4 ms·

Why do bad things happen to good people?

buttscicles 14y ago
Bad things happen to everybody.
kristofferR 14y ago
Because randomness isn't conscious. As humans we tend to place a lot of purely human ideals/ideas on the non-human world, but they're all actually things we've just made up. Goodness/badness/fairness/unfairness aren't "real things" existing in nature; they’re just something humanity has created in our minds and societies. No things has an inherent goodness or badness, we as humans just think/decide it is. Don't get me wrong, it's essential for human well being to have such things in place, but it's not something we can subject non-conscious things to. Gravity doesn't care, and can't care or know in any way, whether the guy soon to die from a coconut hit to his head falling from a tree was a child rapist or a humble "saint" always bringing happiness to other people.
- gprasanth 14y ago
  Perfectly understood what you said. Good and Bad are associated to things by individuals. I think I probably wanted to know what one should do when Bad things happen. And, I guess I know the answer to that already: just keep moving forward.
  - shawn-butler 14y ago
    I think endeavoring to no longer be surprised when Bad things happen is a good response. I mean not just ignoring it in order to move past, but accepting the world for what it is and anticipating suffering. Probably a stoic at heart I guess, but I'm not sure I see any other way.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  This is of course obviously false. Morality is a part of human nature. It isn't gifted by the supernatural. Therefore concepts like justice, good, bad have as real an existence as you. If humans are part of the natural order so is natural law.
  - kristofferR 14y ago
    I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I'm as strong as a non-believer in the supernatural/religious you can possibly be. I'm certainly not arguing that a supernatual force is determining what is good or bad, I'm arguing for the exact opposite - that there is no such predetermined thing in nature and that it is a purely human construct/idea. What I'm saying is simply that nothing is inherently good or bad, it's humans who assign the purely human concepts of fairness/justice/goodness/badness to things/actions/events.
    - shawn-butler 14y ago
      Yes, I belive I understood you. I think apparently I haven't been clear. You are part of the natural order, the same as that tree growing outside my window. Part of what being human is, is to have a sense of what is just. As a result, that sense we all share of what is just is also part of the natural order not a fictional arbitrary construct. Determining that a mother that eats her infant out of spite is an evil act is indeed as fully natural as the growth of the tree towards the sun. There are constructed, "positive" laws obviously. That it is wrong to jaywalk for example. That it is wrong to torture living creatures to cause pain (and for those creatures with temporal understanding, suffering) on the other hand is not. The latter flows from or is immanent in nature and is an example of natural law. It governs even the behavior of non-humans. Deviations from the natural order have consequences. Some Eastern cultures raise this cause and effect relationship to the level of a force no less powerful or useful than gravitation for explaining the world (karma for example). In Western cultures, this recognition of the natural order forms the basis of many legal systems. The concept of natural right or natural law in fact is what the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are founded upon. There is a long history of the subject if you want to learn more as I obviously have done a bad job of explaining. The work of contemporary jurists like John Finnis [0] at Oxford might be worthwhile. [0]: Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, 1997)
      - kristofferR 14y ago
        Okay, I understand what you're saying now, but I strongly disagree. To me it sounds a lot like just another human concept used to explain (what I consider) the human concept of morality. I think it is a philosophic/cultural/religious way of thinking about it, but certainly not a scientific one. If morality was the constant of nature you believe it is I don't see any reason why our morality would have changed in the massive ways it has throughout human history and still varies so much around the world. There are still hundreds of millions of humans around the world who hates homosexuals with every bit of their "soul"/mind, who don't have even a tiny bit of empathy for gays who are killed or tortured. The vast majority of humanity is still eating animal meat, most without much worry about the well being of the animals. Torture is still commonly used and justified around the globe, even by very intelligent Americans [1]. Considering how much what we consider moral/immoral varies/has varied through history around the world I don't see any reason to believe it is a constant of nature. It seems muuuuch more likely to me that it is determined by our cultures and societies than by nature, otherwise you would expect to see much greater similarities. [1] Here's a story from a just a few days ago: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scarborough-claims-zero-dark-thirty-torture-scene-true-screenwriter-and-facts-disagree/ http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scarborough-claims-zero-dark-...

Bad things happen to everybody.

Because randomness isn't conscious. As humans we tend to place a lot of purely human ideals/ideas on the non-human world, but they're all actually things we've just made up. Goodness/badness/fairness/unfairness aren't "real things" existing in nature; they’re just something humanity has created in our minds and societies. No things has an inherent goodness or badness, we as humans just think/decide it is. Don't get me wrong, it's essential for human well being to have such things in place, but it's not something we can subject non-conscious things to. Gravity doesn't care, and can't care or know in any way, whether the guy soon to die from a coconut hit to his head falling from a tree was a child rapist or a humble "saint" always bringing happiness to other people.

gprasanth 14y ago
Perfectly understood what you said. Good and Bad are associated to things by individuals. I think I probably wanted to know what one should do when Bad things happen. And, I guess I know the answer to that already: just keep moving forward.
- shawn-butler 14y ago
  I think endeavoring to no longer be surprised when Bad things happen is a good response. I mean not just ignoring it in order to move past, but accepting the world for what it is and anticipating suffering. Probably a stoic at heart I guess, but I'm not sure I see any other way.
shawn-butler 14y ago
This is of course obviously false. Morality is a part of human nature. It isn't gifted by the supernatural. Therefore concepts like justice, good, bad have as real an existence as you. If humans are part of the natural order so is natural law.
- kristofferR 14y ago
  I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I'm as strong as a non-believer in the supernatural/religious you can possibly be. I'm certainly not arguing that a supernatual force is determining what is good or bad, I'm arguing for the exact opposite - that there is no such predetermined thing in nature and that it is a purely human construct/idea. What I'm saying is simply that nothing is inherently good or bad, it's humans who assign the purely human concepts of fairness/justice/goodness/badness to things/actions/events.
  - shawn-butler 14y ago
    Yes, I belive I understood you. I think apparently I haven't been clear. You are part of the natural order, the same as that tree growing outside my window. Part of what being human is, is to have a sense of what is just. As a result, that sense we all share of what is just is also part of the natural order not a fictional arbitrary construct. Determining that a mother that eats her infant out of spite is an evil act is indeed as fully natural as the growth of the tree towards the sun. There are constructed, "positive" laws obviously. That it is wrong to jaywalk for example. That it is wrong to torture living creatures to cause pain (and for those creatures with temporal understanding, suffering) on the other hand is not. The latter flows from or is immanent in nature and is an example of natural law. It governs even the behavior of non-humans. Deviations from the natural order have consequences. Some Eastern cultures raise this cause and effect relationship to the level of a force no less powerful or useful than gravitation for explaining the world (karma for example). In Western cultures, this recognition of the natural order forms the basis of many legal systems. The concept of natural right or natural law in fact is what the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are founded upon. There is a long history of the subject if you want to learn more as I obviously have done a bad job of explaining. The work of contemporary jurists like John Finnis [0] at Oxford might be worthwhile. [0]: Natural Law and Natural Rights (Oxford University Press, 1997)
    - kristofferR 14y ago
      Okay, I understand what you're saying now, but I strongly disagree. To me it sounds a lot like just another human concept used to explain (what I consider) the human concept of morality. I think it is a philosophic/cultural/religious way of thinking about it, but certainly not a scientific one. If morality was the constant of nature you believe it is I don't see any reason why our morality would have changed in the massive ways it has throughout human history and still varies so much around the world. There are still hundreds of millions of humans around the world who hates homosexuals with every bit of their "soul"/mind, who don't have even a tiny bit of empathy for gays who are killed or tortured. The vast majority of humanity is still eating animal meat, most without much worry about the well being of the animals. Torture is still commonly used and justified around the globe, even by very intelligent Americans [1]. Considering how much what we consider moral/immoral varies/has varied through history around the world I don't see any reason to believe it is a constant of nature. It seems muuuuch more likely to me that it is determined by our cultures and societies than by nature, otherwise you would expect to see much greater similarities. [1] Here's a story from a just a few days ago: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scarborough-claims-zero-dark-thirty-torture-scene-true-screenwriter-and-facts-disagree/ http://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-scarborough-claims-zero-dark-...