Meanings of morality, ethics, good and evil, right and wrong

[Age]

Ah, you mean Google definitions? I see that the first two terms are defined in Google as you listed. (Although ethics, without the editorializing from you, would instead be "moral principles that govern a person's behavior or the conducting of an activity." )

But then those do not seem to be Google's definitions of "right," etc.

Oh yes, my bad. I mean google definitions. As I said I defined the rest for sake of future discussion. Right for example is context related.

Are there ANY words, in existence, which are NOT 'context' related?

If yes, then what are those words, EXACTLY?

[bahman]

I don't know what Google's source is for their definitions, but I'm not a fan of defining morality as necessarily being about principles. Also, framing it as principles of a distinction between good and evil is off-track in my view. It's rather just dispositions about the acceptability and recommendability of interpersonal behavior (that one considers more significant than etiquette). "Good" is a term for the disposition that the interpersonal behavior in question is not only acceptable but recommendable. "Evil" is a term for an extreme-end disposition of behavior being unacceptable.

You defined right and wrong instead of good and evil.

[Terrapin Station]

I don't know what Google's source is for their definitions, but I'm not a fan of defining morality as necessarily being about principles. Also, framing it as principles of a distinction between good and evil is off-track in my view. It's rather just dispositions about the acceptability and recommendability of interpersonal behavior (that one considers more significant than etiquette). "Good" is a term for the disposition that the interpersonal behavior in question is not only acceptable but recommendable. "Evil" is a term for an extreme-end disposition of behavior being unacceptable.

You defined right and wrong instead of good and evil.

The claim that that is what I did is based on _____?

[bahman]

Should you be expressing YOUR definitions as though they are the one and only absolute, objective definitions?

Your Truly Honest answer here would be much appreciated.



Do you think or believe that these definitions fit in EXACTLY with thee One and ONLY ACTUAL Truth of 'things'?

The definition is purpose dependent therefore it is not objective.

And the definitions you gave above here, in this thread, are purpose dependent on WHAT, EXACTLY?

I am going to post a new thread about morality so I need these definitions beforehand.

It is through the right definition that we could know the truth.

Does this mean that if you do NOT YET KNOW the truth, then you do NOT YET have the right definition/s?

By the way, in WHAT 'context' are you using the 'right' word here, EXACTLY?

Is it in the SAME 'context' as above where YOU define 'right' as what we should do?

The truth is a set of propositions that are true. Propositions are made of words. So we need the right definition to reach the truth and agree upon it.

[bahman]

People think that evil is wrong and good is right.

Is this what ALL people ACTUALLY think? Or, is this just what you think is true?

Yes. For example, think of Christian.

I am making the distinctions between these and I think that that is useful.

WHERE, and HOW, EXACTLY are you, supposedly and allegedly, making the distinctions between the two? (Especially considering what you wrote below here, in this post).

And, you think that making the distinction is 'useful' for 'what', EXACTLY?

I gave the explanation in the following.

Evil can be right and good can be wrong depending on the situation.

Will you provide some examples of these? On first glance I can NOT think of ANY situation where this could be true.

Suppose that you have a son and he breaks the glass of windows. This is wrong. The question is what you are going to do. There are two options: Good or Evil act from you. You of course are not going by a good approach, confirming his action and giving him pleasure. Instead, you question his action which is evil (that makes him feel mental suffering). So here we are dealing with a situation that good is wrong and evil is right.

[bahman]

I don't know what Google's source is for their definitions, but I'm not a fan of defining morality as necessarily being about principles. Also, framing it as principles of a distinction between good and evil is off-track in my view. It's rather just dispositions about the acceptability and recommendability of interpersonal behavior (that one considers more significant than etiquette). "Good" is a term for the disposition that the interpersonal behavior in question is not only acceptable but recommendable. "Evil" is a term for an extreme-end disposition of behavior being unacceptable.

You defined right and wrong instead of good and evil.

The claim that that is what I did is based on _____?

It is based on my definition. In your vocabulary good is always right and evil is always wrong. That is not exhaustive since you can be in a situation that good is wrong and evil is right. Think of a situation that a kid breaks the glass of a window. You punish him in this situation which is evil and right. You don't encourage him to break more glasses of windows which is good and wrong.

[Terrapin Station]

You defined right and wrong instead of good and evil.

The claim that that is what I did is based on _____?

It is based on my definition. In your vocabulary good is always right and evil is always wrong. That is not exhaustive since you can be in a situation that good is wrong and evil is right. Think of a situation that a kid breaks the glass of a window. You punish him in this situation which is evil and right. You don't encourage him to break more glasses of windows which is good and wrong.

Why would it be evil to punish a kid who breaks a window (especially if you think it deserves punishment)? (And it's wrong to not encourage him to break more windows??)

[bahman]

The claim that that is what I did is based on _____?

It is based on my definition. In your vocabulary good is always right and evil is always wrong. That is not exhaustive since you can be in a situation that good is wrong and evil is right. Think of a situation that a kid breaks the glass of a window. You punish him in this situation which is evil and right. You don't encourage him to break more glasses of windows which is good and wrong.

Why would it be evil to punish a kid who breaks a window (especially if you think it deserves punishment)?

Because punishing makes the kid suffer mentally. Suffering physically and mentally is evil.

(And it's wrong to not encourage him to break more windows??)

Yes. It is good though.

[Terrapin Station]

Suffering physically and mentally is evil.

If you were to think that, regardless of context (it's not at all something I agree with by the way), then why in the world would you think it's okay to punish the kid?

Yes. It is good though.

It's wrong to not encourage him to break more windows because _____?

[bahman]

Suffering physically and mentally is evil.

If you were to think that, regardless of context (it's not at all something I agree with by the way), then why in the world would you think it's okay to punish the kid?

Because the other alternative is not right (it is argued in the following).

Yes. It is good though.

It's wrong to not encourage him to break more windows because _____?

Because for example the outside is extremely cold and you don't want that you and your family freeze to death. It is simply not fair.

[Terrapin Station]

Suffering physically and mentally is evil.

If you were to think that, regardless of context (it's not at all something I agree with by the way), then why in the world would you think it's okay to punish the kid?

Because the other alternative is not right (it is argued in the following).

Say what?

Yes. It is good though.

It's wrong to not encourage him to break more windows because _____?

Because for example the outside is extremely cold and you don't want that you and your family freeze to death. It is simply not fair.

Huh? I'm not following this, either. You should encourage him to break more windows if it's extremely cold? lol

[bahman]

If you were to think that, regardless of context (it's not at all something I agree with by the way), then why in the world would you think it's okay to punish the kid?

Because the other alternative is not right (it is argued in the following).

Say what?

It's wrong to not encourage him to break more windows because _____?

Because for example the outside is extremely cold and you don't want that you and your family freeze to death. It is simply not fair.

Huh? I'm not following this, either. You should encourage him to break more windows if it's extremely cold? lol

Remove not in the above. I hope that that makes sense.

[Terrapin Station]

Because the other alternative is not right (it is argued in the following).

Say what?

Because for example the outside is extremely cold and you don't want that you and your family freeze to death. It is simply not fair.

Huh? I'm not following this, either. You should encourage him to break more windows if it's extremely cold? lol

Remove not in the above. I hope that that makes sense.

Okay. Initially you'd said, "You don't encourage him to break more glasses of windows which is good and wrong." So in other words, it's wrong that you don't encourage him to break more windows, or it would be right to encourage him to break more windows??? Or would you modify this?

[bahman]

Say what?



Huh? I'm not following this, either. You should encourage him to break more windows if it's extremely cold? lol

Remove not in the above. I hope that that makes sense.

Okay. Initially you'd said, "You don't encourage him to break more glasses of windows which is good and wrong." So in other words, it's wrong that you don't encourage him to break more windows, or it would be right to encourage him to break more windows??? Or would you modify this?

It is not the right thing to encourage a kid to break windows in the middle of winter.

[Age]

The definition is purpose dependent therefore it is not objective.

And the definitions you gave above here, in this thread, are purpose dependent on WHAT, EXACTLY?

I am going to post a new thread about morality so I need these definitions beforehand.

So, what happens if someone does not read this thread?

How are the 'purpose dependent definitions' here, in this thread, going to be related to the thread, which is 'purpose dependent' upon this thread?

It is through the right definition that we could know the truth.

Does this mean that if you do NOT YET KNOW the truth, then you do NOT YET have the right definition/s?

By the way, in WHAT 'context' are you using the 'right' word here, EXACTLY?

Is it in the SAME 'context' as above where YOU define 'right' as what we should do?

The truth is a set of propositions that are true.

In relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

Propositions are made of words. So we need the right definition to reach the truth and agree upon it.

Agreed. But because your decisions above here do NOT reach thee ACTUAL Truth, your definitions here are NOT 'right', correct?

Also, you did NOT clarify how you are using the 'right' word here.