"And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good - Need we ask anyone to tell
us these things?"
- Plato, The Phaedrus (360 B.C.E.)
__________________________

The virtue of anything is the measure of goodness in it. In this, however, everything is either good or bad depending on who you ask; what one praises, another prosecutes. Even crediting opinion, there are many things that are of doubtful virtue; and often what is praised as a great good turns out to have but little good in it, and a great deal of what is bad.

So, what is good, and what is not good? You tell me, and I’ll tell you.

Ah-ha! Yet another tough question, courtesy of Nemo.

Well, I'll give you my opinion, and await a vicious chewing-out by whatever rhetoric you stand by.

We live finite lives. THough the connections we foster with others hold a certain degree of importance, the only truly valuable pleasures/sensations we can witness/feel are our own. "Good" is anything that benefits you. "Bad" is something that hurts you. Even on a social level, we do "good" unto others, with the underlying premise that somewhere, sometime, they will do "good" unto us.

Under the magnifying glass of reason (i am fond of odd metaphors), altruism becomes self-motivated social manipulation. "Evil" becomes self-preservation on a social scale. Morality, is simply weighing what is perceived as "good", and what is perceived as "bad", and finding the middle ground between the two that benefits you most.

And now, i'll throw up my arms, and wait for someone to viciously rebuke me.

The Golden Rule teaches: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” And, as Jesus taught: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matthew, 22:39 (KJV). This basic rule is hard of practice, for people, as a rule, are egocentric in their relations with others. Christ’s message of universal love is contrary to human nature; it requires one to be outgoing and forgiving of the faults of others - even to “turn the other cheek.” However, Christ - if he walked this earth - was an unworldly philosopher. The sad truth is that we are not that way; and if God intended man to be good, indeed, He should have made us better.

To put the concept of virtues and vices into a crucible and discover the essence of them, I'd say it comes down to this:

Respect is the ultimate virtue, disrespect is the ultimate vice.

That's what it boils down to.

How sad. We agree. This does not make for an interesting debate, not in the least.

Ah, and Nemo, no doubt you know already, as you are a two-year veteran (am i right?) of this board, we're not allowed to debate religion, not precisely, so I'm afraid I can't follow up on your "Divine Fallacy" thesis.

However, I can agree that Jesus' teachings were a bit...unrealistic.

Nonetheless, though it does not mitigate our obvious faults, we do strive, in small, yet incremental ways, to better ourselves. Redemption? Perhaps. No doubt, many would disagree. But the hope is there, for now.

So, what is good, and what is not good? You tell me, and I’ll tell you.

Let's start with what is good. It is a four-letter word consisting of an equal number of consonants and vowels, with a repetition of the vowel. Backward it spells "doog," which is like a wiener dog.

Good is what you want it to mean, as with any symbol, and a word is a symbol. It ain't the thing.

So, what do I think about when considering the symbol, "good"?

Depends on context. It's just one stupid symbol. I need more!

If she keeps hollering, "Good! Good!" I figure I'm doing it right.

That dark chocolate home-dipped cherry was sure good. I'd like another one.

It's good to be King.

You know, if you drop one vowel, it becomes god. Huh.

Maybe it'd be good to capitalize god. Maybe not.

Goodness gracious, Great Balls O Fire!

Goodnight Irene.

Let the good times roll . . .

It's probably not good to rollerskate in a buffalo herd. Wrestling with pigs is usually not good, and I hear being your own lawyer is pretty stupid, and that can't be good. I've not found any goodness in cranberry ketchup (really exists, don't know why), it's like stinky old leather. Unemployment sucks, but freelancing is pretty cool once the extreme chill wears off, so that's kinda good and bad. Seems there can be mixtures, huh? Take sex for instance. That can be real good, once you figure out how to do it, which doesn't seem to be in the curriculum, or it can be pretty damn bad, especially if you've stopped liking that person. Or were too drunk to tell, and then there are lots of scenarios that have nothing to do with sex or liking.

But I do think that sex, when done right, is good mostly. I'd put it up there with chocolate, motorcycles, guitars and free software that works. Electronics are pretty cool, except for the electric chair and guidance systems for ICBMs, that sort of thing. Cold beer and warm hearts work, that's good. Midwinter celebration of light -- good; commercialized holiday -- not good. Turkey sucks! Gravy good. On real mashed taters.

Healthy good. Sickly not good. Alka-seltzer good, and be sure to keep some around for the commercialized holidays. That's not good, just smart.

Beer is good!
Taxes are bad!
A beer tax is evil!

I believe the context is in virtues vs. vices in terms of moral philosophy - this being the personal philosophy section of

Good topic. But a note to the ones quoting the Bible, perhaps it is not the best idea as this could come back and haunt you as the next 'chapter' might say something different.






Good and Bad is subjective to the individual experiencing it.


For example, The American War in Iraq is Good for americans, as they get their hands on much needed Oil in a crippling economy. Whiles its Bad for Iraqis, as their country gets destroyed, and their people gets killed.


Two different sides, and none of them are less "true" or "false" then the other one.



As per person, you can make a simple basis, what is "bad" for you, is somethings that harms you, whiles something "good", is something that either improves, or keep the status quo. Thayt is almost universal.

It might all just be green libertarianism in some form or another. Moral relativity cannot be defeated, so it would seem that its all a bit relative. I think freedom meats society is a perpetual struggle. I mean roads alone or highways could probably speak volumes from collective human activity historically on the subject Personally in life I have met a good deal of resistance to my superior morality and I cant understand why It seems a good philosophy to me.

I think its one of those questions in which a lot of subjective matter can become worth more then life. Objective matter is hard to define and also becomes slowed more to inability for human reception of any truth. Personally half the time I think culture is a needed mechanism simply to avoid chaos, but it never seems to work as its foundation is built in ignorance and denial really.

It is said that love is the greatest of all virtues; however given love’s transience, its claim to greatness is doubtful at best. Certainly, love in its purest form has virtue. True love is exemplified by selflessness, the rarest of all virtues; but there have been scarce few selfless saints in this world, and most of them martyrs for the sake of goodness. For the rest of us lesser mortals, love is but an emotion - a rather selfish one at that; and while many would credit it more than its worth, as many have come to grief for it.

"Love stinks" - J. Geils Band

That's referring to romantic love, which is really just a reproductive biological function. Actual love does exist. Most people are pretty dim about it, so it seems. It's neutral about virtue and vice like a rock. Those human judgments don't make any difference.

Love preceded humanity and will survive the species, like matter and energy. Just how this works is way beyond my ability to understand, and I haven't found any convincing explanation. However, self-concern is not part of actual love. That's how the explanations go, a process of elimination. Actual love is not this or that, so what's left is what it is, which we have no idea what that might be.

One solution is not to attempt a naming exercise, that is, not put a symbol to it.

The terms "good" and "bad" have nothing to do with actual love either. There is absolutely no human judgment, which of course is pretty difficult for humans.

So . . . beer is good and I love it. I love beer, and that's good. Well, I think so. Actual love doesn't give a hoot what I think because the idea of "I" does not exist there -- no ego, no concern, no anything yet everything, dang paradox, that's what it is.

Which is about as close as it gets through human thought and language. Emotions understand actual love better, and that is really what actual love is about. It's expressed through music and poetry, dance and art. But none of that is actual love, just symbols for it, and we come back full circle.

It's so absurd that if you don't get a sense of humor from that, well, I don't think anyone could help but get a sense of humor from that. But it doesn't matter what I think . . . dang paradox.

There is no passion so all-consuming as love - it can satisfy all one’s emotional needs at once. Love is a fire fanned by expectancy that burns perpetually in imagination. (Is there any more indelible memory than one’s first love?) Love conquers all other passions - at least until the money runs out.

"What is Love anyway?" - Howard Jones.


Breaking down love to its core, what is it? Is it not a form of respect? "Love thy neighbor as thyself?"

Nemo! You're straying off your own topic! For shame, man!

Love is an all-consuming passion? Well, you have the benefit of years, so i suppose you'd know much better than I. But this does not correspond to your topic. Whether it consumes, or enflames, is it good? or bad?

Ah well, love is much more interesting to debate than the subjectivity of morality, so i'll add my own thoughts.

Love, is anyone who can put up with you for more than a minute.

Love is a powerful force; but there is no greater love than the love of money. Of all the passions that drive men, there is none so universal as that fueled by money - the need and greed for it, the getting and spending of it, and the misery for want of it - it represents all other human desires. Man will move heaven and earth for money and money’s worth, for it is not love but money that makes his world go round.

So, what is good, and what is not good? You tell me, and I’ll tell you.

What is good is to have goals in life and to always be striving for them. I think the most unhappy people are those who do not specify what they want out of life and then go after it.

What I also think is good is reading.

What I think is bad is television (most of it, with some exceptions).

We have become a society obsessed with pop culture at the expense of historical understanding. Most of us don't know or care about the world outside of our own superficial, meaningless daily events.

I am not trying to come across as a preacher here, but it's disheartening to see people so complacent, and content with the status quo.

If I could “see those Ancients, who were most renowned for their Wit and Learning” like Lemuel Gulliver in his account of Glubbdubdrib on his Voyage to Laputa in Gulliver’s Travels, or meet the great personages of history (e.g., Julius Caesar, Jesus Christ, etc.), I would forsake them all for but one hour’s conversation with Samuel Johnson.

Why do you not really respond to posts, but spout tangential drivel?

If I could visit with those Ancients
Most renowned for Wit and Learning
I'd bend my knee and wait with patience
For the Wisdom I've been yearning.

This isn't it that I've been reading -
It's mostly glubbdubbdrivel that
Leaves my patience cut and bleeding,
such flow'ry language, shallow, flat.

Good Points. Maybe things like the history channel (or other informative) programming could be beneficial, but most TV seems to be leaching our culture.

I also agree that half of the people I meet in life have no motivation. Goals, if anything, can be fulfilling. What I've found is that they often have exponential value. For instance, if someone decides to run a marathon, they get into better shape. Being in better shape gives them a better sense of confidence and more energy which may help them perform better at work... not to mention most likely a better love life, etc. Funny enough, that person may have just wanted to run. Next thing you know your relationship and career have taken off.

I think something people today need to understand as well is that success isn't a dollar figure in your bank account. Sometimes (or maybe even often) money follows success, but not always in that order if at all.

These ideas are related because often times TV teaches kids to value only expensive cars and clothes, not to get out of their house and explore the world, and to put on weight while they watch my "Super Sweet 16".

But then, from another angle, this is a world in which it is a good thing to abide by the social mean. Office drones need no individuality, or creativity; only the ability to obey orders. Innovation, where it exists is snapped up by corporations, and their innovators stamped into the ground.

If turning our kids into drones, allows them to adapt to a world where hope and individuality have no meaning, isn;t that a good thing?

Sure but against such current what does it take to change something and how long? I think the only way we can see humanity is to see people, but even then you contend with history and the reality of some cultural primitive becomes highly elusive. From vastly variations in large scale philosophical models into the present world, I think its easy to a relative nature. With that concept how can a society at any point in time defeat such blindness of self and surrounding ultimately?

So in response to your question what is the standard overall of what is good or bad, and how to you truthfully move in any direction thusly when you cant define the truth really? I think this is where moral absolutism comes in as a product of human function via force more then intrinsic realities themselves specifically as the current consensus moral code. The individual as you so concern I would then think to suffer the same fate as he or she grows over time more inclined to such a pattern perhaps. Cultural diversity in many ways is extremely easy to see, how can you have such vast variation even in terms such as murder?

AS with most debates- it boils down to semantics, and the need for pinpointing the actual definitions and coming to some terms.

"good" and "bad" are as interchangable and malleable in thought as AM pointed out. "When I am good, I am great, when I am bad, I am sensational" is a typical word play on this.

Good and bad will never have an absolute, simply because they are subjected to the individiual definitions one places on the words, and in what context they are delivered- it was good fun before AM got swatted by a mod- but totally on the point, had he finished the great lines with, you know, a point -

I would say that Christianity, religion, and even Christ himself has been a net bad thing for this planet. Very bad indeed, and it would have been a good thing had he never walked this earth. Would have been a good thing had Alexander NOT fostered the "mystery religions" by his conquering the world at that time.

But Nemo quoted "scripture" here, and I would say that most of what he is talking about, is very, very bad indeed.

So, as with such a large net cast here, we would have to be more specific to each instance, to determine what is "good" and what is "bad".

Having original ideas is probably not a good idea. In all the world, there have been few original thinkers; the rest are, at best, skilled craftsmen of established ideas. Being an original thinker, however, can be a dangerous occupation. Original ideas are revolutionary, which are rarely welcome - they challenge the conventional wisdom and threaten the security of the status quo. In all of history, more than just a few original thinkers (e.g., Socrates, Cicero, Christ) were executed.

Yes, but we are talking about virtues and vices. Think of good and bad in those contexts.

Christianity teaches to abide faith, hope and charity. 1 Corinthians 13:13 (KJV) These “three graces,” - often misrepresented as the Greek goddesses that were the special attendants of the divinities of love - have little virtue, if any at all. Indeed, there is less grace in faith than simpleness; and while there is some grace in giving, there is none in hope which is a purely selfish emotion. The truth is, simply, that grace has little to do with any of these things. To have grace requires selflessness, magnanimity and generosity of spirit, none of which have anything to do with faith, hope or charity. One would think generosity akin to charity, but it is not. True generosity is the virtue of giving of oneself; whereas charity is the act of giving away what one does not want or need, which is neither selfless nor generous. Faith, hope, charity - Humbug! - they are more aptly depicted as the three witches in Macbeth.

Even in the terms of "virtues and vices" could be so very, very relative. "Gambling" has been considered a "vice" and "bad"- but how do you explain the only thing driving the Las Vegas economy, and employing thousands as 'bad"- not to mention, like anything else, in moderation, it is good, clean fun, with a possible payoff! Then you take your winnings to the local (legal) house of ill repute- considered by some to be "bad"- while, both the hostesses and customers CERTAINLY don't feel that way? And yet, thier opinion, in the end, is the only one that matters if it is "good" or "bad"-

I knew one of the girls that worked in one of those places- and she loved it- thought it was the best thing she could have ever done- and she was/is an educated woman- or, as she puts it "I get to have lots of kinky sex, more orgasms than I can count in a day, I don't HAVE to sleep with anyone I don't feel like sleeping with, I make lots of money, I make men and women and couples very happy to be here, and I go to sleep every day or night very, very happy and contented with my life"- now, the christian types would say her life is "bad"- while she is clearly thinking her life is "very, very good" and that what she does is very good as well.

I can not call prostitution, gambling, drinking or drugging "bad" by themselves, I can only call them "BAD' if the net impact on the individual's life is "bad".

Somewhere, I can't remember the exact 'saint" at the moment (though, i always thought, if I could get my hands on a time machine, i would first see if Jesus was a real person the bible makes him out to be, then I would assasinate this former hedonist turned puritin "saint" and change history to a much less dysfunctional one, I think)- christianity and western thinking came up with normal bodily functions as "bad".

I thikn when anything that has a biological basis (most "sins" are fun, because they have some kind of biological pay off) is NOT inherently a 'bad" by itself- it is when it taken to an extreme it is "bad"- and I don't even think extremism in and of itself is "bad" ir invirtuous, it is only when it is used to harm the "innocent" that it is "bad".

I would agree with doomed planet that reading is good. (See Post #17, supra.) Many years ago, I began, desultorily, to read. It is probably ironic that the first book that I read was Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe, which is reputed to be the first novel in the English language. Since then, I have read a great number of books, and more than a few of them several times. It is not uncommon that I read an entire book within the space of a single day. I am not a particularly rapid reader, but I suffer from insomnia, and for these many years, books have been the companions of my sleepless hours. Even so, there are many, many books that I have not read, great rivers of literature and learning that I have yet to course. More recently, my reading has become more select, and my studies more focused. Some of the books that I read now have been out of print for several centuries and only available in the great libraries or in private collections; and some I must need translate myself, which can be very tedious, not to say frustrating. Still, whenever I start a another book, it is with that same spirit of Robinson Crusoe when he takes up his salvaged copy of the Bible, and begins, for the first time, to read it in earnest.

So, what is good, and what is not good? You tell me, and I'll tell you.

Dear sir happiness is nothing but a chemical imbalance in the brain distracting you from your true state of mind.

Good is such a subjective term, a swash between desire and intent. Far be it from me to tell you the prattling of the heart. Man is an odd creature, attaching value to his time and labours. He routinely confuses what he wants from what he needs. His whims are at the mercy of his perceptions and his perceptions are as varied as a rainbow. I ask you what good is his opinion? Instead let's become one with the beast, only listening to the baying of wolves and feel the cold snow at our feet. To dance under the moon and to chase our hungers, that is the only good we will know. Will I hunt alone?

In a nutshell:

Suffering is bad.

Thus:

Not suffering is unbad. (To play games with Orwell's NewSpeak.)

I deliberately say "unbad" because it seems to me to be much easier to find out what is bad rather than what is good. Thus, it is easier (and, it seems to me, more important) to avoid the bad rather than to seek out the good.

All of this begs the question:

What is suffering?

Good question. All I can say is that a being capable of suffering knows what suffering is, and seeks to avoid it. Since human beings can suffer, and are social animals who almost always have some degree of empathy, the sufferings of others causes me to suffer, whether I like it or not. Thus, I come to this conclusion:

The degree to which something should be the object of ethical consideration is directly proportional to its ability to suffer.

That leaves a lot of room open for arguing about the details, but I find that it serves as a good place to start. Allow me to add that I am quite aware that sometimes one must endure a smaller degree of suffering to prevent a larger degree of suffering. I might also mention that the death of a being capable of suffering, even if it is entirely painless, is itself a form of suffering, because it removes all future experiences. (There are some rare, extreme circumstances where the suffering of death may be less than continuing to live with nothing but extreme suffering for the rest of one's life. Even in such a case, however, I would not say that death is "good" in any way, but simply less bad.)

Hence the question for debate that asks your opinion of what's good and bad in the context of virtues and vices.



There you go... you see? Context is illuminating.

Personally, I believe that a thing that can be a virtue in one instance can be a vice in another. To me, it comes down to respect. Prostitution, for example, to me is not a vice to those who do it with a sense of self-respect and respect for the person they are doing business with. I think it is a vice when it is done out of desperation and with little self-respect. I think, with few exceptions any virtue can be a vice and vice versa (no pun intended).



So suffering is a vice? Not suffering is a virtue? I would argue that sometimes suffering can be a virtue... and not just something one endures, but something one transcends. The most mundane example would be vigorous exercise. I listened to an interview with a free climber on NPR, and one of the questions he was asked related to how his fingertips felt when he grabbed a rock. He said it was extremely painful.

I wouldn't quite word it that way. Perhaps I might say that causing unnecessary suffering is the vice, and that preventing it is the virtue. I would certainly agree that sometimes a small amount of suffering is acceptable when it prevents a greater amount of suffering. The rock climber endures the physical pain of climbing in order to prevent the greater suffering (at least to her) of being bored or feeling unworthy of the challenge or whatever. The pain caused by the act of climbing, in and of itself, cannot be considered anything but an evil; but it is an evil endured for the sake of a greater good.

Where we quickly get into trouble is when we decide that the suffering of someone else is justified by the benefit to ourselves. There are times when this is obviously true. For example, we inflict the suffering of not allowing people to drive through red lights (loss of freedom being a form of suffering; in this case, a trivial one) in order to prevent the greater evil of automobile accidents. However, it is very tempting to sacrifice the freedom of others for a "good cause." These decisions need to be made very, very carefully, with a great deal of discussion and argument.

The pain of climbing in and of itself an act of evil? I think you misunderstand the situation entirely. It is suffering transcended... not simply endured. Besides, I would hardly call a lack of boredom or overcoming a feeling of unworthiness a "greater good" that would make such suffering worthy of endurance in the first place. I would argue that there is something more to it than that.

Let me make myself clear. Pain, of any kind, is inherently an evil; not in a moral sense, but in the sense that disease is an evil. We only enter into moral considerations when we deliberately inflict suffering which is not necessary. (This is known as "cruelty," and is the most evil of all vices, in my book. As a side note, is it possible to be cruel to oneself, or are all actions which effect only oneself ethically neutral? I still haven't made up my mind about that, but I can definitely say that cruelty to others is the basic moral evil. Perhaps we can say that only those who are mentally ill are "cruel" to themselves -- any sane organism, by its very nature, seeking to avoid suffering -- and are therefore not morally responsible. )



It wouldn't be the first time . . .



Well, whatever that "something" might be, the lack of it is the greater suffering which is avoided by enduring the lesser suffering. Think about it; if the pain of climbing is worse than the pain of not having climbed, why would you do it?

Yes, and I think there's something like a universal moral calculus that leads to this. Jesus wasn't the only one who came up with the Golden Rule. We humans understand that others can suffer, and we know what it's like to suffer ourselves. For any moral or ethical rule, we have to be prepared to face it from either side. Therefore, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

From this rule, many natural rights can be derived, such as: people have the right not to be murdered, tortured, raped, or enslaved. Those rights naturally emerge in a social species that can understand the minds and feelings of others. It's tempting to say they're universal. But if they're universal, how could a respected man like Thomas Jefferson have held slaves? I think it's because the "universal" morality behind the golden rule only applies to an "in group," which in Jefferson's time didn't include black people.

That sounds heartless, and it is, but I don't see how ethics and morality could have evolved any other way. In the beginning, there was nature, red in tooth and claw. Proto-humans went to war with each other, just as displaced chimpanzees do today. Morality couldn't have started with loving the enemy; it had to start as an understanding that applied within the group. It's immoral to hurt someone in the in-group, and the other members of the group will tend to get angry and want to punish that kind of thing. Cruelty to an enemy tribe, or to animals, wouldn't have been cause for anger.

The story of the last few hundred years is the expansion of that "in group" circle to include all of humanity. All to the good where it's happened, and may it become a true universal.

How wide will the circle ultimately extend? ("Vegetable rights and peace"?) I think it's right to consider the suffering of animals, but also right to recognize that most of them wouldn't give a thought to our suffering. They're not in the reciprocal circle. I'm comfortable with the idea that some animals will suffer in medical testing, in order to save human lives. I'd like their suffering minimized, but I'm not prepared to ban testing until the suffering can be reduced to zero.

The important point is that plants cannot suffer (or experience anything at all.) Thus, they cannot be the objects of ethical consideration.



To me, it seems that whether or not something considers me as an object of ethical consideration is irrelevant to whether I consider it such an object. Consider a completely sociopathic human being who does not care at all what others suffer. Although it may be necessary to take precautions against such a person, and may even prove necessary to restrict her freedom in order to protect others (thus causing her to suffer), I would say that I still have the responsibility to avoid causing her unnecessary suffering. This is where I must disagree with those who believe that it is proper for those who have caused suffering to endure suffering themselves. I can understand the emotional appeal, to some, of the idea of subjecting murderers to torture. I cannot accept it as official policy.

I'm comfortable with the idea that some animals will suffer in medical testing, in order to save human lives. I'd like their suffering minimized, but I'm not prepared to ban testing until the suffering can be reduced to zero.

This is a complex issue, with many factors to consider. First of all, the degree to which an animal can suffer is important. I think it is clear, for example, that a chimpanzee can suffer to a much greater extent than an oyster. Next, one must try to determine which forms of medical research are genuinely important and beneficial. (This is not always easy to do, but some so-called "research" adds little or nothing to human knowledge, and causes misery in our fellow creatures.) Third, when such research can be justified by its vital importance to human health, it is important that it be as free from suffering as possible, and that it be used to the absolute minimum extent possible.

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) has a good statement about their position on this issue. It points out that the results obtained from animal research are not always reliable. (Human beings are medically not the same as animals, particularly animals under extreme stress.) It also offers alternatives to animal research.

Link

Over the very long run, as you say, the circle of ethical consideration widens. It is, perhaps, foolishly optimistic of me to hope that, centuries or millenia from now, that circle will include non-human vertebrates.

We no longer enslave animals for food purposes.

-- Commander Will Riker, "Lonely Among Us," Star Trek: The Next Generation

Well, I find very few definitions of evil that lack a moral connotation, but if you mean "an evil" in the sense of "something that brings sorrow, despair or calamity," I would have to, again, disagree on the same grounds as before.



I would argue that cruelty to oneself is also evil. But then, I believe this all boils down to respect. As I stated earlier, I believe respect is the ultimate virtue and disrespect the ultimate vice - this includes respect for oneself.



I don't think you have to be insane to be cruel to oneself. I don't think one could be considered "happy" if one is being cruel to oneself, but I don't believe one needs to be insane.



I have thought about it, and having done similar things, I would say that transcending the pain is part of why people do it. Not simply enduring the pain, but triumphing over the restrictive aspects of it.



I think that is a huge assumption. Plants can't experience anything at all? I beg to differ. Just because their responses may differ from human responses - largely due to the difference in anatomical and physiological makeup - does not mean they have no responses. A response comes as the result of an experience; therefore, a plant can experience something, because they do respond to stimuli. If pain is a signal, warning of distress, then the chemical responses in plants to distress could be considered responses to pain.

Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire burn, and caldron bubble.
- Shakespeare, Macbeth, Act IV, Scene I.
________________________________

Hatred is bad - indeed, it is the bane of goodness. Hatred is the stepchild of ignorance and cousin to the twins envy and jealousy. Hatred depends on fear and distrust and its allies cruelty and revenge, which support and protect it; and it cannot live but in the company of misery. It is always in a stew over something, seething slowly, until it froths over in a venomous broil, poisoning all it touches and making a ruin of everything. To harbor hatred is to shut out all that is good leaving room for only what is bad. Hatred assumes many forms, but it cannot be disguised for it has the stench of corruption about it.

Those wits, that think they have thee, do very oft prove fools
-Shakespeare, Twelfth Night, Act 1. Sc. 5

And how, exactly, does hatred depend on fear and distrust?

So, we have cruelty, hatred, and "breaking the golden rule". Let me add one of my own; apathy.

Seriously, don;t you ever get tired of it? The apathy of the "masses" of which we are a small, small minority. Ignorance, and irresponsibility are its inevitable offspring, and the world suffers the burden. Cruelty, at least, implies acknowledgent of the outside world, if only to cause it harm. Ignorance, turning a blind eye to those in need, to me, that is the greatest cruelty of all.

(Bold added for emphasis)

I have to disagree here. Even salt "responds" to being placed in water by dissolving. This doesn't mean that salt experiences -- is conscious and aware of -- anything. I see no evidence at all that plants have even the tiniest amount of consciousness, the way that I see very plain and clear evidence that some animals, at least, have consciousness.

Everything I have learned tells me that consciousness requires some minimal amount of central nervous system development. Rocks cannot have consciousness. The dead cannot have consciousness. And, despite some mystical/New Age ideas to the contrary, it seems evident to me that plants cannot have consciousness. People have consciousness; other vertebrates have consciousness; "lower" forms of animal life may or may not. (My best guess is that insects, for example, do not genuinely experience the suffering -- the misery -- of pain, although they may respond in ways which suggest that they experience the pain itself, in some sense. I admit that this is only guesswork on my part, and it's probably best to err on the side of not causing suffering.)

If I seem to be stubbornly harping on this point, it's because I'm a little tired of telling people I'm a vegetarian, and them asking me why I don't feel sorry for those poor plants I'm eating.

I can't argue with this moral reasoning. I'm inclined to agree with it. I would say, in defense of the idea that "it is proper for those who have caused suffering to endure suffering themselves," that morality and ethics probably couldn't have evolved without such sentiments. Anger is a moral emotion, in the sense that it's part of the moral sense: the part that makes sure the rules get enforced. We as a species haven't always had Leviathan and Law to provide justice. Even now that we have them, the criminal justice system still relies on jurors being convinced that the accused is guilty and deserves punishment.

Empathy is the twin sister of sympathy but without her sentiment. Empathy is the ability to put oneself in another’s place. To have empathy is to be sensitive of feeling; to have sympathy, however, is to share those feelings without misgivings. Compassion is the bolder brother of sympathy and empathy. Compassion acts when sympathy only speaks out and empathy looks on. To have compassion requires selflessness, the rarest of all virtues. Compassion is the mettle of heroes, for it is but one step from putting others’ interests before one’s own to sacrificing oneself for the sake of others.

pretty.



And where in the Classification of Living Things does salt lie? What Kingdom, what Phylum? You aren't seriously going to compare a chemical reaction in something not alive to the response of something that is living, are you?



The Nervous System of Plants

Enduring pain does not require an awareness of the nature of the sensation. It merely requires the ability to experience it. If an animal has nerves, it can experience pain, vertebrate or invertebrate - it can suffer, even if it is not aware of the nature of its own suffering. The same can be said for plants.



Eating is a necessity and we can't survive on rocks and salt. We need to eat living things - things capable of suffering.

I'm not sure why you are splitting hairs on this point? I think 'suffering is bad' sums it up quite well. The ability to learn to transcend pain is something to be desired...why exactly? Oh, yes, to end the suffering. On the flip side, it's really a dichotomous pleasure/pain principle that all of life revolves around....not sure whether that's a virtue or vice, or just a plain fact of life.

I thought your summation was pretty good as well. Respect is the ultimate virtue. But then, we could also split hairs on that one easily enough. All sorts of crimes are committed in the name of preserving/obtaining respect. Whole societies revolved around the idea, and they weren't exactly what most would consider to be "virtuous". A samurai lops off the head of his friend, whom he deeply respects. Is this still an ultimate virtue?

Edited to add: Thought I'd add a link to a topic I started LONG ago. It was very similar to this one.

Respect is an attribute, not a virtue.

Respect - talks about respect as a virtue

Respect is also discussed here as a virtue

Why do you believe respect is not a virtue?

You respect something because it has virtue; it is not a virtue in itself.

Respecting something because it has virtue? That sounds like a virtuous thing to do. Maybe I should respect the person who respects something because it has virtue. Then perhaps someone will respect me for respecting the virtue in the person respecting that aforementioned thing that has virtue. Then perhaps someone will respect that person for being so virtuous in respecting the person who showed respect for me for showing respect to the person who respected the thing that had virtue.

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" is an example of the virtue of respect.




No, to transcend the pain is to triumph over the restrictive aspects of it... not to end the suffering. You still suffer. Suffering is something all living things do.



In terms of moral philosophy is the act you describe really respectful? Just because someone does something in the name of respect doesn't mean it is respectful. Many heinous are committed in the name of loving a God. Does this mean that by doing those heinous acts they were actually loving God?