Have you ever thought about that if you were the only living creature on Earth, there would be no such thing as good or bad, because you don’t have anyone to inflict the good or bad upon?
Living
Started by llBOLTGODll [2609809] on in General Non-related.
About this thread
Posts archived: 8 / 8 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Counted by TornLife from the archived posts.
- Archived posts
- 8
- Discussion span
- →
- People posting
- 7
- Likes on archived posts
- 8
- Authority score
- 18 / 100
- Historical score
- 21 / 100
- Story score
- 39 / 100
- Engagement score
- 50 / 100
Stupid ass forum post, stupid ass person
you can still inflict good or bad upon yourself (e.g. throwing yourself off a cliff is pretty bad)
Bro what ?
As this seems to be not a discussion related to Torn, I have moved the thread to General Non-related
The concept of good and bad is typically defined by social and moral norms, which are formed and enforced by human societies. These norms serve as a guide for behavior and decision-making, and are often based on principles such as justice, compassion, and fairness. However, if one were to imagine a scenario where they were the only living creature on Earth, the question arises as to whether the concepts of good and bad would still exist.
In such a scenario, the individual would not have anyone to impose social or moral norms upon them, nor would they have anyone to impose such norms on others. Without this social context, the idea of good and bad loses much of its meaning. What would it mean to say that an action is good or bad if there is no one around to judge it as such?
One possible answer is that the concepts of good and bad would be replaced by personal preferences and desires. In the absence of societal norms, an individual would be free to act according to their own wishes and desires, without any external constraints. However, even in such a scenario, it is likely that the individual would still make distinctions between desirable and undesirable outcomes. For example, they may prefer to have food and shelter rather than hunger and exposure, and may consider actions that lead to the former outcomes to be more desirable than those that lead to the latter.
Another possible answer is that the concepts of good and bad would be replaced by a more fundamental principle of self-preservation. In a world without other living creatures, the individual would have to rely entirely on themselves for survival, and would have to take actions to ensure their continued existence. Any action that threatened their survival could be considered "bad," while any action that contributed to their survival could be considered "good." However, this would still be a very basic and limited sense of the concepts of good and bad, without the richer social and moral connotations that these terms have in human society.
Overall, the idea that the concepts of good and bad depend on the existence of other living creatures is an interesting and thought-provoking one. While it is true that these concepts are shaped by human society, it is also true that they have deep roots in human nature and the human experience. Even in the absence of other living creatures, it is likely that an individual would still make value judgments and distinctions, even if they are not expressed in terms of good and bad.
In such a scenario, the individual would not have anyone to impose social or moral norms upon them, nor would they have anyone to impose such norms on others. Without this social context, the idea of good and bad loses much of its meaning. What would it mean to say that an action is good or bad if there is no one around to judge it as such?
One possible answer is that the concepts of good and bad would be replaced by personal preferences and desires. In the absence of societal norms, an individual would be free to act according to their own wishes and desires, without any external constraints. However, even in such a scenario, it is likely that the individual would still make distinctions between desirable and undesirable outcomes. For example, they may prefer to have food and shelter rather than hunger and exposure, and may consider actions that lead to the former outcomes to be more desirable than those that lead to the latter.
Another possible answer is that the concepts of good and bad would be replaced by a more fundamental principle of self-preservation. In a world without other living creatures, the individual would have to rely entirely on themselves for survival, and would have to take actions to ensure their continued existence. Any action that threatened their survival could be considered "bad," while any action that contributed to their survival could be considered "good." However, this would still be a very basic and limited sense of the concepts of good and bad, without the richer social and moral connotations that these terms have in human society.
Overall, the idea that the concepts of good and bad depend on the existence of other living creatures is an interesting and thought-provoking one. While it is true that these concepts are shaped by human society, it is also true that they have deep roots in human nature and the human experience. Even in the absence of other living creatures, it is likely that an individual would still make value judgments and distinctions, even if they are not expressed in terms of good and bad.
??
Sounds like you need to grab a copy of the "tao te ching" by Laozi