Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Objective Universal definition of Good and Evil

Cock said:
Shantaram
Click to expand...

I read the wiki article on that.. is the story set in 1979? The idea of an evolving universe, one that is becoming more complex, probably doesn't take into account that the universe is accelerating. I don't remember when scientists started saying the universe was expanding, but it was probably after 1979.
 
the only thing i can get a sense of as far as time line goes (so far...I'm still reading) is that at one point he goes to Afghanistan to help fight against Russia. While he is in Afghanistan, the US finally provides Stinger Missile launchers to the Afghans. That happened in 1985-1986. This is toward the end of the book, so it may be that the story starts in 1979.....

Why would the expanding universe have an effect on the complexity of organized beings or bodies within it?
 
Skinner Box Theory in reverse perhaps? The more space a being has the more exalted he becomes?

Also, good and evil are different vibrations of the same emotion. Love.
 
Evil is a point of view. God kills indiscriminately and so shall we. For no creatures under God are as we are, none so like him as ourselves.
 
I wish i knew who all the duals belonged to. that way I could take a post like that last one seriously, and talk to that person as if they were a whole being, not just a facet of someone that is just dicking around being glib.
 
Cock said:
the only thing i can get a sense of as far as time line goes (so far...I'm still reading) is that at one point he goes to Afghanistan to help fight against Russia. While he is in Afghanistan, the US finally provides Stinger Missile launchers to the Afghans. That happened in 1985-1986. This is toward the end of the book, so it may be that the story starts in 1979.....

Why would the expanding universe have an effect on the complexity of organized beings or bodies within it?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't, but I thought you were talking about the universe evolving into something more complex. Well.. eventually the expanding universe would effect the complexity of organized beings because if that theory is true the universe will sort of die, at least as far as we are concerned. One theory even has the atoms coming apart.
 
So it's a race to achieve ultimate complexity before the universe fizzles out, then?
 
Good and evil don't exist as concepts independent of observation, and even the act of observation impacts them. So no, there's no way to reliably "measure" good and evil.
 
Even further, a thing cannot be objectively measured if you must first identify it. To name a thing "good" or "evil" instantly subjectifies it according to the opinions of the one doing the labelling. Even in cases where there is overwhelming consensus, a subjective definition will never be absolute.
 
OK, I'll take a crack at this.

Good and evil can be measured objectively. The duality of man elicits an emotional response of hatred/sadness or love/happiness. What you can do is measure how large of a response each one would produce. Generally, the architects of the United States Declaration of Independence were on the right track. I'll boil it down to the most pertinent sentence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Pay attention to the underlined phrase. What they were saying is that anyone who fosters these rights is "good". Anyone who hinders or otherwise removes any of those three rights is "evil".

Is that objective and concise enough?
 
Donovan said:
Even further, a thing cannot be objectively measured if you must first identify it. To name a thing "good" or "evil" instantly subjectifies it according to the opinions of the one doing the labelling. Even in cases where there is overwhelming consensus, a subjective definition will never be absolute.
Click to expand...

You're saying that the act of measuring the good or evil removes the objectivity, and makes it subjective by definition? This is because the measuring standard or 'ruler' is non objective.

is there an objective ruler out there?

That's what that Complexity Theory attempts. A thing is either more complex, or less.... that is objective. If you define good as more complex, and evil as less....than you can assign accurate values to an impetus that affect us in either direction.
 
DarthSikle said:
Ummm. It is easy:

Carebears = Good
Dracula = Evil
Click to expand...

Oh, really?


6926f608.jpg




buffy13-003.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top