Duemellon
29 Jan 2008, 01:04 PM
Yes, you might not only use one as your compass, but do you have one that you typically use more often? Or at least some you don’t use as often? Read below for a description of what the comparisons were intended to mean.
Righteous v. Evil
Morality is defined in an intrinsic way by a set of precise guides with intelligent intent. The impacts, lasting effects, or benefits are outweighed by the governing force of what is correct to do. The judgment of what is righteous or evil is persistent and generally inflexible. The benefits and detriments are not as important as the judgment of what is righteous or evil. There is an expectation the entity which explicitly laid out its judgments will ensure or has setup a method that deviance will be punished (immediately or later). Such reaction can be “cosmic”, spiritual, or tangible (i.e.: police, mob, friends, etc.) and is the final (or only) decision point when other methods have failed to develop an answer.
Good v. Bad
Not as absolute as Righteous v. Evil nor as removed from personal view as Beneficial v. Detrimental. There is still a general moral code that actions may be judged by, but the benefits and detriments may affect the judgment’s outcome. The source of the judgment may have some form of retribution, but more like a guiding hand than reciprocation or absolute prevention. There is a lesser concern about rewards (in this life or other) or personal gain/loss, but the benefits and possible detriments are beyond the physical world or traceable through the physical world.
Beneficial v. Detrimental
There is no additional judgment or impact (retributive, reciprocal, or other intervention, cosmic or tangible) to the action. The decisions made and their results are simply a chain of events stemming from decisions of action and reaction. When it comes down to conflicts with local, regional, or religious laws, the consideration of consequences in the real world outweigh moral judgments issued by those other entities. If you find yourself doing things because the benefit yourself in an effort for an afterlife or gaining favor with some entity (society, god, or group) then it is not the same as this.
Benevolent v. Malevolent
Intent is most important. Intent without (or with lesser) consideration of judgment by any entity nor the actual results. The will and the effort are the points which determine if an action should be judged as being moral or justifiable. If the intent is based on a willingness to appease an authority figure (god, group, society) then it is not the same as this category.
Please, make comments but don't attack or judge others. We're just talking here. So share what you think, maybe comment on other's, but c'mon, it's just a discussion.
Righteous v. Evil
Morality is defined in an intrinsic way by a set of precise guides with intelligent intent. The impacts, lasting effects, or benefits are outweighed by the governing force of what is correct to do. The judgment of what is righteous or evil is persistent and generally inflexible. The benefits and detriments are not as important as the judgment of what is righteous or evil. There is an expectation the entity which explicitly laid out its judgments will ensure or has setup a method that deviance will be punished (immediately or later). Such reaction can be “cosmic”, spiritual, or tangible (i.e.: police, mob, friends, etc.) and is the final (or only) decision point when other methods have failed to develop an answer.
Good v. Bad
Not as absolute as Righteous v. Evil nor as removed from personal view as Beneficial v. Detrimental. There is still a general moral code that actions may be judged by, but the benefits and detriments may affect the judgment’s outcome. The source of the judgment may have some form of retribution, but more like a guiding hand than reciprocation or absolute prevention. There is a lesser concern about rewards (in this life or other) or personal gain/loss, but the benefits and possible detriments are beyond the physical world or traceable through the physical world.
Beneficial v. Detrimental
There is no additional judgment or impact (retributive, reciprocal, or other intervention, cosmic or tangible) to the action. The decisions made and their results are simply a chain of events stemming from decisions of action and reaction. When it comes down to conflicts with local, regional, or religious laws, the consideration of consequences in the real world outweigh moral judgments issued by those other entities. If you find yourself doing things because the benefit yourself in an effort for an afterlife or gaining favor with some entity (society, god, or group) then it is not the same as this.
Benevolent v. Malevolent
Intent is most important. Intent without (or with lesser) consideration of judgment by any entity nor the actual results. The will and the effort are the points which determine if an action should be judged as being moral or justifiable. If the intent is based on a willingness to appease an authority figure (god, group, society) then it is not the same as this category.
Please, make comments but don't attack or judge others. We're just talking here. So share what you think, maybe comment on other's, but c'mon, it's just a discussion.