Dirt bags and empowerment and living with cosequences aside, I'm still curious if it really has to be so black and white as good or bad?
Yes! Or no. Maybe. 😉
I was afraid of that.
In all seriousness, life is seldom simply black or white, despite what Michael Jackson may have said. 😉
Or rather, it probably is but the boundary between the two is like a binary deconstruction of a fractal surface, with infinite recursive detail. And yes, this time, I really am being serious.
The "good" and/or "bad" do not really exist except purely through societal constructs. 🙂
I said such a thing, in one of the other episode forums, some time back.
To quote the late Benny Hill, "WHY YOU NO RISSEN?"
Countering that, though, I have to state I am a Moral Absolutist. So, I believe there is an absolute when it comes to good or bad, at least, on a basic level. It's hardwired into almost every living thing, otherwise, multicellular life would never have got past first base. Even single cell organisms will work together at times.
When we get to more difficult aspects of morality, though, I'll argue those are mainly conventions imposed by society. Sometimes rightly so, too. The problem with morality, as imposed by society, is that it's inflexible, which is where my Moral Absolutism sort of walks away. Standard version says theft is always wrong. I disagree. I'd have no hesitation if it meant the difference between my children eating or starving.
Some could argue that would make me a Moral Relativist but that's just lazy thinking. Moral Absolutism, as generally understood, is too simple, and Moral Relativism is too broad.
The very word "moral" makes my teeth grind a bit.
I guess for me the difference between Good/Bad, right/wrong, moral/amoral, is often dictated more by intention than act. I'm sure I'll probably be shot down like Waldo for saying that. Yes of course there are certain adjustments and much case-by-case analysis that can and should be assessed and added. I hold that it is still societal constructs that found our belief in what is ok and not ok.
The very word "moral" makes my teeth grind a bit.
I guess for me the difference between Good/Bad, right/wrong, moral/amoral, is often dictated more by intention than act. I'm sure I'll probably be shot down like Waldo for saying that. Yes of course there are certain adjustments and much case-by-case analysis that can and should be assessed and added. I hold that it is still societal constructs that found our belief in what is ok and not ok.
We're a secular nation, so morality has a different resonance here.
If, by "society", you mean a collection of amoebae deciding it's better in the long term to get along, then yes, it's a construct. Beyond that, no, not really. A big part of our success - and our problems - is due to our cerebral cortex. It butts in when not needed, and adds layers of complexity to stuff that should be simple. It doesn't take a genius to work out that randomly killing people is not going to make you many friends, or constantly lying about stuff will mean nobody trusts you. Unless, of course, you hold elected office, in which case, it's more or less in the job description.
The very word "moral" makes my teeth grind a bit.
I guess for me the difference between Good/Bad, right/wrong, moral/amoral, is often dictated more by intention than act. I'm sure I'll probably be shot down like Waldo for saying that. Yes of course there are certain adjustments and much case-by-case analysis that can and should be assessed and added. I hold that it is still societal constructs that found our belief in what is ok and not ok.
We're a secular nation, so morality has a different resonance here.
If, by "society", you mean a collection of amoebae deciding it's better in the long term to get along, then yes, it's a construct. Beyond that, no, not really. A big part of our success - and our problems - is due to our cerebral cortex. It butts in when not needed, and adds layers of complexity to stuff that should be simple. It doesn't take a genius to work out that randomly killing people is not going to make you many friends, or constantly lying about stuff will mean nobody trusts you. Unless, of course, you hold elected office, in which case, it's more or less in the job description.
And what if it is not important to you that people like you or trust you? Does that make you "bad" or antisocial?
Our cerebral cortexes are also what make this forum and this show interesting. 🙂 Also what theoretically make us human.
A society of antisocial people would never have survived. Without sociability, no life beyond the simplest would ever have survived. Which is why it's probably rare, or relatively so. Things change greatly in a post scarcity civilization. Even then, those who are odd, awkward and otherwise different still have a hard time of it
There are plenty of ideas about amoral societies kicking around in fiction, like the alternate universe Trek, with the bearded Spock, or the antimatter universe criminals in DC. But consider, how did those societies ever manage to get to where they are, unless they had some sort of co-operative drives beforehand? Even then, a society consisting of entirely amoral, untrustworthy beings would wipe itself out in short order.
As a non-specialized, small, weak, hairless ape, it's a damn good idea to be nice to those in your tribe, because they may be the ones who decide when you next eat, or get you out of that hole you fell in.
And, while you're at it, think of this completely depressing idea:
We are, by and large, gregarious, co-operative and trustworthy, most of the time. Even so, we are still at risk, because of the two idiots waving nukes at each other.
However, cooperation is not necessarily the same as personal need for like, love, trust, etc. I work with lots of people I don't like and certainly do not trust and I'm fairly certain they do not like me either (I have the "pleasure" of being in a position at work of not getting to not perpetuate being liked). But we cooperate in an effort to build the company and behave with mutual basic respect in order to enforce each other's goals.
Well, most of us anyway.
When did I say "like" or "love"? Trust is part of co-operative behaviour but the other two are relatively new. Certainly wouldn't have been around back when we were hunter/gatherers, except maybe as familial bonds.
Things change greatly when you have the luxury of considering how you feel, instead of running from that great big thing that's going to have you for dinner.
By the way, don't ever think that I mistake morality for "current thinking" or "whatever the big boss says". In a hunter/gatherer society, I'd either be the top man or dead because I don't take orders worth a damn.
As an aside, Terry Pratchett said animals look at the world in a very simple way:
Things to eat
Things to fuck
Things to run away from
Things to sleep on/in
Rocks
Lol, rocks.
I added "love." As for "like" I took that as part of the path to "make many friends" unless we are referring to frenemies. Did I interpret this incorrectly?
As for animals....... I don't know if that is true of all species. An example would be the difference between dogs and cats, dogs being extreme pack/social animals and cats.....not so much in my experience and understanding. But I've haven't had a lot of interaction with cats for a very long time, so don't claw my eyes out if you disagree.
My basic point being that cooperation does not necessarily require making friends or inherent trust except on a very project based level. And the ideas of being a good person or a bad person is not necessarily important to everyone.
Going back to Sarah, is she good or bad or is she just doing what she's doing and hoping for the best and drowning out the rest with vodka?
My main question about Sarah (I could get involved quite easily in this debate about good or bad but I'll waffle on for many posts so I'll forgo it!) is whether she has always been this way, or whether it's a recent development.
If it's recent, how/why/who did this to her? If it's not recent - it could make re-watching the original series very different indeed.
My main question about Sarah (I could get involved quite easily in this debate about good or bad but I'll waffle on for many posts so I'll forgo it!) is whether she has always been this way, or whether it's a recent development.
If it's recent, how/why/who did this to her? If it's not recent - it could make re-watching the original series very different indeed.
Great questions. Only 26 hours, 22 minutes and 15 seconds til we learn more! I hope.
My main question about Sarah (I could get involved quite easily in this debate about good or bad but I'll waffle on for many posts so I'll forgo it!) is whether she has always been this way, or whether it's a recent development.
If it's recent, how/why/who did this to her? If it's not recent - it could make re-watching the original series very different indeed.
Wow, very good point!
I think this show is messing with the very foundation of my reality! Or maybe I'm just dreaming.
Mmmmmm, waffles.......
My main question about Sarah (I could get involved quite easily in this debate about good or bad but I'll waffle on for many posts so I'll forgo it!) is whether she has always been this way, or whether it's a recent development.
If it's recent, how/why/who did this to her? If it's not recent - it could make re-watching the original series very different indeed.
Great questions. Only 26 hours, 22 minutes and 15 seconds til we learn more! I hope.
Her bowels are not what they seem.
I don't know why I said that.
My basic point being that cooperation does not necessarily require making friends or inherent trust except on a very project based level. And the ideas of being a good person or a bad person is not necessarily important to everyone.
Going back to Sarah, is she good or bad or is she just doing what she's doing and hoping for the best and drowning out the rest with vodka?
I didn't mention making friends, except in the "isn't going to make you many friends" sense, meaning it's going to make you a lot of enemies. You know, colloquialisms and all that.
Sarah? Oh yeah, her...
Like everyone else, I guess, just trying to get by. I very much doubt she has much say in what's happening to and with her. Unless shown otherwise, I'd say she's good. Maybe not the the thing inside, but her, probably.
Fire walk with