NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe that things can be inherently good or evil? In any circumstances could Mother Teresa be evil and Adolf Hitler good? Are these concepts set in stone, or are they simply created by man to justify his own actions?

Good and Evil are simply ways to labels used to categorize "them" and "us"

Reality is impersonal, therefore any labels are simply human constructs. There is no objective good or evil.

Mentat Supremacy']Good and Evil are simply ways to labels used to categorize "them" and "us"

Reality is impersonal, therefore any labels are simply human constructs. There is no objective good or evil.

How about child molestation? Would you argue that it isn't a necessarily evil thing to do?

Mentat Supremacy']Good and Evil are simply ways to labels used to categorize "them" and "us"

Reality is impersonal, therefore any labels are simply human constructs. There is no objective good or evil.

I agree

How about child molestation? Would you argue that it isn't a necessarily evil thing to do?

Hold off on shooting me here...

But for the person who is turned on by the little kiddies...getting off with them could be seen as good to that individual.

How about child molestation? Would you argue that it isn't a necessarily evil thing to do?
what do you define as child molestation? Would sex with a minor count?

Mentat Supremacy']Good and Evil are simply ways to labels used to categorize "them" and "us"

Reality is impersonal, therefore any labels are simply human constructs. There is no objective good or evil.
Correct.

How about child molestation? Would you argue that it isn't a necessarily evil thing to do?

From a Human perspective it would be evil, but then evil would still be a human construct.

I believe that the relativity of morality is a false concept advanced by those who simply want to justify certain actions. I believe in an absolute moral standard.

what do you define as child molestation? Would sex with a minor count?
Humans reach sexual maturity at age 12 or 13 dude. If anything setting a legal age limit to have sex at 17 or 18 goes against the natural way of things. Ever read romeo and juliet? Its all about teenagers screwin.

Mother Teresa be evil and Adolf Hitler good?

Who's "Mother Teresa"?

But if you think about it, "Adolf Hitler" (not his true name according to his geneology) could be "good", and most likey was. What happened was he decided to protect his country during World War I, but in one specific battle practicely everybody else in his division was killed, but Hitler. He survived, and most likely was simply not mentally sane for the rest of his life. He could of been a good guy under all that, because he was an artist.

Then again, if you look at it quickly, he's "evil"...

Even the Christian Devil could be seen as not actually "evil," regardless of how many times religious forces the black and white concept on us all.

Assuming that everything in the bible is fact...

Lucifer was the best angel and the most beautiful. God made humans, which he obviously liked better and held in a higher regard, and because of this Lucifer got jealous. Wouldn't you get jealous if someone told you someone else was better than you for no other reason than that they are? Wouldn't you try to sway others, especially God's son, to your viewpoint?

Is Satan just another side of God...more of a ying-yang thing than good vs. evil? Once again...don't take me too literally...just food for thought.

I believe that the relativity of morality is a false concept advanced by those who simply want to justify certain actions. I believe in an absolute moral standard.

Again, an absolute moral standard created by humans.

Who's "Mother Teresa"?


A Catholic woman who became famous for her efforts to aid people in third world countries. Many people consider her to be the epitome of altruism.

How about child molestation? Would you argue that it isn't a necessarily evil thing to do?
It's relative. To us, it would be evil, but to the molester, it might be good. Kind of like motion. Relative to the sun, we are always in motion, but relative to my computer desk right now, I am not in motion.

I don't believe in people being born "good" or "evil" However I think that some people may be more likely to perform good or evil actions in their lives based on what they inherit and their genetics, but that if those good or evil traits are expressed or not is due to their environment and similar factors during their lives. I don't think anyone is born 100% Evil or 100% good.
Thus I believe that anyone can be capable of good or evil actions in their lives, and that thus there is the danger of being lead down the path of evil for everyone, but also the hope that there is still some good in all people.

Again, an absolute moral standard created by humans.


Actually, one established by God. If we were to establish a moral standard, it wouldn't be absolute ;)

Even the Christian Devil could be seen as not actually "evil," regardless of how many times religious forces the black and white concept on us all.

Assuming that everything in the bible is fact...

Lucifer was the best angel and the most beautiful. God made humans, which he obviously liked better and held in a higher regard, and because of this Lucifer got jealous. Wouldn't you get jealous if someone told you someone else was better than you for no other reason than that they are? Wouldn't you try to sway others, especially God's son, to your viewpoint?

Is Satan just another side of God...more of a ying-yang thing than good vs. evil? Once again...don't take me too literally...just food for thought.


Several assertions in your post are logically incorrect. First, the Bible never really discusses Lucifer's origins in depth, that was mainly done by individuals such as Milton in "Paradise Lost". Also, even in that story Lucifer was cast into Hell for rebellion long before God created man.

Humans can be good or evil. They are born for a penchant for both, but are ultimately forged by their actions.

How about child molestation? Would you argue that it isn't a necessarily evil thing to do?

Wasnt it common for the Romans to get it on with young boys? It wasnt defined as evil back then.

Humans can be good or evil. They are born for a penchant for both, but are ultimately forged by their actions.

Kinda sounds like an ad for a video game

Hitler was good, Raping children is relative....Hmmm

Looks like some of you people are walking around in the dark, banging your heads into the wall and claiming that the blackness is relative.


I guess we can see that Man's intellect is still intact and fully operational.

Hitler was good, Raping children is relative....Hmmm

Looks like some of you people are walking around in the dark, banging your heads into the wall and claiming that the blackness is relative.


I guess we can see that Man's intellect is still intact and fully operational.

I think its more of a Hilter is bad and raping kids is bad but the concepts of good and evil are man made and therefore change over time.

I think its more of a Hitler is bad and raping kids is bad but the concepts of good and evil are man made and therefore change over time.

And when a mathematical process results in an erroneous answer, we need to throw the process out and find one that works. Obviously the end result of that exercise results in bad data since it ends up saying dark is light and light is dark.

I believe that the relativity of morality is a false concept advanced by those who simply want to justify certain actions. I believe in an absolute moral standard.

For nearly ANY "evil" you can name, I can find a society in the past that considered it "good". THAT is the very essence of subjectivity.

Moral absolutism is a false concept advanced by those who want to justify their actions while condemning the actions of others. It's effectively a form of moral egotism - "I believe this, therefore, it is right and proper. Anyone who disagrees is immoral and wrong."


Actually, one established by God. If we were to establish a moral standard, it wouldn't be absolute ;)

That is, of course, you accept that there IS a God that both sets morality and enforces it.

Though, even if there is, the fact remains that any number of religions exist, and most of them disagree on what "good" and "evil" are... so again, subjective.

I think its more of a Hilter is bad and raping kids is bad but the concepts of good and evil are man made and therefore change over time.
My primary personality agrees with you, that there is an absolute good and evil
but yet my more idealogical side says, what is good and evil but the acceptance of certain actions into our own culture...My first personality was born out of a slight catholic upbringing and ridged code of ethics... My second personality was born out of confusion of my world, my parents are of seperate races, religions and cultures, from this i took a more open view of many other cultures....my second personality can see how each culture and religion came to be, and believes that there is no right and wrong, there is only cause and effect.

And when a mathematical process results in an erroneous answer, we need to throw the process out and find one that works. Obviously the end result of that exercise results in bad data since it ends up saying dark is light and light is dark.

Except the fact that colors dont have anything to do with this. You assume there is a constant good and evil. Hence the light and dark reference. I go more along the lines that good and evil is a human construct and changes over time. Example slavery. A horrible practice that was looked upon as acceptable and right at a time. Now its evil and wrong. The fact that you lock yourself into the mindset of the there is only good and evil it cant change makes you biased and is the cause of the erroneous answer. Solution we need to throw you out.

I don't believe in people being born "good" or "evil" However I think that some people may be more likely to perform good or evil actions in their lives based on what they inherit and their genetics, but that if those good or evil traits are expressed or not is due to their environment and similar factors during their lives. I don't think anyone is born 100% Evil or 100% good.
Thus I believe that anyone can be capable of good or evil actions in their lives, and that thus there is the danger of being lead down the path of evil for everyone, but also the hope that there is still some good in all people.

I used to work in one of the most violent prisons in the U.S. and I must say that your observations / belief is extremely insightful. The unit I worked in housed inmates that other states simply could not contain due to escape or extreme violence. In all those years I never found even one individual that didn't at some point demonstrate at least the capacity for some good. What I did find most often was a consious effort to align themselves with evil and viewing "good" with weakness.

Except the fact that colors dont have anything to do with this. You assume there is a constant good and evil. Hence the light and dark reference. I go more along the lines that good and evil is a human construct and changes over time. Example slavery. A horrible practice that was looked upon as acceptable and right at a time. Now its evil and wrong. The fact that you lock yourself into the mindset of the there is only good and evil it cant change makes you biased and is the cause of the erroneous answer. Solution we need to throw you out.

Just because something is socially acceptable does not make it right. If something is wrong, such as, the two previous conclusions, that Hitler is good and raping children is relative, then I again reiterate, you are suffering from self-inflicted blindness.

Just because something is socially acceptable does not make it right. If something is wrong, such as, the two previous conclusions, that Hitler is good and raping children is relative, then I again reiterate, you are suffering from self-inflicted blindness.

First of all the practices i refered to were not considered just socially acceptable they were considered to be right and good during the times they were prevalent.
Slavery was viewed as right. Racial superiority was viewed as right. Stoning an adulterer was considered to be right. I am not saying that good and evil dont exist. I am saying they are a man made concept like time and that they change depending on social, economic, and moral conditions of the times. To considered good and evil set in stone destroys and self defense pleas or insanity pleas in the court of law. Do you think its wrong to kill in self defence?

That is, of course, you accept that there IS a God that both sets morality and enforces it.

Though, even if there is, the fact remains that any number of religions exist, and most of them disagree on what "good" and "evil" are... so again, subjective.



That's assuming every religion is correct...which cannot be so.

First of all the practices i refered to were not considered just socially acceptable they were considered to be right and good during the times they were prevalent.

Even when slavery was prevalent and as oppressive as anytime in history, such as North American during the nineteenth century... There were people that 'knew' it was wrong. Some of them always knew it was wrong. Again, I submit, that just because something is socially acceptable, legal and respected in a society, it does not make it right. Wrong is wrong, right is right. It's surprisingly simple that way.



(Although I admit that as humans we can and do fool ourselves from time to time via familiarity with an evil, it makes it hard for us to see it being so close to it. But, it doesn't make it any less evil just because we don't see it.)

Even when slavery was prevalent and as oppressive as anytime in history, such as North American during the nineteenth century... There were people that 'knew' it was wrong. Some of them always knew it was wrong. Again, I submit, that just because something is socially acceptable, legal and respected in a society, it does not make it right. Wrong is wrong, right is right. It's surprisingly simple that way.



(Although I admit that as humans we can and do fool ourselves from time to time via familiarity with an evil, it makes it hard for us to see it being so close to it. But, it doesn't make it any less evil just because we don't see it.)

So if I say spending money is wrong its wrong?

So if I say spending money is wrong its wrong?

I do not determine what is right or wrong, it exists outside of me. A never before seen rock buried in the earth is real whether we are aware if it or not. And the reality of right and wrong is usually partially covered to us when we are looking at it, but it still exists in it's entirety.

Except the fact that colors dont have anything to do with this. You assume there is a constant good and evil. Hence the light and dark reference. I go more along the lines that good and evil is a human construct and changes over time. Example slavery. A horrible practice that was looked upon as acceptable and right at a time. Now its evil and wrong. The fact that you lock yourself into the mindset of the there is only good and evil it cant change makes you biased and is the cause of the erroneous answer. Solution we need to throw you out.

the colours are only are symbolic in meaning, but if you ask me there is no good and evil today in this modern world. Everything now is a grey area, all that we is both good and evil. Like take the slavery now a day we find this as an evil thing, but those slaves helped build our society to what it is today. Another example is when a mall is built on a wetland. This will create jobs and it good for humans. But just think of all the animals and plant life you kill so that you are killing life and in today’s society we value life and are committing murder. Only that they are things that seem to us of lesser value. Every we do can’t be considered good or evil it really is just neutral and point of view.

I do not determine what is right or wrong, it exists outside of me. A never before seen rock buried in the earth is real whether we are aware if it or not. And the reality of right and wrong is usually partially covered to us when we are looking at it, but it still exists in it's entirety.

So if right and wrong exist outside of you and I where is it in nature? And if it is a concept that exists outside of us then why are there so many different forms of good and evil?

Even when slavery was prevalent and as oppressive as anytime in history, such as North American during the nineteenth century... There were people that 'knew' it was wrong. Some of them always knew it was wrong. Again, I submit, that just because something is socially acceptable, legal and respected in a society, it does not make it right. Wrong is wrong, right is right. It's surprisingly simple that way.


If it's so simple to see that it's wrong then why did people support slavery then? It's all point of view, one person can see something as correct while another can see something as wrong. And you saying well it's wrong because it just is doesn't make you anymore correct since the opposing side can say the same thing can it not?

its all in ur mind there is no set concept like talking about big and small and short and tall and ugly and pretty every single person thinks something else

i do believe that there is a good and an evil and i do not believe in god or the devil but i do believe in corrupting agents(known as money and mans own mind, etc)

i am (not just by my own saying but by others as well) evil and im not ashamed to admit it because thats just how i am and its fun : )

Actually, one established by God. If we were to establish a moral standard, it wouldn't be absolute ;)
Yes, but did "God" actually establish it, or did humans "working with his inspiration". Either way you look at it, your moral standard was created by humans, since your "God" clearly doesn't like to come down and just hand us stuff. That would ruin the "faith"...

If it's so simple to see that it's wrong then why did people support slavery then? It's all point of view, one person can see something as correct while another can see something as wrong. And you saying well it's wrong because it just is doesn't make you anymore correct since the opposing side can say the same thing can it not?
the fact taht the slaves were all of african origin/desent is wrong if it was the way it was back in early times where people conquered slaves by war that would be ok because it was not completely suppressing an entire culture/race because we thought they were not people/equal to us

Question to those who chose #2: If there is no god, who originally decided what things are 'right' and 'wrong'?

...And to add to the discussion:

MY belief is that, as many posters have already said, morals and "good/evil" are relative and dependant on who is saying them. They are all human constructs designed to influence people to act or behave a certain way.

the fact taht the slaves were all of african origin/desent is wrong if it was the way it was back in early times where people conquered slaves by war that would be ok because it was not completely suppressing an entire culture/race because we thought they were not people/equal to us

Well back then those who practiced it didn't believe it to be wrong otherwise they would be out of a job/workers, but what makes them beliving it right any more correct then you beliving it wrong?

So if right and wrong exist outside of you and I where is it in nature? And if it is a concept that exists outside of us then why are there so many different forms of good and evil?

Sometimes a bug might look like a leaf, and being a leaf, it avoids danger stays alive to reproduce non-violently. Other times, a predator will look like a leaf (or hide with camouflage) so that it can get close and capture it's prey, so that it can stay alive and reproduce offspring...

Perhaps, life and death aren't the only credentials for determining right and wrong? Perhaps right and wrong are more important than life and death?

If you have life, you will have death. But just because you’ve had life and death does not mean that you’ve ever given up wrong for right. Perchance someday, you might be struck with a moment of pure clarity, for even the briefest of moments, then you too will know that there is truth and good, even when you can’t see it again afterwards.

But really, I’m not the person that’s going to be able to tell when and where to look. I wouldn’t give up entirely on the thousands of years of accumulated insight though, there might be something in there for you too.

Question to those who chose #2: If there is no god, who originally decided what things are 'right' and 'wrong'?
nobody originally did, the people who originally taught us were out parents

and society decides what is right and wrong for the most part as well as religion, culture, time period, etc.

and there are no set guidelines like this is bad and this is good but it changes based on the cicumstances and the person viewing it, somebody would think it was a lot worse if someone killed a baby as opposed to a mass murderer
and someone would think it was a lot worse if a crook killed a crooked cop that the other way around IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE POINT OF VIEW THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER ONLY OPINIONS

If it's so simple to see that it's wrong then why did people support slavery then? It's all point of view, one person can see something as correct while another can see something as wrong. And you saying well it's wrong because it just is doesn't make you anymore correct since the opposing side can say the same thing can it not?

No. Just because it's hard for us to discern good from evil from time to time, doesn't make it any less real.

Well back then those who practiced it didn't believe it to be wrong otherwise they would be out of a job/workers, but what makes them beliving it right any more correct then you beliving it wrong?
because they are people just as much as anyone else is im just opposing the fact that it was all black slaves and that the belief was that black people werent actually people but more like animals and it did not matter what happened to them, you could not own a person but you could own a black man or woman

i do believe that all men and women are born(not created) equal, they are just born into different circumstances and with different abilities and thats what makes up their lives and so just because of the circumstances of their birth they shouldnt be persecuted

Even when slavery was prevalent and as oppressive as anytime in history, such as North American during the nineteenth century... There were people that 'knew' it was wrong. Some of them always knew it was wrong. Again, I submit, that just because something is socially acceptable, legal and respected in a society, it does not make it right. Wrong is wrong, right is right. It's surprisingly simple that way.



(Although I admit that as humans we can and do fool ourselves from time to time via familiarity with an evil, it makes it hard for us to see it being so close to it. But, it doesn't make it any less evil just because we don't see it.)
except if you lived in a different time then what u saw as right and wrong would be different so its not quite so simple, it also depends on what country you are born in and to what society that changes ur views of good and evil and right and wrong so it is never simple, morality is the most difficult thing on earth because everyone thinks that their opinion is right and no two people have the same opinions so there are 6+ billion opinions

Sometimes a bug might look like a leaf, and being a leaf, it avoids danger stays alive to reproduce non-violently. Other times, a predator will look like a leaf (or hide with camouflage) so that it can get close and capture it's prey, so that it can stay alive and reproduce offspring...
You keep going with the black and white definition of good and evil and that there is no grey or in between. But what we are talking about is a concept that evolves with the times and changes because of social, moral, and economic implications.

Perhaps, life and death aren't the only credentials for determining right and wrong? Perhaps right and wrong are more important than life and death?
Duh thank you captain obvious.

If you have life, you will have death. But just because you’ve had life and death does not mean that you’ve ever given up wrong for right. Perchance someday, you might be struck with a moment of pure clarity, for even the briefest of moments, then you too will know that there is truth and good, even when you can’t see it again afterwards.
I am sorry but you lost me there with the life and death analogy which seems to not relate at all to the topic at hand. And less attempts at lecturing me and more answering the questions i asked. Like if good and evil are concepts outside of ourselves where is it in nature? And if good and evil are concrete concepts then why are there so many different versions of them.

But really, I’m not the person that’s going to be able to tell when and where to look. I wouldn’t give up entirely on the thousands of years of accumulated insight though, there might be something in there for you too.
I love how you try to appear so nice and not condescending even though you did say I have a self imposed blindness some posts back. And on the thousands of years of accumulated insight. What about the many changes to the concepts that have occured during the thousands upon thousands of years that have passed?

For nearly ANY "evil" you can name, I can find a society in the past that considered it "good". THAT is the very essence of subjectivity.

Moral absolutism is a false concept advanced by those who want to justify their actions while condemning the actions of others. It's effectively a form of moral egotism - "I believe this, therefore, it is right and proper. Anyone who disagrees is immoral and wrong."

Okay, I'll bite.

1) You're engaging in the Naturalistic Fallacy here. Even supposing you were right in that there is no one value that has been universally endorsed or rejected in history, it still says nothing about whether or not that value should have been universally endorsed or rejected.

2) There are values that have been universally endorsed and rejected in the past. There has never been nor ever will be a society that endorses practices that lead directly to the self-destruction of those societies. No society, for instance, has endorsed the practice of unrestricted killing of any person that gets within one mile of you, for instance, nor has there ever been a society that prized cowardice in battle above all others, because those virtues are incompatible with society itself. As man is by nature a social animal, those values that are at odds with the natural desire to form societies will never be endorsed as "moral" values to embrace.

3) For my part, I tend to think of post-modernist junk like moral relativism to be the slipshod thinker's egoism. If the only thing that remains constant and certain in the world is the fact that you have desires, then the only constancy you will have in your action is the fulfillment of those desires. That's the essence of egoism, but most post-modernists don't have the cajones to come out and admit that yes, they really are just another species of egoists.


That is, of course, you accept that there IS a God that both sets morality and enforces it.

Though, even if there is, the fact remains that any number of religions exist, and most of them disagree on what "good" and "evil" are... so again, subjective.

1) Not really. Most would agree with a fairly small set of rules. The Golden Rule, for instance, is only slightly different between Islamic, Christian, Judaism, Buddhism, Confusianism, Zoroastrianism, and any of a number of different philosophical theories. Hinduism would need some special modifications to account for their caste system, but I have a hard time believing a categorical claim that the Golden Rule would not apply to Hindus; a Brahman might not apply it to an Untouchable, but he certainly would to another Brahman.

2) You don't have to have a God to set up a categorical list of absolute rules. You might want to read Kant sometime.

I love how you try to appear so nice and not condescending even though you did say I have a self imposed blindness some posts back. And on the thousands of years of accumulated insight. What about the many changes to the concepts that have occured during the thousands upon thousands of years that have passed?

:p Yes, you did start with saying that I should be thrown out, yes?


To the collective posts:

There is a right and wrong, it does not require us to recognize it to validate it's existence. You guys keep coming up with the same rationale, that right and wrong changes from perspective to perspective. However, you've already shown yourself that this concludes with Hitler being good and Raping children being respective... Thus, you know your theorem is broken but you refuse to give it up.

You own examples have proven that we are incapable of being the founders of right and wrong, why then do you persist in using the excuse, "why then did so-and-so" think it was okay? Perhaps because they, like us, make mistakes and we cannot be trusted to act according the rules of right and wrong.

Thankfully, there is a right or wrong though. I am no more old fashioned than you are, your argument against the very existence of right and wrong has existed unchanging since recorded history began. It was shortsighted then, it's shortsighted now.

:p Yes, you did start with saying that I should be thrown out, yes?

I too have an uncle :p

To the collective posts:

There is a right and wrong, it does not require us to recognize it to validate it's existence. You guys keep coming up with the same rationale, that right and wrong changes from perspective to perspective. However, you've already shown yourself that this concludes with Hitler being good and Raping children being respective... Thus, you know your theorem is broken but you refuse to give it up.
Only if you assume that there is a absolute good and evil. You have yet to show any proof that it good and evil exist out of the human mind. You have yet to explain why there are so many versions of good and evil. You have yet to explain why if good and evil is black and white why humans there is a grey area as well. As far as I am concerned all you have been saying is there is an absolute good and evil because I am right and you are wrong.

You own examples have proven that we are incapable of being the founders of right and wrong, why then do you persist in using the excuse, "why then did so-and-so" think it was okay? Perhaps because they, like us, make mistakes and we cannot be trusted to act according the rules of right and wrong.
How have we proven that we are incapable of being the founders of right and wrong? I dont remember saying that in any of my posts. :rolleyes:

Thankfully, there is a right or wrong though. I am no more old fashioned than you are, your argument against the very existence of right and wrong has existed unchanging since recorded history began. It was shortsighted then, it's shortsighted now.
I am not arguing against the existance of right and wrong. I acknowledge that good and evil exist, the part where we divulge is wheter there is an absolute good and evil which you have so far failed to prove.

"There isn't a lot of black and white, but many shades of grey."

If Hitler, just as an example, would have been accepted to the University of Arts in Vienna, things may have gone a lot different. Though, I don't think he would have deserved it. Surely, his drawing technique was quite good, but well, the things he painted have no soul, they're more like lifeless and soulless photographs.

Only if you assume that there is a absolute good and evil. You have yet to show any proof that it good and evil exist out of the human mind. You have yet to explain why there are so many versions of good and evil. You have yet to explain why if good and evil is black and white why humans there is a grey area as well. As far as I am concerned all you have been saying is there is an absolute good and evil because I am right and you are wrong. My proof was in disproving the very idea that it might be relative. My very frist and second post did that;

Hitler was good, Raping children is relative....Hmmm

Looks like some of you people are walking around in the dark, banging your heads into the wall and claiming that the blackness is relative.


I guess we can see that Man's intellect is still intact and fully operational.

And when a mathematical process results in an erroneous answer, we need to throw the process out and find one that works. Obviously the end result of that exercise results in bad data since it ends up saying dark is light and light is dark.

Thus, if we can't have created it, it must exist outside of us or not exist at all, but Xenophobialand's post showed the logic in believing that there is something about right and wrong... So it leans toward existing, and existing beyond us.


How have we proven that we are incapable of being the founders of right and wrong? I don’t remember saying that in any of my posts. :rolleyes:

By repeating yourselves how many erroneous things have been done in the past, and by showing that we as humans can't even agree where it belongs, we are incapable of fashioning it.


I am not arguing against the existance of right and wrong. I acknowledge that good and evil exist, the part where we divulge is wheter there is an absolute good and evil which you have so far failed to prove.

See above…

To be cliche...
It all depends on your point of view.

My proof was in disproving the very idea that it might be relative. My very frist and second post did that;
The thread is attempting to see if we believe in good and evil or not. With that said you have yet to disprove that good and evil is relative. You have not adressed why good and evil do not occur in nature or in any form of life outside of humans.

Hitler was good, Raping children is relative....Hmmm

Looks like some of you people are walking around in the dark, banging your heads into the wall and claiming that the blackness is relative.
I never said Hitler was good or raping children was relative. The Hitler part was mentioned by another poster. The raping children part I merely said that the Romans did there share of it and it was considered morally okay back then. I have set forth examples where different evils of today were considered good in a different time. You however have yet to disprove that and have yet to set fourth any proof contradicting that. You merely say that we consider them evil now which is in agreement with my arguement that good and evil change with time.


I guess we can see that Man's intellect is still intact and fully operational.

And when a mathematical process results in an erroneous answer, we need to throw the process out and find one that works. Obviously the end result of that exercise results in bad data since it ends up saying dark is light and light is dark.

Thus, if we can't have created it, it must exist outside of us or not exist at all, but Xenophobialand's post showed the logic in believing that there is something about right and wrong... So it leans toward existing, and existing beyond us.
You havent shown that we havent created good and evil you have just merely shown that if you believe in absolute good and evil then the process of logic being used in my arguement does not conform to your definition. Once again the light and dark analogy only works if your definition of good and evil is correct. Yet that is the very issue being debated. You are arguing in a circle assuming that the very thing being debated is true.


By repeating yourselves how many erroneous things have been done in the past, and by showing that we as humans can't even agree where it belongs, we are incapable of fashioning it.
Well then why doesnt good and evil exist within the animal kingdom. Why dont plants hold trials and insects stage executions if good and evil are something that has not been created by us?

Wrong and right are meaningless terms IMO.

Hitler was attractive to Germans because he condemned the 231 War Guilt Clause (which blamed Germany, not Austria, for the cause of WW1). The War Guilt Clause forced Germany to give up the Ruhr Valley, pay heavy reparations, to be split by the Polish Corridor, and have a currency that wasn't even worth its weight in value. Understandably many Germans thought he was an attractive political figure.

Italy was also a diaster after WW1, their government system forced parties to form coalition governments, which then fell because the parties in the coalition didn't agree with each other, and it was re-election all over again, with no laws passed. A dictatorship that "made the trains run on time" by Mussolini was a welcome addition to many Italians.

Russia lost WW1 and much of its western territory from the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Russian economy was poor, and food was scarce. Lenin and his Bolsheviks promised "Peace, Bread, and Land", threatening the "evil" autocrats, who had the entirety of Russia's wealth pretty much. Communism was attractive. The autocrats were supported by Japan, USA, Canada, Britain, and others during the Russian Civil War.

See where I'm going with this? Hindsight is 20/20. We in the western world like to see Fascism and Communism as evil today. If your 3-year-old brother broke your favourite DVD movie, is he evil? Or do we say that "he didn't know any better"? Then there's the possibilty that his action was good, depending on the content of the DVD. In other words, everyone is right, IMO. That's the entire purpose of communication, to give the animal an ego and a will to live. Even wolves and the like can express that they are right in the fact that a deer is nearby. Another wolf may confirm that there is no deer, or perhaps that the deer isn't in that paticular spot. There are an infinite number of degrees of rightness.

I did show the flaw in the concept that right and wrong might be relative.

I showed it by addressing the community conclusion of this thread about Hitler and Raping Children not being bad per-se, was by default “wrong” whether we admit it or not. If our math solution results in a basic error of principle, (like if it said a simple arithmetic equation of adding two positive numbers resulted in a negative number) we would know that the theorem was bad and not working.

I said that the logical process of thinking of relativity as a founding principle of right or wrong resulted in such an error and we cannot use it to lead us to getting or predicting better answers. Thus, it fails as a theory and must be dismissed. Scientific exercise in practice.

I did show the flaw in the concept that right and wrong might be relative.
All you have done is argued in a circle. I have shown that good and evil change from the progression of time and ideals. You have argued in a circle suposing that the very thing at issue is true. Your arguement is debunked and you lose that point.

I showed it by addressing the community conclusion of this thread about Hitler and Raping Children not being bad per-se, was by default “wrong” whether we admit it or not. If our math solution results in a basic error of principle, (like if it said a simple arithmetic equation of adding two positive numbers resulted in a negative number) we would know that the theorem was bad and not working.
No you havent. You can get people now to agree that hitler is wrong and raping kids is bad now but the point is back then it was considered right and has changed to wrong now. Your arguement against this once again is that because there is an absolute good and evil Hitler was allways evil. This is once again arguing in a circle and your point is lost because of this.

I said that the logical process of thinking of relativity as a founding principle of right or wrong resulted in such an error and we cannot use it to lead us to getting or predicting better answers. Thus, it fails as a theory and must be dismissed. Scientific exercise in practice.
Once again your reason for it being flawed is that it is saying light is dark and dark is light. This occurs only if you presupose that evil and good are absolute which is once again the VERY THING AT ISSUE. You can not use this as a justification for my argument being wrong. You lose this point.
Well thats 3 for me 0 for you because of your constant arguing in a circle. Lets see if you can come up with some actual points that dont presupose the very thing that is at issue.

wow. i definately have a view of good and evil.. i mean you're right.. maybe hitler thought he was a good guy. BUT COME ON. you can't argue that he wasn't bad just because he said he wasn't. i mean come on. think about it. mudering people, MILLION of people. BRUTALLING MURDERING THEM. that is evil. and if you deny that. that's really bad... and to be fair, yeah i beleive in god, but i don't read the bible, i've never been to church, and i dont pray. so don't be like "oh its cuz he's christian" or catholic or whatever... look... i mean, if you don't have a concept of good and evil, then why would you do anything moral. if murdering isn't evil, more people would do it. if helping other people wasn't good, people wouldnt do it... people wouldn't just follow the laws just because they are laws. people need a deeper sense of morality to be "good" people. otherwise it would just be anarchy... i think there is definate good and evil in this world. and i hope you're on the good side.

Except this isn't math, this is ethics and principles, based entirely by the human drive for superiority in arguments (like we're doing right now.....).

wow. i definately have a view of good and evil.. i mean you're right.. maybe hitler thought he was a good guy. BUT COME ON. you can't argue that he wasn't bad just because he said he wasn't. i mean come on. think about it. mudering people, MILLION of people. BRUTALLING MURDERING THEM. that is evil. and if you deny that. that's really bad... and to be fair, yeah i beleive in god, but i don't read the bible, i've never been to church, and i dont pray. so don't be like "oh its cuz he's christian" or catholic or whatever... look... i mean, if you don't have a concept of good and evil, then why would you do anything moral. if murdering isn't evil, more people would do it. if helping other people wasn't good, people wouldnt do it... people wouldn't just follow the laws just because they are laws. people need a deeper sense of morality to be "good" people. otherwise it would just be anarchy... i think there is definate good and evil in this world. and i hope you're on the good side.

And the Allied bombing of Dresden was right? How about Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

Except this isn't math, this is ethics and principles, based entirely by the human drive for superiority in arguments (like we're doing right now.....).
Welcome to the boards Rubble. At least someone else here wants to talk about ethics. I am horrible at math.

*snip*
And if we all scored our own debates none of us would ever lose, that makes sense.

You granting yourself points is like saying that the German people still thought Hitler was good AFTER forcing them to walk through the concentration camps...

It's silly. They didn't think it was good then and they don't think it is good now. Just ask them.

If right and wrong exists, we cannot have created it ourselves because if we did we would be able to do things like make Hitler good and make raping children okay.

If it does not exist on it's own than our relative viewpoint doesn't create it either, because most of us agree that it does exist AND now, via deductive reasoning, we know that we do not determine the parameters of it because we know that there are lines we can’t cross (above example). Thus, the parameters exist and we didn’t create them.

Except this isn't math, this is ethics and principles, based entirely by the human drive for superiority in arguments (like we're doing right now.....).


How can you prove that statement? Or are we supposed to just accept it on face value?

How can you prove that statement? Or are we supposed to just accept it on face value?

I can prove it in any way, that's the whole point. There are different degrees of rightness, just about anybody can think that they are right until a new, "more right" opinion is formed. Even YOU think you're right! If evil is a consistent quality, then good luck trying to prove to Muslim terrorists that they're wrong.... ;)

And if we all scored our own debates none of us would ever lose, that makes sense.
Sorry I just like keeping track of how many times you use a faulty arguement.

You granting yourself points is like saying that the German people still thought Hitler was good AFTER forcing them to walk through the concentration camps...
Hitler forced the Jews, gypsys, african americans, mentally ill, disable, catholics etc, to the death camps. However the part of the German population which wasnt the target of the nazis thought hitler was the best thing that happened to Germany. He restored its economy, brought Germany back into good standing in the International Community, and gave the German people a sense of pride. They thought he was good and then with time their view of him being good changed to being evil proving my point that good and evil changes over time.

It's silly. They didn't think it was good then and they don't think it is good now. Just ask them.
Of course the Germans thought Hitler was good back then for the reasons stated above. If anything you are just proving my points for me.

If right and wrong exists, we cannot have created it ourselves because if we did we would be able to do things like make Hitler good and make raping children okay.
Thats been done in the past. Hitler was considered to be good by the German populace during the early part of his rule. Romans thought it was perfectly fine to have a relationship with an underage boy on the side. Once again you are presuposing right and wrong exists. Stop doing that and provide evidence to support the theory.

If it does not exist on it's own than our relative viewpoint doesn't create it either, because most of us agree that it does exist AND now, via deductive reasoning, we know that we do not determine the parameters of it because we know that there are lines we can’t cross (above example). Thus, the parameters exist and we didn’t create them.
You are once again assuming that the very thing at arguement is true. It doesnt matter what most people agree to right now. You have provided no evidence to the contrary that good and evil have changed over time. You just keep saying good and evil are absolute because good and evil are absolute.

I can prove it in any way, that's the whole point. There are different degrees of rightness, just about anybody can think that they are right until a new, "more right" opinion is formed. Even YOU think you're right! If evil is a consistent quality, then good luck trying to prove Muslim terrorists are wrong.... ;)


You should read back a bit, I've stated this entire time that right and wrong were beyond my ability to define. That I cannot determine their boundaries, thus, I cannot be trusted to know where they cross each other. That right and wrong are like an object only partially revealed, that we must do our best to fathom it, but that we, in no way, determine it's existence nor size and shape by our understanding of it.

Thus, terrorist are wrong for the simple reason that they think they CAN determine the rightness and wrongness for themselves.

XD Good and Evil are completely grey, neither exist. And btw, those who say 'A higher power exists and decides that', or that 'God decides, and therefore Satan is evil as well', I have a single damn word for you. Crusades. ^^ Now go ask your god why exactly he ordered the slaughter of not only the non-catholics, but his own as well. 'Kill them all, and God will recognize his own!'

PWNED

You should read back a bit, I've stated this entire time that right and wrong were beyond my ability to define. That I cannot determine their boundaries, thus, I cannot be trusted to know where they cross each other. That right and wrong are like an object only partially revealed, that we must do our best to fathom it, but that we, in no way, determine it's existence nor size and shape by our understanding of it.

Thus, terrorist are wrong for the simple reason that they think they CAN determine the rightness and wrongness for themselves.

Your kidding me right. Even if and I say if there are some versions of good and evil that do exist beyond our knowledge of it there are still versions of good and evil that are in the scope of our knowledge. I am sure you can agree with me that murder and slavery are wrong. And yet at points in time these practices were held as good. The aztecs constantly sacrificed captured slaves to their Gods. They viewed this as a nessecary and good thing. Down South in the United States people felt that slavery was good for economic and social reasons. Now these views have changed. The part about the terrorist part once again assumes that the very thing at issue that good and evil are absolute is correct.

Hitler forced the Jews, gypsys, african americans, mentally ill, disable, catholics etc, to the death camps. However the part of the German population which wasnt the target of the nazis thought hitler was the best thing that happened to Germany. He restored its economy, brought Germany back into good standing in the International Community, and gave the German people a sense of pride. They thought he was good and then with time their view of him being good changed to being evil proving my point that good and evil changes over time.

Of course the Germans thought Hitler was good back then for the reasons stated above. If anything you are just proving my points for me.


Nothing changed over time, the same people that thought he was good found out what he was really doing behind their backs and after the fact they knew for themselves that he wasn't good. Go ask them. You are creating an argument that says they agreed he was good so he WAS good, but they do not agree. You are wrong, he was always bad, only not everyone knew it.


Thats been done in the past. Hitler was considered to be good by the German populace during the early part of his rule. Romans thought it was perfectly fine to have a relationship with an underage boy on the side. Once again you are presuposing right and wrong exists. Stop doing that and provide evidence to support the theory.
My evidence is that they too knew it was wrong. The German people found out what Hitler was doing in secret and were deceived. He never did gave them the opportunity to know what he was doing, thus, they couldn't decide to make him good. That proves my point, not yours. We can't move the parameters of right and wrong by wanting to move them.

You are once again assuming that the very thing at arguement is true. It doesnt matter what most people agree to right now. You have provided no evidence to the contrary that good and evil have changed over time. You just keep saying good and evil are absolute because good and evil are absolute. You are the one that says right and wrong moves over time, not I. That's my whole point. It doesn't move and we don't determine where it is. It exists outside of ourselves and the proof of that is that we can't move it.

Your kidding me right. Even if and I say if there are some versions of good and evil that do exist beyond our knowledge of it there are still versions of good and evil that are in the scope of our knowledge. I am sure you can agree with me that murder and slavery are wrong. And yet at points in time these practices were held as good. The aztecs constantly sacrificed captured slaves to their Gods. They viewed this as a nessecary and good thing. Down South in the United States people felt that slavery was good for economic and social reasons. Now these views have changed. The part about the terrorist part once again assumes that the very thing at issue that good and evil are absolute is correct.

You keep getting yourself stuck. You think that when someone else thinks something is good that it IS good. But that's not the case. I don't get to determine where right and wrong are, and neither do they. They can agree to call bad good all they want, but it doesn't make it true.

It was wrong then, it's wrong now.

Nothing changed over time, the same people that thought he was good found out what he was really doing behind their backs and after the fact they knew for themselves that he wasn't good. Go ask them. You are creating an argument that says they agreed he was good so he WAS good, but they do not agree. You are wrong, he was always bad, only not everyone knew it.
Really so the die hard Nazis who thought the Jews were evil and raped little kids still believe that. And once again you support my arguement. Their concept of what was good and what was evil changed with time.


My evidence is that they too knew it was wrong. The German people found out what Hitler was doing in secret and were deceived. He never did gave them the opportunity to know what he was doing, thus, they couldn't decide to make him good. That proves my point, not yours. We can't move the parameters of right and wrong by wanting to move them.
Look at the line in bold. We are arguing wheter good and evil is relative. I have put fourth evidence as to why I think it is. You on the other hand have just kept saying that good and evil is absolute because it is. That is called arguing in a circle and it is not a valid arguement. So just bear with my and try to STOP ARGUING IN A CIRCLE AND PRESENT FACTS THAT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUEMENT ISNTEAD OF ASSUMING IT IS TRUE.

You are the one that says right and wrong moves over time, not I. That's my whole point. It doesn't move and we don't determine where it is. It exists outside of ourselves and the proof of that is that we can't move it.
Your right I do say that right and wrong(good and evil) change with time. I have presented facts to say so. You on the other hand who has been arguing that good and evil is absolute has not provided any evidence whatsoever aside from saying that good and evil are absolute because good and evil is absolute. And all of your arguements against the facts I have presented go to the effect that I am wrong because good and evil are absolute when that is the VERY THING YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE. You can not in an debate on a topic use the assumption that the very thing being discussed is right and that it is a valid arguement against the other side. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

You keep getting yourself stuck. You think that when someone else thinks something is good that it IS good. But that's not the case. I don't get to determine where right and wrong are, and neither do they. They can agree to call bad good all they want, but it doesn't make it true.

It was wrong then, it's wrong now.
Okay I am going to say this one more time. You are arguing that good and evil are absolute. In order to do so you need to show proof that it exists elsewhere outside of humanity and that there is a constant form of "Good" and "Evil". All you have just said here is that my arguement on wheter good and evil are absolute is right because good and evil are absolute. YOU CAN NOT DO THIS IN A DEBATE. It is called arguing in a circle and it is a faulty arguement.

This is interesting. I understand now how good and evil can be absolute, but it reinforces my opinion that they continually progress. Human opinions are getting ever righter, but past "wrong" decisions are at a fixed relative position moving at the same progress. Technology is proof of that. An owner of a Lamborghini Countach would have known he had the world's fastest road car in the 70's. But today we consider the Countach to be crude and slow in nature compared to today's supercars.

Really so the die hard Nazis who thought the Jews were evil and raped little kids still believe that. And once again you support my arguement. Their concept of what was good and what was evil changed with time.
My postion says that it is entirely irrelevant what they believe. They were wrong even if they were unaware of it. My point is that WE do not get to determine where the line is. They thought they could move it, they were wrong. How does this help your position?


Look at the line in bold. We are arguing wheter good and evil is relative. I have put fourth evidence as to why I think it is. You on the other hand have just kept saying that good and evil is absolute because it is. That is called arguing in a circle and it is not a valid arguement. So just bear with my and try to STOP ARGUING IN A CIRCLE AND PRESENT FACTS THAT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUEMENT ISNTEAD OF ASSUMING IT IS TRUE.
You should go back and re-read tomorrow maybe. I've been saying the same thing over and over because you keep talking about people that try to move the line of right and wrong. I say that we can't move the line, why would I agree that they moved it? If they (your examples) did wrong, it doesn't matter what they believed, they did wrong.


Your right I do say that right and wrong(good and evil) change with time. I have presented facts to say so. You on the other hand who has been arguing that good and evil is absolute has not provided any evidence whatsoever aside from saying that good and evil are absolute because good and evil is absolute. And all of your arguements against the facts I have presented go to the effect that I am wrong because good and evil are absolute when that is the VERY THING YOU ARE TRYING TO PROVE. You can not in an debate on a topic use the assumption that the very thing being discussed is right and that it is a valid arguement against the other side. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

Okay fine. You want debate with merit? You have to prove that right and wrong are movable. I suggest, that every single group that said anything wrong was right, was themselves, wrong. If they said slavery was right, I say it was wrong, it doesn't matter what year it was. They knew it was wrong too. You suggest that they thought it was okay, and I say maybe they did 'think' it was okay, but you know what? It wasn't okay, they were just lying to themselves.




Okay I am going to say this one more time. You are arguing that good and evil are absolute. In order to do so you need to show proof that it exists elsewhere outside of humanity and that there is a constant form of "Good" and "Evil". All you have just said here is that my arguement on wheter good and evil are absolute is right because good and evil are absolute. YOU CAN NOT DO THIS IN A DEBATE. It is called arguing in a circle and it is a faulty arguement.

I don't have to prove it, you already admitted it existed. However, I will, I will only repost the other guy that proved it is more likely to exist than not...

Xenophobialand said:
You're engaging in the Naturalistic Fallacy here. Even supposing you were right in that there is no one value that has been universally endorsed or rejected in history, it still says nothing about whether or not that value should have been universally endorsed or rejected.

There are values that have been universally endorsed and rejected in the past. There has never been nor ever will be a society that endorses practices that lead directly to the self-destruction of those societies. No society, for instance, has endorsed the practice of unrestricted killing of any person that gets within one mile of you, for instance, nor has there ever been a society that prized cowardice in battle above all others, because those virtues are incompatible with society itself. As man is by nature a social animal, those values that are at odds with the natural desire to form societies will never be endorsed as "moral" values to embrace.

For my part, I tend to think of post-modernist junk like moral relativism to be the slipshod thinker's egoism. If the only thing that remains constant and certain in the world is the fact that you have desires, then the only constancy you will have in your action is the fulfillment of those desires. That's the essence of egoism, but most post-modernists don't have the cajones to come out and admit that yes, they really are just another species of egoists.

Most would agree with a fairly small set of rules. The Golden Rule, for instance, is only slightly different between Islamic, Christian, Judaism, Buddhism, Confusianism, Zoroastrianism, and any of a number of different philosophical theories. Hinduism would need some special modifications to account for their caste system, but I have a hard time believing a categorical claim that the Golden Rule would not apply to Hindus; a Brahman might not apply it to an Untouchable, but he certainly would to another Brahman.

You don't have to have a God to set up a categorical list of absolute rules.

At what point are you going to understand that telling me where other people 'thought' the line should be drawn does not in my opinion actually move the line itself?

I suggest, that your very premise is in error. The line cannot be moved by our desire. As shown by the fact that IF we can move the line of what’s right and what’s wrong, then there can't really be a line at all. BUT, we see, that logic dictates that there is a line: THUS, the line exists and it is beyond ability to formulate.

As to whether or not there is an absolute good or evil, I don't know if I have (or anyone else has) the capacity to determine that. However, I think that some acts themselves are definitely one or the other. For example, I don't know anyone who could logically argue with the idea that helping someone in need because they need it (not for appearances or gain or anything) is undeniably a good act, and hurting someone for no reason other than your own pleasure is undeniably evil. (The key word there is logically; if you try to argue, i'll probably end up laughing at how little it actually "proves".)

My postion says that it is entirely irrelevant what they believe. They were wrong even if they were unaware of it. My point is that WE do not get to determine where the line is. They thought they could move it, they were wrong. How does this help your position?
You have yet to prove that. You have not shown one bit that there are goods and evil beyond our knowledge.


You should go back and re-read tomorrow maybe. I've been saying the same thing over and over because you keep talking about people that try to move the line of right and wrong. I say that we can't move the line, why would I agree that they moved it? If they (your examples) did wrong, it doesn't matter what they believed, they did wrong.
You keep arguing in a circle. You say two things.
1. Good and Evil are absolute because they are beyond us. You have not proven this one bit with your posts. You just say they cant know them because good and evil are beyond their knowledge which is arguing in a circle because your whole arguement is trying to prove that we can not know good and evil. I have shown that even if there are goods and evils we do not know about there are goods and evils we do know about.
2. Good and evil is absolute because good and evil are absolute. You are constantly arguing in a circle providing no points for your side and saying my arguement is wrong because you assume that the very thing at debate is true.


Okay fine. You want debate with merit? You have to prove that right and wrong are movable. I suggest, that every single group that said anything wrong was right, was themselves, wrong. If they said slavery was right, I say it was wrong, it doesn't matter what year it was. They knew it was wrong too. You suggest that they thought it was okay, and I say maybe they did 'think' it was okay, but you know what? It wasn't okay, they were just lying to themselves.
But it does matter what year it was. There are positions we believe to be evil that were at the time considered good. You cant just say they are evil because we know they were now. They were good back then and they changed. I dont suggest that it is okay I STATE that they belived it to be right and good. Ask any member of the klan if they think that slavery is just okay. I doubt you'll get the answer you want. Not only are there goods that become evil, but there are also evils that become good. It used to be a crime for an africain american to be able to read. They viewed this as wrong. But now it is considered to be good. Many men believed that it was wrong for women to learn and leave the kitchen but that has now become right. There is a constant changing of what is considered good and evil through out history. Your arguement against this has been assuming the very issue at the center of the debate to be true. That is a faulty arguement.





I don't have to prove it, you already admitted it existed. However, I will, I will only repost the other guy that proved it is more likely to exist than not...
I am not asking you to prove if good and evil exist. I am asking you to prove whether good and evil are absolute or relative. So far you have not posted any actual proof for your side and have only assumed that it good and evil are absolute.


At what point are you going to understand that telling me where other people 'thought' the line should be drawn does not in my opinion actually move the line itself?
This is the very thing at debate. You can not assume that it is true you have to prove it is. By assuming it is true you are using a faulty arguement and have not proven your point.

I suggest, that your very premise is in error. The line cannot be moved by our desire. As shown by the fact that IF we can move the line of what’s right and what’s wrong, then there can't really be a line at all. BUT, we see, that logic dictates that there is a line: THUS, the line exists and it is beyond ability to formulate.
First off lets address the bold part. Your arguement against my premise is infact the very thing you are trying to prove, that good and evil is absolute and cannot be moved, and that is arguing in a circle which isnt a valid arguement. And to the second part. By showing that good and evil can change doesnt mean that it doesnt exist. This is a non sequitur fallacy or it does not follow. By saying that good and evil change I am not denying its existance merely saying that it exists within our communities but changes. This doesnt mean that it stops being a line. Your arguement is faulty and therefore holds no ground.

Let's break this down, I've got to go to bed for tonight...


But it does matter what year it was. There are positions we believe to be evil that were at the time considered good. You cant just say they are evil because we know they were now. They were good back then and they changed.
You cannot say what they considered to be good. The German people were lied to, they had no idea what Hitler was doing. Thus, like a trusting wife, they thought their spouse was being good to them, but he was not.

When they found out that he was cheating on them and making them out to be fools just to get their dowry, they knew he was wrong/bad and they say the same now. You are not innocent until caught; you are innocent if you are not guilty. You seem to have a problem differentiating between the two.

You, you have this idea that Hitler WAS good while they thought he was good and you say this over and over again, like it's proof of something. But it is not. Just because they did not know he was wrong does not make him right, why do you keep saying that?

It's proof of nothing. They were deceived, they didn't know he was wrong, but he was wrong then, now, and forever. In the end, he was not 'good' because they were fooled.

The same is true with basic right and wrong.

We recognize it now, and they recognized it then too. Name one time in history when any universal ‘wrong’ was okay, without someone, somewhere, fighting it?

We all, collectively, can recognize right and wrong independently of culture and ethnicity, thus, we know it exists. But, we are very bad at being able to determine the exact boundaries of it.

good and evil is all simply a matter of perspective.

people often prefer to define things they cant quite comprehend into simple terms that they can understand. when someone decides that something is evil or wrong to them, they will often seek to alienate or supress any aspect or potential aspect of themselves which they find evil, instead of accepting it.

You cannot say what they considered to be good. The German people were lied to, they had no idea what Hitler was doing. Thus, like a trusting wife, they thought their spouse was being good to them, but he was not.
Lets see what lies were told to the Germans. Hmm propaganda saying they were winning the War is about the only thing that comes to mind. The Germans knew that Hitler hated the Jews and they knew that he was taking away their rights and removing them from their homes. Hitler neglected to tell them that they were being sent to camps or outright told people where they were going. And yet they still followed Hitler and lifted him to a Godlike status. They believed he was good and the Jews were evil.

When they found out that he was cheating on them and making them out to be fools just to get their dowry, they knew he was wrong/bad and they say the same now. You are not innocent until caught; you are innocent if you are not guilty. You seem to have a problem differentiating between the two.
Wrong they knew he was good at first. But then that conception of him changed to be one of evil. Once again YOU ARE ASSUMING THE VERY THING YOU ARE DEBATING TO BE TRUE WHEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PROVING IT.

You, you have this idea that Hitler WAS good while they thought he was good and you say this over and over again, like it's proof of something. But it is not. Just because they did not know he was wrong does not make him right, why do you keep saying that?
It is proof that the conception of good and evil changes. Here you have a group of people believing someone is good and then as time passes and conditions change they found him to be wrong. Can you honestly say that if Hitler had won the war that he would be considered an evil dictator by the german people. He would have been idolized and considered to be on a level as say George Washington is for the US. You have yet to prove that good and evil arent relative. If you can do that your conclusion above would be true. Unfortunatly you havent yet and are just assuming it to be true instead of posting any proof.

It's proof of nothing. They were deceived, they didn't know he was wrong, but he was wrong then, now, and forever. In the end, he was not 'good' because they were fooled.

The same is true with basic right and wrong.

We recognize it now, and they recognized it then too. Name one time in history when any universal ‘wrong’ was okay, without someone, somewhere, fighting it? I am not saying that wrong is right and right is wrong. In order for that to be true there would have to be an absolute good and evil. However you have yet to prove this.

We all, collectively, can recognize right and wrong independently of culture and ethnicity, thus, we know it exists. But, we are very bad at being able to determine the exact boundaries of it.
Once again part of my point. There exists good and evil just as there exists time soley in the Human mind. Time doesnt occur anywhere else other than with humans, just as good and evil are only known by humanity. The concepts of good and evil because of this are not absolute but instead ever changing with time. You seem to have my arguement confused with someone who says good and evil dont exist at all.

And finally lets talk about your arguing in circles. By attempting to debunk my arguements and prove yours soley on the assumption that the very thing you are trying to prove is true you have a faulty as you put it equation. And when you have a faulty equation you need to throw it out as you put it. So stop arguing in circles and give some proof otherwise you have failed to prove your point.

XD Good and Evil are completely grey, neither exist. And btw, those who say 'A higher power exists and decides that', or that 'God decides, and therefore Satan is evil as well', I have a single damn word for you. Crusades. ^^ Now go ask your god why exactly he ordered the slaughter of not only the non-catholics, but his own as well. 'Kill them all, and God will recognize his own!'

PWNED



Umm....God never ordered the crusades...please, do research before attempting to debate.

Sorry, gotta be a quote-o-matic:

"Well we all know
There's no other side
It's good and evil
I know right between
There's no borderline
This is the punishment divine"

Punishment Divine - Blind Guardian

Any objective person reading this can see that PH33R is following logic in this. Perhaps he is sticking by his viewpoint because...oh...he's CORRECT maybe?

Sorry, gotta be a quote-o-matic:

"Well we all know
There's no other side
It's good and evil
I know right between
There's no borderline
This is the punishment divine"

Punishment Divine - Blind Guardian

So killing in self defense is good?

Any objective person reading this can see that PH33R is following logic in this. Perhaps he is sticking by his viewpoint because...oh...he's CORRECT maybe?

He is arguing in a circle. The very point we are arguing over is wheter or not good and evil is absolute or relative. Ph33r has said my arguements are wrong because there is an absolute good and evil. You can not use the very thing you are trying to prove as a reason for your side or against the other. Ph33r has said that good and evil is beyond our knowledge. I asked why and he has said because human beings can not know good and evil. He assumes that the very thing he is trying to prove is right and uses it to justify that same position without proving it. That is arguing in a circle. Its a falicy Rogo and his arguments are invalid because of it.

And Rog first point your not objective. From what I have gathered in other posts from yours you come into this arguement already believing what Ph33r needs to prove as true. Second if you dont have anything to add to the debate dont post because you look like an ass when you do that.

So killing in self defense is good?
Well, I was just dropping a pseudo-appropriate lyric into the thread. If you read the whole lyrics, the "Punishment Divine" is being forced to think for yourself... I think. That band writes some damn complex stuff. (YOU try and decode "Under the Ice"! Oi!)

Personally, I see no problem with killing in self defense. I also see no problem in killing to protect another. Intent, not action, is good or evil. This is why some insane people aren't evil. They can't can't comprehend their actions any more than a child, and are therefore not evil, even if they're so dangerous they need to be locked away.

The hard part is trying to judge intent, and why justice must be argued before a court. It will never be perfect, but it can be infinitely better at any point.

And Rog first point your not objective. From what I have gathered in other posts from yours you come into this arguement already believing what Ph33r needs to prove as true. Second if you dont have anything to add to the debate dont post because you look like an ass when you do that.


I was going to stay out of this, but then you started giving yourself points and insulting him. It was only fair.

Intent, not action, is good or evil. This is why some insane people aren't evil. They can't can't comprehend their actions any more than a child, and are therefore not evil, even if they're so dangerous they need to be locked away.

The hard part is trying to judge intent, and why justice must be argued before a court. It will never be perfect, but it can be infinitely better at any point.

Exactly!
And this is why I say no god, but I believe in good and evil.
Yet, at the same time, I'm on the side of the "good and evil is relative".
I believe it IS relative. But I also believe it exists (if nowhere else but the human mind).

For the words "good" and "evil" to have any meaning at all, we need to accept that actions can, at least potentially, be either good or evil. Once we do that, we can discuss whether Hitler was good, evil, or some shade of gray. We also need to accept "mostly evil, with a tiny bit of good" could be described as "evil" for practical purposes. A baby-killing demon that takes great pleasure in cruelty, but who also gives a weekly donation to the local community hall can still be called "evil". For the argument, at least.

I believe (note, believe, this is a personal opinion) that the absolute good and evils come in place when you knowingly do something that you believe will cause harm, without thinking that it will cause a reasonable amount of good to offset the harm.

That means that if a mentally retarded person drowns another person, without realizing, they are not "evil" because they don't knowingly cause harm.
It means that Hitler, potentially, was a really "good" person. For all we know, Hitler could have believed in everything that he did. He could have thought that he was building a better world. In fact, I'm almost sure that he did think he was building a better world. He could have believed that it would be better for everyone (except the jews and handicapped people) if the jews and handicapped people were removed. And he could have believed that the jews and handicapped people were so unimportant that their suffering was trivial in comparison to the benefits to the country and the people.
He could have thought that he was doing a whole lot of good for the country!
Which would make him, in my book, a "good" person. He may have been wrong about things (such as thinking that it's ok to let jews suffer), but that makes him wrong, not evil. If he was *trying* to make the world a better place, then he is a misguided but *good* person.

OK. On the other hand, for all we know, Hitler could have been a power hungry jerk. He could have seen political power as his fast-ticket to being rich and mighty. He could have wanted a target to turn the German people against, so that he could cement their loyalty to himself, and happened to pick the jews for whatever reason. He could have taken Germany to war because he wanted to own more land, and feel more personally powerful, and let all the other people suffer for this. If that's what he was thinking, then he would be an "evil" person.

Motivations do matter.

So, yes, I do think there is an absolute right and wrong, but I think that absolute right and wrong is already in-built into us, and it only goes so far as "don't unnecessarily do bad things". Beyond that, each individual moral choice, each decision of whether something is a "bad thing", is completely subjective. I don't think there is any sort of universal "that is a bad action". As has been explained using the hitler example. The exact same action could be used to show that Hitler was either good or bad, depending on his motivation.

Each of us builds our own moral framework, and when we break that moral framework, we are being evil. When we follow it, we are good. Our framework is heavily influenced by society, although a part of it is influenced by our own personality, identity, and experiences.

If people say any given act is "evil" I will always counter with "what if I thought I was doing good, when I committed that act".

Any objective person reading this can see that PH33R is following logic in this. Perhaps he is sticking by his viewpoint because...oh...he's CORRECT maybe?

The problem is that PH33R keeps saying "There is a line somewhere, and we can't know where that line is". And then he uses that as his argument for the rest of the discussion.

He hasn't been able to prove that a line does exist. He hasn't even tried, he's just been assuming it's there somewhere. He then says things like "The German people thought it was evil when they knew. And even if they didn't think it's evil, there is still a line there. So they're just wrong."

If PH33R had at least tried to define this line (even if we can't know exactly where it is) and explain why he knows with such certainty that it exists, then his discussions can be responded to more sensibly.

I don't happen to agree with him, but I can at least start off his argument to prove that there is an absolute line somewhere.

For a start, every society that I know of has the concept of good and evil. Every society has the concept of rules and proper behavior. Without this behavior, the society couldn't prosper past a certain point.
Now, humans naturally gather, so you could say that humans were "designed", because of society's need for rules, and humans natural instincts to gather together, to create and follow rules. Humans, all humans, will seek out others of their kind. And any groups of humans will create and enforce rules of behavior, or, to put it another way, "right" and "wrong".

Good and evil, therefore, could be an extension of this natural drive to define "right" and "wrong". As the roots of this are placed in society's survival, and the motivation for society's survival is for personal and familial survival, you could say "good" actions are those that protect yourself, your family, and your society, and "bad" actions are those that harm yourself, your family, and your society.

If we add humans' natural development of empathy into the equation, we can extend the concepts of "good" and "evil" to also include actions that harm or hurt other individuals (human or animal) which would suffer for it (as you could imagine their suffering using your empathy).

This leads us to believe that there is a universal (at least amont humans) concept of good and evil. We might not know exactly where it sits, but it is a "built in" thing because of the way humans are and interact, that a line will be drawn somewhere.

*grin* I'm not sure I buy my own argument there, at least not completely.
And I certainly don't want to say that this above argument is what PH33R believes, I don't know what makes him think there is an absolute line (I wish he'd tell us!).
At any rate, I think that's the sort of argument that was being asked for, instead of just assuming that a line exists somewhere, he has to prove *why* he thinks a line exists.

Before we argue about whether good and evil are absolute or relative standards, would anybody care to define "good" and "evil"?

Just so we all know what we're talking about ;)

good and evil are religious terms, and religion is created by the culture around it, as well as the other way around

Right and wrong are secular terms meaning legal or illegal respectively.

therefore these things are culturally relative and dependant upon the ruling party.

good and evil are religious terms, and religion is created by the culture around it, as well as the other way around

Right and wrong are secular terms meaning legal or illegal respectively.

therefore these things are culturally relative and dependant upon the ruling party.

In that case, it might be necessary to find the lowest common denominator?
Is there any principle of behaviour that has been and is regarded as good/right or evil/wrong by all cultures and societies?

In a way I find most of the debate irrelevent; yes good and evil are only human constucts that we impose on a fairly arbitrary reality...

...but...

we are human.. our ways of viewing this world are through human eyes.. the only signs we have that reality exists at all (and I'm not talking matrix here) are seen through human senses.. our perspective is our reality.. the only reality we will ever come into contact with therefore the only reality that matters.. universal truth? no such thing.. and if there is? nobody is equipped to see it.

saying that good and evil are only contructs to overlay on a world that has neither is.. erm.. well.. pointless actually.. good and evil do not inherently exist; they are all a matter of perspective but perspective is the only thing that matters

You, you have this idea that Hitler WAS good while they thought he was good and you say this over and over again, like it's proof of something. But it is not. Just because they did not know he was wrong does not make him right, why do you keep saying that?


just as a side point.. if Germany had won the war.. the war wasn't such a foregone conclusion as everybody seems to think.. America nearly didn't join in.. . (no offense any Americans here but it was a close call..).. say hitler had ridden roughshod over europe.. commited a cleansing on a scale that made the holocaust look like a kids tv show.. and stabalised europe under one banner..

what would the history books say 100 years later? that he did what had to be done.. that he had the courage and vision to see past the immediate...

history is written by the victors.. right and wrong, likewise

he lost.. he will be forever dispised (and rightly so in my opinion) but had he won? the world would be a different place and morality in europe also different.

From a Christian point of view: only God is good. Therefore, anything that is not of God is evil. All human's are born with a natural tendency to rebel against God's law and consequently we are all inherently evil.
We spend our lives trying to suppress and justify our evil nature. However, even if we reach a stage of seeming goodness we will never reach God's perfection.
I don't believe anyone is truly good in this life but I believe that every human being is born with a conscience which makes us aware of good and evil. I believe that every man will be judged by God according to how they've responded to their conscience.
The only way we can become truly good before God is by repenting and trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

From a Christian point of view: only God is good. Therefore, anything that is not of God is evil. All human's are born with a natural tendency to rebel against God's law and consequently we are all inherently evil.
We spend our lives trying to suppress and justify our evil nature. However, even if we reach a stage of seeming goodness we will never reach God's perfection.
I don't believe anyone is truly good in this life but I believe that every human being is born with a conscience which makes us aware of good and evil. I believe that every man will be judged by God according to how they've responded to their conscience.
The only way we can become truly good before God is by repenting and trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If that were true and all humans are born with a conscience that enables them to tell good from evil... why did god bother to have Moses chisle those ten commandments in stone?

Even ignoring religion, there does seem to be a certain "instinct" for right and wrong - and not just in humans. An ethics professor told us about an experiment done with apes:
If you first give a bunch of apes equal rewards for a task, and then randomly give some apes better rewards than others, the other apes will often refuse the-not-so-good rewards even though that means they have nothing.

A similar experiment can be done with humans. Suppose you and Bob have won a prize together. The catch is that Bob may choose how to divide the money - but if you disagree with the divide both of you will get nothing. Say the prize is 10 dollars. Would you accept it if Bob offered you 1 and kept 9 for himself ? Many people will refuse this; even though this means they get 0 instead of 1 dollar.

Of course the intruiging question would be how many would let this sense of righteousness prevail if the amount of money you would not get was significant - say Bob takes 9 out of 10 million and offers you the remaining 1.

But other than that.. why would "striving for the happyness for as many poeple as possible" be any better than "striving to get the best for myself" if you look at it objectively ? Do you actually care for those 1000s of hungry people in Africa, or do you eat your welldone steak ?

If that were true and all humans are born with a conscience that enables them to tell good from evil... why did god bother to have Moses chisle those ten commandments in stone?

Before the ten commandments were given to Moses, people lived according to their consciences. However, most people ignored God and were 'evil' hence the flood and the saving of the one 'good' man Noah, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the saving of Lot etc.

The 10 commandments were given to the people as God's law to clarify what is good. God chose the people of Israel to live by His law as an example to the other nations on the earth so that they would see the righteousness of God and turn to Him. But of course, because of humanity's evil nature they failed to live according to the law.

Consequently, God sent jesus to die as punishment for our rebellion against His law so that we could be forgiven and filled with the power to live righteously.

I believe that good and evil are labels based upon the point of view and does not necessariliy have anything to do with religion or being religious, although religions usually employ that scheme to "them" and "us". (Which religion would call itself "evil"?!?)
If you think you have a bright idea you consider good and it turns out differently from what you expected, leads to a disaster or whatnot, does that idea itself turn from good to bad or is only the outcome evil?

Besides, I remember this little discussion from last week's good (personal point of view!) movie experience:

ANAKIN: The Jedi use their power for good.

PALPATINE: Good is a point of view, Anakin. And the Jedi point of view is not the only valid one. The Dark Lords of the Sith believe in security and justice also, yet they are considered by the Jedi to be. . .

ANAKIN: . . . evil.

PALPATINE: . . . from a Jedi's point of view. The Sith and the Jedi are similar in almost every way, including their quest for greater power. The difference between the two is the Sith are not afraid of the dark side of the Force. That is why they are more powerful.

(I just couldn't help it - I thought including a Star Wars quote a good idea :p )

Before the ten commandments were given to Moses, people lived according to their consciences. However, most people ignored God and were 'evil' hence the flood and the saving of the one 'good' man Noah, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the saving of Lot etc.

The 10 commandments were given to the people as God's law to clarify what is good. God chose the people of Israel to live by His law as an example to the other nations on the earth so that they would see the righteousness of God and turn to Him. But of course, because of humanity's evil nature they failed to live according to the law.

Consequently, God sent jesus to die as punishment for our rebellion against His law so that we could be forgiven and filled with the power to live righteously.

Um... yes... but... if humans already knew what was right and what was wrong, why did he have to specify it again? And how has Jesus dying changed human nature? Considering that humanity commited it's most artrocious sins after he was crucified?

Which religion would call itself "evil"?!?


Satanism? :p

I'm a real minority here, I don't believe that there is anything "absolutety good" or "absolutely evil", but at the same time, I'm religious. I just refuse to believe in simplified explanations and commonplaces...

Being evil is being immoral, i.e. violating a moral law, however necessary or useless this law would be. -Nietzsche

Good and Evil are labels based on morality. Morality is based on fear of what the other humans might do, and then programmed into the others through religion or ideology. Violence is looked upon as evil because those that are weak and cannot defend themselves created morality that way to avoid being robbed and killed.

Morality can also come from bitterness with a hard life: that which celebrates life (let's take sex as an example) is decided to be filthy and immoral (if not between two married people, and then only to have children; homosexuality is thus immoral, and so is onanism) because the slaves, weaklings and other losers feel hatred towards this life and therefore start dreaming of heaven. So says I.

Um... yes... but... if humans already knew what was right and what was wrong, why did he have to specify it again? And how has Jesus dying changed human nature? Considering that humanity commited it's most artrocious sins after he was crucified?

God made man in his own image, perfect. After the fall (Adam’s first sin) man was left with a broken relationship with God and with a knowledge of good and evil. Because of man's rebellion against God he lost his perfection and therefore became evil.

God chose the people of Israel to live in special relationship with him. In order to live among them (in the temple) the Israelites had to be as good as God (perfect). So God gave them His law, and made a covenant with them. He promised to be with them and bless them if they obeyed his law.

Because of man's sinful nature the Israelites were unable to live according to God's perfect law, hence animal sacrifices, God's punishments, exile to Babylon etc.

Jesus' death hasn't changed the natural state of humanity i.e., we are still all born with a natural tendency to be evil. However, Jesus’ death has made it possible to be changed on earth and to live in relationship with God. When the Israelites failed God's law they sacrificed an animal to receive forgiveness. Because Jesus is human, and perfect he was the ultimate sacrifice for humanity i.e., God punished Jesus for humanity's sin.

Jesus’ death and resurrection means that if we confess our evil to God, repent and trust in the sacrifice of Jesus (as opposed to a substandard lamb) God will forgive us and see us with Christ's righteousness. Because of this, we can live in relationship with God on earth and allow God's spirit to change our evil nature into a Godly nature.

Do you believe that things can be inherently good or evil? In any circumstances could Mother Teresa be evil and Adolf Hitler good? Are these concepts set in stone, or are they simply created by man to justify his own actions?

According to some (e.g., Christopher Hitchens, author of "The Missionary Position"), Mother Teresa wasn't all she seemed to be. Go to this webpage for an exerpt from "The Missionary Position":

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/mother.htm

XD Good and Evil are completely grey, neither exist. And btw, those who say 'A higher power exists and decides that', or that 'God decides, and therefore Satan is evil as well', I have a single damn word for you. Crusades. ^^ Now go ask your god why exactly he ordered the slaughter of not only the non-catholics, but his own as well. 'Kill them all, and God will recognize his own!'

PWNED Yes, of course, because Pope Urban and Simon de Monfort were in fact God. Well done.

Believing in absolute morals is just an excuse for feeling good about hating and killing.

Believing in absolute morals is just an excuse for feeling good about hating and killing.

That's illogical. The exact opposite would have to be true. Saying that absolute morals do not exist and is only relative would be the only way to be able to move the moral line so that you can do whatever you want...

That's illogical. The exact opposite would have to be true. Saying that absolute morals do not exist and is only relative would be the only way to be able to move the moral line so that you can do whatever you want...
But I'm not talking about moving "the moral line", whatever that is. I'm talking about those who divide the world into "goodies" and "baddies" and thus feel good about hating and killing the "baddies". What's the point of calling someone "evil" except to legitimise hatred and encourage others to hate as well?

Which religion would call itself "evil"?!?

Satanism? :p

Yes, maybe. But isn't it actually good for a satanist to be evil? Hell, this is really giving my mind a good spin...

You should read back a bit, I've stated this entire time that right and wrong were beyond my ability to define. That I cannot determine their boundaries, thus, I cannot be trusted to know where they cross each other. That right and wrong are like an object only partially revealed, that we must do our best to fathom it, but that we, in no way, determine it's existence nor size and shape by our understanding of it.
Uhm, so you dont know its nature but claim knowledge about this binary principle being absolute? Muhaha.

To those who believe Good and Evil are set by the divine, what makes your God better than mine? Which might be Kali. If my goddess wants a strangled human sacrifice each year, who am i to say thats bad?
About child molestation, what is considered horrible and absolutely wrong, what gets law-abiding citizens calling for torturing to death and forced castration, its the same that was considered nothing special for centuries. None of us would exist if our great-great...grandmothers werent considered fully adult women with their first period and married to, most of the time, elder men. This continued well into the 19th century, thus please be more precise if you talk about rape or statutory rape, a rather modern invention. Combine that with the will of God and you should ask yourself why God made little children fertile.

What makes you say moral truth is relative to culture? People used to believe the world was flat. That didn't make it so. Why is the truth that the Earth is spheroid absolute while the truth that murder is wrong relative?

No! ! !

Everything is value-neutral. Stealing an old lady's lunch money is no worse than giving the old lady her lunch money.



(lol... bunch of bullshit rationalization used to make some feel better about atrocious acts... why feel guilty about anything when nothing they can possibly do is wrong?)

:D

Someone said earlier that good and evil are about perception... the example used was the burglar:

To the burglar, his actions (the thieving) are just fine.

To most others and those from whom he steals, his acts are evil.

I propose that such an act is not value-neutral, that it is deplorable... and that rather than give the burglar equal footing in determining the goodness of his actions, we should do what the law does and use the "reasonable person" test.

Would a reasonable person (IE, one who does not steal from people, suffer a severe mental illness, murder people, etc...) deem this an acceptable action?

If not... then this action may be defined to be one of negative impact, or simply negative, or evil (or bad, or atrocious, or deplorable, etc.).

I think that the term "value-neutral" must have been invented by someone who was a defense attorney for rapists, murderers, etc., who wanted to excuse such acts with such deplorable rationalization.

lol

obviously, not every act could be so one-sidedly defined as "bad" or "good"... but to say that everything is value-neutral is false given the reasonable person test.

What makes you say moral truth is relative to culture? People used to believe the world was flat. That didn't make it so. Why is the truth that the Earth is spheroid absolute while the truth that murder is wrong relative?

That's an easy one Letila. It is the differance between knowledge, as defined by our modern conception of knowledge which stems from Enlightenment era teachings, and belief.

We know the earth is a sphere because we have provable empirical evidence which doesn't not contradict the laws of logic. That is to say we have achieved the standards of empirism, positivism, and reason(logic).

However, on the subject of murder we only believe it to be wrong. First try to define wrong. Then try to show how murder is wrong by means of empirism, positivism, and reason. You can't achieve such a feat outside of cutlural norms. Hence we do not know murder to be wrong, we believe it to be wrong.

Knowledge is absolute (ideally) and beliefs are relative.

...of course all this is moot if

a)There is a God

and

b)God does not view acts as value-neutral

and

c)God has power to judge us

...in which case we're missing the boat in thinking that we have the power to decide what is good and what is evil, in that such descriptions have already been applied.

That's an easy one Letila. It is the differance between knowledge, as defined by our modern conception of knowledge which stems from Enlightenment era teachings, and belief.

We know the earth is a sphere because we have provable empirical evidence which doesn't not contradict the laws of logic. That is to say we have achieved the standards of empirism, positivism, and reason(logic).

However, on the subject of murder we only believe it to be wrong. First try to define wrong. Then try to show how murder is wrong by means of empirism, positivism, and reason. You can't achieve such a feat outside of cutlural norms. Hence we do not know murder to be wrong, we believe it to be wrong.

Knowledge is absolute (ideally) and beliefs are relative.

Then how do we know the methods to attain knowledge are sound?

Frangland,

Assuming there was a god, that did have a specific definition of god and evil, and would enforce that definition, and I did not agree with that definition.

Then I would call him an evil god, no better than a dictator, and his system of values would be meaningless to me.

I would be vaporized, tortured, what have you. But that still wouldn't mean I share that god's ideas.

So what I'm saying is, I fail to see why a god would have the right to define good and evil for me.

Then how do we know the methods to attain knowledge are sound?

Clever. I would say that we don't "know" and that what we really have is faith in these methods of attaining knowledge. Faith that is little differant from religious faith. And perhaps that means knowledge is as relative as beliefs. But then, I am not the posterboy for the Enlightenment.

Honestly I was just trying to knock you out with a sucker-punch. :D

Frangland,

Assuming there was a god, that did have a specific definition of god and evil, and would enforce that definition, and I did not agree with that definition.

Then I would call him an evil god, no better than a dictator, and his system of values would be meaningless to me.

I would be vaporized, tortured, what have you. But that still wouldn't mean I share that god's ideas.

So what I'm saying is, I fail to see why a god would have the right to define good and evil for me. I'd say because God would have made the values - because he made good and evil, he'd have the right to define it.

Clever. I would say that we don't "know" and that what we really have is faith in these methods of attaining knowledge. Faith that is little differant from religious faith. And perhaps that means knowledge is as relative as beliefs. But then, I am not the posterboy for the Enlightenment.

Exactly. Even the criteria for judging these methods essentially consist of values that have not always been held by all cultures.

I'd say because God would have made the values - because he made good and evil, he'd have the right to define it.

I'm sorry, I haven't read the whole debate yet. But have we decided that, relativism aside, good and evil are more than just labels? Identifications of what is and isn't?

If they are just labels then I am not sure why a god's labels are above my own labels.

Exactly. Even the criteria for judging these methods essentially consist of values that have not always been held by all cultures.

I totally agree and that is why I consider good and evil to be culturally specific, and therefore relative.

I'm sorry if you have been supporting that view this whole time, like I said before I've only read about a third of the thread so far. I'm quickly catching up now. ;)

I'm sorry, I haven't read the whole debate yet. But have we decided that, relativism aside, good and evil are more than just labels? Identifications of what is and isn't?

If they are just labels then I am not sure why a god's labels are above my own labels.


God's labels are above our own because: A. God is perfect and incapable of sin B. He is omniscient and thus His moral knowledge exceeds ours infinitely C. We are the creation, He is the Creator. Who are we to place our opinions above His infallible wisdom?

That's assuming every religion is correct...which cannot be so.

Ahh... but how can you definitively prove that YOUR religion is the right one, and all the others are wrong? After all, all you have is faith... but they've got faith as well.


Okay, I'll bite.

Whoo-hoo! At least someone did. ~smirk~


1) You're engaging in the Naturalistic Fallacy here. Even supposing you were right in that there is no one value that has been universally endorsed or rejected in history, it still says nothing about whether or not that value should have been universally endorsed or rejected.

True. But on the other hand, the case FOR such an overriding standard of morality is basically the same as the case AGAINST - at the end of the day, unless we discover the secret Hall of Justice in the center of the Earth from which all of our actions are judged, we'll never know for sure that any one action is truly and undeniably EVIL.

In essence, judging murder wrong because WE consider it wrong, and thus branding, say, the Aztecs "evil" for engaging in is the height of egocentrism. By applying our standards to a culture that is not ours, we risk drawing false conclusions due to our own biases.


2) There are values that have been universally endorsed and rejected in the past. There has never been nor ever will be a society that endorses practices that lead directly to the self-destruction of those societies. No society, for instance, has endorsed the practice of unrestricted killing of any person that gets within one mile of you, for instance, nor has there ever been a society that prized cowardice in battle above all others, because those virtues are incompatible with society itself. As man is by nature a social animal, those values that are at odds with the natural desire to form societies will never be endorsed as "moral" values to embrace.

So, in essence, you're equating morality NOT with an overwhelming absolute, but with the keys to society-building. By your argument, if it was discovered tomorrow that half the population of the world had an AIDS-like disease that was not only 100% untreatable but 100% infective, then society, to protect itself, would deem murder of infected people to not only be necessary, but morally just.

That is, by the way, more of a justification of the moral relativism argument than an indictment of it...


3) For my part, I tend to think of post-modernist junk like moral relativism to be the slipshod thinker's egoism. If the only thing that remains constant and certain in the world is the fact that you have desires, then the only constancy you will have in your action is the fulfillment of those desires. That's the essence of egoism, but most post-modernists don't have the cajones to come out and admit that yes, they really are just another species of egoists.

There's a difference between suggesting that "everything is relative" and just "going with it", and suggesting that things ARE relative, but that there ARE standards to be adhered to, though.

For instance, I personally consider "good" and "evil" to be EXTREMELY relative things across cultures and time periods. That doesn't mean that I go out and rape any attractive girl I see because hell, rape is only wrong in YOUR world-view, not mine. The prevailing morality of a time and place IS the "objective" standard for that time and place... If I were to go out and rape my way across town, I would soon find myself in prison, or worse.

The problem with assuming a total objective standard, however, is that we tend to see OUR standard as being that absolute. Interracial marriage is legal in the US, and is generally accepted as being okay (barring those who have issues to the contrary - the OFFICIAL stance is that it's fine). Another nation decides that such a thing is an abomination in the eyes of God... which leads to the US seeing that nation as backwards and ignorant, while they see the US as being licentious and disgusting. To say that EITHER stance is 100% right is egotism, and is one of the reasons people are still killing each other over religious, philosophical, and political differences.


1) Not really. Most would agree with a fairly small set of rules. The Golden Rule, for instance, is only slightly different between Islamic, Christian, Judaism, Buddhism, Confusianism, Zoroastrianism, and any of a number of different philosophical theories. Hinduism would need some special modifications to account for their caste system, but I have a hard time believing a categorical claim that the Golden Rule would not apply to Hindus; a Brahman might not apply it to an Untouchable, but he certainly would to another Brahman.

But can you consider it more of a universal absolute, or as a defense-mechanism leading to the later evolution of law? After all, the Golden Rule is less a statement that "punching people in the face is wrong" as much as it is a statement that "if you punch other people in the face, they'll probably punch you in the face as well".

It also doesn't sit well with more "vindictive" codes of morality, like Hammurabi's Code, wherein it's considered perfectly fine to kill a murderer or confiscate the property of a thief. And, even if it's not EXPLICTLY stated, this style of morality is probably just as plentiful as the Golden Rule (after all, most modern legal systems are based on it to at least SOME degree).


2) You don't have to have a God to set up a categorical list of absolute rules. You might want to read Kant sometime.

Ahh, but just because ONE philosopher takes the stance that some things are absolute, that does not make it right. I could just as easily take my lead from Descartes, decide there's no way of knowing if any of you are really REAL, or just figments of my imagination, and thus, question if it really MATTERS, cosmically speaking, what I do to you at all.

Just because Plato advanced his Allegory of the Cave, it doesn't mean there really ARE "ideal" versions of everything that is, and that every desk you see is just an imperfect reflection of that PERFECT desk...


And the Allied bombing of Dresden was right? How about Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'll gladly argue for the "rightness" of it. While we can never KNOW for certain, the argument has been advanced that, by using the bomb, more lives were saved in the long-run than would have otherwise been the case. Whether you agree with the logic or not, the argument IS a sound one... which means it's impossible to classify it beyond reproach as an "evil" act.


You cannot say what they considered to be good. The German people were lied to, they had no idea what Hitler was doing./QUOTE]

A number of them knew DAMNED well what was going on... they just didn't care. Ever hear the famous quote? (paraphrased) "They came for the Jews, and I said nothing, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the gays, and I said nothing, for I was not gay. Then they came for the Catholics, but I said nothing, for I was not Catholic. Finally, they came for me... and there was no one left to say anything."

The argument is that, while they were AWARE that some people were getting a VERY raw deal, Hitler had single-handedly rebuilt their ruined nation into a power worthy of fear and respect - so what if you have to break a few eggs to make your omlette? So, while to a Jew of the time what Hilter was doing was MONSTROUSLY evil, but to people benefiting from his actions, it wasn't all THAT evil...


[QUOTE=Neo Rogolia]Umm....God never ordered the crusades...please, do research before attempting to debate.

According to the Pope, who is/was God's voice on Earth (or so they say), God most CERTAINLY ordered the Crusades. The words "Deus Vult" (God Wills It) were originally spoken by the Pope of the era, and taken up as a battle-cry for the good little Crusaders who marched off to kill the heathens.

The fact that we look back NOW and say it was an evil action doesn't change the fact that it was considered the height of good then. Keep in mind that both Christian and Muslim believed that to die in a holy war meant instant entry into Heaven...

Before you complain about someone else's research, perhaps you should do some of your own?


I propose that such an act is not value-neutral, that it is deplorable... and that rather than give the burglar equal footing in determining the goodness of his actions, we should do what the law does and use the "reasonable person" test.

Would a reasonable person (IE, one who does not steal from people, suffer a severe mental illness, murder people, etc...) deem this an acceptable action?

First, this is a logical fallacy, because you are suggesting that, in order to judge the reasonable nature of an action, you must ask reasonable people if they would do such a thing... but then you go on to suggest that the means for determining a "reasonable" person is that they would NOT do the very thing you are judging. In essence, I could suggest the same test for political motivation - is voting Democrat a reasonable action? Let us determine the answer by asking this group of 12 Republicans...

Secondly, however, what if the thief is only stealing to feed a starving family? What if that family is starving because the one being robbed has taken their money? What if, in fact, the "victim" has spent the last 20 years doing his best to ruin the life of the thief? The problem with moral absolutism is that it's not THAT hard to suggest circumstances where said crime could be justified.

God's labels are above our own because: A. God is perfect and incapable of sin B. He is omniscient and thus His moral knowledge exceeds ours infinitely C. We are the creation, He is the Creator. Who are we to place our opinions above His infallible wisdom?

We could very easily be people who don't believe in him... or, in any case, believe in a different version of him than YOU do, and thus disagree with the labels YOU say he's using, but which disagree with the ones -I- think he's using...

According to the Pope, who is/was God's voice on Earth (or so they say), God most CERTAINLY ordered the Crusades. The words "Deus Vult" (God Wills It) were originally spoken by the Pope of the era, and taken up as a battle-cry for the good little Crusaders who marched off to kill the heathens.

The fact that we look back NOW and say it was an evil action doesn't change the fact that it was considered the height of good then. Keep in mind that both Christian and Muslim believed that to die in a holy war meant instant entry into Heaven...

Before you complain about someone else's research, perhaps you should do some of your own?


That is under the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic, I am a New Testament Christian. I believe that they were wrong in the Crusades and rightly so. The Bible never authorizes the establishment of a papacy, in fact it even condemns it. Perhaps you should learn to differentiate between true Christians and cultural Christians. Before you complain about me complaining about someone else's research, perhaps you should do some of your own?

We could very easily be people who don't believe in him... or, in any case, believe in a different version of him than YOU do, and thus disagree with the labels YOU say he's using, but which disagree with the ones -I- think he's using...



I guess we'll find out who was right on the Judgement Day ;)

God's labels are above our own because: A. God is perfect and incapable of sin B. He is omniscient and thus His moral knowledge exceeds ours infinitely C. We are the creation, He is the Creator. Who are we to place our opinions above His infallible wisdom?

A.This is a discussion of ethics and your going to turn it into a discussion on wheter or not god exists. B. I can list so many arguements against the existence of your so called creator my head would spin. Lets keep this to wheter good and evil exists. You being a christian believe that there is an absolute moral standard(generally set forth by god). So here is a question for you if there is an absolute moral standard why then is the concepts of good and evil found only in human society?

Good and evil, right and wrong exist. In religion, in animals, in humans (humans are animals, in fact), in computers and just about every other thing that can process thoughts or has a will to live. There is a right and wrong way for a virus to tackle to cell. There is a right and wrong way for a computer to run programs. However, as there can be a very large number of flu viruses in the world, one virus must have the best efficiency in destroying a living cell. That we know for certain. If we didn't, then we could say that the best athlete in the 100 metres wasn't the best. Sure, another runner could have had a greater acceleration rate at the start, but the winner is determined by the who is fastest in 100 metres.

Going by this argument, you can say that there is an abosolute good or evil, or right and wrong way of doing things. But wait a minute, don't records for the 100 metres improve all the time? And if you believe there is an absolute good point of view right now, you must be stupid. Animals evolve and improve, and machines become more efficient with time. Therefore right and wrong (and conversely, good and evil) MUST be relative! If they weren't, why aren't we still cave men? Why aren't we happy with just fire for entertainment purposes? And why does technology improve? Because we found gooder ways of living!

Sure, we might reach a stage in 3002 AD where we become equal Gods (with the ability to see absolute good) and Jesus and Muhammed join forces to resurrect, but then some of us might still be weaker than our neighbours in some way. They might have a bigger TV by one nanometre!

Here's another thought: Some people can be evil, but some are very good at being evil. Notice the paradox? And if very bad people, who are insane, and enjoy suffering and pain, go to Hell, shouldn't they be going to Heaven instead for punishment? Explain that one Christains.

A.This is a discussion of ethics and your going to turn it into a discussion on wheter or not god exists. B. I can list so many arguements against the existence of your so called creator my head would spin. Lets keep this to wheter good and evil exists. You being a christian believe that there is an absolute moral standard(generally set forth by god). So here is a question for you if there is an absolute moral standard why then is the concepts of good and evil found only in human society?


A. My arguement presupposes the existence of a God, therefore I must include that. B. And I can give you plenty of arguements which reaffirm the necessity of a creator. As for it appearing only in human society, it is because it only pertains to humans. We are the only ones capable of committing acts of evil. How can animals, which can't distinguish between good and evil, commit such acts? A beast is a creature of instinct, not self-awareness. They cannot comprehend the concepts of Good and Evil.

Going by this argument, you can say that there is an abosolute good or evil, or right and wrong way of doing things. But wait a minute, don't records for the 100 metres improve all the time? And if you believe there is an absolute good point of view right now, you must be stupid. Animals evolve and improve, and machines become more efficient with time. Therefore right and wrong (and conversely, good and evil) MUST be relative! If they weren't, why aren't we still cave men? Why aren't we happy with just fire for entertainment purposes? And why does technology improve? Because we found gooder ways of living!

Sure, we might reach a stage in 3002 AD where we become equal Gods (with the ability to see absolute good) and Jesus and Muhammed join forces to resurrect, but then some of us might still be weaker than our neighbours in some way. They might have a bigger TV by one nanometre!

Here's another thought: Some people can be evil, but some are very good at being evil. Notice the paradox? And if very bad people, who are insane, and enjoy suffering and pain, go to Hell, shouldn't they be going to Heaven instead for punishment? Explain that one Christains.




Anyone else care to deal with this one?

A. My arguement presupposes the existence of a God, therefore I must include that. B. And I can give you plenty of arguements which reaffirm the necessity of a creator. As for it appearing only in human society, it is because it only pertains to humans. We are the only ones capable of committing acts of evil. How can animals, which can't distinguish between good and evil, commit such acts? A beast is a creature of instinct, not self-awareness. They cannot comprehend the concepts of Good and Evil.

So a scorpian that canabilizes another one isnt evil. When a bird(cant remember its name) pushes the eggs out of another birds nest that isnt considered evil? But wait here is the clincher they cant comprehend the concepts of good and evil. So i supose if I was to be unable to comprehend something it shouldnt apply to me? And time only pertains to human societies. Does that mean there is some absolute value of time somewhere where we can not see it.

True. But on the other hand, the case FOR such an overriding standard of morality is basically the same as the case AGAINST - at the end of the day, unless we discover the secret Hall of Justice in the center of the Earth from which all of our actions are judged, we'll never know for sure that any one action is truly and undeniably EVIL.

. . .I don't suppose you stopped to consider that our reason might tell us that it is wrong?


In essence, judging murder wrong because WE consider it wrong, and thus branding, say, the Aztecs "evil" for engaging in is the height of egocentrism. By applying our standards to a culture that is not ours, we risk drawing false conclusions due to our own biases.


You assume that any critique of Aztec culture I can raise would necessarily be a result of my own cultural conditioning, which is a bit absurd. I can easily criticize Aztec religious practices on the basis that reason dictates that killing is wrong, even though that is clearly not a maxim that has been adopted by the contemporary American culture that I currently reside in.


So, in essence, you're equating morality NOT with an overwhelming absolute, but with the keys to society-building. By your argument, if it was discovered tomorrow that half the population of the world had an AIDS-like disease that was not only 100% untreatable but 100% infective, then society, to protect itself, would deem murder of infected people to not only be necessary, but morally just.

1) Not equating, but they are related concepts. The best-functioning societies are virtuous ones, and a society functions better insofar as it follows virtuous actions of state and encourages its citizens to be virtuous. The reason why virtue relates to "good", however, isn't simply because of its effects on society (i.e. because virtue has good effects), however, but because virtue is a good in and of itself. Even if the action results in bad results, the action still has goodness within it because it was done for virtuous reasons, and if it results in good results, that goodness is only made more so by the fact that virtue was the thing that generated it. By contrast, an act no matter how good the result would be marred if it was done for an unvirtuous reason, and if the result was bad, it would be made more so by the vicious reason that caused it.

2) I'm not sure what you mean by your example. My guess is that you mean something like as follows:

Suppose you discover some 100% fatal airborne virus. Suppose also that some percentage of your population has been exposed to that virus, and is spreading it. What is the virtuous course of action in this case?

Your conclusion that killing in this instance is necessary is too presumptive, because first of all, I'm not entirely sure what you are saying, and secondly because you haven't provided me with all of the information I need. If 50% of the people have indeed been infected, and those people will rapidly spread the disease unless they are killed, then my nation is already destroyed whether or not I kill those people: nationstates cannot survive such a massive and precipitous drop in population in such a short period. Virtue in that case has absolutely nothing to do with it, because the cause was plague, not unvirtuous action on my part. If it is some smaller part such that the nationstate can be saved, then I would question whether killing people would truly be necessary? Preventing them from spreading the disease in a containment facility, while at the same time tending to their needs, would certainly be virtuous, but it would also maintain the nationstate and it would not kill anybody.


That is, by the way, more of a justification of the moral relativism argument than an indictment of it...


Actually, it is stoutly absolutist. I'm kind of mix and matching Aristotle and Kant here, but neither would have anything to do with postmodernism.


There's a difference between suggesting that "everything is relative" and just "going with it", and suggesting that things ARE relative, but that there ARE standards to be adhered to, though.

For instance, I personally consider "good" and "evil" to be EXTREMELY relative things across cultures and time periods. That doesn't mean that I go out and rape any attractive girl I see because hell, rape is only wrong in YOUR world-view, not mine. The prevailing morality of a time and place IS the "objective" standard for that time and place... If I were to go out and rape my way across town, I would soon find myself in prison, or worse.


. . .Which means that you are still acting out of self-interest. You don't rape women because there are societal prohibitions against rape and punishments against those who commit rape, and it is in your interest to avoid those punishments.

I'm not seeing how you are refuting my analysis of postmodernism: camouflaged egoism.


The problem with assuming a total objective standard, however, is that we tend to see OUR standard as being that absolute. Interracial marriage is legal in the US, and is generally accepted as being okay (barring those who have issues to the contrary - the OFFICIAL stance is that it's fine). Another nation decides that such a thing is an abomination in the eyes of God... which leads to the US seeing that nation as backwards and ignorant, while they see the US as being licentious and disgusting. To say that EITHER stance is 100% right is egotism, and is one of the reasons people are still killing each other over religious, philosophical, and political differences.


Not necessarily. While I certainly see those nationstates as being ass-backwards that prohibit interracial dating, I do it because it cannot see any rational reason why interracial dating is wrong, nor any compelling state interest in prohibiting it. In other words, I see them as misguided because they are irrational, not because my culture disagrees with them. Were they to provide one or the other, I might change my stance in lieu of new information that affects my rational processes.

You seem to have this assumption that any kind of certainty automatically turns you into some kind of fanatic ready to burn down someone else's city at a moments notice. That is not the case, and if that is your true motivation for adopting postmodern thinking, then it is woefully ill-informed.


But can you consider it more of a universal absolute, or as a defense-mechanism leading to the later evolution of law? After all, the Golden Rule is less a statement that "punching people in the face is wrong" as much as it is a statement that "if you punch other people in the face, they'll probably punch you in the face as well".


. . .I must be missing something, because that isn't what either form of the Golden Rule asks us to consider at all. It only asks us to consider if we like to get punched in the face, for instance, and if not, assume that other people (as is likely) feel the same way. Naturally, that has an effect on what we tend to do to other people.


It also doesn't sit well with more "vindictive" codes of morality, like Hammurabi's Code, wherein it's considered perfectly fine to kill a murderer or confiscate the property of a thief. And, even if it's not EXPLICTLY stated, this style of morality is probably just as plentiful as the Golden Rule (after all, most modern legal systems are based on it to at least SOME degree).


Actually, it meshes quite well with those codes.

First of all, let's be clear exactly what Hammurabi's Code and the like were trying to stop: an escalation in violence. The animalistic part of us, supposing we were to lose an eye for instance, would not be to stop at taking the eye of the person who did that to us, but to take his life. That is what Hammurabi's Code was designed to prevent: a person in his thirst for vengeance distributing more pain than what he suffered. This is completely in keeping with the spirit of either the positive or negative forms of the Golden Rule.

Second, Hammurabi's Code doesn't mandate that if a person loses an eye, that he must take the eye of his persecutor; it only says he has the right to do so. It is perfectly okay, even noble in Hammurabi's view, to take far less in punishment. Again, this is perfectly in keeping with the Golden Rule, in either form.


Ahh, but just because ONE philosopher takes the stance that some things are absolute, that does not make it right. I could just as easily take my lead from Descartes, decide there's no way of knowing if any of you are really REAL, or just figments of my imagination, and thus, question if it really MATTERS, cosmically speaking, what I do to you at all.


1) Apparently you haven't read Descartes all that much either. Descartes proved that other people exist because he proved that God exists, and God would not deceive him about the existence of other people. Now, you might (rightfully) argue about how good his proof of God worked, but it would be false to claim that Descartes was a solipsist.

2) You are correct in that the fact that a philosopher takes a stance does not make him right: it is the correctness or falseness of his logical argumentation that makes him right or wrong. On this count, Kant is on pretty solid footing. You might rightfully question his connection of the world of perception to the actual world (its circular), or his rooting of the categorical imperatives in the actual world. But the fact that there is such a thing as a universal good (a good will), or that there were ironclad ways of determining whether or not a person had a good will were in my mind pretty darn hard to refute. The fact that you disagree is not in and of itself a refutation of his argument, because unless there is a very solid reason why you disagree, then you are simply wrong.


Just because Plato advanced his Allegory of the Cave, it doesn't mean there really ARE "ideal" versions of everything that is, and that every desk you see is just an imperfect reflection of that PERFECT desk...


. . .And just because you disagree with people like Kant or Aristotle does not mean that you can't be simply mistaken in your judgment or not reasoning correctly. Of course, I could be too. But the fact that we disagree is not in and of itself compelling evidence that there is more than one way to view the world.

Yes, knowledge of Good and Evil is required for one's acts to be subject to judgement. Hence, why an insane or mentally retarded person is not accountable for his/her actions. Acts that occur with in nature, however deplorable they appear to us, are not intrinsically evil. A concept of morality is one of the things which sets us apart from animals.

Yes, knowledge of Good and Evil is required for one's acts to be subject to judgement. Hence, why an insane or mentally retarded person is not accountable for his/her actions. Acts that occur with in nature, however deplorable they appear to us, are not intrinsically evil. A concept of morality is one of the things which sets us apart from animals.
Does the concept of time set us apart from animals?

Does the concept of time set us apart from animals?


I would give an answer if not for that nagging suspicion that I'm being baited :(

Do you believe that things can be inherently good or evil? In any circumstances could Mother Teresa be evil and Adolf Hitler good? Are these concepts set in stone, or are they simply created by man to justify his own actions?

Good and evil is highly subjective, and can never be set in stone. For one action taken may be good to one person and evil to another, as a person may view a certain political parties action, you can call it evil, but the other party may think not.

Example: George bush is EVIL!!!

Now, thats my opinion, many republicans see him as good, but I hate him, and I think hes evil. And Im also not religeous, because lifes too good to waste in churches or even thinking about god.

I would give an answer if not for that nagging suspicion that I'm being baited :(

How about this one. Animals cant understand time so does that mean that there is an absolute concept of time that exists outside of humanity?

How about this one. Animals cant understand time so does that mean that there is an absolute concept of time that exists outside of humanity?

Nocturnal predators know how to hunt at night and mate during mating season, no?

Nocturnal predators know how to hunt at night and mate during mating season, no?

Nocturnal predators knowing how to hunt at night doesnt mean they know the time. They have adapted to hunt at a time where prey is more vunerable and easy to suprise. And its not so much that the animals know when a certain season is to mate rather the female animal's reproductive system will produce certain smells to put it simplistically to tell males when it is time to mate. You cant honestly say that animals know what the concept of minutes, hours, months, or years are?

It seems to me that we have two sides on this one. The moral relativists who acknowledge good and evil but argue that they are not absolutes across space and time. Then there are the moral absolutists who argue that things are intrinsically good and evil.

So far I have seen the relativists offer historical examples of how good and evil evolve over time. But I have yet to see them prove that perception is all that matters and there couldn't possibly exist good and evil outside of the human experience.

So far I have seen the absolutists insist that there is good and evil and that they exist even though we cannot perceive them. I'm not quite sure I got much else other than assurances, but anyway moving on...

You change a few words around and looks like you have a similar situation with the question on whether god exists or not. No one side can prove anything either way.

So I guess the original title of this thread is very appropriate, because the closest we are going to get to answer on this issue is figuring out what we believe because we can't really know it.

I always have to go with the "Yes, I am religious or No, I am religious." answers. I know what the questioner is implying with "religious" is believing in God.

Believing in God does not make one religious.

I personally don't paticularly like religion .. but I believe in God.

It's relative. To us, it would be evil, but to the molester, it might be good. Kind of like motion. Relative to the sun, we are always in motion, but relative to my computer desk right now, I am not in motion.

Take something like murder. Most people say that is an evil thing to do. No only does it harm the victim, but it also harms the perpetrator. Every time he murders someone, his heart gets more hardened. It changes him. He grows to like it. One day, he discovers that he has such a passion for murder that he can't help himself. He must go a find someone to murder. He has become something that he now hates. Thus you could argue that evil hurts everybody. The same is true of the child molester. My point is that defining evil and good based on who gets hurt and who doesn't is rather dangerous. How do you know the molester isn't hurting himself? Some hurts take years to show themselves.

You simply cant say that the pain of being molested is relative. No one who has been through it will accept your point. If it were relative, you could make it disappear simply by assuming a different attitude. This is impossible. I challenge you to try it.

I definitely believe in good and evil. Not only because of the pattern of pain and pleasure follows it so well. I am a Christian who believes the Bible is Gods message for us.

If you don't believe in good and evil, you end up condoning things like genocide and rape and murder, by saying that they are all relative. What a load of bunk! Just ask anyone who has had a close encounter with such evil. Relative?? Good grief!

I haven't read all of the backlogs, and likely won't.
However, it seems to me that an absolute moral has many flaws.
For instance, lying is bad. No lying in society would be a good thing.
However, if you lived in a rural area, and then a crazy looking axeman knocked on the door, asking for you wife, would you either tell him the truth, second on the left, with the result of you and your wife likely bieng killed, or would you tell him she's gone shopping?
In this instance, it seems right to lie, regardless of the 'correct' moral you are breaking.

However, if there isn't an absolute moral, anything can, and inevitably will, be justified.

there are some things within this world that we cannot explain. ghosts, poltergeists, aliens, what happens in the dark that we cant see, and good and evil.
there is good and evil, but one can switch from one to the other. the only people who cant are God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and Satan. they are one, and most definatley not the other

I haven't read all of the backlogs, and likely won't.
However, it seems to me that an absolute moral has many flaws.
For instance, lying is bad. No lying in society would be a good thing.
However, if you lived in a rural area, and then a crazy looking axeman knocked on the door, asking for you wife, would you either tell him the truth, second on the left, with the result of you and your wife likely bieng killed, or would you tell him she's gone shopping?
In this instance, it seems right to lie, regardless of the 'correct' moral you are breaking.

However, if there isn't an absolute moral, anything can, and inevitably will, be justified.

As I was reading your example, I was thinking about my own wife, and what I would say in that situation, and then I thought, hang on a moment, why am I under any obligation to tell the axeman anything? I think I would run first, even before I told the truth or a lie.
I don't think any situation can justify telling a lie. It might be an easier way out in the short run, but if you want God to help you, you might hesitate before taking a way that isn't His.

Well the devil isn't evil. He only rebelled cos he was bored.