2007-12-07 05:22:45 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think it means that we have a generally agreed upon standard for acceptable behaviors, and actions that veer too far from that standard are recognized as "wrong" or "bad."
Where most of the disagreement comes from is whether we evolved these standards because we are social animals, or whether they are innate parts of a God-created soul that we each have.
2007-12-07 05:27:16 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Simply, when you do something that is for the good of society, in any way, that is considered good, and right! If you do something harmful to you fellows, then that would be considered the opposite, or bad! They are of course arbitrary concepts, developed to aid and help us live with each other. Of course, there are some things that are not obviously or directly harmful, that are considered wrong. That's because they may have been harmful at some time, or are perceived to be harmful by some sections of society.
'Good' and 'bad' are usually considered to be religious concepts, and many consider that they are more than just concepts. That they are in fact 'forces' in their own right. This is nonsense of course.
2007-12-07 08:02:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good and bad, right and wrong, they are dichotomies.
In other words, one can't exist without the other.
We cannot label something good if we do not have a concept of not good.
So really, they mean whatever they mean to the individual, depending on the range of his experience with the dichotomy!
2007-12-07 05:40:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Without God as the arbiter, these concepts mean nothing. Otherwise we can all define everything on our own terms - usually meaning "Well as long as I'm not hurting anybody else, I'm not doing anything wrong!" - which of course ignores the fact you may be hurting yourself "a"; and "b" also conveniently allows you to define whether or not you have actually hurt anybody.
That's why we can have no serious discussion of morality without GOD.
2007-12-07 05:38:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
OKayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, after examining this three times over, I figured slightly... No i think of morality is an extremely subjective count, open to communicate. I certainly won't get married to a female to procreate or if my society considers it the morally regularly occurring norm. i could fairly be genuine to myself and my thoughts and lead a happy existence with the guy of my desires. the purpose of existence i think, is greater beneficial than only procreation.
2016-12-17 10:27:27 · answer #5 · answered by mcintire 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good = Pure Water
Bad = Polluted Water
2007-12-07 05:34:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
in my unprofessional opinion i think that the concept of good is a point of view, while basic things like murder are viewed as "bad" or "wrong" other things like drinking are a point of view thing, i don't think drinking is a good idea but I'm not going to condemn some one because they did it.
2007-12-07 05:28:11 · answer #7 · answered by nik 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Both concepts vary according to the perceiver. One thing to remember is that nothing is inherently anything from it's own side... it's illogical to think they are.
_()_
2007-12-07 05:29:29 · answer #8 · answered by vinslave 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
If there is right, there is wrong. If there are right and wrong, there is a moral standard to differentiate between right and wrong. If there is a moral standard, there is a standard giver. Who is that standard giver? God. God created humans with a conscience to know the difference between right and wrong.
2007-12-07 05:29:22 · answer #9 · answered by Averell A 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They're totally relative values. Everybody thinks they're right and good. If you're idea of right and good conflicts with my idea of right and good, then you're wrong and bad.
2007-12-07 05:31:31 · answer #10 · answered by Subconsciousless 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋