Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

"Someone who does not know the difference between good and evil is worth nothing." -- Miecyslaw Kasprzyk, Polish rescuer of Jews during the Holocaust, New York Times, Jan. 30, 2005





This attitude expressed by Dr. Zaius seems to be more and more pervasive these days, and I struggle to understand it. Why is it considered impolite, asinine, stupid, arrogant, etc. to recognize that there is both good and evil in the world? I read a good article the other day that discussed this very issue. The above quote is taken directly from it.

I would hope that this denial of "morals", heaven forbid, does not include such areas as rape, child molestation, murder, etc... but that's why I'm starting this thread. Because as it stands, people who refuse to acknowledge that darkness and light exist make me sick and fearful for the future of humanity.

Responses?

_________________

Just to avoid some semantic quibbles, do you consider Good and Evil to be the same concepts as Right and Wrong, respectively?

_________________

Good question. I'd have to say that good vs. evil is a universal absolute thing, while right vs. wrong could differ based on circumstance.

For example, actions can be construed as right and wrong. The action of killing someone is generally considered wrong, but in the case of self defense, for example, killing someone could be considered right.

Good vs. evil, on the other hand, I believe is more based on what's in your heart. If you enjoyed killing someone in self defense, I'd construe that as evil. It's a pretty large discussion area, but I think that sums it up.

_________________

I certainly don't think that Dr. Z. doesn't thing that "morals" exist. He was merely saying that he didn't like it when people used the word "morals" in terms of arguement

_________________

Okay, I guess I should have noticed that Dr. Zaius had been banned before trying to approach him\her. (See: Homosexual Marriage thread)

_________________

I do not consider Good and Evil as being quite the same thing as Right and Wrong. Good is an inherent quality, of which Evil is deprivation or lack thereof. Good and Evil can also be understood in terms of health and sickness, comfort and pain, safety and danger.

Right and Wrong, on the other hand, are moral in nature. And there is not always a direct connection between Good and Evil and Right and Wrong. A person could be a very faithful and kind person, but still be struck with an illness.

But back to the subject at hand: do Right and Wrong as moral categories truly exist, or are they the mere fabrications of social or religious expectations?

It would seem to me that, if you wanted to impose categories of Right and Wrong in any circumstance, you'd need some clearly defined goal that you believe moral people should strive to achieve, and that, to a very large degree, depends on what you personally find valuable and meaningful.

For example, as a Christian, I believe that God created mankind in his own image. Therefore, categories of Right and Wrong are ultimately related to mankind fulfilling God's will and living out that image. In this system, God alone has the right to determine what is Right and what is Wrong.

For other systems, one must understand what is valuable and meaningful. Our modern society, for example, values freedom of choice above all other types of good. Now, I'm all for freedom of choice, but I also believe that such freedom needs to be tempered with understanding that choice itself is not the highest good. To me, what is far more important is that people make wise choices that respect humanity. Therefore, to me, abortion is wrong. Why? Because it needlessly destroys human life. For the same reason, I oppose the war in Iraq. The cost of freedom in that country is simply too high; we've got to get back to the understanding that human life and dignity is a much higher good than mere freedom of choice that has not been tempered by wisdom.

That, it appears to me, is the main point of contention between Zaius and myself. I was trying to get him to articulate exactly what it was he considered valuable and meaningful, but he never could. In arguing against the church, he swiftly condemned (and rightly so) the Inquisition for its cruelty. However, he himself was in favor of systematic execution of the disabled elderly, claiming that they were not useful. So is people's usefulness the highest value, or is life? If the former, then we have no right to condemn the Inquisition (or that really mean German guy from the 1940's, whose name you're not supposed to use in forums); after all, for them it was much more useful to get rid of undesirable people. On the other hand, if human life and dignity are important, then we must also respect the disabled.

So here is my thought: look for yourself what exactly it is that you consider valuable and meaningful. If you do not believe in God, then at least be able to articulate what you feel is the foundation of your morality.

I say that, but I also hope you will consider my own views as well.

_________________