Thread 24706459

Are good and evil self-reinforcing causal chains (e.g., good causes more good, evil causes more evil)?

>>24706459 (OP)
Every hour, on the hour, another jeet spam thread.
>SARRRRRRRRR
>SARRRRRRRRRR

>>24706459 (OP)
Depends on what the viewer understands as good and evil. There is no objective good and evil. So depending on the definition of the viewer in can fluctuate, be all good or even look like a shit emoji in the goodness-time-diagram.

>>24706488
Shut the fuck up retard.

>>24706490
Bro wants to talk about good and evil without even knowing what it is.

>>24706488
>There is no objective good and evil.

If there is no objective good and evil, then evil doesn’t exist, but this contradicts our experience.

When we see atrocities (genocide, abuse, slavery), we don’t just feel “I dislike that”, we feel they are truly wrong.

>>24706478
I dunno i like philosophy threads. Sue me.

>>24706459 (OP)
Good is transcendent, evil is the lack of transcendence

There are 3 threads discussing evil now

>>24706551
To put it bluntly, evil is a lack of something, not a 'thing' that can reinforce anything. Its on par with decay.

>>24706565
Have you ever stopped to think about what this means or do you just repeat it like a magic formula? If evil is "merely" the lack of good then it is in fact reflected into itself, i.e. it is something in its own right.

>>24706495
You might want to read up on Spinoza. For the purposes of conatus there aren't any absolute good or evil notions, it's relative to any individuals interests and there are also innate intelligence and adaptability metrics but even if you gave us what you think is an absolute good or evil and a justification you would really just be telling us what your self interests are.

>>24706521
>we feel they are truly wrong
That's the royal "we," I take it?
Zionists are currently laughing themselves stupid over the genocide of Palestinians.
Meanwhile, /pol/ is entirely relaxed about the genocide of Jews.
Notions of good and evil are so subjective as to be meaningless.

>>24706521
It may be the initial reaction. But a second thought makes you think that they have a reason for doing what they are doing. Everybody thinks his actions are justified.
Some people have experienced god talking to them (Terry Davis). Doesn't mean god exists because of this. I have never experienced love, doesn't mean love doesn't exist.
Human experience really isn't the best way to the truth.

>>24706583
Any book recommendations? I have his 'ethics' somewhere. But it seemed so incredible dry and boring, that I read something else. Are any of his books enjoyable in any way?
And what you wrote seems logical.

No? What basis is there for even positing this? What definition are you even using for good and bad? Any definition of these terms which is relevant and useful to a human quickly reveals the premise to be nonsense.

>>24706521
>When we see atrocities (genocide, abuse, slavery), we don’t just feel “I dislike that”, we feel they are truly wrong.
So evil is whatever you feel is evil? That seems like a highly individualistic and relative definition.

>>24706637
He describes it in the ethics, the 3rd one iirc. You can't really skip the previous ones though, the 1st one is the most boring and difficult but it's also the basis for everything he said.

>>24706521
Doesn't the Bible actually command genocide?

>>24706571
I appreciate the Jungian insights but shadows are still shadows after all. You mistake the sign for the reference. Its okay.

>>24706721
>>24706657
>>24706637
Atheists have no source of morality, and as a result, everything is subjective to them. Without the guiding principles of a divine being {God} or sacred texts, atheists are left to navigate the complexities of right and wrong based solely on their personal opinions.

>>24706459 (OP)
The problem of evil and free will are the biggest brown filters.
Samsara is the hell you made for yourself.

>>24706737
>atheists are left to navigate the complexities of right and wrong based solely on their personal opinions
While the devout duck the challenge by adopting a second-hand morality.

>>24706769
Subjetive morality won't get you anywhere

>>24706737
Paul himself refutes you on this. "The law is written on their hearts". When you claim you have to be a theist, let alone a Christian, to know right from wrong, you're making God's word into a lie, because this exact point is taken up at the beginning of Romans and it says THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING you FUCKING retard..

>>24706779
While the conscience might provide a basic sense of right and wrong, religious teachings can offer a deeper understanding of why certain actions are moral or immoral, You stupid RETARDED ANIMAL

>>24706737
Alasdair McIntyre wrote about this.

>>24706773
It's served me well enough so far, thanks.

>>24706786
Imagine turning to some child-molesting priest for moral advice LOL.

>>24706737
The source of your morality is a book of bronze age fables. Nothing you say is based in reality.

As long as there are people prone to be good, the good causes more good. As long as there are people prone to be evil, the evil causes more evil. If either exists by itself, with no one to see it and decide to do more of it, it will either stagnate because a person doing it believes that it is a right thing to do, or will cease to exist, because a person doing it sees no point if he gets no desired results/gets punished too much for it.

>>24706459 (OP)
It's the opposite. Good causes evil and evil causes good.

>>24706786
>While
Fuck you, ChatGPT.

>>24706794
>>24706796
>>24706815
As you can see, Atheism itself does not contain any morality.