I got it. It is not what someone thinks, it is what someone doesn't think. Or maybe it is what is never thought. Good or Bad materializes on its own as if by magic. Poof! Or something like that. Thanks for unconfusing me.

Rich

Oh, that would be impossible.

But, just as what you think is a planet need not be a planet, so, what you think is good, need not be good. "Things are seldom what they seem". For instance, a piece of fruit might look good on the outside, but be rotten on the inside. Or, just as Bernie Maidoff seemed like an honest businessman, he turned out to be a crook.

Do I really have to explain this to you? How long have you been on this planet?

Yep. What people think is good or bad changes all the time. Some people who made a ton from Bernie still think (if they are allowed to) that he is great. Everything is in flux.

Rich

You think he is in prison because he was good? As I have already pointed out. It does not follow that because someone is thought to be good, that he is good, anymore than it follows that because a piece of fruit is good that it is good. Don't you distinguish between how things seem, and how things are?

I think you hit it right on the money. The universe is quite consistent in this way.

Rich

Hello Rich, pun intended huh! Ha! The Earth is in perfect balance, it us that are out of shape. Bob had more than his fair share and Bill relieved him of it.
Bill was just trying to balance the equation and get his fair share. Yep, that about says it all, just they are many ways someone can kill another. Bob could have called, Bill an ignorant, worthless, good for nothing, Huh? Hmmm?

William

It takes time.

I think he is in prison because he broke the law and he was found guilty of breaking the law. That has nothing to do with how people view him. Gandhi was thrown into prison many times. Many people thought he was bad. Others thought he was great. Many people never heard of him. Different strokes for different folks.

Rich

Hamlet also said, "Nothing is good or bad, except thinking makes it so".

Like eating chocolate ice-cream vs. butter-scotch

How about torturing and murdering a lot of people. That all right too?

As far as the torture and murder thing goes, lots and lots of people thought it was a heck of a good idea that Cheney encouraged it. Millions of innocent people murdered and maimed in Iraq. For what reason? The poor souls happen to have been born on a pile of oil that the U.S. needs. So, people all over the U.S. sanctioned murder and torture. That thought it was an absolutely great idea.

There are all kinds of people in this world and they all disagree on what is good and what is bad. I've learned to accommodate the nature of the human being. After all, it is what it is.

Rich

I'll say it once more: believing something is true is not the same thing as its being true. So believing that something is a "good idea" is not the same thing as its being a "good idea". What people believe is true need not be true, so if people believe that torture is good, that doesn't make it true that torture is good.

OK. Whether something is good or not is not dependent upon what people believe - it is what a rock believes. Whatever.

Rich

This is an interesting thread because the two ideas keep dancing around each other...using each other to define themselves.

The notion that a person can believe they're right, but be mistaken seems to point to good as existing independently of people's beliefs. But in the end, as justified as a perspective may be, it still depends on human validation for its standing. I would say the snake in the grass here is the notion that moral perspectives originate in rational thought. I think the origin of judgement is emotion, and rationality only serves to secure the judgement in memory and meaning. Rationalizing may be a matter of building the staircase up to a judgment that preceded rationality itself. And the mind's forte is creating stairways to any platform that seems to need justification. I don't think this is at odds with what kennethamy was saying, though.

Relativism seems to have explained the situation we find: that a person may honestly believe that eating a hamburger is immoral and have a well thought out scenario for why. So to him, it is immoral. He's not mistaken... he's honestly reporting what he finds. He's still talking about moral distinctions as if they have an external foundation: it is wrong... as if it is out there somewhere. This way of experiencing life.. as if judgement is received from outside is encoded in our language and our perspective. A secret of seeing our connection with our distant ancestors is recognizing the kinship between the ideas of God and Nature. God-given right, is natural right. When it comes to that, it's not a progression from using the word God to using the word Nature. Western Civilization has actually gone back and forth in its choice of wording.

But someone may well believe that eating a hamburger is immoral, and then, discover he was mistaken. For instance, he may discover that the hamburger is not made of beef (as he thought) but of lamb, and, of course, there is no prohibition against eating lamb. Or, he may even change his beliefs about whether eating beef is immoral. He may decide that the prohibition against eating beef is silly, or narrow, or what you will.
For, this person's belief that eating a hamburger is immoral is based on other beliefs, and once those other beliefs are given up, so will his belief that eating hamburger is immoral be given up.

I know that you will not find my reply satisfactory. But, why don't you say why you don't, and we can go on from there. Perhaps this issue is not so easily resolved as you think by invoking relativism. (Which itself might be questionable).

Your reply is very satisfactory. It doesn't allow me to pin you down as a relativist or a Tolkien-style moral absolutist.

To talk about morality requires a vantage point from which to see it, which is amorality. To see amorality requires that you position yourself in the domain of morality.

My point is that when you dwell within the moral perspective, right and wrong seem absolute... that is, being somehow externally founded... like Moses coming down the mountain with the words of God zapped into stone. In that way, you can be correct or incorrect about what's right.

Dwelling within amorality, all moral distinctions are seen to be human creations. What a human creates, he can alter or toss aside. So there isn't any criteria for correctness... it's all relative. In this way, Lenin could disregard opposition to the Communist party as "leftist deviation." Lenin's own view was that morality was beourgeious baloney that the Communists had advanced from. That left him with no way to comment on Stalin except to say that he might not be beneficial... when actually, Stalin was evil.

I love "invoking relativism" but I'm aware that sometimes the buck has to stop.

No, rocks don't have beliefs (don't you know that?) it is not dependent on what anything believes. Although, of course, it has to do with people and what they do.

You might be able to sort all this out if you read some about it, instead of relying on what you think you know. Who knows? Just try to remember that just because someone believes something, that does not mean it is true, since people make mistakes.

You've made mistakes in the past, haven't you? And lots of people thought Madoff was a good man, and would do them good, and they made a mistake. It was all in the news.

OK. It has do with something outside of what someone believes. It has to do with ... what I feel is true. Is that OK with you? Because it is fine with me. Henceforth, what ever you believe is not pertinent. I will agree with that.



I think we both agree that your beliefs are no longer pertinent. So we can dismiss this, unless you can show me without any beliefs or assumptions that the above statement is not a belief.

belief [bɪˈliːf]n1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc., accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc





I make mistakes all the time. Still, there are lots of people even now who love Madoff for all the money he made them. Granted, it was totally illegal, but they are not getting prosecuted for lack of evidence and they have millions upon millions to show for their allegiance to Madoff. They, probably have started their own ponzi schemes, which are still prolific as we speak.

Rich

And if that is true (which I doubt) how would that be relevant to what we are talking about? People can love bad people, and want to emulate them. How does that mean that the people they love are not bad? Indeed, the fact that someone loves a bad person may be an indication that the lover is bad himself.

You have to think about what you are saying. Otherwise you will say foolish things.