Theli

Wj...

Comfort is not an issue here.
The issue was that you presented good and evil as the 2 choices that makes our will "our own".
This doesn't work in reality though. I'll give you an example:
When I woke up this morning, crawled out of bed I was already presented with a choice. Would I put on the right sock first, or would I put on the left first?
Now, in terms of good and evil (bad), wich choice was the evil one, and wich was the good one?
The problem here is that we are very rarelly encountered by two exact choices, one with evil outcome and one with good.

I'm simply displaying the grey areas between black and white. Only self-righteous individuals judge all actions as absolute good or evil.
I don't see how this supposed choice has anything to do with determinism...

No, it doesn't. First of, "good/bad" are not forces, this isn't starwars.
Secondly, if his actions was greatly influenced by his childhood (along with his current life) then it wasn't completetely his choice.

Most people who commits such crimes have been brought up in areas with high crimerate.
The imitate their surrounding. Does that make them evil?

I never said all people. But the majority does.
This goes with most crimes of violence.

Absolute black and white?
I don't think so. Do you think you will be able to make a just judgement of every person in the world by using a system based on absolute good and evil?

Well, I think "colored" is quite an understatement.

So, every crossroad, every problem and every choice you make has only 2 outcomes? And those 2 outcomes can be labeled good and evil? I don't think you have thought that through.
Test the socks example, and add "puting on T-shirt first". Now you have 3 choices.

What if we add a third person? With a third "fate", that doesn't resemble the other 2's. How would you explain that? Was his choice one of good or evil? Or are there actually neutral choices?

Yes. I am flat-out denying it.
Some actions we can call as good, or bad. But those judgements are made on a subjective level.
If a person has a hostage that he will most probably kill, but ends up being shot himself by a police. Was all those actions that elapsed based of absolute good or evil? The police saved the hostage, but in the same time he killed the hostage taker. Was that really all good?

Well put. That's excacly what I'm saying.
I think the Yin Yang portrait this very good.

Everything good has alittle evil in it, and everything evil has alittle good in it.

The absolute good and evil, I think is an illusion.

WJ

Theli!

Well, I'd like to continue the dialoge here because there are many directions to take this one. You raise an interesting point(s). My first reaction is two fold;

1. Are you saying that human (volitional) existence is an illogical mix of red and green all over (same time same respect)?

2. I could argue that our need to cloth ourselves is a 'feeling' of 'bad' or evil if you will. I could argue, aside from the pragmatics of clothing, that we are ashamed of our natural bodies which in turn leads to other 'badness'.

I've got to run...

Theli

WJ...

I don't understand this question. Could you rephraze it, please?

No, no...
This was not what the example was about. The question was not if I would put on my socks or not. It was a question of wich sock I would choose to put on first. The way I see it, life is packed with small decisions like that. Some of those choices we see as small can have huge effects. Choosing to walk over the road 5 seconds later than you first intended might save you from being run over.
I would say there is very few choices we make that are intentionally good or bad. And I don't think there are any choices we make that are all good, or all evil.

And when you think about the badness or evil of not clothing ourselfs, that call is simply based on a 'popular' opinion that you should cloth yourself. The question is: if you think clothes are unnecessary (nudist) and not clothing yourself is good, then was your choice really evil (bad)?

WJ

Theli!


You said:

"Everything good has alittle evil in it, and everything evil has alittle good in it."

To clarify this further, which will help identify the ontological complexity of determinism, you are suggesting that there is a sort of human finitude undermining the human condition. Your statement is an important one. Of course I would agree with it, within the context of Being. Perhaps then I should amend my comment to you about either/or (good/evil) to say thet there exists intrinsic badness both from the context of Being and human finitude which, in turn, means that determinism, ontology and epistemology is , all together, a sort of illusion.

In other words, our limited knowledge about our world has the potential to produce a theory that says both determinism and free-will can be an illusionary concept. That's because it is logically impossible for some thing to be both red and green at the same time and in the same respect.

In that sense, I wonder if determinism only relates to theories about physical processes from which we draw such analogies from. It seems human ethical, volitional existence is another matter? Perhaps being in a state of 'neutral' or indertimiancy is logically possible!