so what is good or bad? how would you define it?
I believe that there is no good or bad in general.
Yes you can view things from one side and say whats good and whats bad, but nowadays people tend to forget that where something is good for them there is bad for others.
So what do you think about this?

yes but it might just happen that respecting other person you neglect others .. and thats bad

that's not entirely true. There are truly good things and truly bad things that are universal.
However, there is no "normal" what is normal to one is not to another.

alright .. tell me what are those few good things and bad?
im interested

well it is not.. ice creams ARE evil.. although i like them .. think what had to be done to make one.. maybe chop down a tree.

There are, in essence, three schools of thought on the nature of the good: the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. The intrinsic theory holds that the good is inherent in certain things or actions as such, regardless of their context and consequences, regardless of any benefit or injury they may cause to the actors and subjects involved. It is a theory that divorces the concept of “good” from beneficiaries, and the concept of “value” from valuer and purpose—claiming that the good is good in, by, and of itself.

The subjectivist theory holds that the good bears no relation to the facts of reality, that it is the product of a man’s consciousness, created by his feelings, desires, “intuitions,” or whims, and that it is merely an “arbitrary postulate” or an “emotional commitment.”

The intrinsic theory holds that the good resides in some sort of reality, independent of man’s consciousness; the subjectivist theory holds that the good resides in man’s consciousness, independent of reality.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.





http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/good,_the.html

The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/evil.html


I couldn't have said it any better!

Morality is relative. What was good 100 years ago could be bad today and vice versa.

Amen, sistah!

Your "reality" is only an internal mental representation you create for yourself as outside information comes into and is filtered exclusively thru your five senses..."Reality" a sensory experience...we can not experience it directly...what we mistake for "reality" is actually our own internal representation of sensory information. There is NO big, single, definitive "reality" we all can use as a common reference: it is an illusion...there is only our own internal re-presenting of sensory input to ourselves that we identify as "reality." And everyone does it different...so arguments about what is "good or bad" are about as moot as those about what is "real."

Projection is perception and all evaluation is suggestion.

"Morality is relative. What was good 100 years ago could be bad today and vice versa."

So there are NO areas or instances in your life where you feel it is necessary to make a value judgement? Interesting...

I am a............

BaaaaaaaDDDDD man............


But.......


I'm soooooooooooo Gooooooooodddddddddddd

At IT!!!!!!!!!!

You jump to conclusions with no evidence or facts.

Nobody has jumped to any conclusions, except perhaps to conclude that morality is relative.

I asked a question which is completely different from a conclusion.

And BTW the question was sincere, not intended to be antagonistic:

If you conclude "morality is relative," does that mean that there is never any instance or circumstance in your life where you would have to make a value judgement...or all things considered, is everything really "equal?"

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence or facts to support your "conclusion" that morality is relative...

or perhaps not.

You don't understand what that means do you? Morality is Relative and if you understood why you wouldn't think in such an ignorant way.

Correct, I dont understand what it means or why you posted it...THAT is why I ask.

I am a complete stranger, so seriously doubt if you can know if I am ignorant or not...isnt that what you call, "jumping to a conclusion?"

So, if I steal 5 cents from you is that the same morally as if I steal 1000$? Is that what you mean by morality is relative? On a moral level the two acts are equal in severity?

You were the one who put the "morality is relative" statement out there...are you unable to answer the question?

Hint: Just because someone doesn't understand you, doesn't mean they are ignorant...

I think anything that is truly good does no harm. So if something is good for me, but harms another person, then it's not good. The only exception to this that I can think of is self defense. Defeating the Nazis was a good thing. Fighting the Vietnamese was politically expedient for the USA, but not good.

What was good 100 years ago, but would be bad today? Could you give some examples?

When did we start talking about crimes? I said "What was good 100 years ago, but would be bad today?", I didn't say "Crime". There is a difference between "bad" and "crime". Slavery has always been bad, but it hasn't always been a crime.

Here is a way to determine if an act is good or not:

Good means "To be desired or approved of." If all reasonable parties effected by an act would agree that it was "good", then it's good. In other words: a good act harms none. The only reasonable exception is when you are talking about an act of defense.

Rape and slavery aren't done in defense, so they cannot be deemed "good" at any point in history.

I know what the poster was getting at, but my point is the poster is wrong. If you make the definition of good and bad relative, then you are forced to admit that the Holocaust was a good thing (at least from the perspective of the Nazis). You essentially make the words "good" and "bad" meaningless. We know that some of the Nazis thought they were right and doing good, but were they correct? If we use "good" and "bad" as relative words, then we cannot say. What is good to us might not be good for another person.



You eating ice cream purchased with your own money is morally neutral. You eating ice cream you stole from a hungry orphan is morally bad. You giving ice cream to a hungry orphan is morally good.

Was it "bad" for the Germans to do it? They clearly thought it was the right thing. If morality is relative, then you have to admit that what they were doing was "good" for them. Relative morality is an unworkable system.



Maybe when you are talking about "good" and "bad" as "like" and "dislike". A rapist may like to rape women, but that doesn't mean the act is morally good for him or his victims. What act is morally "good" for some people, but morally "bad" for others? In my rape example, would the rapist feel the same way if he were the victim? If not, then it is clearly not morally "good".



I know, I was showing that the boundaries of morally "good", "bad" and "neutral" are clearly defined.