Originally posted by Bardock42
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.
Easy, easy! I was just kidding about the Lord Urizen thing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Just they "I think genocide is wrong" or even "Genocide is wrong" ....has much less claim of being absolute.
wrong is absolute. right....wrong....black....white. get it? there is no escaping implied absolute statements. "in my opinion" is just a pointless tag for people to not seem pompous. i however consider it a waste of time since opinion is imho already implied.
Originally posted by PVS
wrong is absolute. right....wrong....black....white. get it? there is no escaping implied absolute statements. "in my opinion" is just a pointless tag for people to not seem pompous. i however consider it a waste of time since opinion is imho already implied.
Fair enough, just wanted to make sure that you know that when you talk about "evil" you are talking about what you think is evil not what actually is evil. You seem to know. i am sure many others don't.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Fair enough, just wanted to make sure that you know that when you talk about "evil" you are talking about what you think is evil not what actually is evil. You seem to know. i am sure many others don't.
i passed? 😱 ....but....then why do i still know that hitler's acts were evil?
The trouble with your view, Bardock... apart from it being more or less inept in the area of actually trying to put intelligent thought into a difficult subject... is that it assumes that no-one is trying to know, merely defining things that they don'#t like. That's a silly thing to think.
You have deliberately given up even trying, so you are certainly in no position to question conclusions PVS has reached on what is evil or not.
Your own attempt to hold what you consider to be an enlightened opinion on the subject has rendered your ability to actually make a meaningful contribution to the debate round about zero.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The trouble with your view, Bardock... apart from it being more or less inept in the area of actually trying to put intelligent thought into a difficult subject... is that it assumes that no-one is trying to know, merely defining things that they don'#t like. That's a silly thing to think.You have deliberately given up even trying, so you are certainly in no position to question conclusions PVS has reached on what is evil or not.
Your own attempt to hold what you consider to be an enlightened opinion on the subject has rendered your ability to actually make a meaningful contribution to the debate round about zero.
The thing people like you do not understand is that there is a difference, between deciding what one themselves thinks is wrong and right and claiming that it must be universally accepted. To me Hitler's acts might even seem evil. I can give you reasons for that , as well as reasons against that. But it is just to me. It's not absolute. If there would be just one piece of evidence that there might be absolutes morals I wouldn't so furiously argue against it. And believe me I certainly believe that there might be a possibility that there are absolute morals, just as I consider the possibility that there is a God (even though absolute morals are even more unlikely than a God). So, please understand my view before you try to argue about it.
There is no real evidence for a lot of things in life that are nontheless fundamentally important- like love, for example- yet it sitll makes up a vital part of the Human experience. If you insist on having to rationalise every single thing in the world- which makes for a very dry and joyless life- check out Ethical Calculus.
Fact is, you are wrong to say I am not understanding anything. Not only do I understand perfectly the concept you are accusing me of, it is also untrue. I am not saying it MUST be univerally accepted, though I am very much convinced that those who reject it to the extent you are are simply fools. I would also say it would be a good and very desirable thing if everyone could reach such a conclusion. But again, you are most certainly wrong to imply that I think I have the perfect 'right/wrong' handbook.
The area of good and evil is a very complicated philisophical one, and to look at it and say "total relativism" is a conclusion that might look smart to a 16 year old who thinks he has found some brilliant new way of looking at the world, but weighed up against the subject as a whole it is simply facile and juvenile.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The trouble with your view, Bardock... apart from it being more or less inept in the area of actually trying to put intelligent thought into a difficult subject... is that it assumes that no-one is trying to know, merely defining things that they don'#t like. That's a silly thing to think.You have deliberately given up even trying, so you are certainly in no position to question conclusions PVS has reached on what is evil or not.
Your own attempt to hold what you consider to be an enlightened opinion on the subject has rendered your ability to actually make a meaningful contribution to the debate round about zero.
i think what bardock is trying to state is that 'evil' tends to be defined as absolute in a dangerous manner. while by our definition hitler was evil, if 'evil' is admitted as fact rather than the general opinion of 99.999% of the population, its a slippery slope. next thing insurgents in iraq can be labeled as "evil" and absolutely so. 'evil' in the past 5 years has been used to justify the torture of prisoners at guantonimo. but isnt torture evil? its not a word with any solidity. however i feel this particular dead horse has been beaten to the point of liquification.
Originally posted by PVS
i think what bardock is trying to state is that 'evil' tends to be defined as absolute in a dangerous manner. while by our definition hitler was evil, if 'evil' is admitted as fact rather than the general opinion of 99.999% of the population, its a slippery slope. next thing insurgents in iraq can be labeled as "evil" and absolutely so. 'evil' in the past 5 years has been used to justify the torture of prisoners at guantonimo. but isnt torture evil? its not a word with any solidity. however i feel this particular dead horse has been beaten to the point of liquification.
I have a feeling that some people would consider the use of the 99.999% figure as an example of the semantic nature of this thread.
I doubt that is the thrust of Bardock's argument at all. The thrust of his argument is simply that the concept does not exist.
But if what you say WAS the belief, I'll state without reservation that Relatvism will bring more woe to this world than absolutism. The logical extension of relatavism is to tolerate any action, and then you live in a moral void.
Despite people's attempts to cast dpown the ability of Humanity to be anything postive, the fact is that attempts to define a moral code have brought far more good than ill to all Humans.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is no real evidence for a lot of things in life that are nontheless fundamentally important- like love, for example- yet it sitll makes up a vital part of the Human experience. If you insist on having to rationalise every single thing in the world- which makes for a very dry and joyless life- check out Ethical Calculus.
I'm not insisting on rationalising every single thing in life though. Although it seems like it could be fun. I just want people to realize that there is no evidence to believe that morals are absolute. Sure, maybe the life of someone who believes in God is much fuller and more fun (I don't know), but there's still no evidence for the existence of one.
And thanks for the recommendation, I shall check it out.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Fact is, you are wrong to say I am not understanding anything. Not only do I understand perfectly the concept you are accusing me of, it is also untrue. I am not saying it MUST be univerally accepted, though I am very much convinced that those who reject it to the extent you are are simply fools.
Ahh, that is a fact now? I see. Besides I didn't say you didn't understand anything. that would be more than stupid to say.
Again, you don't understand my view. When I said that I don't deny the possibility that they exist I meant something along the lines of.....I don't deny that they might exist.
I also don't reject to life by morals I just reject to assume that they must be absolute. Get it? No? Didn't think you would.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
The area of good and evil is a very complicated philisophical one, and to look at it and say "total relativism" is a conclusion that might look smart to a 16 year old who thinks he has found some brilliant new way of looking at the world, but weighed up against the subject as a whole it is simply facile and juvenile.
Weirdly enough that is the same thing people with a view of moral relativism would say about people that don't.
Also, the conclusion looks pretty smart, although I understand it is hard to accept for people that have been conditioned to believe in absolute morals all their lives.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I doubt that is the thrust of Bardock's argument at all. The thrust of his argument is simply that the concept does not exist.But if what you say WAS the belief, I'll state without reservation that Relatvism will bring more woe to this world than absolutism. The logical extension of relatavism is to tolerate any action, and then you live in a moral void.
Despite people's attempts to cast dpown the ability of Humanity to be anything postive, the fact is that attempts to define a moral code have brought far more good than ill to all Humans.
however group logic defines a moral code. hitler had his own moral code and his followers believed it. they had become evil and didnt know it, but they did follow the strictest moral code...among 'pure' germans that is. jews were 'evil' and 'terrorists' 'subhuman' etc. their own code justified their actions. when generally accepted moral values are not left open for debate, they can be altered without question. gay people can become evil. women who have an abortion can be murderers. i can be locked up for reckless endangerment for driving 63 in a 55.
"I'm not insisting on rationalising every single thing in life though. Although it seems like it could be fun. I just want people to realize that there is no evidence to believe that morals are absolute. Sure, maybe the life of someone who believes in God is much fuller and more fun (I don't know), but there's still no evidence for the existence of one."
Well, fallacy one there is believing that there is a desperate need for you to tell people that there is no evidence for good or evil. Again, that is reducing the debate to the nursery. If there was a universal and uncontestable rulebook, the debate would not even exist.
Secondly, like a lot of people in your position, you drag God straight into an argument., What a pointless distraction! Religion is a form of absolutism, but don't imply that absolutism means religion.
Pedanticism won't help you. But it is certainly true that anything you have said I do not understand thus far, you are wrong to say so- I understand absolutely fine. Your argument is very, very basic and there is little to understand. You see, your smart-ass comment 'Get it? No? I didn't think you would' is untrue, and again only further exposes your juvenile attitude to the topic. Argue like a grown-up, please.
And any Relativist who dooes say that an absolutist is being basic is an idiot also. Relatavism is a simpler position than absolutism. All absolutism requires much more thought.
I;ve not been conditioned at all. And sensible proponents of absolutism are also not conditioned. What they are is thoughtful- something here that you lack.
Originally posted by PVS
however group logic defines a moral code. hitler had his own moral code and his followers believed it. they had become evil and didnt know it, but they did follow the strictest moral code...among 'pure' germans that is. jews were 'evil' and 'terrorists' 'subhuman' etc. their own code justified their actions. when generally accepted moral values are not left open for debate, they can be altered without question. gay people can become evil. women who have an abortion can be murderers. i can be locked up for reckless endangerment for driving 63 in a 55.
That brought ill.
I stand by my statement, however. The general development of moral code has brought far more good than ill to all Humans.
To use an example such as Hitler to try and defeat that statement is to mis-understand the statement. You can give any number of examples where those who thought they were doing right were patently not so from any reasonable definition, from the Inquisition to Stalin.
But if yo are therefore going to ignore the massive benefits that most moral codes have brought- for example, in allowing society to exist- in favour of finding specific counter examples, you kinda lose the debate by default.