Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Not Osama Bin Ladin. Not Josef Stalin. Not even Hitler. They all are just different. They have their own way of thinking... And that's the way of thinking they developed.

Evil is an uncertain term.

maybe if you decide not to believe in evil...

I beleive Evil is any desire to torture, kill, or control another person.

Originally posted by Illuminati
Not Osama Bin Ladin. Not Josef Stalin. Not even Hitler. They all are just different.

...........

Originally posted by Illuminati
Not Osama Bin Ladin. Not Josef Stalin. Not even Hitler. They all are just different. They have their own way of thinking... And that's the way of thinking they developed.

Yes.

Since there is nothing absolute that decides what is evil.

ermm You can only decide evil for yourself, and to yourself.

evil is everywhere who can stop it!!!!fear

Originally posted by cking
evil is everywhere who can stop it!!!!fear

I....it's easy...because...there is no evil.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I....it's easy...because...there is no evil.

There is no evil, because evil isnt properly defined. But using other phrases.....like 'harmful to humanity', there is plenty of that in the world.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
There is no evil, because evil isnt properly defined. But using other phrases.....like 'harmful to humanity', there is plenty of that in the world.

Yeah, but then things like killing a few 1000 people are not "harmful to humanity", you know.

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
There is no evil, because evil isnt properly defined. But using other phrases.....like 'harmful to humanity', there is plenty of that in the world.

Evil, like every other adjective or adverb, is relative. Much, much worse, it's subject to human opinion . For instance I'm 6'7". Most people consider me tall. But I'm not tall compared to Scottie Pippen who's not tall compared to Shaq who's not tall compared to Yao Ming, etc.

I've had coworkers refer to me as evil fairly recently, and I haven't done anything close to the guys the thread starter used as examples.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, but then things like killing a few 1000 people are not "harmful to humanity", you know.

Im afraid, that would be considered harmful to humanity.

evil is not forever.

Girls are evil... I have proof:

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/9522/proofthatgirlsareevilnh5.jpg

Originally posted by Great Vengeance
Im afraid, that would be considered harmful to humanity.

I'm afraid it wouldn't, could even be very good for humanity.

No-one is more evil-er than skeletor..........

This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Eventually people will justify any wrong doing by simply asking "What is evil?". There won't be any way to stop the next holocaust, famine, terrorist attack.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
This is the kind of philosophy that worries me. Eventually people will justify any wrong doing by simply asking "What is evil?". There won't be any way to stop the next holocaust, famine, terrorist attack.

WHy eventually, I do that already.

So you're then...very aware of your actions, right?

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
So you're then...very aware of your actions, right?

I am aware of my actions? Well, yes I am. And I might find them myself wrong or right. But they are not evil...or good for that matter.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am aware of my actions? Well, yes I am. And I might find them myself wrong or right. But they are not evil...or good for that matter.

There you have it! You are aware of your actions. By all means you know your actions will have either a postive or negative response (or even sometimes neither) Someone who is aware of his/her actions and causes severe harm to others by all means is evil. Being aware of your own actions ALSO leads to awareness of the consequences. If a murderer knows he'll get the chair for killing 10 people and still does it then he is just evil. The insanity plead is out the window. He fully accepts the consequences of his actions by killing those people.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There you have it! You are aware of your actions. By all means you know your actions will have either a postive or negative response (or even sometimes neither) Someone who is aware of his/her actions and causes severe harm to others by all means is evil. Being aware of your own actions ALSO leads to awareness of the consequences. If a murderer knows he'll get the chair for killing 10 people and still does it then he is just evil. The insanity plead is out the window. He fully accepts the consequences of his actions by killing those people.

No, positive and negative are subjective terms....falsereasoning. just because I know my actions doesn't mean they have positive or negative effects.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
There you have it! You are aware of your actions. By all means you know your actions will have either a postive or negative response (or even sometimes neither) Someone who is aware of his/her actions and causes severe harm to others by all means is evil. Being aware of your own actions ALSO leads to awareness of the consequences. If a murderer knows he'll get the chair for killing 10 people and still does it then he is just evil. The insanity plead is out the window. He fully accepts the consequences of his actions by killing those people.
So... A homosexual that has a homosexual relationship back in Nazi Germany is evil? I mean it hurts other people, his partner, both would be excecuted and he knows it's considered wrong by the government.
Or even a jew that's hiding in some white german's house.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, positive and negative are subjective terms....falsereasoning. just because I know my actions doesn't mean they have positive or negative effects.

How about deductive reasoning, Bardock? If you trivialize yourself you won't get a direct response.


Originally posted by Eis
So... A homosexual that has a homosexual relationship back in Nazi Germany is evil? I mean it hurts other people, his partner, both would be excecuted and he knows it's considered wrong by the government.
Or even a jew that's hiding in some white german's house.

Breaking the law would be a wrong. Laws have a certain degrees of wrongfulness. But such thing as a sexual pleasure can't be consider as an evil. A wrongful act maybe..but evil? I don't think it would be.

Originally posted by Illuminati
Not Osama Bin Ladin. Not Josef Stalin. Not even Hitler. They all are just different. They have their own way of thinking... And that's the way of thinking they developed.

I have to call B.S. on that. Just because somebody thinks they're doing the right thing doesn't mean that their actions can't objectively be labeled as evil. Killing innocent people to further a poltical agenda is about as evil as it comes. The thing about this kind of "righteous" political killing is that it has a tendency to inevitably corrupt the practioner, so that where there originally might have been "pure" motivations, these eventually slip into something like sinister enjoyment.

Stalin was an evil bastard. Make no mistakes about it. He snuffed out more innocent human life to consolidate and solidify his communist empire than any indiviudal before or since. He also took great delight in staging show trials for his political victims, while personally checking their names off his personal hit list. Hitler, not evil? Maybe not compared to Stalin, but by any other comparison...The reason I rank Hitler below Stalin is that he lacked that extra spark of Stalin malice. Hitler ordered the death camps but would never visit them or allow his Gestapo inner circle to speak of them other than as euphamisms. At least in this respect, Hitler showed signs of a bad conscience. Something Stalin never demonstrated. Plus, Stalin killed something like 4 times as many people.

Other members of my evil all-star list:

Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons Ude and Kuse.
Pol Pot
Idi Amin--our favorite cannibal dictator.
The Ayatolla Komani
Most of the Nazi inner circle.

WD, you are arguing illogically. YOu are taking your moral standards and say think they have to apply to anyone. Just because you know you'll get the electric chair for doing something doesn't make it wrong to do so.

Originally posted by Bardock42
WD, you are arguing illogically. YOu are taking your moral standards and say think they have to apply to anyone. Just because you know you'll get the electric chair for doing something doesn't make it wrong to do so.

No, no, no! in this case I'm not arguing the death penalty issue here. I'm saying that if the guy is aware that his actions and the consequences that might follow and STILL commits the murder then by all means he's committing an evil act. Let's discard the electric chair let's say he gets life in prison. Yet he still kills those 10 people. He still committing an evil act.

So you agree evil is not an absolute thing, although in Nazi germany a jew living in a white german's house is evil but in US America it isn't.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No, no, no! in this case I'm not arguing the death penalty issue here. I'm saying that if the guy is aware that his actions and the consequences that might follow and STILL commits the murder then by all means he's committing an evil act. Let's discard the electric chair let's say he gets life in prison. Yet he still kills those 10 people. He still committing an evil act.

But then every act is evil? When i rescue a child from drowning I know the consequences that might follow and I might STILL commit it ...so that'S an evil act by your reasoning?

There is a school of thought that holds that no person is evil, that only acts may be properly considered evil.

Originally posted by Illuminati
Not Osama Bin Ladin. Not Josef Stalin. Not even Hitler. They all are just different. They have their own way of thinking... And that's the way of thinking they developed.

Not what I had in mind that you meant, but ok.

All of the examples you gave were driven by ideology, like a lot of people are. Ideology and socialisation makes people behaive in, what many deam as 'evil' ways.

I agree, neither of them were 'evil'...but then again, the deffinition of that word is impossible to create.

If a person never does anything, how can you say rather they are good or evil? Therefore, people are not evil or good. The actions they do, because of the karma they have, is what is good or evil.

Originally posted by Storm
There is a school of thought that holds that no person is evil, that only acts may be properly considered evil. Yes

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If a person never does anything, how can you say rather they are good or evil? Therefore, people are not evil or good. The actions they do, because of the karma they have, is what is good or evil.

sloth is a sin.

lethargy is evil

Originally posted by Morgoths_Wrath
sloth is a sin.

lethargy is evil

"No one is evil"

Or maybe everyone is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I'm afraid it wouldn't, could even be very good for humanity.

You missed the point entirely, Bardock. Doing something that is harmful to humanity(causing somone pain, or death) is objective. I agree that good and evil arent objective, but thats because they arent strictly defined.

Originally posted by Nerevar
You missed the point entirely, Bardock. Doing something that is harmful to humanity(causing somone pain, or death) is objective. I agree that good and evil arent objective, but thats because they arent strictly defined.

I did not miss the point, I guess what you are trying to say is that I actually understood the point, but explained why it is wrong. For one because "good for humanity" is kind of subjective (and when I say "kind of", I mean "totally" and also, because some of the things that are "good for humanity" (subjective) are to most of you not at all moral. Now, for example I would argue that the Holocaust and the second World War were indeed good for humanity, was it good because of that? No.

'Humanity' (defined as: humanness, or the quality of being humane) itself is subjective to opinion, therefore being 'harmful to humanity' is also subjective...

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
'Humanity' (defined as: humanness, or the quality of being humane) itself is subjective to opinion, therefore being 'harmful to humanity' is also subjective...

Thank you, Mr. Evil D. Dodo.

Evil???............What is this Evil???

Originally posted by NINJ4_BL4D3
Evil???............What is this Evil??? Something someone disagrees with.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I did not miss the point, I guess what you are trying to say is that I actually understood the point, but explained why it is wrong. For one because "good for humanity" is kind of subjective (and when I say "kind of", I mean "totally" and also, because some of the things that are "good for humanity" (subjective) are to most of you not at all moral. Now, for example I would argue that the Holocaust and the second World War were indeed good for humanity, was it good because of that? No.

I have no idea what your talking about...sorry. Im not using the terms 'good' or 'evil' and I dont know why you keep bringing it into the argument.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
'Humanity' (defined as: humanness, or the quality of being humane) itself is subjective to opinion, therefore being 'harmful to humanity' is also subjective...

Humanity is a species. That is not subjective. Doing harm(again I define this as 'causing another human pain, or death') to another human is also not subjective.

Originally posted by Nerevar
Doing harm(again I define this as 'causing another human pain, or death') to another human is also not subjective.
The difference between good and evil can only be weighed in your mind. Things that seem good to you may completely be unacceptable from my point of view. As being the individual that you are and capable of making your own decisions, only you can distinguish the difference.

Originally posted by Storm
The difference between good and evil can only be weighed in your mind. Things that seem good to you may completely be unacceptable from my point of view. As being the individual that you are and capable of making your own decisions, only you can distinguish the difference.

Yes I understand that, I agree with you. However....again, I am not using the terms 'good' and 'evil'. Causing someone harm is not an abstract principle, it is concrete reality and therefore objective. Whether the act of causing somone pain is justified or not, that is the subjective part. Though in *most* cases, *most* people would agree that causing somone harm is a bad thing that should be avoided. Regardless, in all cases of a person being harmed, the person is harmed.

Pain is a subjective experience.

Originally posted by Storm
Pain is a subjective experience.

Thats an interesting point, Im not sure how pain differs from human to human. But even if it is subjective to the body, it is not subjective to the mind. You cant 'decide' how much pain you feel. Also even if different people experienced pain in different degrees, it is still universally unpleasant and potentially unbearable.

Originally posted by Nerevar
Thats an interesting point, Im not sure how pain differs from human to human. But even if it is subjective to the body, it is not subjective to the mind. You cant 'decide' how much pain you feel. Also even if different people experienced pain in different degrees, it is still universally unpleasant and potentially unbearable.

You can "decide" how much pain you feel. It takes a lot of discipline, but it can be done. Pain is all in your head.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can "decide" how much pain you feel. It takes a lot of discipline, but it can be done. Pain is all in your head.

Do you have any pr00f?

Originally posted by Nerevar
Humanity is a species. That is not subjective. Doing harm(again I define this as 'causing another human pain, or death') to another human is also not subjective.

Oh, so you are saying what is causing harm to another human being..is wrong? Do I get you? Why do you say humanity then...also when talking about the species humankind would be more applicable.



Originally posted by Nerevar
I have no idea what your talking about...sorry. Im not using the terms 'good' or 'evil' and I dont know why you keep bringing it into the argument.

Well, i kinda try to bring them up, because, well, that is the topic of the thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, so you are saying what is causing harm to another human being..is wrong? Do I get you? Why do you say humanity then...also when talking about the species humankind would be more applicable.





Well, i kinda try to bring them up, because, well, that is the topic of the thread.

1. Thinking about whether the act is wrong or not, is irrelevent to the actual harm being done. You pretending that harming another is justified, that is your opinion. Though the actual harm is not. And I felt like using the word 'humanity'...you have a problem with that>?

2. If you insist on talking about the thread, I already agreed that no one is 'evil'.

Originally posted by Nerevar
1. Thinking about whether the act is wrong or not, is irrelevent to the actual harm being done. You pretending that harming another is justified, that is your opinion. Though the actual harm is not. And I felt like using the word 'humanity'...you have a problem with that>?

2. If you insist on talking about the thread, I already agreed that no one is 'evil'.

You pretending that harm is not justified and/or has to be justified is in no way different. And I don''t have a problem with that except that it was confusing and maybe even wrong in that context, nothing personal.

Okay, do you also agree that nothing is evil?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You pretending that harm is not justified and/or has to be justified is in no way different. And I don''t have a problem with that except that it was confusing and maybe even wrong in that context, nothing personal.

Okay, do you also agree that nothing is evil?

I would argue that the actual harm being done is 'evil', though I hate using that term.

Originally posted by Nerevar
I would argue that the actual harm being done is 'evil', though I hate using that term.

Why evil though? A subjective evil, of course, right?

Again pain is subjective...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again pain is subjective...

Refer to my response to Storm about that.

Originally posted by Nerevar
Refer to my response to Storm about that.

Refer to Shakya's reply as well as to people called "masochists" that actually enjoy pain.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Refer to Shakya's reply as well as to people called "masochists" that actually enjoy pain.

Shakya didnt provide proof for his claim, and masochists dont 'enjoy' pain, they just have mental problems that causes them to want to inflict it.

Originally posted by Nerevar
Shakya didnt provide proof for his claim, and masochists dont 'enjoy' pain, they just have mental problems that causes them to want to inflict it.
Not really, they actually enjoy it....and even then...what is the difference?

Why can't I just as well say "normal" people don't hate pain, they just have a mental problem that causes them to want to avoid it?

Originally posted by Nerevar
Shakya didnt provide proof for his claim, and masochists dont 'enjoy' pain, they just have mental problems that causes them to want to inflict it.

Give me a little time, I have to find it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Not really, they actually enjoy it....and even then...what is the difference?

Why can't I just as well say "normal" people don't hate pain, they just have a mental problem that causes them to want to avoid it?

Because pain is an unpleasant feeling. Period. And masochists dont have this magical ability to 'enjoy' pain, they just like inflicting it on themselves. The feeling doesnt change however. Pain is tolerable at certain levels, though due to its unpleasantness its still universally evil.

Originally posted by Nerevar
Because pain is an unpleasant feeling. Period. And masochists dont have this magical ability to 'enjoy' pain, they just like inflicting it on themselves. The feeling doesnt change however. Pain is tolerable at certain levels, though due to its unpleasantness its still universally evil.

No it's not. Period. It is to you.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No it's not. Period. It is to you.

O RLY?

Originally posted by Nerevar
Humanity is a species. That is not subjective. Doing harm(again I define this as 'causing another human pain, or death') to another human is also not subjective.
'Humanity' is not a species... as Bardock said, a more accurate word would be humankind. And the fact that we cannot even agree on what humanity is makes the statement "harmful to humanity" subjective.

I would even argue that harm is subjective. Something that's harmful to one person may not be to another... Not only that but harm doesn't neccessarily mean explicitly physical harm... If someone stole a bag of food from a wealthy man it would probably not be harmful to him, if someone stole a bag of food from a poor man in poverty it could be fatally harmful to him...

...is this guy evil?

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Humanity' is not a species... as Bardock said, a more accurate word would be humankind. And the fact that we cannot even agree on what humanity is makes the statement "harmful to humanity" subjective.


Subjective only if you consider humanity from a universal perspective. If you believe in space aliens..then their is only one species on this planet eart...and that species is earthlings....

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
I would even argue that harm is subjective. Something that's harmful to one person may not be to another... Not only that but harm doesn't neccessarily mean explicitly physical harm... If someone stole a bag of food from a wealthy man it would probably not be harmful to him, if someone stole a bag of food from a poor man in poverty it could be fatally harmful to him...


But if you steal from the poor man, you are not really stealing...because he has nothing to steal because he is poor. So the only person it is really harmful to steal from is the middle income man..because he is always getting screwed by the rich man..and stolen from by the poor man....

Originally posted by Mr Ed
Subjective only if you consider humanity from a universal perspective. If you believe in space aliens..then their is only one species on this planet eart...and that species is earthlings....



But if you steal from the poor man, you are not really stealing...because he has nothing to steal because he is poor. So the only person it is really harmful to steal from is the middle income man..because he is always getting screwed by the rich man..and stolen from by the poor man....

Your logic is strange.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your logic is strange.

What is strange? To you I may be strange..but to others I may not be strange. You are arguing using emotionalism...instead of intellectuallism, and the only thing strange is on relative to your emoticons...not your intellecticons..

Originally posted by Mr Ed
What is strange? To you I may be strange..but to others I may not be strange. You are arguing using emotionalism...instead of intellectuallism, and the only thing strange is on relative to your emoticons...not your intellecticons..

I am not arguing. I never said you were wrong, just that the way you look at things is strange. Is strange bad to you?

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
'Humanity' is not a species... as Bardock said, a more accurate word would be humankind. And the fact that we cannot even agree on what humanity is makes the statement "harmful to humanity" subjective.

I would even argue that harm is subjective. Something that's harmful to one person may not be to another... Not only that but harm doesn't neccessarily mean explicitly physical harm... If someone stole a bag of food from a wealthy man it would probably not be harmful to him, if someone stole a bag of food from a poor man in poverty it could be fatally harmful to him...

1. Perhaps I should broaden my scope then, I sort of agree that I was being egocentric when I was just talking about only humans. Harm to any being capable of being harmed, is evil.

2. No... I think your getting confused here. Stealing a bag of food from a poor man isnt harm in of itself, its just a cause... leading to the effect of hunger, which is pain.

Hmm... isn't that kind of like saying shooting someone in the chest isn't harm itself, just a cause, which leads to cardiac arrest which is harmful and likely to be fatal?

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Hmm... isn't that kind of like saying shooting someone in the chest isn't harm itself, just a cause, which leads to cardiac arrest which is harmful and likely to be fatal?

No, because getting shot in the chest would harm you a great deal.

As would someone taking your only supply of food... indirectly. Just as shooting someone is harming them only indirectly. The fact that you pointed the gun at them and pulled the trigger isn't the problem, it's what results from doing so... Except for the fact that the harm is felt more quickly from being shot, I don't see the difference. In the end, they are both harmful situations...

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
As would someone taking your only supply of food... indirectly. Just as shooting someone is harming them only indirectly. The fact that you pointed the gun at them and pulled the trigger isn't the problem, it's what results from doing so... Except for the fact that the harm is felt more quickly from being shot, I don't see the difference. In the end, they are both harmful situations...

Taking a supply of food is indirect like you said. To call that harm, would be like saying being born is harm, because your birth was the necessary event for all the harm in your life. Getting shot in the chest however, is direct harm. It will cause you massive pain, which I have argued is evil.

Being born may be a necessary event for harm, but it is not the responsible event as depriving someone of food would be... I can see where you're coming from though.

On your last point, though, I disagree... If the cause of any pain is evil, then the act of giving birth would be evil... which is more than a tad bit absurd.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Being born may be a necessary event for harm, but it is not the responsible event as depriving someone of food would be... I can see where you're coming from though.

On your last point, though, I disagree... If the cause of any pain is evil, then the act of giving birth would be evil... which is more than a tad bit absurd.

1. It would be indirectly responsible. I suppose you could argue that taking the bag of food would be 'directly responsible' though the point remains that no direct harm is being done in any case.

2. Maybe thats where your getting confused...Im not arguing that the cause of pain is evil, Im arguing that the pain itself is evil. Arguing whether the causing of pain is evil or not would be subjective, because you can justify anything from your own point of view. However...the actual pain isnt open to interpretation, it is simply evil.

Mabye Hitler thought he was doin everyone a favor when he invaded Poland. Was he wrong to mess with the Polish.

Originally posted by FoxMeister
Mabye Hitler thought he was doin everyone a favor when he invaded Poland. Was he wrong to mess with the Polish.

No

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Girls are evil... I have proof:

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/9522/proofthatgirlsareevilnh5.jpg

I might actually take offence to that if it weren't true.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Girls are evil... I have proof:

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/9522/proofthatgirlsareevilnh5.jpg

This thread is wrong, I'm evil vampire vampire vampire

I know an evil type person...........I'm making a voodoo doll of him....

rip me---->> jump clap

Originally posted by FoxMeister
Mabye Hitler thought he was doin everyone a favor when he invaded Poland. Was he wrong to mess with the Polish.

Of course not. Poland should be invaded and occupied far more often in my oppinion.

Everyone is good. People who are considered evil are just lost souls, or for those Atheists out there: misguided.

Easy enough to say that evil does not exist, but unless you're a sociopath you will soon find that your conscience is a punishment for ill action.

Originally posted by NK-Syndrome
Not Osama Bin Ladin. Not Josef Stalin. Not even Hitler. They all are just different. They have their own way of thinking... And that's the way of thinking they developed.
I was in Osama's country right about the time this was posted. I respectfully disagree.

Originally posted by Illuminati
Not Osama Bin Ladin. Not Josef Stalin. Not even Hitler. They all are just different. They have their own way of thinking... And that's the way of thinking they developed.

I believe that everyone is evil, some more so than others. The reason that you don't see it is because you refuse to believe that you are capable of committing atrocious acts against a fellow human being. It only takes one lie to be labeled a liar, just as it only takes one death to be considered a murderer. Most people kill daily. Some live behind illusions that they have not ever killed. I have. I haven't killed a person, but I have killed a bug. I used to feed goldfish to my Texas cichlid as a child, but if the goldfish was a human, and my Texas cichlid a shark, would that not still be considered murder? A life is a life. I don't believe that we are pure evil incarnate, but we are all capable of cruelty, and cruel acts.

Recently, I was alerted to the cruelty committed to livestock. I was sent an email telling me how cruel turkeys are treated, and I thought, why should I care, I love eating turkey, and thought no more of it. This was a week ago. Now what if that turkey were a human? In terms of history, it wasn't that long ago that people were treated cruelly by their masters, actually let me take that back, because slavery still exists even today. Is that not evil?

Like it or not, you can hide behind whatever you want to, but we are all capable of the vilest things imaginable, and the only thing that keeps us from crossing the line are our morals, and ethics. If you read some of the responses in this very thread, you will see that some are slipping, and if they thought long and hard enough about it, order and chaos is just a figment of our imaginations. Someone once said that we were only a few meals away from anarchy. I wonder sometimes.

Evil is not a thing or a person. Evil is something that a person does; it is an action. Evil is also not absolute nor mutually exclusive. Evil is relative. One persons evil can be another person good, at the same time.

Moral relativism isn't very useful to a healthy society, imo.

It was invented as a backlash against the "moral west", but is used as a double edged sword to both vilify those who act against someone perceived as "immoral", and to rationalize away their own moral failings.

The hyprocrisy comes from judging the wests actions as evil, since in a world without morality there would be nothing whatsoever wrong with imposing your views on another culture (On what basis would you condemn interventionism? Without a moral framework, why shouldn't America, Israel, or whoever depose a democratically elected leader and insert their own puppet?)

Moral relativism is disgusting

Originally posted by cdtm
Moral relativism isn't very useful to a healthy society I agree, however you'd be fascinated at how lost hunter-gatherer tribesmen behave towards the disabled etc. It does show culture is a strong component of ethics and morality.

By stating what you just stated you destroyed your argument. If I have to explain why I suggested you read up on how preconceived notions affect observation and perception. It's also worth observing issues like slavery which are morally abhorrent in the west now were once widely accepted and still exist in some places in the world. It might be better to consider morality as evolving, however, there is always cultural relativism like it or not and I have no problem with your assertation subjectively that some societies are more moral than others and I agree. It's not objective though.

You are a Robot. You have no understanding of such concepts as "Good & Evil" Your Opinion is thus invalidated by that reasoning.

Boop Boop Beep Beep.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
By stating what you just stated you destroyed your argument. If I have to explain why I suggested you read up on how preconceived notions affect observation and perception. It's also worth observing issues like slavery which are morally abhorrent in the west now were once widely accepted and still exist in some places in the world. It might be better to consider morality as evolving, however, there is always cultural relativism like it or not and I have no problem with your assertation subjectively that some societies are more moral than others and I agree. It's not objective though.
No I did not tank my own argument, I said there is objective morality, but everyone is incorrect about it to varying degrees, some much moreso than others.

In some societies their understanding of ****ing science is that if you do voodoo in a certain part of africa lightning will strike your enemies or some shit. We're not close to understanding everything scientifically in the west, but we're closer than that shit, and just because people or cultures disagree on things doesn't mean one isn't closer or further from the truth than the other or that there is no truth to be discovered. There are objective facts that people would argue against, and objective facts we are not remotely close to discovering, that doesn't mean objective facts do not exist.

Preconceived notions can be misleading. A baby at a certain age has the notion that there is no object permanence, that something only exists as long as they see it, just because that position is shaped by a preconceived notion doesn't mean it is as valid as any other position, and it doesn't mean the subject in question is solely a matter of opinion.

I mean **** if some dumbass thinks that if I give $2 to a person who already has $2 that they now have five dollars, does that mean math is relativistic and just a matter of opinion?

The notion of things influencing people's stances is pretty self-evident, as is the notion that people disagree on morality, what's not self-evident is the weird connection from point A to point B that you draw where you assume an admission that people disagree on something is evidence that there is not an objective answer to be reached. I mean **** by that logic there is no objective truth at all since I could get some contrarian ******* to disagree with anything anyone says, and therefore there'd be disagreement on it.

All your post tells me is that you did not understand what I was actually saying.

Originally posted by cdtm
Moral relativism isn't very useful to a healthy society, imo.

It was invented as a backlash against the "moral west", but is used as a double edged sword to both vilify those who act against someone perceived as "immoral", and to rationalize away their own moral failings.

The hyprocrisy comes from judging the wests actions as evil, since in a world without morality there would be nothing whatsoever wrong with imposing your views on another culture (On what basis would you condemn interventionism? Without a moral framework, why shouldn't America, Israel, or whoever depose a democratically elected leader and insert their own puppet?)

What is immoral is to bump a thread this old, you evil moth*phucker.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No I did not tank my own argument, I said there is objective morality, but everyone is incorrect about it to varying degrees, some much moreso than others.

In some societies their understanding of ****ing science is that if you do voodoo in a certain part of africa lightning will strike your enemies or some shit. We're not close to understanding everything scientifically in the west, but we're closer than that shit, and just because people or cultures disagree on things doesn't mean one isn't closer or further from the truth than the other or that there is no truth to be discovered. There are objective facts that people would argue against, and objective facts we are not remotely close to discovering, that doesn't mean objective facts do not exist.

Preconceived notions can be misleading. A baby at a certain age has the notion that there is no object permanence, that something only exists as long as they see it, just because that position is shaped by a preconceived notion doesn't mean it is as valid as any other position, and it doesn't mean the subject in question is solely a matter of opinion.

I mean **** if some dumbass thinks that if I give $2 to a person who already has $2 that they now have five dollars, does that mean math is relativistic and just a matter of opinion?

The notion of things influencing people's stances is pretty self-evident, as is the notion that people disagree on morality, what's not self-evident is the weird connection from point A to point B that you draw where you assume an admission that people disagree on something is evidence that there is not an objective answer to be reached. I mean **** by that logic there is no objective truth at all since I could get some contrarian ******* to disagree with anything anyone says, and therefore there'd be disagreement on it.

All your post tells me is that you did not understand what I was actually saying. No, your post tells me you did not understand what I was saying. But I'm not surprised. Lot's of cultures have different moralities, from lost tribes of Hunter-Gatherers to Aztecs, to attribute your western 20th-century values to the values they have and state a society's morality is more right than another without taking into account you as the observer and your preconceived worldview, culture and values, as well as your limited understanding of this is moronic. However, almost all your posts are incredibly simplistic. Both in language and ideas.

I have a hard time with the concept of Evil in the real world.

'Evil' strikes me as an abstract: a deliberate infliction of suffering, destruction and death on others for it's own sake. No other motive exists, like, say, seeking power so one can feel (consciously or otherwise) godlike, invincible, special, immune to death.

Since all living things seek power in one form or another-- biologically, psychologically, 'power' being defined here as that which reduces death terror -- IMHO real living things are incapable of exercising this type of absolute detachment from mortal concerns that conceptual Evil requires.

God knows, human beings try, but as long as people remain mortal, I don't see 'Evil' as truly existing in the human sphere, just our pale imitation (horrific in its own right) of the abstract.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
No, your post tells me you did not understand what I was saying. But I'm not surprised. Lot's of cultures have different moralities, from lost tribes of Hunter-Gatherers to Aztecs, to attribute your western 20th-century values to the values they have and state a society's morality is more right than another without taking into account you as the observer and your preconceived worldview, culture and values, as well as your limited understanding of this is moronic.
Yeah no shit, I recognize that lot's of cultures have different moral perspectives, you're acting like I'm incapable of grasping this. I disagree that there is not an objective difference in correctness between one set of moral values and another. Of course there are reasons why different societies have different views of what is moral, but just because those reasons exist again does not mean that there is not an objective morality to be uncovered that some people's moral views are closer to than others'. That's a ridiculous standard that just because people disagree on something and have different reasons in their lives for disagreeing on something that therefore the subject they disagree with holds no objectivity to it.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
However, almost all your posts are incredibly simplistic. Both in language and ideas.
I disagree, I think my posts are intelligent and sophisticated. That you would think you could judge my intelligence and suggest your view of me is right without taking into account you as the observer and your preconceived worldview culture and values... and I mean I guess I'm doing the same. Look we disagree, I guess my level of intelligence and the complexity of my posts is entirely subjective so it's pointless for us to argue about.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I disagree, I think my posts are intelligent and sophisticated.

Don't worry, we know.

I don't know why, but as soon as I posted that I got some weird sense that you were gonna pop in and reply to me with some snarky comment.

I wasn't being entirely serious with that statement though. That was more to make the point that you could undermine anyone's statement by his logic simply by disagreeing with the statement.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I disagree, I think my posts are intelligent and sophisticated.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
lot's

mmm

I had just woken up, spare me a typo or two.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No I did not tank my own argument, I said there is objective morality, but everyone is incorrect about it to varying degrees, some much moreso than others.

In some societies their understanding of ****ing science is that if you do voodoo in a certain part of africa lightning will strike your enemies or some shit. We're not close to understanding everything scientifically in the west, but we're closer than that shit, and just because people or cultures disagree on things doesn't mean one isn't closer or further from the truth than the other or that there is no truth to be discovered. There are objective facts that people would argue against, and objective facts we are not remotely close to discovering, that doesn't mean objective facts do not exist.

Preconceived notions can be misleading. A baby at a certain age has the notion that there is no object permanence, that something only exists as long as they see it, just because that position is shaped by a preconceived notion doesn't mean it is as valid as any other position, and it doesn't mean the subject in question is solely a matter of opinion.

I mean **** if some dumbass thinks that if I give $2 to a person who already has $2 that they now have five dollars, does that mean math is relativistic and just a matter of opinion?

The notion of things influencing people's stances is pretty self-evident, as is the notion that people disagree on morality, what's not self-evident is the weird connection from point A to point B that you draw where you assume an admission that people disagree on something is evidence that there is not an objective answer to be reached. I mean **** by that logic there is no objective truth at all since I could get some contrarian ******* to disagree with anything anyone says, and therefore there'd be disagreement on it.

All your post tells me is that you did not understand what I was actually saying. You're trying to support the existence of an objective moral philosophy by using examples of objectivity rooted in science and math.

I hope you really did just wake up, because to be honest this post you made? It's nonsense, lol. You can't use "two plus two equals four no matter what some retard says" as evidence that there is objective morality. They're entirely different disciplines. Some disciplines are harder/more objective than others. Science and math are more objective than, say, literary theory, for example.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You're trying to support the existence of an objective moral philosophy by using examples of objectivity rooted in science and math.

I hope you really did just wake up, because to be honest this post you made? It's nonsense, lol. You can't use "two plus two equals four no matter what some retard says" as evidence that there is objective morality. They're entirely different disciplines. Some disciplines are harder/more objective than others. Science and math are more objective than, say, literary theory, for example.
Except that wasn't evidence I was providing for the claim that objective morality exists, that was me suggesting Putinbot's claim that people disagreeing on the subject proves there is no objective basis for it is nonsense.

Basically, I wasn't drawing the comparison as proof for objective morality, I was drawing the comparison as proof that the notion that different people and cultures holding different stances on it is not evidence objective morality doesn't exist. He was acting like my admission that different people hold different stances undermines my argument because it's proof there's no correct stance.

You misunderstood the point I was making in my argument with him. He said I undercut my own stance with that admission, and I was explaining why that was retarded.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Except that wasn't evidence I was providing for the claim that objective morality exists, that was me suggesting Putinbot's claim that people disagreeing on the subject proves there is no objective basis for it is nonsense.

Basically, I wasn't drawing the comparison as proof for objective morality, I was drawing the comparison as proof that the notion that different people and cultures holding different stances on it is not evidence objective morality doesn't exist. He was acting like my admission that different people hold different stances undermines my argument because it's proof there's no correct stance.

You misunderstood the point I was making in my argument with him. He said I undercut my own stance with that admission, and I was explaining why that was retarded. You mean in your previous post, where you directly correlated moral law with scientific law, equivocating them?

Putinbot was, from the beginning, talking purely about morality. You started bringing up science and other irrelevant shit as evidence against his statement on moral relativism, even though he wasn't really saying that morality is relative merely because other people disagree on certain things.

Which is frankly very low-tier debating and discussion by the way. Attacking people's points is very easy to do. I do it all the time while on the shitter in like three minutes or less. I'm doing it right now.

Supporting your points is quite a bit harder, but it is also more productive and rewarding, and I stress this because you apparently actually give a shit about having a real discussion on this shitty site.

I also am singling out you in particular because you are among the most moralistic people on this site. You act like a drama queen and call moral relativism "disgusting", but your actual attempts at supporting moral objectivism and decry relativism are not particularly compelling my friend.

Originally posted by NemeBro
You mean in your previous post, where you directly correlated moral law with scientific law, equivocating them?
I didn't use scientific law as evidence for the objectivity of morality, I merely said I viewed them in a similar way in that regard. That was supposed to be taken as a description of how I viewed morality rather than my explanation as to why, and you're misinterpreting it. It was a descriptive comparison, not the explanation behind the comparison.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Putinbot was, from the beginning, talking purely about morality. You started bringing up science and other irrelevant shit as evidence against his statement on moral relativism, even though he wasn't really saying that morality is relative merely because other people disagree on certain things.
Really then could you point out what he was using to claim it was in any of his posts? Because all I saw was him claiming that my admission that people disagree is evidence that there can be no objectivity to it. You can feel free to point something else out.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I didn't use scientific law as evidence for the objectivity of morality, I merely said I viewed them in a similar way in that regard. That was supposed to be taken as a description of how I viewed morality rather than my explanation as to why, and you're misinterpreting it. It was a descriptive comparison, not the explanation behind the comparison.

I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm directly stating that viewing them similarly, which you've been doing all along, is erroneous.




Pretty much nothing. Putinbot wasn't doing a good job supporting his own perspectives either.

But he's a crusty-ass old man too set in his ways to change and is quite possibly only really posting to troll you, so I feel no need to comment on his posts.



You're still really set on tearing down Putinbot, when you should be supporting yourself.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I'm not misinterpreting it, I'm directly stating that viewing them similarly, which you've been doing all along, is erroneous.

Pretty much nothing. Putinbot wasn't doing a good job supporting his own perspectives either.

But he's a crusty-ass old man too set in his ways to change and is quite possibly only really posting to troll you, so I feel no need to comment on his posts.

You're still really set on tearing down Putinbot, when you should be supporting yourself.
I might make a post delving into objectivity in moral principle it when it's not almost 3 am, but my point with my original post or my responses to him was merely to point out that something being disagreed upon doesn't make it not objective.

I didn't delve into supporting objective morality because I was too lazy then and certainly am now at 3 in the morning, but I got drawn into the putinbot thing because he made the claim that I contradicted my own stance with a statement I made which I found ridiculous.

Originally posted by NemeBro



But he's a crusty-ass old man too set in his ways to change and is quite possibly only really posting to troll you, so I feel no need to comment on his posts.





As if either could be true.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
However, almost all your posts are incredibly simplistic. Both in language and ideas.
Lal, are you good for anything other then calling other people stupid?

Scientifc law is based on observations, morality is based on a personal interpretation of what we observe. The former is objective, the latter is entirely subjective. There's no equivalency here.

Objective morality does not exist, our beliefs are based on how natural selection has caused are brains to evolve. Law with subjective basis simply cannot be objective.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Lal, are you good for anything other then calling other people stupid? Your mum thinks so.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Your mum thinks so.

She does appreciate the way you keep the dog poop out of her lawn...But then most often you are the one that puts it there so....




And back to this thread..


If "No One is EVIL".....Should that mean that "NO One is GOOD"?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I don't know why, but as soon as I posted that I got some weird sense that you were gonna pop in and reply to me with some snarky comment.

You know, with the amount of times you've said this to me recently, somebody might get the idea that you think of me with every post.

https://78.media.tumblr.com/155a0aa80eae6af26ae8860d5d32907e/tumblr_ogntvntpe81txqqiio1_500.gif

Originally posted by NK-Syndrome
Not Osama Bin Ladin. Not Josef Stalin. Not even Hitler. They all are just different. They have their own way of thinking... And that's the way of thinking they developed.
Nah.

Ubermensch morality comes to mind.