Grey Jedi Code Anyone?

Edan wrote: Good and evil are human constructs.. there is the phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'... good and evil are subjective, not objective.

I don't agree with this. Not wholly. I think there are two types of good and two types of evil. There is the good cosmic and the evil cosmic; those extra-human qualities that most of us will never touch, those things beyond our comprehension that religion attempts to describe and falls incredibly short.

And then there is human good and human evil. Which we do ourselves, shape our world with, are mired in constantly. Which we decide ourselves, each within us, leaving shades of gray.

Edan wrote: Good and evil are human constructs.. there is the phrase 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'... good and evil are subjective, not objective.

I agree, although I don't want to. I'd like to believe that there is a definite good and a definite evil but I don't really think that there is. There are only things that we deem good and evil. Our own doctrine seems to support this idea:

In the ethic of reciprocity, and how moral concepts are not absolute but vary by culture, religion and over time.

For some reason I think that the fact that I don't want to believe it but still do makes me believe it even more. It let's me know that I'm not just picking what I like to believe in and disregarding things I don't like.

Edit: I don't want to believe it but I do because it makes the most sense to me.

That might be one reason I enjoy fantasy books/movies so much. In many fantasy books/movies they create a very clear line where the bad guys know that they're bad. It takes away a lot of moral questions when you're fighting actual evil instead of contextual evil.

Universally "evil" deeds are in every case deeds which contravene the harmonious flow of an interdependent society

Theft is evil only where the people wish to own property
murder is evil only where the people wish to stay alive
rape is evil only where the people belive in the sanctity of personal autonomy and decision
deceit is evil only where the people depend on one another for their needs or will be affected by one anothers decisions
criminality is evil only when the people agree that the law is in the interest of the common good

these deeds are held as evil because they disrupt the implicit agreements of civil society
these are all external acts which we can speak of as jf they arw seperate from internal realities

Once you get into things like greed and coveteousness you enter the realm of jedi perspective
this is why
greed is seen as evil because it is a (not THE) foundation for theft murder deceit and in a sense rape

greed is a word we use to describe an internal reality which justifies theft murder rape deceit and criminality

so rather than having to catalogue every potential external expression of the inner reality of a persons greed - rather than making a list of all the evil things that greedy people may do

we simply say "greed is evil"

this view presents morality as something which is essentially FUNCTIONAL rather than inherently SPIRITUAL
and that is the criteria which i personally use to justify civil law

functionality

the spiritual elements of evil require deeper inspection

is theft actually wrong beyond its effect on the social agreement?

why or why not?

is it wrong to invade someones home, rape and murder everyone in the family, and take for yourself whatever of their possessions (including the home itself) that you desire?

is it really wrong beyond the social agreement to do this?

What constructs the social agreement are all the people that you would be killing and taking from for personal gain.

IE, you can’t have greed without others to take from; and you can’t have wrong without those same people to judge you or for you to judge yourself against.

So how can you judge what might be wrong beyond the social agreement?

Each social group will endear the moral value that has been shaped by their society and thus in turn hold others to that “social agreement.” To ask what would or wouldn’t be beyond that is to remove it from said equation.

Example: The Egyptians believed in a life after death. This is a part of their social agreement. If we ask, “would it be right to mummify people to the Egyptians if they did not believe in a life after death?” Then we have to ask, would their even be mummies if the Egyptians had no such belief.

“is it really wrong beyond the social agreement to do this?”

Without the “social agreement” I doubt there would even be concepts or names given to the acts in question. I don’t think they could be right or wrong; justifiable or condemnable. They would just be actions.

I don't think social agreement is a measure. Objective good is a very follow-the-Force matter, intuitive. Yet, this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Wescli Wardest wrote: What constructs the social agreement are all the people that you would be killing and taking from for personal gain.

IE, you can’t have greed without others to take from; and you can’t have wrong without those same people to judge you or for you to judge yourself against.

So how can you judge what might be wrong beyond the social agreement?

Each social group will endear the moral value that has been shaped by their society and thus in turn hold others to that “social agreement.” To ask what would or wouldn’t be beyond that is to remove it from said equation.

Example: The Egyptians believed in a life after death. This is a part of their social agreement. If we ask, “would it be right to mummify people to the Egyptians if they did not believe in a life after death?” Then we have to ask, would their even be mummies if the Egyptians had no such belief.

“is it really wrong beyond the social agreement to do this?”

Without the “social agreement” I doubt there would even be concepts or names given to the acts in question. I don’t think they could be right or wrong; justifiable or condemnable. They would just be actions.

what about affection ?
or love?
what is affection? what is love?
are they just responses to OUR social agreement?
would they exist under any agreement or only under under he agreements that we know of?
does anyone know of a social agreement where love or affection have no relative counterpart?

Love and affection are emotional responses and or expression of emotion. You can love a rock, a pet, a tree... and you can in turn show these things affection.

ok
i think i can get that evil is a rezult of the agreement.
It exists as a result of the social agreement and without that agreement it would not exist?

with your patience i hope if i understand right i will explain how i understand it
like this
using greed as an example

i can see how having stuff is useful to me
clothes and shelter keep me alive
i could not live long without them. Shelter for certain.
and some people are ok with not having clothes but i read a book about girls one time and it said they like shelter

so even if i dont need shelter
if i like girls i have to like shelter
i speak playfully but i speak true and it is relevant
also
to early man
where we find the origins of the social agreement,
the atlatyl and his javelins
a little time later, some land where some food grows
which to understanding crops
very soon after that, we understand cattle
and so on and so forth

So the idea of HAVING THINGS taken shape

and it can be compared with NOT HAVING THINGS

once i understand HAVING THINGS and NOT HAVING THINGS its easy to move forward into MORE

HAVING MORE THINGS

like stereo equipment, and bedsheets with batman on them

so now we begin the social agreement because we all understand

NOT HAVING THINGS
leads to I WANT THINGS
leads to GET THINGS
leads to HAVING THINGS
which is good
and we learn things well enough but we dont UNlearn things well at all
and weve all learned how to WANT THINGS
which eventually leads us to HAVING MORE THINGS

which could be like greed but we all know that BATMAN IS NOT GREEDY
so the bedsheets are OK

UNTIL

i can see that

1) some people have things

and

2) some people have more things

but

3) i am in the position of NOT HAVING THINGS

and

4) its clearly easier to lets say, kill someone while they sleep, and take their things

than it would be to go out
and find
and build
and perfect
and plant
and irrigate
and catch

all these things for myself.

and thats where i come up with

TAKING THINGS

so im here NOT HAVING THINGS
looking ahead at someone who is HAVING THINGS
and he in turn is looking ahead at someome who is HAVING MORE THINGS

and because now ive invented TAKING THINGS

the guy who HAS THINGS needs to worry about me
and the guy who HAS MORE THINGS needs to worry about me and the guy who only HAS THINGS

so they get together and
MAKE THE AGREEMENT
that
TAKING THINGS is EVIL!

holy guacamole batman! lets put an amy grant cd in that stereo and crank it up! I feel like a time traveler i do
so i see how evil is a result of the social agreement

but what about love?
what about affection?
where does that come from?

I want to clarify (actually this was a double post so im going to make it useful)

I see where evil is a "product" of the agreement
i see where evil "fits in"

where does love fit in?
(and are double entendres considered "evil" within the social agreement of this forum?)

I don't think evil is subjective, I think its quite objective as the polar opposite of compassion.... though good and bad do seem subjective. I just view every 'person' as being a subjective lens on an objective reality and that seems to avoid getting them mixed up, which is where people probably get intro trouble - like taking disproportionate ownership of something beyond actual extent of involvement (real participation), and ending up placing their view as a higher priority then others.