NationStates Jolt Archive

This is kinda in response to the faith in god question...I dont believe in god but the question of why a good god would let good people die is ridiculous I think. "Bad" and "Good" are relative terms. In order to have no bad people you would have to have only one person. Or perfect clones of one person. Otherwise there will always be a "better" person and the "worse" people all have to die...because they are bad. Christian example...If Jesus and Mother Theresa were the last people on Earth (despite the fact the they're already dead), Mother Theresa would be a bad person because JC is better. Therefore good people dying of cancer does not take away from the good in the world. In fact in a way, it takes away from the bad...

Mother Theresa caused sexually transmitted infections to spread by preaching against the use of condoms wherever she visited. She was no saint.

I am a person and I act. Thus, from the point of view of some people I am a bad person - this is inevitable if I act in any way at all, and even (Sinahue) if I don't act. Thus No. I am a bad person and the world will not be better without me. (my opinion anyway)

Of course not - I'd be so lonely, here all on my own :(

If only bad people died, everyone would be dead.

Not like it's a biased poll or anything ... this is the good answer! here! this one! this is the one you click!

I clicked option 4, on the basis of what AB Again posted.

If by "bad people" you mean people that deliberately make an effort to harm other people for personal gratification-Then yes- Kill em all.

So far the responses tend to favour the option that you said was the best of the four. I should have been interested to see how people would have chosen had you not prompted them with the "good" answer (relative to the others).

What AB Again posted is basically what option 3 is saying

This is meaningless. There is no option for: "the world would / would not be a better place with all the bad people dead because there would be no body left."

I voted for dead people are better than live people. Which sounds vaguely sociopathic.

No!

If not for other reasons, then this one:

"The Good and the Ugly" make a terrible Spaghetti-Western!!!

If only bad people died, everyone would be dead.



exactly


Though, the world would certainly be a better place for nature if we all died

Depends on who gets to decide what's good and bad.

what if bad people are only bad in relation to the good people, so then when all the bad people died then some of the formerly good people would now be bad by comparison, then the cycle continues until there is only one, one good person, who can't be compared to anyone, except for God who is supremely good then they would die..........then what happens?

:confused:

This is kinda in response to the faith in god question...I dont believe in god but the question of why a good god would let good people die is ridiculous I think. "Bad" and "Good" are relative terms. In order to have no bad people you would have to have only one person. Or perfect clones of one person. Otherwise there will always be a "better" person and the "worse" people all have to die...because they are bad. Christian example...If Jesus and Mother Theresa were the last people on Earth (despite the fact the they're already dead), Mother Theresa would be a bad person because JC is better. Therefore good people dying of cancer does not take away from the good in the world. In fact in a way, it takes away from the bad...

Worse =/= Bad

If we suppose that Dan Marino is a worse quarterback than John Elway, it does not at all follow that Dan Marino is therefore a bad quarterback if Dan Marino and John Elway were the only two quarterbacks alive.

In the larger sense, I would take very serious issue with the notion that "good" and "bad" are relative terms. You are confusing circumstancial senses of good and bad with relativity, which is an incorrect confusion. If I were to condemn a normal man for eating a dozen hot dogs for gluttony and not condemn a starving man for doing the same thing, it's not a reflection of the fact that gluttony is a relative concept or somehow not always bad. It's a reflection of the fact that in one case, the starving man is unhealthy and through eating large amounts of food is returning to a healthy state of satiation, whereas in the other a healthy man is making himself unhealty through overeating. In both cases, the ultimate goal is health, and gluttony is the immoral and imprudent act of making oneself unhealthy through overeating. In all cases, the goal is the same in both people, and the immorality of the act is a reflection of whether the act helps accomplish that act.