Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You'd think if he were as clever as he pretends he'd counter by pointing out that religious arguments rely on the same concept. He'd also notice that I'm using the word to mean circular logic, which isn't exactly accurate.
his argument about god not existing if people don't believe in him is a tautology, presuming you start from "there is no god"
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
God wants people to suffer and then go to hell. That sounds pretty evil to me.Satan wants to show you the truth about God and live your life according to you. That sounds pretty righteous to me.
That assumes you ascribe to those specific versions of God and Satan.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That assumes you ascribe to those specific versions of God and Satan.
Its all rubbish because neither side of the holy/unholy coin exists. Good and Evil are concepts of man, "measurements" against mans established moral and ethical code brought of about by concensus. Good and Evil are subjective concepts.
The whole idea of "Good" and "Evil" having a personification (i.e. God and Satan) is just a means to furthering Religios dogma and superstition (if your Good your get to hang out with God, if your bad you go hang out with Satan).
Originally posted by MilitantDog
Good and Evil are subjective concepts.
this is not related to God, nor have you proved the point.
There are things that are clearly objectively evil, as nobody can put forth a rational moral argument for them. We might argue that "rational" as it is used there is subjective, though nobody has yet to give me an instance where its ambiguity is a problem.
Originally posted by inimalist
this is not related to God, nor have you proved the point.There are things that are clearly objectively evil, as nobody can put forth a rational moral argument for them. We might argue that "rational" as it is used there is subjective, though nobody has yet to give me an instance where its ambiguity is a problem.
Please give an example of an objective evil. Good and evil are relative, and depending on the point of view, it will change.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please give an example of an objective evil. Good and evil are relative, and depending on the point of view, it will change.
morally justify the murder of a single innocent person.
but, do so without appealing to pragmatics, without adding conditions to the equation, and without appealing to the moral consequences. The act of killing the innocent MUST be what is MORALLY justified.
Originally posted by inimalist
morally justify the murder of a single innocent person.but, do so without appealing to pragmatics, without adding conditions to the equation, and without appealing to the moral consequences. The act of killing the innocent MUST be what is MORALLY justified.
The killing of an innocent person is wrong from the point of view of the individual and the society they live in, but we all die. In the bigger picture, this act makes very little difference. Therefore, from the point of view of the human race, the killing of an innocent person is neutral.
Morally justification has nothing to do with good and evil. There maybe two waring nations that both morally justify their stance on the war. If good and evil were absolutes, then this could never happen.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The killing of an innocent person is wrong from the point of view of the individual and the society they live in, but we all die. In the bigger picture, this act makes very little difference. Therefore, from the point of view of the human race, the killing of an innocent person is neutral.Morally justification has nothing to do with good and evil. There maybe two waring nations that both morally justify their stance on the war. If good and evil were absolutes, then this could never happen.
so this is your long way of saying that there is no moral justification for the killing of an innocent?
From the "perspective" of the human race is moot imho. The action affects the individual, that is where the harm is.
Saying morals are not important is not the same as morally justifying something. Also, war is not what I was talking about. I certainly wouldn't argue that war is black and white, hence why it is important to stick with the scenario I gave. We both know how easy it would be to make killing a morally grey action, thus, it is important to stick to the extremes in order to make the point of some degree of absolutist morality.
I am not saying there is a strict moral code of living or anything, just that there are some things for which there is no moral justification
Originally posted by inimalist
so this is your long way of saying that there is no moral justification for the killing of an innocent?From the "perspective" of the human race is moot imho. The action affects the individual, that is where the harm is.
Saying morals are not important is not the same as morally justifying something. Also, war is not what I was talking about. I certainly wouldn't argue that war is black and white, hence why it is important to stick with the scenario I gave. We both know how easy it would be to make killing a morally grey action, thus, it is important to stick to the extremes in order to make the point of some degree of absolutist morality.
I am not saying there is a strict moral code of living or anything, just that there are some things for which there is no moral justification
My only point was that good and evil are relative and not absolute. You can set up a scenario where good and evil seem to be absolute, but that is the nature of relativity. This is why I left your scenario behind. A clearly objectively evil is subject to the relativistic nature of good and evil, and therefore, may not always be clear.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
My only point was that good and evil are relative and not absolute. You can set up a scenario where good and evil seem to be absolute, but that is the nature of relativity. This is why I left your scenario behind. A clearly objectively evil is subject to the relativistic nature of good and evil, and therefore, may not always be clear.
ok
but this still leaves us with the fact there is no morally justifiable reason to kill an innocent person, and that killing an innocent person does harm to that individual, thus making the act immoral.
Because reality is more complex does not mean anything. 1+1 had to be worked out before transitional calculus or whatever. Leaving the scenario behind, imho, is essentially admitting that I am right.
Originally posted by inimalist
okbut this still leaves us with the fact there is no morally justifiable reason to kill an innocent person, and that killing an innocent person does harm to that individual, thus making the act immoral.
Because reality is more complex does not mean anything. 1+1 had to be worked out before transitional calculus or whatever. Leaving the scenario behind, imho, is essentially admitting that I am right.
Ok, I will try to relate a story I once heard. It is based on a true story, but I have lost all the details like the region where it took place and the name of the people.
There were these two groups of people who lived, isolated, in a landscape were the local resources were limited. These people lived on the verge of starvation, but found a way to survive. They limited their own population by killing each other. The rule was that a young man could not marry unless they kill a member of the other tribe (group). Most of the time the people who died were woman or children because it was harder to kill warriors. I think that woman and children count as innocent people, right?
In this scenario, if they did not kill each other, they would all die.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ok, I will try to relate a story I once heard. It is based on a true story, but I have lost all the details like the region where it took place and the name of the people.There were these two groups of people who lived, isolated, in a landscape were the local resources were limited. These people lived on the verge of starvation, but found a way to survive. They limited their own population by killing each other. The rule was that a young man could not marry unless they kill a member of the other tribe (group). Most of the time the people who died were woman or children because it was harder to kill warriors. I think that woman and children count as innocent people, right?
In this scenario, if they did not kill each other, they would all die.
Interesting. I would call that more of a pragmatic reason though, as the act of violence isn't being morally justified, other than through the morality of supporting one's family, though I don't know how salient I find that argument.
Basically, I don't see the negative being justified. The act is still wrong, though apparently necessary.
Originally posted by inimalist
Interesting. I would call that more of a pragmatic reason though, as the act of violence isn't being morally justified, other than through the morality of supporting one's family, though I don't know how salient [b]I find that argument.Basically, I don't see the negative being justified. The act is still wrong, though apparently necessary. [/B]
You can't justify a negative; ok, I will give you that. However, all you have to do is find the positive side of the event, and now you can justify that.
Our basic disagreement is that I believe all things can follow the path of good or evil, but are not good or evil themselves. In other words, the act of killing is not good or evil. The good or evil is in the mind of the person who is effected by the event. For example, if a lion kills a gazelle, we would see it as neutral, while the lion would see it as good, but the other gazelles would see it as evil.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You can't justify a negative; ok, I will give you that. However, all you have to do is find the positive side of the event, and now you can justify that.
I disagree. That logic can justify any form of oppression to a minority, given that the benefit is somehow weighted as larger than the cost. The oppression of blacks as slaves is easily then justified by the enormous benefit and growth to the economy and thus livelihoods of those who own or benefit from others owning slaves.
To me, it begins and ends with the individual. I cannot justify hurting you with how much benefit I will receive. If my own life were in danger (where I see the example you gave before as being a good one) then the equation changes.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Our basic disagreement is that I believe all things can follow the path of good or evil, but are not good or evil themselves. In other words, the act of killing is not good or evil. The good or evil is in the mind of the person who is effected by the event. For example, if a lion kills a gazelle, we would see it as neutral, while the lion would see it as good, but the other gazelles would see it as evil.
cool, and if that is how you choose to define things, that is wicked.
I'm talking about judging morality by less abstract ideas. Identifiable harm can and is done to individuals. We, as people, are able to see and quantify this harm.
I don't see the point of using animals in the discussion. With some rare exceptions, I am very comfortable saying that the discussion of morals is one specifically about humans, or if not, about how humans should treat animals. The act of an animal killing another is clearly not a moral issue.
Originally posted by inimalist
I disagree. That logic can justify any form of oppression to a minority, given that the benefit is somehow weighted as larger than the cost. The oppression of blacks as slaves is easily then justified by the enormous benefit and growth to the economy and thus livelihoods of those who own or benefit from others owning slaves.To me, it begins and ends with the individual. I cannot justify hurting you with how much benefit I will receive. If my own life were in danger (where I see the example you gave before as being a good one) then the equation changes.
I am keeping my own personal view out of it. Good and evil have been manipulated by powerful people for all of time. This maybe good or evil, it all depends on what side of the stick you are on. Generally, from a personal point of view, I agree with you, but I just wanted to bring up the bigger picture.
Originally posted by inimalist
cool, and if that is how you choose to define things, that is wicked.I'm talking about judging morality by less abstract ideas. Identifiable harm can and is done to individuals. We, as people, are able to see and quantify this harm.
I don't see the point of using animals in the discussion. With some rare exceptions, I am very comfortable saying that the discussion of morals is one specifically about humans, or if not, about how humans should treat animals. The act of an animal killing another is clearly not a moral issue.
I don't see why you should limit it to just one animal (humans).
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am keeping my own personal view out of it. Good and evil have been manipulated by powerful people for all of time. This maybe good or evil, it all depends on what side of the stick you are on. Generally, from a personal point of view, I agree with you, but I just wanted to bring up the bigger picture.
I don't disagree with what you are saying, I guess I'm looking to use a much more pragmatic view of good or evil. Like, calling something "evil" to me does not mean that we shouldn't do it if it is necessary for other reasons (ww2), nor does it mean we need to launch a policy of destroying evil.
It is simply a measure of measurable harm coming to someone, and whether or not there is reason for it. That people in power call things whatever doesn't bother me too much. They call themselves honest as well, I can't imagine you saying that "honest" is for that reason relative or a human construct with no independent meaning. (I guess you could argue that "honest" as a symbol is... blah, confusing)
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't see why you should limit it to just one animal (humans).
?
morals are a creation of man. thus it would be silly to expect animals to be able to conceive of them, let alone follow them.
Being human, we can probably only ever make judgments about how humans or human like creatures (sentience, language, abstract reasoning) should treat others.
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree with what you are saying, I guess I'm looking to use a much more pragmatic view of good or evil. Like, calling something "evil" to me does not mean that we shouldn't do it if it is necessary for other reasons (ww2), nor does it mean we need to launch a policy of destroying evil.It is simply a measure of measurable harm coming to someone, and whether or not there is reason for it. That people in power call things whatever doesn't bother me too much. They call themselves honest as well, I can't imagine you saying that "honest" is [b]for that reason
relative or a human construct with no independent meaning. (I guess you could argue that "honest" as a symbol is... blah, confusing)[/B]
😆 The word "honest" coming from a politician usually is a reason to not believe them.
Originally posted by inimalist
?morals are a creation of man. thus it would be silly to expect animals to be able to conceive of them, let alone follow them.
Being human, we can probably only ever make judgments about how humans or human like creatures (sentience, language, abstract reasoning) should treat others.
If you had said that morals where created by god, then we could have gone for a few more pages, but I agree with the essence of what you have said.
BTW good and evil are also creations of man.
Subjective Good & Evil 101 : The Crusades.
Crusaders: We're doing God's will by killing all the Arabs in the birthplace of our Lord. We're Good and they are evil.
Arabs: We're living here not bothering anyone. These Crusaders turn up and start killing us. We fight back to defend ourselves. We're Good and they are Evil.