Like us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter! Celebrate another year with MH and read our yearbook.
Manga News: Check out this week's new manga (7/21/14 - 7/27/14).
Forum News: Visit new sections for Nisekoi and Kingdom!
First of all, I have to say: that is an attitude I admire. Blind zealotry is never good thing, and I'm glad you do not part of that.Quote:
When I say "there is no good or evil", I say every single action out there has a rational reason behind it. For example: a serial killer might kill people because it makes him feel good. Not because "he is evil", not because "it's his nature". Saying "he is evil" would imply that "nothing can be done about it". Either it's his genes (in which case serial killing can be "cured"), or in some part of his life the pattern of thoughts went wrong (in which case they can be reversed too, or at least prevented beforehand). But me saying this does not mean we should let this serial killer go loose. We should apprehend him, put into trial and jail.
Someone robs a store to get medicine for his dying mother, or to get some food to eat (or some indirect version of this, like robbing something and then selling it). It's clear to see the reasons for this behaviour. He is out of options for surviving, and so only thing left that he can or knows to do is to do criminal activities. I'm not saying he should go free, or that he should be allowed to continue criminal activities. The robber should be apprehended and convicted. What I'm saying is, if you want to solve the core problem, you have to give people like these some alternative, better ways to survive in the world (ones that do not hurt "the honest working people", of course. I'm not saying "we should carry him with us", I'm saying "teach him to build himself a walking stick to help with the limping foot").
See what I'm getting at? In my opinion saying someone is "good" or "evil" would be implying that their actions are laws of nature, like gravity. When I say "it's all about perception" I mean that behind every action there is a rational reason, or some kind of logic. Saying it's "good" or "evil" is like saying "nothing can be done about it". So when I say there is no "good" or "evil", and that "it's all matter of perspective", I do not mean everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want.
Oh, and I do not blindly follow/believe/bow to some quotes from persons. I want reason and logic to back up claims. I know for example the reasons and logics why I should follow and obey the laws of my country.
Last edited by The Closet Pervert; November 30, 2009 at 09:42 PM.
Just one last extension before I sign off:
I think some people are confused between beliefs and truths. There are differences between the two. One needs to recognize the difference between beliefs and truths. What people believe is not what is important.
People have different beliefs about things all the time, but what matters is which beliefs are true. Take an example about two people who believed different things about there being life on Mars. Both people cannot be right. Either there is life on Mars or there is not. Those are two different beliefs, but only one is true. The same argument applies to cultural and moral relativism. While different cultures believe different things, the fact that they have these beliefs does not result in truth. Either one is and the other is not, or they both are not true.
We cannot simply say that truths (about right and wrong) are relative to our own perceptions and they are subjective to the opinions of everybody.
There are universal truths about right and wrong. People's perceptions cannot change them. That's why there is such a thing as 'seeking the truth'.
Of course, everybody makes mistakes. If somebody steals something, he can still repent his actions. If he does that, then it's good. I think a person has chances to atone his/her mistakes until his death. Just because of one single evil action/mistake, a person cannot be condemned as somebody 'evil' forever. The feelings of 'guilt' and 'repentance' show that there are such things as absolute/universal right and wrong.
Last edited by maaghms; November 30, 2009 at 09:45 PM.
When was this argument about whether there can be several truths or not. Yes there can be only one truth.
You are the one who confuses "being right or wrong" with "facts". One hour has 60 minutes. That is a fact (when following our definition of time). One minute has 60 seconds. That is a fact (when following our definition of time). A person committing a robbery violates the current laws of this country. That is a fact (if the laws of the country support it).
"He is evil" is NOT a fact. "He is good" is NOT a fact. For example, these "big brother" systems that bigger countries have. These systems being "right" is NOT a fact. The systems are tools that anyone can use. "Slavery is wrong". That is NOT a fact.
That sounds awfully like pet animals people have, or animals people use for work. Why is this form of slavery NOT wrong? "Because the animals can't think, they are lesser beings".Quote:
See? Slavery being "wrong" is not a FACT. Slavery being "wrong" highly depends on the situation and place. Is it against laws to hold someone captive against their will? Yes. Do I agree with this law? Yes. But that does not mean that the concept of "slavery" being "wrong" is a FACT. Because it isn't.
So yes, I say do not confuse personal beliefs with FACTS or TRUTHS.
So yes, I say do not confuse personal beliefs of the general community with FACTS or TRUTHS
Last edited by The Closet Pervert; November 30, 2009 at 10:19 PM.
Did I ever mention about 'facts' in my posts? Where did you get the term 'facts'? You are confusing the terms 'truths' and 'facts'!
'Truths' are not the same as 'facts'. Facts are theories that have been consistently and systematically proven by observations.
So facts are based on perception.
TRUTH is not.
For example, it is fact (according to scientists) that UFO's don't exist...but is that really the TRUTH? Even the so-called 'facts' can be changed. In the old days, people believed that it was a fact that the Earth was flat. Yes, according to them, it was a fact. But that fact is not the truth. Now, we have the new fact that Earth is not flat. Get it?
In the rest of your post, you were talking about facts. Thus, everything you said is irrelevant to the current discussion due to your misunderstanding of the difference between 'truths' and 'facts'.Quote:
And yes there is a relationship between 'truths' and 'being right and wrong'. You brought the term 'facts' from nowhere and started this senseless discussion.
Thank you. You have concluded the whole discussion. Truth is not based on perception. Being 'right or wrong' is not relative and not based on perception.
Truth and facts are not the same thing. We speak of whether a fact is true or not. If they were the same thing, we wouldn't speak that way. There can be true facts and there can be false facts.
Last edited by maaghms; November 30, 2009 at 10:34 PM.
Also we must be very careful to not make baseless claims of "truth" based on other claims of "truth".
If we assume that our current knowledge is the absolute. When it was proven that earth is not flat, we found out that "earth is flat" wasn't a fact after all. It was a false assumption.Quote:
So when we observe something we make assumptions of how things work. Even if our assumptions seem to be right and general public accepts them, it doesn't make those assumptions facts.
Neither is based on perception. When something is a fact, it's a fact, and there can be only one fact just like there can be only one truth. If there are two conflicting "facts" then we are not talking about facts at all, but about two conflicting ASSUMPTIONS. Well one of them may be a fact, but one of them is not.Quote:
No, it's not a fact. We just assume that the statement "UFO's don't exist" is the truth. That does not make it the truth.Quote:
"According to them it was a fact". Well then THEY were wrong and it never was a fact, just a false assumption.Quote:
You are the one with misunderstanding. Just because someone claims it works so does not mean it's a fact or truth. People may be wrong.Quote:
Read my posts again. You brought up "facts" or "truths". Don't try to put this on me.Quote:
*edit* Well I don't think you directly quoted me for first time but your post did indicate it was directed at me (among others) */edit*
When someone says "sky is blue", he is right. When someone says "you feel bad", he may believe he is right, but is actually not.Quote:
But I still do not see how this all relates to things being "good" or "evil". Being wrong is something that can be fixed, and being wrong is a natural part of every single human being. Being "evil" is a law of nature, just like is being "good".
If we talk about moral right and wrong then those are not FACTS either. They are self-imposed rules humans live by to ensure survivability. The things is...every living thing has a right to defend itself, to ensure its own survival. Yes, that applies to you and me too. And if something threathens your community, it has the right to defend itself. But that applies to my community too, if your community attacks my community.
When everything centers around self-survival, the moral standards people impose are not FACTS or TRUTHS. They are made by people, and I have every right to make my own rules. However I also have live with the concequences of me following my own rules. I may be exterminated if a stronger force disagrees with me.
If a "fact" was false, then it wasn't a fact at all. It was a false assumption.Quote:
Last edited by The Closet Pervert; November 30, 2009 at 11:23 PM.
Good and evil, right and wrong, are perspectives. They are defined by the ruling standard in the society you live in. They are also used to control the masses with guidelines that inspire fear out of swift retaliation. We call these laws. Most of us, if not all, are raised to with preconcieved notions about how we should live and our way is the only way. There is no universal good or evil, as perspective will allow any act to be justified in the eyes of the doer. To say there is would be acknowledging that the base of our society and every individual is a lie and that we all live in a raging circus of hypocrisy.
Well one thing for sure is that Danzou just triple jumped across that "line" between good and evil.
I shouldn't get caught up in this discussion, but...
Good and evil are truly perspective views.
Some may think of Itachi as evil for killing his clan. He slaughtered possible innocents, so he's evil. The US, in order to end WWII, killed hundreds of thousands of innocents in Japan. Does that make the US evil? Every country has gone to war at least a few times and has had their fair share of blood. Does that make the entire world evil? No. It doesn't.
Good and evil are what the individual perceives it to be. Because Naruto is the protagonist, we see Konoha as mostly good and things like the Akatsuki as mostly evil. Minato murdered many soldiers in the war, and is viewed as a hero to the readers thanks to Naruto's perspective. How about to those countless Iwa families who lost their family?
Intentions are something to think about, but as it was said earlier, so are actions. And yet even those can be questioned. A holy person can live a life according to his religion, an honest, truthful man without sin whatsoever. And yet, to another person from a different religion, he could be seen as a heretic for performing feats that are frowned upon in that person's religion.
Sorry for bringing things like WWII and religion into this, but I felt it was a necessary example.
It's the unfortunate paradox of life, I'm afraid.
I'm only willing to accept that so far. As long as we're on the subject of WWII, is anyone seriously going to defend the Holocaust as good? If not, then we've accepted limits to subjective views of good and evil.