|
| Thread: If we tried to reach something real and equal or greater than us... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 01, 2010 09:16 PM |
|
|
Mvass, that's not the point, and that wasn't the point of my post.
My post was intended to show that the notion of how evil a deed is from the perspective of the doer is just a matter of the excuse the doer has to justify the deed PERSONALLY.
Of course society doesn't allow PERSONAL excuses but only those the law allows.
If you go back to self-defence: the attacker may be the good guy attacking the bad guy... In that case the good guy has a good excuse for the attack. Still, the bad guy has a good excuse to counter-attack or self-defend.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted January 01, 2010 10:56 PM |
|
|
@VassilevQuote:
I don't agree. I think as long as there is more than one person on Earth, there is absolute good and evil. Yes, different societies have had different standards, but, as time went by, we mostly kept moving towards the optimal/best standard. Just because there are different standards doesn't mean there isn't one that's better than all the others.
Thats a large contradiction you presented there, bud. Never heard of this concept of relative absolute before. If it changes among different societies it is not absolute by definition nor extension of the meaning.
Cutting to the chase: If the morale values changed up to now (as you said yourself), that means they will keep changing. So that what you think its absolutely right and good today may prove to be bad and wrong in the future (near or distant). And if the good today is going to be percieved as bad by a more advanced society in the future, this is very probably bad BY NOW. We are just to primitive to notice it.
We all know that raping and killing a 3 y.o. is wrong. Those cases dont even need a discussion, they are the extreme of the degeneration spiral. Just as we all know that helping someone rebuild their house after a flood is good. But there are MANY things in between that are not clearly Good or Bad. And deep inside you know it.
I would most likely rephrase you very statement: 
As long as there is ONLY ONE PERSON on this Earth, there will be absolute right and wrong. (As soon as there are more than one, and your rights interfere with those of others, the interface between good and bad gets blurred).
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 02, 2010 02:24 AM |
|
|
Quote:
A person wants to be secure in his simplictic visions of the world and would love to see that he's validated in that.
If a person finds comfort in the simplistic view that morality is relative and good and evil don't exist, then that is what he will believe.
Personally, I find it disturbing that some people can say raping a baby is not immoral or not evil.
If ANY action is always immoral or evil that absolute morality exists.
Quote:
Quote:
And with every action a person takes that is against their conscience it becomes easier to go against it again.
Clearly you have no idea what regret is. Some people might consider this pitiful.
Huh? What I said has nothing to do with regret. I that taking actions that go against your conscious make it easier to repeat the action and to do furthur actions that go against your conscious. Your conscious thus becomes more and more "seared."
A serial killer does not [usually] start off withe people. He starts being unkind to animals. Then torturing animals. Killing animals. And then moves on to people.
Quote:
You see, this is all too easy for you. You can't imagine how some people wake up in the morning in the filth and mess that is their life and rob a convenient store in good conscience, so you imagine there must be this internal switch inside their heads that says "Okay, today I'll do something evil." and leave it at that. People are rather complex, though since you reject pschology, you would disagree. I don't like you, elodin.
I don't care if you like me or not, but you said I reject pschology, with is false. I don't necessarily subscribe to every popular theory in psychology however.
Oh, I grew up in poverty but never stole. Poverty is not an excuse to steal, kill, or rape. That is one thing I hate about liberalism. That philosophy makes excuses for evil actions and blames everyone but the person who did evil.
Quote:
Humour me, elodin, what is this truth? Now, what is this truth without God?
Like I said, "Ah, but really most of life is pretty simple. Good and evil are simple concepts that reflect the truth of life."
Now, I admit that atheists are in a particularly difficult situation in trying to justify (based on a materialistic world without God) the concepts of good and evil, morality and immorality based solely on the implications of a materialistic atheist world view.
However, most atheists do not actually have a materialistic atheist midset fortunately. Thus they will say this or that is "evil" or "good" even though such concepts as good and evil are counter to a materialistic atheistic world view.
If morality is only relative, how can the atheist get mad at someone who steals his car or rapes his daughter? After all, since good and evil don't exist their actions can't be considered wrong.
Quote:
An obvious example is self-defense. Someone is attacked and kills the attacker. The deed as such - the killing - is evil, however the excuse (or justification) is as good as it gets: self-preservation.
Murder is evil, not killing. Killing someone who is trying to kill you can in no way be equated with a person who breaks in a home and kills the family there.
Quote:
Good and evil are nothing but our current interpretation of facts.
I certainly have to take issue with that. The rape of a baby has always been, is now, and forever shall be evil.
I don't care if ancient Egyptians said it is ok or the Democratically controlled Congress voted to make raping babies legal. The action would still be evil.
What is good and evil does not change based on the political party in power. One day raping a baby is wrong. Then the next day Congress passes a law and BOOM now raping a baby is not only not evil but is good. Nope, I can't agree with that at all.
Quote:
Um... have you ever heard of survival of the fittest? A burglar may go in to steal stuff from peoples houses, but he may have no other options(a scenario which is extremely applicable today), Imagine if the burglar had a sister, that was pregnant, with little to no money. And with no jobs available, thats the only way to help her.
Survival of the fittest is "whatever you have the ability to do you have the right to do because good and evil don't exist." If you can't protect yourself against murderers, rapists, and thieves tough. You are "weak" and the "strong" will do what they wish to you.
I totally reject that concept.
People try to justify evil deeds in all sorts of ways, but that doesn't mean their actinos are any less evil. If you steal from me and my children starve you have murdered my children.]
People always have a choice. You can work more. Gather cans to sell. Do odd jobs. Beg. Apply for help from the government/churches/charities. Ask friends and neighbors for help, and if you have not lived your life as a jerk they will likely help.
Quote:
So he pulls out a gun and asks the clerk for batteries, only batteries.
Oh,so Hollywood is real life now, eh? The robber wouls still be wrong. He has no right to threaten the life of the clerk. In the real world if he explained the situation the clerk would help.
Quote:
Cutting to the chase: If the morale values changed up to now (as you said yourself), that means they will keep changing.
Perceptions of what is moral changed, not morality. Like I said there will never be a time when the rape of a baby is not evil.
Quote:
We all know that raping and killing a 3 y.o. is wrong.
Wait, I though you said good and evil don't exist.
As long as there is one thing that is always good or evil absolute morality exists.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2010 03:19 AM |
|
|
Wolf:
Actually, if there is only one person on Earth, there is no morality at all. Morality is dependent on whether society exists - but, as long as it does, what it should be is absolute. Morality can only address what is possible.
Quote:
If the morale values changed up to now (as you said yourself), that means they will keep changing. So that what you think its absolutely right and good today may prove to be bad and wrong in the future (near or distant).
Not quite. Morality is a pretty complicated and old thing, and being able to sit down and think about it is a relatively recent phenomenon. In the distant past, the development of morality solely relied on social evolution and people's innate characteristics. Then religion (and, later, nationalism) got involved. A legal code also became a factor. The mix became more and more complex. Now, though, we can look at the whole thing and decide what parts are good and what parts aren't. We don't necessarily have to either accept the whole thing or throw it out. Certainly, murder is objectively wrong. (But notice that if there is no one to murder, the question itself is irrelevant.) What about nationalism? That's generally not good. Etc.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted January 02, 2010 11:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Wolf:
Actually, if there is only one person on Earth, there is no morality at all. Morality is dependent on whether society exists - but, as long as it does, what it should be is absolute. Morality can only address what is possible.
Morality IS a code of conduct that can (and oftenly does) stem from the individual. A further use of the word morality, as a synonym for ethics, is out-dated. Ethics are a concept that cannot exist outside the reality of a group. That basically means, replace the word marked in red for "ethics" and you have made a correct statement.
Quote:
If the morale values changed up to now (as you said yourself), that means they will keep changing. So that what you think its absolutely right and good today may prove to be bad and wrong in the future (near or distant).
Not quite. Morality is a pretty complicated and old thing, and being able to sit down and think about it is a relatively recent phenomenon.
If you consider the greeks recent, such as Epicurus and Aristotle, than yes, indeed its recent.
You see the very fact that we have to sit down and discuss it proves the point that its not based on absolute guidelines, but interchangeable concepts.
@Elodin
Was taking you long enough for you to come up with the spicy sauce to the discussion. BABY RAPES ! Here, I'll give you something to think about. Even though I know what pathways this info is taking in your mind.
In justice there is a legal concept called inimputability. Which means there are certain severe medical conditions in which a "criminal" can't be blamed for his actions. For example: there are some very severe degrees of mental retardation in which the abuse of a child would not be considered an EVIL intent, but an absolute incapability of this offender to understand the rules of society. Just like a lion will not be evil nor feel any remorse for eating the new-born babies of a gazelle.
Those people are therefore not going to jail. They will have to be granted tutors, to keep them within the boundaries of social laws.
In biblical therms: the lord will not condemn those poor souls to the ethernal fire because of that rape. For it didn't stem from evil, but from a lack of understanding.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 02, 2010 04:00 PM |
|
|
The real question is: why does Elodin feel the need to bring the raping of babies into every discussion? I'm thinking Freud would having something to say about that.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 02, 2010 07:25 PM |
|
|
Wolf:
Okay, I was taking morality and ethics to be synonymous.
Quote:
If you consider the greeks recent, such as Epicurus and Aristotle, than yes, indeed its recent.
Yes, considering how long Homo sapiens has been around, that's very recent. Also, the Greek philosophers weren't influential enough in their time. Sure, they might have expressed their ideas to a few people, but the average guy somewhere was unaffected by them during their lifetime.
Quote:
You see the very fact that we have to sit down and discuss it proves the point that its not based on absolute guidelines, but interchangeable concepts.
Not at all. Think of it like this: a few generals are planning a battle. They may have disagreements among each other, but there is objectively an optimal way of fighting the battle.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 01:17 AM |
|
|
Mvass is basically saying that we tend to approach absolute morals as time passes (and different societies for that matter), like a limit of sorts. The problem is that this leads to the scenario where only the "strongest" society decides morality (somehow like survival), and clearly saying that evolution-style is some absolute truth is pretty ignorant might I add since letting power decide morality is a pretty dull thing to suggest.
It's not absolute, it's simply the majority viewpoint over time. The fact that we never reach the absolute limit is because the majority only influences it, but I doubt we'll ever have people with 100% same opinion.
Either way it's not absolute.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 01:23 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 01:24, 03 Jan 2010.
|
@JollyJoker:Quote:
People doing illegal things do not necessarily think that what they do is evil
more like almost never. And I cannot see the correlation with law and morality.
Quote:
but when push comes to shove tax-evasion or downöoading isn't that much different from robbing a gas-station
of course it is, saying otherwise is ignorant. Only in the latter do you deprive someone of what they already have, in effect hurting them of their current position. The first may have a different excuse than just "I'm poor": you may not want to feed the *******s at the government wasting your money or using it *against* you. And do you mean "downloading" in the latter, because that's just ridiculous, since that one doesn't do either.
Quote:
No one wants to do evil things (and it doesn't matter what is defined as "evil" here: moral evil, breaking the law "true" evil, no matter) FOR THAT REASON (i.e. doing evil things), except maybe Satanists.
Not just satanists. There are many people who like to see animals suffer for no other reason than that, and they know well what they do, unlike psychos. There are also quite a few who like to see people suffer -- not necessarily physical mind you.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 01:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The problem is that this leads to the scenario where only the "strongest" society decides morality (somehow like survival), and clearly saying that evolution-style is some absolute truth is pretty ignorant might I add since letting power decide morality is a pretty dull thing to suggest.
In a sense, you are correct. However, the strongest society could've gotten where it is by following its superior morality. (Of course, this is more true in the long term than in the short term.) However, evolutionary morality is slow, and, as noted above, we can now afford to look at what it got us with a critical eye and decide what we need and don't need.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 03:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
The real question is: why does Elodin feel the need to bring the raping of babies into every discussion? I'm thinking Freud would having something to say about that.
Implying that I molest kids is an evil and perverted thing to do and speaks volumes about what type of person you are. That would certainly be a severe COC violation but since when have anti-theists been held accountalbe for that?
Quote:
Those people are therefore not going to jail. They will have to be granted tutors, to keep them within the boundaries of social laws.
We know how well that works, don't we? There have certainly been a number of cases where the person was declared "cured" by psychologists and gone out and repeated the evil deeds.
You say God would not hold such a person accountalbe. I say that the person would most certainly be held accountable. It is quite rare for such a person not to try to cover up his crime. That means he is aware that what he is doing is wrong.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 06:18 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 06:25, 03 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
Implying that I molest kids is an evil and perverted thing to do and speaks volumes about what type of person you are. That would certainly be a severe COC violation but since when have anti-theists been held accountalbe for that?
You still see things and conspiracies where there is none. You asked for an even playing field and got it. I've been butting out. You want the penalties to start flying..I can do that.
Edit : Just be careful what you wish for. Because there will be no warnings, no 'taking it back' (ie editing for removal of penalty), and the CoC would be adhered to the letter, not the 'spirit'. So .. go ahead, now is your chance. Should I get reinvolved in the childish bickering and play 'nanny'?
____________
Message received.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 09:03 AM |
|
|
@Elodin
Quote:
We know how well that works, don't we? There have certainly been a number of cases where the person was declared "cured" by psychologists and gone out and repeated the evil deeds.
I don't know how that works in the US, but I can tell you how that works in Brazil, and inimputable cases have a much lower reincidence rate than any other sorts of regular criminal. Besides, there is no way curing those cases. They have to be monitored till the day they die. If there is no accountable tutor to do the job, that means closed psychiatric institution.
Quote:
You say God would not hold such a person accountalbe. I say that the person would most certainly be held accountable. It is quite rare for such a person not to try to cover up his crime. That means he is aware that what he is doing is wrong.
God, in his infinite wisdom, will most likely hold the person accountable who has left a 3yo alone with such a sick person.
@Vassilev
Quote:
Not at all. Think of it like this: a few generals are planning a battle. They may have disagreements among each other, but there is objectively an optimal way of fighting the battle.
Optimal and absolute are just as different as morals and ethics.
Understand me. Of course I know there is clearly an optimal way to deal with good and bad deeds. I just dont agree that means good and bad are absolute concepts. Much like, everything else.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 09:50 AM |
|
|
I can only support Wolfsburg: there is no absolute morals, never has been, never will be.
One reason for this is that it's one thing to sit on your favorite chair and discuss morals, but quite another to be in in some situation where morals are put to the test. And it doesn't even have to be really extreme situations like being on a sinking ship or something like that.
What do you think, if someone - anyone - finds a purse with the following contents:
a) a bit of small change, complete set of personal documents like driving licence, ID and so on;
b) the same plus more serious cash like a couple hundreds of dollars, euros or pounds.
c) the same plus a couple of credit and banking cards plus a list with all pin numbers
d) no clear ID, but serious cash
If you made that test with every single member of a given society, what do you think would be the result of that test?
Do you think the result would differ from a questioning of those people how they would act in such a situation?
There is no absolute moral and no moral is ever absolute.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 06:44 PM |
|
|
Wolf:
If there's an optimal way, then why isn't it the absolute best one? 
JJ:
Quote:
Do you think the result would differ from a questioning of those people how they would act in such a situation?
No, because some people are simply too stupid to understand moral reasoning at any meaningful level. Others refuse to learn any new morals after the age of ten or so.
To a few, though, if we were to explain what the best course of action would be and why, they'd listen.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 07:04 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Implying that I molest kids is an evil and perverted thing to do and speaks volumes about what type of person you are.
No, it's not. It's a genuine remark. Seriously, why do you need to reference it EVERY, SINGLE time? It's really distasteful of you.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Wolfsburg
Promising
Known Hero
... the Vampire Doc
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 10:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wolf:
If there's an optimal way, then why isn't it the absolute best one?
@Vassilev
I know its hard to understand. But what can I do, we are getting philosophic and moral dilemmas are a damn hard subject.
I'll try once more. If you are not convinced, we call it your victory.
From Thesaurus (Free Dictionary by Farflex)
optimal adj.
1. Most desirable possible under a restriction expressed or implied
absolute adj.
1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional:
You see Optimal is not only FAR away from absolute, but it is antagonic to it. So, we have an ethical code that elaborated optimal standarts. That means stricto sensu that our current code "is as good as the circumstances (restriction) will allow". The factor that prevent it from being absolutely correct is among many others the fact that our own lack of understanding imposes us a restriction.
There you go. My opinion is: indeed we aim towards an optimal ethical code. But its not an absolute parameter, and it will never be, once there will always be restrictions (whether situational or general).
Wolfs
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 10:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The real question is: why does Elodin feel the need to bring the raping of babies into every discussion? I'm thinking Freud would having something to say about that.
Because that seems to be the only real EVIL thing he can think about.....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 03, 2010 10:42 PM |
|
|
Wolf:
Well, that's kind of obvious. Taking that definition of "absolute", then no, absolute morals don't exist because morals themselves only exist under a restriction (society). But I don't agree with applying the definition that way, because morality can only exist under certain conditions, and so under those conditions, there is something that is absolutely optimal.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 04, 2010 02:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I can only support Wolfsburg: there is no absolute morals, never has been, never will be.
That's a bit of a blind statement to make -- one doesn't need to say that he/we know which are the absolute morals to acknowledge their possibility -- and I do not by any means refer to God or religion!
Just because someone is not aware, or heck, EVERYONE is not aware of them doesn't mean they are not available in concept. For example, imagine that there are a quadrillion different paths where you have to choose, and only one is 'absolute' (that sounds funny but it's just an analogy), and you have no idea. Just because you're not aware which, even though the concept (of choice and "one absolute") is there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There's no physical law saying that absolute morals have to be used by people, even if they existed. So drawing conclusions from human examples is nothing.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
