Morally Speaking, What Are Humans?

Are we gonna play with words and how we call each person?

Do you consider murder, stealing and lying to be in the same level of severity? Teenaged

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Presenting "evidence" from scripture in a discussion pertaining to the existence of god is kind of hilarious... just throwing that out there...Crushmaster

And I was serious when I was referencing the new guidlines.

I feel there is no reason for me to continue posting in this thread.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="Teenaged"] Are we gonna play with words and how we call each person?

Do you consider murder, stealing and lying to be in the same level of severity? Crushmaster

I dont see how a label placed on someone can show anything. Teenaged

[QUOTE="maheo30"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Okay, mate, you are, of course, free to believe whatever you want. I cannot stop you from believing whatever you want, no matter how ludicrous I might think it.

Irrelevant. I never stated anything of the kind. Stop putting words in my mouth.

But, my response was to your statement that I would not accept proof of God even were it shown to me. Stop misrepresenting my statements.

What if someone had killed Hitler and prevented the deaths of millions during the Holocaust and WW2? Would we label them a murderer or an international hero.... sometimes rules need to be overlooked for the sake of the greater good, thats what we have repentance for.

You called the doctrine of man's total depravity ludicrous which includes man unable to choose God. I stated our society as proof. I wasn't putting words in your mouth and it wasn't irrelevant. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it irrelevant. maheo30

Wait, what? If a man is unable to choose God, how can a man become a Christian?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"] I dont see how a label placed on someone can show anything. Crushmaster

I cant give absolute answers. Teenaged

I'm afraid I have to get off now, as I've been on almost thirty minutes too long. I should be back on tomorrow, though probably not until 2:00 P.M. or something. We'll see.

Thanks for your help, Maheo, Lansdowne, and J-man.:)
Bye, all.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"] I cant give absolute answers. Crushmaster

I'm afraid I have to get off now, as I've been on almost thirty minutes too long. I should be back on tomorrow, though probably not until 2:00 P.M. or something. We'll see.

Thanks for your help, Maheo, Lansdowne, and J-man.:)
Bye, all.

Crushmaster

Just because there are times that it is difficult to know whether something is morally good or bad does not mean there are issues which are gray. Could it not be that we simply have a hard time knowing the difference because of our fallen nature?mindstorm

I guess YOU are right though personally I have a hard time believing most people in this world are actually good which they are obviously not. Most people in the capitalist world are becoming increasingly selfish and apathetic to the suffering of others.

Every hour 900 African children are starving to death or dying from diseases but few people actually seem to give a **** They say it's all "evolution at work" so they don't seem togive a damn about children suffering and dying needlessly.

I don't think there is an objective or absolute moral standard, and that it all depends on the views of individuals right on up to society as a whole.

-Chimera-

Well, I'll have to say I respectfully disagree with the bible. Most people I know are fun, warm-hearted, nice people. Sure they'd joke around sometime and emotions might get the better of them. But I know they have a good heart, as do most people. I find the world supports me in that view.

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]

I don't think there is an objective or absolute moral standard, and that it all depends on the views of individuals right on up to society as a whole.

Yodas_Boy

I personally think if you think the world is cruel, selfish and unforgiving then you will attract the sort of people that fill in this view. Or maybe, they actually don't fill in the view, but you (your brain) will try to make people fit in this mould. While the opposite will happen if you assume the opposite.Famiking

Tabula Rasa.

JSDempsey

"evil", "good"? Too vague for me to really answer or vote.

I don't believe humans are evil, I just believe we're top species on the planet.

Atheists just believe in too many coincidence lol. First the universe was formed by chance. Then a planet perfectly habitable for life was chance. Us being the highest life form, caring about our history or learning it, and having the gift of music,reading books,enjoying games or any imaginiation is chance(these gifts aren't necessary for survival, even that is chance). Us holding the fate of the Earth in our hands as far as pollution or helping take care of the Earth is chance. Our so called evolution was chance(keyword) to become humans and have all the gifts I said in my 3rd point(i'm not sure on evolution but I think we were planned toevolve from "cavemen" but I mean the rest of the evolution process). Us being just far enough from the sun for the sunlight to help life on the planet was chance. Our planet having an atmosphere that can shield just enough sunlight etc.was chance. Life forming on the planet was chance. I saw a ghost once as a kid once so I have no doubts about life after death.Anyways i'm just saying Atheists believe in way too much coincidence.Just my view on it all. I'm sure there's a ton of more points about too many coincidences

A virus plaguing mother earth.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"] Are we gonna play with words and how we call each person?

Do you consider murder, stealing and lying to be in the same level of severity? Crushmaster

Here's an interesting point. What about people who kill in the military? If a soldier shoots and kills an enemy, he's given honor and praise when he returns home. But would you consider him a murderer?

Atheists just believe in too many coincidence lol. First the universe was formed by chance. Then a planet perfectly habitable for life was chance. Us being the highest life form, caring about our history or learning it, and having the gift of music,reading books,enjoying games or any imaginiation is chance(these gifts aren't necessary for survival, even that is chance). Us holding the fate of the Earth in our hands as far as pollution or helping take care of the Earth is chance. Our so called evolution was chance(keyword) to become humans and have all the gifts I said in my 3rd point(i'm not sure on evolution but I think we were planned toevolve from "cavemen" but I mean the rest of the evolution process). Us being just far enough from the sun for the sunlight to help life on the planet was chance. Our planet having an atmosphere that can shield just enough sunlight etc.was chance. Life forming on the planet was chance. I saw a ghost once as a kid once so I have no doubts about life after death.Anyways i'm just saying Atheists believe in way too much coincidence.Just my view on it all. I'm sure there's a ton of more points about too many coincidences

ghostelite88

But I will be giving absolute answers if I answer to stretched examples which cant prove anything. Teenaged

I'm going to vote neutral or other, main reason being as I didn't even know the concepts of "good" and "evil" until someone else taught me them.

Not evil, not good, were just mamalsKidMob

I'm going to vote neutral or other, main reason being as I didn't even know the concepts of "good" and "evil" until someone else taught me them. T_P_O

[QUOTE="T_P_O"] I'm going to vote neutral or other, main reason being as I didn't even know the concepts of "good" and "evil" until someone else taught me them. Crushmaster

That's not necessarily true. Man has a conscience.

True, but did you know what was morally wrong until someone/something told you?

True, but did you know what was morally wrong until someone/something told you? T_P_O

The first is stretched, yes - the second, not really. Let's say he stole five hundred thousand dollars, then.

How can an amount change anything? If you murder, you're murderer. If you rape, you're a rapist. I am sure you agree that it only takes one committing of these actions to make you a "murderer" or a "rapist"; I know you do with the first.

It makes no sense to say someone who steals only a few times is not a thief or "stealer", someone who lies only a few times is not a liar, and, in contrast, someone who commits one murder is a murderer. Crushmaster

It doesn't make sense for every action to denote some sort of permanent quality on a person, since by your logic a man who did one good deed, one just deed, and one righteous deed would be a good, just and righteous man. Since you'll have to disagree with that as it conflicts with what you perceive to be absolute truth, your argument ends up falling to special pleading (that is, only bad deeds leave a permanent mark on a person).

Also, what about someone who is a compulsive liar, or a kleptomaniac? Such a person has a mental problem which forces him to lie/steal. Would such a person still be a liar/thief based on actions imposed on him by a psychological problem?

Basically self seeking, wether good or evil. everything people do is for themselves if you look far enough. Though from what I've seen people are more evil than good.

[QUOTE="Crushmaster"]The first is stretched, yes - the second, not really. Let's say he stole five hundred thousand dollars, then.

How can an amount change anything? If you murder, you're murderer. If you rape, you're a rapist. I am sure you agree that it only takes one committing of these actions to make you a "murderer" or a "rapist"; I know you do with the first.

It makes no sense to say someone who steals only a few times is not a thief or "stealer", someone who lies only a few times is not a liar, and, in contrast, someone who commits one murder is a murderer. Zagrius

It doesn't make sense for every action to denote some sort of permanent quality on a person, since by your logic a man who did one good deed, one just deed, and one righteous deed would be a good, just and righteous man. Since you'll have to disagree with that as it conflicts with what you perceive to be absolute truth, your argument ends up falling to special pleading (that is, only bad deeds leave a permanent mark on a person).

Also, what about someone who is a compulsive liar, or a kleptomaniac? Such a person has a mental problem which forces him to lie/steal. Would such a person still be a liar/thief based on actions imposed on him by a psychological problem?

I've always wondered about this; why does one negative action define a person? If a man is kind and righteous for the most part, but decides to steal on a whim, he is a thief. But conversely, if a cruel and malevolent man decided to do a single good deed, he would remain morally bankrupt. Should not the sum of a person's actions be taken into account? This again comes back to the tendency to oversimplify, to divide people into only two camps, good and evil.

I've always wondered about this; why does one negative action define a person? If a man is kind and righteous for the most part, but decides to steal on a whim, he is a thief. But conversely, if a cruel and malevolent man decided to do a single good deed, he would remain morally bankrupt. Should not the sum of a person's actions be taken into account? This again comes back to the tendency to oversimplify, to divide people into only two camps, good and evil.

D_Battery

What matters is not really what a person does, but why he or she does them. Good deeds don't make a person good; rather, if a person has love in his or her heart, then good deeds are simply a reflection of that. If, on the other hand, the person is doing those deeds simply because he or she wants recognition or wants to fulfill some ulterior motive, then certainly, one would not say that those deeds makes the person good. Effectively, if a person does something bad, then that would cast doubt on the question of whether or not that person was truly sincere in all of the other things that he or she did.

Of course, on the other hand, if a person who has had an evil heart sincerely repents and truly wishes to do good from that point on, then a single good deed can also be a reflection of that, as well.

[QUOTE="D_Battery"]

I've always wondered about this; why does one negative action define a person? If a man is kind and righteous for the most part, but decides to steal on a whim, he is a thief. But conversely, if a cruel and malevolent man decided to do a single good deed, he would remain morally bankrupt. Should not the sum of a person's actions be taken into account? This again comes back to the tendency to oversimplify, to divide people into only two camps, good and evil.

GabuEx

What matters is not really what a person does, but why he or she does them. Good deeds don't make a person good; rather, if a person has love in his or her heart, then good deeds are simply a reflection of that. If, on the other hand, the person is doing those deeds simply because he or she wants recognition or wants to fulfill some ulterior motive, then certainly, one would not say that those deeds makes the person good. Effectively, if a person does something bad, then that would cast doubt on the question of whether or not that person was truly sincere in all of the other things that he or she did.

Of course, on the other hand, if a person who has had an evil heart sincerely repents and truly wishes to do good from that point on, then a single good deed can also be a reflection of that, as well.

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but this gets into some pretty gray territory. If a person sincerely believes that they are doing good, even if the general consensus is that they are not, is it still good? Would the actions of say someone like Heinrich Himmler be considered good if he were to believe it? Would Osama bin Laden be doing good if that he felt it was so? While I'm not asserting that I understand their reasoning, hypothetically, if they did truly think that their actions were good, would that make it so even if many people thought otherwise? I suppose this comes back to the question of just what good is.

mostly evil with some good

there was ghandi!!!

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but this gets into some pretty gray territory. If a person sincerely believes that they are doing good, even if the general consensus is that they are not, is it still good? Would the actions of say someone like Heinrich Himmler be considered good if he were to believe it? Would Osama bin Laden be doing good if that he felt it was so? While I'm not asserting that I understand their reasoning, hypothetically, if they did truly think that their actions were good, would that make it so even if many people thought otherwise? I suppose this comes back to the question of just what good is.

D_Battery

Well, I think that the questions of "what is 'good'?" and how one can reconcile two people's fundamentally different conceptions of the term are entirely different questions, and ones to which I don't have a good answer... but nonetheless, I think anyone would agree that simply doing a good act does not make someone good if it's done for tainted motives, which is what I was saying.

I certainly understand where you're coming from, but this gets into some pretty gray territory. If a person sincerely believes that they are doing good, even if the general consensus is that they are not, is it still good? Would the actions of say someone like Heinrich Himmler be considered good if he were to believe it? Would Osama bin Laden be doing good if that he felt it was so? While I'm not asserting that I understand their reasoning, hypothetically, if they did truly think that their actions were good, would that make it so even if many people thought otherwise? I suppose this comes back to the question of just what good is.D_Battery

If morality is subjective, what isn't? Cold hard facts? Or are even those only in the eye of the beholder?

If morality is subjective, what isn't? Cold hard facts? Or are even those only in the eye of the beholder?

battlefront23

[QUOTE="battlefront23"]

If morality is subjective, what isn't? Cold hard facts? Or are even those only in the eye of the beholder?

Vandalvideo