All those "Good" Guys - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Iarwain · 05-11-2003, 04:58 PM

Thanks a ton, Feanor. I thought this thread had fallen into slumber. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

First of all, a correction. By the end, I said that only definitions 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were valid judges of the kind of "good vs. evil" struggle that takes place in ME. Here are more logical reasons of why four of the five you used are invalid:

1) this definition can be applicable to anything from a doorknob to a guillotine. It is anything that serves its function well. It's opposite is "having quailities that are undesirable", something that fits this description could hardly be termed as evil (i.e. a rusty hinge, a kind-hearted exocutioner).

2)Worthy of respect. Very neutral. Things that fit: Fidel Castro and (a bit cliche, but oh well) Osama bin Laden. The opposite of worthy of respect: worthy of disrespect. Examples: V.I. Lenin, Adolf Hitler. What's the difference? Point of view. As you said, respect is relative, and that is even more a reason to eliminate it from the factors of "good".

5) The same idea applies to this. Skill is a completely neutral term that has no trappings of good or evil.

10) Hehehe. I was hoping someone would take advantage of this potential arguement, now here is my chance. Never mind, I'll spare Legolas and leave it. However, I must say that when you really look into it, peoples actions are really the relative factors in morality. The idea of right and wrong itself is not relative at all. Read "The Abolition of Man", and then you'll come to a fuller understanding of Morality itself.

Thanks for the relevance, I'd given up hope. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I'm confident that the above will satisfy you as a commentary. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

Iarwain

05-11-2003, 04:58 PM	#1
Iarwain Pugnaciously Primordial Paradox Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Birnham Wood Posts: 800	Thanks a ton, Feanor. I thought this thread had fallen into slumber. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] First of all, a correction. By the end, I said that only definitions 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 were valid judges of the kind of "good vs. evil" struggle that takes place in ME. Here are more logical reasons of why four of the five you used are invalid: 1) this definition can be applicable to anything from a doorknob to a guillotine. It is anything that serves its function well. It's opposite is "having quailities that are undesirable", something that fits this description could hardly be termed as evil (i.e. a rusty hinge, a kind-hearted exocutioner). 2)Worthy of respect. Very neutral. Things that fit: Fidel Castro and (a bit cliche, but oh well) Osama bin Laden. The opposite of worthy of respect: worthy of disrespect. Examples: V.I. Lenin, Adolf Hitler. What's the difference? Point of view. As you said, respect is relative, and that is even more a reason to eliminate it from the factors of "good". 5) The same idea applies to this. Skill is a completely neutral term that has no trappings of good or evil. 10) Hehehe. I was hoping someone would take advantage of this potential arguement, now here is my chance. Never mind, I'll spare Legolas and leave it. However, I must say that when you really look into it, peoples actions are really the relative factors in morality. The idea of right and wrong itself is not relative at all. Read "The Abolition of Man", and then you'll come to a fuller understanding of Morality itself. Thanks for the relevance, I'd given up hope. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img] I'm confident that the above will satisfy you as a commentary. [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] Iarwain __________________ "And what are oaths but words we say to God?"