You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Some thoughts about the obvious.
No, because what they think is good is not really good, it's just that they perceive it in that way, it seems to be good but it is not, that's why I said that evil is what appears to be good.
By what objective metric, then is good measure and defined? The only constant within this universe, regarding life's basic common denominator, seems to be survival and propagation of genetic information.
Surely, the only constant is the struggle for survival, if the focus is on biology. For some religious the only constant can be the struggle between good and evil. For Marxists, the struggle for control of the means of production. There are, apparently, many onlies constants.
I think that the only constant is the truth, and everything that is true in the other cases is constant. Maybe I'm wrong
There is no objective way to measure good, because material and physical conditions are constantly changing, and what is good is relative to situations, circumstances, conditions, etc.
Therefore, such a thing should be measured from a subjective personal or social perception, so that people know if what is done gives them the desired result or not. It is not necessary to have objectively annotated if the social or personal situation is improving or not, it is necessary that the person knows it by himself.
I reiterate that I am not relativist, only the objective good will give them objectively satisfactory results, but this can only be verified from their subjective perception.
I asked myself this too for I don't care to embrace any particular religion or dictates by another person.
What is evil?
The most simple metric I could find that works in my mind and fits in all circumstances I choose to use it is simply this.
Evil is the use of force against others for reasons other than self-defense. Use of force can be via coercion, it can be by use of laws that if not followed will lead to further force being allegedly justified to be used against people. It is when a person or people deem they have the right to dictate how other people must think, and must act, and they put into steps forcing compliance with that thought.
By this metric all major religions are also guilty of quite a bit of evil. It fits with what you said when you indicated that what a lot of people seem to think is good is not actually good.
So what is good. For me. Simply not evil when using the simple definition of evil above.
I personally do not think anyone has the right to use force against another of any kind except for in self defense. @soo.chong163 and I have argued in one of my posts for awhile on what constitutes property. I consider defending ones property self defense as well. Though this is not the direction @soo.chong163 sees things. Two mutually exclusive points of view. All I could finally state is that people can try to take my property, and I'll defend it to the death. :)
I am not a faction member. I am an individual. I have some overlap with various groups that could be considered "factions" by some. Yet in reality I don't agree with anyone completely, even myself. I change my mind frequently. I think they call that learning. Never stop learning.
I was going to answer the comment before, but I was interrupted, so here it is a bit late.
Your definition of evil I think is quite specific, saying, for example, that since you believe that freedom and independence are good, then you believe that anything contrary to such is bad. Right?
Because if I asked, on the other hand, a Marxist, it is likely that his answer is contrary to what you say, as in fact, soo.chong163, which I don't think is Marxist, does not agree either.
So, do they know what evil is?
I am sure that if I asked them, what is evil? they would also respond with things related to their beliefs. Is evil many and contradictory things at the same time?
That is why I defined good as what gives us the result we want, in your case it would be, I think, freedom and independence, in other cases it could be things like equality or others.
But what do people believe is evil? that is, what do we define as evil? We define as bad that which is precisely contrary to what we believe is good, what is bad is what we believe will give an unwanted result.
Therefore, the definition that you give, I think is quite good, in fact, in your specific case, and for people who look for the same as you (among whom I am to a large degree), but not for others.
That is, it is a relative evil, and not the evil itself, not the objective evil.
The objective evil is precisely that which causes us the greatest misfortune, that which brings us the result that we least desire, whatever this may be. That would be my definition, which is not exempt of errors of course. People choose evil, effectively, because it seems to be good, because nobody will choose to do something that brings bad results in a conscious way.
But it is as you say, I also change my mind so frequently that I no longer know, and did not trust any argument for a long time, only in logic.
Basically it is this. It is quite simple. That is why I use it now. I haven't been able to reduce it any further.
I am born. I have my body. I have my mind. I gather food. I seek shelter. I use my mind. I create.
Nowhere in there does it say I make someone do what I want. Nowhere in there does it say I attack others. Nowhere in there does it say I steal from others.
If it is voluntary it is good. (your choice)
If it is involuntary (someone else forcing you) it is evil.
Now there will always be good and evil. So you must be able to defend yourself and your property.
The biggest difference between soo.chong163 and I stems around property. I believe in private property. He/She/They do not.
I believe if I created something with my own hands and I did not enter contract to create it for someone else for some agreed upon exchange then the item is my property. soo.chong163 does not.
So yes, I am pretty sure they are a Marxist. I've seen a lot of that type of thinking in their responses. Whether they self-identify as that I don't know. He/She/They call me a Libertarian. Really I am not. I was. I am more of a minarchist, voluntarist.
We must adapt to new information and change with it. I can see that you do that.
Also, how are things going for you in Venezuela? It seems to be heating up politically speaking down there.
Oh, tension has increased, contrasted with the last few months that had gone off a bit. There is a certain "Middle Eastern country" climate, if you understand what I mean. All people accelerated and a loose energy there. There is a state of alert.
Government and the opposition tried to mobilize people who don't have, because both lack popularity really, but there is that preparation aura.
Actually there are not many factual changes, only a psychological weight and a generalized stress, united of course to the whole "common" situation.
Do you see any light at the end of the tunnel for escaping the socialism?
Of course, I think it's already at the end of the tunnel, whatever happens, I really think that there is relatively little left. Nor is it possible to be pessimistic at this point.
The government itself has retracted some of its measures silently, it is simply not possible for them to govern with the same measures that don't work, because the more they maintain them, the more they lose power, and the more they are ignored by the population.