I thought I had already responded to this so sorry for the late response:
I agree but my thing is that I have no expectations for the morals of other people and how often they actually follow said doctrine.
Even those who believe in divine punishment habitually, consciously (and to the point that it becomes sub conscious) shit on those values everyday.
It's not that I have no notion of evil, but I don't openly use words such as good and evil in discourse because it never leads anywhere. Once the basic paradigm is understood, we can make observations on where the moral fabric is being cut (the meme of culture so to speak).
But this is always based on who you speak to so that's all I mean when I say I don't believe in evil. 2+2 = 11 when it comes to absolute understandings of evil (some men still pillage women for sex without any sort of consent and it's ok to them) so I often avoid these discussions.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
I get it, and I would never hold someone else to my moral standards (I may behave differently with them because of they way they act, but I can only make rules for myself).
Its just, personally I have trouble stopping at "well, its different for everyone, so there can't be evil".
It is a loaded term, and I would normally use terms like "absolute morality" or the like, but I certainly think they are semantically interchangeable.
Hitler acted maliciously. He hated the Jews and Communists and wanted to crush them and make them suffer. Mens rea, as practiced in law, attempts to measure to what degree this is expressed. Hitler read and told those close to him of his intentions so that there's no mistaking the actions, and he did not try to minimize those actions. He was evil.
Anything is justifiable. Slavery makes other peoples lives easier, there you go.
That may not be a justification that most people would agree with, but you would not be able to define what a 'good' justification entails. You cant define evil. It sucks, I know.
potentially, though not everything is morally justifiable
that is an argument from benefit.
benefit does not equal moral
what, do you think I had never considered this? lol
actually, I disagree. All people would agree with your argument, and if were only included tangible material consequences, you would have a proper justification.
However, economic benefit is not the same as morally correct. Something can produce beneficial results and still be immoral.
I cast a pretty wide net. Feel free to try another one though
I'd have to agree with you on something where there is some gray zone, the fact we are discussing Hitler and slavery though... These aren't issues that there are really 2 sides to.
also, thats a rather presumptive statement. My definition is that something for which there is no moral justification for is evil. As I admitted pages ago, there is always something subjective to what constitutes anything. That, for me, does not concede defeat, but rather acts as the starting point. like: "ok, so we get that we all see things differently, lets move from there".
awwwww, sympathy
that should read: you (Great Vengeance) are unwilling to define evil.
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Oct 10th, 2008 at 06:32 PM
not to just sound like a broken record, but if Hitler was not evil, then what is the possible moral justification for killing 6 million jews, homosexuals, and political opponents?
saying evil doesn't exist is a semantic argument, not a moral one. Semantically, you don't exist either, nor do any colours, nor does anything else. You have evidenced a limitation of language, not an inability to determine things are evil
__________________ yes, a million times yes
Last edited by tsilamini on Oct 10th, 2008 at 06:57 PM
I use no religious rhetoric in my definitions of good and evil.
To YOU they are, though I find that to be an incredibly limited view.
That also is a deflection of my charge, rather than an answer. There is still no moral justification for Hitler's actions, thus they were immoral.
thats ridiculous though
he was very obviously empathetic. He killed Jews, however, video of him with his friends from the Nazi party and Eva Braun shows what should be painfully obvious, that Hitler projected the image people are most familiar with, and he behaved generally like most people. The idea that Hitler was mentally insane is preposterous.
Also, he clearly was no idiot. He might be wrong and evil, but he had the brains.
And what is benefit? Things that are traditionally considered 'good' usually benefit somone in some way. You are drawing a distinction here that doesnt really exist.
See above.
Tangible material consequences? Making peoples lives easier, I.E. you clean the toilets so I dont have to is intangible. Good can be derived from it, even if alot of people wouldnt necessarily agree with the cost.
Slavery is immoral according to your standards. Not everyone has to agree with your morals, because there is no objective basis for it.
Ok, define moral justification. Absolute justification, not just your opinion.
All moral issues are gray areas.
Thats circular reasoning. Your defining evil by 'that which has no moral justification' yet you cant define what moral justification is in absolute terms.
As for the rest Im fine with you taking a stance on slavery being wrong, I agree with you, but surely you can admit that your opinion isnt universal.
If it was possible to establish objective morality I would be quite willing.
something being subjective does not mean it cannot be absolute.
conflating material benefit with moral correctness is a logical fallacy. Moral correctness often restricts one from behaving in ways that may be profitable at the expense of others.
A moral judgment is something which appeals to a person's emotions or sense of decency/right and wrong in order to justify an action.
No, I don't have any real qualifications for what stands as reasonable, and would largely agree that most moral distinctions are not black or white. Slavery and the actions of the Nazi party are not such actions. Especially given that there are no moral arguments. Give me something you consider to be a reasonable moral argument for slavery or the actions of the Nazi party and we can discuss it.
EDIT: the reason a material benefit is not a moral justification, is because it doesn't address the moral injustive being done to the individual. You aren't justifying the action, you are saying the end justifies the means, which is a material and not moral argument.
Something can be absolute within a specific paradigm but that goes without saying.
Accordingly, different churches believe different things under the same religion.
No opinion or paradigm is absolute (for all beings) period, but of course within certain constraints one may so it is absolute.
Having strong moral whatevers for a particular ideal means nothing because there is someone who feel just as strongly on the opposite opinion even if it doesn't make "logical" sense.
__________________ "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." - Thomas Gray
KMC Community Forums
Oct 7th, 2008 06:31 PM
