You have to be Evil to be Beneficial
- Thread starter Da Chi
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because I don't recognise that there are inherent moral laws that govern human interaction. I also think there is nothing that keeps count of "good" actions versus "bad" actions and reacts accordingly outside of the human environment. The constant changing of moral standards and the contradictory logic which arises from situations where for example: You don't steal because you don't want to be stolen from, but in the same moral system the idea can exist that selfishness is "evil" has thrown me off the idea that morality can be judged.zehydra said:
There are motivations for things that are not "morals".
Unlike natural or physical laws that are active whether we acknowledge them or not, and we "discover" them, moral laws are complete fabrication.
No action is inherently favourable over another action, no matter what the current most prominent attitude of a society is.
The universe in its entirety wouldn't be affected if you killed one human, all humans or none.
Don't get this confused with a complete lack of social law. Observed benefit is different from virtue and is the system by which I would be motivated.
If you disagree, that's fine.
Uh... haha, okay.zehydra said:
I suspect it is to differentiate between people who actually subscribe to an idea, versus those who would say they do because it may seem "radical" or "edgy".
Well, if this guy is a good role model...
<spoiler=The Aforementioned Guy>http://logout.hu/dl/upc/2009-09/57464_yagamilight.jpg
...then I would purge the world of crime and then use my Karma powers to make the world a better place.
Question: Does it have to be "eye for an eye" (e.g. I kill someone and can then only save a life as Karma balance) or may I be "eye for an ear" (e.g. I kill someone and can then feed the hungry)? 'Coz if it has to be eye for an eye, then I would probably just lock myself in my room and never take any action ever again.
<spoiler=The Aforementioned Guy>http://logout.hu/dl/upc/2009-09/57464_yagamilight.jpg
...then I would purge the world of crime and then use my Karma powers to make the world a better place.
Question: Does it have to be "eye for an eye" (e.g. I kill someone and can then only save a life as Karma balance) or may I be "eye for an ear" (e.g. I kill someone and can then feed the hungry)? 'Coz if it has to be eye for an eye, then I would probably just lock myself in my room and never take any action ever again.
I wanted to know if you good support amoralism without using the idea of "good". And you did. I have an interest in the study of morality, and I like hearing what people have to say about why they choose to be moral or to not be moral, or to be moral this way, or that way.martin said:
