Psimon Posted April 2, 2003 Report Posted April 2, 2003 I disagree that things are black and white, right or wrong, good or bad. Speaking from personal experience (as a Grey/Drow elf, Druidic demi-god of Nature, and Keeper of The Balance) I can assure you that things are most assuredly black and white, right or wrong, good or bad. It is merely, as you so eloquently put it, Ayshela, the perceptions of the individual which determines the degree (or 'shade') thereof. To quote myself, if I may... (You may) Why thank you... (You're most welcome): Good and Evil are simply two sides of the same coin and to extend that thought further: Good and Evil, Black and White, right and wrong are simply shaded facets of infinitely faceted gems that we collect each and every moment of our existence, and pass along to those we have the privilege to meet in those moments My goodness, that took a lot out of me... I think I need to lie down for a while...
HopperWolf Posted April 2, 2003 Report Posted April 2, 2003 Psimon, I think you hit it dead on. Ayshela, I think that you and actually mostly agree... I just worded my response in a confusing manner. Where we seem to differ is that I am sure that everything is in actuality black and white. Our view reveals only part of a whole, and so our perception is coloured and not entirely informed. let me give an example: (Hypothetical of course) Say that Hitler knew it was right to kill all people who did not comform to his ideal of the master race. The reasoning being for the human race to survive they must be fasioned for their own good into the ideal that could survive the aeons. By his view of the truth he was doing the right thing. However, I am sure that most people are pretty much repulsed by the idea that that is the right course of action. that each person has the right to life and the persuit of happiness, or what have you. In your view it is wrong to kill in any circumstance except possibly that of self defence. Ultimately only one of these views is right: he was either right to kill those people or he was wrong, but people's perception of the truth is coloured greatly by their own morality, based greatly on the environment where they grew up and such. People base their decisions on their morality, but if one person's morality conflicts with another's how could that work? The answer is that there must be an ultimate truth. I read in the original quote a desire to disregard the ultimate truth simply because we do not know it, and may never know it. Experts may be right or wrong, but you can't just ignore them because you don't know. you must make a choice, based on your own experiences and morality as to you opinion. The original quote seems to me to hide from the truth. To each his own, because who knows who's right? The consequences of such a stance are obvious. Where does it stop? Do you let the murderer about his business simply because he MAY be right to do it? Or, do you stop him. Drawing the line and saying, "No, that's wrong." It is a problem that seems to plague society ever more lately. Look at western politics and they are clearly visible. We have to come to our own conclusions, ever concious that there is an ultimate truth. To disregard the idea of ultimate truth completely would mean that there would be no basis for any moral code. Every subjective view would be just as valid as any other and so the world would fall to chaos.
The Big Pointy One Posted April 2, 2003 Report Posted April 2, 2003 There are exceptions to every rule... ...so not *everything* can be set as black or white. Donnie Darko anyone?
HopperWolf Posted April 2, 2003 Report Posted April 2, 2003 I said nothing about rules. each case is individual. Though I guess instead of saying right or wrong, i should better say true or false.
Seii Posted April 2, 2003 Report Posted April 2, 2003 "To make no choice is a choice in itself" and "If you have an opinion, there must be a truth to base it on"
The Big Pointy One Posted April 3, 2003 Report Posted April 3, 2003 Hopper- I meant my comment as no argument, and I agree, at least about the part on each case is individual ^.^
Archaneus Posted April 3, 2003 Report Posted April 3, 2003 (edited) I'm not sure if this is exactly what you all have been talking about but simply put, right and wrong are relative. On a side note, Donnie Darko is an awesome movie Edited April 3, 2003 by Archaneus
Jareena Faye Posted April 3, 2003 Report Posted April 3, 2003 Excuse my narrow-mindedness here. I'm not trying to offend or anger anyone. But I've read a lot on this subject, and I think this theory is a very dangerous one. If any of this makes you upset, just don't read/reply to this post. "Apart from consciousness, no absolute truths exists." So you're saying there's no right and wrong, no you, no me, no anything? To say that there was would be saying they are absolutes. The thought doesn't exactly fill one with hope. If you came upon some one trying to commit suicide, would this theory give them anything to live for? "False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view wrong. It is delight in their dearly held opinions that makes them assert that anyone who disagrees is bound to come to a bad end." It was pretty clever to say that just after the last statement, because it claims that anyone (like me) who disagrees is not only stuck-up, but expects you all to burn in Hell. I do not. But how can Buddha claim my reasoning is false, when there are no absolutes? Is he saying I'm WRONG? I thought wrong didn't exist. "But no true seeker becomes embroiled in all this. Pass by peacefully and go a stainless way, free from theories, lusts and dogmas." Passing by peacefully sounds nice, and believe it or not I do that often. But it is impossible not to have a "dogma" or sorts. You have an opinion, I have an opinion. No matter what it is, we all believe something. (If you say "I do not believe in God," that could be translated as saying "I BELIEVE there is no God.") There are no unbiased opinions. To be "free from theories, lusts and dogmas" is to not be human. Sounds more like a computer to me. The same goes with being stainless. Buddha was all for peace and that's great. But that doesn't mean he was right about everything.
HopperWolf Posted April 3, 2003 Report Posted April 3, 2003 BPS *sheepish look* sorry. don't mean to bite. was just feeling the rage! Jareena - right on
Ayshela Posted April 3, 2003 Report Posted April 3, 2003 Well, HopperWolf, i'm not so sure we don't *both* agree and disagree, a bit. You are convinced that things assuredly are black and white, right or wrong, true or false, if i read your post correctly? Actually, i don't dispute the existence of black or white, right or wrong, true or false. What i disagree with is the stand that that is all there is - that something is either completely right or completely wrong, completely true or completely false. i very deeply believe that there is a whole range of partials in between each extreme. i equally believe that people would get along a lot better if they allowed others to be partially right as well, rather than standing firmly in their own rightness and everyone else's wrongness. Taking your example of Hitler: Hitler may very well have believed that he had a right, in the name of perfection of the species or whatever, to imprison and/or kill anyone who did not meet his standards or who opposed him. There were many who supported him in his belief, to one extent or another. There were many who opposed him, for probably a small multitude of reasons. Who was right? Who was wrong? Personally, i tend toward the belief that the most right/good causes the least pain, which i realize may not be the most popular view. On that basis, Hitler was most definitely wrong because he caused a great deal of pain and terror to a great number of people. On the other hand, how many times has the average person wished the gene pool could have a little chlorine? What Hitler did, how he went about what he did, is the stuff of lengthier and headier debates than we're probably prepared to get into here and somewhat a tangent to the subject anyway. Using your example, though, even Hitler cannot be proven to be completely evil, completely wrong, completely black in a world of black and white. Black and white certainly exist. So do a wealth of shades between. Right and wrong exist. So do partial states - more right than wrong, more wrong than right.. and our interpretation of those partials is based on our perception of part of a fundamental truth. If we perceive fundamental truths incompletely, unclearly, and from different perspectives, how much more incomplete and different will be everthing we base upon that perception? And i'm out of time, have to dash out the door in ten seconds. Probably just as well. Just time to add the usual disclaimer - i speak only of my own views, of which you are free to accept, reject, or completely disregard.
HopperWolf Posted April 3, 2003 Report Posted April 3, 2003 I think reality is composed by many layers. The further ytou get from the core fundamentals the more "shades" there are. As there is more room for interpretation with subjective views the spectrum opens right up. and in that I do agree with what you say. However, my belief is that ultimately there is only one truth. Either something is true or it is not true. The universe, for all intent and pruposes, can be split into those two catagories. Now, if it is not true, then a whole universe of choices open up, but each one boils to to "true or not true". Simply put, either Hitler was right to kill those people or he was not. It doesn't matter what people think, it is a simple fact. Beyond that there are people. each with their own subjective opinions, each probably differing in some way from everyone else's. That is where your shades come in. But it remains that opinion does not affect to state of reality. As to your comment on least harm being right, well, that opens up the whole good vs evil debate which I have spent so long studying that my head hurts. Though I will give an example: You are house training a puppy and he pees in the house. do you smack him and put him out for a nour, the night, however long.... in other words, punish him, or do you do nothing (causing less harm to the puppy) and let him do it again and again? Perhaps it is for the greater good to punish the puppy so that he relates peeing in the house to something bad and so does not do it again. In the same way perhaps Hitler was serving the greater good in killing mere millions in order to save billions. In which case Hitler was perhaps not so most definitely wrong. There are things which we do not know, these ultimate truths, that affect us and we may never know them, but we should be aware of them.
Archaneus Posted April 4, 2003 Report Posted April 4, 2003 I didn't really go into detail on what I thought about this the first time so here goes. Right and wrong and creations of the ruling class to regulate societies actions. This was especially strong back in the middle ages when the Christian church was the true ruler of the European world. There definitely are things that are true and things that are incorrect, but I do not believe that you can say, for example, cloning is wrong because god made us and we are special simple because that is a view feeding off your own ideas and concepts which were told to you to regulate your actions and keep you in a moral guideline. I know most people don't think of it like this but this is how I think of it. What I am simply saying is there are facts such as a statistic is a fact so there is a true and a incorrect, but there is no such thing as riht and wrong except for the moral guidelines we and societies holds us to.
Ayshela Posted April 4, 2003 Report Posted April 4, 2003 "most right/good causing least pain" does definitely have to take into account short term pain vs. long term pain, i agree. if my child has a splinter in his/her hand and i refuse to remove it because it will cause pain, i am in fact doing wrong by my child because that splinter will fester and cause a greater degree of pain over a longer period of time. something like that is pretty clear. similarly enforcement of rules/training, though in most cases such guidance can be done with little to no *physical* pain (which gets into a whole other discussion defining pain, which i think i won't get into now). i agree that there are fundamental truths of the nature of "is this true or isn't it" or "does this exist or doesn't it" but i think the fundamental, universal "is this true or isn't it" category of truth is both smaller than people tend to think, and harder to define accurately and exactly (which is precisely why we run into such trouble with conflicting beliefs). Simply put - how did the universe come into being? i don't know, i wasn't there. Does God exist? i don't *know* with a sure knowledge one way or the other, much less in what form such existence may take. What is morally Right and morally Wrong? That gets into a whole sticky mess because it depends on so much which cannot be proven, and unfortunately tends to be intolerant of other viewpoints. Returning to the original quote and point, once more - while i don't entirely agree with the quote i did and do appreciate the encouragement to "pass by peacefully" and allow others their beliefs, whether you agree with them or not. In my own personal and biased opinion, our world as a whole, as well as individually, could do well with a bit more such tolerance and respect.
Jareena Faye Posted April 4, 2003 Report Posted April 4, 2003 Well, I like to say that the "gray" areas aren't neutral/both right and wrong, they're simply hard to discern. And sometimes a person can be right about one thing and wrong about another. (Like I said about Buddha.) But there most assuredly are absolutes. And if there aren't, we have to believe in them anyway, or life is pointless.
HopperWolf Posted April 4, 2003 Report Posted April 4, 2003 Again Jareena, dead on again. (I thinnk you're better at this getting ideas across than me ) Ayshela, I agree that our society could do with a bit more tolerence and understanding as a whole, though in some areas I would say that there is possibly too much, the results of not knowing where to draw the line. However, I still disagree. I think there are even absolutes in the moral world, like "it is right to kill this person or it is not right to kill this person" And yet opinion and subjectivity is just about the only thing we can actually base our opinions on, and in the end that's where we must draw them from. But we must always be aware of the ultimate truth, if only so we can have that greater understanding you want. The ability to say "I could be wrong, you could be right." But that's not a rule to apply to every situation because, like i said before, it would breed chaos. Arch, yes, morality is a product largly of our social upbringing, but if we did not have that, what would we have? would we have any inhibitions at all? look again at the example of the puppy in my previous post. I he was not conditioned, would he know any boundries? He would pee where he liked in the house, bite who he pleased, eat until he could eat no more and his teeth rotted. Morality of the socially enforced kind may be just what we need to survive as a society together. As to your believe that you can't say cloning is wrong simply because God creates us individual (for example) I woud say that i's entirely subjective. However, cloning is either right or it is not. That is the unalterable fact. our justifications are something else entirely. I would want more reasoning than I have had thus far to endorse cloning, but I still don't think it is necessarily wrong. I err on the side of caution, if you will.
Jareena Faye Posted April 4, 2003 Report Posted April 4, 2003 (edited) I agree that our society could do with a bit more tolerence and understanding as a whole, though in some areas I would say that there is possibly too much, the results of not knowing where to draw the line.Exactly. As for cloning, even if you could say it's not scientifically wrong, I fancy the clone would have a severe identity crisis. "So you don't love me... you just loved the person I was cloned from, and you wanted them back?" "So God didn't make me... does that mean I have a soul?" "DID God make me?" I suppose that's off-subject, though. Edited April 4, 2003 by Jareena Faye
HopperWolf Posted April 4, 2003 Report Posted April 4, 2003 It may be off subject, but I like yer thinking have to agree.
Archaneus Posted April 4, 2003 Report Posted April 4, 2003 Hehehe. It seems as if the little conversation about good and evil has evolved into a debate about cloning. We're good. lol
The Big Pointy One Posted April 5, 2003 Report Posted April 5, 2003 Yeah, the identity part of a clone would be messed up. Not good at all. However, I'm all for brain-less body harvesting... it seems evil, or like playing god, but I think it's all for the better, personally. ~Stick shrugs~
Archaneus Posted April 5, 2003 Report Posted April 5, 2003 I think cloning in general is a great idea for that very purpose. It would open avenues of testing. If you wanted to study how a certain disease affects a liver you just clone a liver and use it in your test.
Jareena Faye Posted April 5, 2003 Report Posted April 5, 2003 *thoughtful nod* Sounds better than using abortion fetuses.
Psimon Posted April 5, 2003 Report Posted April 5, 2003 Speaking as one who is 'missing' half of my 'identity' (I do not know, and almost certainly will never know, who my natural father is/was) I think cloning of whole human beings is wrong on just so many levels. The gaping hole that opens under me at times when I try to understand what part of me is my father, and having no idea who he is, where he is, what he is like, what I *may* look like as I grow older, what he may have been able to pass on to me by way of family history, cultural identity (I *do* know that he was British, just like my adopted-father (is that the right term? *shrugs*)) and so much more that a father bequeaths to a son; and knowing that still, I am a unique individual (I believe created by God)... That anguish must be as nothing to someone who has no father or mother (in *any* sense of the terms), but is the result of a sterile injection of combined DNA in a lab somewhere... and is not unique, but a carbon copy (mutations notwithstanding)... *shudders* As Princess Bun-Head put it in Thumb-Wars... "Bad is Bad, Good is Good... Your badness will be your undoing, while our goodness will be our triumph... Bad, bad... Good, good... bad...[etc etc]" Live long and prosper... "The Force is like duct tape.... It has a Light side and a Dark side, and it binds the universe together" (or something like that!)
Jareena Faye Posted April 5, 2003 Report Posted April 5, 2003 Well said, my friend. And if God made you, then God is your father, and He has great things to pass on to you.
HopperWolf Posted April 5, 2003 Report Posted April 5, 2003 Well said the both of you. (Psi and Jareena) As to Arch's point (Just cos I like to be contradictory with you, my friend) would it really open up an avenue of testing better than present? they wouldn't be brainless bodies - being the clone of an individual would include the brain probably. but more than that, in religious aspects they may not be vacuous either. If we all have souls at conception/birth/somewhere between, then perhaps a clone would posses his own unique soul. (And Arch! Perhaps there is your "self" that makes you unique and truely you despite your upbringing) But then, maybe if they just clone an arm or something.... still, creepy.
The Big Pointy One Posted April 5, 2003 Report Posted April 5, 2003 But that's just the thing- I believe they are working on cloning body part, sans brain. I believe this is dubbed "Organ Harvesting." There are issues with cloning humans with a brain, as ever-so-delightfully pointed out above, but I re-iterate (not as if there's much argument so far) that there doesn't seem like there's much wrong with creating lumps of flesh for our benefit... On a side note, one would have to think that cloning would really deal with the individual. For example, if I had the notion that I would could live happily knowing that I wasn't the real me, or something like that, it would be fine for me to be cloned, would it not? I'd probably want another of me to hang around, and keep entertained. I think if cloning ever gets certified, it'd all have to be consentual. I'm sure there's some people who wouldn't mind having a clone. It's not like everyone on the planet would have to be cloned or anything.
Recommended Posts