168 réponses à ce sujet

[Maria Caliban]

The question is in the title. I'll open this one with a definition of good and we'll see how it goes from there.

A good act is one designed to benefit others while doing the least harm necessary. Good cannot be accidental or the product of ignorance; it can only arise from an informed choice. Both benefit and harm can happen on a number of different levels, emotional, physical, or something even more abstract like ‘human dignity.’

If an action (and speech is a form of action in this definition) is not good, that does not mean it is bad.

[the_one_54321]

i mostly agree with your definition.



i wrote a whole essay on this a while back, whilst dissecting the D&D alignment system unfortunately it is on my computer at home, and i'm going to be at work for a while.



basically i started with stated definitions of certain words out of websters and i built up a definition of good starting with those as building blocks. i'll try and post the relevant parts later tonight.

[flem1]

Wrong!



To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women.

[the_one_54321]

flem1 wrote...

Wrong!

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of the women.

Winner. 

[Mystranna Kelteel]

@flem:

Most people who do wrong/evil usually think they are doing good. Usually for themselves...

That statement can only be considered good from one particular point of view: yours.

Hence, I argue it is not good.

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 26 octobre 2009 - 05:02 .

[flem1]

facepalm

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

@flem:

Most people who do wrong/evil usually think they are doing good. Usually for themselves...

That statement can only be considered good from one particular point of view: yours.

Hence, I argue it is not good.

maybe you missed the joke? 

or maybe you're taking the joke and putting a serious slant on it so as to make a greater point?

[Deviija]

I am good at being bad.

[Stebenator]

Destroy and sing:





I hate to be in love



I don´t like being fine



When I´m at worst



Is when I really feel alive



And I can´t stand to see



You happy people smile



Cause I´m a killer



I would love to make you cry







Bring Me Everyone



I need to hurt someone



I´ll give you love, then I turn you down



My work here, it´s done







They say I´m psycho



And should be put behind bars



That I am damaged



And my soul is full of scars



You shiny people



You should never come this far



Cause I´m a killer



I got murder in my heart







Bring Me Everyone...





Ringing bells in the sky



Is this the bringer of light



No, you fools, it is I



Run for cover or die

[Mystranna Kelteel]

I didn't miss the joke, the_one.



I was showing why it wasn't a particularly good joke by explaining it.

[Nighteye2]

Well, good is any act that is in balance with nature. An act that does not endanger the continued existence of any species, or even repairs damage previously done by helping an endangered species return from the brink of extinction. Doing good is acting with the intent of improving the quality of life, not just of humans, but of all living things.

[prazzo]

good is abstract. Good for one may not be good for two. So confucious say!!

[the_one_54321]

prazzo wrote...

good is abstract. Good for one may not be good for two. So confucious say!!

i think that's a fairly different application of good that you're talking about.

and this is something else really central to this topic.

what application of  "good" are we talking about here? 

quality?

nature?

value?

[Maria Caliban]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

I didn't miss the joke, the_one.

I was showing why it wasn't a particularly good joke by explaining it.

That joke didn't benefit the topic, but did it unnecessary harm?

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Did it have to do unnecessary for harm for me to respond to it?



Did my response do unnecessary harm?

[prazzo]

cannot really be defined by these parameters.We know what is good.I guess value is good shout

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Did my response do unnecessary harm?

i think it hurt flem's feelings.

[Maria Caliban]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
Did it have to do unnecessary for harm for me to respond to it?

No. Unless you have some personal criteria for responding that I'm ignorant of.

Did my response do unnecessary harm?

You may have cause flem emotional harm, but your post benefited my topic.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

the_one_54321 wrote...

i think it hurt flem's feelings.

Not likely, considering his "/facepalm" response linking the video he was quoting.

I had not seen the movie, so I doubt he was upset in any way personally, aside from maybe pitying me (or something similar) for not recognizing it as a quote.

I could argue that the "/facepalm" comment did more harm by insulting me and implying that I should have seen and recognized a movie that I would never watch.

[Davitto]

no news, is good news. Discuss >.<

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
I could argue that the "/facepalm" comment did more harm by insulting me and implying that I should have seen and recognized a movie that I would never watch.

you could argue a lot of things. we could argue that it was "not good" that you didnt recognize such a well known quote. and you could argue otherwise. the arguing is a big part of the point of this, i think. and given that, is arguing "not good?"

[Mystranna Kelteel]

That's my point as well. Is it a good thing that he "facepalmed" himself in that he was "enlightening me" to what I consider a particularly bad movie quote? All knowledge may be worth having in the end, and if someone quotes it again I'll likely remember, which may or may not be good.

Or, was it not good in that it could have been interpreted as condescending? Was it both? Was it neither? Is it all hypothetical? Is "good" always this subjective?

Modifié par Mystranna Kelteel, 26 octobre 2009 - 05:43 .

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...
we could argue that it was "not good" that you didnt recognize such a well known quote.

It's not good. It's also not good if she did recognize the quote. Recognizing a quote is about as morally neutral as picking one's nose.

the_one_54321 wrote...
the arguing is a big part of the point of this, i think.

What are defining as 'this?' If you mean your conversation with Mystranna Kelteel, that's up to you. If you mean the thread, the point of the thread is to prompt ideas and discussion. Some people consider discussion a war and others consider it a dance.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 26 octobre 2009 - 05:47 .

[the_one_54321]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...
Is "good" always this subjective?

Personally, I don’t think so. I am a heavy supporter of
objective absolutism. But it means that you have to define things clearly. And
you aren’t allowed to change those definitions arbitrarily. It runs into
trouble based on people's tendency to disagree and to dismiss what they
disagree with. I tend to believe that “everything is subjective” is just a very
poor catch-all excuse used when someone cannot be bothered to put the necessary
analysis into finding out what is correct and what is incorrect. Or when
someone simply wants to make the argument go away since they are wrong.