Of course there is a very true and deep connection between evil and ignorance. But to say that evil is really nothing but ignorance, is over-simplifying and not accurately taking into account the actual nature of evil.
I am not going to elaborate further on the nature of evil because I don’t see the point of doing that. But suffice it to say the nature of evil and the nature of ignorance, while both certainly stand in relation to one another across many meaningful thresholds and even linkages of necessity, are very much NOT one and the same nature. At best you might try to claim that one is a subset of the other, but even that strays into way more complex phenomenologistics than I think anyone here is going to bother trying to unravel.
Don’t like how the forum changed its looks.
Been spending most of my time in the other place.
They went all green and pale, so dont like that either.
Came back here and made some visual adjustments.
Might spend some more time as long as someone says something intellgent
It’s not about messy.
I think the world is messy and everything is fundementally subjective. Objectivity is hard, because it requires agreement.
You are asking me about “subjective” values as if there is anything else. In the realm of moraltiy and ethics it is all subjective. Law is an attempt to impose an objectivity on it , and look how shit that is.
I’d so further to say that law can be worst when it achieves objectivity and dishes out punishments regardless of mitigation,
But its all judgement.
Is a lemon evil? Can you even have an agreeable scale for the tartness of a lemon?
We ought to be able to agree on that, but as I say objectivity is difficult, how much more so than morality?
Last week the NZ Parliament when viral after Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke did the Haka, followed by her party and other supporters.
Apparently, according to one YouTuber the Haka is the embodyment of evil and offered reflections from the bible to support her case.
What say we agree with reality that we are both persons (consent structures), disagreeing on pain of rationality, and that for all practical purposes, disagreement (with reality) is the act of violating consent. Your consent ends where my consent refusal begins, and vice versa. Agreement is mutual consent.
All very well but has nothing to do with the “necessity of evil”, as for whether or not your “agreement” amount to objectivity - I think not.
I can find any number of people who can agree that Mohammed is the Prophet of Allah. This does not make it meaningful, true or objective.
Until our foodchain and substitute-options are ethically pure again, there is no way that this would be the morally-right thing to do… plus, it should be a choice not a mandate, as not everyone can tolerate plant-matter or synthetic substitutes.
. Why does the scientific community and corporations love telling grown people what to do and how to live, while they do as they please?
Taking control of the reins of existence itself is the immoral thing here, not eating meat.
I did not say that agreement is all you need for objectivity.
It is the least you need for it, but you do need it. Not only does it require agreement between players who are interested and invested in the topic, but also agreement between the ideas and reality.
Statements have to agree with events and conditions in what we perceive to be out external world.
Oh and Taxonomy is a heirarchy. You may say it is not JUST a heirarchy but, people that confused apples with fruit can confuse bananas and apples. So definitions have to include heirachy of meaning.
Your last two paragraphs are ranty and do not make sense. Clearly you are trying to make some sort of point, but you might want to unpack it
If you want to tell it to me you are best advised to use the quote fucntion so that I am more likely to see it against my name.
Aside from that you might want to tell me something that is relevant and not just word salad concerning some sort of person hobby horse about “taxonomy” which you seem to not quite gather meaning of.
