The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Oh, and one final thing:

The majority opinion and the progress towards liberalism: I do not utilize the concept of the majority opinion as a matter of law, but your allegations of "what the majority of societies believe is true" is disproved by the fact that the world has displayed an extreme enthusiasm and support of Obama's heavily liberal policies. This sort of support was hardly seen in George W. Bush's case and, in my opinion, is the display of the world's tendency towards belief in liberalism. And this progress will simply continue unless Obama screws up. If he doesn't, then I feel that victory for liberalism is quite inevitable.

As for my proving that liberals compose the intellectual, Academic, and even financial elite in the country? And as for more intelligent people generally choosing the road of atheism? It wasn't to say that my ideology is better than your's, simply to disprove your constant claims of liberals all being complete dumbshit morons.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
If you want to continue debating, fine, but please do it in a more civilized manner (I'm guilty, too). Your constant remarks, most notably the 'mental illness' one, are incredibly annoying and honestly make me want to puke, so I'd much rather have a genuine debate instead of a childish insult fare.

*cue spiteful attack thinly veiled by weak humor*

Originally posted by Eminence
There's a reason he calls you "unrealistic."

*cue spiteful attack thinly veiled by weak humor*

No need to Faunus. Your trolling, defeated arguments, and attempts to criticize one side rather than posting objectively, have all been hilarious.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
Yes, now it's time to better organize my argument, do you not think? You've completely lost track of my points, being that anything that isn't simplistic in nature goes beyond the scope of your tragically limited intellectual comprehension, so I suppose I'll simply narrow them down to a few key fundamentals aspects you can feast your conservative mind upon:

[B]Reality: Ah, my favorite one. It's the conservative rhetoric of 'pessimism = realism'; in actuality, having an incredibly negative view of the world is oh so far stretched away from reality you have no idea. In REALITY (the real reality, not the product of an overactive conservative imagination), surrendering to the idea of the war being a permanently violent place that cannot and will never be changed is silly and directly contradictory to the 'history of human nature' you so adore.

Because human nature is dual. It is not the negative things conservatives often spew, nor is it the positive things some liberals spew; it is a mixture of them. Humans are violent creatures, who are naturally hateful and fearful. But humans also constantly strive for a better existence; indeed, the constant strife towards the creation of a peaceful utopia is precisely another portion of our humanity. Throughout the dawn of time, humanity has constantly attempted to create a better, and more peaceful existence: customs like violent rituals and imperialism were abolished and minimized within our society.

The concept of humans being irrational is silly, and has never been genuinely put to the test. Because we constantly go upon this moronic notion, surrendering to never, ever attempting to actually striving towards peace, we refuse the possibilities of diplomacy. We refuse to ever test whether humans are naturally dicks. We didn't negotiate with Hitler. Of course, this is all because dumb conservatives like you said they were radical nutjobs, without understanding their causes for being radical nutjobs and further delving into the idea of radicalism being an entirely subjective thing.

We do not try. We surrender to basic feelings of hatred, fear, and most of all, arrogance; we do not try to engage in diplomatic or genuinely peaceful engagements, instead strictly focusing upon militarism. Instead of treating our enemies like evil, insane people, we should confront them with humanism and attempt to find common ground chiefly through peace. If that does not work, then we move towards more aggressive things- like socioeconomic sanctions. Nazi Germany could not gain the finances for military expansion all by itself; thus, by actually performing economic sanctions upon them when they were at the process of militarization, we could have prevented them from launching an army strong enough to attempt to conquer the world. An if military action is necessary, then fine: but it must be an absolute last resort and should be acted with restraint.

And now for a little history lesson. Yes, that history you claim to be so well versed in. Before moving towards the 'Final Solution' and acts that violated the Jews' rights, Germany has asked the world, at large, if they were willing to accept Jews. After all, killing the Jews would be horribly expensive and was far from their initial desire. The world at large said: "****, no. Keep your Jews to yourselves." By doing so, the world both prevented the Jews from going to a safe haven and not a country that does not want them, and validated, in Hitler's mind, the concept of the Jews being parasites that harmed the world. Instead of disproving his ideology by giving Jews a chance to exist in a society that wants them, we chose to do what was easy from a financial and utilitarian point of perspective.

And by going upon my plan of acceptance of Jewish immigrants, economic sanctions when Nazi Germany was in a process of militarization, and subsequent intervention when they would have attacked Poland with a far weaker army, we could have avoided the entirety of World War II. But we didn't do so, partly because the policies at the time supported free trade for the purpose of financial expansion, and partly because people went by your notion of the 'enemy' being naturally unreasonable beings.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
[B]Morality: I know when I do something wrong, and I did not do the best job of presenting my opinions in regards to morality, being that it is a very complicated subject I do not have clear opinions on. I'll do my best to present it in a more clear way.

First of all, let's go on the hypothetical notion of one nation committing genocide upon its populace. Who is it wrong to? It is wrong to the people who are being murdered, and it is wrong according to our interpretation of inalienable human rights. However, it is not wrong to the nation that is committing the genocide. There are several points of perspectives here: by deeming the nation that is committing the genocide 'evil', we only view the moral interests of us and the directly violated party. While we should first work towards the benefits of the innocent, being that one nation rarely gains something from genocide, the best possible method of action is to maintain human life. All human life. This part of our morality, a morality that should not be bypassed when possible. Thus, the best method of action is to somehow balance the interests of the violated nation with the interests of the violating one. How do we do that? We look beyond petty notions of good, evil, and 'justice'.

And no, mass genocide is a universal even. I don't see how you can even begin to debate this. Justice is petty? Good lord you're funny. Justice is one of the most important aspects of society. Without Justice, you are excusing everything that is done.

I may not believe in a universal justice, being that justice and injustice is always from someone's point of perspective (and is therefore called 'subjective'😉, but I am a very, very strong believer in what is called 'societal good and evil'. Every society sets certain moral standards regarding what is good and what is wrong; this is based upon that individual society's philosophical interpretation of the world; it is not law, because there is no omnipotent, objective source clarifying what philosophy is right and what is wrong, but it is an integral part of that individual society. For example, I believe in the existence of human rights. I believe that our very nature as a conscious, thinking, rational being gives us certain rights that must never be violated; this is simply my philosophical take upon the world. Is it law? Not necessarily.

I do believe in good and evil. I believe a murder is immoral not because of its very nature, but because the way it harms a single individual (and thus is a subjective injustice upon them), and society at large: therefore it should be illegalized. Murder does not harm people because it is immoral. First, I think we should judge every situation in accordance to its merits: every action, beyond the absolutist utilitarian aspect of it, has a differing moral makeup to it.

The death penalty, for example, is wrong because it is degeneration into petty feelings of revenge and anger and actually serves no useful purpose to society: it removes the possibility of innocence and rehabilitation, which is far more effective to society as a whole. However, I understand that my sentiments upon this are relative in nature. I will not force them upon a nation that does not consent to them. If I was to pursue a career in politics, I would attempt to present my point in the best possible way: I would explain why I feel it is the best, most effective, and most moral course of action. However, if the public at large does not agree with this, then I will not implement it. Do you understand now? My views are all subjective. I think that they will create a better world and are ultimately the best ones, but that is my own subjective opinion; I will only 'force' it upon people who consent to it, being that I understand it is not universal law.

You say that rape, murder, and theft were the three absolutes that guided society since the beginning of time. First, the legal definitions of these vary: since not every killing is a 'murder', every society defined murder in a slightly different way. I do not think it is necessarily because these things were evil, but because these are necessarily to ensure a society's survival. If it would not follow these laws, the society will simply turn anarchic and destroy itself. Is it because it is immoral? No. Is it immoral because these are its ramifications? Yes, mostly. In order to protect the (subjective) concept of justice among the populace, these laws must be enforced to prevent their interests from being ignored.

Note: I think that the U.S's support of Iraq despite the way it blatantly committed injustices to part of its populace to be completely wrong. I don't think we should have intervened, but we should certainly never support a country that commits genocide upon its populace; in fact, we should, via diplomatic and economic manners, fight against it.

Hopefully you understand it. A quick summary: No 'universal' good and evil, but many, many societal and subjective concepts of good and evil that must be enforced and occasionally married to create a better society. That means good and evil do exist, but certainly not in the simplistic and utterly childish manner you're consistently attempting to suggest.

Interpretation of religious texts: Not much to be said about this, aside from the fact that your wankage of the so-called 'sages' is utterly absurd. We can never trust the 'universally correct' interpretation to perfectly fallible human being who lived thousands of years ago; they interpreted a religious document in the way their form of logic and intelligence dictated. This is simply one alternative, and the widely agreed upon one. However, trusting this to simple men, regardless of who they are, is stupid, and interpretations cannot be proven to be the 'correct' ones.

The sages are not 'greater than you or I' will ever be. Conforming to their opinion and interpretation without thinking for yourself and your options is simply wrong.

The terrorist's quest for Jihad cannot be proven to be wrong, according to Islamic interpretations. It cannot be proven to be a wrong interpretation of the text; however, it can be seen as a harmful one. There is a considerable disparity between the two.

There, hopefully you grasp it now. If you want to continue debating, fine, but please do it in a more civilized manner (I'm guilty, too). Your constant remarks, most notably the 'mental illness' one, are incredibly annoying and honestly make me want to puke, so I'd much rather have a genuine debate instead of a childish insult fare. [/B]

Says the one making comments about conservative idiots, etc. You are incredibly egocentric.

Originally posted by Master Crimzon
The majority opinion and the progress towards liberalism: I do not utilize the concept of the majority opinion as a matter of law, but your allegations of "what the majority of societies believe is true" is disproved by the fact that the world has displayed an extreme enthusiasm and support of Obama's heavily liberal policies. This sort of support was hardly seen in George W. Bush's case and, in my opinion, is the display of the world's tendency towards belief in liberalism. And this progress will simply continue unless Obama screws up. If he doesn't, then I feel that victory for liberalism is quite inevitable.

As for my proving that liberals compose the intellectual, Academic, and even financial elite in the country? And as for more intelligent people generally choosing the road of atheism? It wasn't to say that my ideology is better than your's, simply to disprove your constant claims of liberals all being complete dumbshit morons. [/B]

I have struggled to explain my moral system to others, especially you guys, for quite some time now. I've had an idea on how to phrase it so tell me if this makes sense:

In the past, I've labeled socially beneficial acts 'good' and socially destructive acts 'bad'. This has led some of you to extrapolate the existence of objective morality from my position. Which is silly. These acts that can be called good or bad are only such insofar as we call them by those names.

It is impossible to set out what exactly is right and wrong, anyway: no-one seems to be able to decide on whether anything is right or wrong. No-one knows anything about abortion that I can't be told. Capital punishment, gay sex, assisted suicide are all other 'moral' issues about which there is no secret knowledge floating around. No one knows something not on the public domain that makes any of these acts inherently anything or they would have used the knowledge in the debate. Put bluntly: no one knows if these things are right or wrong. Hell, no-one knows if killing is right or wrong. It is allowed sometimes and punished others. If no-one knows (or can know) the difference between right and wrong then we must look at something else: what is sustainable. What works. Towards that end I have placed utility as 'the good'. I think that the distinction that I failed to make in the past is what confused people: utility is not by definition good, it just happens to be a means to the end I seek: a sustainable society.

Defining social utility as the good is an easy way to maintain the society in which we live, but a socially subversive act is not 'bad'. The question is irrelevant. What is important is what works. Society works.

Bottom line: Right and wrong are irrelevant because they are not constant.

DS loves to argue Hitler. I can hear him now: "BUT IF THERE IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG THEN HITLER DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG!" (Add ones and 'leet speak' to taste.)

My response is a necessarily brief (relative to the enormity of the question) yet (rest assured) thoroughly thought out one:
The Holocaust during the Second World War was one of the great offenses against human dignity in recorded history. It is an almost physically painful experience to learn about the atrocities committed in the Nazi death camps and it is an event that should never be forgotten, lest it is repeated. HOWEVER. Hitler did not break some universal rulebook that says 'putting 6 million people in gas-chambers is WRONG!!' Such a ruleset does not exist. The action did break the rules of civilized society and the conventions of empathy that (necessarily) govern human interaction. The action is universally decried because those learning about it empathize with the victims and realize what a terrible thing it would be to experience. It is considered an 'evil act' by most because it is considered an evil act, not because it broke 'the rules'.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
It is impossible to set out what exactly is right and wrong, anyway: no-one seems to be able to decide on whether anything is right or wrong. No-one knows anything about abortion that I can't be told. Capital punishment, gay sex, assisted suicide are all other 'moral' issues about which there is no secret knowledge floating around. No one knows something not on the public domain that makes any of these acts inherently anything or they would have used the knowledge in the debate. Put bluntly: no one knows if these things are right or wrong. Hell, no-one knows if killing is right or wrong. It is allowed sometimes and punished others. If no-one knows (or can know) the difference between right and wrong then we must look at something else: what is sustainable. What works. Towards that end I have placed utility as 'the good'. I think that the distinction that I failed to make in the past is what confused people: utility is not by definition good, it just happens to be a means to the end I seek: a sustainable society.[

Btw. Rape, Murder, theft. Constants that have been for thousands of years, only justified by again:
1. Political agendas
2. Skewed religious texts.

DS loves to argue Hitler. I can hear him now: "BUT IF THERE IS NO RIGHT AND WRONG THEN HITLER DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG!" (Add ones and 'leet speak' to taste.)

My response is a necessarily brief (relative to the enormity of the question) yet (rest assured) thoroughly thought out one:
The Holocaust during the Second World War was one of the great offenses against human dignity in recorded history. It is an almost physically painful experience to learn about the atrocities committed in the Nazi death camps and it is an event that should never be forgotten, lest it is repeated. HOWEVER. Hitler did not break some universal rulebook that says 'putting 6 million people in gas-chambers is WRONG!!' Such a ruleset does not exist. The action did break the rules of civilized society and the conventions of empathy that (necessarily) govern human interaction. The action is universally decried because those learning about it empathize with the victims and realize what a terrible thing it would be to experience. It is considered an 'evil act' by most because it is considered an evil act, not because it broke 'the rules'. [/B]

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Nobody knows if killing is wrong or right? I know that it's against my religion. I also know in my heart it's wrong. Apparently same goes with society for thousands of years. Few will try to justify it with what I've described many times, but that doesn't make it a justification. There is absolutely NO evidence that everything is subjective.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Btw. Rape, Murder, theft. Constants that have been for thousands of years, only justified by again:
1. Political agendas
2. Skewed religious texts.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Which is an argument never really refuted.

Which still makes it a universal evil. Nobody cares why there's universal rights and wrongs, just that there are. You're trying to justify why right and wrong exist when the question was "do they exist", which you've answered.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I have struggled to explain my moral system to others, especially you guys, for quite some time now. I've had an idea on how to phrase it so tell me if this makes sense:

In the past, I've labeled socially beneficial acts 'good' and socially destructive acts 'bad'. This has led some of you to extrapolate the existence of objective morality from my position. Which is silly. These acts that can be called good or bad are only such insofar as we call them by those names.

It is impossible to set out what exactly is right and wrong, anyway: no-one seems to be able to decide on whether anything is right or wrong. No-one knows anything about abortion that I can't be told. Capital punishment, gay sex, assisted suicide are all other 'moral' issues about which there is no secret knowledge floating around. No one knows something not on the public domain that makes any of these acts inherently anything or they would have used the knowledge in the debate. Put bluntly: no one knows if these things are right or wrong. Hell, no-one knows if killing is right or wrong. It is allowed sometimes and punished others. If no-one knows (or can know) the difference between right and wrong then we must look at something else: what is sustainable. What works. Towards that end I have placed utility as 'the good'. I think that the distinction that I failed to make in the past is what confused people: utility is not by definition good, it just happens to be a means to the end I seek: a sustainable society.

Defining social utility as the good is an easy way to maintain the society in which we live, but a socially subversive act is not 'bad'. The question is irrelevant. What is important is what works. Society works.

Bottom line: Right and wrong are irrelevant because they are not constant.

I'm curious, but would you consider yourself a utilitarian?

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

Killing is not always wrong, nor is it always right. You've argued for killing lots of times. You've also said it is OK to kill in self defense, but that makes killing OK.

Murder is defined as unlawful killing. Theft is unlawful taking. Pretty easy to call something 'wrong' (or 'bad'😉 when it is defined as 'bad' already. You're just spouting tautologies.

No. It makes it universally decried. There is nothing about the act itself that was evil.

1. You just admitted there are universals.2
2. Nothing about the act that was evil? Really? How do you justify that? In fact, show me when murder, rape, and theft were allowed. And I don't mean self defense, whatever justification you can come up with, etc.

Originally posted by Autokrat
I'm curious, but would you consider yourself a utilitarian?

I'm still deciding. Wikipedia's page sounds like things I agree with, but the phrase 'It is thus a form of consequentialism' is a bad thing. (My brother the wannabe philosophy major wouldn't let me live that down.) It looks like something I could get behind, if only because Daniel Quinn espouses a form of utilitarianism. He's kind of my hero, you see.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm still deciding. Wikipedia's page sounds like things I agree with, but the phrase 'It is thus a form of consequentialism' is a bad thing. (My brother the wannabe philosophy major wouldn't let me live that down.) It looks like something I could get behind, if only because Daniel Quinn espouses a form of utilitarianism. He's kind of my hero, you see.

Wow. For a second I was getting him confused with the guy who plays Harry Potter. That would have been awkward.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I'm still deciding. Wikipedia's page sounds like things I agree with, but the phrase 'It is thus a form of consequentialism' is a bad thing. (My brother the wannabe philosophy major wouldn't let me live that down.) It looks like something I could get behind, if only because Daniel Quinn espouses a form of utilitarianism. He's kind of my hero, you see.

Your brother is a deontologist then? Or he simply doesn't like consequentialism?

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
You're deliberately twisting my words. I said murder was wrong. I never said anything about killing. And in case you want to go with the usual "well murder with self defense is justified!!", it ceases to be called murder when it becomes self defense.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Because that's their definitions lol. You can't define any of those as right, at all. So by their definitions, they are wrong, whether we consider them wrong, or immoral, etc.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

1. You just admitted there are universals.

u·ni·ver·sal (yōō'nə-vûr'səl)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, extending to, or affecting the entire world or all within the world; worldwide: "This discovery of literature has as yet only partially penetrated the universal consciousness" (Ellen Key).

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

2. Nothing about the act that was evil? Really? How do you justify that? In fact, show me when murder, rape, and theft were allowed. And I don't mean self defense, whatever justification you can come up with, etc.

Originally posted by Autokrat
Your brother is a deontologist then? Or he simply doesn't like consequentialism?

Option B. He was pretty staunchly against consequentialism, to the point where he would take their (strawmen) positions (sarcastically) just to screw with me. It freaked me out the first time he did it: he was supporting the torture shown on '24'.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis

So then killing isn't wrong? Good to know. (And I would not go with 'murder w/self-defense is justified. Ever.)

Except that they are defined by the law. If the law changed would they become moral? That sounds like you've switched positions.

I said 'universally'.

There is not good or evil. At all. It is quite clear: people don't know the difference between right and wrong when it comes to abortion, gay sex, animal rights, capital punishment or even killing. Right and wrong are arbitrary categories that can be switched back and forth at will. [/B]

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Option B. He was pretty staunchly against consequentialism, to the point where he would take their (strawmen) positions (sarcastically) just to screw with me. It freaked me out the first time he did it: he was supporting the torture shown on '24'.

Ironic, since I'm staunchly against deontology. Every time I read Kant I get sick.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Rofl. Keep twisting my words. When it's self defense or justified, it's called killing. Try again.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Seeing as how I've always advocated certain rules being laws because they are moral, I don't see where you got this. And they'll never be changed because it is wrong and immoral.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington

Bullshit. That just means a lot of things are subjective, while the argument was that everything is not subjective and there are SOME universal rights and wrongs/goods and evils. What you said does nothing to dispel that notion.

What are those universal evils? Tautologies based on changing laws won't work.