any thoughts that are original are welcome as well as any that are what is accepted as the norm in society!

"Good" and "Evil" don't exist outside an anthropocentric frame of reference.

very true, different way of saying "I think therefore I am"

I had a discussion with a friend one time, who raised the question "Do you think the planet would be better off had humans never evolved?"

Her position was that the planet WOULD be better off, because there would be no industrial pollution, corporate greed, corrupt politicians, etc. -- which makes sense, at least on a surface level.

But I asked her -- without humans, who would be around to make that sort of judgment -- to say the planet was "better off" -- ?? Because that requires a certain perspective, a certain ability to compare A with B -- and, as far as we know, no other living thing has that in any measurable sense.

Does a planet care what is good for itself?

I don't know. I think we, as humans with an undeniably vested interest in these things, tend to forget that there are other perspectives -- and that there is nothing inherently necessary about our even being here in the first place.

Yes, the Internet is the child of Satan.

Whosoever shall use the Internet shall be cast into the eternal hellfire.

There shall be no repentance for having used the Internet.

Having logged on a single time will guarantee eternal damnation.

Even if the intent was good.

The Internet is like a spiritual black hole.

Once you have cross over the horizon into cyberspace there is no return.

Apparently, you have somehow acquired a copy of the Bible from the future!

Thanks Abra.. I did not realize my computer is named Damien.

The internet is whatever you make of it. What you do with it is who you really are. Same with the TV.. Blessings...Miles

Topic: Is the inter net a tool of evil or good or both?

All of the above, plus "neither". Like any other tool, it has no intrinsic "goodness or badness". It's the way it is used that is the deciding factor.

No Intrinsic Goodness or Badness

Wouldn't it be cool if we could view ourselves and fellow humans as having equal "goodness" and "badness". This might possibly diminish the desperate need to constantly battle the "bad" to be so damned good. Ultimately, with the absence of this force-feeding of "goodness", wouldn't there be way fewer pendulums swings to the far "bad"? Perhaps there’d be more societal balance?

Aren't we all tools anyway?

I have a hard time viewing both Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa as having equal goodness and badness.

Of course this WOULD be hard to view...

Consider that the sum total of Hilter's life experiences created an unbalance that purposed a swing to the far negative.

Here’s a beach ball analogy:

You're in a pool and you have a beach ball...

You attempt to push the beach ball under the water's surface...

The deeper you push, the greater the force with which the beach ball springs up and out.

Out of Balance.

It's only hard to view if you start from a belief system which advocates that human life has some intrinsic value and is worth preserving/enhancing. As we are, for the most part, incapable of taking a truly detached perspective on the matter, this view is necessarily biased, which may or may not invalidate the premise, depending on how you choose to deal with it.

Slendid, I do try to understand you, I really do. But somtimes you say things and I can't seem to make any connection to anything that was said previously.

In your beachball analogy there are three factors. The ball, the water, and the force pushing on the ball. So...
- what does the ball represent?
- what does the water represent?
- what does the force pushing on the ball represent?

...The ball represents the individual person

...The water represents self-perceived "good"

...The air above the water represents self-
perceived "bad"

...The force pushing on the ball represents the striving to be "good".

In this scenario, the most stable position for this ball to be in would be at the center point between the outside air and water.

The more one pushes/strives to the side of "good", the more pressure to spring back into the opposite (natural inclination to swing into "bad").

Perhaps I should have explained in more detail what each component represented?

OR perhaps this was just a lame analogy...

Now that I unedrstand it, I think it's a good analogy because it makes it easy to understand he concept.

So I would assume that if that were the analogy for life, then the ultimate purpose of life would be to get rid of all the air(bad) or convert it into water(good) so there would be nothing but water(good).

Yes...

And can we live without air?

No

Can we live without water?

No

Many religions focus on pushing the beach ball as absolutely deep as possible.

Non-religious strive for "goodness" as well.

I think your “for the most part” is hedging the bet. I think we are absolutely incapable of taking a truly detached viewpoint. This is the fundamental factor that makes every individual different from every other individual – differing “viewpoints”. Thus that bias cannot invalidate the premise because that bias is what defines the premise. In other words, the individual viewpoint is the only thing that has intrinsic value – everything else only has value relative to the individual viewpoint.

My entire premise is that the individual viewpoint can never have any value whatsoever outside of the anthropocentric context. We, as human beings, are incapable of truly viewing anything outside of that context -- except as a poorly-informed hypothetical. Because of this limitation, there is no absolute value at all. Humans are temporary, as humanity is temporary, and whatever value we/they place on anything is arbitrary and transitory -- not to mention entirely self-serving, in the end. When humans are gone, who will value the moon, a star, a huge swirling cloud of gas and dust?

Self-interest and value are not the same thing -- except to the self whose interest is at stake.

however animals do appear to have an aesthetic sense of beauty
they may choose a more attractive fruit or even bring colored
strings back to their nest or have an affinity for a shiny button or a stuffed toy.

the concept of good and evil may stem from qualitative differences beyond humanity. moreover even among humans,
assessments of good and evil are not equivalent.

what Kim Jong Il finds beautiful may be somewhat different
from what Mother Theresa found beautiful - how do we
distinguish among these contrasting senses of good and evil?

one god.

Let me clarify something about this statement of mine: To me, the phrase “detached viewpoint” is meaningless. A viewpoint is always “detached” from all other viewpoints (otherwise it would be the same viewpoint), but it cannot be “detached” from itself (otherwise it would not be itself). If there is any attachment at all involved with a viewpoint, it is the viewpoint that defines the attachment, not the other way around.

Also, I am assuming some kind of “non-physical” component of “human” when using the term “anthropocentric”. (This is, after all, a “religious” forum”.) So if that is incorrect and you’re arguing from the purely materialistic view, then read no farther because there is no intention to address that here at all..



I understand that. What I'm saying is two things:
1) The individual viewpoint is the anthropocentric context and thus cannot be “outside of” itself.
2) Value is defined by viewpoint
In other words: the concept of “value” itself is meaningless outside the anthropocentric context because it is the anthropocentric context that imparts value.
Or: the concept of “value” is meaningless without a viewpoint because it is the viewpoint that defines the value.

So, saying “the individual viewpoint can never have any value whatsoever outside of the anthropocentric context” is like saying “space cannot contain distance outside of space”. Yes, it’s true, but only because it is a self-evident statement.

Since value is always relative to viewpoint, it follows that, if the phrase “intrinsic value” has any meaning at all, it can only apply to “viewpoint”.

Now whether “viewpoint” = “human being” is an entirely different matter. Personally, I believe viewpoint is a component of “human being”. But as I said, that’s an entirely different matter.

I not sure I necessarily agree with that, but I don’t currently have a logical argument to support my theory, and there’s some possibility of a semantic problem. So I’ll just leave it at “unproven assumption” for now.

I agree that there is no absolute value at all - simply because there are multiple, differing viewpoints. As to the temporary nature of humans...well, if you include "the physical body" as part of the definition of "human", then yes, they are definitely temporary.

Yes it is true that self-interest and value are not the same thing. But it is also true that you cannot have value without self-interest because it is the self-interest that defines the value.