NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just curious as to how each of you judges "good" from "bad". What is your system of morality based upon, is it religion, logic, or perhaps a slightly more epicurean method?

I was just curious as to how each of you judges "good" from "bad". What is your system of morality based upon, is it religion, logic, or perhaps a slightly more epicurean method?
I'd say "good" and "bad" are determined, for me anyway, based on personal emotions, thoughts, philosophies, etc.

That's kind of hard to put into words, let alone explain. I suppose a huge mixture of personal experience, some religon, and logic. But it's really more complicated than that, more factors are put into play.

In short, helping people is good, harming them is bad. More specifically, I'd say protecting or contributing the health, happiness or freedom of people is good, and damaging them is bad.

That's kind of hard to put into words, let alone explain. I suppose a huge mixture of personal experience, some religon, and logic. But it's really more complicated than that, more factors are put into play.
I realized that, but rough idea would be sufficient for the time being. It is difficult to boil down ones philosophy into a few sentences or paragraphs.

I was just curious as to how each of you judges "good" from "bad". What is your system of morality based upon, is it religion, logic, or perhaps a slightly more epicurean method?

Good: Makes me a sandwich
Bad: Doesn't make me a sandwich

In short, helping people is good, harming them is bad. More specifically, I'd say protecting or contributing the health, happiness or freedom of people is good, and damaging them is bad.
What if making one person happy will make another unhappy?

What if making one person happy will make another unhappy?

It's down to the amount of happiness & unhappiness and the number of people affected.

I don't. Who am I to judge? However, I try to determine whether an action will be hurful or beneficial and take it from there. Not always successfully. I've also been known to act on impulse with not always good consequences.

For political actions: I constructed an incredibly complex theory of ethics.

For personal decisions: Play it by ear ;).

It's down to the amount of happiness & unhappiness and the number of people affected.
Okay, hypothetical thinking time: you have enough food to feed 5 people. Right in front of their face are 10 people who are all equally hungry. These people are as follows:

1 month old Caucasion female, wealthy
2 year old Asian male, somewhat wealthy
5 year old African-American female, average wealth
16 year old bicurious Caublasian male, extremely wealthy
18 year old lesbian biracial female, unwealthy
24 year old straight Caucasion male, extremely unwealthy
33 year old homosexual Asian female, average wealth
45 year old asexual African-American male, wealthy
64 year old bisexual Caublasian male, unwealthy
99 year old (considers sexuality unimportant, not getting any anyway) Hispanic female, middle class

Assuming you have all of this information, how do you decide who gets to eat and who doesn't?

Logic, ethics, compassion, empathy, emotions.

That pretty much sums it up for me. However in the same breath I try not to "judge" because you never know what a person goes through to get where they are until you walk a mile in their shoes. Of course you form opinions , etc.. but judge? Nah!

Good: Makes me a sandwich
Bad: Doesn't make me a sandwich

This would be true if lunch wasnt an illusion. :p

Okay, hypothetical thinking time: you have enough food to feed 5 people. Right in front of their face are 10 people who are all equally hungry. These people are as follows:

1 month old Caucasion female, wealthy
2 year old Asian male, somewhat wealthy
5 year old African-American female, average wealth
16 year old bicurious Caublasian male, extremely wealthy
18 year old lesbian biracial female, unwealthy
24 year old straight Caucasion male, extremely unwealthy
33 year old homosexual Asian female, average wealth
45 year old asexual African-American male, wealthy
64 year old bisexual Caublasian male, unwealthy
99 year old (considers sexuality unimportant, not getting any anyway) Hispanic female, middle class

Assuming you have all of this information, how do you decide who gets to eat and who doesn't?

You share it equally. So there is only enough for 5 and there are 10 people, you make half portions and feed everyone.

You share it equally. So there is only enough for 5 and there are 10 people, you make half portions and feed everyone.
And then you all die because everyone is starving in the middle of some desert thousands of miles from civilization and barely alive, and you have all the food and it's the last portions and it's about to spoil in, like, 5 minutes. Sorry, I forgot to add those parts. :p

Logic, ethics, compassion, empathy, emotions.

That pretty much sums it up for me. However in the same breath I try not to "judge" because you never know what a person goes through to get where they are until you walk a mile in their shoes. Of course you form opinions , etc.. but judge? Nah!

Well said. You have a tiny black, a tiny white, and a hell of a giant grey area.

Okay, hypothetical thinking time: you have enough food to feed 5 people. Right in front of their face are 10 people who are all equally hungry. These people are as follows:

1 month old Caucasion female, wealthy
2 year old Asian male, somewhat wealthy
5 year old African-American female, average wealth
16 year old bicurious Caublasian male, extremely wealthy
18 year old lesbian biracial female, unwealthy
24 year old straight Caucasion male, extremely unwealthy
33 year old homosexual Asian female, average wealth
45 year old asexual African-American male, wealthy
64 year old bisexual Caublasian male, unwealthy
99 year old (considers sexuality unimportant, not getting any anyway) Hispanic female, middle class

Assuming you have all of this information, how do you decide who gets to eat and who doesn't?

You kill and skin the 3 first kids and everybody has a very nice banquet, except the 99 year old who you tie to a tree with ants for entertainment. Then pass the 16 y.o. around as an after dinner show.

Okay, hypothetical thinking time: you have enough food to feed 5 people. Right in front of their face are 10 people who are all equally hungry. These people are as follows:

1 month old Caucasion female, wealthy
2 year old Asian male, somewhat wealthy
5 year old African-American female, average wealth
16 year old bicurious Caublasian male, extremely wealthy
18 year old lesbian biracial female, unwealthy
24 year old straight Caucasion male, extremely unwealthy
33 year old homosexual Asian female, average wealth
45 year old asexual African-American male, wealthy
64 year old bisexual Caublasian male, unwealthy
99 year old (considers sexuality unimportant, not getting any anyway) Hispanic female, middle class

Assuming you have all of this information, how do you decide who gets to eat and who doesn't?

Can you hypothetically say serve one of these people as food that way everyone can technically eat?

Can you hypothetically say serve one of these people as food that way everyone can technically eat?
If you want.

I would feed these people:
24 year old straight Caucasion male, extremely unwealthy
45 year old asexual African-American male, wealthy
5 year old African-American female, average wealth
1 month old Caucasion female, wealthy
2 year old Asian male, somewhat wealthy

I do not wish to express my reasoning for my choices.
Anyway I think that good is usually what ends up as good. Because the ends justify the means. As well I believe that good is based on what is moral, and moral is what causes the least harm in the end to people.

I would feed these people:
24 year old straight Caucasion male, extremely unwealthy
45 year old asexual African-American male, wealthy
5 year old African-American female, average wealth
1 month old Caucasion female, wealthy
2 year old Asian male, somewhat wealthy

I do not wish to express my reasoning for my choices.
Anyway I think that good is usually what ends up as good. Because the ends justify the means. As well I believe that good is based on what is moral, and moral is what causes the least harm in the end to people.
Hate to be judgemental, but I noticed that all your picks were people of either non-homo/bisexual orientation or their orientation was unclear. Any particular confession you would like to make?

Okay, hypothetical thinking time: you have enough food to feed 5 people. Right in front of their face are 10 people who are all equally hungry. These people are as follows:

1 month old Caucasion female, wealthy
2 year old Asian male, somewhat wealthy
5 year old African-American female, average wealth
16 year old bicurious Caublasian male, extremely wealthy
18 year old lesbian biracial female, unwealthy
24 year old straight Caucasion male, extremely unwealthy
33 year old homosexual Asian female, average wealth
45 year old asexual African-American male, wealthy
64 year old bisexual Caublasian male, unwealthy
99 year old (considers sexuality unimportant, not getting any anyway) Hispanic female, middle class

Assuming you have all of this information, how do you decide who gets to eat and who doesn't?

I would give everybody half a portion... but I would ask the people between 16 and 45 years old to mabe share theirs with the kids and the old folks, if they want to.

Well there is a reason why I did not want to mention my reasons for picking as I did.

This would be true if lunch wasnt an illusion. :p

A sandwich is good any time of the day. :D

Half rations, everyone dies. That's the right answer, death is irrelevant. Everyone is going to die, not everyone is going to live ‘right.’

My answer to the original post:

Bad is everything that is hurting or insulting to others.
Ok is everything that doesn't hurt anybody except maybe myself.
Good is everything that is done to help and assist others, to make ther life better and/or easier.

Okay, hypothetical thinking time: you have enough food to feed 5 people. Right in front of their face are 10 people who are all equally hungry. These people are as follows:



I'd split the food in two and feed everyone. Deal with that! :p

Well there is a reason why I did not want to mention my reasons for picking as I did.

Don't be so obvious about it, then.
So, you wouldn't feed the homosexuals? Really? Why?

Here is my answer: I kill and then serve up the straight Caucasion male in his 20s so that everyone else gets enough to eat.

I view their beliefs as a threat to what I consider to be correct. In that way they can cause considerable harm. I am sure that my ideas could be viewed as offensive but because I see them as a threat to morality they are not the first to be selected to live. But on the other hand I did save the children! :D

My answer to the original post:

Bad is everything that is hurting or insulting to others.
Ok is everything that doesn't hurt anybody except maybe myself.
Good is everything that is done to help and assist others, to make ther life better and/or easier.

So you yourself are not a person then. Everyone else counts but you don't. If I were you I would seek professional help.

For me I agree with Hume on this. Good is that that is pleasurable or useful to myself or to others. Bad is that which is unpleasant or disvantageous to myself or to others. Where conflicts arise, trust your instincts/feelings.

I view their beliefs as a threat to what I consider to be correct. In that way they can cause considerable harm. I am sure that my ideas could be viewed as offensive but because I see them as a threat to morality they are not the first to be selected to live. But on the other hand I did save the children! :D
What "beliefs"? You do realize there are a good many homosexual who are Christian/conservative/right-wing?

Well, I can see the flaw in a system where something that is ok hurts the self. I mean ok being something that hurts nobody is more understandable but under that system the person with the morality could allow people to mug, torture and rape them without feeling immoral for allowing the crimes to happen(considering that it would probably not help the muggers, torturers or rapists in the end)

I just sniff it for a few seconds.

I just sniff it for a few seconds.
If it's in the fridge and it moves, it's usually bad.

If it's in the fridge and it moves, it's usually bad.
Well not always. But I do that for more than just food though. I do it for people too.

I view their beliefs as a threat to what I consider to be correct. In that way they can cause considerable harm. I am sure that my ideas could be viewed as offensive but because I see them as a threat to morality they are not the first to be selected to live. But on the other hand I did save the children! :D

So, based on your idea of moral, you would play god and decide who is worthy of survival and who isn't?

Well, I can see the flaw in a system where something that is ok hurts the self. I mean ok being something that hurts nobody is more understandable but under that system the person with the morality could allow people to mug, torture and rape them without feeling immoral for allowing the crimes to happen(considering that it would probably not help the muggers, torturers or rapists in the end)

Sorry, but I can make neither heads nor tails of this statement. Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker...

I see homosexuality as being a perversion that harms the person that has the desires as well as those who are exposed to those beliefs in any significant nature. I am not going to deny that they have a right to live, but I am not going to give them as much as I would give to people that I viewed as living up to my standards. It may not have been a good idea to post my views but I did not bring them to the front of the discussion.

So, based on your idea of moral, you would play god and decide who is worthy of survival and who isn't?
Well if they could survive the hunt and take out the hunter, than they would be worthy of survival anyways. Unless they were too severely wounded and a pack of wild badgers came and...well you know how it goes from there.

Yeah, that post was not one of my best. It probably makes no sense to the natives either. Anyway, what would my belief on morality have to be anyway? In that situation we did have to play god. We had to feed 5 and let the rest die under my interpretation of it. I did not ask for a jihad against homosexuality and I am too apathetic to really enforce a morality on others anyway. If you disagree with my ideas then so what.

I see homosexuality as being a perversion that harms the person that has the desires as well as those who are exposed to those beliefs in any significant nature. I am not going to deny that they have a right to live, but I am not going to give them as much as I would give to people that I viewed as living up to my standards. It may not have been a good idea to post my views but I did not bring them to the front of the discussion.

Erm... let me get this straight (no pun intended). You consider homosexuality a "belief"? Like a political orientation or a religion?

In what way are they harming themselves? Or others, for that matter?

And I would assume from that statement that you consider yourself to be a Christian? In that case : Shame on you. Hate the sin and love the sinner. How can you possibly agree to seperating and discriminating others because they are "sinners"? So are you, sir!

I see homosexuality as being a perversion that harms the person that has the desires as well as those who are exposed to those beliefs in any significant nature. I am not going to deny that they have a right to live, but I am not going to give them as much as I would give to people that I viewed as living up to my standards. It may not have been a good idea to post my views but I did not bring them to the front of the discussion.

And what makes your standards better then others?

Well if they could survive the hunt and take out the hunter, than they would be worthy of survival anyways. Unless they were too severely wounded and a pack of wild badgers came and...well you know how it goes from there.

Yup. Gay badgers.

I see homosexuality as being a perversion that harms the person that has the desires as well as those who are exposed to those beliefs in any significant nature. I am not going to deny that they have a right to live, but I am not going to give them as much as I would give to people that I viewed as living up to my standards. It may not have been a good idea to post my views but I did not bring them to the front of the discussion.

But maybe you're wrong and you're the immoral person for judging another human being in this way. For thinking the way you do, I believe this opinion makes you far worse of a human being than any homosexual could ever be. You're obviously not a Christian. Not a real one anyway.

Yup. Gay badgers.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, mushroom, mushroom! Sorry, random thought again.

Yup. Gay badgers.

Well there is documentation. Just look at the SNL with Christopher Walken where the badger that crawled up Will's.... well you get the picture.

Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, mushroom, mushroom! Sorry, random thought again.

OMFG... I just visualised that... :D

Well if those badgers like to party, than there wouldn't be a problem. Are these party badgers I wonder?

Well there is documentation. Just look at the SNL with Christopher Walken where the badger that crawled up his.... well you get the picture.

Ah, come on, that could have been a female, right?

Edit : Is it just me or have we drifted off the topic a bit?

By the looks of it, they are.

Ah, come on, that could have been a female, right?

Do you really want to go into a discussion on the gender of a badger that crawled up Will Ferrel's ass in a SNL skit?

Ah, come on, that could have been a female, right?

Edit : Is it just me or have we drifted off the topic a bit?
Gee, how did that happen?

Gee, how did that happen?

Hey, don't blame me. I was trying to be funny, is all.

I probably do not technically qualify as a christian, maybe as a deist of some form. As well it is difficult to separate the sin from the sinner, and a sin is an evil that spreads in my opinion. It would be nice if they could separate but since they can not we must take those who sin the least to spread their good sinless ways to others. As well I view homosexuality, as a belief or whatever the heck you want to call it, as bad because homosexuals undermine how I view society as working as homosexuals do not contribute to the gene pool, they do spread STDs in many cases, and that is not how the privelege of sexuality is supposed to be used in my own moral ideas, as I see sexuality as only being between a man and wife, after they have gotten married, or not at all.
As well, I like my own beliefs, everyone is attached to their own I suppose, otherwise no one would really care about how I am a threat to their ideas, and if I am making a decision, why would it matter whose standards I use unless it hampers the proper workings of society?

Whoa I was gone for a long time, considering how the conversation has drifted.

Gee, how did that happen?
*Is still holding gun to thread when upon hearing this comment hides gun behind back and starts whistling*

Good and Bad should be judged by proper morals, upon which everyone can agree on. BUT unfortunately, that isn't possible. SO good and bad should be judged upon total benefit/loss. Whichever does the most in favor for people or something should be judged as good. And whichever does the least or harms someone/something should be judged as bad. Also common sense is an important key factor. People should know what isn't good for them and what is. There is a definite good and bad, and people should be able to decipher the two.

*Is still holding gun to thread when upon hearing this comment hides gun behind back and starts whistling*

:sniper: :rolleyes:

I probably do not technically qualify as a christian, maybe as a deist of some form. As well it is difficult to separate the sin from the sinner, and a sin is an evil that spreads in my opinion. It would be nice if they could separate but since they can not we must take those who sin the least to spread their good sinless ways to others. As well I view homosexuality, as a belief or whatever the heck you want to call it, as bad because homosexuals undermine how I view society as working as homosexuals do not contribute to the gene pool, they do spread STDs in many cases, and that is not how the privelege of sexuality is supposed to be used in my own moral ideas, as I see sexuality as only being between a man and wife, after they have gotten married, or not at all.
As well, I like my own beliefs, everyone is attached to their own I suppose, otherwise no one would really care about how I am a threat to their ideas, and if I am making a decision, why would it matter whose standards I use unless it hampers the proper workings of society?


Cool, I never regarded myself as threat to society. I'm not gay, by the way, but I'm stricly against having children of my own, thus I'm not going to contribute anything to the gene pool.

Actually, you will find that homosexuals spread an awful lot less STDs than straight people. For the simple fact that the message "USE CONDOMS" has sunken a lot deeper into the consciousness of the gay sector of society than it has in the straight...

As for sex only in marriage... well, ok, you're entitled to your position there.

:sniper: :rolleyes:
*Gets his*

Ouch, hey, I wasn't the only one :mad:

*Dies*

See, now look what you've done. jerk :(

*Gets his*

Ouch, hey, I wasn't the only one :mad:

*Dies*

See, now look what you've done. jerk :(

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/Zerg0nator2/pwned3.jpg

I havent been able to use this for a while. :p

Well, I never said I liked or respected irresponsible straight people(they spread STDs). As well the no offspring thing is not the worst part of it. I guess it was just filler until I got to sex as a privelege, I mean I do see something as wrong if you are going to have sex but no kids(I see that as part of the marriage), but there is nothing wrong with being assexual. Too many people waste their time on sex anyway. But yeah, I guess others are entitled to their opinion, and the only thing I see wrong with my belief, is possible logical holes, but other than that I see little wrong with punishing others for a belief. I mean what would you think of people who marry their sisters or who worship the devil?

Well, I never said I liked or respected irresponsible straight people(they spread STDs). As well the no offspring thing is not the worst part of it. I guess it was just filler until I got to sex as a privelege, I mean I do see something as wrong if you are going to have sex but no kids(I see that as part of the marriage), but there is nothing wrong with being assexual. Too many people waste their time on sex anyway. But yeah, I guess others are entitled to their opinion, and the only thing I see wrong with my belief, is possible logical holes, but other than that I see little wrong with punishing others for a belief. I mean what would you think of people who marry their sisters or who worship the devil?
(1) People who marry their sisters: well, I might be mildly disgusted but I wouldn't use that to dictate rather I thought a person should live or die.
(2) People who worship the devil: AWESOME! I wanna hang out with those folks! :cool:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/Zerg0nator2/pwned3.jpg

I havent been able to use this for a while. :p
Glad I could be of service :D
*Takes a bow*

In response to the hypothetical feeding question

First of all a life is a life weather it be of a homo or not it doesn't matter. Its their lives after death that may differ. And the only other factor that makes the notion of life different for people is how long they've lived and what they've accomplished before dying, whether it be morally good or bad who are we to decide, for what we could view as the most evil thing ever, someone else could view as amazingly good. we simply all have our own standards and views of what is good and what is bad. Also though every one is equally hungry we don't know how hungry that is so I base my reasoning on them being so hungry they risk death.

With that said
I would feed...
the 24 year old because he is extremely unwealthy and may not be able to procure a decent meal.
the 1 month old because she can't even get her own food and her life is just beginning.
the 2 year old for the same reasons.
the 5 year old for the same reasons.
and the 18 year old because she to is unwealthy and may not be able to get food and the prime point and perhaps the turning point in her life is just starting.

the rest (going with the notion that they can all move and go places and communicate) are either well off enough to get their own food and are perhaps to lazy to get it and could quite possibly get enough food for the rest of them, or they are old enough to have lived a great deal of their lives and have gotten themselves into this situation and should willingly give up their food to grant the children a chance at life hoping that once the young ones are safe and out of this situation they can continue on and maybe change things for the better.

In response to the hypothetical feeding question

First of all a life is a life weather it be of a homo or not it doesn't matter. Its their lives after death that may differ. And the only other factor that makes the notion of life different for people is how long they've lived and what they've accomplished before dying, whether it be morally good or bad who are we to decide, for what we could view as the most evil thing ever, someone else could view as amazingly good. we simply all have our own standards and views of what is good and what is bad. Also though every one is equally hungry we don't know how hungry that is so I base my reasoning on them being so hungry they risk death.

With that said
I would feed...
the 24 year old because he is extremely unwealthy and may not be able to procure a decent meal.
the 1 month old because she can't even get her own food and her life is just beginning.
the 2 year old for the same reasons.
the 5 year old for the same reasons.
and the 18 year old because she to is unwealthy and may not be able to get food and the prime point and perhaps the turning point in her life is just starting.

the rest (going with the notion that they can all move and go places and communicate) are either well off enough to get their own food and are perhaps to lazy to get it and could quite possibly get enough food for the rest of them, or they are old enough to have lived a great deal of their lives and have gotten themselves into this situation and should willingly give up their food to grant the children a chance at life hoping that once the young ones are safe and out of this situation they can continue on and maybe change things for the better.
You rock. :cool:

Hmmm... U dont judge good from bad, do u? U just KNOW whats good and whats bad, its a personal thing. I mean, society has rules, and those are guiding lines, made according to what the majority of the citizens think its good or bad. U have to respect those rules so ur not put aside from society, but u may not agree, u may think its a good thing to go speeding on the highway. Im sure everyone that does these 'bad' things, do it cos they think its a good thing in some way. Everyone has a moral compass and acts according to it, im sure lots of ppl think that stuff i think its bad is good, and vice-versa. Is there a way to know whos right?

In response to the hypothetical feeding question

First of all a life is a life weather it be of a homo or not it doesn't matter. Its their lives after death that may differ. And the only other factor that makes the notion of life different for people is how long they've lived and what they've accomplished before dying, whether it be morally good or bad who are we to decide, for what we could view as the most evil thing ever, someone else could view as amazingly good. we simply all have our own standards and views of what is good and what is bad. Also though every one is equally hungry we don't know how hungry that is so I base my reasoning on them being so hungry they risk death.

With that said
I would feed...
the 24 year old because he is extremely unwealthy and may not be able to procure a decent meal.
the 1 month old because she can't even get her own food and her life is just beginning.
the 2 year old for the same reasons.
the 5 year old for the same reasons.
and the 18 year old because she to is unwealthy and may not be able to get food and the prime point and perhaps the turning point in her life is just starting.

the rest (going with the notion that they can all move and go places and communicate) are either well off enough to get their own food and are perhaps to lazy to get it and could quite possibly get enough food for the rest of them, or they are old enough to have lived a great deal of their lives and have gotten themselves into this situation and should willingly give up their food to grant the children a chance at life hoping that once the young ones are safe and out of this situation they can continue on and maybe change things for the better.

ehe... I think the point isnt who ca be fed or not, its who would u save, and why :P

Here is my answer: I kill and then serve up the straight Caucasion male in his 20s so that everyone else gets enough to eat.

So you're advocating eating the poorest person in the group. What are you, some kind of Republican??

So you're advocating eating the poorest person in the group. What are you, some kind of Republican??
Actually, I don't think he was the poorest person of the group. He was ONE OF the poorest people of the group. And I'd probably find him boring.

I was just curious as to how each of you judges "good" from "bad". What is your system of morality based upon, is it religion, logic, or perhaps a slightly more epicurean method?

Good and bad are judged by the will that drives those actions. If the will behind an action is good, then it is still good even if the outcome does not turn out favorable. If the will is bad, then no accidentally good outcome can turn the action on the whole into a "good" one, only a mistake that turned out well.

Who would I save out of the 10. I'd just use basic triage guidelines like they would in hospital.