I believe that we may have different contexts on "revolution." Indeed, I concede to the reality that bloody Marxist, Communist, or Populist revolutions have occurred, however, there still exists revolutions that are generally peaceful. An example of which would be the EDSA People Power Revolution in the Philippines.

And yes, I agree with your point on consciousness, but revolution has never been my main policy. My motion to achieve change, and thus exercise freedom of speech, is through democratic elections. I have stated it in my earlier replies.

I simply explained what revolution would look like. I simply pointed out that:
Utilizing the established method is better than utilizing revolution. But undergoing revolution is better than doing nothing at all. Any action, though inefficient and slow, would be better for change rather than inaction.

If it's opinionated then you can't say it's universal. There's that problem.

Then would it not be opinionated and based on the person's perception? I like Kant better.

We really need a metric on defining and categorizing pain and pleasure. Like which is of greater degree and significance. Do you all have some reference or idea on how we could do that?

What if you had a button which would kill off half the population of China, would you press the button?
What if you had a button which guarantees the aversion of a Malthusian catastrophe, would you press the button?
What if those events were exclusive to one another?

Basically, if an action that could cause betterment to the majority of people in the future though it causes the detriment of many people in the present, is that action good?

P.S. I keep on defining good and evil as moral terms. Is that what this discussion is about?

Is it the same as leaving the circle beside all the candidates as empty or is NOTA something that forces the parties to change their platforms?

Umm, what about the soldier who died to save his comrade in the battlefield, like that situation given in the article you quoted from?

My bad, didn't completely read the article.

The strict Hedonist would also like to reason that limiting pain or displeasure would lead be the morally just choice. There leads to a morally problematic situation though.

I don't think that's hedonistic anymore? Isn't Hedonistic trying to improve net happiness in every decision you make? In that sense, you choose to not drink the bitter medicine since you are a strict Hedonist.

We should really just chat in a private conversation.

Exactly. Thank you very much.

This entire conversation is a deadlock. We can't find any problems since we are both using principles. Basically the contention is: God is unloving vs. God is loving.

So let's call it draw?

The main problem in this entire discussion is freedom. So let's discuss that solely.

But, It seem people tend to do B than A. — diesynyang

That's because God made us inherently evil! We can't be good because we are already tainted with sin. Like how Judeo-Christians explained it with the Original Sin and how Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx explained it through human drives.

Are you exactly perfectly and completely free? NO! Therefore, you aren't completely responsible for your sins. It is the implication of God's actions for allowing Free Will. He allowed us to have Free Will even if He knew that it would cause our downfall.

If we aren't inherently free, then we aren't truly sinful. Since God has some control over us, we can't be completely morally good or evil. We are just humans dude!

P.S. I agree. We really should talk other than rebuttal on rebuttal.

That makes sense. It is a good and morally sound dogma to base the thinking from. However, we must realize that the concept is virtually impossible to perfectly attain.

You can't be perfectly me. I can't be perfectly you.

To treat others as yourself is an too idealistic for any realistic person out there.

It is somewhat morally problematic if you simply phrase it that way. If I wanted to maximize my happiness in a Hedonistic manner, I would completely disregard moral norms and values for my own benefit and betterment.

That bitter medicine for your sickness? Gone. That yummy food that will to cause you Diabetes? Sure.

It is really problematic when you realize unmodified Hedonism is extremely short-sighted. It is unable to formulate decisions that prolong satisfaction. That is my main point that came into mind. What do you think?

Let me respond to your rebuttals:

That's why Philosopher, Politician, And Parent have trouble with a concept called "Freedom To Choose" — diesynyang

Please elaborate.

To remove it, mean God will become a Corrupted God/Judge (To simple remove one fault) (Is so cool when you realized the concept modern of Court Law and Justice Theory, is really similar to The Bible who are written in ancient time. To be Right, He must ask for "Payment" — diesynyang

I didn't necessarily pertain to one's sin. I was pertaining to the problem of evil and sin itself. And I see no problem with God removing the sin itself to remove the suffering it entails to the future of humankind. See, I would argue that a "Corrupt Judge" is better than an idle God who allows pain and suffering to enter the world due to sin. (Theologians reasoned that pain and suffering is due to man's sin. Something Nietzsche and Descartes argued against.)

And it's not really outstanding. That "Punishment or Payment" system could be seen in other civilizations too. From the Babylonians to the Chinese. It is inherent in human social groups to have that system.

The Son knows he can withstand it (Again, The Bible is so weird because that Prediction of The Son will be killed already been prophecies since Genesis). It is the best decision right? — diesynyang

I think not. Seeing that only the Son can withstand it, that mean God's legal system as a judge is inherently shaky. After all, a morally sound legal system would only give punishments that people are capable of taking. Look, in a modern legal system, there is hope for rehabilitation. It is a fundamental pillar of Criminal Justice. But in God's law, humans can not gain this "rehabilitation" and "betterment" because they can not escape this overbearing punishment that only the Son can persevere in.

Should God not just lower it to humane standards?

Where is his compassion? A moral judge would not send Steve to work in the salt mines for the rest of eternity for simply masturbating. But apparently that is a sin and God hates sin, so to Hell Steve goes.

The Question of why is God so unloving become somewhat shallow compare to Why is God so Loving. — diesynyang

I don't understand how a murderer can be loving? He caused his own Son's suffering? Even if your son wanted to kill himself, shouldn't you, as a loving parent, stop him? Please explain?

Why shouldn't? If your friend steal something because he is poor, and he have to pay a lot of money to pay for his crime. A money that he couldn't pay. If you have a lot of money, wouldn't you asked the judge to pay for your friend crimes? (Btw, people do this all the time :D) . But if you're asking why? it is because Mark love Mathew, and Mark has CONSENTED to do this. — diesynyang

I guess that is reasonable. However, I would argue that NO human can take the punishment God throws at us for sinning. And I don't think Jesus got the whole punishment? Like, if Jesus took the punishment for our sins, shouldn't He be burning in Hell? I mean, if dying on the Cross simply cleansed all my sins, then what's stopping people to do the same? (And actually, it's happening here in the Philippines. They nail themselves to the cross. What?)

Yes! Christ consented, but only because HE is the only person who could take it. He was an altruistic guy, of course he would. We love him for that. But He should not have. I mean the poor guy, sinless and all, should have been spared. Isn't that also a problem?

Why shouldn't it, it really takes us back to that elusive concept of "Freedom". I think The Christian God has an ethical first problem as so. — diesynyang

In my perspective, Humans are damned. If they do sin, they go to hell and suffer. Humans can not NOT sin since they are imperfect. So basically, whatever we do, we are fated for Hell. Maybe God could have softened the punishment to humane levels, or maybe lower the standards of His laws to actually take into context people's beliefs and actions? Like look at cultural relativism, it's the only good thing exclusively about morality from there!

A Being can be free to choose what is Good and what is Evil — diesynyang

Umm, no? God gave us laws already. We have already determined what is morally just and what is erroneous. And they aren't free, exactly. You are FORCED to do what is good in fear of the punishments.
And yes, I understand human's free will. But don't you think Free Will in itself is the source of all evil? It allowed chaos to happen in the first place.

Basically, from what I gained in this discussion:
God planted seeds.
Humans toiled to make the seeds grow.
God has an impossibly high standard for the plant.
No human can reach God's standards.
And so, God punished all humans for not making the plants perfect.
But Jesus, took on the punishment for us.
So God allowed some of us to rejoice and some of us not to.
Humans still suffer from the effects of God's punishment before Christ coming.

And same, I am also eating here.

So what happened to those people in Hell? Why didn't their sins transfer to Jesus?

And here comes a problem I tackled since my Religion classes:
Why did God, who LOVES us with no known bounds, not simply remove it, but instead causes HIS OWN SON to be in pain?
Why should Mark take the blame for the sin of Matthew?

I agree with your vision of the Judeo-Christian God. He is pretty contradictory.
But the main point of this discussion was this: Why did God's laws apply to Humans? After all, they are unattainable. Yes, it is still righteous to follow this laws, but why should humans gain sin from not following Christ's commandments perfectly?

Humans are damned.

That's sad. How about those saints though? Like how they got into heaven or something? Were they not humans or where they "perfectly good"?

Are you implying that whatever you do, a Judeo-Christian, you are well going to be damned?

I like how Jesus phrased his teachings. He has never given one legalistic commandment to be followed to the letter. His words are open to discussion and interpretation.

I agree with your idea that any member of any faith should pursue his altruistic ideals. However, we must realize that not everything is possible through God. THAT was what I was trying to point out in all of my points and argumentations. I wanted to discuss that topic further because Christians have grown too idealistic in their idea that God can make anything possible.

I admire the earlier Christian theologians such as Aquinas on their method of discussing morality as following Christian codes of law, however, I regret that most contemporary conservative Christians fail to realize how impossible their standards are.

Yes, I believe religion was a good source of moral direction and guidance, however we must always be ready to counter their assumptions on human being. Just because Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, and several other's moral paradigms have been deemed perfect, does not mean that humans ought to follow them without err.

I like how Jesus phrased his teachings. He has never given one legalistic commandment to be followed to the letter. His words are open to discussion and interpretation.

I agree with your idea that any member of any faith should pursue his altruistic ideals. However, we must realize that not everything is possible through God. THAT was what I was trying to point out in all of my points and argumentations. I wanted to discuss that topic further because Christians have grown too idealistic in their idea that God can make anything possible.

I admire the earlier Christian theologians such as Aquinas on their method of discussing morality as following Christian codes of law, however, I regret that most contemporary conservative Christians fail to realize how impossible their standards are.

Yes, I believe religion was a good source of moral direction and guidance, however we must always be ready to counter their assumptions on human being. Just because Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Confucius, and several other's moral paradigms have been deemed perfect, does not mean that humans ought to follow them without err.

I concede to the notion of good intentions as stated by Aquinas, but I would need to argue that if Christ's commandment were to be a Categorical Imperative then we must uphold it in any and all situations. However, due to the reasons I have listed above, humans can not.

If, for example, a man ought to love his neighbor as himself perfectly, and he fails to do so, then the man is in grave error regardless of his good intentions. That's what Kant would have said if Christ commandment be a Categorical Imperative.

Seeing this, there can only be a simple solution: Christ's commandment be dynamic; it not obliging humans to execute the commandment in a perfect manner. And this is the idea that I gained from your concept of "Righteousness and Good Intent." This implies that even if we were not to perfectly obey the commandment, we still did the good because of our intentions.

However, this provides us with an extremely troubling idea: If I were to have good intentions in loving my neighbor as I love myself though I have caused harm onto him, then I have still done a good deed.

Take it like this:
Steve follows Christ's commandment of loving his neighbor as he loves himself.
Steve shows compassion to his dear friend Kyle, who in this time of need, seeks refuge in Steve.
Amanda, who was wronged by Kyle, demands retribution from Kyle in a lawfully just manner.
Now, Steve is now caught in a problem: Will he allow Amanda to seek lawful justice though it may cause Kyle harm, or will Steve allow Amanda to take Kyle away for a lawful trial?

Following Christ's commandment strictly:
Steve ought to protect Kyle from Amanda's retribution because he would also want Kyle to protect him in his own times of need. (Love your neighbor as you love yourself)

However, this would contradict the lawful principle Amanda is trying to uphold: Justice.

The main point of the problem above is to visualize the inherent problem in human judgement. Humans are incapable of acting perfectly in ordinance with God's law. That's why absolution is a thing. However, since good intentions have been raised, does that mean Steve has no bad deed in the first place? Is he righteous?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction in man's nature and God's orders.

Thanks for bringing up Sigmund Freud. I haven't read him yet. I will start reading some of his works.

Jesus wasn't talking about romantic love, or mother-child love, or eros; it's agape he was talking about. — Bitter Crank

Agape is defined as the "highest form of love, charity" and "the love of God for man and of man for God." This definition may be used in Jesus' first commandment, however, this type of love couldn't be used in the context of the second commandment if we strictly followed the terms:

"Love thy neighbor as thyself" — Artie

I will not argue with your thoughts on Jesus' plan because I somewhat agree in his decisions. However, I was merely pointing out the rift between human performance. Put simply, I argue that:

- God is perfect and thus His plans are perfect,
- Humans are imperfect and thus our actions are imperfect,
- Humans can not fulfill God's plans perfectly for they themselves are imperfect.

So here lies the contention I discussed:
Is it possible for us to fulfill Christ's commandments? If not, why?

I would argue that this statement is impossible to completely adhere to. It is impossible to, in any sense of the individual, love others as yourself. Man is inherently egoistic, him thinking that he ought to better himself further than any one else. This concept is what could have pushed for Jesus to teach such idea in the first place.

In my opinion, it's basically perceptive and opinionated. Empty names have meanings based on the contexts they were taken from. If there was no context or previous knowledge, then the name is meaningless. Like how the name "Santa Claus" would not bring up the image of a fat red dude bringing presents for a young child who did not learn about him.

The name "Posty McPostface" denotes you, a person whom all of us are having an intelligent conversation with. I argue that if you never had that name I couldn't quote you. It maybe "empty" but not necessarily meaningless.

Yes. It becomes perceptive because these contexts may vary from one individual to another.

Yes. Since it's perceptive after all.

Totalitarian revolutions? Please, don't categorize all revolutions into "Totalitarian." Totalitarian is a dictatorship, centralized, and controlling. My statement:

The use of the gun must only be tolerated when the use of the pen is useless. — NuncAmissa

states that an armed revolution can only be morally justified IF and ONLY IF all peaceful alternatives have failed. And I believe, not all totalitarian regimes bloomed SOLELY on blood-filled revolutions; Adolf Hitler rose to power through democracy, though a weak one at that. No revolution happened during the voting process. After all, it was Hindenburg's failure which paved Hitler's rise.

And yes! A revolution is a revolution. Blood is ought to be spilled. All the nations whose independence was built on revolution understood this principle. How many countries in the world have the color red in their flag which represent the "blood of those who have fallen for the country." We need to realize that there must be sacrifices to be made.

I may sound extremely Machiavellian, but there is a reason why freedom if fought for rather than simply sought. To gain freedom, one must be ready to trample on other's freedoms. You see the public unrest in the streets. They fight and shout for a belief that to them is morally just. Behind those people, one principle is upheld: Change.

Whether the object referred to by the name is real or fictional, the name is still given meaning by the existence of that object in our perceptions.

Example: Harry Potter. The name "Harry Potter" may refer to the successful-book-franchise-turned-movie. Or maybe the boy himself: the fictional child of James and Lily Potter. Either way, "Harry Potter" is given meaning by the concept, idea, character, or story entailing it.

This further backed by the fact that the said name is "creative and unique". Your names (hks, Posty McPostface, Nathaniel) are all creative. Like a username, if this name is repeated, find another one. this ensures that the name can only MEAN one character.

Now, are there empty names with no meaning? Yes. For example, Liliabeth. You don't know who Liliabeth, therefore you are incapable of ascertaining its meaning. In your perception, Liliabeth could be anything. A name for a town, a name for a girl, a name for anything at all. Due to this vagueness and your inability to know what the meaning of Liliabeth is, then you could call it an "empty name."

Put simply, in my reasoning, an empty name can have meaning, if one knows what the name denotes or if the name denotes something at all with absolute certainty.

Isn't that the point of my response?

Sadly, I have no philosophical background. No books, no authors, no whatsoever.
Do you have any good philosophies out there that you might recommend to a beginner like me?

I would need to disagree with you here.

If an object or concept is necessary to attain one's need, then it goes that the said object is a necessity is not merely a want. In your example of money to buy food, I would argue that money is necessary to gain this food. After all, you still need money to buy the origins of the food you are to eat.

If an object is necessary and thus essential in the process of gaining this certain necessity, then the said object is a necessity. However, I must concede that this object is not necessary by its own, but is only necessary by its use or properties. (You need money to buy food. So money is a necessity.)

but I could also grow my own or steal. — Banno

Stealing is a morally problematic. To steal shouldn't be an alternative in the first place. It should only become a reasonable act when situations are dire. And as far as I know, need for money still exists whether you steal or not.

From those definitions, we can assume that whatever makes a person feel whole is a necessity. I believe Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a great answer to this.

I concede to your point. The question could have been phrased clearer.
However our ideas still stand:The mind is limited though incredibly creative.

I agree, however we need to keep in mind that the main contention is basically:

"Is there any parameters onto what ideas the mind can create?"

I believe that is where the misunderstanding lies.

We used the word "infinite" to describe the uncountable number of ideas or concepts that may result from the mind. Like the Fibonacci sequence, the mind is only capable of making new ideas from old. The Fibonacci sequence is infinite is it not? Then, I would argue that the mind is also infinite since it can also create a sequence as infinite.

We weren't referring to the mind's physical limitations (the brain's size, shape, or what not) but we were referring to creativity of the mind

How do you define "Infinite" in the first place?

What was the definition of wants and needs? Is it exclusively material?