[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: protagoras, moral sensibilities, very little otr

>
> >Good: anything that improves the human condition
> >Evil: anything that detracts from the human condition
>
>I don't think this implies humanism or relativism as answers.
>
>For example, something that improves the human condition might be death
>to self, humility, sacrifice.
>
>Something that detracts from the human condition might be relativism
>itself.
>
>Basically, the formula above only works within a particular definition of
>"human condition," which must come from outside the formula.

if i understand you fred correctly fred, i'd say i agree.  but perhaps we've 
all been dodging the real issue.

the presupposition to the asserted oversimplified definition of good and 
evil is, 'man is valuable'.

first off, i should mention that i happen to believe in good and evil as two 
real things, not as fabrications of the human mind.  but limiting the 
definition of good and evil to the human condition can never provide any 
valid definition of or substance to good or evil.

clarification:  harming another individual is bad.  (i'll start by using 
some poor adjectives)  helping another individual is good.  genocide is 
sinister evil.  self-sacrifice for the benefit of another's need is 
honorable, e.g. you have 20 dollars to spend.  you  walk by a homeless 
person with nothing.  you give it to him instead of spending it frivolously 
on coffee and music and food, etc, because he really needs it.   but if we 
limit ourselves to humanity's wellbeing as the indicator of what constitutes 
good and evil, we are making tenuous assertions.  why?  because man himself 
is transient, and when he parishes then so do his beliefs and values, that 
is, as you have said, fred, unless he is created.
   MAN CAN ONLY BE VALUABLE IF SOMETHING GREATER THAN HIM, SOMETHING 
ABSOLUTE AND ETERNAL, HAS GIVEN HIM VALUE. MAN'S BEHAVIOR CAN ONLY BE CALLED 
GOOD OR EVIL IF THERE IS SOMETHING ABSOLUTE TO WHICH MAN IS ACCOUNTABLE. if 
man is accountable to himself, as in the humanist scheme, then relativism 
prevails; (what works for you may be love, but me, i'm a natural born 
killer, etc.) the values of individuals and societies tends to be static, 
and theoretically could be antithetical from one to the next, hence, calling 
anything right or wrong is a big misnomer.

in the biblical theist's scheme evil is anything that defies God(defined as 
"sin"), the Creator, THE absolute standard.  God is a benevolent God and 
commands the same of His creatures, who have been made in His image.  so 
where does that leave us?

let's take this to the next step. . .
a helpful syllogism: major premise: God is the only God.  minor premise: God 
"requires truth in the inmost parts".  conclusion:  to honor anything else 
above God is "a lie" and is not tolerated by God.  for this reason also, not 
only outward sins like murder and stealing are intollerable to God, but so 
are inward sins like pride and coveting. when i'm proud i rely on myself, i 
exalt in myself,  i value myself above all else; above God and others. i 
consult only myself for all i do.  this is a hiddeous sin of deceit; not in 
keeping to the truth that God is above all and worthy of adoration above all 
else.  what about towards fellow man?   we have nothing which has not been 
given to us and are equal before God. when an dimwitted person walks by, 
looking unfashionable and speaks uneloquently, many of us feel smug and 
belittle them in our minds and actions, as if we're better.  God detests 
even things like that.  therefore proverb says,
"everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord, assuredly he 
will not go unpunished."

we live in a moral universe because it was created by a moral being.  right 
and wrong is more real and more formidable than the unforgiving force of 
gravity and inertia, which can obliterate your body to mush.  physical laws 
will pass away but God's character is eternal and we will be judged 
according to all the things we have done.

let's compare two philosophies just for fun:

aristotle said,  "death is a dreadful thing, for it is the end."

Jesus Christ said,  "For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given 
all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they 
honor the Father.  he who does not honor the Son does not honor the father 
who sent Him.  Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and 
believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, 
but has passed out of death in to life."


we all talk about good and evil in terms of humanity. i think that is not 
the essential issue. the real issue is where we stand in relation to our 
creator.  our relationship to humanity is very important, but very 
secondary.

warmly,
brian
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/