Doesn't change a thing. Particles are objects. The information is coded is the specific arrangement of the particles
Bad People Don't Exist
- Thread starter Poetic Justice
- Start date
Doesn't change a thing. Particles are objects. The information is coded is the specific arrangement of the particles
You act like that's a 'bad' thing(my hate filled heart)
I was actually starting to picture you with horns and a pitchfork
You're only contradicting what you previously agreed to. (You're arguing right now that the arrangement of physical, material objects in the present is what constitutes the property of having been touched by you)
You're trapped by deductive logic.
Nope. Never happened. I'm saying whether or not I touched the keys decides whether or not I touched the keys.
I really don't see how this has any relevance. It just seems like you're clutching at straws to me. I was actually starting to develop a respect for you as you made me think twice about my opinion on a couple of occasions. You are beginning to chip away at that respect with this nonsense though
That's too bad. Unfortunately, I'm susceptible to that kind of response by certain people, so let me try again to lay out what I'm trying to say, and see if we can clear this up. (I assume you didn't like me telling you you were 'trapped.' sorry about that.
) Premise 1: If you were to touch an object, and then all material changes were (by some mysterious mechanism) reversed, and made the same as if you had never done so, it would still have 'been touched by Poetic Justice".
Premise 2: If all the material changes that would have happened happened as if you had at some point touched a particular object, but at no point in history did you touch it, the object would not have been 'touched' by Poetic Justice.
Premise 3: The past is not materially present in the present.
Conclusion: The property "touched by poetic justice" is an immaterial fact about the world.
Now correct me if I'm mistaken, but you challenged premise three by saying that Hawking demonstrated that all information is saved in the arrangement of particles (which are material). But unless I'm mistaken, you agreed to premise 1 which said that even if the arrangement of material was reversed, the property 'having been touched by Poetic Justice' would remain. So while you're challenging premise 3, you're doing so in a way that you must either rescind your agreement to premise 1, or that the challenge becomes irrelevant.
Note, I was under the impression that you agreed with the premises. If not, I'd find that curious, but like to know why. Although I should have asked you first, are you really a philosophical materialist? This argument would actually be irrelevant if you're not, but then we'd both agree, so it would be peachy.
That's too bad. Unfortunately, I'm susceptible to that kind of response by certain people, so let me try again to lay out what I'm trying to say, and see if we can clear this up. (I assume you didn't like me telling you you were 'trapped.' sorry about that.
Premise 1: If you were to touch an object, and then all material changes were (by some mysterious mechanism) reversed, and made the same as if you had never done so, it would still have 'been touched by Poetic Justice".
Premise 2: If all the material changes that would have happened happened as if you had at some point touched a particular object, but at no point in history did you touch it, the object would not have been 'touched' by Poetic Justice.
Premise 3: The past is not materially present in the present.
Conclusion: The property "touched by poetic justice" is an immaterial fact about the world.
Now correct me if I'm mistaken, but you challenged premise three by saying that Hawking demonstrated that all information is saved in the arrangement of particles (which are material). But unless I'm mistaken, you agreed to premise 1 which said that even if the arrangement of material was reversed, the property 'having been touched by Poetic Justice' would remain. So while you're challenging premise 3, you're doing so in a way that you must either rescind your agreement to premise 1, or that the challenge becomes irrelevant.
Note, I was under the impression that you agreed with the premises. If not, I'd find that curious, but like to know why. Although I should have asked you first, are you really a philosophical materialist? This argument would actually be irrelevant if you're not, but then we'd both agree, so it would be peachy.
Premise 1 is impossible therefore premise 3 is false
You cannot undo what has happened
i wasn't annoyed by you saying I was trapped. I was annoyed by your apparent innability to recognise that you are wrong. Or as I was starting to suspect, your inability to admit that you are wrong
your posts were becoming less and less about the topic at hand and more and more about finding some small glimmer of a possibility that you may be able to prove me wrong about something
This is still not relevant to the bad people discussion or the subjective/objective discussion
Errm that's not how thought experiments generally work. So that would not qualify as a refutation.
I was somewhat frustrated as well at what I perceive(d) to be your inability to understand the argument. For what it's worth though, I still think you're decent, and I don't hold anything against you.
Well the subjective morality discussion was a side trail, but I didn't start that by responding to you. You kinda jumped in. I was intending to use this point as a counter-example to your suggestion that morality couldn't exist because it wasn't a material object. It was carried out longer than I intended, because you seemed hesitant to participate in the thought experiment aspect of it, and other times I felt like I had to re-explain some things, perhaps I wasn't clear enough, although I think my last explanation was a pretty good summary of my argument. I'm actually enneagram 9, so I really don't like arguing just to prove people wrong, and I don't like drama. But I will NOT back down if you become verbally or emotionally abusive to me or others. That's my real line, other than that, I just try to be understood. Sorry if you got the wrong idea.
It does qualify as a refutation. To make your point you require a different universe with different physical laws
I didn't once say morality doesn't exist because it's not an object. You keep claiming I've said things I haven't.
Morality is a judgement call. Not an object or process. That means it's not objective
Anyways. Bored now. I still think you're wrong. No hard feelings. Back to topic
I didn't once say morality doesn't exist because it's not an object. You keep claiming I've said things I haven't.
Morality is a judgement call. Not an object or process. That means it's not objective
Anyways. Bored now. I still think you're wrong. No hard feelings. Back to topic
I'll let you have the last response.
Sorry if you feel I've misrepresented you.
Fair enough though, back to topic.
some people feel guilty when they do bad things
they know they have done something wrong and it weighs on them
but when people determine to ignore their conscience
they learn how to do bad things without feeling bad
while one person admits guilt
another person denies responsibility
who would you trust?
the one admitting his evil is more trustworthy, sincere, honest, genuine, truthful...
integrity is desirable
people that take bribes,
people that cheat others,
people that murder and steal,
people lacking respect for themselves or anyone else,
these are just some of the bad things that bad people do.
there are plenty of bad people existing in this world. no doubt about it.
they know they have done something wrong and it weighs on them
but when people determine to ignore their conscience
they learn how to do bad things without feeling bad
while one person admits guilt
another person denies responsibility
who would you trust?
the one admitting his evil is more trustworthy, sincere, honest, genuine, truthful...
integrity is desirable
people that take bribes,
people that cheat others,
people that murder and steal,
people lacking respect for themselves or anyone else,
these are just some of the bad things that bad people do.
there are plenty of bad people existing in this world. no doubt about it.
What if they changed their ways and turned into tree hugging vegetarians who help little old ladies across the street?
Do you think they are still bad people?
I believe this statement to be true. There is no such thing as bad people. Only people who do bad things. And even if one wants to bring religion (though I'm thinking of Christianity...) into the mix, who are we to judge a person to be bad? I thought that was God's job. Otherwise, bad people is merely a label for people who do or have done bad things.
This statement is fallacious. Technically most people are liars. To become a liar, one must tell a lie. Once one has lied, it cannot be undone. In this logic, intent is irrelevant. When one denies being a liar, they are not denying that they have never lied, they are denying the negative connotation of the word 'liar'. The fault in their logic is this:
Liars are bad.
I am not bad.
Therefore I am not a liar.
When it is:
All people who lie, even once, are liars.
You can be a 'good' person that is a liar, just as much that you can be a 'bad' person and lie. The label, 'liar', in and of itself, is not indicative of good or bad. NOTE: I do understand the way in which the word is used. I just choose to argue the commonly accepted meaning. Or rather I choose to argue the meaning against the perceived intention behind the meaning.
The second fault in their logic is they deny the predictive undertone that the word suggests:
A liar will always lie again.
I have lied, but may not lie again.
Therefore it cannot be concluded that I am a liar.
Or
Liars always lie.
I sometimes lie, but not always.
Therefore I am not a liar.
The same logic can be used for these two statements. Replace lie with murder/steal and liar with murderer/thief.
Now returning to the association of good or bad.... A liar, murderer, and thief can all be good or bad or neither. Not all are 'bad' people though.
Actors lie. Soldiers kill. Millions download music illegally.
“In actual life it requires the greatest art to be simple, and so acceptance of oneself is the essence of the moral problem and the acid test of one's whole outlook on life. That I feed the beggar, that I forgive an insult, that I love my enemy in the name of Christ - all these are undoubtedly great virtues. What I do unto the least of my brethren, that I do unto Christ. But what if I should discover that the least among them all, the poorest of all beggars, the most impudent of all offenders, yea the very fiend himself - that these are within me, and that I myself stand in need of my own kindness, that I myself am the enemy who must be loved - what then? Then, as a rule, the whole truth of Christianity is reversed: there is no more talk of love and long-suffering; we say to the brother within us, ‘Raca,’ and condemn and rage against ourselves. We hide him from the world; we deny ever having met this least among the lowly in ourselves, and had it been God himself who drew near to us in this despicable form, we should have denied him a thousand times before a single cock had crowed.” - Carl Jung
Last edited:
Yes; God help us when religious stuff is mentioned. God help us all. sarcasm
When morality slides downhill, more problems take its place. People are held hostage in a world where they can't even carry a hundred bucks in their wallet for fear of being robbed. People are held hostage in a world they can't take their wife or girlfriend for fear of being beaten. People are held hostage by curfews to be less of a target for murder or rape.
When the lights go out the roaches crawl. BUT.....What makes a person commit an evil act? Is there this little evil gene in their genetics? Maybe their DNA has an evil loop in it? Are people prone to do evil things? Are they prone to be nice? Are they prone to help someone else? What makes a person trash another's vehicle in a parking garage? What makes a group of guys beat a man half to death in front of his wife or girlfriend because they aren't with the right kind of person?
When I was to do good, evil was present within me. It is no longer I, but sin that dwelleth within me. Romans chapters 7 & 8 touch on all this, but God knows how people don't want to read the Bible. Why bring this up now?
Throw out the inner feelings of guilt that helps lead people to repent of their sins. Throw out deterrence. Throw out morals and ethics. What do you get?
The guys that beat a man half to death: what made them snap and do bad things to someone else undeserving? Evil present in them. When people do not come to terms with the need to harness their human nature, bad things are usually going to happen. The continuity of this may not be present, but the ability to do that which is evil to our fellow humankind is. I know what I am capable of. This understanding helps me to better understand the people I meet and their abilities. When people inherently do that which is good and harness the bad, they have become good people. It does not just happen except maybe in rare instances.....and vice versa.
Don't believe in evil? I have some streets for you to walk down.....alone. The evil that comes against you might be in your own house in your own mind. "A man's biggest enemies are the members of his own household."
When morality slides downhill, more problems take its place. People are held hostage in a world where they can't even carry a hundred bucks in their wallet for fear of being robbed. People are held hostage in a world they can't take their wife or girlfriend for fear of being beaten. People are held hostage by curfews to be less of a target for murder or rape.
When the lights go out the roaches crawl. BUT.....What makes a person commit an evil act? Is there this little evil gene in their genetics? Maybe their DNA has an evil loop in it? Are people prone to do evil things? Are they prone to be nice? Are they prone to help someone else? What makes a person trash another's vehicle in a parking garage? What makes a group of guys beat a man half to death in front of his wife or girlfriend because they aren't with the right kind of person?
When I was to do good, evil was present within me. It is no longer I, but sin that dwelleth within me. Romans chapters 7 & 8 touch on all this, but God knows how people don't want to read the Bible. Why bring this up now?
Throw out the inner feelings of guilt that helps lead people to repent of their sins. Throw out deterrence. Throw out morals and ethics. What do you get?
The guys that beat a man half to death: what made them snap and do bad things to someone else undeserving? Evil present in them. When people do not come to terms with the need to harness their human nature, bad things are usually going to happen. The continuity of this may not be present, but the ability to do that which is evil to our fellow humankind is. I know what I am capable of. This understanding helps me to better understand the people I meet and their abilities. When people inherently do that which is good and harness the bad, they have become good people. It does not just happen except maybe in rare instances.....and vice versa.
Don't believe in evil? I have some streets for you to walk down.....alone. The evil that comes against you might be in your own house in your own mind. "A man's biggest enemies are the members of his own household."
Last edited:
Things people do are actions, actions become behaviours, behaviours shape your character, your character is who you are.. On this basis, people could disagree with you. I'm undecided. I like to think we can all become better people with help and dedication, but maybe that's just my idealism speaking
Things people do are actions, actions become behaviours, behaviours shape your character, your character is who you are.. On this basis, people could disagree with you. I'm undecided. I like to think we can all become better people with help and dedication, but maybe that's just my idealism speaking
Yay, someone grasps where I'm coming from. It's an Aristotelian viewpoint, hence my posting an Aristotle quote on the first page. It's much better philosophy than the logical positivism (Billy) and extreme materialism (Poetic Justice) I'm seeing here, even if neither take that position explicitly. People forget about virtue ethics a lot and either argue that good and evil doesn't exist because deontology is wrong, or that anything too abstract is purely subjective. Virtue ethics is an entirely different approach than continental philosophy from Europe of the 18th and 19th century.
Just found this on another thread
It sums up nicely my reasons for thinking bad people don't exist
The Art of Not Being Offended
By Dr. Jodi Prinzivalli
There is an ancient and well-kept secret to happiness which the Great Ones have known for centuries. They rarely talk about it, but they use it all the time, and it is fundamental to good mental health. This secret is called The Fine Art of Not Being Offended. In order to truly be a master of this art, one must be able to see that every statement, action and reaction of another human being is the sum result of their total life experience to date. In other words, the majority of people in our world say and do what they do from their own set of fears, conclusions, defenses and attempts to survive. Most of it, even when aimed directly at us, has nothing to do with us. Usually, it has more to do with all the other times, and in particular the first few times, that this person experienced a similar situation, usually when they were young.
With this in mind, re read this extract from one of my earlier posts
See what I mean now?
It sums up nicely my reasons for thinking bad people don't exist
The Art of Not Being Offended
By Dr. Jodi Prinzivalli
With this in mind, re read this extract from one of my earlier posts
See what I mean now?
Last edited:
I read a really interesting book written by a Navy SEAL called "Unleash the Warrior Within: Develop the Focus, Discipline, Confidence, and Courage You Need to Achieve Unlimited Goals," it was actually an excellent read and surprisingly insightful. But one of the most important things I took away from the book is when the author said "When you make decisions, you're either making it out of fear or out of love." I don't necessarily believe in bad people, but I feel that the people who make decisions that are identified as bad do so out of fear. The people who are greedy and frequently lie, manipulate and take advantage of others usually deal with internal inadequacy issues and seek power and control to make up for it. It's usually the weaklings who seek to dominate others.
Exactly
Cowardly bullies are bullies because they're cowards
They attack in order to avoid being the one attacked
It's why people like that will typically choose targets that won't try and defend themselves