As far as I am concerned both are far too much to the left or right. Only hoping for conflict in the way to better ones self, while may be useful in the short term, is much more hurtful in the longterm. You will have no allies the longer you continue a conflict. The longer you kick someone that is down, the less people will want to be with you. To an extreme, you could exert your will for conflict over everyone, and it will be you against everyone until your death. Does that make you good? Does causing pain to make yourself, and the people that live stronger not evil? You kill indiscrimently because you can and have the power. That's not evil? Conflict is certainly not harmful in the long term. It is in the short term that conflict has negative consequences. In the long term, wounds heal, and the steel of a man is stronger for having been forged in the fires of conflict. Most scientific progress in the result of either economic or military conflict. Conflict is the only way weak or oppressive institutions can be cleared away to make room for something better. Conflict is the essence of life. Peace is simply another word for stagnation, a preview of death. You focus on the incidental pain. I focus on the resulting gain. Means vs. ends. Conflict does strengthen one, to an extent. But knowledge can also give one strength. Holding back, controlling one self when you have the power to kill IS true strength. Walking around, laughing, killing someone that looks at you funny, killing someone that is no threat to you, is evil. The sith do that. All the time. Killing those that are not equal, that are not as strong, that have not trained as long, that don't know as much, for no other purpose other than to "remove" the weak is pretty evil. But protecting those that won't(key word there) protect themselves continually is also evil. That makes them too reliant on others, to the point they cannot fend for themselves. Give a man fish for a day, he is not hungry that day, teach a man to fish, he is full for his life. Killing someone for looking at you funny doesn't even need to be categorized as evil, because it is something worse than evil: it is stupid and wasteful. Some Sith do that. Vader never killed anyone simply for the pleasure of doing so. Neither did Palpatine. There was *always* a purpose to their actions. The weak only need to be removed if they are in a position where their weakness will hamper your goals, but in that case they should be removed. On the other hand, I have no problem with your assessment of the evils of enabling weakness. The IDEA behind the sith is not evil. The Idea behind Jedi is not evil. The person is evil. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There has been no sith that (as far as I know) that would control everything without having fun killing innocents for no other reason than to show off power. But in a normal, realistic view, Jedi are good. Sith are Evil. Reasons mentioned above, as well as whole sale slaughter, the urge for conflict, the lack of self control all are evil. That is true no matter what. From any point of view. To my perspective, and of course I can speak only for myself, as all people should do, the idea behind the Jedi code *is* evil, because it rejects everything that makes life more than a long wait for death. Any code which presents mindless obedience as the portrait of all that is good and true is one which I cannot help but view as evil. As to a "normal" and "realistic" view, I cannot agree that the Jedi are good. An order which kidnaps, enslaves, and indoctrinates children into accepting and enforcing through violence a world view which rejects love and free will, is not an order that should be considered good. *That* is truly twisted. Sith are not inherently anything, other than free to choose their own path, as we all should be. I can see Gray Jedis as basically the only good guys in my view. They help those who need it, they do things that might not be lawful, but are very morally right. They may stop a republic squad from attacking a city that might have had a sith in it. They may help a sith spy with information to prevent unneeded deaths. But they do it without malice intent. They do it with good intentions. They can be evil to some, but only in an attempt of preventing a much bigger evil. Ignoring some passions is silly. But ignoring passions when it comes to decision making is NOT. Passions cause people to make terrible decisions. If you disagree, you have never been hurt, never loved, never had any emotions at all. Emotions can lead to evil. They often do. That is fact. Ignoring that, is just showing you are not open to counter arguements, and have decieded already on your OPINION. Can following passion lead to negative results? Of course it can, but it can also lead to positive results. The "ideal" Sith in my view would set his goals and draw his strength from his passion, but he would direct that strength, and choose the methods for accomplishing those goals, utilizing his reason. Sometimes personal violence is the best and most efficient way to achieve a goal. Most of the time a resort to personal violence simply indicates a lack of thought or perspective on the part of the actor.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Thank you. The amusing thing (to me at least, some in this thread will find it scary) is that while I exaggerate some of my arguments out of simple enjoyment of immersing myself in the discussion and a strong streak of contrariness, I honestly believe the core of what I am saying, and probably 75-90% of my specific arguments, depending on the mood I am in.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Being good is certainly not about self sacrifice for the benefit of others. Good is about doing what is best for those you care about. The good man does not sacrifice himself unless that is the only way to preserve what he loves. What *he* loves. To sacrifice for a stranger or an enemy is not good, for you deprive those for whom you care of your presence to the benefit of someone you have no reason to value. It is evil to hurt the ones you love for the benefit of those to whom you owe no allegiance.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
And Vader never stopped caring about other people. Everything he did in Episode III he did because he thought it would protect those who he actually loved. If you have to kill strangers to save loved ones, that is not evil. And he never stopped defending the Republic, the people who he "slaughtered" would have tried to destroy the Republic if they found out the Chancellor was a Sith.
On grounds of the highlighted line, I give up arguing with you. Killing strangers to protect the ones you love....
Killing those who would -harm- the ones you love is one thing. That is a form of self-defense. Killing children, even if they are strangers and supposedly in the care of your "enemies"...you consider that not evil?
As I said. There's no point arguing this. I revert back to simply pointing out that the original Jedi Code calls for neutrality, for the balance of things and not an overabundance of either side. Which is, in my eyes, the only way to go.
If you honestly believe the only way to save the life of a person you love is to kill an innocent, it is not evil to kill the innocent. Everything is relative. Only the Jedi demand that everyone deal in absolutes. As for the children you mention, those were Jedi in training. Would I have killed them? No, I would have *rescued* them, and tried to undo the programming the Jedi had subjected them to, but Palpatine may have been correct in reasoning that the programming was in too deep already, and that elimination was the only viable option. A living ally is more useful than a dead enemy, but when the only options are dead enemy or live enemy, a rational man goes with dead enemy.
As for you giving up, a silenced voice is not as desirable as a changed mind, but it is far easier to achieve, and does have a certain utility. Hope to see you in the game, though I suspect it will be from the other end of the battlefield, as I have you pegged for a Republic supporter.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Speaking in terms of Sith vs. Jedi, not Empire vs. Republic. Just look at the different codes of the two orders. First, the Sith: Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me. Then look at the code of the Jedi: There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force. All that is required of the Sith is that they be themselves and make their own choices, acknowledging the truth that real peace does not exist and pursuing their goals with the fullness of their passion. This is not, in and of itself, evil. The good or evil of the Sith code lies solely in the goals of the individual Sith. It is, at it's core, a celebration of freedom and humanity. The ideal of the Jedi on the other hand is essentially to be soulless droids. A Jedi is not allowed to know love, the greatest motivator and purpose of life, the Jedi is not allowed anger, even when anger is called for, the Jedi is not allowed grief, no matter how great the loss, the Jedi is not allowed fear, even though fear leads to self-preservation. The Jedi is not allowed humanity, in the philosophical sense, though supposedly his goal is to preserve it. The Jedi code is inherently evil, because it asks of it's followers that they be less than human, that they sacrifice in their own lives all of the aspects that make those lives worth living, to the point that the last line of their code becomes sad prophecy. There truly is no death for a Jedi, because before something can die, it must first live, and for the Jedi there is no life, only the Force. An order dedicated to the eradication of the soul and opposed to the very idea of the individual cannot be considered good.
I probably won't make it back to this thread anytime soon for fun and games, but I just wanted to make a statement based from what I have read of your views and arguements (and I didn't go through all 11 pages, but did skim a great many of them).
Your arguements and views to some extent remind me of a book I once perused. Now, please bear in mind, I am not accusing you of being one, nor have I been one, but your views make me think of the Satanic Bible and many satanists I have known. Seriously, very similar thought processes here. Just some food for thought.
Back to the original arguement, while I applaud your efforts at word spinning, and looking at things from exceedingly different point of view, I will have to agree with many others and say that I disagree. You won't change my mind, while I know we won't change yours.
Where you view the Jedi as soulless and "slaves" to their order, I view them as those that have given up much of their life to better the lives of others. Where you see the Sith as celebrating freedom and humanity, I see self serving hedonists, much like satanists...
As for eradication of the soul and all of the other nonsense, if the Jedi order truly sought to eradicate the soul and opposed the idea of goodness in individuals, well, they would have been portrayed as a very different order indeed. Methinks they would be a bit more dominating and in control of the republic if that were the case. That they would be more about denying the freedom of choice to the people they protect, and pushing their doctrine on those who want no part.
Jedi are more about self control and unity of mind and body, like monks of various orders, and various forms of martial arts. When they lose that control, when they give in to their base instincts and begin to serve themselves more than others, they go to the dark side.
You say the Jedi don't truly live, I say it takes more courage, and strength of will to live for others. That is the life they choose, and they most definitely live it. It's easier to serve yourself, and go in for self love. The road to hell is a nice, smooth, and easy path.
Being good is certainly not about self sacrifice for the benefit of others. Good is about doing what is best for those you care about. The good man does not sacrifice himself unless that is the only way to preserve what he loves. What *he* loves. To sacrifice for a stranger or an enemy is not good, for you deprive those for whom you care of your presence to the benefit of someone you have no reason to value. It is evil to hurt the ones you love for the benefit of those to whom you owe no allegiance.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
Then you should kill yourself now. Each time you breath you are emitting gas that maybe harming the planet. Each time you eat you are taking food from the mouth of others. Your belongings could be used by poor and weaker people than yourself. If self sacrifice is good. Then living is evil.
You're arguing in favor of something called moral nihilism. Look it up.
What you refer to as the "vile" and "repugnant" code of the Jedi, is better known as idealism, selflessness and egalitarianism. You might want to look those up too.
Being good is certainly not about self sacrifice for the benefit of others. Good is about doing what is best for those you care about. The good man does not sacrifice himself unless that is the only way to preserve what he loves. What *he* loves. To sacrifice for a stranger or an enemy is not good, for you deprive those for whom you care of your presence to the benefit of someone you have no reason to value. It is evil to hurt the ones you love for the benefit of those to whom you owe no allegiance.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
The hypothetical individual you speak of might be a good person seperate from giving his life for you. The act of giving your life for someone does not automatically make you good. There are more questions that must be answered. Why did you give your life? Who was the person you gave it for? What personal reason did you have for giving it? Which of the two of you offer more utility to society while still alive? I'm not saying I would ask all of these questions, I am merely pointing out that there are many perfectly valid ways of viewing the world that would shy away from automatically labelling someone as good just because he sacrificed his life, without any reference to what he sacrificed for.
Sacrificing for a stranger doesn't automatically make for a good or bad person. The very fact that it is a stranger means you *can't* know whether your sacrifice will ultimately be beneficial or harmful, either to that stranger or to society. However, if you have limited resources, and a family to support, and you sacrifice money for a stranger, I would say that is a wrongful act, because you are taking from your own family in order to give to someone whom you have no reason to believe deserves it. If you sacrifice your life for a stranger when you have a family, you are committing an extremely evil act, because you are depriving your family of all the years they would have had with you in order to "save" someone who for all you know may never amount to anything, or matter to anyone. Someone who it is entirely possible will have a net detrimental impact on society.
So no, it really isn't rational to describe sacrificing for strangers as good. Sacrificing for acquaintances whom you have a reasonable belief are decent and productive people, when that sacrifice won't hurt those you love, that may arguably be good, but strangers, no. I wouldn't describe it as universally bad though, generally it is just a symptom of people desiring to do good without putting very much thought into it.
It isn't hard for me to see how you think otherwise though. It is easy to understand other perspectives when you accept that objective truth does not exist outside of math, logic, and some science, leaving almost everything as a question of perspectives and priorities.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Being good is certainly not about self sacrifice for the benefit of others. Good is about doing what is best for those you care about. The good man does not sacrifice himself unless that is the only way to preserve what he loves. What *he* loves. To sacrifice for a stranger or an enemy is not good, for you deprive those for whom you care of your presence to the benefit of someone you have no reason to value. It is evil to hurt the ones you love for the benefit of those to whom you owe no allegiance.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
The hypothetical individual you speak of might be a good person seperate from giving his life for you. The act of giving your life for someone does not automatically make you good. There are more questions that must be answered. Why did you give your life? Who was the person you gave it for? What personal reason did you have for giving it? Which of the two of you offer more utility to society while still alive? I'm not saying I would ask all of these questions, I am merely pointing out that there are many perfectly valid ways of viewing the world that would shy away from automatically labelling someone as good just because he sacrificed his life, without any reference to what he sacrificed for.
Sacrificing for a stranger doesn't automatically make for a good or bad person. The very fact that it is a stranger means you *can't* know whether your sacrifice will ultimately be beneficial or harmful, either to that stranger or to society. However, if you have limited resources, and a family to support, and you sacrifice money for a stranger, I would say that is a wrongful act, because you are taking from your own family in order to give to someone whom you have no reason to believe deserves it. If you sacrifice your life for a stranger when you have a family, you are committing an extremely evil act, because you are depriving your family of all the years they would have had with you in order to "save" someone who for all you know may never amount to anything, or matter to anyone. Someone who it is entirely possible will have a net detrimental impact on society.
So no, it really isn't rational to describe sacrificing for strangers as good. Sacrificing for acquaintances whom you have a reasonable belief are decent and productive people, when that sacrifice won't hurt those you love, that may arguably be good, but strangers, no. I wouldn't describe it as universally bad though, generally it is just a symptom of people desiring to do good without putting very much thought into it.
It isn't hard for me to see how you think otherwise though. It is easy to understand other perspectives when you accept that objective truth does not exist outside of math, logic, and some science, leaving almost everything as a question of perspectives and priorities.
lol...."and some science"
your flaws amaze me....
Morality is straight and narrow my friend....no swaying from what is moral. And you seem to be blindly rejecting morality as far as I see it....another look up for you
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Originally posted by Rhal231 Then you should kill yourself now. Each time you breath you are emitting gas that maybe harming the planet. Each time you eat you are taking food from the mouth of others. Your belongings could be used by poor and weaker people than yourself. If self sacrifice is good. Then living is evil.
Plants (you know, our primary source of oxygen?) require carbon dioxide (that "poison" we exhale) for sustenance.
And if a modest meal or material items gives me the ability to tend the fields or fish the seas for the betterment of everyone, then I'd hardly call that selfish.
Being good is certainly not about self sacrifice for the benefit of others. Good is about doing what is best for those you care about. The good man does not sacrifice himself unless that is the only way to preserve what he loves. What *he* loves. To sacrifice for a stranger or an enemy is not good, for you deprive those for whom you care of your presence to the benefit of someone you have no reason to value. It is evil to hurt the ones you love for the benefit of those to whom you owe no allegiance.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
The hypothetical individual you speak of might be a good person seperate from giving his life for you. The act of giving your life for someone does not automatically make you good. There are more questions that must be answered. Why did you give your life? Who was the person you gave it for? What personal reason did you have for giving it? Which of the two of you offer more utility to society while still alive? I'm not saying I would ask all of these questions, I am merely pointing out that there are many perfectly valid ways of viewing the world that would shy away from automatically labelling someone as good just because he sacrificed his life, without any reference to what he sacrificed for.
Sacrificing for a stranger doesn't automatically make for a good or bad person. The very fact that it is a stranger means you *can't* know whether your sacrifice will ultimately be beneficial or harmful, either to that stranger or to society. However, if you have limited resources, and a family to support, and you sacrifice money for a stranger, I would say that is a wrongful act, because you are taking from your own family in order to give to someone whom you have no reason to believe deserves it. If you sacrifice your life for a stranger when you have a family, you are committing an extremely evil act, because you are depriving your family of all the years they would have had with you in order to "save" someone who for all you know may never amount to anything, or matter to anyone. Someone who it is entirely possible will have a net detrimental impact on society.
So no, it really isn't rational to describe sacrificing for strangers as good. Sacrificing for acquaintances whom you have a reasonable belief are decent and productive people, when that sacrifice won't hurt those you love, that may arguably be good, but strangers, no. I wouldn't describe it as universally bad though, generally it is just a symptom of people desiring to do good without putting very much thought into it.
It isn't hard for me to see how you think otherwise though. It is easy to understand other perspectives when you accept that objective truth does not exist outside of math, logic, and some science, leaving almost everything as a question of perspectives and priorities.
If you think a Sith would sacrifice anything, especially his life for anything that he loves or otherwise, and a true Sith, not some rogue Jedi, there are some serious delusions afoot, since a Sith treasures himself more than anyone, or anything.
The problem here isn't a battle of good versus evil. What people need to understand that nothing is neither inherintly evil, or good, and by nothing I mean completely and literally nothing. The battle is between good choices and bad choices. What matters is the symbolism you give any particular choice. If I kill a man out of revenge for taking the life of a loved one, is that really evil? Is it bad? Depending on your own personal opinions it's either good or bad, but it is not inherintly one or the other, what really gives anything meaning in terms of good or bad is the very reason you made that choice. The world isn't black and white, everything is just a different shade of grey. To say the Sith are inherintly evil is to completely discount the motivation for their actions, and in parallel to say that the Jedi are inherintly good because they are the opposite of the obviously morally grey Sith is just using circular logic. Unfortunately George Lucas or the plethora of authors for the Star Wars books never touched on the sith as anything more than seekers of destruction. Every man craves power of some kind, what makes it bad is why they want that power, Anakin turned to the ways of the sith in the hope of saving Padme from death, but unfortunately all of his actions were manipulated by Palpatine, who created Anakin to begin with, but I wont get into the deeper mythos of Star Wars cannon.
I will leave you on this though, do not contend to say antyhing in this world is evil until you look at the very essence of the choice and see the motivation, Just because I kill a person in preservation of my right to live does not make me an evil person, bad choice yes, inherintly evil no.
You're arguing in favor of something called moral nihilism. Look it up. What you refer to as the "vile" and "repugnant" code of the Jedi, is better known as idealism, selflessness and egalitarianism. You might want to look those up too.
Idealism can take many forms. I would agree with you though that the Jedi code venerates selflessness and egalitarianism. This is a large part of what makes it vile and repugnant. Selflessness does not exist in reality, as I already explained earlier. What is referred to as selflessness is just people who derive personal satisfaction and/or a feeling a moral superiority from "doing for others," or in the alternative have been subjected to cultural conditioning that leads them to feel bad if they don't do for others. It is all about the pursuit of positive self-regard, and avoidance of negative self-regard. In shorter terms, it is selfish.
*Truly* selfless behavior, in the sense of doing for others simply because it is "right," even though you won't feel good about yourself for doing it, or bad about yourself if you don't do it, is a type of behavior that simply does not exist.
The reason that the Jedi veneration of feeling bad about helping yourself and good about helping others is repugnant is because they hammer that world view into their padawans from before they are old enough to form their own thoughts and opinions, and teach that it is the One True Way to view the world. Indoctrination is always wrong. If an adult in full possession of his mental faculties wishes to choose to live in the manner society considers selfless, that is his choice, but nobody should be manipulated practically from birth into belief in any One True Way.
As for egalitarianism, that is even more vile than "selflessness," because it has even less basis in reality. People. Are. Not. Equal. Not in strength, not in intelligence, not in will, not in wisdom, not in talent, not in worth. Not in any way. Which aspects of a person are most important, and thus which people are "superior," is a question for healthy debate, and purely a matter of opinion. But the question has never been whether some are superior, only which are superior. In order for all people to be equal, they would all have to be exactly the same, which yes, does seem to be a Jedi goal. It is my belief that if it was possible to achieve true equality, in the only sense it can be achieved, universal sameness, that would be the greatest of all possible tragedies.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
The problem here isn't a battle of good versus evil. What people need to understand that nothing is neither inherintly evil, or good, and by nothing I mean completely and literally nothing. The battle is between good choices and bad choices. What matters is the symbolism you give any particular choice. If I kill a man out of revenge for taking the life of a loved one, is that really evil? Is it bad? Depending on your own personal opinions it's either good or bad, but it is not inherintly one or the other, what really gives anything meaning in terms of good or bad is the very reason you made that choice. The world isn't black and white, everything is just a different shade of grey. To say the Sith are inherintly evil is to completely discount the motivation for their actions, and in parallel to say that the Jedi are inherintly good because they are the opposite of the obviously morally grey Sith is just using circular logic. Unfortunately George Lucas or the plethora of authors for the Star Wars books never touched on the sith as anything more than seekers of destruction. Every man craves power of some kind, what makes it bad is why they want that power, Anakin turned to the ways of the sith in the hope of saving Padme from death, but unfortunately all of his actions were manipulated by Palpatine, who created Anakin to begin with, but I wont get into the deeper mythos of Star Wars cannon. I will leave you on this though, do not contend to say antyhing in this world is evil until you look at the very essence of the choice and see the motivation, Just because I kill a person in preservation of my right to live does not make me an evil person, bad choice yes, inherintly evil no.
the real question is why this world can't see "good" and "evil" as what they are...
If you kill a person = evil (period)
Remember the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"?
I wonder where we are today when we can't sit down and say "yes this or that is wrong or right" without some moron raising questions about what has ALWAYS been considered right or wrong.
Is stealing from your employer right or wrong if they refuse to give you a good raise or cut your hours for no reason?
(I can't believe what people call morality these days)
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
lol...."and some science" your flaws amaze me.... Morality is straight and narrow my friend....no swaying from what is moral. And you seem to be blindly rejecting morality as far as I see it....another look up for you
Whether something is a flaw or simply a difference of opinion is entirely a matter of opinion, and your characterization of some of my views as flaws says more about you than it does about me.
Yes, I say "some science," when referring to what things are objectively true. There was a time when "scientists" thought the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth, and they presented "data" and "facts" to support these theories. Our understanding of science is imperfect, and always will be.
As for morality, yes, a given moral code may be straight and narrow. There are many views as to which moral code is the correct one though, if any of them are, and I cannot think of a single action which would "sway" as you put it from every single moral code ever created. I am not blindly rejecting morality, I am merely espousing a personal view that is not consistent with certain codes that others have chosen to embrace.
As for your earlier post about 11 pages and people not realizing I had a "different" view, thank you, that gave me a good laugh. I think though that most people have realized, but many still seem to be enjoying the discussion, so they have the laudable ability to enjoy a robust debate even when they know they won't "win" by convincing me of anything,
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
The problem here isn't a battle of good versus evil. What people need to understand that nothing is neither inherintly evil, or good, and by nothing I mean completely and literally nothing. The battle is between good choices and bad choices. What matters is the symbolism you give any particular choice. If I kill a man out of revenge for taking the life of a loved one, is that really evil? Is it bad? Depending on your own personal opinions it's either good or bad, but it is not inherintly one or the other, what really gives anything meaning in terms of good or bad is the very reason you made that choice. The world isn't black and white, everything is just a different shade of grey. To say the Sith are inherintly evil is to completely discount the motivation for their actions, and in parallel to say that the Jedi are inherintly good because they are the opposite of the obviously morally grey Sith is just using circular logic. Unfortunately George Lucas or the plethora of authors for the Star Wars books never touched on the sith as anything more than seekers of destruction. Every man craves power of some kind, what makes it bad is why they want that power, Anakin turned to the ways of the sith in the hope of saving Padme from death, but unfortunately all of his actions were manipulated by Palpatine, who created Anakin to begin with, but I wont get into the deeper mythos of Star Wars cannon. I will leave you on this though, do not contend to say antyhing in this world is evil until you look at the very essence of the choice and see the motivation, Just because I kill a person in preservation of my right to live does not make me an evil person, bad choice yes, inherintly evil no.
the real question is why this world can't see "good" and "evil" as what they are...
If you kill a person = evil (period)
Remember the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"?
I wonder where we are today when we can't sit down and say "yes this or that is wrong or right" without some moron raising questions about what has ALWAYS been considered right or wrong.
Is stealing from your employer right or wrong if they refuse to give you a good raise or cut your hours for no reason?
(I can't believe what people call morality these days)
What you're failing to grasp sir is that the biblical ideaoligy of good and evil is outdated and is looking at everything for an extreme. If I steal from my multi billion dollar a year profitting corporate employer because they don't pay me a wage I am capable of living off of much less supporting a family how am I an evil person? I want to feed my (figuratively speaking of course) children and wife, I want to house them and make sure they are healthy. That does not make me evil or selfish, it makes me desperate, and in desperation bad choices are made but that does not make me as an individual a bad person. As for murder, it is not evil. By your definition A police officer who is staring at a man holding a gun to an innocent person, and the officer opens fire and kills the perpatrator the officer is evil? Or is he doing what must be done to save an innocent life?
You need to quit looking at the world in extreme's. You give the world meaning through your opinions and your thoughts to say something is inherintly evil is to give up any possible level of compassion for somebody who kills somebody in defense of the person, or people they care about.
lol...."and some science" your flaws amaze me.... Morality is straight and narrow my friend....no swaying from what is moral. And you seem to be blindly rejecting morality as far as I see it....another look up for you
Whether something is a flaw or simply a difference of opinion is entirely a matter of opinion, and your characterization of some of my views as flaws says more about you than it does about me.
Yes, I say "some science," when referring to what things are objectively true. There was a time when "scientists" thought the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth, and they presented "data" and "facts" to support these theories. Our understanding of science is imperfect, and always will be.
As for morality, yes, a given moral code may be straight and narrow. There are many views as to which moral code is the correct one though, if any of them are, and I cannot think of a single action which would "sway" as you put it from every single moral code ever created. I am not blindly rejecting morality, I am merely espousing a personal view that is not consistent with certain codes that others have chosen to embrace.
As for your earlier post about 11 pages and people not realizing I had a "different" view, thank you, that gave me a good laugh. I think though that most people have realized, but many still seem to be enjoying the discussion, so they have the laudable ability to enjoy a robust debate even when they know they won't "win" by convincing me of anything,
I do like reading your view...it wasn't a knock on you
But you must realize that there are no differing moralities.....just morality. That's where this world goes wrong. And where your view about the Jedi vs Sith is flawed to me. One has Morals...the other has self
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
If you think a Sith would sacrifice anything, especially his life for anything that he loves or otherwise, and a true Sith, not some rogue Jedi, there are some serious delusions afoot, since a Sith treasures himself more than anyone, or anything. Sacrifice = good Selfishness = evil A
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
If you think a Sith would sacrifice anything, especially his life for anything that he loves or otherwise, and a true Sith, not some rogue Jedi, there are some serious delusions afoot, since a Sith treasures himself more than anyone, or anything. Sacrifice = good Selfishness = evil A
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
See?
Sacrifice = SELFLESS (not selfish)
Just common sense here...
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
If you think a Sith would sacrifice anything, especially his life for anything that he loves or otherwise, and a true Sith, not some rogue Jedi, there are some serious delusions afoot, since a Sith treasures himself more than anyone, or anything. Sacrifice = good Selfishness = evil A
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
Then it wouldn't really be a sacrifice since you're doing it for yourself. True sacrifice is never evil. If you're doing it for yourself in some way then it's not sacrifice.
the real question is why this world can't see "good" and "evil" as what they are... If you kill a person = evil (period) Remember the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"? I wonder where we are today when we can't sit down and say "yes this or that is wrong or right" without some moron raising questions about what has ALWAYS been considered right or wrong. Is stealing from your employer right or wrong if they refuse to give you a good raise or cut your hours for no reason? (I can't believe what people call morality these days)
"What they are." Clearly sir, you are an objectivist, which means we will simply never agree, but I am still going to address a couple of the substantive points. Killing a person does not automatically equate to evil. Sometimes killing is necessary to save a more valuable life, to achieve a worthy goal, or simply because the person being killed is the human equivalent of a rabid animal, and needs to be put down.
Also, we can't say that anything has "always" been considered right or wrong. The human race goes back more than 10,000 years, written history a substantially shorter period of time, and written history with any reasonable degree of reliability only a few hundred years. In all that time, there have been countless moral belief systems, and I sincerely doubt there is *anything* which has been universally condemned by every belief system ever created by the human race.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
If you think a Sith would sacrifice anything, especially his life for anything that he loves or otherwise, and a true Sith, not some rogue Jedi, there are some serious delusions afoot, since a Sith treasures himself more than anyone, or anything. Sacrifice = good Selfishness = evil A
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
Then it wouldn't really be a sacrifice since you're doing it for yourself. True sacrifice is never evil. If you're doing it for yourself in some way then it's not sacrifice.
Under your view of sacrifice, there is no such thing. Everything every person does is for himself. Some people just aren't self-aware and/or self-honest enough to admit it.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
If you think a Sith would sacrifice anything, especially his life for anything that he loves or otherwise, and a true Sith, not some rogue Jedi, there are some serious delusions afoot, since a Sith treasures himself more than anyone, or anything. Sacrifice = good Selfishness = evil A
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
Then it wouldn't really be a sacrifice since you're doing it for yourself. True sacrifice is never evil. If you're doing it for yourself in some way then it's not sacrifice.
Under your view of sacrifice, there is no such thing. Everything every person does is for himself. Some people just aren't self-aware and/or self-honest enough to admit it.
Really? You don't think anyone ever has done anything for someone because they felt pity for them? You must live in a world seperate from mine.
Comments
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Thank you. The amusing thing (to me at least, some in this thread will find it scary) is that while I exaggerate some of my arguments out of simple enjoyment of immersing myself in the discussion and a strong streak of contrariness, I honestly believe the core of what I am saying, and probably 75-90% of my specific arguments, depending on the mood I am in.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
11 pages...and people still don't realize that Caz has a "different" view of reality and/or morality.....
/rolls eyes
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
On grounds of the highlighted line, I give up arguing with you. Killing strangers to protect the ones you love....
Killing those who would -harm- the ones you love is one thing. That is a form of self-defense. Killing children, even if they are strangers and supposedly in the care of your "enemies"...you consider that not evil?
As I said. There's no point arguing this. I revert back to simply pointing out that the original Jedi Code calls for neutrality, for the balance of things and not an overabundance of either side. Which is, in my eyes, the only way to go.
If you honestly believe the only way to save the life of a person you love is to kill an innocent, it is not evil to kill the innocent. Everything is relative. Only the Jedi demand that everyone deal in absolutes. As for the children you mention, those were Jedi in training. Would I have killed them? No, I would have *rescued* them, and tried to undo the programming the Jedi had subjected them to, but Palpatine may have been correct in reasoning that the programming was in too deep already, and that elimination was the only viable option. A living ally is more useful than a dead enemy, but when the only options are dead enemy or live enemy, a rational man goes with dead enemy.
As for you giving up, a silenced voice is not as desirable as a changed mind, but it is far easier to achieve, and does have a certain utility. Hope to see you in the game, though I suspect it will be from the other end of the battlefield, as I have you pegged for a Republic supporter.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I probably won't make it back to this thread anytime soon for fun and games, but I just wanted to make a statement based from what I have read of your views and arguements (and I didn't go through all 11 pages, but did skim a great many of them).
Your arguements and views to some extent remind me of a book I once perused. Now, please bear in mind, I am not accusing you of being one, nor have I been one, but your views make me think of the Satanic Bible and many satanists I have known. Seriously, very similar thought processes here. Just some food for thought.
Back to the original arguement, while I applaud your efforts at word spinning, and looking at things from exceedingly different point of view, I will have to agree with many others and say that I disagree. You won't change my mind, while I know we won't change yours.
Where you view the Jedi as soulless and "slaves" to their order, I view them as those that have given up much of their life to better the lives of others. Where you see the Sith as celebrating freedom and humanity, I see self serving hedonists, much like satanists...
As for eradication of the soul and all of the other nonsense, if the Jedi order truly sought to eradicate the soul and opposed the idea of goodness in individuals, well, they would have been portrayed as a very different order indeed. Methinks they would be a bit more dominating and in control of the republic if that were the case. That they would be more about denying the freedom of choice to the people they protect, and pushing their doctrine on those who want no part.
Jedi are more about self control and unity of mind and body, like monks of various orders, and various forms of martial arts. When they lose that control, when they give in to their base instincts and begin to serve themselves more than others, they go to the dark side.
You say the Jedi don't truly live, I say it takes more courage, and strength of will to live for others. That is the life they choose, and they most definitely live it. It's easier to serve yourself, and go in for self love. The road to hell is a nice, smooth, and easy path.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
Then you should kill yourself now. Each time you breath you are emitting gas that maybe harming the planet. Each time you eat you are taking food from the mouth of others. Your belongings could be used by poor and weaker people than yourself. If self sacrifice is good. Then living is evil.
You're arguing in favor of something called moral nihilism. Look it up.
What you refer to as the "vile" and "repugnant" code of the Jedi, is better known as idealism, selflessness and egalitarianism. You might want to look those up too.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
The hypothetical individual you speak of might be a good person seperate from giving his life for you. The act of giving your life for someone does not automatically make you good. There are more questions that must be answered. Why did you give your life? Who was the person you gave it for? What personal reason did you have for giving it? Which of the two of you offer more utility to society while still alive? I'm not saying I would ask all of these questions, I am merely pointing out that there are many perfectly valid ways of viewing the world that would shy away from automatically labelling someone as good just because he sacrificed his life, without any reference to what he sacrificed for.
Sacrificing for a stranger doesn't automatically make for a good or bad person. The very fact that it is a stranger means you *can't* know whether your sacrifice will ultimately be beneficial or harmful, either to that stranger or to society. However, if you have limited resources, and a family to support, and you sacrifice money for a stranger, I would say that is a wrongful act, because you are taking from your own family in order to give to someone whom you have no reason to believe deserves it. If you sacrifice your life for a stranger when you have a family, you are committing an extremely evil act, because you are depriving your family of all the years they would have had with you in order to "save" someone who for all you know may never amount to anything, or matter to anyone. Someone who it is entirely possible will have a net detrimental impact on society.
So no, it really isn't rational to describe sacrificing for strangers as good. Sacrificing for acquaintances whom you have a reasonable belief are decent and productive people, when that sacrifice won't hurt those you love, that may arguably be good, but strangers, no. I wouldn't describe it as universally bad though, generally it is just a symptom of people desiring to do good without putting very much thought into it.
It isn't hard for me to see how you think otherwise though. It is easy to understand other perspectives when you accept that objective truth does not exist outside of math, logic, and some science, leaving almost everything as a question of perspectives and priorities.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
The hypothetical individual you speak of might be a good person seperate from giving his life for you. The act of giving your life for someone does not automatically make you good. There are more questions that must be answered. Why did you give your life? Who was the person you gave it for? What personal reason did you have for giving it? Which of the two of you offer more utility to society while still alive? I'm not saying I would ask all of these questions, I am merely pointing out that there are many perfectly valid ways of viewing the world that would shy away from automatically labelling someone as good just because he sacrificed his life, without any reference to what he sacrificed for.
Sacrificing for a stranger doesn't automatically make for a good or bad person. The very fact that it is a stranger means you *can't* know whether your sacrifice will ultimately be beneficial or harmful, either to that stranger or to society. However, if you have limited resources, and a family to support, and you sacrifice money for a stranger, I would say that is a wrongful act, because you are taking from your own family in order to give to someone whom you have no reason to believe deserves it. If you sacrifice your life for a stranger when you have a family, you are committing an extremely evil act, because you are depriving your family of all the years they would have had with you in order to "save" someone who for all you know may never amount to anything, or matter to anyone. Someone who it is entirely possible will have a net detrimental impact on society.
So no, it really isn't rational to describe sacrificing for strangers as good. Sacrificing for acquaintances whom you have a reasonable belief are decent and productive people, when that sacrifice won't hurt those you love, that may arguably be good, but strangers, no. I wouldn't describe it as universally bad though, generally it is just a symptom of people desiring to do good without putting very much thought into it.
It isn't hard for me to see how you think otherwise though. It is easy to understand other perspectives when you accept that objective truth does not exist outside of math, logic, and some science, leaving almost everything as a question of perspectives and priorities.
lol...."and some science"
your flaws amaze me....
Morality is straight and narrow my friend....no swaying from what is moral. And you seem to be blindly rejecting morality as far as I see it....another look up for you
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Plants (you know, our primary source of oxygen?) require carbon dioxide (that "poison" we exhale) for sustenance.
And if a modest meal or material items gives me the ability to tend the fields or fish the seas for the betterment of everyone, then I'd hardly call that selfish.
I honestly cannot believe that you actually think that. If someone gave their life for me that would not make them a good person? And sacrificing for a stranger doesn't make for a good person? Would these things make someone a bad person? In my opinion, any kind of self sacrifice for the benefit of others is a good thing to do and it's very hard for me to see how you could think otherwise.
The hypothetical individual you speak of might be a good person seperate from giving his life for you. The act of giving your life for someone does not automatically make you good. There are more questions that must be answered. Why did you give your life? Who was the person you gave it for? What personal reason did you have for giving it? Which of the two of you offer more utility to society while still alive? I'm not saying I would ask all of these questions, I am merely pointing out that there are many perfectly valid ways of viewing the world that would shy away from automatically labelling someone as good just because he sacrificed his life, without any reference to what he sacrificed for.
Sacrificing for a stranger doesn't automatically make for a good or bad person. The very fact that it is a stranger means you *can't* know whether your sacrifice will ultimately be beneficial or harmful, either to that stranger or to society. However, if you have limited resources, and a family to support, and you sacrifice money for a stranger, I would say that is a wrongful act, because you are taking from your own family in order to give to someone whom you have no reason to believe deserves it. If you sacrifice your life for a stranger when you have a family, you are committing an extremely evil act, because you are depriving your family of all the years they would have had with you in order to "save" someone who for all you know may never amount to anything, or matter to anyone. Someone who it is entirely possible will have a net detrimental impact on society.
So no, it really isn't rational to describe sacrificing for strangers as good. Sacrificing for acquaintances whom you have a reasonable belief are decent and productive people, when that sacrifice won't hurt those you love, that may arguably be good, but strangers, no. I wouldn't describe it as universally bad though, generally it is just a symptom of people desiring to do good without putting very much thought into it.
It isn't hard for me to see how you think otherwise though. It is easy to understand other perspectives when you accept that objective truth does not exist outside of math, logic, and some science, leaving almost everything as a question of perspectives and priorities.
If you think a Sith would sacrifice anything, especially his life for anything that he loves or otherwise, and a true Sith, not some rogue Jedi, there are some serious delusions afoot, since a Sith treasures himself more than anyone, or anything.
Sacrifice = good
Selfishness = evil
A
The problem here isn't a battle of good versus evil. What people need to understand that nothing is neither inherintly evil, or good, and by nothing I mean completely and literally nothing. The battle is between good choices and bad choices. What matters is the symbolism you give any particular choice. If I kill a man out of revenge for taking the life of a loved one, is that really evil? Is it bad? Depending on your own personal opinions it's either good or bad, but it is not inherintly one or the other, what really gives anything meaning in terms of good or bad is the very reason you made that choice. The world isn't black and white, everything is just a different shade of grey. To say the Sith are inherintly evil is to completely discount the motivation for their actions, and in parallel to say that the Jedi are inherintly good because they are the opposite of the obviously morally grey Sith is just using circular logic. Unfortunately George Lucas or the plethora of authors for the Star Wars books never touched on the sith as anything more than seekers of destruction. Every man craves power of some kind, what makes it bad is why they want that power, Anakin turned to the ways of the sith in the hope of saving Padme from death, but unfortunately all of his actions were manipulated by Palpatine, who created Anakin to begin with, but I wont get into the deeper mythos of Star Wars cannon.
I will leave you on this though, do not contend to say antyhing in this world is evil until you look at the very essence of the choice and see the motivation, Just because I kill a person in preservation of my right to live does not make me an evil person, bad choice yes, inherintly evil no.
Played - EQ 1/2, WoW, SWG, SWTOR, GW 1/2 UO, STO, CO, DCUO, AO, Rift.
Idealism can take many forms. I would agree with you though that the Jedi code venerates selflessness and egalitarianism. This is a large part of what makes it vile and repugnant. Selflessness does not exist in reality, as I already explained earlier. What is referred to as selflessness is just people who derive personal satisfaction and/or a feeling a moral superiority from "doing for others," or in the alternative have been subjected to cultural conditioning that leads them to feel bad if they don't do for others. It is all about the pursuit of positive self-regard, and avoidance of negative self-regard. In shorter terms, it is selfish.
*Truly* selfless behavior, in the sense of doing for others simply because it is "right," even though you won't feel good about yourself for doing it, or bad about yourself if you don't do it, is a type of behavior that simply does not exist.
The reason that the Jedi veneration of feeling bad about helping yourself and good about helping others is repugnant is because they hammer that world view into their padawans from before they are old enough to form their own thoughts and opinions, and teach that it is the One True Way to view the world. Indoctrination is always wrong. If an adult in full possession of his mental faculties wishes to choose to live in the manner society considers selfless, that is his choice, but nobody should be manipulated practically from birth into belief in any One True Way.
As for egalitarianism, that is even more vile than "selflessness," because it has even less basis in reality. People. Are. Not. Equal. Not in strength, not in intelligence, not in will, not in wisdom, not in talent, not in worth. Not in any way. Which aspects of a person are most important, and thus which people are "superior," is a question for healthy debate, and purely a matter of opinion. But the question has never been whether some are superior, only which are superior. In order for all people to be equal, they would all have to be exactly the same, which yes, does seem to be a Jedi goal. It is my belief that if it was possible to achieve true equality, in the only sense it can be achieved, universal sameness, that would be the greatest of all possible tragedies.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
the real question is why this world can't see "good" and "evil" as what they are...
If you kill a person = evil (period)
Remember the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"?
I wonder where we are today when we can't sit down and say "yes this or that is wrong or right" without some moron raising questions about what has ALWAYS been considered right or wrong.
Is stealing from your employer right or wrong if they refuse to give you a good raise or cut your hours for no reason?
(I can't believe what people call morality these days)
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Whether something is a flaw or simply a difference of opinion is entirely a matter of opinion, and your characterization of some of my views as flaws says more about you than it does about me.
Yes, I say "some science," when referring to what things are objectively true. There was a time when "scientists" thought the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth, and they presented "data" and "facts" to support these theories. Our understanding of science is imperfect, and always will be.
As for morality, yes, a given moral code may be straight and narrow. There are many views as to which moral code is the correct one though, if any of them are, and I cannot think of a single action which would "sway" as you put it from every single moral code ever created. I am not blindly rejecting morality, I am merely espousing a personal view that is not consistent with certain codes that others have chosen to embrace.
As for your earlier post about 11 pages and people not realizing I had a "different" view, thank you, that gave me a good laugh. I think though that most people have realized, but many still seem to be enjoying the discussion, so they have the laudable ability to enjoy a robust debate even when they know they won't "win" by convincing me of anything,
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
the real question is why this world can't see "good" and "evil" as what they are...
If you kill a person = evil (period)
Remember the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right"?
I wonder where we are today when we can't sit down and say "yes this or that is wrong or right" without some moron raising questions about what has ALWAYS been considered right or wrong.
Is stealing from your employer right or wrong if they refuse to give you a good raise or cut your hours for no reason?
(I can't believe what people call morality these days)
What you're failing to grasp sir is that the biblical ideaoligy of good and evil is outdated and is looking at everything for an extreme. If I steal from my multi billion dollar a year profitting corporate employer because they don't pay me a wage I am capable of living off of much less supporting a family how am I an evil person? I want to feed my (figuratively speaking of course) children and wife, I want to house them and make sure they are healthy. That does not make me evil or selfish, it makes me desperate, and in desperation bad choices are made but that does not make me as an individual a bad person. As for murder, it is not evil. By your definition A police officer who is staring at a man holding a gun to an innocent person, and the officer opens fire and kills the perpatrator the officer is evil? Or is he doing what must be done to save an innocent life?
You need to quit looking at the world in extreme's. You give the world meaning through your opinions and your thoughts to say something is inherintly evil is to give up any possible level of compassion for somebody who kills somebody in defense of the person, or people they care about.
Played - EQ 1/2, WoW, SWG, SWTOR, GW 1/2 UO, STO, CO, DCUO, AO, Rift.
Whether something is a flaw or simply a difference of opinion is entirely a matter of opinion, and your characterization of some of my views as flaws says more about you than it does about me.
Yes, I say "some science," when referring to what things are objectively true. There was a time when "scientists" thought the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth, and they presented "data" and "facts" to support these theories. Our understanding of science is imperfect, and always will be.
As for morality, yes, a given moral code may be straight and narrow. There are many views as to which moral code is the correct one though, if any of them are, and I cannot think of a single action which would "sway" as you put it from every single moral code ever created. I am not blindly rejecting morality, I am merely espousing a personal view that is not consistent with certain codes that others have chosen to embrace.
As for your earlier post about 11 pages and people not realizing I had a "different" view, thank you, that gave me a good laugh. I think though that most people have realized, but many still seem to be enjoying the discussion, so they have the laudable ability to enjoy a robust debate even when they know they won't "win" by convincing me of anything,
I do like reading your view...it wasn't a knock on you
But you must realize that there are no differing moralities.....just morality. That's where this world goes wrong. And where your view about the Jedi vs Sith is flawed to me. One has Morals...the other has self
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
See?
Sacrifice = SELFLESS (not selfish)
Just common sense here...
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
Then it wouldn't really be a sacrifice since you're doing it for yourself. True sacrifice is never evil. If you're doing it for yourself in some way then it's not sacrifice.
"What they are." Clearly sir, you are an objectivist, which means we will simply never agree, but I am still going to address a couple of the substantive points. Killing a person does not automatically equate to evil. Sometimes killing is necessary to save a more valuable life, to achieve a worthy goal, or simply because the person being killed is the human equivalent of a rabid animal, and needs to be put down.
Also, we can't say that anything has "always" been considered right or wrong. The human race goes back more than 10,000 years, written history a substantially shorter period of time, and written history with any reasonable degree of reliability only a few hundred years. In all that time, there have been countless moral belief systems, and I sincerely doubt there is *anything* which has been universally condemned by every belief system ever created by the human race.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
Then it wouldn't really be a sacrifice since you're doing it for yourself. True sacrifice is never evil. If you're doing it for yourself in some way then it's not sacrifice.
Under your view of sacrifice, there is no such thing. Everything every person does is for himself. Some people just aren't self-aware and/or self-honest enough to admit it.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Sacrifice for one you love is not inconsistent with treasuring yourself above all else. It is entirely possible to love someone so much that life without them would be more painful that a swift death, in which case sacrificing your life to save that person is an action you take precisely because you treasure yourself more than anyone else. If you were doing what was best for that person, you would let him/her die, rather than force him/her to live with the same pain you would have felt living alone.
Selfishness = Any action a person takes, of any moral character
Sacrifice = A particular type of selfish act, which may be good or evil depending on the situation
Then it wouldn't really be a sacrifice since you're doing it for yourself. True sacrifice is never evil. If you're doing it for yourself in some way then it's not sacrifice.
Under your view of sacrifice, there is no such thing. Everything every person does is for himself. Some people just aren't self-aware and/or self-honest enough to admit it.
Really? You don't think anyone ever has done anything for someone because they felt pity for them? You must live in a world seperate from mine.
I stand with the sith!!!
-----------------------------
Real as Reality Television!!!