Tascar Posted June 18, 2004 Report Posted June 18, 2004 As I was listening to the presentation of the Clinton's portraits at the White House, I heard Bill Clinton say this "hopefully we can return to a nation where debate is about what is right or wrong, and not good or bad". This came to my attention as I considered the grounds for action in the middle east, as well as, simple debates here in the homeland about things such as abortion, !@#$%^&*isted suicide, media rights, etc. When I think about that phrase, it seemed easy for me to understand two things: first, that there is a substantial and liberatarian difference between what is right and what is good. Second, I was somewhat challenged to consider the republican view upon Christian influence in our society - which leads to the conflict between those two things - what is right - and what is good. So - can you for debate sake, present a view that you support, which can be swayed by the argument of right vs. good? Mine would be this: in Christianity, many legal rights in America can be considered contrary to Biblical beliefs. However, I believe that what is right in America, is to support freedom for each and every person to choose. I believe what is good in Christianity, is to choose the firm statements of the Bible - which would be considered Good. (or Bad, depending on your own beliefs) If this was simply boring you to death, sorry! haha
A Soldier Posted June 18, 2004 Report Posted June 18, 2004 Nice post.The big problem today is that there is no "universal" way of acting good (or right) or bad. Society set up values that are accepted by a majority and people who don't follow them are most of the time considered marginals.
Yupa Posted June 18, 2004 Report Posted June 18, 2004 if you can separate "right" and "good", I don't want you in government
Tascar Posted June 19, 2004 Author Report Posted June 19, 2004 There is a substantial difference between the two. Here's an example: There is a house for sale in an all white neighborhood. Two buyers are considering the house, and both have the money to buy the house. One buyer is Chinese, the other is white. The seller, having considered the neighborhood, believes that it would be "good" to sell to the white buyer because the neighborhood is all white. However, that is not right. It is very wrong. The Chinese buyer might be a perfect match for the neighborhood, a kindly person, and well suited. But because the seller thinks it's "good" to put a white buyer in the neighborhood, the Chinese buyer is left out. Good - is very cir-*BAD WORD*-stantial Put this on a national level. Corporations make decisions all the time about who they will hire. When it comes to race/creed/ethics they cannot filter out candidates, however they can discriminate for education. Is that right? It might be good for "good ol boys" club in the corporation, but it disqualifies many well qualified and experienced candidates from getting a great job.
Yupa Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 there is no difference, you're talking semantics there is one right way the difference between what is right and what might make 90% of whoever is involved (ie, the -*BAD WORD*-ing stupid!@#$%^&* ignorant biased -*BAD WORD*-ers of the world) happy - yes, that is far out
Dr Brain Posted June 20, 2004 Report Posted June 20, 2004 The problem with the world today is people redefining right and good. Political correctness is basicly just redefining what is good. The knowlege of right and wrong is something every human has... it's just there. People can make all the excuses and rationalizations they want. Something that is wrong is still wrong. You can debate it until you're blue in the face, and the truth is still there, unchanged. As for right and good... Right is the moral course of action. Good is a property something that is right has. Seperate them, and you're redefining them.
MonteZuma Posted June 24, 2004 Report Posted June 24, 2004 My essay on the matter: Yes. Whether something can be right and bad or wrong and good is interesting from a philosophical perspective. The direction that this kind of debate takes depends very much on your definitions. Perhaps 'good and bad' are based on personal perspectives and 'right and wrong' refer to society as a whole? Or maybe it is sometimes based on timeframes? Short term 'good' and long term 'right'?. Or maybe the two really are inseperable? Dunno. If there is no agreement on definitions we could argue about this indefinitely. Debate about right and wrong / good and bad is important in a democracy. People redefine what is right and good all the time - and so they should. If we didn't change our minds about what is right and wrong we would still be burning 'witches' at the stake, enslaving Africans and appeasing the nazi party (for example). There certainly is not only one "right way". Sometimes decision-makers (including governments) need to make decisions without perfect information. I don't think that every human has a knowledge of right and wrong. I still don't know if it was right to invade Iraq. In business, there are strategies for dealing with this kind of uncertainty. One strategy is adaptive management. The term isn't often used by politicians in relation to social and military matters because it implies that governments (and military) don't have perfect information and that their decisions might eventually be regarded as 'wrong'. No government wants to admit that they don't know what to do. The world would be a better place if politicians were able to admit that they didnt know what to do and that their decision was a management 'experiment'. But people aren't ready for this kind of honesty from governments yet. People mistakenly think that if governments don't have perfect information, or the knowledge and wisdom to act on information, then they have failed in their duty. This isn't always the case. I would also argue that there is no absolute 'truth'. Claiming that there is an absolute truth is unhealthy. We need to be tolerant of other peoples beliefs and value systems. What is true to one person or group is not always true to another. Is this topic boring? Is an air temperature of 17degC warm or cool? Should you postpone your barbeque if the probability of rain is 70%? Should we postpone our invasion of Iraq until after the weapons inspectors say thay are done?The "answer" to many questions depends on the context. Even when the same information is available to all affected parties, there is still no absolute truth. A$0.02
Tascar Posted June 24, 2004 Author Report Posted June 24, 2004 Thanks Mont - finally a cognative thought on the matter.
Dr.Worthless Posted June 24, 2004 Report Posted June 24, 2004 I would also argue that there is no absolute 'truth'. OMG, Plato would so kick your -*BAD WORD*- if he was still alive. Worthless
MonteZuma Posted June 24, 2004 Report Posted June 24, 2004 Many ancient and modern philosophers have kicked Plato's -*BAD WORD*-, starting with Aristotle. Plato's views on the 'perfect' political system are almost laughable. In fact almost any high school student with a little bit of political science knowledge can kick his -*BAD WORD*-.
Dr.Worthless Posted June 24, 2004 Report Posted June 24, 2004 The comment was in response to "absolute truths", not plato's political opinions. Wowza
MonteZuma Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 The comment was in response to "absolute truths", not plato's political opinions. WowzaPlato had a lot to say about Truth and politics. He thought that philosophers were the ideal rulers in a society because only they are capable of knowing the 'absolute truth'. IMO he was wrong. You can't reasonably seperate Plato's political opinions from his philosophical views. Why would you want to in a political forum?
Dr.Worthless Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 1.) because I can2.) I only type out long responses in message boards when I'm drunk.3.) I have a PhD in worthless. Yep
Aileron Posted June 25, 2004 Report Posted June 25, 2004 Well, in my opinion, governments should seek what is good, whether or not it is right. It is more the role of Religious and Charity organizations to pursue what is right.
MonteZuma Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 1.) because I can2.) I only type out long responses in message boards when I'm drunk.3.) I have a PhD in worthless. YepAnd you only type short ones when you are stoned?
MonteZuma Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 Well, in my opinion, governments should seek what is good, whether or not it is right. It is more the role of Religious and Charity organizations to pursue what is right.What is the difference between 'good' and 'right'?
Yupa Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 What is the difference between 'good' and 'right'?exactly - this thread is stupid
Tascar Posted June 28, 2004 Author Report Posted June 28, 2004 It's understandable that someone could debate any topic. However, simply denying debate is indicative of your lack of intellect. We're here to debate fellas, open your minds if that's possible.
Yupa Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 It's understandable that someone could debate any topic. However, simply denying debate is indicative of your lack of intellect. We're here to debate fellas, open your minds if that's possible. now you're stupid
Aileron Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 Akai, the serious point of this forum is to debate. Debating in a place designated for the purpose is in no way stupid. Going into a forum designated for debate and saying that debating in a forum that is designated for debate is stupid, is stupid.
»SD>Big Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 that's not akai. it's someone elsenope, that's akai, who is now suse. what makes you think it isn't him. there's someone in MG who suse gave the name Akai to, so if that's what confused you, problem solved!
Yupa Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 Akai, the serious point of this forum is to debate. Debating in a place designated for the purpose is in no way stupid.the forum is not "designed" for debatingeven if you meant this thread and not the forum, even if you were right about the forum - I'd STILL be debating; if you think otherwise, you need to take a visit to dicitonary.comGoing into a forum designated for debate and saying that debating in a forum that is designated for debate is stupid, is stupid.I agree, that sounds like it could be stupid - did that happen? No (not here anyways).that's not akai. it's someone elseit is - I'm sorry if I just call something "stupid" instead of "indicative of lack of intellect", I guess my version is flaming and yours is "debate"? I think you may be spending too much time on this forum. Anyways, carry on with whatever it is you're so gloriously debating about, I won't be coming back to this thread so enjoy.
Tascar Posted June 28, 2004 Author Report Posted June 28, 2004 I spoke to akai today and asked him if he was SuSE posting on the forum. He clearly indicated that he was not. So SuSE is someone 'claiming' to be who he is not apparenty...or akai is screwing around for whatever reason. the forum is not "designed" for debatinglol....i suppose you would like to debate that. haha
»SD>Big Posted June 28, 2004 Report Posted June 28, 2004 I spoke to akai today and asked him if he was SuSE posting on the forum. He clearly indicated that he was not. So SuSE is someone 'claiming' to be who he is not apparenty...or akai is screwing around for whatever reason. the forum is not "designed" for debatinglol....i suppose you would like to debate that. haha i'm starting to question your ability to read english. SuSE IS AKAI! he GAVE his akai nick to some dude in MG, the person you most likely were speaking to. but of course, you're not going to believe me, cause you seemed conviced he isn't akai sooooooooo why don't you click the members tab up top, sort by member status, choose forum admins, and boom, you'll notice there is no Akai on the list, but there is a SuSE. OMG CONSPIRACY ALIEN PLOT POD PERSON.
Recommended Posts