Community Chat

[esmerelda]

@LilacTree Could you not have deleted it yourself, if you realized "right away" that you'd gone over the line?  

Could you have edited it and deleted everything in it, made the subject "nevermind" as some have done in the past?

If you needed to write about the event, don't you keep an online journal?  I think you've said you do.   That would have been a better place for it.

I didn't see it and am only guessing the responses were not to your liking, and by then you needed help from the mods to get rid of it.

[mistriTsquirrel]

@LilacTree  I wanted to tell you that I read your replies to me on the other thread.  

My points were in response to people being dismissive.  Being dismissive can be done in many ways, so the spiritual aspect of the subject matter was not something I felt a need to focus on anyway.  

However, I do have opinions on that too--based on my own experiences--but that's not something I can go into here, and it would only take away from what I was trying to say if I did.  I am of the opinion that public policy should be based on ethics rather than morality.  In other words, I have personal beliefs about things, but I don't think my beliefs are worthy of becoming law unless they can be successfully argued to be ethical (and purposeful).

So I'd rather leave the thread where it is than reply on it.  I think the discussion may have been a useful read if it caused anyone to Google something they questioned or hadn't heard before, but I don't know that there's any value in continuing to respond.  Many people who responded to me have made it clear that they think I'm wrong and won't consider my reasoning, and I doubt I will begin seeing things their way, so going there and continuing to respond would just be tiresome and pointless.

[LilacTree]

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

@LilacTree  I wanted to tell you that I read your replies to me on the other thread.  

My points were in response to people being dismissive.  Being dismissive can be done in many ways, so the spiritual aspect of the subject matter was not something I felt a need to focus on anyway.  

However, I do have opinions on that too--based on my own experiences--but that's not something I can go into here, and it would only take away from what I was trying to say if I did.  I am of the opinion that public policy should be based on ethics rather than morality.  In other words, I have personal beliefs about things, but I don't think my beliefs are worthy of becoming law unless they can be successfully argued to be ethical (and purposeful).

So I'd rather leave the thread where it is than reply on it.  I think the discussion may have been a useful read if it caused anyone to Google something they questioned or hadn't heard before, but I don't know that there's any value in continuing to respond.  Many people who responded to me have made it clear that they think I'm wrong and won't consider my reasoning, and I doubt I will begin seeing things their way, so going there and continuing to respond would just be tiresome and pointless.

---

@mistriTsquirrel

"What is the difference between ethics morals and values?

A person who knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses right is moral. A person whose morality is reflected in his willingness to do the right thing – even if it is hard or dangerous – is ethical. Ethics are moral values in action.Jan 3, 2012."

@mistriTsquirrel

Most of what I read on Google (as above) made this very nuanced distinction.  I find it hard to understand the difference.  I hope I was successful in what I wrote directly to you in that I don't believe mental illness always produces evil.  I don't even necessarily believe evil has to have a base in mental illness. 

As I said elsewhere, I believe evil is a character issue.  So we now have to understand the difference between "character" and "mental illness."  Without looking it up, I believe character can be good or bad, or even mixed.

Mental illness is just that . . . an illness with many varying characteristics.  I hope I am understanding your argument.

[goldensrbest]

I think ethics,and moral values are the same.

[mistriTsquirrel]

---

@LilacTree wrote:

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

@LilacTree  I wanted to tell you that I read your replies to me on the other thread.  

My points were in response to people being dismissive.  Being dismissive can be done in many ways, so the spiritual aspect of the subject matter was not something I felt a need to focus on anyway.  

However, I do have opinions on that too--based on my own experiences--but that's not something I can go into here, and it would only take away from what I was trying to say if I did.  I am of the opinion that public policy should be based on ethics rather than morality.  In other words, I have personal beliefs about things, but I don't think my beliefs are worthy of becoming law unless they can be successfully argued to be ethical (and purposeful).

So I'd rather leave the thread where it is than reply on it.  I think the discussion may have been a useful read if it caused anyone to Google something they questioned or hadn't heard before, but I don't know that there's any value in continuing to respond.  Many people who responded to me have made it clear that they think I'm wrong and won't consider my reasoning, and I doubt I will begin seeing things their way, so going there and continuing to respond would just be tiresome and pointless.

---

@mistriTsquirrel

"What is the difference between ethics morals and values?

A person who knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses right is moral. A person whose morality is reflected in his willingness to do the right thing – even if it is hard or dangerous – is ethical. Ethics are moral values in action.Jan 3, 2012."

@mistriTsquirrel

Most of what I read on Google (as above) made this very nuanced distinction.  I find it hard to understand the difference.  I hope I was successful in what I wrote directly to you in that I don't believe mental illness always produces evil.  I don't even necessarily believe evil has to have a base in mental illness. 

As I said elsewhere, I believe evil is a character issue.  So we now have to understand the difference between "character" and "mental illness."  Without looking it up, I believe character can be good or bad, or even mixed.

Mental illness is just that . . . an illness with many varying characteristics.  I hope I am understanding your argument.

---

@LilacTree  I can see what the confusion is about when Googling.  I see a lot of information that is conflicting.  Generally speaking...  Philosophers refer to both ethics and morals in their writing.  Scientists and doctors use ethics.  Religious leaders use morals.  

I refer to the definition that is most clear.

Ethics refer to what is generally considered right and wrong, like the idea that one should not cause harm to others.  That is a generally-accepted principle that most people subscribe to regardless of your specific belief system.  Morals are argued on the basis of what a specific belief system says.  For instance, someone may argue that it's immoral to wear a skirt that is too short.  But that argument depends on what value system a person employs, because there is really no argument to be made that it is inherently wrong if you can't show that it's causing harm.  

Of course I believe that having bad character and having mental illness are not synonymous.  Mental illness is clearly defined by the DSM, and "bad character" doesn't have a generally-accepted definition.  When you can't define something, confusion abounds and everybody has their own view on what it is.  When I use the term "bad character," it's when I see someone repeatedly doing things that cause some sort of harm to others.  (The people who realize their actions are harmful and just don't care.)  Some people think that someone with "bad character" can be someone who dresses in tight clothes or has indiscriminate, brief relationships with other adults (you know what I mean).  So saying that someone is of bad character or has character flaws doesn't really mean much if you're talking to someone who doesn't have the same definition of "character" that you do.  The same goes for the word "evil."  Everybody's thoughts on what is evil are different.  So it doesn't clarify anything to say that someone or something is "evil."

When you can't clarify a concept, but you still use it to describe a phenomenon, there is no hope of finding an explanation for that phenomenon.  The only way you can find answers is to study or analyze something.  And you can't study or analyze something if you cannot clearly define the terms you're using and what you're looking for.  If a person tried to do an experiment using "evil" as a definition, no one would know what, precisely, that person meant.  So any "knowledge" gained from the experiment would mean nothing to the outside world, and the experiment could not be repeated by others in any meaningful sense.

Many people have decided that the answers aren't out there and it's just time to call it quits and label something with a vague term or explanation.  I understand that a lifetime of not finding answers can cause one to say, "I'm done trying to figure this out," but I think it's wrong when people declare that everyone should be done trying to figure it out, based only on their own frustrations and/or experiences.

I guess I would say that I'm not totally clear on what your argument is, because I'm not sure what you consider "evil" or "bad character."  Without knowing what your terms mean, I can't tell whether or not you understand my argument either.

[LilacTree]

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

---

@LilacTree wrote:

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

@LilacTree  I wanted to tell you that I read your replies to me on the other thread.  

My points were in response to people being dismissive.  Being dismissive can be done in many ways, so the spiritual aspect of the subject matter was not something I felt a need to focus on anyway.  

However, I do have opinions on that too--based on my own experiences--but that's not something I can go into here, and it would only take away from what I was trying to say if I did.  I am of the opinion that public policy should be based on ethics rather than morality.  In other words, I have personal beliefs about things, but I don't think my beliefs are worthy of becoming law unless they can be successfully argued to be ethical (and purposeful).

So I'd rather leave the thread where it is than reply on it.  I think the discussion may have been a useful read if it caused anyone to Google something they questioned or hadn't heard before, but I don't know that there's any value in continuing to respond.  Many people who responded to me have made it clear that they think I'm wrong and won't consider my reasoning, and I doubt I will begin seeing things their way, so going there and continuing to respond would just be tiresome and pointless.

---

@mistriTsquirrel

"What is the difference between ethics morals and values?

A person who knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses right is moral. A person whose morality is reflected in his willingness to do the right thing – even if it is hard or dangerous – is ethical. Ethics are moral values in action.Jan 3, 2012."

@mistriTsquirrel

Most of what I read on Google (as above) made this very nuanced distinction.  I find it hard to understand the difference.  I hope I was successful in what I wrote directly to you in that I don't believe mental illness always produces evil.  I don't even necessarily believe evil has to have a base in mental illness. 

As I said elsewhere, I believe evil is a character issue.  So we now have to understand the difference between "character" and "mental illness."  Without looking it up, I believe character can be good or bad, or even mixed.

Mental illness is just that . . . an illness with many varying characteristics.  I hope I am understanding your argument.

---

@LilacTree  I can see what the confusion is about when Googling.  I see a lot of information that is conflicting.  Generally speaking...  Philosophers refer to both ethics and morals in their writing.  Scientists and doctors use ethics.  Religious leaders use morals.  

I refer to the definition that is most clear.

Ethics refer to what is generally considered right and wrong, like the idea that one should not cause harm to others.  That is a generally-accepted principle that most people subscribe to regardless of your specific belief system.  Morals are argued on the basis of what a specific belief system says.  For instance, someone may argue that it's immoral to wear a skirt that is too short.  But that argument depends on what value system a person employs, because there is really no argument to be made that it is inherently wrong if you can't show that it's causing harm.  

Of course I believe that having bad character and having mental illness are not synonymous.  Mental illness is clearly defined by the DSM, and "bad character" doesn't have a generally-accepted definition.  When you can't define something, confusion abounds and everybody has their own view on what it is.  When I use the term "bad character," it's when I see someone repeatedly doing things that cause some sort of harm to others.  (The people who realize their actions are harmful and just don't care.)  Some people think that someone with "bad character" can be someone who dresses in tight clothes or has indiscriminate, brief relationships with other adults (you know what I mean).  So saying that someone is of bad character or has character flaws doesn't really mean much if you're talking to someone who doesn't have the same definition of "character" that you do.  The same goes for the word "evil."  Everybody's thoughts on what is evil are different.  So it doesn't clarify anything to say that someone or something is "evil."

When you can't clarify a concept, but you still use it to describe a phenomenon, there is no hope of finding an explanation for that phenomenon.  The only way you can find answers is to study or analyze something.  And you can't study or analyze something if you cannot clearly define the terms you're using and what you're looking for.  If a person tried to do an experiment using "evil" as a definition, no one would know what, precisely, that person meant.  So any "knowledge" gained from the experiment would mean nothing to the outside world, and the experiment could not be repeated by others in any meaningful sense.

Many people have decided that the answers aren't out there and it's just time to call it quits and label something with a vague term or explanation.  I understand that a lifetime of not finding answers can cause one to say, "I'm done trying to figure this out," but I think it's wrong when people declare that everyone should be done trying to figure it out, based only on their own frustrations and/or experiences.

I guess I would say that I'm not totally clear on what your argument is, because I'm not sure what you consider "evil" or "bad character."  Without knowing what your terms mean, I can't tell whether or not you understand my argument either.

---

@mistriTsquirrel

What I bolded in your post as to what someone wears, if inappropriate (which is in the eyes of the beholder), is just bad judgment and separate and apart from what we are discussing.  IMO, if it is not harmful to others, it's not evil or immoral.  Therefore we agree.

What I also bolded in your post matches my interpretation of bad character.  So there we agree once again.  I do also believe that bad character can include evil, as well as narcissism.

As to evil itself, I will rely upon what Supreme Court Judge Potter Stewart once said about obscenity . . . "I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it."

As to the underlined paragraph, I have to admit I don't understand it, which merely underscores the limits of my IQ as compared to yours.  LOL

[mistriTsquirrel]

---

@LilacTree wrote:

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

---

@LilacTree wrote:

---

@mistriTsquirrel wrote:

@LilacTree  I wanted to tell you that I read your replies to me on the other thread.  

My points were in response to people being dismissive.  Being dismissive can be done in many ways, so the spiritual aspect of the subject matter was not something I felt a need to focus on anyway.  

However, I do have opinions on that too--based on my own experiences--but that's not something I can go into here, and it would only take away from what I was trying to say if I did.  I am of the opinion that public policy should be based on ethics rather than morality.  In other words, I have personal beliefs about things, but I don't think my beliefs are worthy of becoming law unless they can be successfully argued to be ethical (and purposeful).

So I'd rather leave the thread where it is than reply on it.  I think the discussion may have been a useful read if it caused anyone to Google something they questioned or hadn't heard before, but I don't know that there's any value in continuing to respond.  Many people who responded to me have made it clear that they think I'm wrong and won't consider my reasoning, and I doubt I will begin seeing things their way, so going there and continuing to respond would just be tiresome and pointless.

---

@mistriTsquirrel

"What is the difference between ethics morals and values?

A person who knows the difference between right and wrong and chooses right is moral. A person whose morality is reflected in his willingness to do the right thing – even if it is hard or dangerous – is ethical. Ethics are moral values in action.Jan 3, 2012."

@mistriTsquirrel

Most of what I read on Google (as above) made this very nuanced distinction.  I find it hard to understand the difference.  I hope I was successful in what I wrote directly to you in that I don't believe mental illness always produces evil.  I don't even necessarily believe evil has to have a base in mental illness. 

As I said elsewhere, I believe evil is a character issue.  So we now have to understand the difference between "character" and "mental illness."  Without looking it up, I believe character can be good or bad, or even mixed.

Mental illness is just that . . . an illness with many varying characteristics.  I hope I am understanding your argument.

---

@LilacTree  I can see what the confusion is about when Googling.  I see a lot of information that is conflicting.  Generally speaking...  Philosophers refer to both ethics and morals in their writing.  Scientists and doctors use ethics.  Religious leaders use morals.  

I refer to the definition that is most clear.

Ethics refer to what is generally considered right and wrong, like the idea that one should not cause harm to others.  That is a generally-accepted principle that most people subscribe to regardless of your specific belief system.  Morals are argued on the basis of what a specific belief system says.  For instance, someone may argue that it's immoral to wear a skirt that is too short.  But that argument depends on what value system a person employs, because there is really no argument to be made that it is inherently wrong if you can't show that it's causing harm.  

Of course I believe that having bad character and having mental illness are not synonymous.  Mental illness is clearly defined by the DSM, and "bad character" doesn't have a generally-accepted definition.  When you can't define something, confusion abounds and everybody has their own view on what it is.  When I use the term "bad character," it's when I see someone repeatedly doing things that cause some sort of harm to others.  (The people who realize their actions are harmful and just don't care.)  Some people think that someone with "bad character" can be someone who dresses in tight clothes or has indiscriminate, brief relationships with other adults (you know what I mean).  So saying that someone is of bad character or has character flaws doesn't really mean much if you're talking to someone who doesn't have the same definition of "character" that you do.  The same goes for the word "evil."  Everybody's thoughts on what is evil are different.  So it doesn't clarify anything to say that someone or something is "evil."

When you can't clarify a concept, but you still use it to describe a phenomenon, there is no hope of finding an explanation for that phenomenon.  The only way you can find answers is to study or analyze something.  And you can't study or analyze something if you cannot clearly define the terms you're using and what you're looking for.  If a person tried to do an experiment using "evil" as a definition, no one would know what, precisely, that person meant.  So any "knowledge" gained from the experiment would mean nothing to the outside world, and the experiment could not be repeated by others in any meaningful sense.

Many people have decided that the answers aren't out there and it's just time to call it quits and label something with a vague term or explanation.  I understand that a lifetime of not finding answers can cause one to say, "I'm done trying to figure this out," but I think it's wrong when people declare that everyone should be done trying to figure it out, based only on their own frustrations and/or experiences.

I guess I would say that I'm not totally clear on what your argument is, because I'm not sure what you consider "evil" or "bad character."  Without knowing what your terms mean, I can't tell whether or not you understand my argument either.

---

@mistriTsquirrel

What I bolded in your post as to what someone wears, if inappropriate (which is in the eyes of the beholder), is just bad judgment and separate and apart from what we are discussing.  IMO, if it is not harmful to others, it's not evil or immoral.  Therefore we agree.

What I also bolded in your post matches my interpretation of bad character.  So there we agree once again.  I do also believe that bad character can include evil, as well as narcissism.

As to evil itself, I will rely upon what Supreme Court Judge Potter Stewart once said about obscenity . . . "I don't know how to describe it, but I know it when I see it."

As to the underlined paragraph, I have to admit I don't understand it, which merely underscores the limits of my IQ as compared to yours.  LOL

---

@LilacTree 

I think we mostly agree.

I think you know what I mean when I express the sentiment that discouraging further study stands in the way of learning, right?  If people decide that funding research is unnecessary because the cause of the problem is "evil," that can have a real impact on an entire population.  Something like that is not just a personal decision that affects only them; it's a decision made for everyone that people should be able to defend with facts.

As far as the underlined paragraph, I guess that's my way of saying that if you can't clarify something, you can't really study it.  If you try to study something and aren't clear about what you're studying, no one will be able to make sense of it.  And if you don't study it, you'll never know what information you might be missing.  

There are things none of us know, and I don't think it's right to discourage others from thinking critically, based on what we think is a given, or based on frustration.