the nature of evil...

[Trencher]

Santa Claus is evil. He's a glutton. No he just gains weight fast and he never steals food from others.

[clanglee]

The nature of the objectivly true evil blinds us to what the objective truth about what is moral in any given situation, however just like the concept of math existed long before any creature could add two and two togheter so is there an objective truth about good and evil. Only our own primitivism hinder us from seeing it. . You can't confuse philosophical ideas with logical thought processes. This statement is just plain silly. If one believes in an objective truth. .that is all fine and dandy. But if there is no objective good or evil, then you are expressing belief in God more or less. Essentailly that is what this argument patterns out to. Belief in a higher power, a good, and its opposite. An athiest would of course think the whole thing is basically bull****. Trench. . this is not something that people with opposing views can agree on. . it's all opinion based. To me, evil is in the eye of the beholder. An observation based on ones morality only. To you, evil must be observed to be recognized, but its there already just sitting around and waiting to happen. To you. .good and evil are separate powerful entities, with control in some form over the nature of man. And that's fine. . .it's a great belief you have there. But it is only that, a belief. And belief is not truth.

[Publius]

No, because Hitler's views were shown to be hypocritical. Anyone that lives by the belief that might makes right should then gladly accept when someone stronger comes along and kicks his ass, no? So if Hitler was not hypocritical (i.e., if Trencher was right and Hitler accepted that the Germans deserved to lose if they were weaker than the Russians) then it would be wrong for others to attempt to impose their views on the Third Reich?

[Eyebiter]

'No Values Voters' Search For Most Evil Candidate

[Trencher]

You can't confuse philosophical ideas with logical thought processes. This statement is just plain silly. Are you talking about your own statement or one of mine? If one believes in an objective truth. .that is all fine and dandy. But if there is no objective good or evil, then you are expressing belief in God more or less. Essentailly that is what this argument patterns out to. Belief in a higher power, a good, and its opposite. An athiest would of course think the whole thing is basically bull****. Well logically a good person could not need a divine authority, so the existence of God is not relevant in this debate of the nature of good and evil. Think of my concept objective truth about good and evil as a search for a perfect moral code. The search for spiritual enlightenment is an actual search, its not enough just to acept all actions and systems of ethics as of equal moral value. Trench. . this is not something that people with opposing views can agree on. . it's all opinion based. Do you feel that I dont respect your oppinion? To me, evil is in the eye of the beholder. An observation based on ones morality only. Obivously I do not agree. But I would like to note that even if that was true I would still protest on the grounds that it makes for a very boring world. To you, evil must be observed to be recognized, but its there already just sitting around and waiting to happen. In the same sense as numbers are "sitting there" and "waiting" to be added up. To you. .good and evil are separate powerful entities, with control in some form over the nature of man. No. Infact if they did have power it would severly change the nature of good and evil itself. And that's fine. . .it's a great belief you have there. But it is only that, a belief. And belief is not truth. Did you miss it when I said that I dont know what the truth is? I present the idea of an objective moral truth, trying make it look like I belive every word I write is the objective truth will only make you look bad not me.

[clanglee]

Are you talking about your own statement or one of mine? . Your statement obviously. Mathmatics is a logical process. Not a spiritual force. If you believe that numbers exist without the interpretation of the human mind then we are at an impasse and shall never agree on any of the basic philosophical principals. I am sorry If I sounded insulting earlier, I really didn't mean to be. I do respect your opinion. I believe you are wrong, but that doen't stop me from respecting your beliefs.

[Trencher]

Your statement obviously. Mathmatics is a logical process. Not a spiritual force. I agree. If you believe that numbers exist without the interpretation of the human mind then we are at an impasse and shall never agree on any of the basic philosophical principals. I belive they exist as a concept but are not relevant without the human mind. I am sorry If I sounded insulting earlier, I really didn't mean to be. I do respect your opinion. I believe you are wrong, but that doen't stop me from respecting your beliefs. No worries.

[Khardis]

I dont see it as a very big evil but.. How much fat a body has also has to do with genetics but gluttony is evil, even if you can eat loads withouth gaining weight. However you can argue that they are only evil to themselves. Let me use an example: zombies rule the earth and your family is dependent on you to get them food. I would say if you took food from your family members withouth needing it and letting them starve just because you thought it tasted good then that would be evil, and if you let them starve to death just so you could stuff your face some more then that would be even more evil. So fat is not necesarly evil but gluttony is. So when a kid is scarfing down his ice cream and then gets another ones even though he has had one already he is essentially being evil, likewise my dog who will eat until i take her food away wether or not she's ready to burst is also evil? So you're saying that since an animal will most likely eat something until they throw up from over eating that animals in general are evil beings right? I like where this is going, we can start hunting bear who gluttonously eat all fall long with a moral crusade against evil... awesome.

[Trencher]

So when a kid is scarfing down his ice cream and then gets another ones even though he has had one already he is essentially being evil, likewise my dog who will eat until i take her food away wether or not she's ready to burst is also evil? So you're saying that since an animal will most likely eat something until they throw up from over eating that animals in general are evil beings right? I like where this is going, we can start hunting bear who gluttonously eat all fall long with a moral crusade against evil... awesome. You are wrong. In my first post in this thread I said: Greed, sadism, rape, authotitarian-ism (spelling?), incest, pedophilia and necrophilia all stem from normal human instincts but the person chooses to pervert those instincts just to get emotional gratification. Gluttony is a from of greed, and a young child or annimal does not have the intellectual capacity to discern between its personal emotional gratification and the natural hunger instinct.

[clanglee]

You are wrong. In my first post in this thread I said: Gluttony is a from of greed, and a young child or annimal does not have the intellectual capacity to discern between its personal emotional gratification and the natural hunger instinct. If it all comes down to intellectual capacity, the obviously ones view on evil is taught. This would mean that evil is subjective, because different people learn different things from their cultures. If we are talking about simple brain capacity, well If one grows to adulthood away from human interaction they still have the same brain capacity as any other human being. Do you believe that person would have the same viewpoints as a "civilized" human has on right and wrong? I think not. The viewpoint on evil is different to different people. What YOU see as evil, is not what someone else sees as evil. Since neither of you can be right or wrong, then it is subjective. The only way evil can be percieved as objective is the enforce your own learned viewpoint on it. Even then, it is only objective to you, and that doesn't mean jack to someone else outside of your own group. 'No Values Voters' Search For Most Evil Candidate Since this thread is derailed now and Publicus touched upon it, I will just say the point I was leading up to about moral relavtism beeing absurd, it is absurd because it assume that all moral systems are of equally right even those who do belive the opposite. And you know. . .I don't see this as absurd. All moral codes are of equal right. With my own personal moral code, I can believe someone else is wrong or evil and make judgements on them, but that doesn't mean that I am right either. It doesn't matter though. What matters is protecting myself and my people, and our way of life. Sure. .it would be great if we all believed in the same stuff. But we don't. And we all have to live with that. And on the whole, we do. ****, freedom of religion is one of the founding tenets of my country. Granted, the laws are enforcements of the country's popular moral codes, but you can believe whatever the hell you wanna believe. I can believe that killing babies with rusty spoons and raping alligators in the church balcony is just dandy. As long as I don't act on those desires. If I do, then the law, placed by the people to protect themselves, will clamp down on me faster than that gator would if I gave it a reach around.

[Trencher]

If it all comes down to intellectual capacity, the obviously ones view on evil is taught. Really now? So you are saying that a person is a blank slate then by the process of learning a system of morals is "coded" into him? Consider this if you will: What if what we are taught is to (in a sense) remember an objective univiersal true moral system? Just like we are taught to remember that one plus one is two? (coming back to my argument that math exist weather anyone are around to utilize it or not.) Or rather that we are taught to try to remember, and that all our conflicting beliefs and teachings are a result of our struggle to remember and understand the truth? By remembering I mean the process of understanding the validity of the moral code that is taught. I don't expect you to agree I just want you to understand what I mean. All moral codes are of equal right. Let me try to clarify why I find this statement absurd. by saying that "all moral codes are of equal right" you are saying that the moral code "only my moral code is right" is just as right as your morale code of "all moral codes are of equal right" but that means that your "all moral codes are of equal right" morale code is wrong! To me it sounds like you say 1 minus 1 is 1, it just does not make any sense. With my own personal moral code, I can believe someone else is wrong or evil and make judgements on them, but that doesn't mean that I am right either. Then why judge? It doesn't matter though. What matters is protecting myself and my people, and our way of life. What of moral codes who says that you should not protect yourself and your people and you should change your way of life, are they of equal moral worth? Sure. .it would be great if we all believed in the same stuff. I disagee it would be dull. But we don't. And we all have to live with that. There are plenty of cultures who do not "live with that". And on the whole, we do. ****, freedom of religion is one of the founding tenets of my country. Freedom of religion is a moral code, in your eyes it is no better than the moral code of no freedom of religion. Personally I like freedom because nobody knows what the objective moral truth is so we cant just outright dismiss any point of view.

[clanglee]

Wow, we just won't agree on this. You come from the stand point that there is some absolute truth out there. There is no more evidence for this than for the evidence of God. A great thing to believe in, and while I don't discount the possibility, until it is proven, it is not a truth. Just because one viewpoint is right does not make the opposing viewpoint is wrong. It is ALL in the eye of the beholder, and therefore subjective. Really now? So you are saying that a person is a blank slate then by the process of learning a system of morals is "coded" into him? Consider this if you will: What if what we are taught is to (in a sense) remember an objective univiersal true moral system? Just like we are taught to remember that one plus one is two? (coming back to my argument that math exist weather anyone are around to utilize it or not.) Or rather that we are taught to try to remember, and that all our conflicting beliefs and teachings are a result of our struggle to remember and understand the truth? By remembering I mean the process of understanding the validity of the moral code that is taught. I don't expect you to agree I just want you to understand what I mean. Once again you have completely confused philosphical ideals with logical concepts. Morals are not single natured, there are differing viewpoints on them. Mathmatics, not so. You sound like you believe that we have a moral genetic memory. I don't buy that. Let me try to clarify why I find this statement absurd. by saying that "all moral codes are of equal right" you are saying that the moral code "only my moral code is right" is just as right as your morale code of "all moral codes are of equal right" but that means that your "all moral codes are of equal right" morale code is wrong! To me it sounds like you say 1 minus 1 is 1, it just does not make any sense. but my stance that all moral codes are of equal right, is not itself a moral code. It is an observation about morals. I have my own moral beliefs, but I respect others rights to believe whatever they want. Why is this so hard to understand? Then why judge? What of moral codes who says that you should not protect yourself and your people and you should change your way of life, are they of equal moral worth? what? I disagee it would be dull. true enough There are plenty of cultures who do not "live with that". also true enough Freedom of religion is a moral code, in your eyes it is no better than the moral code of no freedom of religion. Personally I like freedom because nobody knows what the objective moral truth is so we cant just outright dismiss any point of view. now THIS is a good point. But you see that since noone knows the "objective" moral truth, perhaps there is none?

[Trencher]

Wow, we just won't agree on this. No it is two fundamentally different ways of observing the world around us. In practice however I think we are on pretty much the same page. You come from the stand point that there is some absolute truth out there. There is no more evidence for this than for the evidence of God. A great thing to believe in, and while I don't discount the possibility, until it is proven, it is not a truth. Just because one viewpoint is right does not make the opposing viewpoint is wrong. It is ALL in the eye of the beholder, and therefore subjective. Evidence of a perfect moral code and evidence of God is proven in two different ways. God if he exist could prove that he exist himself, just by coming down here and appearing on Letterman. The perfect moral code just like any other concept must be discovered by humans. Maybe one day there will come a Buddha or Jesus like figure and show the world a perfect moral code, it could happen. Once again you have completely confused philosophical ideals with logical concepts. Morals are not single natured, there are differing viewpoints on them. Mathmatics, not so. You sound like you believe that we have a moral genetic memory. I don't buy that. Ok so you don't belive that we have a moral genetic memory, I do belive that because we inherit the ability to love and to evaluate. Also higher Mathematics are debated all the time but most importantly I think that applying logical thought to philosophical ideals is a good way for it not to slide into sofistism. but my stance that all moral codes are of equal right, is not itself a moral code. It is an observation about morals. I have my own moral beliefs, but I respect others rights to believe whatever they want. Why is this so hard to understand? Because it is an moral code you have taken a moral stance that says that all moral codes are of equal worth. If you truly belive that they are equal you must treat them equally. what? You said that you wanted to protect people, so I asked on how you could acept moral codes that say that you should not protect people? now THIS is a good point. But you see that since noone knows the "objective" moral truth, perhaps there is none? Perhaps But I like to belive there is, as I said I acept your oppinion I am just trying to explain what I belive is the nature of evil. I must add that you are a lot more tolerant than your avatar!

[clanglee]

Yeah, Rorsharch is not very tollerent of grey areas at all. I think we shall have to agree to disagree. On a topic like this where people are coming from two COMPLETELY opposing frames of mind, there is no compromise. Good talk though Trencher. You would be great to get drunk with!!

[Trencher]

You would be great to get drunk with!!