A Study of AUNT

[scottycelt]

And why is that?

Simple.

How can you maintain people 'do bad things' if you don't even believe 'badness' exists?

Before, say, a person can be accused of murder there must be acknowledgement of the actual existence of the crime of murder?

[amateur51]

Do you actually believe all that pseudo-religious Marxist 'mumbo-jumbo' stuff, S_A ... ? :grin:

A clear indication that you haven't read any.

[Mr Pee]

And why is that?

What a very odd question.

[amateur51]

What a very odd question.

The 'why' questions always throw him into a tizzy.

[Richard Barrett]

How can you maintain people 'do bad things' if you don't even believe 'badness' exists?

Well, Mr Plato, because whether an act is "bad" or not really depends on the harm it does to oneself or others, does it not? and until that harm is done there can be no preexistent "badness". Of course you can decide to do or not to do something on the basis of its being "bad" but that would also depend on an assessment of the harm it would cause.

[french frank]

How can you maintain people 'do bad things' if you don't even believe 'badness' exists?

Philosophy rather than politics, I think. Imagine the first occasion when a 'man' or humanoid killed another. Would there have been some sort of consensus or concept that this was 'murder', a 'bad thing' done by a 'bad person'?

Rationally, I would think that it was when individual relationships and social structures began to emerge and concepts such as the loss of an individual who was of some importance, value and benefit to others. Then it became thought of as a 'bad thing to do' and the person who did it would become a 'bad person' not in some absolute, abstract way but by dint of having killed someone. Especially if this was something seen as 'deviant behaviour' in that most people didn't do it and it wasn't happening all the time. Legal concepts of crime, murder and charges would follow later.

The act would have preceded the concept of badness that became attached to it. The act would define badness

[scottycelt]

Well, Mr Plato, because whether an act is "bad" or not really depends on the harm it does to oneself or others, does it not? and until that harm is done there can be no preexistent "badness". Of course you can decide to do or not to do something on the basis of its being "bad" but that would also depend on an assessment of the harm it would cause.

Well, going from a gorilla to a Plato in the same day is some achievement even for me ..

Oh yes, Mr Marx, goodness and badness exist all around us and human beings have the free will to choose between the two, or probably in most cases a mixture of both in varying degrees.

We don't individually invent Good or Bad ... they have been around since Adam (and, for the sake of forum 'equality', Eve) ... and harm is only a direct consequence of the latter which is precisely why we call it Bad!

[amateur51]

Well, going from a gorilla to a Plato in the same day is some achievement even for me ..

Oh yes, Mr Marx, goodness and badness exist all around us and human beings have the free will to choose between the two, or probably in most cases a mixture of both in varying degrees.

We don't individually invent Good or Bad ... they have been around since Adam (and, for the sake of forum 'equality', Eve) ... and harm is only a direct consequence of the latter which is precisely why we call it Bad!

What about the phenomenon of unintended consequences? An act which was not intended to be 'bad' turning out that way? I think Sod had something to say about this.

[scottycelt]

A clear indication that you haven't read any.

Well now, talk of the Devil ... <smiley>

[Richard Barrett]

Oh yes, Mr Marx, goodness and badness exist all around us and human beings have the free will to choose between the two, or probably in most cases a mixture of both in varying degrees.

We don't individually invent Good or Bad ... they have been around since Adam (and, for the sake of forum 'equality', Eve) ... and harm is only a direct consequence of the latter which is precisely why we call it Bad!

I'm searching through the fog of your thoughts to see if I can find a contribution to the discussion in this post, but it's eluding me completely.

[scottycelt]

What about the phenomenon of unintended consequences? An act which was not intended to be 'bad' turning out that way? I think Sod had something to say about this.

Well. I don't know anything about Sod but you've just proved my point admirably? That Bad must already exist even if the individual didn't deliberately choose it?

Go to the top of the class, amsey! (yikes)

[scottycelt]

... it's eluding me completely.

Quite obviously ... but AM51 has grasped it, however unintentionally.

[amateur51]

Well. I don't know anything about Sod but you've just proved my point admirably? That Bad must already exist even if the individual didn't deliberately choose it?

Go to the top of the class, amsey! (yikes)

Not so fast, Professor Branestawm. What if only the initiator would describe the outcome as 'bad', because the outcome was not as intended? What if 'the object' of the action didn't experience it as 'bad' at all?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[Mr Pee]

So the evidence from the research is clear. The BBC tends to reproduce a Conservative, Eurosceptic, pro-business version of the world, not a left-wing, anti-business agenda.


and not to forget the excess of climate change deniers given prominence .... denial is a very minority sport; the IPCC is moderate, the real extremists are the much deeper pessimists ... they get no airtime at all

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/10390607/Can-we-still-trust-the-BBC.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10391242/Analysis-Was-the-BBCs-reporting-of-migrant-issue-fair-and-balanced.html

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1...t-the-BBC.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-balanced.html

The first of those two links is based on hearsay, (how does the DT prioritise what's news stories is not said), the second so full of inaccuracies or misprints as to undermine whatever points the Torygraph is trying to allege about BBC bias.