How can people determine who is good? In my question of this simple question; it amazes me just how complex this question truly is. I mean what determines good? Is Abraham Lincoln considered "a good person"; because of his pursuit to unite the union and abolish slavery? Does it justify that he had to order hundreds of thousand union soldiers to die; killing hundreds of thousand confederates? Is Osama Bin Laden considered "a good person"; because in the name of his "Faith"; he organized countless "terrorist attacks" on people to free them from the influence of Capitalist Nations? Was the Pope Urban II considered "a good person" during the times of the crusades; ordering countries of faith killing thousands "of faith" and "thousands" not of their faith so they can spread the Gospel of Christianity? Was Julius Caesar considered "a good person"; because he brought unity to the many tribes of Romans; yet thousand of people were killed in process. The reason I ask this is all the above people mentioned will have people that agree or disagree on the definition. What we might consider monsters; can be considered saviors. What a "civilized society" believes is good, still have many variances in the simple definition. Even state laws could vary from federal ones. I just want to know what your take is... I am very curious.
the moral code comes from religion and the purpose of doing good is to gain eternal afterlife. what side is good and what is evil depends on the religious influences in your spheres of influence. :MARIS61:
Well I don't know about that. The United States may call a good person someone that doesn't break their laws and pay taxes. Some even think Atheists like "Dawkins" is a good person because they feel they were liberated from the laws of Religion. So I do believe it's relative. It must depend on who is actually asking the question. I mean if an Atheist looks at someone and thinks they are a good person; that has nothing to do with Religion right? And there could be someone deeply religious, and have a completely different perspective on that very same person.
Now ABM, this is an open discussion. This is kinda helping my question. I am curious on what culture defines others. I don't want to call anyone out on this. I think this could be a learning experience for all of us.
As I said in another thread, there is no way to objectively determine moral values, or right or wrong, or good or bad without appealing to a higher authority or a moral law giver, aka God. Otherwise it's just completely subjective and it's only your opinion against someone elses, and there's no way you can truly determine whether something's good or bad. In short, God decides what is good and bad, or who is good or bad. Otherwise it's all relative.
I believe the "golden rule" is the center of goodness. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Now, there are several nuances with that. Who qualifies as an "other" and what is a "do"? How do you correct a prior violation of the golden rule? What is the correct action under the golden rule when you can not meet the golden rule as to all? And that is where it gets tricky. Moral dillemmas exist. Our cultural biases that change with time help mold who we think is an "other" and what we think is a "do." Not every situation has a truly "good" answer. However, I think "good" and "evil" have more to do with inner peace than anything else. If you are engaging in empathy and have inner peace, then I think you are "good". That doesn't mean there won't be criticism of your conduct by someone.
I'm putting on a "non-bias" hat right now. I think everyone knows what I truly believe; but I think it's just fair to welcome all beliefs in this thread. So I will say: Yes this works for "Christians" or "Religions"; but does it work for those that don't believe in "God"?
I think this is a very good response actually. It doesn't cover the ground of "Christian or Religious Faith"; yet can be relevant to those that don't have faith in "God". This is when it gets really tricky though, just like you said. Like I mentioned above; there could be a majority "opinion" that losing the lives and killing will justify a "good intention" like Freedom, Fascism, or possibly a "world agreed moral". So how about the smaller percentage? Are they wrong in thinking what they do is "moral"?
If you speak to a muslim, they would say yes. If you speak to someone that believes in Zeus, they would say yes. But all of them would say no to the other. Does that answer your question?
Well my opinion is that I don't really see how you can. What exactly would you be basing them on? I mean without God or a moral law-giver can you really determine what's "right" or "wrong". Yes, I'm biased, but let's say we're all here by chance and there really was no rhyme or reason for our existence: how can you objectively say that a human life has more value than that of a worms? We're just slightly more complex rearranged molecules and we all came from the same place and are going to the same place. That may seem extreme but is it not true? I think the fact that people are born with an innate moral code and general empathy for others is proof that God's basic law of right and wrong is written on the heart. I believe we are all born with a moral compass. But again, this is just my opinion.
