Debate talk:Why do good?

I don't care about "winning" enough, I suppose

Which is why, though I like to follow philosophical debates I never much participate in them simply because though I am decent at the "game", bringing in tangential points that actually winnow away the fat and get to the heart of the matter, quickly, I tend to fade quickly since I don't find defending the points worthy of my time/energy.

That said, I notice that those who do evil don't oft have these types of debates.
Or:
Only those "who do good" need apply to defend whatever position is being offered.
Or:
"Heresy" is defined by the faithful: posing the query "why do good?" confers on the asker the assumption of being "good" as one who does not "do good" is exempt from being involved in the debate. If someone who is outside the mainstream, ("evildoers"?), joins, they join on the basis of "my moral code, though vastly different, is 'good'," and since I'm arguing for it, I'm the orthodoxy of my moral code.

This would bring up an interesting (if elementary) thought: If there were a society that incorporated all that our society (Western) deemed to be "not good" their "heretics" while not being the epitome of enlightened thought would resemble someone who in our society would like to live their (own) life and be left alone.

Anyway

I only bring this up to remind us all that though the diamond has 64 facets the interplay of those same on what light falls upon them is exponentially greater than whatever may have fallen on any one. I don't defend, I merely JAQ off.

20:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

About to read all this

Sorry, folks—I was pretty busy over the past couple of days, hence why I didn't keep up the dialogue. I'm about to go through the debate page, read everything people have written, and consider replies. My apologies for the delay. Thomas Larsen (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)