How do I tell the Difference?

[Lilium of the Valley]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

Wishing someone who's dying, to do so with ease, is not wishing them to die. It's wishing them ease.

I maintain that, there are things which we all know inherently are not good. I don't believe intent is the end-all, be-all. As you pointed out, we can go to war for supposedly all the right reason, but terrible things come from war.

My point is more that, you can control the energy that YOU send out, by stating that it is to work for only the highest good. Thus even when your intention might be anger or the like (although maybe I"m the only one that sometimes gets mad and projects, lol), that added 'safeguard' helps to protect others.

these people were old and sick and not dying....which is why people were wishing them upon them for their own good to be at peace and rest and without pain. they were not already dieing...that was the whole point...my grandfather was deathly ill for 6 years...every year the doctors said he wouldnt make it another year...and after 3 years (as he was no longer able to walk, talk, sit, go to the bathroom on his own or even realize who his family was, plus on top of that went blind) it got to the point where my grandma, ma and me just literally wished for the man to finally be in peace and without pain....which would be to die....still he lived another 3 years suffering and in pain...so yes wishing someone that is already dying to die is wishing them ease, i agree. but wishing someone to die who is just sick and completely and utterly not to be cured...(of course it has to be sure that it is uncureable....which would mean long doc testing...maybe even a healing spell ritual etc etc etc..) is wishing them death with a greater cause in mind. especially (and for me it would probably be a family member like my grandfather...because of the emotion behind it).....its not an act of evil or hate...us wishing that was an act of love...as the last time he spoke it was even his own wish to die. thats just my way of seeing. to me, death is not infinite, nor a horrible thing to be afraid of...death is the ultimate release, the beginning of something new. (as i do believe in reincarnation).....which is where im cutting it off lol cuz i am getting into my intire beliefsystem, and this will turn into a "book" hahaha

- - - Updated - - -

Therefore war is inherently evil in all cases and should never be declared for any reason.

i completely agree, I also believe that war is inherently evil in all cases and scenarios. I was merely using it as an example of how "twisted" (in my eyes they are twisted) people can be to see it as a "greater good"...
i was never trying to say that war can be justified by anything. that is humanities biggest idiocy...one would think after so and so many repetitions, throughout history i may add, they would realize that they are on
the wrong path..like "hey we've tried this before...again again again and again....maybe we should try something NEW this time"

- - - Updated - - -

but wishing, or doing an extensive ritual even, to kill a murderous child molesting criminal or group of vandalizing, drug dealing, overtly violent and drug addicted thugs is doing society a favor..

i completly and utterly agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! child molesters omg dont get me started on those lol...i believe in the death penalty for those lowlife you know whats and whats (no cursing but you know what im saying)
hardcore criminals (murderers, rapists, childmolesters....im not talkin about the kid that stole a lollipop from the grocery store here LOL) generally just get me to the boilng point of anger in general...
again i will cut it off there before i start ranting and raving about criminals, that will also turn into a "book" LOL xD

[Maria de Luna]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

Therefore war is inherently evil in all cases

Agreed

and should never be declared for any reason.

Absolutely disagree. Sometimes the lesser of evils is nessecary, there are circumstances more inherrently evil than war.

[Kahlenda]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

I think we may have missed an important point here, that "good and evil" are social constructs but more importantly, they are social constructs of those that, believe in gods of absolute. for example god does everthing good, and satan does everything bad. for my experience (and again its opinion) there is no absolute in life, even in the gods, no matter where we look, what we do or what happens, all there is is balance everything is both inherently good and inherently evil. for example;

its a dry season, crops are dying and you conduct a rain spell, theres a massive down pour that effectivly ends the wet season the crops are well watered and grow magnificently everyone in the town village whatever eats happily and healthly, a sick child even gets better from plenty of water and plenty of food. happy ending no harm done right?

Wrong, that massive rain pour forced all the worms and other underground creatures to come above ground those that didnt make it drown those that did were eaten by birds or other creatures, and some were lucky enough to survive to get back to the ground.

No matter what we do or what our intentions are some "evil" will be caused somewhere simply because thats life. somethings die so other things live. like rabbits and foxes, cows and grass, people and cows.

somethings are put out so other can feel comfy, like a freind who is severly afraid of dogs so we put the dog outside so our friend can feel comfortable, im sure theres more natural examples but i cant think of any at the moement

personally i feel that anyone who understands and practices magic, knows this balance and just comes to terms with the fact that the good for one thing is the bad for another.
i think the idea of hexing someone is not a question of morality, but one of ethics.

"is it right that i be the person's judge jury and executioner?"

the example of child molesters, well in the US now adays (i maybe wrong here) but a child molester is any none minor that engages in sexual activity with a minor (that being a person under the age of 18), however in britain the difference here a minor is below the age of sixteen.

so if i was to go out in a bar there (unlikely to happen but bear with me) and came across a 17 year old girl, being 23 myself i consider her within my sexual age range, and having been brought up in britain would see that 17 year old girl as a perfectly legal willing participant. however by US law i have committed an Illegal (and in some people's eyes "evil") act.

Go back a few hundred years and marrying a 14 year old girl and engaging in sexual intercourse with her was perfectly legal. and yet to some people it was ethically wrong.

Who is morally and ethically right? and by whose standards are we judging them?

[SPhoenix]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

Therefore war is inherently evil in all cases and should never be declared for any reason.

Morality is subjective, there is nothing in this universe that is good or evil without something to decide that it is so. Because there is no objective moral standard, the morality of the best of us, the worst of us, and even the vast majority of us, are all equally valid.

Intent does matter, that is the only way to tell the difference between malice and incompetence. Which is important for legal reasons.

So you think that a country that is being invaded should just lay down and take it as evil people who will enslave them invade them? I do not agree. You feel that if one country can protect the people of another from being enslaved, they should rather do nothing? I don't agree.

Nor do I agree that everyone's morality is equally valid. If you lived alone and in a void without others, then you could state that everyone's morality is equally valid. But you cannot first state that everyone's morality is equally valid, and that nothing is good or evil... but then turn around and say that war is inherently evil. You have very clearly and obviously contradicted yourself.

I didn't say that intent doesn't matter. I stated that it is not the END-ALL, BE-ALL. There are many things in life that matter without being the highest priority of a given issue.

[MaskedOne]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

Everyone has read the entire post Denarius made the comment on war in, right? I'm looking at it and seeing the war comment as Denarius taking the concept of an inherently wrong act and then carrying that premise to a possible conclusion to illustrate his point on subjective morality. I'm a little confused why everyone is responding to it as if it's an actual statement of belief...

[Maria de Luna]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

Therefore war is inherently evil in all cases and should never be declared for any reason.

Morality is subjective, there is nothing in this universe that is good or evil without something to decide that it is so. Because there is no objective moral standard, the morality of the best of us, the worst of us, and even the vast majority of us, are all equally valid.

Intent does matter, that is the only way to tell the difference between malice and incompetence. Which is important for legal reasons.

I think it was the last statement that got me, I am sorry if I mis understood your point, please fee free to ignore me :P

[Lilium of the Valley]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

I think we may have missed an important point here, that "good and evil" are social constructs but more importantly, they are social constructs of those that, believe in gods of absolute. for example god does everthing good, and satan does everything bad. for my experience (and again its opinion) there is no absolute in life, even in the gods, no matter where we look, what we do or what happens, all there is is balance everything is both inherently good and inherently evil. for example;

its a dry season, crops are dying and you conduct a rain spell, theres a massive down pour that effectivly ends the wet season the crops are well watered and grow magnificently everyone in the town village whatever eats happily and healthly, a sick child even gets better from plenty of water and plenty of food. happy ending no harm done right?

Wrong, that massive rain pour forced all the worms and other underground creatures to come above ground those that didnt make it drown those that did were eaten by birds or other creatures, and some were lucky enough to survive to get back to the ground.

No matter what we do or what our intentions are some "evil" will be caused somewhere simply because thats life. somethings die so other things live. like rabbits and foxes, cows and grass, people and cows.

somethings are put out so other can feel comfy, like a freind who is severly afraid of dogs so we put the dog outside so our friend can feel comfortable, im sure theres more natural examples but i cant think of any at the moement

personally i feel that anyone who understands and practices magic, knows this balance and just comes to terms with the fact that the good for one thing is the bad for another.
i think the idea of hexing someone is not a question of morality, but one of ethics.

"is it right that i be the person's judge jury and executioner?"

the example of child molesters, well in the US now adays (i maybe wrong here) but a child molester is any none minor that engages in sexual activity with a minor (that being a person under the age of 18), however in britain the difference here a minor is below the age of sixteen.

so if i was to go out in a bar there (unlikely to happen but bear with me) and came across a 17 year old girl, being 23 myself i consider her within my sexual age range, and having been brought up in britain would see that 17 year old girl as a perfectly legal willing participant. however by US law i have committed an Illegal (and in some people's eyes "evil") act.

Go back a few hundred years and marrying a 14 year old girl and engaging in sexual intercourse with her was perfectly legal. and yet to some people it was ethically wrong.

Who is morally and ethically right? and by whose standards are we judging them?

this is what i was trying to say...there is good and bad in everything. so regardless how good one is trying to be, someone is going to get hurt...
my mother use to say this to me all the time "try as much as you please, but you will never be able to please everyone at once"
and thats kinda what it is here. love the example btw kahlenda....so im gonna use it really quick :P there it was possible to please the plants and the people and the little starving children,
werent able to "please" the worms that drowned...so ya gotta just way the pros and cons and choose if the 'good' that one is creating (with magic lets say) is worth the cost (the 'bad' things that may happen).
in this example of the crops, feeding hungry children and townsfolk and animals and all that other good stuff....is it worth having a whooooole lot of worms and ants and other things that live in the ground die by drowning.
and is one capable of taking that "punishment" by karma (i personally go by the 3 fold law which is kinda the same as karma...at least thats what i call it) that will come for killing the worms.
if yes i can take that responsibility then the spell is ok...if not then dont do it and let nature decide who will live or die...the worms or the people.

[Kahlenda]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

yes i can take that responsibility then the spell is ok...if not then dont do it and let nature decide who will live or die...the worms or the people.

Exactly the point i was trying to make, this is my own opinion mind, magic is the ability to change the world around us, and it is its own pleasure but (i know for me specifically) nature is my pleasure as well and if im going to change that (by doing magic) for any reason i should have a good reason for doing so. and the same holds true for a person nature, weather body or spirit and so on and so forth we everything.

[Lilium of the Valley]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

Exactly the point i was trying to make, this is my own opinion mind, magic is the ability to change the world around us, and it is its own pleasure but (i know for me specifically) nature is my pleasure as well and if im going to change that (by doing magic) for any reason i should have a good reason for doing so. and the same holds true for a person nature, weather body or spirit and so on and so forth we everything.

i completely agree

[Denarius]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

So you think that a country that is being invaded should just lay down and take it as evil people who will enslave them invade them? I do not agree. You feel that if one country can protect the people of another from being enslaved, they should rather do nothing? I don't agree.

According to your earlier post going to war will only lead to terrible things, regardless of how justified it is. I just took that thought to it's logical conclusion, which is why I prefaced my statement with "therefore."

Nor do I agree that everyone's morality is equally valid. If you lived alone and in a void without others, then you could state that everyone's morality is equally valid. But you cannot first state that everyone's morality is equally valid, and that nothing is good or evil... but then turn around and say that war is inherently evil. You have very clearly and obviously contradicted yourself.

I stated that nothing is good or evil in a vacuum, such things require judgement which itself requires a judge. Their existence is conditional upon at least one being existing that is capable of judgement and has actively done so. Then they only exist relative to that being.

I am very interested in you explaining how my opinion is any less or more valid than your opinion, or anyone else's for that matter.

I didn't say that intent doesn't matter. I stated that it is not the END-ALL, BE-ALL. There are many things in life that matter without being the highest priority of a given issue.

Well, I'm stating that it is the end all, be-all... at least when it comes to morally judging the actions of others.

[PsykhikosAnarchosNautikos]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

the example of child molesters, well in the US now adays (i maybe wrong here) but a child molester is any none minor that engages in sexual activity with a minor (that being a person under the age of 18), however in britain the difference here a minor is below the age of sixteen.

so if i was to go out in a bar there (unlikely to happen but bear with me) and came across a 17 year old girl, being 23 myself i consider her within my sexual age range, and having been brought up in britain would see that 17 year old girl as a perfectly legal willing participant. however by US law i have committed an Illegal (and in some people's eyes "evil") act.

Go back a few hundred years and marrying a 14 year old girl and engaging in sexual intercourse with her was perfectly legal. and yet to some people it was ethically wrong.

Who is morally and ethically right? and by whose standards are we judging them?

By molestation or statutory rape I do not mean an older lady or gentleman who is genuinely in love with a youngster and the youngster loves them back (how to judge if this is just fantasy for the youngster or real, intuitive love is another matter entirely), I mean a criminal, a mentally twisted individual and a pervert who forces sex upon a child or younger individual. In this idea the person is a bad person, and if someone thinks otherwise I really don't care about their subjective moral beliefs because they are not valid in any rational way.

If the youngster and older lady or gentlemen genuinely love each other (or even just have shared sexual feelings) and nothing is forced but the elder person understands that the person is young and does not have the same life experience and allows free conversation and the youngster to choose their actions with the older individual and no harm comes to them by their choice of sexual relations or not, this is not a problem in my mind. This is just two people that have an affinity for each other. If someone thinks this is wrong and evil, that is okay because that is their belief and it is rational, but on the other hand if others just view it as an act of love or lust and it is okay by their moral standards and personal ethics, this is also rational. No harm comes to either individual.

This is how I draw moral and ethical conclusions (harm none or fighting back)- does it harm the parties involved, and if so, what has the party involved done and do they continue to put others in harms way in a violent and perverse manner? If the answer is yes, then by all the horrible words I can think of, they are better left for dead. If they have 'repented' and are really doing their best to be a better person and have not caused harm in a significant amount of time (many years even in the face of temptation) then their life is worth another chance and the accusers anger, although valid, should be dealt with in a more constructive manner.

[pjbaldwinjr1]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

I believe that there is a very fine line between each of these, simply putting a different label on each. you should always just ask someone, what they are though rather than assuming that they are something.

[Denarius]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

I really don't care about their subjective moral beliefs because they are not valid in any rational way.

I really didn't want to do this, but by you bringing it up I am going to have to debase myself by defending rapists. Controversy ahoy!

Just as it is in the nature of an artist to create art, it is in the nature of a rapist to rape. They are just following their inclinations and instincts. A robot that performs it's functions adequately can be said to be good. Whether those functions are sweeping or torture killing. In this context a rapist can be said to be good if they are particularly skilled at raping. They would be a good rapist, perhaps still a bad person though. What makes a person good? Can a person be said to be good if in the end they have helped more than they harmed? Even if they are a rapist?

In raping, a rapist fulfills their function and receives pleasure. Pleasure from genital stimulation and from dominance. If harm is inherently bad, than it stands to reason that pleasure is inherently good. So, rationally speaking, the morality of rape depends on whether the pleasure of the act outweighs the pain.

Trigger warning, nsfw language: Enjoying rape, a woman's point of view. As for the pain, we have rape trauma syndrome. As well as possible injuries that can occur during.

With this in mind let's construct the ideal rape. We have a rapee that has a pleasurable experience, minimal physical or psychological injuries occur in this case, and the rapist obviously enjoyed themself. No harm comes to either individual. Regardless of the ages involved, or how twisted the mentally or perverted either subjects are.

This is the only time such relations are forced by the rapist in question, who otherwise lives a decently uneventful life like most do. Still a bad person, rationally speaking?

We could also have a rapist who, in some manner or another, believes that it is their moral duty to rape. Perhaps it comes from some psychological or neurological aberration, perhaps there is something at play beyond the rapist that would actually make their beliefs justified to common sensibilities. Maybe he or she lives in a society where such things are required because of population deficiency or something.

Would such a person be bad even then? Rationally speaking.

What about from the point of view of a god, looking at the scene as we might an ant killing an ant? They don't see anything morally wrong, it's just two stupid and insignificant beings, barely worth their notice, doing as they are wont to do. I do not see an ant that kills another ant as being a bad ant, or committing an act of evil.

Lots of animals rape, such as dolphins. Are these dolphins evil? On that same line, would someone mentally unsound enough to not understand that rape causes harm be evil if they were to do so?

(I do not, in general and barring the absurdly unlikely justifiable circumstances, approve of rape. Just playing devil's advocate here, as is my wont and defined by my personal nature.)

[Nerá]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

I don't believe in "good" or "evil" per se. I also don't believe that using magick for personal gain is unethical. The way I see it, if you want to do something good in the world, you have to be in a position to do that. You have to help yourself before you can help others.

Intention is everything.

Same with the good vs. bad topic. You know what is right and wrong FOR YOU. it's up to you to decide what your values are and set your own boundaries.

That's just my opinion and how I try to live my life.

[PsykhikosAnarchosNautikos]

Re: How do I tell the Difference?

Before I begin, I do understand you are only playing the advocate, but I must speak... well, type.

Well, Denarius, you bring up a good point. Although the idea of rape makes my gut twist and fists want to fly (with sharp or blunt objects attached, honestly), rationally speaking (especially reading that blog post) and your arguments, it would seem that rape isn't always inherently bad. On the other hand, though, you did mention mental aberration in one sentence, and an aberration means you are not thinking rationally, thus by acting from your aberration you are not acting so either. Just because a harmful or perverse act may be a human function does not make it a good thing. It is a rapists function to rape, a drunks function to abuse, but it is not exactly a good thing. Sometimes I speak my mind in a very harsh and immature manner (almost daily in my younger years) but I am not doing any one a favor, including myself, so that is a bad thing. More harm is done than good.

Like the blog said, after the victim begins to feel pleasure than the act of rape isn't rape anymore, so... it isn't a bad thing because, like the blogger wrote, it is consensual because of the act of pleasure for both parties, no matter how perverse or twisted. I mention that because it nullifies the argument that rape isn't bad because essentially rape never happened in that circumstance. It started as a bad thing then ended up being the best sex ever. It nullifies the argument that rape isn't bad because no rape happened so that logic doesn't fit that rape is good. Rape is bad because it is not consensual. It the case for the blog it was, maybe not initially, but it was consensual.

This same idea can be applied to getting into a fight. You may be scared and not want to fight but once the punches start coming you realize how fun it is. The excitement and randomness of the situation gets your blood pumping. Even if you get your butt kicked, face bloodied and pride destroyed you have a sense of relief because at least you took the pain and survived. On the one hand the antagonist is seen as bad but on the other the antagonist did the victim a service- it showed the victim they are strong. I see the point, I just think that if someone feels they need to rape for some higher or greater purpose they are delusional and should be put down, either by a curse, a vigilante or the law. Like I said, I understand your point, but I still stick to what I said earlier, UNLESS they are doing all they can to be a better person. Good points, though.