Character Theory 'Good' characters, 'Evil' characters: what do labels mean to you?

[Count Gensokyo]

The way you're aiming this is more akin to philosophy instead of roleplay.

Inb4 postmodern relativism


I believe in moral absolutes.

 

[The One Called X]

But other than God, there is no objective reality by which to set standards of good and evil.

...uh, yes, there is. We have these things called "facts" and "truth" that are objective and not colored by personal bias. That's like... the entire reason we invented science in the first place, to remove human bias and error from our interpretation of the world. On a more esoteric level, the most basic assumption we can make is that pain, suffering, and death- things which all organisms strive to avoid- are bad.

Depends if the majority believe it was justified.

See, that kind of thinking is just fucking dangerous in addition to being a fallacy. The majority in the antebellum American South thought that slavery was justified. The majority of people for most of human history thought the subjugation of women was justified. The opinion of the majority is still an opinion.

If someone you thought to be important was on one track and five people who were unimportant to you were on another, and the train is coming and can't stop, which line would you put the train on?

I honestly don't know. That is a very vague scenario. Why are they on the track? Why is the one person important? Is there any way for me to save everyone?

That's true. But again, what classifies good or evil?

Good = attempting to reduce suffering and improve conditions in the world. Bad = causing suffering and worsening conditions in the world, intentionally or through neglect.

Indeed. But if we're pulling logic, why would someone ask you to beat up a three year old for no reason, or they'd commit murder?

People do all kinds of fucked-up shit. Why does anyone do anything bad?

That may well be true. But in the theoretical, with the information provided, there is the possibility of one person suffering weighed against the possibility of dozens of deaths. That is the situation that is presented. The option of killing the person does not exist, either.

...why not? Would it not make sense to evacuate the area, attempt to take the guy out with a sniper or negotiate with him, or infiltrate the area and rescue the person? Law enforcement deal with situations like this in real life. Morality can't exist in a vacuum, because good and bad are defined by real-world consequences of actions.

I say that good and evil is in the eye of the beholder, since outside of God there is no objective stance to take.

Sometimes, sure. But sometimes you just have to look at something and say "Shit, man, that's evil." Besides, I'm an atheist. Reality is reality. Ethics are informed by facts. If you claim you're doing something for the "greater good" and the facts say that you are misinformed and the action won't actually help anyone, then whatever you're doing isn't justified and you are morally in the wrong for not ensuring that your action would have the desired good consequence. You can't separate morality from facts and logic.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

Besides, I'm an atheist. Reality is reality. Ethics are informed by facts. If you claim you're doing something for the "greater good" and the facts say that you are misinformed and the action won't actually help anyone, then whatever you're doing isn't justified and you are morally in the wrong for not ensuring that your action would have the desired good consequence. You can't separate morality from facts and logic.

I agreed with many of your points, but I took note when you said you were atheist. In the case of pure naturalism, does good and evil not start to become relative at that point? What is its foundation supposed to stand on if not a being like God?

Obviously, most would feel bad if they saw someone innocent be hurt by someone else, but why do we feel these feelings of sadness and anger—a desire for justice? What scientific facts are morality and ethics based off of in this case? We can all have a general consensus about staying away from needless killing, constant lying, etc. for the benefit of society (which is the start of an establishment of human justice), but the more that morality starts being discussed at the finer, more specific points, more and more people begin to express their differences in worldviews, and a general consensus about full morality cannot be reached.

So, yes, to some degree, I agree with you. The overwhelming majority of people think that reasonless killing and other broad topics are bad and considered evil. However, without something transcendent (that being God) to lay the foundation of morality on top of, there is no way that we could have a true moral objectiveness. Each man and woman would have his or her own specific ideas of right and wrong, and to them, they'd believe that they are truly right about these things in their own mind. Each person would decide their own truth and morals and try to live that sort of life to the best of their ability.

 

[The One Called X]

Obviously, most would feel bad if they saw someone innocent be hurt by someone else, but why do we feel these feelings of sadness and anger—a desire for justice? What scientific facts are morality and ethics based off of in this case?

On the most basic level, humans evolved empathy and altruism because it helped us to survive as a species. However, I believe that since we have a higher level of cognition, we are to some degree more than our evolution. Morality may be defined by humans, but to some extent it is objective. Pain and suffering are bad. Things that alleviate pain and suffering are good. Those are, in my view, the basic truths on which all morality is constructed.

The overwhelming majority of people think that reasonless killing and other broad topics are bad and considered evil. However, without something transcendent (that being God) to lay the foundation of morality on top of, there is no way that we could have a true moral objectiveness. Each man and woman would have his or her own specific ideas of right and wrong, and to them, they'd believe that they are truly right about these things in their own mind. Each person would decide their own truth and morals and try to live that sort of life to the best of their ability.

I suppose that, in some ways, I see some human ideas (truth, good, etc.) as having taken on a life of their own. To me, it's part of the magic of the human mind- they don't *really* exist, per se, but because of our ability to perceive them... they kinda do. I have trouble with the idea of a preexisting god that dictates morality. It just feels... weird to me. How would we know it was correct? And how would it justify its ideas and persuade us of their correctness if there wasn't some preexisting moral framework by which to judge its assertions? I guess it's just kind of impossible for me to accept the concept of anything having true infallibility. So to me, the idea of "something transcendent" is... kind of irrelevant, because it just raises the exact same problems, because you have to already have an objective moral framework in order to prove that the possible objective moral framework proposed by the transcendent being is, in fact, objectively moral.

Morality *is* internally generated in some ways- nearly all of us have a desire to be good, which is why we often lie to ourselves in order to work around it, and we all DO have our own variations in our understanding of morals. This is as it should be- all humans have a right to self-determination. I just think that when making very big or very extreme decisions- such as in government, we have to define certain objective moral truths and make decisions based on those, and on the facts of the situation at hand. Sure, you can come up with all sorts of bizarre hypotheticals by which heinous acts are the only least-awful option... but really, those are immaterial, because of their impossibility. I think what I'm trying to say is that I view morality as more of a practical thing than anything else.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

I have trouble with the idea of a preexisting god that dictates morality. It just feels... weird to me. How would we know it was correct? And how would it justify its ideas and persuade us of their correctness if there wasn't some preexisting moral framework by which to judge its assertions? I guess it's just kind of impossible for me to accept the concept of anything having true infallibility. So to me, the idea of "something transcendent" is... kind of irrelevant, because it just raises the exact same problems, because you have to already have an objective moral framework in order to prove that the possible objective moral framework proposed by the transcendent being is, in fact, objectively moral.

I think you're coming into this with the presupposition that the deity is under an obligation to *decide* what good is. You see, God *is* virtue itself, and all things that are pure and lovely ultimately originate from Him. God *is* the moral framework that we are to compare ourselves to, and all of us fall spectacularly short of it due to how perfect His standards are and how flawed we are as a species (which is easy to see), no matter how many good works any of us does. He has no obligation to "persuade" or "debate with" anyone that His virtue is true virtue, because in essence, God *is* ultimate goodness itself. Does that make sense?

 

[Hall Kervean]

The One Called X
Victors write history.
And someone wrote the law.
But the morally grey, which we're discussing, is where it's a matter of personal opinion.
There are some things that are unjustifiable.
But many things can be justified.
For example, pointing to Death Note, Light Yagami killed thousands, if not millions, of criminals. He was the worst mass murderer in history, since he alone had killed them.
But the worldwide crime rate dropped noticeably. By around 40%, I believe. So a lot of people cheered him on in his mass murder.
That's one where the line was greyed.
In answer to your question about why do people do bad things, well... that's a thin line.
If a starving child steals food, would you punish him, even though that food would have sustained him?
If a man cannot afford the medicine he needs to heal his sick children and he mugs someone, is that justified?

"I honestly don't know. That is a very vague scenario. Why are they on the track? Why is the one person important? Is there any way for me to save everyone?"
It honestly doesn't matter why they're on the track. The point of the scenario is you needing to save a life, or possibly multiple lives.
The one person is a revolutionary inventor. Or the person is a world leader. Or the person is an abstract political thinker. All that is needed to know is that they are important. Is their success and their possible future contributions to humanity worth five lives? Or are five lives worth more than one?
And no, no there is not a way to save them all. That's why the choice must be made.

It sounds like to me through your definitions of good and evil is that, though you won't admit it, you believe the ends justifies the means.
If for some abstract reason, killing one person would end world suffering, would you do it? You would be causing suffering, which is your definition of bad. But you'd be ending suffering, which is your definition of good. So which is it?
Both?
Black and white mixing is grey, after all.

 

[The One Called X]

I think you're coming into this with the presupposition that the deity is under an obligation to *decide* what good is. You see, God *is* virtue itself, and all things that are pure and lovely ultimately originate from Him. God *is* the moral framework that we are to compare ourselves to, and all of us fall spectacularly short of it due to how perfect His standards are and how flawed we are as a species (which is easy to see), no matter how many good works any of us does. He has no obligation to "persuade" or "debate with" anyone that His virtue is true virtue, because in essence, God *is* ultimate goodness itself. Does that make sense?

The idea makes sense, I guess. It's just that even if God is the moral framework, that framework still has to be defined, and confirmed to be acceptable, you know?

It sounds like to me through your definitions of good and evil is that, though you won't admit it, you believe the ends justifies the means.

That depends on the ends and it depends on the means. Some means are unacceptable no matter what the end is.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

The idea makes sense, I guess. It's just that even if God is the moral framework, that framework still has to be defined, and confirmed to be acceptable, you know?

By whom? Us? If this scenario is true, then God has defined for us to study and understand in His Word (the Bible), and the truths of morality aren't dependent on any of our opinions about it. If the truth is absolute, then none of our thoughts about it will change the absoluteness of that truth, even if some of us disagree.

 

[Hall Kervean]

The idea makes sense, I guess. It's just that even if God is the moral framework, that framework still has to be defined, and confirmed to be acceptable, you know?



That depends on the ends and it depends on the means. Some means are unacceptable no matter what the end is.

Indeed it does.
And that is where the grey lies.
My point is that the individual decides which means and ends are good and evil.
Many times, a lot of people agree that a means or an end is evil, and so it is recognized as a whole as evil.
For example, most people would agree that Jack the Ripper was evil. And so, since the vast majority believe it, it is evil.
Most people believe peace is good. And so, since the vast majority believes it, it is good.
Where the grey comes in is when the majority is divided more cleanly.
For example, while the vast majority say killing is bad, when faced with the prospect of kill or be killed, the majority is cut more cleanly. Would you kill a man coming at you with a knife if that were your only option to stay alive?
That is a moral grey area, that only the individual can answer.
Good and evil are defined by the masses; the moral and immoral by the individual.
This is, of course, as an individual view, as opposed to an objective view.
God alone has that luxury, and if anyone claims to have an objective view on what's right and wrong, they're liars.
And unless it's dictated by the divine, no one can speak as to what is objectively write or wrong; only what the vast majority believes is right and wrong.

 

[The One Called X]

By whom? Us? If this scenario is true, then God has defined for us to study and understand in His Word (the Bible), and the truths of morality aren't dependent on any of our opinions about it. If the truth is absolute, then none of our thoughts about it will change the absoluteness of that truth, even if some of us disagree.

Of course by us. We're the ones being expected to just accept this deity on faith. If you're talking about the God of the Bible, he's done or has claimed to have done some pretty questionable shit, so what right does he actually have to demand to be accepted as a moral authority? The entire concept of any one religion being the ultimate religious authority, above human understanding is deeply flawed, because religion is created and maintained by humans.

God alone has that luxury, and if anyone claims to have an objective view on what's right and wrong, they're liars.
And unless it's dictated by the divine, no one can speak as to what is objectively write or wrong; only what the vast majority believes is right and wrong.

Even if we can't say 100% objectively, we can come pretty close. It's still extremely dangerous to say that majority opinion determines morality, because that's how things like slavery and genocides happen. And there's no evidence of the existence of any divinity, so... that's pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Of course by us. We're the ones being expected to just accept this deity on faith. If you're talking about the God of the Bible, he's done or has claimed to have done some pretty questionable shit, so what right does he actually have to demand to be accepted as a moral authority? The entire concept of any one religion being the ultimate religious authority, above human understanding is deeply flawed, because religion is created and maintained by humans.



Even if we can't say 100% objectively, we can come pretty close. It's still extremely dangerous to say that majority opinion determines morality, because that's how things like slavery and genocides happen. And there's no evidence of the existence of any divinity, so... that's pretty much irrelevant.

And in that time, did they believe it was right?
To them, was it ok?
The answer is, of course, yes. They were in the right.
But once an intervention came, and they were not the majority, they were no longer in the right. They were in the wrong. And since that time, they have forever been in the minority, and forever been wrong.
You see how it works?
I loop back to Light Yagami's quote, "If Kira is caught, he is a murderer. If he wins, he is justice."
During that time, the majority of people either vocally or quietly supported Kira.

Spoiler

Kira was caught, and the masses who quietly supported Kira shifted their moral compass against him. Those who vocally supported him were in the minority, and were in the wrong. If Kira had won, those who quietly supported him would have announced their support, and those against him would have been in the minority. And then they would have been in the wrong.

You have to have watched Death Note to grasp it fully, and I do recommend watching it.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

If you're talking about the God of the Bible, he's done or has claimed to have done some pretty questionable shit, so what right does he actually have to demand to be accepted as a moral authority?

If I may, may I request that you provide a specific example or two of this that seems problematic to you? I'd find it difficult to fully answer a blanket statement that encompasses hundreds of pages of material.

 

[The One Called X]

If I may, may I request that you provide a specific example or two of this that seems problematic to you? I'd find it difficult to fully answer a blanket statement that encompasses hundreds of pages of material.

The flood, for one. Killing the entire human race (including little kids) plus animals just seems wrong to me. Granted, that only applies if one wishes to take the book literally, rather than using it as a... life guide, I guess? I'm not gonna argue that someone is wrong if they find that the teachings and attitude of a certain religion resonates with them.

 

[Hall Kervean]

The flood, for one. Killing the entire human race (including little kids) plus animals just seems wrong to me. Granted, that only applies if one wishes to take the book literally, rather than using it as a... life guide, I guess? I'm not gonna argue that someone is wrong if they find that the teachings and attitude of a certain religion resonates with them.

While this deviates from the discussion a bit, I'd be happy to share my insight.
Basically, you know everything you just listed?
Genocide, slavery, etc?
Picture that, but multiply it by cancer.
That was what literally everyone except Noah and his family was like. That's why.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

The flood, for one. Killing the entire human race (including little kids) plus animals just seems wrong to me. Granted, that only applies if one wishes to take the book literally, rather than using it as a... life guide, I guess? I'm not gonna argue that someone is wrong if they find that the teachings and attitude of a certain religion resonates with them.

Through the great object lesson of the flood, God showed all of humanity His hatred of sin. God is not only a God of infinite love, but also a God of infinite justice. Though man often takes sin lightly, God proved He does not think the same way as they do and will always ultimately punish evil. Also seen in this is God's long-suffering nature. The Lord will sometimes delay punishment, even for long periods of time, to allow space for repentance. This is clear from the grace found in the promises that God gave to Noah after the flood and the saving of him and his family for their faith and obedience to Him. God knows that because of the fall of Adam, every man is born inherently wicked. Because of this, He will not smite the earth again in the same manner since He has made His will about sin clearly known with the events flood.

Even in Genesis, it states that "there was not one righteous person on the Earth." I'm sure that God extended much grace to the sinners of the ancient world at the time, yet all of them refused to heed His warnings and continue in their evil, sinful ways. Not one person ran back into God's forgiveness and grace, not even the children of these wicked cities. If you've read anything about ANE (Ancient Near East) societies, several of them were barbaric and morally disgusting, allowing for human sacrifices and the like. Not to mention the fact that they continued to spit in their Creator's face by worshipping things like other people, wealth, and human-made gods. (If you think that terrorists now are awful, then most "civilizations" this far back in history were even worse. Worse still was that it prevalent throughout the entire world at this time and not just certain countries in the Middle East and isolated incidents in western countries.) It's no wonder God wasn't happy with the way humanity metaphorically shoved Him away.

As I stated before, God is a god of love and a God of justice. When all of these chances had been spent, He extended his saving grace to anyone who would trust in Him—namely, Noah and his family.

You mentioned earlier about His slaughtering of animals, but He instructed Noah to gather an animal of every kind (keep in mind that a "kind" like it is described is probably much different than our idea of a "species," and that any sea creature would still thrive in a flood.) and keep them in the Ark until the land had dried up.

The key reason for the flood was for God to show that He won't ultimately tolerate any tainting of the world through the curse of sin. Since everyone on the Earth at the time was sinful, He enacted his judgement on them for their evil acts and punished the wicked, and He extended grace to the only people who would accept it.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Through the great object lesson of the flood, God showed all of humanity His hatred of sin. God is not only a God of infinite love, but also a God of infinite justice. Though man often takes sin lightly, God proved He does not think the same way as they do and will always ultimately punish evil. Also seen in this is God's long-suffering nature. The Lord will sometimes delay punishment, even for long periods of time, to allow space for repentance. This is clear from the grace found in the promises that God gave to Noah after the flood and the saving of him and his family for their faith and obedience to Him. God knows that because of the fall of Adam, every man is born inherently wicked. Because of this, He will not smite the earth again in the same manner since He has made His will about sin clearly known with the events flood.

Even in Genesis, it states that "there was not one righteous person on the Earth." I'm sure that God extended much grace to the sinners of the ancient world at the time, yet all of them refused to heed His warnings and continue in their evil, sinful ways. Not one person ran back into God's forgiveness and grace, not even the children of these wicked cities. If you've read anything about ANE (Ancient Near East) societies, several of them were barbaric and morally disgusting, allowing for human sacrifices and the like. Not to mention the fact that they continued to spit in their Creator's face by worshipping things like other people, wealth, and human-made gods. It's no wonder God wasn't happy with the way humanity metaphorically shoved Him away.

As I stated before, God is a god of love and a God of justice. When all of these chances had been spent, He extended his saving grace to anyone who would trust in Him—namely, Noah and his family.

You mentioned earlier about His slaughtering of animals, but He instructed Noah to gather an animal of every kind (keep in mind that a "kind" like it is described is probably much different than our idea of a "species," and that any sea creature would still thrive in a flood.) and keep them in the Ark until the land had dried up.

The key reason for the flood was for God to show that He won't ultimately tolerate any tainting of the world through the curse of sin. Since everyone on the Earth at the time was sinful, He enacted his judgement on them for their evil acts and punished the wicked, and He extended grace to the only people who would accept it.

And that.
But ye, basically they were doing human sacrifices to idols, killing each other, and having relations with each other no matter the gender or relation by blood. That kind of thing. Things like ISIS are absolute Boy Scouts compared to pre-flood humans. That's why.
Looping back around
God, in his objective viewpoint, saw that the world was absolutely awful and wiped away all life except for Noah, literally the only non-murdering, non-sacrificing, God-fearing, loving person in the world. He'd obviously influenced his wife and children, since they were allowed to come along as well.
But since we, as humans, don't have objective viewpoints, we are influenced by our own moral judgements.
The Bible even mentions it.
Judges 17:6.
In those days, Israel had no king, and every man did what was right in his own eyes.

 

[The One Called X]

Not one person ran back into God's forgiveness and grace, not even the children of these wicked cities.

Right, because young children should be held accountable for the actions of the culture in which they are raised. That's not an abhorrent viewpoint at all.

Not to mention the fact that they continued to spit in their Creator's face by worshipping things like other people, wealth, and human-made gods.

I mean... non-Christian gods were worshipped for thousands of years before the rise of Christianity, and viewing certain humans as incarnations of gods has been a norm in many regions and cultures for just as long, and it even persists in some parts of the world today. Those aren't really inherent moral failings.

But ye, basically they were doing human sacrifices to idols, killing each other, and having relations with each other no matter the gender or relation by blood. That kind of thing. Things like ISIS are absolute Boy Scouts compared to pre-flood humans. That's why.

Okay, human sacrifice and murder are bad. But I can't take a god seriously if they're concerned with the gender of one's preferred partners and if God objected to incest then how in the hell was one family supposed to repopulate the world? Did he just make new people as needed to prevent cousin marriages?

God, in his objective viewpoint, saw that the world was absolutely awful and wiped away all life except for Noah, literally the only non-murdering, non-sacrificing, God-fearing, loving person in the world. He'd obviously influenced his wife and children, since they were allowed to come along as well.
But since we, as humans, don't have objective viewpoints, we are influenced by our own moral judgements.

Again... there's no evidence that God's viewpoint is actually objective. There's literally no reason for us to take his word for it. He has no evidence that he is in fact the only true font of virtue and righteousness. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but you can't just... accept it because Authority. That's the root of the "It's not my fault, I was just following orders!" excuse.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Okay, human sacrifice and murder are bad.
Indeed.
But I can't take a god seriously if they're concerned with the gender of one's preferred partners
He does indeed.
and if God objected to incest then how in the hell was one family supposed to repopulate the world?
Oooh, not just that, my friend. Not just that.
I'd prefer not to describe some of the things that were likely happening, but if I must, I will.
Did he just make new people as needed to prevent cousin marriages?
No.

Again... there's no evidence that God's viewpoint is actually objective.
It's the absolute closest you can get. Besides, since God established morality, he would be pretty objective.

There's literally no reason for us to take his word for it. He has no evidence that he is in fact the only true font of virtue and righteousness.
Well, if you'd look around...
We're discussing the morality of murder and theft.
I believe he is. And if he isn't, well, he's certainly closer than we are, and that's good enough for me.

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but you can't just... accept it because Authority.
That's what authority is. You just accept it.
Even if you don't like a police officer, you obey them because they're the authority.
That's literally how authority works, sorry.

That's the root of the "It's not my fault, I was just following orders!" excuse.
I don't think anyone's ever actually made that excuse. Like, I'm gonna be honest.

 

[Hall Kervean]

On a similar note, the conversation is deviating greatly.

So, why do some people believe that there are moral absolutes?
Aside from "because they exist."

 

[Count Gensokyo]

Right, because young children should be held accountable for the actions of the culture in which they are raised. That's not an abhorrent viewpoint at all.



I mean... non-Christian gods were worshipped for thousands of years before the rise of Christianity, and viewing certain humans as incarnations of gods has been a norm in many regions and cultures for just as long, and it even persists in some parts of the world today. Those aren't really inherent moral failings.



Okay, human sacrifice and murder are bad. But I can't take a god seriously if they're concerned with the gender of one's preferred partners and if God objected to incest then how in the hell was one family supposed to repopulate the world? Did he just make new people as needed to prevent cousin marriages?



Again... there's no evidence that God's viewpoint is actually objective. There's literally no reason for us to take his word for it. He has no evidence that he is in fact the only true font of virtue and righteousness. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but you can't just... accept it because Authority. That's the root of the "It's not my fault, I was just following orders!" excuse.

God's justice is very objective and black and white in nature, which some people understandably find difficult to grasp. I believe that I've sufficiently answered enough already, though—I think we can both agree that no amount of explanation on my end based on my will alone will convince you to stray from your own worldview otherwise. Right now, the way the Bible defines sinfulness and non-sinfulness is incompatible with the way you view it, and this incompatibility between the two moral viewpoints themselves is acting as a wall to prevent any notion of potentially giving credence to the opposing viewpoint (in this case, the Bible's). I honestly hope that I've been able to act as an instrument to at least let you see God and the Scriptures in a different light. God isn't some psychopathic genocider; He's still a loving, compassionate God who wants to have a relationship wih you and anyone else willing to accept His gift of grace through Jesus Christ.

Ultimately, no, I can't answer all of your questions in a completely satisfactory way, and it seems like you want to be able to absolutely confirm all of these questons of yours and make sure that the Bible lines up with your own worldview before you can consider giving it credence. Since I am only a human who believes in God through both faith and reason, I'm not knowledgeable enough to answer your every question right now. I could probably try to answer some of those other concerns of yours, but I think that trying to debate any further doesn't have much of a point to it now, especially since you'd rather stick to your own worldview. I vow to stick to mine, no matter what, for without it, I have no hope. I can understand why you are hard-set on yours, too. Like I said before, though, I hope I've at least been able to plant a few seeds of understanding for you about God and the Bible in general, and I'll pray for you in the meantime. Peace be with you.

 

[The One Called X]

Count Gensokyo I do appreciate you attempting to explain. I suppose that for someone who was raised outside of a faith, like me, it's very difficult to accept things just on faith. Have a nice day.

 

[Noon]

God's justice is very objective and black and white in nature, which some people understandably find difficult to grasp

You guys had one hell of a party while I was gone. I only quickly skimmed through the discussion, so I don't know how much of this is taken from what you've already said, but...

It's hard to say what God is and what He isn't. You know what they say - 'the Lord works in mysterious ways'. If He does exist, then we as humans should not expect to understand what He defines as 'right' and 'wrong'. We can only rely on our own trust in Him and in the faith of our brothers, which isn't at all consistent when you count the number of atheists and those of different religions to our own. Hell, humans are so inconsistent that nobody knows what's what even in a world full of laws and holy books. We have to decide as a group what counts as good and evil. That's why we have court rooms, judges and magistrates.

But there is is again: the whole predicament of blind faith. To what degree can you accredit someone's murder to the god they worship? Now, I will not start a religious argument here. I just think it's interesting. People can murder one another and call it an act of good because their deity told them to do it. Would one then be evil for convicting said murderer?

Ah, it's all relative. We make the same points and fall back to the same conclusion over and over, but there's so much to be said that we could honestly go on forever. And nobody would find an answer.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Again, the Bible did say
"In those days, Israel had no king, and each man did what was right in his own eyes."
Without an objective view, good and bad are undefinable.

 

[Noon]

"In those days, Israel had no king, and each man did what was right in his own eyes."
Without an objective view, good and bad are undefinable

Absolutely. But does 'right in his own eyes' equate to undeniably good? It's simply a matter of perspective - opinions and beliefs aren't always correct. Someone could believe that they are doing the right thing and still be evil in an omnibenevolent being's view.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Indeed.
Which is why the Bible exists.
Without the Bible and the morals it presents from an *ahem* objective view, every man would do what was right in his own eyes.
And in the verses following that verse, found in Judges 17:6, it describes some of the acts and their consequences when the men of Israel did what was right in their eyes.
Which loops back to an earlier point I made.
When one abandons the objective viewpoint of the Bible, one, without fail, does what is right in their own eyes. And that loops back to the majority makes the decisions.
Like when the majority of people's "right in their own eyes" agree on something; for example, murder. Most people agree, since it is not right in their own eyes and the eyes of others, that it is not right. And since the minority is squashed under the opinion of the majority, murder is then deemed to be "evil."
That could apply as an opposite.
If they disregarded the Bible and the majority believed it was right to commit murder for the sake of entertainment, then the minority would be squelched and murder for entertainment would become a morally acceptable construct.
And anyone who believed otherwise would be deemed heretical, evil, or deviant, and, with this example, be killed.

Since the majority today believes murder to be evil, it is morally abhorrent, and you would be free to doubt such a thing as it being legal would exist.
But on the same note, abortion used to be considered abhorrently evil. Nowadays, the majority, or at least the loud minority, believes it's at least tolerable, and so it's considered morally acceptable. So it does happen.