Mafiascum.net

This is for Annadog40 Philosophy

Time to kick out the gunz.


First off, you all can have your free will.

Do you believe humans are naturally good or naturally evil??

None, they are what they are.

Good and evil are subjective.

no thy arent

Why not?

Different people have different views of what good and evil are.

so what happens when 2 people have diametrically opposing views

Then they have those views. People have different views. What they do is up to them.

i like this thread

In post 5, Annadog40 wrote:Why not?

Different people have different views of what good and evil are.

when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?

In post 9, Psyche wrote:

In post 5, Annadog40 wrote:Why not?

Different people have different views of what good and evil are.

when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?

because "good" is a subjective word that statement is subjective
"is" is a factual word; it is Monday because of the generally evident agreement that this day is a "Monday".

In post 9, Psyche wrote:when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle.

Though with time zones then both can technically be right. (And pretty much what MarioManiac4 said)


Also, charity depends on how the money is spent. And the rules depend on the person.

In post 10, MarioManiac4 wrote:

In post 9, Psyche wrote:

In post 5, Annadog40 wrote:Why not?

Different people have different views of what good and evil are.

when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?

because "good" is a subjective word that statement is subjective
"is" is a factual word; it is Monday because of the generally evident agreement that this day is a "Monday".

This is just begging the question. Good and evil are subjective because good and evil are subjective?

In post 11, Annadog40 wrote:Though with time zones then both can technically be right.

but they aren't talking about the same thing in that case; the same words are used but distinct propositions are communicated

They are because humans have different perspectives on what they are. Not everyone has the same views regarding them.


And miscommunication happens between people which is something that happens with free will and the fact that people are all diffrent.

In post 12, Psyche wrote:

In post 10, MarioManiac4 wrote:

In post 9, Psyche wrote:

In post 5, Annadog40 wrote:Why not?

Different people have different views of what good and evil are.

when i say "Today is Monday" and another dude says "Today is not Monday", if we're talking about the same things (ie not figuratively) then one of us is wrong. That's the law of the excluded middle. Why are the rules when it comes to statements like "Charity is good"?

because "good" is a subjective word that statement is subjective
"is" is a factual word; it is Monday because of the generally evident agreement that this day is a "Monday".

This is just begging the question. Good and evil are subjective because good and evil are subjective?

no the statement "charity is good" is subjective because "good" is subjective but whatever.
There is no universally agreed upon definition of "good." "good" is basically something we approve of in our flawed opinions. No person's "good" is better than anothers.

In post 15, MarioManiac4 wrote:There is no universally agreed upon definition of "good."

So "good" depends on what humans agree on, rather than an external objective truth(let us set aside the question of what that truth is for now)?

In a world where it was universally agreed on that sexism is good, is sexism suddenly good?

In post 16, Accountant wrote:So "good" depends on what humans agree on, rather than an external objective truth(let us set aside the question of what that truth is for now)?

Yah. Though other life forms can have good or bad. But people tend to focus on humans.

In post 17, Annadog40 wrote:

In post 16, Accountant wrote:So "good" depends on what humans agree on, rather than an external objective truth(let us set aside the question of what that truth is for now)?

Yah. Though other life forms can have good or bad. But people tend to focus on humans.

I see! That is an interesting point of view. I do enjoy learning about what thoughts others have. Is it purely morality that is subjective, or are physical laws subjective also?

Well, physics exists. Philosophy doesn't remove gravity. Though maybe someday with advanced tech, can work around the laws.

In post 16, Accountant wrote:

In post 15, MarioManiac4 wrote:There is no universally agreed upon definition of "good."

So "good" depends on what humans agree on, rather than an external objective truth(let us set aside the question of what that truth is for now)?

In a world where it was universally agreed on that sexism is good, is sexism suddenly good?

In society, the word "good" does indeed turn towards meaning what the majority thinks is true. Therefore, this would be the accepted meaning of "good", yes.

Personally, I believe that good things have no, or very sparce, physical and mental pain and prevent physical and mental pain. My votes in society reflect this. Everyone else's vote reflects their opinion. Generally democracy is the best current way to limit "physical" and "mental" pain

What if more than 60% of the people in a democracy believes in a law that would cause great hurt to the other 40%?

In post 19, Annadog40 wrote:Well, physics exists. Philosophy doesn't remove gravity. Though maybe someday with advanced tech, can work around the laws.

Ooh! I like where you're going with this!

In post 21, Accountant wrote:What if more than 60% of the people in a democracy believes in a law that would cause great hurt to the other 40%?

I wouldn't like that. I would welcome them to another democracy that didn't provide these restrictions.
If there was none then I would go to the country where there was the most opposition to the new law and help protest and change people's views in order to provide a safe area where oppressive laws do not exist.
Alternatively we could try to talk to these people and explain logically what these laws would do.

What if the democracy resulted in a law being passed which prevented people from leaving?