Page 3 of 5
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:50 pm
by Cail
Plissken wrote:What is left out if we include everyone in the brotherhood of man, and look out for everyone like we do our own family?
Who's family? An abusive one? Families from different cultures do things different ways. There is no universal ideal of a family, much less that of a good family.
Yeah, I know you're saying "be nice to everyone and treat others as you would want to be treated", but what if you're a masochist?
The idea of a universal standard of either good or evil just doesn't work when you're talking about more than one person.
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:29 pm
by Gadget nee Jemcheeta
I agree. Especially since if we were to say that there WAS an absolute good, we would have to go about trying to define it. Which means that someone would be trying to impose their beliefs on others.
If it was really an absolute good, wouldn't people know it when they heard it?
Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:39 am
by Cail
JemCheeta wrote:I agree. Especially since if we were to say that there WAS an absolute good, we would have to go about trying to define it. Which means that someone would be trying to impose their beliefs on others.
If it was really an absolute good, wouldn't people know it when they heard it?
And more to the point, wouldn't
all people know it when they heard it?
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:20 am
by Avatar
Some good posts guys. Because I agree with it, I particularly like this from Cail:
Cail wrote:There's always a grey area when it comes to good and evil.
I think he and Jem cover it pretty well from my point of view...good isn't the same for everybody. Oh, "superficially" it may be, not getting hurt, not starving, not freezing (or boiling), those are all "good". But good involves far more than that...what about the (frequently controversial) circumcision ceremonies for young men here (and all over Africa)?
Some folks think they're good, and important. Some think they're bad and dangerous. What's the universal good in there? To me, it's simple, let those who want it have it, and those who don't not. But can two opposed views
both be "good" or "right"?
--A
Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:52 pm
by sgt.null
do no harm to others. that's good. why can't it be universal? and allowing for good/evil to be an individual choice you disallow for punishment of bad acts.
tazzy: soldiers have an option. Ali went to prison for his beliefs.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:12 am
by Plissken
sgtnull wrote:do no harm to others. that's good. why can't it be universal?
Careful, my Catholic friend! Thou dost tread frightenly near to the teachings of one Alister Crowley, and his Only Commandment!
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:18 am
by sgt.null
well the Crowley crowd did get Led Zepplin.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:47 am
by Avatar
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC, Crowley didn't say anything about not harming others. As far as I remember it, his commandment was "And do what thou will shall be the whole of the law, and love is the law, and love under will."
He also, IIRC, said "Better that the whole world crumble into dust than a free man be denied one of his desires."
(This, by the way, in my more...self-serving days, was pretty much how I approached the world...easy when you're something of a solipsist, especially a more selfish one than Syl.
)
The problem with it being universal Sgt, is of course that people still don't agree on what's nmot harming others. Remember, torture didn't harm heretics, because it was saving their
souls.
--A
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:49 am
by sgt.null
but we have proving that is does no such thing. people end up confessing to stop the pain.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:06 am
by Avatar
Sure, but that's not the point...the point is that the inquisitors etc.
believed that they were actually helping those people. It was, in that time and at that place, a definition of "good". And maybe it still is in certain circles...
--A
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:21 am
by lucimay
time for a Lucimay break in this conversation...
Sure, but that's not the point...the point is that the inquisitors etc. believed that they were actually helping those people. It was, in that time and at that place, a definition of "good". And maybe it still is in certain circles...
no no...i have to disagree...i think THE PEOPLE believed that the inquistors believed they were actually helping those people!!!! heh. i don't for one minute believe there were inquisitors who
believed anything of the sort!
ok...back to your regularly scheduled programming...
doo doo doo doo doo, de doo doo-uhn doo doo
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 6:27 am
by Avatar
That may or may not be true, but having no evidence either way, we can't simply say that all the inquisitors were sadistic bastards who liked to torture.
In fact, while some of them clearly were, I'm equally sure that some of them truly did believe it. Just for an example, how about de Torquemada? Nothing in his life seems to suggest that he had any motive but the glorification of god, and the salavtion of the damned.
--A
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 7:23 am
by Plissken
Not that it's important to the thread, but the AC quote actually begins: "An it harm none, do what thou will shall be the whole of the law..."
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 8:18 am
by Avatar
Not sure I agree with you there actually, Pliss.
Crowley entered a state of trance and wrote down the three chapters of 220 verses which came to be called The Book of the Law (also known as Liber AL and Liber Legis). Among other things, this book declared: The word of the law is Thelema and "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"...
...Thelema espouses the idea that everyone has their own destiny, and that each is responsible for finding and fleshing out that destiny. This is the real basis for magick. When one is responsible for him or herself, one is truly free.
Thelema also says that "The only sin is Restriction", now that doesn't mean that you can just run around breaking the law and doing whatever you want, but that you should do everything necessary to find and do your true will. This also sheds light on the opening and closing statements of most Thelemic documents "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.", and "Love is the Law, Love under Will".
These statements say that you should achieve the freedom necessary to believe what you want, and to be yourself (true self) even under duress.
'Love is the Law' does not mean that physical love. This is the Love for yourself and all of humanity, good, bad, or indifferent. Do you have what it takes to truly Love yourself and others? Such is a long, hard process. Will, again, is your True Will. This means that you should achieve freedom and Love under the guidance of your True Will. Do all this (which may take many lifetimes), and you cannot go wrong.
Once you find your True Will, and take total responsibility for yourself, then you are capable of anything. You are in control, and then the piece of the Divine that lies within you can come forth.
"An harm it none, do what thou will" is the Wiccan Rede:
The Rede
Bide ye Wiccan laws you must,
in perfect love and perfect trust.
Live ye must and let to live,
fairly take and fairly give
For the circle thrice about
to keep unwelcome spirits out.
To bind ye spell well every time,
let the spell be spake in rhyme
Soft of eye and light of touch
speak ye little, listen much...
...When you have and hold a need
hearken not to others greed.
With a fool no season spend
or be counted as his friend.
Merry meet and Merry part
bright the cheeks and warm the heart.
Mind ye threefold law you should,
three times bad and three times good.
When misfortune is enow,
wear the star above thy brow.
True in love must ye ever be,
lest thy love be false to thee.
These eight words the Rede fulfill;
An harm ye none, do what ye will.
Not necessarily incompatible at all, but considerably different focus, I think.
--A
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 9:55 am
by sgt.null
all them damn pagans sound alike.
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 10:06 am
by Avatar
I somehow doubt that the Wiccans would be keen on being lumped in with Crowley. (Where the hell is Kymbierlee anyway?)
--A
Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:47 pm
by Cail
Just to echo what others have said, until we can come up with a universal definition of "harm" is, we can't define universal good or evil.
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:26 pm
by Zarathustra
I tend to agree with Cail, Avatar, et al.
The important thing to remember is that we decide what is right or wrong. So, even if we can all agree that rape is wrong, this still doesn't elevate our collective opinion to the status of "Absolute." Human opinions don't acquire this status merely by accretion. So it's not an issue of whether or not our opinions can be made universal by getting everyone to agree (like Plissken suggests). It's still just an opinion, albeit a very popular one.
Rape is something that many of us don't like. So what? There is nothing whatsoever about the universe that conforms to or condones the likes/dislikes of human beings. Even if you believe in God, and He thinks that rape is wrong, and you use this as "proof" for the Absolute status of the evil of rape, you're bascially just substituting the term "absolute" for "God's opinion."
Personally, I'm not impressed with God's opinions (as stated in the Bible), and I see nothing whatsoever to suggest that His opinions in this matter are any better than mine. Good and evil are still subjective, whether you're talking about the opinions of deities who violate their own commandments (killing people when He says that killing is wrong) or the opinions of lowly humans.
Yeah, this is just my opinion. But what else do we have? (And isn't that the point . . .)
Posted: Sun Mar 12, 2006 8:20 pm
by Zarathustra
One more thing: appealing to God's opinions as the basis of good/evil is nothing more than a "might makes right" argument. It is the same as saying that since God is the mightiest--and can punish us for disagreeing with him--that this makes His opinions on the matter absolute. But whether you are talking about God or man, the "might makes right" argument is very different from an Absolute or Universal argument based on logical principles. It is merely contingent upon who is the strongest. Basically, this is an anarchy skewed towards one being.
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:10 am
by Avatar
Well, totallitarianism at least.
Clearly, I pretty much agree with you. It's not to say that those things aren't wrong or terrible or unacceptable. They are. But the only reason that they are is because
we say so.
The world, nature, the universe, it doesn't care about the life, let alone the rights, of any given individual. The only justice is the kind we make.
--A