reply to post by Mykah
If good and evil are subjective like you claim, rape and greed can be "good" subjectively. This is not the case. Rape and greed are always bad,
anyone who thinks them good is a fool who lives in perversion of natural law, of objective ethical realism. We could certainly do without
Greed can be subjectively good. Maybe someone get's greedy and hordes all of the nuclear weapons on Earth, and then locks them in a vault because
their greed prevents them from using them, as it would deplete their collection. A greedy hoarder who hordes away a dangerous thing is a good thing,
not a bad thing, subjectively of course.
While I don't personally condone rape, I have met plenty of radical feminists who believe rape would be a satisfactory punishment for someone who
commits rape. While I disagree with the activity—I adhere to the philosophy of Ahimsa—the lex talion
philosophy has been popular for
thousands of years. So, subjectively, raping a rapist can be a beneficial countermeasure in the eyes of radical feminism.
We transcend Darwinian evolution all the time, its called modern medicine.
Medicine is not evolutionary, or natural. Medicine is an artificial construct, a chemical composition which we manufacture. Evolutionary theory is a
process of natural
selection in response to Nature.
However, Nature, in response to medicine, also develops super strains of the virus and bacteria which our medicine defeats. So, even with our
medicine, we're just furthering evolutionary theory, not transcending it as you claim.
Good exists all the time without evil. I did read your post, but you did not prove evil isn't parasitic. Good overcoming evil as per your
examples does not necessitate evil the way youd like to think it does. Show me one example where evil exists without something good it feeds from. If
you cannot, it seems then evil is a weaker parasite to good's pure nature, meaning we could do with out the bad and good would still exist.
You're playing a game of chicken-and-egg here. Presupposing that the "good" action must have come before the "evil" action. Where's your proof that
medicine existed before disease? Seems to me that the "bad" existed before the "good" there... maybe you've got it all backwards and the "good" is the
parasitic nature, feeding off the adversity and opposition which life naturally provides?
As for "good overcoming evil," I disagree that it ever really does. If "good" truly overcame "evil," ever, then there would be no more evil, anywhere,
ever. There's plenty of "evil" in the world though. Peace has not overcome war. Medicine has not overcome disease.
Now, if good and evil are subjective, dependent, not on definitions, but individual interpretations based on perspective, then it makes sense why evil
still exists: because anything can be evil, depending on the situation. And anything can be good, depending on the situation.
And finally: what use is medicine without disease? What use is invention and technology, without the dangers of manual labor? Everything that is good,
is only good because something evil reveals what life would be like without it. Take away the evil, and the good is meaningless.
PS. You claimed I ignored your points while half quoting me, leaving out the most important part
I left a link to your full post, and quoted the first sentence of each paragraph I was replying too. This is a technique which allows anyone reading
to know what points I am replying to, without wasting all of my characters by quoting your whole post. But, to appease your inability to click the
link all replies create, I'm quoting every letter you typed this time.
And the part you've twice failed to expand upon was your view on pantheism. Which I'm still waiting for. Its in the very title of your thread, but
you've not explained how pantheism applies to anything you've said.
So why edit out the answer then claim I didn't answer you, and also claim I didn't read when clearly I did? I see now I am debating with a
rhetorical narcasist less concerned with truth and more with manipulating what people appear as having said. You could do everyone reading this thread
a favor and spare us regurgitative rhetoric and deception by not posting any further.
Hey, look, name-calling! A true sign of a well-developed, fully self-realized, and valid argument!
I know, I'll prove your theory!
You turned to name-calling. That's evil. So, what good thing were you "parasiting" by resorting to name-calling? All I can think is that it was in
response to my own post. So, I guess by your own philosophy my post was "good" since your name-calling was the "evil" which "parasited" it.
~ Wandering Scribe
edit on 2/5/13 by Wandering Scribe because: spelling