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.
That's really not a fallacy though, I feel the need to tell people that they are wrong. How could it exist though? How? Any logical way? How is it unchangeable, why is it accepted? Who wrote it? Where came it from? Any answers?
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.
I don't want to say that absolutism is a religion. I am saying that the belief in it is very similar to the belief of Religious people in their deity. That's undeniable though, don't you think?
Pedanticism won;t help you. But it is certainly true that anything you have said I do not understand thus ar, you are wrong top say so- I understand absolutely fine. Your argument is very, veyr 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.
Good then. Lets pretend you understand. Then we can go on.
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.
Right, requires more thought. That's funny. Because it's wrong. It's a very basic and easy idea. Certainly just like relativism.
But please, if that's your view, give some evidence. How does it require more thought? Because I know some really, really dumb people who believe morals are absolute.
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.
How are they thoughtful? And lets not kid ourselves. We all have been conditioned to some extend.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
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.
your implication that i reject any general moral code is entirely unfounded.
when an absolutist code is purely considered absolute, there is no debating it. when their is no debating there is no thought, but rather blind acceptance and trust in a system.
if that unchecked system stagnates and/or becomes corrupted, it can very well become what that very system once defined as 'evil'. to weigh out successful absolutist societies with unsuccessful ones is irrelevant. they all have the potential to go disasterously wrong. not just have a bad patch, but completely fall into a shit pit of misery and evil.
so to stand tall and declare for a fact that anything is evil, in a 'stfu to all who disagree' mentallity is within the same thought pattern as what we declare as evil, whether it be nazis or al qaeda.
"That's really not a fallacy though, I feel the need to tell people that they are wrong."
No, you feel the need to tell religious people there is no evidence for God- that's as far as it goes. Again, as I say, simply saying to people "there is no evidence for good and evil" is like trying to say that the sky is blue in a debate about the atmosphere. It so happens that that concept is kinda built into the debate; absolutism is a position to hold in spite of that, not destroyed by it. I did actually explain that to you, so it does seme that you are the one with understanding problems.
How can you not understand that absolutism requires more thought than relatavism? Again, for someone who makes out he is a sophisticated and intelligent person. you miss a lot of easy concepts, Bardock.
Simple- relatvism requires nothing. Absolutism requires something.
Relatavism does not require anything at all to exist- it is simply the default if there is no absolutism. It is a very, very easy position to hold.
Absolutism requires something. Often this takes the form of a God, but always it involves something. And so, fundamentally, it is always one step more cimplex than relatavism.
Your implication of conditioning was again religious. But intelligent people are beyond such worries. Trying to imply that absolutists have been conditioned- certainly if also holding a view that relatavists are not- is being self-deceptive.
Re: Was Hitler...EVIL?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
In fact, he did do what HE felt was best for humanity...so he wasn't acting out of malice but HE thought he was doing what was right.
No, that's wrong. He did it for his people and for his vision of a world in which the blue eye blonde light skin person would lived. It was pure malice...pure sinister ambition...and it was done with the intention of exterminate a group who obstructed his vision. His extermination of the Jews was out of revenge for his STUPID idea that the Jewish were destroying Europe economically.
Originally posted by PVS
your implication that i reject any general moral code is entirely unfounded.
when an absolutist code is purely considered absolute, there is no debating it. when their is no debating there is no thought, but rather blind acceptance and trust in a system.if that unchecked system stagnates and/or becomes corrupted, it can very well become what that very system once defined as 'evil'. to weigh out successful absolutist societies with unsuccessful ones is irrelevant. they all have the potential to go disasterously wrong. not just have a bad patch, but completely fall into a shit pit of misery and evil.
so to stand tall and declare for a fact that anything is evil, in a 'stfu to all who disagree' mentallity is within the same thought pattern as what we declare as evil, whether it be nazis or al qaeda.
Err, I did not say that you reject any general moral code. Try again.
Btw, you are confusing the position of being someone who believes in moral absolutism, and producing a code which is said to be 'morally absolute'. Big mistake, try not to do that. Moral absolutists in the modern day- religious zealots aside- root themselvbes in the belieft that the truth of good and evil is not yet known, but we are trying to get closer to it all the time.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, I did not say that you reject any general moral code. Try again.
i said that you suggested it, or why debate the pros cons of relativism and absolutism.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Btw, you are confusing the position of being someone who believes in moral absolutism, and producing a code which is said to be 'morally absolute'. Big mistake, try not to do that.
my bad then, it just seemed like you were debating two sides of a coin.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Moral absolutists in the modern day- religious zealots aside- root themselvbes in the belieft that the truth of good and evil is not yet known, but we are trying to get closer to it all the time.
i guess as long as a mass delusion of final realisation is never reached, then thats a safe route
It is indeed a widely held position that the 100% accurate truth on it will never be discovered, or at least not whilst Humans are in their current evolutionary stage, or whatever you belief in that area.
A lot of people attack absolutists for trying to enforce their beliefs upon others. That's not absolutists you are attacking, it is something else, Absolutism is not the adoption of your personal beliefs as being better than everyone else's. it is the belief that an ultimate truth for good and evil does exist, not that we know what it is.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
"That's really not a fallacy though, I feel the need to tell people that they are wrong."No, you feel the need to tell religious people there is no evidence for God- that's as far as it goes. Again, as I say, simply saying to people "there is no evidence for good and evil" is like trying to say that the sky is blue in a debate about the atmosphere. It so happens that that concept is kinda built into the debate; absolutism is a position to hold in spite of that, not destroyed by it. I did actually explain that to you, so it does seme that you are the one with understanding problems.
How can you not understand that absolutism requires more thought than relatavism? Again, for someone who makes out he is a sophisticated and intelligent person. you miss a lot of easy concepts, Bardock.
Simple- relatvism requires nothing. Absolutism requires something.
Relatavism does not require anything at all to exist- it is simply the default if there is no absolutism. It is a very, very easy position to hold.
Absolutism requires something. Often this takes the form of a God, but always it involves something. And so, fundamentally, it is always one step more cimplex than relatavism.
Your implication of conditioning was again religious. But intelligent people are beyond such worries. Trying to imply that absolutists have been conditioned- certainly if also holding a view that relatavists are not- is being self-deceptive.
Wow, do you realize that you always pick out just one part of my post and then reply to that in a totally unrelated matter? Would you please do me the favour and answer my questions as well as counter my arguments instead of doing that?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I actually answered them all. Try reading more carefully. Seriously, that's a bad mistake you just made. I carefully replied to your entire post. Have some courtesy.
I was asking you how absolute morals could exist.´Where they came from, etc.
"How could it exist though? How? Any logical way? How is it unchangeable, why is it accepted? Who wrote it? Where came it from? Any answers?"
Please, any answers, just a bit would be nice to take an opinion like that serious. Since as of now there is zero implication for them
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.
Hmm......kinda like in the Abortion threads when I stated "Abortion is immoral", and you had to insist "it's just your opinion."
Also kind of like any argument I make in terms of immorality being anything that aims to harm a human being, and you had to so impulsively conclude, "you mean in terms of YOUR morality"
Bardock, you're a pretty funny, entertaining, child-like kinda guy.
But don't be a Hypocrit 👇
Sarcasm and lack of seriousness suits you much better. Stick to that. 😉
dude, stfu
:edit: sorry, but that was my first thought. now for my second:
ush never implied that anti-abortion was the universaly desired moral code of absolutist thinking.
and ush, pay close attention to the dangerous leap in logic which absolutist thinking brings about with regards to people who have no idea of the concept but hear "absolute" and feel all tingly. remember that morals are manmade, thus made by organic evolving minds. some of what we do may be considered reprehensable in the future, while other things considered reprehensable today may later be acceptable.
where im going with this is that this way of thinking, however well in intent, is easily hijacked.
urizon is not a fluke. many people are set in a set of their OWN morality and immediately consider it to be absolute morality. put one of these people into power and its enforced subjective morality. it just seems that too many people today are following this pattern, so "good" and "evil" are shadey and blurry and thus should be questioned and kept firmly in check, at the risk of annoying some.