Well, for one thing, you can have a propensity to act in a certain way, and never act in that way. But, what theory of yours do you think I have proved?
Kurt originally stated:
I guess I don’t know enough altruistic ideologies, for I have never claimed to know many, but I was never aware that their common theme is “if only man weren’t so selfish and greedy.” - I don’t think its selfishness and greed that taint our ideologies preventing them from being altruistic ones. I think its that although we are all part of the same race, our differences exceed the distance of the furthest stars. What appears to a layman as altruistic, appears naive to a scholar. What appears altruistic to a scholar, a layman sees no meaning in it. Just as some see giving change to homeless people as altruistic and others see it as condoning homelessness. It’s a matter of perspective.
In reference to your question about selfishness and greed, I don’t agree that there is a clear general answer for either one of them. They are situation relative, as well as perceiver relative. Many of us have only survived because we were selfish and greedy and would have died if we weren’t, it is a survival instinct. But many people do not understand the virtues of sharing when they don’t have to scrounge around, and when they have no need to be selfish - this is where selfishness is wrong. It is this wrong sense of selfishness that I understand greed to be. Greed being an excessive amount of ‘want’ within a person that sees no limit.
Kurt asked:
To some people it would definitely look to be evil, while others would see it as necessary or even expected, as some do. There are people in the world, some of which I have met, whom do believe selfishness and greed to be noble aspirations. To me there is no sense of general good or evil attached with selfishness or altruism. There is a sense of wrong associated with Greed for me, for the reason that Greed is an excess, it is unhealthy and blinds the mind. This is not to say it is evil, for I do not believe in evil, there are many things people have an obsession with which are harmful to them and to others, and our society goes on promoting it…yet we do not see it as evil, nor should we. For example, smoking.
Kurt stated:
Maybe its because I don’t believe in evil, but for a long time in my life I truly dispised mankind for the atrocities we have committed not just against ourselves but against the environment. At no time did I desire death. Furthermore, as a child when I considered something to be evil I did not wish to destroy it, I wished to understand it. Too often we associate value judgments such as ‘evil’ on things we do not understand. Often in my life I have noticed most people attribute the word ‘evil’ that they did not like. But what one person doesn’t like, another loves. There is no general evil associated with anything for me. The word itself came out of a time of confusion, a lack of understanding of those things which were considered evil. Specific animals like scorpions and snakes were considered evil. There is nothing evil about them, we all have tools with which to defend and to mame in order for us to feed and survive. Humans particularly don’t like the tools of the snake and scorpion, so generations ago we saw them as evil, but that is silly.
Lastly, it might help, as weird as this might sound, to witness the birth of that which you think to be evil. I have often found that witnessing monsterous things like whales, elephants, or bears being born - you can see the innocence in them. Nothing is born evil or even mean. Those who are mean become that way because of unfavourable circumstances in their lives. Those that become mean or what you might call evil, can also un-become evil. This is why I wish to learn about them, the more you learn about them the more you learn about their pain and how it emanates in their hate or anger - from where one may work to ease it and help them find the right path.
What’s your take?
Magius, just a point, if someone were barely surviving, could it really be called greed if they took a little bit to survive on, perhaps you are being too hard on people.
Magius, though benevolence has its logical place where one lives amongst others like him/her we must keep the issue of evil as a primary. That is to say that which destroys mans ability to survive & prosper is evil. Though some evil can be attributed to genetic defects & overwhelming circumstances most cannot. Hitler could not have flourished without a large amount of fearful, superstitious idiots to blindly accept the sickness that was the Nazi movement. More to the point it had to begin with a group committed to the destruction of man. Worse is the evil with no head to cut off, communist/collectivist anti-human pro self sacrifice ideology - that which requires no real effort or involvement of the perpetrators other than self-denial & ultimately self-loathing.
This second form of evil can be likened to those who would watch as another suffers & dies without offering help. In fact it is worse than that because as a altruist & the like you are promoting destruction with your meager offerings.
Those who would ignore their ability to think & reason are like the child who is daydreaming as something spills. Rather than remain aware of reality & take responsibility for their place in it they let the glass tumble & fall. When you add adulthood to the picture (& the ability to know better) you have EVIL.
Regards,
ASHORTT, I believe that you just beautifully expressed the current notion of evil and its affective causes.
I have been kicking some things around in my head. For example, in a society and continent that was reaching the culmination of civility, how can such terrible things as the Nazi takeover and the Holocaust just radically happen in such a short period of time. I realize that humans and groups of people have acted barbarically in plenty of instances throughout history.
My point is that the 1930’s was about the time they started fooling with brain chemicals. Perhaps there was something in the water. I am saying this because traditional mind control is so ineffective and unreliable compared to giving some one chemicals to prohibit or induce certain reactions in the brain. In contradistinction to traditional thought about the subject, it is very hard to control someone’s mind through messages. This is because people can choose to believe in the message or not to believe in the message. This is also because you can have different people send different messages. Whereas with drugs and chemical induced mind control people will do whatever you want them to.
Perhaps, I am just the world’s biggest conspiracy theorist but I am not strictly convinced that it was just a nation of angry people and not hate either, since what is hate really but an abstraction, wheareas there is no argument about what anger is when you see someone go into a fit or rage of temper for example. There had to be some unseen factors, perhaps an accident of some kind occured.
theoryofexist stated:
Theoryofexist, did you read my whole post? I mean if you are going to respond to my post, do you not think it wise to read the whole thing? Especially when you have a question, or was your point only to say I was harsh, which might already have the answer in the post…my original post contains the following…
By my understanding of ‘Greed’ the word could not be applied to someone who is barely surviving and takes very little. Personally, I believe that a country owes it to its people to provide their needs, if the country can’t, then I do not see a person going hungry and taking bread or other things from stores without paying as steeling. The Malthusian ideology of there not being enough on the Earth to provide for even a tenth of the world population has been long since disproved. Yet many still grasp onto it because it justifies the divide between the rich and the poor and even makes an argument that if any of us want to be rich, then it must be that way, and helping someone who is poor is actually doing damage to yourself and society. Books about how to provide all the needs of all the people of the world are continually being taken off the shelves, publication is discontinued. Check out Buckminster Fuller if you are interested in more info.
ASHORTT stated:
Although the definition of evil you provide above is not the one the dictionary uses to define evil, I like your definition. I have expressed in numerous posts that evil/bad/good or morality is in general important for our society, and I agree with you, my only purpose is to make sure people are not convinced that it is something that exists outside of our conception. Furthermore, another one of my points near the end of my previous post was to illustrate the close-mindedness of many people in not being able to look past what you aptly put as ‘evil’ being the destruction of mans ability to survive & prosper. Just because something is evil to you doesn’t mean it is evil to someone else, or to society in general. Moreover, life is not as simple as “what is evil to me, is what I can destroy”. Which was the topic of the previous discussion. Sometimes what is evil to you now is beneficial for you later. Sometimes, what appears to be evil to you, is actually the best thing for you. There is one idea I have that you might want to think about…if that which destroys mans ability to survive & prosper is evil, then what do we call wo/mans continued ability and act of surviving and prospering destroying the planet without which wo/man cannot survive? Wo/Mans own survival and prosperity is his/her demise. You see, its not as simple as evil and good. The notions are becoming less relevant each day, soon we won’t have such notions at all. It also depends on how you are viewing ‘evil’ within the definition you have provided, does it apply generally, individually, or both? Individually we all like to think we have a right to live, but this violates what prosperity of the population of the world in general because too many people on the planet is harmful to the environment on which we depend. Yet population control, which is good for the population of the world in general, is against the right to live for those that might have been born. Imagine, especially for those who are the second or third child of a family, you may have never been born.
ASHORTT stated:
Once again, there is no evil in genes. For example, because of our prehistoric past many of us are born aggressive, even excessively aggressive, because that is what nature preserved through natural selection. Aggressivity was good for our survival and prosperity. But today things are different and aggressivity is not seen as a good attribute in people. Aggressive acts of the sort that helped us survive thousands of years ago, get us into jail today. They are seen as wrong. The terms ‘genetic defect’ are very misleading. SCholars and scientists are take by their work which is based on many different assumed standards. One of which is todays perception of what is the genetically standards human being. A deviation from this is seen as a genetic defect, implying a mistake, or something that was not suppose to happen. If more and more human beings began to have one form of what we call a genetic defect, until a majority of people were born with it, it would cease to be a genetic defect and move into the category of standard by which others would be measured of which deviations would be labelled genetic defects.
That which helps mankind survive and prosper is not always understood by mankind to be that very thing, sometimes it is that very thing which helps us survive and prosper which is seen as EVIL.
ASHORTT stated:
Statements like the one above leave me sick to my stomach thinking about how quick we are to judge, blame, and label. I do not condone Hitlers actions, nor do I believe in the killing of Jews. I say this because I am about to rip into your above statement and don’t want you to think that that means I am for Hitler or his cause - many people tend to make that conclusion. I have studied and read books on World War II and Hitler. One book was all about Hitler. FOr you to say that Hitler would not have flourished without a large amount of, to use your words fearful, superstitious idiots to blindly accept the sickness that was the Nazi movement, is a truly ignorant remark that any layman without the least knowledge in history could make. It is to label the German people with the above adjectives you provided. Germany and the German people have stood for some of the greatest principles in the history of man. Some of the most brilliant of people to have walked this Earth were German. German precision, especially in engineering is World renown. It is ludicrous to label a people, especially in a communistic country, by the actions of its electorate and government. History also illustrate that the German people are anything but fearful. The reason Hitler flourished was that Germany was in shams, it was still healing from the first world war, its debts to the countries it attacked, and was weary from the many restrictions put upon it so it could never raise itself to be the power it was prior to World War I. The German people were unemployed and poverty stricken. Hitler came and gave the German people jobs, wealth, and raised the country to be what it once was. For this the German people were greatful and that is why he flourished. Furthermore, the Gernman people were not asked to accept that Nazi movement, it was forced upon them. So much so that if one didn’t accept the movement and do as was expected, they were killed. Had you said that the Nazi movement could not have flourished without a large amount of feaful people, I would have given you that. But I have yet to hear reason to believe them to be superstituous or idiotic, let alone blind.
ASHORTT stated:
That is quite the obtuse statement. Obviously backed up with nothing. No group of people I have ever known, heard, or read about have ever been committed to the destruction of man. It was quite a common conception back then in many parts of the world, even today for some, that Jews were money hungry leeches that suck every society they live in dry. Moreover, Hitler group up reading a newspaper that devoted much of its ink to the belittling and supporting facts for this belief. Hitler was convinced of it and believed that not just Germany’s problems, but the world’s problems were due to Jews sucking all the wealth from the common people. He wasn’t the only one, many people were. It shouldn’t be hard to see how a little propaganda, lies, twisting of words and truth, can lead Hitler to take peoples convictions to the next level. This sick movement of destruction of a type of people (not all people) is more common to religions than to politics. Christians killed many in the name of God, those who didn’t believe, not just any killing, they were burned at the stake. Just as Hitler, the Christians (and many other, I don’t mean to pick on Christians) believed without a doubt that they were HELPING, they were only trying to make the world a better place. So no one was committed to the destruction of man as you so ignorantly put, they were for the prosperity of humankind.
ASHORTT stated:
I come from a socialistic country that was really a communistic country, for it was run by the fingers of Russia. I have visited and learned much about communistic countries. Only in these countries, and not in Canada or America, did I see real cultures where people take care of each other, think of others before themselves, and help another without thought of what they get back. One of these countries that I know of truly had 0% unemployment. Nor did it have ANY strip clubs or ANY prostitution. It is this second form of evil that you speak of that I often see visiting the United States and living in Canada. It is the capitalistic ideology that stops a person from helping, from thinking only of oneself. Everyone is in competition for resources, to help someone means to use your resources, which means you are falling short in the race. In Canada, I have seen people destroy others lives for a few thousand dollars. I have seen people hit by a car in a public area while no one helped. It is the news from America and Canada that print headlines of public shootings in the afternoon, people drowning while those at shore watch. I use to be a life guard, in training we were told of numerous cases in Canada and the States where lifeguards off duty, in plane clothes thinking no one will know they are lifeguards, would fail to attempt to save someone when drowning - ofcourse, their not making money (off duty) why should they risk their lives when there is no profit in it for them.
You obviously have very little, if any at all, education or experience in the field of communism, socialism, or what life was like in those systems generally for most countries.
I have offered you my statement and opinions along with explanations to back them up, you label them meager offerings, do so again and a berating will follow. You on the other hand have outrageous, slanderous, uninformed, extreme, statements backed up by…nothing. No facts, no reasons, no logic and as far as I can tell no evidence of thinking or reasoning on your part, more like regurgitation of what you heard from uninformed sources.
ASHORTT stated:
And so I leave you standing in a puddle of liquid and broken glass daydreaming.
Evil
- Morally objectionable behavior
- That which causes harm or destruction or misfortune
- The quality of being morally wrong in principle or practice
I was speaking of evil as it relates to man. It is morally objectionable/ wrong to destroy mans ability & right to survive/ prosper. Therefore there is an objective evil in reality based on the IDENTITY of evil as defined above.
Of course we are & will expand & refine what is morally objectionable over time but this will not change the nature of “evilâ€. Take for instance your procreation argument, you are saying that it is not morally objectionable to have a child but it could hurt society. If it could hurt society (more than it could help) then it would be evil to have a child under those circumstances. A child that only possibly exists does not have rights nor do the parents have the right (as in all cases) to cause harm to others through their actions. (See abortion post) We cannot take on the tough job of deciding if the population can handle another child without beginning with REAL solid objective principles. (like evil)
I find it morally objectionable to attempt to twist words by playing with their context- words mean what they mean.
I did not say there were evil genes & the like. I said evil can be “attributed to†that is morally objectionable acts /behavior can be motivated by genetic defects etc.
Superstitious:
Showing ignorance of the laws of nature and faith in magic or chance
Idiot:
A person of subnormal intelligence
With the use of fear as his ally (starting with fear of continued poverty) & a appeal to their greed Hitler was off & running. Before you context drop again I refer to greed in that there was a huge amount of rich still in Germany (& allied with in neighboring countries, this includes the Vatican) that were afraid to lose their wealth to the growing collective that was flourishing in Russia at the time. Lenin & those ideals were poised to encourage the average starving German worker to rise up & bond together.
Only IGNORANT, IDIOTS would accept the enslavement/destruction of others as a means to prosper. At what point did Germans think they would be able to stop stealing (raping & pillaging) without repercussions? Sure once the movement took full hold it was overwhelming for those who disagreed to fight but it could not have taken such a hold if the majority either “contributed directly or by omissionâ€. Responsibility belongs where it belongs & selling Germans to me wont change that. Hitler “was brilliant†much like the technology to develop the nuclear bomb is. This does not change the fact that his actions & intentions were EVIL (hence the inclusion of this example in this post). By wasting your mind trying to bend things a bit to suit you, you have attempted to say that Hitler’s behavior WAS NOT EVIL. (or somehow evil but understandably so, whatever that means!!!) Does that sound logical to you?
By destruction of man I mean simply by stealing from others. You cannot leach on those around you forever eventually the well runs dry. To support &/or commit the atrocities Hitler perpetrated is DESTRUCTIVE to mankind in more ways than I could possibly have time to list if you want to argue the actual sick details of it all. THEY WERE FOR THE PROSPERITY OF GERMANS. (not humankind) When you don’t include everyone it is anti man.
By removing a mans right to do WHATEVER he/she wants to survive & prosper (within the confines of not depriving others of THEIR rights is evil. Hence that which FORCIBLY requires people to sacrifice in anyway to each other (or the collective in any form) is EVIL. Don’t waste your time comparing countries with me Canada’s ills are mainly due to its socialist nature. As for communism well its demise worldwide speaks for itself.
To address your last point I will say this, save you assumptions & threats. Speak to the words, principles & concepts directly. You do not know me & guessing is ignorant for the most part. I am discussing SPECIFIC ideas & issues, attempting to attack my character is a waste of time – you know very very little about my character why not stick to the specifics. Chicken? lol.
Regards,
ASHORTT stated:
The external or material reality contains no evidence of any evil whatsoever. Evil, to man is morally objectionable/wrong to man. Hence it isn’t objective but subjective, wherein the problems lie. What’s right to one man is wrong to another, what’s right in one country is wrong in another, what’s right in one time is wrong in another and vice versa.
ASHORTT stated:
Yes, our sense of right and wrong is being amended each today, sometimes our moral principles are expanded, sometimes they are shrunk, sometimes they are withdrawn altogether, and sometimes new ones are spawned. You will have to explain to me how there is a nature to evil. Just as poison is harmful if not detrimental to mans survival and prosperity, there is nothing evil about it, nor do we think of it as evil. The word evil is too vague, usually leading people to believe there are Satanic demons working magic in our lives. Also, when a meteorite passes by earth within a few hundred thousand kilometers (a close distance relating to space) newspaper reports make reference and analogies to the Dinosaurs being wiped out and how it may happen to us, and what we can do about it. But nowhere do you find someone writing about the meteorite being evil. This is what I was getting at from my previous post…
I said in reference to good and evil:
ASHORTT stated:
Don’t tell me what I am saying, as you asked me to read your words for what they are, you too should read my words for what they are. I did not say that it was not morally objectionable to have a child, I illustrated how the growing population of the world may appear to be morally correct to some, and morally detrimental to others. It’s all a matter of perspective. This is why notions of good and evil are misleading, its not that we don’t want many children to be born, its that we are reaching a limit of capacity upon our planet, hence we have to be cautious about not destroying our environment beyond repair. We no longer need such a word as ‘evil’, we have words like poisonous, endangered species, diseases, preserving the environment, dangerous, inefficient, etc. The only time I ever do hear the word used is in fairytales and religious speeches.
ASHORTT stated:
It’s called utilitarianism. You may also include John Rawls Veil of Ignorance. These terms are to the point, alteast more so than the word ‘evil’. You still have not answered to my critique from my previous post, conviently missed, about the ambiguity of ‘evil’ and how it can easily be confused from one person to another, to a group, to the world.
ASHORTT stated:
We live in a world that runs on evil, is dominated by evil. The kind of life we are leading compared to the kind of life, or standard of living, we could be living is a greater divide than the one between the rich and the poor. It’s those who would try to manipulate and lie to us that would use such a vague and ambiguous word as ‘evil’ instead of clear, concise, and to the point words that everyone understand and can agree on. It is then that we begin to understand and see all that is being hidden from us, to control us.
ASHORTT stated:
Actually, you didn’t say that either. You did actually say:
I think anyone can see why I would have taken it to mean you are saying that genes are responsible for an overwhelming cause of evil.
ASHORTT stated:
Well, ignorant idiot it appears you have accepted a system that prospers on the enslavement and destruction of others in other countries, ofcourse many of us are not aware of this, a fitting quote: “Out of sight out of mind”. You should know that the NAZI plan to kill Jews was not part of Hitler’s campaign, most people didn’t know it was happening until it was already too late. Furthermore, there are stories of Germans who did fight back and even caused a big enough distraction to cause Hitler to spread his focus out even more and concentrate on those that might take him down in Germany. You should also remember that there were many countries who gave in to Hitler, who helped him, countries whose citizens did not revolt against Hitler. Are they too ignorant idiots?
You should also remember that back in those days Conscription was in place, not just in a time of war, but even in a time of peace. Once at the age of 18 all males must serve in the army. Just as army men are only happy to go to the army today, they were then, even more so because there was a cause, the rise of Germany. You didn’t say no to conscription, you obeyed. Don’t get me wrong, there were a few who found ways to get out of it. In a time of peace, those who were in university were omitted from the list, as were those who were handicapped in some way that would seriously affect their functioning on the battlefield. I know some were so afraid of going that they would break their own legs just so they wouldn’t have to go.
ASHORTT stated:
I wasn’t selling the Germans to you, I was merely illustrating that you naive to label a countries people by the actions of its government. I was also illustrating how obtuse it was of you to label them ignorant idiots.
One could just as easily judge you, a Canadian, as an ignorant idiot for living in a country that, like Hitler, rounded up the Japanese, enslaved them, put them to work, and kept them by the hundreds in farm barns with animals where many died of hunger and disease. If you’ve ever studied the history of Canada, you would already know that. If you haven’t, you might want to try a book called ‘Obasan’ by Joy Kogawa which delves into how the Japanese were opressed by Canadians. The bounties that were put on their heads. The Chinese too, were treated in a similar fashion. Why stop there, I’m sure if I do enough digging I can find any country guilty of atrocities on the level or even worse than Hitler. So, according to your logic we are all ignorant idiots, of which I am sure you will have an excuse for yourself to stand out.
ASHORTT stated:
I assure you that the brilliance of the technology of the a-bomb is much different than the brilliance of Hitler. They’re incomparable. Once again, ASHORTT, YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG!!! Hitler did not have EVIL intentions, he did not think “Hmmm, I want to do something that will destroy mankind and his prosperity” - he thought he was helping mankind, not destroying it. Yes, now that we are outside of the context of the war we can look upon it and judge it to be wrong - but at the time Hitler thought he was doing what everyone else wanted to do but couldn’t. You continue to assume. For a better perspective on Hitler and what we was going through you might want to try Hitler: A Study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock.
ASHORTT stated:
How egotistically presumptive of you. I guess you have it all figured out don’t you, you know, you have all the knowledge when it comes to how a mind is used productively and how it is wasted. Just like you KNOW that I am trying to bend things to suit me. I haven’t attempted to say that Hitler’s behaviour WAS NOT EVIL, I HAVE said it wasn’t evil. Because it wasn’t, assuming the definition of the word EVIL you have chosen. For the last time, Hitler was not out to destroy mankind or his prosperity, he thought he knew of a way to help mankind to prosper instead of being hindered from prosperity by the Jews. This sounds more logically to me than anything you have said so far, I continue to provide you WITH REASONS for my statements. And its not just Hitler who wasn’t evil, but no one is evil, because it is a useless word. Its a word that is more efficiently replaced with other more specific and knowledgable words.
ASHORTT stated:
What is your definition of STEALING? In my opinion, the very system I live in (with you - Canada) as well as other countries of the world, is stealing from everyone.
ASHORTT stated:
Actually it doesn’t. Its a well known fact, backed by statistics, that poor people have many more children than rich people. It has also been shown that educated people have less kids than uneducated people. Unfortunately, many draw the incongruent assumption that this also means that only rich people are educated while poor people are not. From which they further conclude that the poor are only poor because they are inadequate, which is completely false. My point here is that its quite possible, and is actually happening, that the few are leaching off the many and can continue doing so until the worlds resources become depleted, or someone changes the system in which we live.
ASHORTT stated:
Understand that I do not condone killing and agree that Hitlers atrocities were atrocities and that they were destructive. But you should also understand that Wars change the tides and alter the world for the rest of time. We would not be at the technological level we are at today if it wasn’t for the two world wars. Look at America, it wouldn’t be the superpower it is today also if it wasn’t for the two world wars.
ASHORTT stated:
They were for the prosperity of Germans for the reason that no one else in the world was for the prosperity of the Germans, instead everyone was for suppressing the Germans. Lastly, your last statement is absurd, it is to say that almost everyone in the history of time was anti man. An extremely small number of people have ever had thoughts of doing something that would include the benefit of every single man, women, child on the planet. I know of one, Buckminster Fuller. Furthermore, capitalism is all about yourself and no one else, so is capitalism then an anti man system?
ASHORTT stated:
A. I have only been going on your words and nothing else, I have nothing else to go on. I never claimed to KNOW YOU, I can only claim to know your words, which are presented here by you. To speak in the way that you have starting with your first post in this thread is indignant and rude. Let me remind you:
ASHORTT stated:
[quoteMagius, though benevolence has its logical place where one lives amongst others like him/her we must keep the issue of evil as a primary.[/quote]
Here you tell me what we must do, without backing up WHY we must do it. We’re here to speak intellectually not order each other around.
ASHORTT stated:
You obtusely related a twisted version of altruism to be mine, related it incompatibly to Hitlers Nazism, and tell me that it is what I am promoting it and that I have meager offerings. With the above logic you present, you could have made my post out to be guilty of promoting just about anything in this world.
As if that wasn’t enough, you come out stating an analogy about something completely unrelated, about people who ignore their ability to think and reason, people who recede from reality, and then add naively that adulthood is about having EVIL. As if to say that I am someone who ignore his ability to think and reason. As you see, it was yourself who first attacked my character, and couldn’t take getting it back. Careful, I think you’ve broken another glass.
What’s your take?
It is ALWAYS wrong to destroy mans right to survive & prosper, not just at one time or another – but always & everywhere. Why?! Give me a break!!! This is a moral fact. No splitting hairs & therefore is a objective truth. As evil is defined by such things as “Morally objectionable behavior†it follows that it is a objective FACT that to do the aforementioned is objectively evil. Evil is a word made by man as the rest of the world just exists without input. Thus evil is a term used to define actions etc. that are morally objectionable. If you had wanted to make a argument here it would have to be in regard to whether there is a objective morality. I certainly know there is as it could not be otherwise – if this weren’t true then “anything goes†would work yet it does not. Again here I consider only figuring out what IS not what simply what can be dreamed up.
The NATURE of evil is: destruction that is morally wrong. I don’t think of demons when I hear the word evil, as I am not 7. As a adult I know of & understand the definition of the word evil. I used altruism/self sacrifice (or as you might add “looking the other wayâ€) to illustrate examples of evil that require no forceful aggressive emotion to be committed yet produce the same effect. These actions or lack thereof are morally objectionable & thus can be considered evil.
Morality is NOT a “matter of perspective†subject to the whims of any who care to pass judgment. If you do not KNOW the facts (& how they work together) in regard to such things as overpopulation then to pass moral judgment is WRONG/IGNORANT & IMMATURE. It is fine to have an opinion as long as the holder keeps it within its proper context & defers to experts where possible, all the time using logic to discover objective truths to measure this OPINION against.
There is no ambiguity about the word evil. It means what it means. It has its identity. You may argue what is morally objectionable but this does not change the meaning of the word. This is why I used Hitler & the Nazi’s as an example of morally objectionable behavior. A example I thought would be clear until you argued AGAINST this example as NOT being morally objectionable by saying it was not evil. You cannot rid us of the definition of evil to prove your point. It means what it means!
That said the rest of the argument is nonsense with little or no bases in reality. I am sorry to have wasted your time.
Regards.
Ashortt stated:
As far as my education has gone, no moral is a fact. Morales are outside of science, they cannot be proven or disproven. Furthermore, most classify evil into two categories, 1)Natural Evil and 2) Moral evil. Natural evil is the evil which is caused by nature that, as you said, goes against our further procreation. Moral evil is the evil man invented. Morals like adultery being wrong (evil).
Ashortt stated:
A fact is the event or occurence of something, right and wrong is an attribute of that event relative to us. Right and wrong are not facts.
Objectivity is something Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices. Yet we see that morality is relative to us, we are always biased, we cannot step outside of ourselves and hence morality cannot be purely objective.
Ashortt stated:
Could you elaborate on this? I don’t know what you mean about the rest of the world being without input.
Ashortt stated:
Evil is a term used to make a value judgement on actions, we define actions with imperical data. To see a man running down the road is an action, to say the man is evil because he is running away from the police is a value judgement placed on the situation at hand relative to that societies beliefs. Euthanaisa is legal in the Netherlands, it’s illegal here. So is it evil or not? One side of the argument is that it is good for the further prosperity of man. The other side of the argument is that it is bad for the prosperity of man.
Ashortt stated:
That’s called the False Dichotomy fallacy, where the options available are brought down to two. In this case one. I can make an argument out of atleast twenty things within your post, I am in no way restricted to arguing whether there is or is not an objective morality.
Ashortt stated:
Well gee, if I take the above statement to be the leading factor in you changing my mind, we could all be changing each others minds at any time and about any thing. Just because you are certain, doesn’t mean it is certain. You have a long way to go to show why I or anyone else for that matter should be as certain as you that there is an objective morality. Furthermore, it doesn’t follow that if morality is not objective that anything would go. You are jumping from one outrageous statement to the next with no explanation or rationality of any sorts. I am curious to know, though, what you mean by “anything goes”. I mean I have assumed what you mean, but I would be gracious if you could be so kind to explain it to me in great detail and to provide atleast one or two examples of it.
Ashortt stated:
What? Is the assumption here that thinking of morality as not objective is only something someone could dream up? Instead of spending so much time making fallacious statements, why don’t you spend more time on logic, rationality, evidence, things that I will not be able to argue against and will be left with no choice but to agree with you?
Ashortt stated:
Amm…don’t you mean the nature of evil is the destruction of that which is morally right?
Ashortt stated:
You know, I’m trying to figure out whether being insulent is something you were born with or if it’s something you work hard at everyday. You would be wise to learn to respect others points of view even if they are not your own. I don’t believe in demons either, but I know enough respectable people who do. Once again, you continue to be insulent and make Adhominom attacks, though this one isn’t at me directly, but indirectly. If you consider yourself an adult, fine, but you are not an open minded or considerate adult.
Ashortt stated:
Pardon my saying so, I do agree that you have a definition of evil worked out for yourself, I don’t believe you have an understanding of the implication of that definition in reality or in theory.
Ashortt stated:
All these profound statements, but still not logic, rationality, or evidence of any kind. Ashortt, I want to understand you, but your gonna have to give me a little more.
Ashortt stated:
But I haven’t passed judgement on anything. It is you who have and when question why, you come out beligerant, insulant, and obtuse.
Ashortt stated:
Wow. There we go, so give me some of that expert testimony, logic, and objective truths so my understand of morality can become robust and that I may lead a life of great virtue, will you help me?
Ashortt stated:
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE GREAT, NOBLE, AND WISE ASHORTT HAS SPOKEN. LET US NOT FORGET HIS WORDS QUICKLY, BUT REMEMBER THEM AS LONG AS OUR MEMORY SERVES US, LET US REMEMBER THAT EVIL IS NOT AMBIGUOUS BUT THAT IT MEANS WHAT IT MEANS. Ashortt, you need to come out with something a little more robust and coherent than that. I mean if we were to use that kind of statement for everything, where would we be?
Ashortt stated:
I wasn’t arguing that whatsoever. In fact, this is the second time on this very issue that you have put words in my mouth. The last time you told me I was selling Germans to you. What I said was…
…which is quite different than what you are saying. I also made mention of your naivety for labelling all Germans as IGNORANT IDIOTS, I explained how it isn’t right to judge a countries people by the actions of their goverment, especially a communistic and tyrannical one. This continues to fail to go through.
Ashortt stated:
There is that beautiful logic of yours again.
Ashortt stated:
For the last 2-3 posts I have shown you how you have failed to make any sort of a logical, sensical, rational, or coherent argument whatsoever. Instead you belittle, label, and accuse without warrant. You haven’t wasted my time, for I have learned much even from a person like yourself. I do believe you have wasted your own time getting upset rather easily and making an argument of complete nonsense with little or no basis in reality - instead you have come blaring out as if someone has hurt you or those you love.
What’s your take?
Before this discussion goes any further ASHORTT and Magius can you refrain from the personal comments and stick to the discussion in hand. You both know exactly what I mean, just cut it out right now.
thanks
- ben
Ben - As I alluded to at the end of my last post I contributed to a less than honorable debate. Out of respect to the Magius & the forum in general I will attempt one last time to put my views in the proper perspective.
Magius if you are truly interested in this whole discussion please re-read the first part of my initial post:
“Magius, though benevolence has its logical place where one lives amongst others like him/her we must keep the issue of evil as a primary. That is to say that which destroys mans ability to survive & prosper is evil. Though some evil can be attributed to genetic defects & overwhelming circumstances most cannot. Hitler could not have flourished without a large amount of fearful, superstitious idiots to blindly accept the sickness that was the Nazi movement. More to the point it had to begin with a group committed to the destruction of man. Worse is the evil with no head to cut off, communist/collectivist anti-human pro self sacrifice ideology - that which requires no real effort or involvement of the perpetrators other than self-denial & ultimately self-loathing.â€
Re worded it means no more than “ Though it is logical to some extent that we extend help/tolerance etc to others we live among, it must be remembered not to put this ahead of fighting evil.†My examples were to illustrate evil flourishing as a direct result of NOT placing the consideration of evil BEFORE benevolence. Don’t see that well illustrated? - Well you could have simply asked for further elaboration.
You may have taken offense of my speaking directly to you but no offense was intended. It is not improper to assert ones point of view plainly & directly, in fact I take offense to those who would “sugar coat†things. Anything other than an unencumbered forward approach leads me to suspect a “sell†job on a idea. I do not need to establish that the things said are MY ideas as if it were otherwise I would offer the appropriate reference info.
As soon as I spotted the old “you cannot say something is objective because to say so means a human has affected the situation by the mere use of their perceptions/conceptions†argument I should have left the debate. Here is my meager offering in that regard:
Morality can be objective simply because the logical evidence supports the facts. That there is no contradiction found IS the standard by which objectivity is held to. If something can be shown (through non-contradictory evidence) to be destructive to the survival of man it can be said that it is “ evil or morally objectionable both in a “objective†sense. Everything we speak about uses the process of our human perceptions & ability to conceptualize to be communicated & hopefully understood. That fact does not eradicate the ability to understand & recognize objective truths.
Saying that the word evil conjures up fantasy images etc. does not support your dislike for the word. Trying to show that not all Germans were guilty & further trying to mince details like how the original intention of the Nazi movement wasn’t to “kill all the Jews, has nothing to do with my example or claim. I never said ALL Germans & I think I made it quite clear that evil results can come as an effect of a initial evil movement or even the simple lack of opposing it.
For the last time: It is my contention that Hitler’s intentions were Evil. If only because to uphold his ideas consistently one must eventually RAPE, PILIGE & PLUNDER others for his own gain.
It started out with the usual empty, hyped up nonsense “We Germans are great so we can expect great things†& ended with …well we all know the horrible story of it all. Somehow you were interpreting this anti-Nazi statement to be a anti-German statement. As I do not find you naïve to any great degree I may have gone as far as to accuse you of Reverse Racism but I had no real interest in YOU personally just ideas.
“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE GREAT, NOBLE, AND WISE ASHORTT HAS SPOKEN. LET US NOT FORGET HIS WORDS QUICKLY, BUT REMEMBER THEM AS LONG AS OUR MEMORY SERVES US, LET US REMEMBER THAT EVIL IS NOT AMBIGUOUS BUT THAT IT MEANS WHAT IT MEANS. Ashortt, you need to come out with something a little more robust and coherent than that. I mean if we were to use that kind of statement for everything, where would we be?â€
Your statement as listed above attempts to take the word with its related definition & place it in some wider context outside of that which I am speaking of. It also demeans me, the debate & this forum through unimaginative & un called for sarcasm. Philosophy is not a game. Is it coincidental that your original motive to argue with me was that you thought I was trying to tell you “what was what†& then you wasted better than half your subsequent posts doing the same? Was this an attempt at retribution? I still feel you have read things into my points that weren’t there but I accept that my writing style may have lead to some of this. I was specific with you about leaving my character out of the debate to illustrate that my ideas were not directed at you in any personal nature. YOU said: “I have offered you my statement and opinions along with explanations to back them up, you label them meager offerings, do so again and a berating will follow.†That is a threat of a personal nature; I ignored it because I have little if no emotional feeling toward you- I do not know you. You completely missed what I was referring to as “meager offeringsâ€. Now you accuse me of being upset rather than speak to the issues at hand. The only strong emotions I have felt in regard to these postings is as follows; I feel passionately about keeping evil as a primary & I was frustrated to be wasting time arguing about a word that you would ignore the simple dictionary definition of. I post here to expand my ability to communicate & learn with the written word. I am objective enough not to feel the desire to defend much but rather refute where possible.
You ask constantly for logical proof & repeatedly accuse me of not offering any as well as saying “I have not in any meaningful sense to you & others†established the validity of my ideas. The definition of EVIL (its identity) is in the dictionary, it is ludicrous for you to expect me to accept yours or anyone else’s hybrid version of such. For us to communicate in a logical civil manner we must accept that words “mean what they meanâ€. If you wish to say you dislike a word fine, but I would say the word still means what it means regardless of what “some†people might misinterpret it to mean. Further more just because some would extrapolate the meaning of evil to include supernatural/non-existent phenomena does not detract from it’s identify & the nature of the way it can be used (as a word).
I am new to this site & I would appreciate if anyone who re-reads the entire argument could point out where I have been attacking not the issues but the person. I believe I can show for the most part where it may simply the result of poor writing ability. I am sincere & honest when I say I am very interested in learning how to better explain my point of view in a clear concise manner. This may require a separate thread if so could someone maybe propose such a subject?
I will conclude with a reiteration of the only really important opinion I hold on this entire argument:
“We feed evil by not first accepting it at face value†- “We allow evil to grow by making excuses for it†- “We are ruled by evil when we refuse to defend ourselves against itâ€.
Regards,