I may be missing something, but should we always equat what is right with what is good?
Well I percieve good and evil as not even existing, sorry if I do sound nihilist, but its how I trully feel. I belive what Thomas Hobbes said, good and evil are simply desires and aversions, on a universal standpoint everything is pretty much neutral, we place importance on our own lives. So there are no definite boarders on evil and good, it simply depends on the person's desires and aversions. Some people belive in killing certain people while other's don't, that is why ethics are so ranged around the world. Also because of religion but that is more obvious than desires and aversions.
Like when they say I can't ...
We do not need so many rules a few fundamental rules should cover it, there is a law for everything. Patriot act gone too far, drug laws, suicide laws, all should be gone, however I do agree with killing laws, and driving laws and environmental protection laws, mostly cuz of one law I laid out for myself that is universal, "one should not directly affect another, only indirect affect is legal."
We act according to what we consider good. It is in this sense that in terms of human action what is right is always equated with what is good.
But still where is the freedom from humanity, isn't there enough lack of freedom just with nature alone? Like I'm not free from being human, or gravity, or having to rely on oxygen.
And then still enter society where your freedoms are still suppressed further, replaced with a false sense of freedom so that it is not so evident.
But in America, where the Revolution was not followed by a Thermidor (the horror of the French Revolution), and where the greatest of philosophes was triumphantly elected to the highest office, the Enlightenment not only survived but triumphed. Contemporaries saw this more clearly than we do now, for time has blurred our perception of that contrast between life in the Old World and in the New which was so sharp in the eyes of the generation that made the American Revolution - a contrast not only in material well-being but in moral. We tend increasingly to interpret the American Revolution and Enlightenment not in eighteenth- but in twentieth-century terms, to see it not against the background of eighteenth-century Europe but against the foreground of our own time, and to be more conscious of its limitations than of its spectacular achievements. We take for granted what neither Americans nor Europeans took for granted in the eighteenth century; not only have we lost that sense of astonishment and exultation that animated Jefferson's generation, we have almost lost our ability to understand it. It is not perhaps surprising that we should be skeptical of a society that preached liberty and practiced slavery, but it is surprising that we should be equally skeptical of a society that achieved a larger degree of political and social democracy, constitutional order, effective limits on the pretensions of government, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, civil liberties, popular education, and material well-being than any other on the globe.
But still we left the question about good and evil to discuss freedom...so about the good and the bad?
How does one determine what is right(what is the good:))?
boy are you right about the size of the problem and you certainly are right about starting to chip away at the problem, and I will do what ever is in my power starting with voting, and playing shows, trying to educate the dumb by printed text around the college...and then getting the hell out of here. But still where is the freedom from humanity, isn't there enough lack of freedom just with nature alone? Like I'm not free from being human, or gravity, or having to rely on oxygen. And then still enter society where your freedoms are still suppressed further, replaced with a false sense of freedom so that it is not so evident. But still we left the question about good and evil to discuss freedom...so about the good and the bad?
You don't have to change everyone to have a change. You only have to change yourself.
To live without ultimate reasons, purposes, or values, which you beleive are 'right' is ultimate freedom; you are like an actor upon the stage; the purpose, so to speak, of your existance is in that existance itself, not something else, which may or may not actually exist.
Earlier I spied a thread asking whether or not we know what is good for us. This question is good and well, however, I wish to ask of you: How does one determine what is right(what is the good:))? Be creative and avoid excessive use of reductive logic leading to existential nihilism unless you can postulate a reasonable solution. If you choose a solution, continue it out as intricately as possible. Come up with a solution you might be willing to die for if you knew it would be implemented immediately upon your death.
Go wild on this one gents.