Originally posted by PVS
however your demands for absolute objectivity restrain any reasonable discussion of a dangerous mentallity/action/person. what do you call him? how do you identify a mentallity which delights in the misery/suffering/death of others? come up with a better word and maybe it will catch
Hey you can talk about the pros and cons of killing Jews if you feel like it I won't stop you. But that's not the topic of the thread. And if you want to talk about it calling his actions "evil" won't help. Since that is wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Hey you can talk about the pros and cons of killing Jews if you feel like it I won't stop you. But that's not the topic of the thread. And if you want to talk about it calling his actions "evil" won't help. Since that is wrong.
how is it wrong? you cant state philosophical school of thought as fact.
Originally posted by PVS
how is it wrong? you cant state philosophical school of thought as fact.
Actually I can. There's no logical way in which there can be absolute morals. So...I can stat that as much as a fact as lets say Evolution. Not a perfect fact, but so freaking likely.
If you can give any evidence supporting anyones claim that Hitler's actions are evil..then do, please...if not, understand that you are in the same line as people arguing for their Gods. No difference.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Maybe, but then what actions are "necessary" and "justified"?
none. 'necessary' and 'justified' are topics of human reasoning. but human reasoning and the generally accepted rules which govern them are the basis of our lives, whether or not we claim to be above it all. you would not just walk next door and kick your neighbor in the nuts for no reason, right? (i hope not)because that would be/not be *insert subjective term which only applies to human reasoning*
Originally posted by PVS
none. 'necessary' and 'justified' are topics of human reasoning. but human reasoning and the generally accepted rules which govern them are the basis of our lives, whether or not we claim to be above it all. you would not just walk next door and kick your neighbor in the nuts for no reason, right? (i hope not)because that would be/not be *insert subjective term which only applies to human reasoning*
A reasoning that changes over time. Totally subjective. If you want to say they are not generally seen as "necessary" or "justified" in your culture in your time...well, i guess I will agree.
Oh and I might do it if I think that the positive outcome for me is greater than the harmful consequences. But as of now I see the unlawfulness of it as a pretty bi obstacle. I also like my neighbour. If there was no law against it I'd kick Lord Urizen in the nuts though. repeatedly. Hard. And again. he'd probably enjoy it though. HeÄ's gay you must know.
almost every aspect of our lives is governed by subjective reasoning, and there are those who willfully go against such reasoning for the pleasure of control, power, revenge, causing suffering and death etc. what term should be applied to them? by your reasoning it should all be written off with the blanket term "unnecessary" and "unjustified". well then what differentiates the act of me speeding on a highway (most likely unjustified and unnecessary) and someone else attempting genocide?
Originally posted by PVS
almost every aspect of our lives is governed by subjective reasoning, and there are those who willfully go against such reasoning for the pleasure of control, power, revenge, causing suffering and death etc. what term should be applied to them? by your reasoning it should all be written off with the blanket term "unnecessary" and "unjustified". well then what differentiates the act of me speeding on a highway (most likely unjustified and unnecessary) and someone else attempting genocide?
No, not at all I think the terms "unnecessary" and "unjustified" are really shit. I also don't think that it is willfully going against it. It's just a different subjective reasoning.
As Goethe said, there is no crime I know of that I couldn't, under the right circumstances, commit.
Originally posted by Bardock42
No, not at all I think the terms "unnecessary" and "unjustified" are really shit. I also don't think that it is willfully going against it. It's just a different subjective reasoning.As Goethe said, there is no crime I know of that I couldn't, under the right circumstances, commit.
problem is this argument goes nowhere. as i said, every aspect of our lives is governed by subjective reasoning. everything we consider "fact" is really just a generally accepted interpretation based on our own perception. if we stretch this to its end, there is no room for discussing anything, let alone good and evil. a schizophrenic somewhere knows for a fact that dick cheney ordered the f.b.i. to implant tracking devices in their cavity fillings. we know for a fact that grass is green, though it really might not be. but where is the line drawn? why can we not identify an act as anything subjective, since in reality there is nothing objective about it besides the act in itself?
Originally posted by PVS
problem is this argument goes nowhere. as i said, every aspect of our lives is governed by subjective reasoning. everything we consider "fact" is really just a generally accepted interpretation based on our own perception. if we stretch this to its end, there is no room for discussing anything, let alone good and evil. a schizophrenic somewhere knows for a fact that dick cheney ordered the f.b.i. to implant tracking devices in their cavity fillings. we know for a fact that grass is green, though it really might not be. but where is the line drawn? why can we not identify an act as anything subjective, since in reality there is nothing objective about it besides the act in itself?
the difference is that it is obvious in this case and that talking against it is stupid. As I said if you want to talk about why you think his actions were bad, harmful, wrong that's cool. But to call his actions evil implies an universal moral code that is just severely lacking existence. Evil is a word used by people to imply that their actions are better than the actions of others. There's no reason to determine that. It should not be used. Not in the way it is meant nowadays at least.
Originally posted by PVS
bad, harmful, wrong, and even cool are purely subjective terms. so thus it is apparently incorrect to use them as well. look, i know the word "evil" has been whored in politics and world affairs, but does that negate it?
Absolutely. Which is why I said "Why you think ....". I can tolerate if you want to use evil as a subjective term that applies only to your opinion. But it is generally not meant as that. That's why, if you want to say Hitler's actions were evil, you'd have to add that only in your opinion. If you don't you imply absolute morals and if you do I will point out to you that there are none. Easy as that.
Originally posted by PVS
i have to add "in my opinion" after every opinion? can i just type that in my sig and be done with it?
No, you have to add in your opinion when using a word that implies general truth without being accepted as that...at all (or actually being wrong as in this case). Like "There is a God", "Homosexuality is wrong" and "The Moon is made of Cheese".
Originally posted by PVS
i have to add "in my opinion" after every opinion? can i just type that in my sig and be done with it?
Lord Urizen demands this kind of exactitude as well...except, of course, when he expresses his own opinions.
Bardock, you don't want to start sounding like Lord Urizen, do you?
Originally posted by Dr. Zaius
Lord Urizen demands this kind of exactitude as well...except, of course, when he expresses his own opinions.Bardock, you don't want to start sounding like Lord Urizen, do you?
Certainly not, but I won't step back from a (true) opinion just because you two might get the impression I behave like Lord Urizen. Which is weird anyways, since he hardly makes sense, while what I am saying is rather logical.