I had a conversation on MSN with a friend the other night and the topic popped up. Today, I was reading through the "katanas are evil" thread and saw the following reply posted by Luis Antonio:
Evil, Good.
There is no such thing.
There is action, patterns and aproval or unnaproval. (sorry if my english is not so smart as it should be).
Try reading Arthur C Clarke 'Rama' series; Umberto Eco's 'Baudolino'. It is all a question of point of view.
BTW, I don't think people are evil. They are what they are, but the mass society does not agree with them - and that is why they need a label, they need to be posted as evil.
But that dont make me think that they should not pay for the wrong actions they take.
If you are doing wrong things, be prepared to pay, and I can tell the same bout the people who make the right things, cause everything has a price.
Now it was a bit out of place in the thread and never got enough attention, so I'm reposting it here.
I'd be very interested to see the opinions of fellow SYMers, especially those who consider themselves (semi)religious, as it seems to me that it is those that follow a religion that feel about the existence of a set morals for good and evil the most.
Good and Evil (spam lite)
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
Good and Evil (spam lite)
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
I believe that within each of us, relegious or not, their is a moral "compass". There is a definable "good" and "evil", but that good and evil is strictly personal. For instance, the conjecture upon George W. Bush's Afghanistan and Iraqi freedom campaigns are seen by some as an "evil" action, yet I however view it as a "good" action. A righteous cause to remove a tyrant from power.
As an extension, it is fair to say Hussein didn't see Bush's actions as "good" (obviously ), he desired an Islamic Jihad to remove Bush Jnr. from power a different idea completely.
In conclusion then, I am drawn to a few ideas. The first is that we can only decide what is "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong" from our own lives and experience. Arguing one point or another is oft times an exercise in futility (take, for instance, me trying to persuade Fable that Bush did the right thing .) The second is that the moral "compass" can only be used to guide our own courses of action. Trust them, because they are what we are all about.
We only have the right to decide what we think is right, but, because we can, we will always say that something else is wrong because human beings are all the same. They're always right.
As an extension, it is fair to say Hussein didn't see Bush's actions as "good" (obviously
), he desired an Islamic Jihad to remove Bush Jnr. from power a different idea completely.In conclusion then, I am drawn to a few ideas. The first is that we can only decide what is "good" or "evil" or "right" or "wrong" from our own lives and experience. Arguing one point or another is oft times an exercise in futility (take, for instance, me trying to persuade Fable that Bush did the right thing
.) The second is that the moral "compass" can only be used to guide our own courses of action. Trust them, because they are what we are all about.We only have the right to decide what we think is right, but, because we can, we will always say that something else is wrong because human beings are all the same. They're always right.
Perverteer Paladin
Bah, "good" and "bad" have so many defintions.
I'll have to conflict opinions with my Perverteer Brother here. Society sets standards, and as the human race follows those standards they build "morals", or what they believe should be done in life.
Like this: A society paints things - all things - blue. They eat, sleep, and drink blue. They've been brought up to acknowledge that this is acceptable and good. As they have been taught, a "good" person would carry out their commitment to always paint stuff blue.
Another society, similar to this one, paints things red. All things. This is a major no-no in Blue Society, because it's never been done before and isn't acceptable to them. They see Red Society as having no morals because their belief system isn't the same.
If you understood the above scenario, you need to do like me and go see a psychologist.
As far as "evil" people go, I think it would be like a person going through Blue Society wearing all green. They don't think that they are evil - they just have their sights set on different things than others. The green person wants to change Blue Society in a way that *he* sees fit, and this probably violates Blue Society morals.
People will disagree with me, so feel free to pull out the flame throwers at any time.
I'll have to conflict opinions with my Perverteer Brother here. Society sets standards, and as the human race follows those standards they build "morals", or what they believe should be done in life.
Like this: A society paints things - all things - blue. They eat, sleep, and drink blue. They've been brought up to acknowledge that this is acceptable and good. As they have been taught, a "good" person would carry out their commitment to always paint stuff blue.
Another society, similar to this one, paints things red. All things. This is a major no-no in Blue Society, because it's never been done before and isn't acceptable to them. They see Red Society as having no morals because their belief system isn't the same.
If you understood the above scenario, you need to do like me and go see a psychologist.
As far as "evil" people go, I think it would be like a person going through Blue Society wearing all green. They don't think that they are evil - they just have their sights set on different things than others. The green person wants to change Blue Society in a way that *he* sees fit, and this probably violates Blue Society morals.
People will disagree with me, so feel free to pull out the flame throwers at any time.
"There are worse things in the world than serving the whims of a deadly sex goddess." - Zevran
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
That's well put, @Nippy. The part about my opinion of Bush --but the rest, as well. I see this moral compass as part of an intuited higher function of the self; not religious, but spiritual in nature.
And nobody, please, please, bring up the Force.
--but the rest, as well. I see this moral compass as part of an intuited higher function of the self; not religious, but spiritual in nature.And nobody, please, please, bring up the Force.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Originally posted by Aqua-chan
Bah, "good" and "bad" have so many defintions.
I'll have to conflict opinions with my Perverteer Brother here. Society sets standards, and as the human race follows those standards they build "morals", or what they believe should be done in life.
Like this: A society paints things - all things - blue. They eat, sleep, and drink blue. They've been brought up to acknowledge that this is acceptable and good. As they have been taught, a "good" person would carry out their commitment to always paint stuff blue.
Another society, similar to this one, paints things red. All things. This is a major no-no in Blue Society, because it's never been done before and isn't acceptable to them. They see Red Society as having no morals because their belief system isn't the same.
If you understood the above scenario, you need to do like me and go see a psychologist.
As far as "evil" people go, I think it would be like a person going through Blue Society wearing all green. They don't think that they are evil - they just have their sights set on different things than others. The green person wants to change Blue Society in a way that *he* sees fit, and this probably violates Blue Society morals.
People will disagree with me, so feel free to pull out the flame throwers at any time.
Taking your arguments into account then, @AC, would you extend your agreement to a person having a moral compass that can be coloured by society? (Did you like the pun? I even underlined it.
) Maybe the soul can know what is right, but because Mr. Blue doesn't agree with Mrs. Red, Mrs. Blue is forced to to think that Mr. & Mrs. Red are evil sonsof*****es. (It's all getting Tarantino in here. )I suppose that my above opinion expresses that although someone may have a contrary thought or belief, they might not be allowed to live it.
Society has a great way of controlling what we think. Thats why propaganda has and always will be a fantastic tool because a lot of people can be given different ideas than fact, and can hence have what they believe changed...
Perverteer Paladin
-
dragon wench
- Posts: 19609
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: The maelstrom where chaos merges with lucidity
- Contact:
I tend to think that there are certain universal (within global human society) laws that define a moral or ethical compass. Equally, much as the social anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss believed, I think there exist universal taboos. Most of these laws or taboos seem to relate to human survival: the prohibition of incest and murder, the protection of one's children etc.
However, I think that different cultures (and often, individuals) interpret these strictures through their own particular lens. To use the incest taboo as an example. Within "Western" culture marriage between first cousins is usually actively discouraged. In Many African cultures, marriage between first cousins is frequently considered an ideal. Yet, both "Western," and "African" cultures practice prohibitions against incest.
Of course... one can only take relativism so far. My own feeling is that when people are hurt in any way, the inappropriateness of passing judgement becomes an entirely different matter. As an example, while this might sound culturally insensitive or intolerant, I won't, under any circumstances, view female genital mutilation (known also as female circumcision), as anything other than completely repugnant.
Though again, even here it becomes murky because personal politics and individual agendas influence how we define the way in which we perceive an action or situation. And once we begin to justify something on moral or ethical ground we are standing on quick sand.
This would be more an angle for somebody like CE, but mental illness also plays a role. For example, sociopaths do not have any real moral guidelines (as I understand it anyway). Does this make them evil or merely mentally ill?
However, I think that different cultures (and often, individuals) interpret these strictures through their own particular lens. To use the incest taboo as an example. Within "Western" culture marriage between first cousins is usually actively discouraged. In Many African cultures, marriage between first cousins is frequently considered an ideal. Yet, both "Western," and "African" cultures practice prohibitions against incest.
Of course... one can only take relativism so far. My own feeling is that when people are hurt in any way, the inappropriateness of passing judgement becomes an entirely different matter. As an example, while this might sound culturally insensitive or intolerant, I won't, under any circumstances, view female genital mutilation (known also as female circumcision), as anything other than completely repugnant.
Though again, even here it becomes murky because personal politics and individual agendas influence how we define the way in which we perceive an action or situation. And once we begin to justify something on moral or ethical ground we are standing on quick sand.
This would be more an angle for somebody like CE, but mental illness also plays a role. For example, sociopaths do not have any real moral guidelines (as I understand it anyway). Does this make them evil or merely mentally ill?
Spoiler
testingtest12
Spoiler
testingtest12
I read it as social concepts based in the idea of majority over minority.
By that we can see right and wrong. Good and bad, as extensions, woulb be an atempt of break the limits of a closed system, like an transcedent right or wrong, something that still apply in a open(complex) system. No doubt, good and bad are normally religious based, and aquire diferent meaning as a part of the religious comprehension.
"Social concept based on the idea of majority over minority" only mean a context. But the necessity of a context dont make the concepts weaker or less aplicable. Actually it is quite normal, since the context will give us the criteria to define right/wrong/good/evil beyond linguistic/semiology/philosofic abstract analisys.
So, i think that to say that right/wrong/good/bad dont exist is to exalt the natural need of context of the concepts as a flaw. This extreme relativism sound to me as a mistake.
It(Good/Evil) do exist, in an not absolute focus.(<-- more constructive)
(I Guess i repeated what you ppl said, but in a flawled english )
What i said seem to be a commom point in the last posts of the thread, I just dont see too much of the subjective parameters. Its seem to be mainly a social concept, not a personal/subjective concept.
By that we can see right and wrong. Good and bad, as extensions, woulb be an atempt of break the limits of a closed system, like an transcedent right or wrong, something that still apply in a open(complex) system. No doubt, good and bad are normally religious based, and aquire diferent meaning as a part of the religious comprehension.
"Social concept based on the idea of majority over minority" only mean a context. But the necessity of a context dont make the concepts weaker or less aplicable. Actually it is quite normal, since the context will give us the criteria to define right/wrong/good/evil beyond linguistic/semiology/philosofic abstract analisys.
So, i think that to say that right/wrong/good/bad dont exist is to exalt the natural need of context of the concepts as a flaw. This extreme relativism sound to me as a mistake.
It(Good/Evil) do exist, in an not absolute focus.(<-- more constructive)
(I Guess i repeated what you ppl said, but in a flawled english
)What i said seem to be a commom point in the last posts of the thread, I just dont see too much of the subjective parameters. Its seem to be mainly a social concept, not a personal/subjective concept.
[Sorry about my English]
Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".
Lurker(0.50). : )
Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".
Lurker(0.50). : )
Tish-tosh. Of course good and evil exist. They are not subjective or cultural, though they may be relative (that is: one can make judgments about degree of good and evil). The standard of measure is human rights, and, above all: life. In so far as an entity acts to limit, deteriorate, or eliminate such rights as life and freedom, they are evil. To such extent that persons promote and protect and respect these rights, they are good.
I’ve never understood people’s fear of using a term like evil. I’ve been told that by using such a word we somehow “objectify” the person, regime, act, etc, under discussion. Frankly, I have no problem with labeling something like the Hussein regime as “evil.” It was. Hussein himself was evil. Why fear to name him as such? I would even say that America, Britain, Germany, and many other such nations, are “good.” I have reservations about all of the governments so named (and have discussed them in this forum), but in their basic outlook they do respect and protect human rights, and I view that very positively. Obviously one can discuss particulars, but let’s not loose sight of the greater themes involved in such nations.
I’ve never understood people’s fear of using a term like evil. I’ve been told that by using such a word we somehow “objectify” the person, regime, act, etc, under discussion. Frankly, I have no problem with labeling something like the Hussein regime as “evil.” It was. Hussein himself was evil. Why fear to name him as such? I would even say that America, Britain, Germany, and many other such nations, are “good.” I have reservations about all of the governments so named (and have discussed them in this forum), but in their basic outlook they do respect and protect human rights, and I view that very positively. Obviously one can discuss particulars, but let’s not loose sight of the greater themes involved in such nations.
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
Originally posted by Lazarus
Tish-tosh. Of course good and evil exist. They are not subjective or cultural, though they may be relative (that is: one can make judgments about degree of good and evil). The standard of measure is human rights, and, above all: life. In so far as an entity acts to limit, deteriorate, or eliminate such rights as life and freedom, they are evil. To such extent that persons promote and protect and respect these rights, they are good.
I’ve never understood people’s fear of using a term like evil. I’ve been told that by using such a word we somehow “objectify” the person, regime, act, etc, under discussion. Frankly, I have no problem with labeling something like the Hussein regime as “evil.” It was. Hussein himself was evil. Why fear to name him as such? I would even say that America, Britain, Germany, and many other such nations, are “good.” I have reservations about all of the governments so named (and have discussed them in this forum), but in their basic outlook they do respect and protect human rights, and I view that very positively. Obviously one can discuss particulars, but let’s not loose sight of the greater themes involved in such nations.
Just when I was afraid the thread will die due to the common agreement on the topic
The main problem I see in using the term evil is that it somehow makes you seem bigoted, because as soon as you lable someone as evil you automatically imply that you, yourself are good.
If evil is indeed not objective and universal, do you think that Hussain sees himself as evil? If he is of sane mind and everyone view good and evil the same way he should see himself as evil.
And because I don't want to turn this into a political thread, let me ask you this: if goodness is indeed a measure of "The standard of measure is human rights, and, above all: life." then were Romans, for example, necessarily evil? Their disregard for human life and "human rights" is pretty obvious but does that make them evil as a nation? Was humanity as a whole more evil 2000 years ago then it is now, as both slavery and disregard for human life were more common than they are now?
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
You right vicsun, Hussein will never think he is evil, because since it is a social concept he ll use other criteria to place valor in the concept of evil.Originally posted by Vicsun
The main problem I see in using the term evil is that it somehow makes you seem bigoted, because as soon as you lable someone as evil you automatically imply that you, yourself are good.
If evil is indeed not objective and universal, do you think that Hussain sees himself as evil? If he is of sane mind and everyone view good and evil the same way he should see himself as evil.
And because I don't want to turn this into a political thread, let me ask you this: if goodness is indeed a measure of "The standard of measure is human rights, and, above all: life." then were Romans, for example, necessarily evil? Their disregard for human life and "human rights" is pretty obvious but does that make them evil as a nation? Was humanity as a whole more evil 2000 years ago then it is now, as both slavery and disregard for human life were more common than they are now?
Human Rights and Freedom is not an universal criteria, Lazarus simply elected these both to say something is evil. Hussein would elect other criteria.(Since Lazarus and Hussein are in diferent social context).
It could be Power, Beauty, Cristianity, Peace, Equality, Cidadany, Security, Purity, Inteligence, Happyness, Wealth, Rights, Patriotism, Islamism, War Power... or whatever else untill we find what we want and what we are(or more preciselly, where/when we are).
The context bring us the criteria to value. Even the example of mutilation(Dragon Wench), is obviously a matter of context and a matter of majority over minority. I, for example, dont need too much of abstraction of my reality to say that the mutilation is not too far from the death penalty(considered normal by some) in a grade of violence and absurd.
[Sorry about my English]
Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".
Lurker(0.50). : )
Ps: I'm "Ivan Cavallazzi".
Lurker(0.50). : )
Greetings all,
Most of the posts on this topic have merit, however I think that it is "strange(?)" that when people are talking about good and evil that a man like Saddam Hussein is taken as an example to make a point. As I see it, evil is not something that can be defined by examples of the kind that say "Evil is to act like Saddam/Stalin ... " because in my humble opinion these people are insane. You can blame them for the atrocities that they have commited and punish them accordingly, but good and evil are abstract notions that can only be used between people of like mind and culture.
We (people from a western, christian culture) see many actions by other people as evil and reprehensible because we don't take their background into consideration. This does not mean that you should not try to do something about the suffering of women, prisoners or minorities in other countries, but it does mean that you should be aware of cultural differences.
To make an unpopular statement, many actions by americans are seen as inhumane and evil in Europe right now and I don't mean the war in Iraq alone. The treatment of the Iraqi and Al-Queda prisoners in Cuba is questioned here, just as for years people have questioned America's continued use of the death-penalty as a deterrent, their negative influence on the improvement of the environment worldwide and their support of 'terrorist' groups in many sovereign states. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Nicaragua, Colombia, El Salvador, ... all places where the US funded "freedom fighters" inb the past.)
And just the same: Many Dutch ideas, such as a relaxed attitude towards soft-drugs, criminals and certain social issues (Gay-marriages, sex-education.) are seen as evil in many places.
For me the real evil is people who do evil knowingly, because they believe that they have the right to do so. They place their own interest and well-being before that of others and by their own free will choose to do evil. And similarly, good is something that people do because they choose to do the 'right' thing without thinking of profit or personal interest.
Just my opinion,
Dutch101.
Most of the posts on this topic have merit, however I think that it is "strange(?)" that when people are talking about good and evil that a man like Saddam Hussein is taken as an example to make a point. As I see it, evil is not something that can be defined by examples of the kind that say "Evil is to act like Saddam/Stalin ... " because in my humble opinion these people are insane. You can blame them for the atrocities that they have commited and punish them accordingly, but good and evil are abstract notions that can only be used between people of like mind and culture.
We (people from a western, christian culture) see many actions by other people as evil and reprehensible because we don't take their background into consideration. This does not mean that you should not try to do something about the suffering of women, prisoners or minorities in other countries, but it does mean that you should be aware of cultural differences.
To make an unpopular statement, many actions by americans are seen as inhumane and evil in Europe right now and I don't mean the war in Iraq alone. The treatment of the Iraqi and Al-Queda prisoners in Cuba is questioned here, just as for years people have questioned America's continued use of the death-penalty as a deterrent, their negative influence on the improvement of the environment worldwide and their support of 'terrorist' groups in many sovereign states. (Afghanistan, Iraq, Nicaragua, Colombia, El Salvador, ... all places where the US funded "freedom fighters" inb the past.)
And just the same: Many Dutch ideas, such as a relaxed attitude towards soft-drugs, criminals and certain social issues (Gay-marriages, sex-education.) are seen as evil in many places.
For me the real evil is people who do evil knowingly, because they believe that they have the right to do so. They place their own interest and well-being before that of others and by their own free will choose to do evil. And similarly, good is something that people do because they choose to do the 'right' thing without thinking of profit or personal interest.
Just my opinion,
Dutch101.
"Nobody's absolutely right and nobody's absolutely wrong, but some people just don't know what they are talking about."
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
Welcome to Gamebanshee and more importantly Speak Your Mind, Dutch101!
For me the real evil is people who do evil knowingly, because they believe that they have the right to do so.
That would only work if there was a clear definitoin of evil. If we can define evil, then quite obviously the people who do evil are evil
They place their own interest and well-being before that of others and by their own free will choose to do evil. And similarly, good is something that people do because they choose to do the 'right' thing without thinking of profit or personal interest.
Same as before, what is 'right'? What if, for example, in my society it is considered right to stone <insert minority group here> to death? If I participate in such an activity without profiting myself in any way, an I a good person?
For me the real evil is people who do evil knowingly, because they believe that they have the right to do so.
That would only work if there was a clear definitoin of evil. If we can define evil, then quite obviously the people who do evil are evil
They place their own interest and well-being before that of others and by their own free will choose to do evil. And similarly, good is something that people do because they choose to do the 'right' thing without thinking of profit or personal interest.
Same as before, what is 'right'? What if, for example, in my society it is considered right to stone <insert minority group here> to death? If I participate in such an activity without profiting myself in any way, an I a good person?
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
Vicsun,
The post you lifted from 'K..K..K.. are evil 'got a reply from me in that thread and it might have been worth lifting it too. Especially the bit about reading up on ethical theory (Not Nietzsche ).
You asked for a clear definition of evil.
(Simplifying from Richard Taylor's: Value and Origin of Right and Wrong)
Once there is a single agent in the world who can be effected by the world (and can have an effect in the world) anything that acts to their deteriment is evil and anything that acts to their benefit is good. It's clear and pretty unequivical but I suspect of not much use to you.
Hume, Moore, Ayer, Stevenson, Hare, Foot, Warnock, Heck why not refer to Plato's Crito. These are the big questions but they have been extensively argued and recorded. - Curdis !
The post you lifted from 'K..K..K.. are evil 'got a reply from me in that thread and it might have been worth lifting it too. Especially the bit about reading up on ethical theory (Not Nietzsche
).You asked for a clear definition of evil.
(Simplifying from Richard Taylor's: Value and Origin of Right and Wrong)
Once there is a single agent in the world who can be effected by the world (and can have an effect in the world) anything that acts to their deteriment is evil and anything that acts to their benefit is good. It's clear and pretty unequivical but I suspect of not much use to you.
Hume, Moore, Ayer, Stevenson, Hare, Foot, Warnock, Heck why not refer to Plato's Crito. These are the big questions but they have been extensively argued and recorded. - Curdis !
The warlord sig of 's' - word
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
-
Vicsun
- Posts: 4547
- Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: liberally sprinkled in the film's opening scene
- Contact:
The post you lifted from 'K..K..K.. are evil 'got a reply from me in that thread and it might have been worth lifting it too. Especially the bit about reading up on ethical theory (Not Nietzsche ).
Hey, if you think your reply was relevant feel free to copy and paste it here. And, you seem to have a certain dislike for Nietzsche, may I ask why?
Once there is a single agent in the world who can be effected by the world (and can have an effect in the world) anything that acts to their deteriment is evil and anything that acts to their benefit is good. It's clear and pretty unequivical but I suspect of not much use to you.
If there is one, and only one agent in the world what you say holds true. But if there are multiple agents and their goals differ, what is beneficial for one might be a detriment for another and thus what one consideres good the other will consider evil. Therefore, according to what you say, there is no universal set of morals and good and evil are strictly personal and subjective values. Or did I misunderstand what you said?
).Hey, if you think your reply was relevant feel free to copy and paste it here.
And, you seem to have a certain dislike for Nietzsche, may I ask why?Once there is a single agent in the world who can be effected by the world (and can have an effect in the world) anything that acts to their deteriment is evil and anything that acts to their benefit is good. It's clear and pretty unequivical but I suspect of not much use to you.
If there is one, and only one agent in the world what you say holds true. But if there are multiple agents and their goals differ, what is beneficial for one might be a detriment for another and thus what one consideres good the other will consider evil. Therefore, according to what you say, there is no universal set of morals and good and evil are strictly personal and subjective values. Or did I misunderstand what you said?
Vicsun, I certainly agree with your assertion that you are an unpleasant person. ~Chanak
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
@Dutch101, welcome to the forums. Post a thread and tell us a little bit about yourself.
What about those who do evil believing it to be neither one thing or another, but simply the best way to survive? Truffaut once said that the Hitlers of this world only exist because of the millions of people who perform "little evils" on a daily basis. How does one recognize evil if the good you do is evil to me, and vice versa?
Originally posted by Dutch101
For me the real evil is people who do evil knowingly, because they believe that they have the right to do so.
What about those who do evil believing it to be neither one thing or another, but simply the best way to survive? Truffaut once said that the Hitlers of this world only exist because of the millions of people who perform "little evils" on a daily basis. How does one recognize evil if the good you do is evil to me, and vice versa?
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
It's not that I don't like Nietzsches it is just that there has been so much said about the issues of values since his time. And I assure you that he is less than transparent on the issues. Others have been much clearer, and more recent.Originally posted by Vicsun
And, you seem to have a certain dislike for Nietzsche, may I ask why?
Firstly, I didn't say it Richard Taylor did. And he said it in an essay which holds that there is at least a possibility for an absolute value system.Originally posted by Vicsun
[If there is one, and only one agent in the world what you say holds true. But if there are multiple agents and their goals differ, what is beneficial for one might be a detriment for another and thus what one consideres good the other will consider evil. Therefore, according to what you say, there is no universal set of morals and good and evil are strictly personal and subjective values. Or did I misunderstand what you said?
Secondly, what you go on to hypothesis about my quoted definition does not necessarily follow. As you say it might be this... or it might be an infinite number of other things. The scope for misunderstanding is legion. So no you didn't misunderstand what I said, cause I didn't say it.
- Curdis !I must ignore philosophy and religion on this forum
I must ignore philosophy and religion on this forum
I must ignore philosophy and religion on this forum
I must ignore philosophy and religion on this forum
I must ignore philosophy and religion on this forum
I must ignore philosophy and religion on this forum
I must ignore philosophy and religion on this forum
I must ignore philosophy and religion on this forum
I must ignore philosophy and religion on this forum
The warlord sig of 's' - word
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
Making a reappearance for those who have a sig even longer
[quote="Dilbert]That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard[/quote]
[quote=Waverly]You all suck donkeys[/quote]
[quote={deleted after legal threats}]I am so not a drama queen![/quote"]
:mischief:
:devil:
Repent
For
Yes; never a dull moment when Lazarus steps into the fray.Originally posted by Vicsun
Just when I was afraid the thread will die due to the common agreement on the topic
No. I only state that I can recognize evil for what it is. If you perceive an implication (that I am good) the responsibility for that perception is yours, not mine.Originally posted by Vicsun
The main problem I see in using the term evil is that it somehow makes you seem bigoted, because as soon as you lable someone as evil you automatically imply that you, yourself are good.
I have no idea what Hussein may think about his own actions, nor whether he is sane or not. On one level, I would have to assume that he is in fact insane: the acts he has committed are so beyond the pale of human morality that one must assume something has gone wrong in that man's mind. On the other hand, I do not believe this absolves him of guilt for his crimes. (I think I'll post the lyrics to a great Oingo Boingo song on this subject over in my old lyrics thread after this: look for "Only A Lad" to appear there shortly.)Originally posted by Vicsun
If evil is indeed not objective and universal, do you think that Hussain sees himself as evil? If he is of sane mind and everyone view good and evil the same way he should see himself as evil.
In any event, whether or not he would view his own actions as crimes (or as evil) is irrelevant. He would be wrong if he somehow attempted to portray those actions as good. This is my point: there is an objective standard here.
I tend to stay away from a lot of historical comparisons, for numerous reasons, one of the most prominent being: my knowledge of history is limited. You say disregard for human life was more common back then, quite simply I cannot even say if this was true - I just do not know. But beyond my own ignorance, I have this gut reaction to historical comparisons which is essentially: this isn't the past. I know, I know: we can gain understanding of today from an understanding of the past, blablabla. But I think maybe things were different back then, and so comparisons to now are made just that much more irrelevant. But, again, I'm no expert, and that may be another thread topic entirely.Originally posted by Vicsun
And because I don't want to turn this into a political thread, let me ask you this: if goodness is indeed a measure of "The standard of measure is human rights, and, above all: life." then were Romans, for example, necessarily evil? Their disregard for human life and "human rights" is pretty obvious but does that make them evil as a nation? Was humanity as a whole more evil 2000 years ago then it is now, as both slavery and disregard for human life were more common than they are now?
-
Ode to a Grasshopper
- Posts: 6664
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Nietzsche, morality...a philosopher's dream!
And so I'm not going to comment overmuch.
Love your new portrait @DW.
And so I'm not going to comment overmuch.
Love your new portrait @DW.
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]
The soul must be free, whatever the cost.
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]
The soul must be free, whatever the cost.
Originally posted by fable
What about those who do evil believing it to be neither one thing or another, but simply the best way to survive? Truffaut once said that the Hitlers of this world only exist because of the millions of people who perform "little evils" on a daily basis. How does one recognize evil if the good you do is evil to me, and vice versa?
One way is to link pleasure with moral goodness and evil with pain.
Thus the way to choose between two actions is to see which causes the most pleasure(or removes the most pain). If you have to choose between giving an African village the $100 it costs to bore a new well and treating yourself to a huge meal you look at what increases the overall pleasure the most. You will undoubtedly enjoy the meal giving you +10 points of pleasure. The next day however you will feel bloated and guilty for not bringing your wife -15 points of pleasure. The overeating will contribute 1% to you untimely death caused by heart disease. The grief caused to you family -2000 pleasure points (if you are shocked they are not more upset blame your mother-in-law who is secretly overjoyed +1000) 1% of -2000 is -20.
Thus the calculation is +10 -15 -20 giving an over all of: -25 pleasure points.
Set this of against giving a well to an African village. The reduction in infant mortality and disease is dramatic. The children no longer have to walk 5 miles for a 5 gallon jug of clean water, that if spilt on the way back means back to the well. The advantages are simply too many to list but lets estimate that for a small community of 800 you give in total +50000 plesure points.
-25 against +50000 means that the morally right action is giving the well.
This moral theory which holds that there are moral principles, independent of what people think or believe, is called Utilitarianism.
I didn't really bounce Eeyore. I had a cough, and I happened to be behind Eeyore, and I said "Grrrr-oppp-ptschschschz."
Tigger
Tigger
-
fable
- Posts: 30676
- Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
- Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
- Contact:
Originally posted by Tom
This moral theory which holds that there are moral principles, independent of what people think or believe, is called Utilitarianism.
But Tom, it's easy enough to speak of moral principles when (as in your example) it's all drawn with outliners in boldly contrasting colors. This doesn't deal with the issue I raised: "How does one recognize evil if the good you do is evil to me, and vice versa?"
Let's consider a classic instance, while bearing in mind that it's only a single representation of the question, and requires no answer in and of itself. If two adjoining nations, Sylvania and Fredonia, each require a resource to survive which exists in sufficient abundance to supply only one--and that resource is available nowhere else--where is the good, the evil, when they go to war over this resource, which lies in Sylvania? We must assume no ability to develop or improve the resource, and no method of working around the requirement. In short, there are no ways to break out of the box of the dilemna; the moral dilemna itself must be dealt with.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.