Opinion'There is No Good and Evil, Just Wise and Foolish'
      – Thelevellers, 2010-03-27 at 09:36:45   (6 comments)

On 2010-03-27 at 09:38:47, Thelevellers wrote...
I've paraphrased the title to be what the guy actually says he means in the second part, and I agree with more. http://www.raptitude.com/2009/04/there-is-no-good-and-evil-just-smart-and-dumb-part-1-of-2/ I think there's at least some very good points in there, don;t agree with all of it, but I've enjoyed the thinking on the subject from a slightly different angle to usual :) (Thanks to Melchior for the link - I just spend comparatively more time here and beat him to it :P)
On 2010-03-27 at 15:48:17, Lee J Haywood wrote...
The article doesn't seem to distinguish morality in the wider sense from personal morality, although it touches on the idea. As a non-religious person I absolutely derive my own morality, and it works as a personal set of rules or guidelines which dictate my train of thinking when considering moral actions. I choose to be 'good' and I'm mentally capable of being so. Some people aren't so gifted. They are on the other end of the spectrum where they have little impulse control or a brain which doesn't allow them to value other people, animals, etc. Either that or they simply don't care. Either way, they're 'evil' a sense. It may be that they act against another individual, or it may be that they act against the wishes of their community. Maybe in the latter case the article has a point that the community's wishes are variable, but in the former case it's usually pretty obvious that they're acting in a negative fashion. Of course the problem with my personal morality is that it's unique to me...
On 2010-03-27 at 17:50:35, Thelevellers wrote...
I don't think that what he says contradicts that, does it? I think he just uses the term 'foolish/dumb' in stead of 'unskilled in impulse control'? You could look at it (as he suggests) as: some people aren't wise enough to see that what they do is bad for them in the long term. I think part of his point is that people ultimately derive their own morality? Or maybe I just assumed a lot and didn't read his words properly... As I understood it, he was saying that BECAUSE everyone derives their own morality, which is affected by the wider morals of their peer group (or 'society', if you will :P), you can't really have 'good' and 'evil', as both are relative to each individuals own morality.
On 2010-03-28 at 07:33:00, BorgClown wrote...
I disagreed before reading the article because semantically the combo Good/Evil is not synonymous of Wise/Foolish. After reading the two-part mini-essay the point gets clearer, and I can agree with that. I'd like to see the combo Constructive/Destructive instead of Wise/Foolish, even if it trades the psychological punch for clarity. One more RSS Feed to watch.
On 2010-03-29 at 21:27:25, Lee J Haywood wrote...
@Thelevellers: Being moral is more than just seeing that what you do is bad for you in the long term. It's also about taking care of other living things and the environment, etc. It's about making selfless decisions as much as about making selfish ones. The problem is that everyone has their own ideas about what has (non-monetary) value and what doesn't.
On 2010-03-30 at 15:31:32, Thelevellers wrote...
@Lee J Haywood: Yes, I know that, but blatantly phrased my previous comment horrendously! :S I'll assume I was over tired and try and gloss over it I think ;)