My mind in which I once come into this site has vanished and what is left is like a fishermen trying to catch a fish that no longer exist. I hope to see better days with my catches but only nature shall tell.
I hope for my weather to be peaceful and the water calm.
Righteousness becomes less important than general happiness the second it starts following a rule that makes life worse for everyone. Being morally right only matters because its supposed to help others, but if being righteous means harming others or causing unnecessary issues, then the point is lost. At that point, just making sure people are happy and safe matters much more than keeping your moral record clean.
The answer that sat best with me draws on the classic Kant and Constant debate on lying to the murderer at the door.
It explains that, there's no fixed point, because the question assumes they're separate things that trade off. Often they aren't. Real righteousness tends to produce happiness over time. When they seem to conflict, usually the "general happiness" being weighed is short-term, partial, or measured badly. Someone's utility always gets left out of the sum.
That said, genuine edge cases exist. Lie to the murderer at the door about where his victim is hiding. Most people say the lie is justified. But notice: righteousness wasn't abandoned. It was outweighed by a deeper righteousness, the duty to protect the innocent. The rule bent so the principle could stand.
So the real question isn't "when does righteousness lose to utility." It's "when does a rule lose to the reason the rule exists." And the danger is that everyone thinks they can see that clearly. "For the greater good" is the oldest sentence in the book.
One argument I have heard against Christianity, and monotheism in general, is that god cannot be all good, all knowing, and all powerful. Not all at once. The argument is that such a god wouldn't allow evil in this world. What are your thoughts/arguements?
I believe God is not all loving. but all forgiving. as if he was truly all loving, and all powerful, he wouldn't allow evil to exist, yet he does, I believe this is to prove that we, as people, deserve to be forgiven before we enter eternal salvation
I don’t think God necessarily allows evil to exist, I think it’s just inevitable. It’s like light. The darkness isn’t a thing itself, it’s just the absence of light. Evil is where Good just hasn’t penetrated. You can’t have good without evil. Forcing everyone to be good would invalidate free will.
I mostly agree with the idea of a "Greater good" thoedicy.
It says that God allows evil because it leads to a greater outcome that couldn't be achieved without it. Evil isn't pointless, it serves a purpose in a larger plan we may not fully see.
Some good things can only come about through hardship. Forgiveness requires a wrong to be committed. Bravery requires danger. Comion requires someone in need. Without evil, these higher goods simply couldn't exist. So God permits evil because a world containing these greater goods is better than one without them.
There's also the matter of perspective. If God is all-knowing and we're not, then it makes sense that we wouldn't be able to see the full picture. We're like characters in a story who only see their own chapter and can't understand why the author wrote in a tragedy. From our limited vantage point, a specific suffering might look pointless or cruel, but that doesn't mean it is. A finite mind simply can't trace how every event connects to every other event across all of history, let alone into an eternal outcome. So the claim that some evil serves a greater good isn't something we could confirm or deny from where we stand. We just don't have the view from above.
God allows free will, which means humans have free will which also means that people are able to choose evil, but also suffering can leade to courage or personal growth. Whats harder to argue is natural suffering, since cancer and earthquakes (etc) arent caused by human choices. You could also argue that humans dont have enough knowledge as to allow suffering even if there is an afterlife, but we cant really test that.
- so basically, we dont know enough about god as to find out why he allows it
This is one of the reasons i dont argue about religion, There are so many, with many versions, from different places, narrated by different people, possibly tampered with over the years, and couldve been mistranslated. Theres really never one true answer about anything for religion, just gotta choose one and ball
I truly try to believe this, but it is quite difficult sometimes. God loves you, God loves us, God loves everyone, no matter what they have done. May we all gain his wisdom and mercy.
No. Not only would it be morally wrong, it would force normal workers to compete with people who don't get paid and create perverse incentives to keep prisoners in jail longer.
Add new comment
My mind in which I once come into this site has vanished and what is left is like a fishermen trying to catch a fish that no longer exist. I hope to see better days with my catches but only nature shall tell.
I hope for my weather to be peaceful and the water calm.
As well how do I stop jerking it to loli
Pity is for the living, envy is for the dead.
Funny how we lost the plot from original point of this forum
Zeraora everytime they comment in this forum
img_4631.gif
I think the answers only get there because of the topics we touch. You all ask things worth sitting with, and that does most of the work. :)
At what point is righteousness less important than a utilitarian general happiness?
Righteousness becomes less important than general happiness the second it starts following a rule that makes life worse for everyone. Being morally right only matters because its supposed to help others, but if being righteous means harming others or causing unnecessary issues, then the point is lost. At that point, just making sure people are happy and safe matters much more than keeping your moral record clean.
This topic is interesting.
The answer that sat best with me draws on the classic Kant and Constant debate on lying to the murderer at the door.
It explains that, there's no fixed point, because the question assumes they're separate things that trade off. Often they aren't. Real righteousness tends to produce happiness over time. When they seem to conflict, usually the "general happiness" being weighed is short-term, partial, or measured badly. Someone's utility always gets left out of the sum.
Good points in here bro
Thank you kind sir.
I had to re-read Kant to answer this. Still not sure if that makes me a philosopher or just a masochist.
A masochist mostly, idk how you can endure all that.
Maybe I just like suffering. Or maybe I needed an excuse to come talk to you after. ;)
Shooting your shot with Lenzy i see
We go way back, he's used to it. ;)
bitch
you probably like it
Being both might give you an advantage honestly
Ragebaited my friend so hard, he broke a part of his keyboard.
file_6.jpg
So my keyboawd bwoke
One argument I have heard against Christianity, and monotheism in general, is that god cannot be all good, all knowing, and all powerful. Not all at once. The argument is that such a god wouldn't allow evil in this world. What are your thoughts/arguements?
Yeah, fuck god.
I believe God is not all loving. but all forgiving. as if he was truly all loving, and all powerful, he wouldn't allow evil to exist, yet he does, I believe this is to prove that we, as people, deserve to be forgiven before we enter eternal salvation
I don’t think God necessarily allows evil to exist, I think it’s just inevitable. It’s like light. The darkness isn’t a thing itself, it’s just the absence of light. Evil is where Good just hasn’t penetrated. You can’t have good without evil. Forcing everyone to be good would invalidate free will.
Where there is light, there is darkness. There’s no such thing as good without the contrasting example of bad.
I've seen this question a lot before ngl.
I mostly agree with the idea of a "Greater good" thoedicy.
It says that God allows evil because it leads to a greater outcome that couldn't be achieved without it. Evil isn't pointless, it serves a purpose in a larger plan we may not fully see.
There's also the matter of perspective. If God is all-knowing and we're not, then it makes sense that we wouldn't be able to see the full picture. We're like characters in a story who only see their own chapter and can't understand why the author wrote in a tragedy. From our limited vantage point, a specific suffering might look pointless or cruel, but that doesn't mean it is. A finite mind simply can't trace how every event connects to every other event across all of history, let alone into an eternal outcome. So the claim that some evil serves a greater good isn't something we could confirm or deny from where we stand. We just don't have the view from above.
My brother in Christ. These responses highlight my day.
Damn, you dont write Ao3 by any chance, right?
Ah ah, I was thinking about becoming one. But right now I'm just a bookworm.
I miss bookworm.. You hear
images_-_2026-09-21t134822.255.jpeg
The correct path, But you should take the feds advice and do writing honestly, had some solid points in there
I probably will, thank you Jager.
Zeraora go write a fucking book already god damn, infinite money glitch right there. genuine gem on my screen for free
God allows free will, which means humans have free will which also means that people are able to choose evil, but also suffering can leade to courage or personal growth. Whats harder to argue is natural suffering, since cancer and earthquakes (etc) arent caused by human choices. You could also argue that humans dont have enough knowledge as to allow suffering even if there is an afterlife, but we cant really test that.
- so basically, we dont know enough about god as to find out why he allows it
lowkey if we take the story of creation literally
Humans would lowkey just be AI to him
so all the shit he did in the old testament to him literally would just be doing the equlivant of doing the same thing to a chat bot
he's literally an entity beyond this universe holding him to the same morality as a human is stupid
This is one of the reasons i dont argue about religion, There are so many, with many versions, from different places, narrated by different people, possibly tampered with over the years, and couldve been mistranslated. Theres really never one true answer about anything for religion, just gotta choose one and ball
you know gnostism has an answer for this
I must say I am especially interested in your answer, Zeraora. Not to put you on the spot or anything.
Jager already explained one of my view points, so I had to expand on other possible answer :)
Young punks takin' shots, strippin' down to dirty socks
Music up, gettin' hot, kiss me, gimme all you got
It's pretty obvious that you got a crush (You know)
That magic in your pants, it's makin' me blush (Fo' sho')
We do not have a short time to live, but that we waste much of it. Its essentially resource that we burn out.
img_2286.jpeg
“I’ve got a question for ya. do you think even the worst person can change...? that everybody can be a good person, if they just try?”
-funny bone man
I truly try to believe this, but it is quite difficult sometimes. God loves you, God loves us, God loves everyone, no matter what they have done. May we all gain his wisdom and mercy.
😢
Logged out, mb.
Your good gng knew it was you before I seen this
I always wondered if we look up to someone for they may be the light to our hopeful future of maybe just what we hope to become later in life.
Should the death penalty be replaced with Slavery: Roman edition? (Not racist or anything, so shut up.)
No. Not only would it be morally wrong, it would force normal workers to compete with people who don't get paid and create perverse incentives to keep prisoners in jail longer.
Pages