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.
__________________
Last edited by Stoic on Jun 18th, 2014 at 07:54 AM
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
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?)
__________________ What CDTM believes;
Never let anyone else define you. Don't be a jerk just to be a jerk, but if you are expressing your true inner feelings and beliefs, or at least trying to express that inner child, and everyone gets pissed off about it, never NEVER apologize for it. Let them think what they want, let them define you in their narrow little minds while they suppress every last piece of them just to keep a friend that never liked them for themselves in the first place.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Moral relativism is disgusting
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
There’s a difference in variance of moral perspective and the notion that all moral perspectives are equally valid.
The way I view moral law is similar to scientific law. We do not fully understand it and nobody understands it perfectly, but there are some people and societies that approximate closer to the truth than others.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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.
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
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.
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Last edited by Emperordmb on Apr 5th, 2018 at 07:34 AM
KMC Community Forums
Aug 15th, 2006 03:49 PM
me---->> 
