEN GOD SAYS IT IS. IT IS WRONG WHEN GOD SAYS IT IS.

My trouble is...I just believe, I don't hear…
And when I hear, I don't believe...
And when I can hear and believe, I don't do, only thinking of reasons til I get very tired and sick. And this becomes a very boring cycle that I will remember every time I happen to believe again.


I think you need to think not only the reason, but also the background and the outcome. I personally think it won't always end up as a vicious circle.

[eccehomo]

Those who are in power determines what/who is Good and Evil...Those who are subjected will, as their physiological circumstance would allow it, determine who/what is Bad (or Contemptible)...In line with the thought of Nietzsche..:D

[PierreGringoire]

I forfeit my explanation...