Why do good people suffer?

[statiktech]

@Hobbes Choice

@zinnat13

@Helandhighwater

since you seldom see a self professed evil person make a statement that he deserves it for his crimes.

Water,

I am agree with you on this.
But, i want to add something to it.

[b]Sometimes we use to pretend to others that we are good yet on the receiving end. But, let me tell you and i am quite sure of that, each and everyone of us, in the bottom our hearts, knows very well whether we are good or bad.

We can lie to everyone else but not ourselvs. We all are naked in front of us.[/b].

with love,
sanjay

This is ridiculous as good and evil act are not the same for everyone.

I agree. Plus, we lie to ourselves constantly. We are remarkably good at it.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Hobbes they wouldn’t have to be.

I can define good and evil one way, and you another.

Then I can do something I think is evil and you can do something you think is good, and we might be doing the same act.

San is saying that whichever way you look at it, he thinks that the person knows whether they are good or bad. Where you get the definition from doesn’t matter. It’s that they’ve placed themselves in some category or another.

Not exactly a robust claim, but not exactly the one I think you’re criticism fits either.

Stat, I never lie to myself.

[statiktech]

@Smears

Hobbes they wouldn’t have to be.

I can define good and evil one way, and you another.

Then I can do something I think is evil and you can do something you think is good, and we might be doing the same act.

San is saying that whichever way you look at it, he thinks that the person knows whether they are good or bad. Where you get the definition from doesn’t matter. It’s that they’ve placed themselves in some category or another.

Not exactly a robust claim, but not exactly the one I think you’re criticism fits either.

That does make more sense, but I don’t think that’s what she was saying.

Stat, I never lie to myself.

Then you, my friend, are part of an extraordinarily rare breed. I trust you’ve alerted Guinness?

[Hobbes_Choice]

@Smears

Hobbes they wouldn’t have to be.

I can define good and evil one way, and you another.

Then I can do something I think is evil and you can do something you think is good, and we might be doing the same act.

San is saying that whichever way you look at it, he thinks that the person knows whether they are good or bad. Where you get the definition from doesn’t matter. It’s that they’ve placed themselves in some category or another.

Not exactly a robust claim, but not exactly the one I think you’re criticism fits either.

Stat, I never lie to myself.

No, San is not recognising the moral relativism that you and I agree exists.

[Mr_Reasonable]

I don’t think you’re seeing the relativity of it to the extent that it’s actually there. Maybe I’m wrong. Words are tricky.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@Smears

I don’t think you’re seeing the relativity of it to the extent that it’s actually there. Maybe I’m wrong. Words are tricky.

I’ver re-read what he says, and I can’t see a hint of moral relativism.
All I see is a remark that he is incapable of making- the suggestion that he knows the feelings of “everyone”.
That is simply beyond his power.

[Mr_Reasonable]

Yeah private mental states and coordination problems and all that kinda fuck up the whole knowing what everything feels idea.

[zinnat]

@Hobbes Choice

This is ridiculous as good and evil act are not the same for everyone.

Hobbes,

That is true as everyone decides good and bad according to his definition. I am not trying to standerdize it.

@statiktech

This is ridiculous as good and evil act are not the same for everyone.

I agree. Plus, we lie to ourselves constantly. We are remarkably good at it.

Stat,

If you look carefully then youwill see that you are confirming my viewpoint.

When we lie to ourselves, it implies that we know the truth but trying to justify our conscious wrongly.

@Smears

San is saying that whichever way you look at it, he thinks that the person knows whether they are good or bad. Where you get the definition from doesn’t matter. It’s that they’ve placed themselves in some category or another.

Smears,

You got is absolutely right. That is precisely what i meant.

@Smears

Not exactly a robust claim

i am not claiming anything but just pointing out a simple fact about the human nature. And, i do not discovered it. It is known since ages. I just put it forth.

@Hobbes Choice

I’ver re-read what he says, and I can’t see a hint of moral relativism.
All I see is a remark that he is incapable of making- the suggestion that he knows the feelings of “everyone”.
That is simply beyond his power.

Hobbes,

I think that you have to read it once more.

I said - everyone knows in his heart

What does that mean?

Does it not imply that everyone would judge his act according to his mindset?

And, where i claimed that i know the feelings of everyone?

Once more for your clarification- everyone knows in his heart?

My friend, it was not about me.

with love,
sanjay

[statiktech]

@zinnat13

When we lie to ourselves, it implies that we know the truth but trying to justify our conscious wrongly.

But that would imply that we always know when we are lying to ourselves, which I don’t think is true.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@zinnat13

@Hobbes Choice

I’ver re-read what he says, and I can’t see a hint of moral relativism.
All I see is a remark that he is incapable of making- the suggestion that he knows the feelings of “everyone”.
That is simply beyond his power.

Hobbes,

I think that you have to read it once more.

I said - everyone knows in his heart

What does that mean?

Does it not imply that everyone would judge his act according to his mindset?

And, where i claimed that i know the feelings of everyone?

Once more for your clarification- everyone knows in his heart?

My friend, it was not about me.

with love,
sanjay

I read exactly that.
I am telling you that you do not know the content of everyone’s mind, nor of their heart, so you have no warrant to makes such a comment.

The fact is that for thousands of years rape was considered the norm, even the expected thing to do. Those practising rape had no inkling that such a thing was bad. I understand that it is still thought acceptable amongst many men in India, and women are now in the business of protesting against it.
I do not see your reflexions as helpful in that debate.
For many serial killers they seem also to lack the internal discrimination that exhorts many to forebear upon murder and others practices declared illegal. Once again I do not think your words help to appreciate the level of detachment that the psychopath exhibits. These are also under the banner of “everyone”.

Moral values change and they are measured individually by each person. You cannot extend your own particular feelings and impose them upon others.

[zinnat]

Hobbes,

Let me try for the last time.

@Hobbes Choice

I read exactly that.

No, You are still not able to get clearly.

I am telling you that you do not know the content of everyone’s mind, nor of their heart, so you have no warrant to makes such a comment.

My friend, where isaid that i know the content of everyone’s mind?

On the contrary, i am saying that they know the content or their mind.

I do not see your reflexions as helpful in that debate.

Well, that is your opinion and that may be right or wrong as well. So, you better asked to other participants.

For many serial killers they seem also to lack the internal discrimination that exhorts many to forebear upon murder and others practices declared illegal. Once again I do not think your words help to appreciate the level of detachment that the psychopath exhibits. These are also under the banner of “everyone”.

Here i more or less agree with you.

Hobbes, act is never important. The important thing is intention behind it.
If one kills other for good reasons ( in his opinion) then it is certainly good act for him. It may be wrong in other’s view.

And, that includes serial killers and psychopath too.

Moral values change and they are measured individually by each person.

But, where did i refute that?

You cannot extend your own particular feelings and impose them upon others.

Once again, i am not imposing my feeling on others.

All i said is that everyone knows very clearly about his feelings.

Hobbes, if you are still unable to get it then i cannot help it more. Sorry for that.

with love,
sanjay

[Hobbes_Choice]

@zinnat13

Hobbes,

Let me try for the last time.

@Hobbes Choice

I read exactly that.

No, You are still not able to get clearly.

I am telling you that you do not know the content of everyone’s mind, nor of their heart, so you have no warrant to makes such a comment.

My friend, where isaid that i know the content of everyone’s mind?

On the contrary, i am saying that they know the content or their mind.

I do not see your reflexions as helpful in that debate.

Well, that is your opinion and that may be right or wrong as well. So, you better asked to other participants.

For many serial killers they seem also to lack the internal discrimination that exhorts many to forebear upon murder and others practices declared illegal. Once again I do not think your words help to appreciate the level of detachment that the psychopath exhibits. These are also under the banner of “everyone”.

Here i more or less agree with you.

Hobbes, act is never important. The important thing is intention behind it.
If one kills other for good reasons ( in his opinion) then it is certainly good act for him. It may be wrong in other’s view.

And, that includes serial killers and psychopath too.

Moral values change and they are measured individually by each person.

But, where did i refute that?

You cannot extend your own particular feelings and impose them upon others.

Once again, i am not imposing my feeling on others.

All i said is that everyone knows very clearly about his feelings.

Hobbes, if you are still unable to get it then i cannot help it more. Sorry for that.

with love,
sanjay

You are saying:
My friend, where isaid that i know the content of everyone’s mind?

On the contrary, i am saying that they know the content or their mind.
But you also said that you know what they will think, that they will know when they have done wrong. You cannot say that, as it is the same as saying you know what people think.

[skakos]

@Hobbes Choice

Because the world is not to be understood in terms of “why”, only “how”.
There is not reason why there is a differential between evil and good people suffering; in fact I do not think it is even evident.
Suffering visits all of us good or bad.
To even ask the question you have already set the answer inside the premise: as you are assuming that their ought to be justice. Says who?

I am asking “why” as did philosophers for thousands of years.
If we do not ask that, then we are nothing more than rocks.
Of course I understand the point in just “being” with no thinking and I have even wrote some interesting articles on non-thinking and how that can lead to enlightment.

However I am sure you understand the meaning of the thread.
And there is not an easy way to go through it like that.

I want to know what you think about suffering. And its role in our life.
Answering “not everything has to have a role” is not an answer.

I believe that suffering is here to remind us that there are more important things than life. (i.e. material life on this planet)

What about you?

[Hobbes_Choice]

@skakos

@Hobbes Choice

Because the world is not to be understood in terms of “why”, only “how”.
There is not reason why there is a differential between evil and good people suffering; in fact I do not think it is even evident.
Suffering visits all of us good or bad.
To even ask the question you have already set the answer inside the premise: as you are assuming that their ought to be justice. Says who?

I am asking “why” as did philosophers for thousands of years.

Name one. I’ll show you a person whose answer was contradicted by another.

If we do not ask that, then we are nothing more than rocks.
Rubbish. Rocks don’t ask any questions. But it has taken thousands of years to ask the right questions. You need to get up to date on this matter.

Of course I understand the point in just “being” with no thinking and I have even wrote some interesting articles on non-thinking and how that can lead to enlightment.
There is nothing I have said that even remotely implies this.
However I am sure you understand the meaning of the thread.
And there is not an easy way to go through it like that.
I understand the meaning - but do you? You have asked a meaningless question.
I want to know what you think about suffering. And its role in our life.
Answering “not everything has to have a role” is not an answer.
That is not the question you asked. But since you did. Suffering is that which we try to avoid, but will not ultimately succeed. There is no “why” we suffer, only how.
I believe that suffering is here to remind us that there are more important things than life. (i.e. material life on this planet)
Says who? Suffering is not put here for a reason.
What about you?

You ask the question as if suffering were part of a plan. By what warrant?

[skakos]

@Hobbes Choice

I read exactly that.
I am telling you that you do not know the content of everyone’s mind, nor of their heart, so you have no warrant to makes such a comment.

The fact is that for thousands of years rape was considered the norm, even the expected thing to do. Those practising rape had no inkling that such a thing was bad. I understand that it is still thought acceptable amongst many men in India, and women are now in the business of protesting against it.
I do not see your reflexions as helpful in that debate.
For many serial killers they seem also to lack the internal discrimination that exhorts many to forebear upon murder and others practices declared illegal. Once again I do not think your words help to appreciate the level of detachment that the psychopath exhibits. These are also under the banner of “everyone”.

Moral values change and they are measured individually by each person. You cannot extend your own particular feelings and impose them upon others.

I know the arguments for that relativism. (if only those who used it as an argument were in favor of similar ways of thinking when discussion for Science came into place)

Surely you are right that everyone has his/her own moral values.

But I believe there are some things to which all (almost all) agree. And one of the is the respect to life. The “Do not kill” command. Excluding the obvious exceptions (murderers, physchopaths et cetera), all nations, states and tribes since the beginning of time agree that killing for no reason is bad / disruptive for the balance of Nature… Right?

[Hobbes_Choice]

@skakos

@Hobbes Choice

I read exactly that.
I am telling you that you do not know the content of everyone’s mind, nor of their heart, so you have no warrant to makes such a comment.

The fact is that for thousands of years rape was considered the norm, even the expected thing to do. Those practising rape had no inkling that such a thing was bad. I understand that it is still thought acceptable amongst many men in India, and women are now in the business of protesting against it.
I do not see your reflexions as helpful in that debate.
For many serial killers they seem also to lack the internal discrimination that exhorts many to forebear upon murder and others practices declared illegal. Once again I do not think your words help to appreciate the level of detachment that the psychopath exhibits. These are also under the banner of “everyone”.

Moral values change and they are measured individually by each person. You cannot extend your own particular feelings and impose them upon others.

I know the arguments for that relativism. (if only those who used it as an argument were in favor of similar ways of thinking when discussion for Science came into place)

Surely you are right that everyone has his/her own moral values.

But I believe there are some things to which all (almost all) agree. And one of the is the respect to life. The “Do not kill” command. Excluding the obvious exceptions (murderers, physchopaths et cetera), all nations, states and tribes since the beginning of time agree that killing for no reason is bad / disruptive for the balance of Nature… Right?

There is a difference between saying that “everyone has their own”, and “there are no universals”
People generally follow the moral codes of their community - so much is obvious, though to varying degrees we al choose the degree to which we comply with certain rules.
However, there are different communities, different times, different problems.
“Do not kill” is in no way universal. In some cases killing is a requirement. And the exceptions do not just extend to psychopaths.(not that you have any right to exclude these people from the rest of mankind).
Often it is a legal duty to kill - sometimes to kill thousands of innocent people. In fact societies that most claim a high minded attitude against killing are most often the ones that have done the most mass murder.
It was only 500 years ago when it was thought just to burn people for not believing the religion of the state.
Further, example, the US claims to “Trust in God”, whilst it is responsible to the largest single incidence of mass killing in history; Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Where is you universal 'respect for life" now?
As for the 'balance of nature" - you have to be joking? Killing is a vital part of nature - in fact it is the very means by which the balance is maintained.

Like to offer another 'universal"

[skakos]

@Hobbes Choice

@skakos

@Hobbes Choice

Because the world is not to be understood in terms of “why”, only “how”.
There is not reason why there is a differential between evil and good people suffering; in fact I do not think it is even evident.
Suffering visits all of us good or bad.
To even ask the question you have already set the answer inside the premise: as you are assuming that their ought to be justice. Says who?

I am asking “why” as did philosophers for thousands of years.

Name one. I’ll show you a person whose answer was contradicted by another.

If we do not ask that, then we are nothing more than rocks.
Rubbish. Rocks don’t ask any questions. But it has taken thousands of years to ask the right questions. You need to get up to date on this matter.

Of course I understand the point in just “being” with no thinking and I have even wrote some interesting articles on non-thinking and how that can lead to enlightment.
There is nothing I have said that even remotely implies this.
However I am sure you understand the meaning of the thread.
And there is not an easy way to go through it like that.
I understand the meaning - but do you? You have asked a meaningless question.
I want to know what you think about suffering. And its role in our life.
Answering “not everything has to have a role” is not an answer.
That is not the question you asked. But since you did. Suffering is that which we try to avoid, but will not ultimately succeed. There is no “why” we suffer, only how.
I believe that suffering is here to remind us that there are more important things than life. (i.e. material life on this planet)
Says who? Suffering is not put here for a reason.
What about you?

You ask the question as if suffering were part of a plan. By what warrant?

I am trying to start a conversation about an interesting subject which interests many people. You are trying to stop it. WHY? (and yes, the “why” fits here quite well)

What is the point in writing in a thread the question of which you find “meaningless”?
Could you mean “meaningless for me”?

You refute the “WHY” questions and stick to the “HOW”.
I honestly have not seen any clearer statement against philosophy whatsoever.
Philosophy is all about the “why”! The “how” are for the many people who just want to see the surface.
Open any popular science magazine and you will see as many "how"s as you wish.
Open Plato and Aristotle and Heracletus and you will see Philosophy.

WHY are we here?
WHY do we live?
WHY do we die?
WHY do we suffer?

PS. To find an answer to your “Name one. I’ll show you a person whose answer was contradicted by another” problem, just read Harmonia Philosophica. This is the main point of my philosophy program.

[Silhouette]

Why shouldn’t good people suffer?

Why ought there to be a correlation between suffering and goodness?

[Hobbes_Choice]

@skakos

I am trying to start a conversation about an interesting subject which interests many people. You are trying to stop it. WHY? (and yes, the “why” fits here quite well)
.
You might as well start a conversation about the colour of unicorns. If you can’t accept that people will examine the question before they answer it, then you are not really ready to do philosophy.
What is the point in writing in a thread the question of which you find “meaningless”?
Could you mean “meaningless for me”?
You refute the “WHY” questions and stick to the “HOW”.
I honestly have not seen any clearer statement against philosophy whatsoever.
Philosophy is all about the “why”! The “how” are for the many people who just want to see the surface.
Open any popular science magazine and you will see as many "how"s as you wish.
Open Plato and Aristotle and Heracletus and you will see Philosophy.

WHY are we here?
WHY do we live?
WHY do we die?
WHY do we suffer?

PS. To find an answer to your “Name one. I’ll show you a person whose answer was contradicted by another” problem, just read Harmonia Philosophica. This is the main point of my philosophy program.

Okay. If you think there is an answer then tell us why you think there ought to be one.
It is evident that good and bad suffer, and that good and bad people have pleasure.
So what?
The way you asks the question assumes that there is an overall plan; that there has to be a reason for eveything.
I think that approach is ridiculous and is unfounded.
Why not tell me why you think I am wrong?

Tell me who or what put suffering on the earth; who decides the good from the bad; and who or what decides who suffers and who has pleasure.
WHo wrote the plan? Why are you assuming there has to be an answer to your question?

[Arcturus_Descending]

I think that one has to linger with those questions for a very long time and then examine them again and again and again.
It’s like poetry ~ we may not always understand what is written but if we continue to read and read and read, the words begin to make some sense to us in a deeper way which we might not be able to even form with words ~ the answers take place within our unconscious where many of us seem to live anyway…but within this unconscious level, there is unspoken understanding.

I really do think and feel that the questions, asking the questions ~ simply focusing on them, are far more important than reaching answers which are simly illusions and unsatisfying anyway. Well, at the very least, our questions point to who we are and where we are going. They’re signposts.

But I may be wrong here.