NationStates Jolt Archive

Is individualism inherently evil? If so, why?

:eek: :confused:

since when? no-one told me.

Yes, it is obviously inherently evil. Whenever individuals act freely they withhold their skills and abilities from the betterment of society. There is only one good in this world and that is the communal welfare and radical individualism is a threat to that and will always be a threat to it.:D

I don't think 'evil' is inherent at all. Its a concept that society/morality came up with.

You should get an award for "Little-or-No Effort" in threadmaking...

Individualism is neutral. It can be used for good or evil purposes depending on the free decisions of the individual in question.

Inherently evil? I dont believe so. In my view it's a problem when carried to extremes, but then I tend to think any kind of extremism is problematic.

Not entirely sure what you're referring too. Do you means as in the classic capitalism arguments? As in idividualism vs. collectivism. I admit I have never been any kind of fan of collectivism, considering it to be a chasm of the human spirit- but even I recognize the cultural boundaries of individualism. It is a value that is inherint in western civilization but does not follow universally.

I recognize that greed can follow individualism, but so can the greatest of human accomplishments. Collectivism never defeated greed in any form thus far, it didnt even make it harder to pull off.

We cannot answer that. We must question the Collective.
We will reply later.

I have yet to see it proven that "good" and "evil" exist at all.

I have yet to see it proven that "good" and "evil" exist at all.

Well, they do, either because they exist objectively or because we create them. And I tend towards the former.

I forgot I even created this thread. :rolleyes: What I meant was by your own personal sense of right and wrong, is Individualism inherently wrong?

In all seriousness.
Nope.

I forgot I even created this thread. :rolleyes: What I meant was by your own personal sense of right and wrong, is Individualism inherently wrong?

no.


Survival is decided by a group's ability to adapt to change.
Adaption is caused by variations in individuals accumulating over time.
If you eliminate the possibility of individuals in the group variating from each other, you doom the group as a whole to stagnation and eventual death from a source they are unable to adapt to.

I forgot I even created this thread. :rolleyes: What I meant was by your own personal sense of right and wrong, is Individualism inherently wrong?

Of all the threads I decided to answer with more than a sentence...

I forgot I even created this thread. :rolleyes: What I meant was by your own personal sense of right and wrong, is Individualism inherently wrong?
Duh, of course, if right and wrong are objective than individualism allows variation from this objective truth. If right and wrong aren't objective then a right and wrong must be established, as if these differ then we run into societal problems where one person's right is another's wrong. This leads to conflict and strife which must be alleviated through the suppression of individualism to create a unified state.:D

Duh, of course, if right and wrong are objective than individualism allows variation from this objective truth. If right and wrong aren't objective then a right and wrong must be established, as if these differ then we run into societal problems where one person's right is another's wrong. This leads to conflict and strife which must be alleviated through the suppression of individualism to create a unified state.:D

Hm... I prefer to view individualism as the pinicle of freedom and morality...

Define "individualism."

Duh, of course, if right and wrong are objective than individualism allows variation from this objective truth. If right and wrong aren't objective then a right and wrong must be established, as if these differ then we run into societal problems where one person's right is another's wrong. This leads to conflict and strife which must be alleviated through the suppression of individualism to create a unified state.:D

Your use of smilies makes it hard to discern wether or not you are serious. I really havent been around here long enough to know about you.

Is individualism inherently evil? If so, why?

Individualism is inherintly wrong because it undermines humanity's consolidarity, and very often involves relativism.

Define "individualism."
Indeed that would be most helpful. And kinda prerequisite, it would seem.

Define "individualism."

The adherance to one's personal code of morality(if they have one:D ), and seeking happiness from within themselves than seeking it from others.

I don't think 'evil' is inherent at all. Its a concept that society/morality came up with.

Amen! I've tried to explain that to people but they never understand.

Individualism is inherintly wrong because it undermines humanity's consolidarity, and very often involves relativism.

Who's to say consolidarity exists? Also, whats wrong with relativism?

The adherance to one's personal code of morality(if they have one:D )

Then it depends on the constitution of said "personal code of morality."

Individualism is inherintly wrong because it undermines humanity's consolidarity, and very often involves relativism.

Fun historical fact! Nazi Germany was not the third reich, If it was a reich at all, it was the fourth. After the sacking of Constantinople, the seal of Rome was taken to Moscow, which was the less successful "Third Rome".

And as we all know, in Soviet Russia, Humanities Consolidarity undermines you! No, really, it actually did.

Your use of smilies makes it hard to discern wether or not you are serious. I really havent been around here long enough to know about you.
Take me however you want.
Hm... I prefer to view individualism as the pinicle of freedom and morality...
Well, just think about it. Freedom and morality are opposites, your freedom means the freedom to be immoral and a corrupting influence on society. Your freedom by its very nature takes reduces the security of others with their life and must be limited for the common good.:D

Then it depends on the constitution of said "personal code of morality."

I take it that you believe in a basic set of absolute morals?

I take it that you believe in a basic set of absolute morals?

Me? No.

The criterion is whether or not it agrees with mine.

The adherance to one's personal code of morality(if they have one:D ),
Well, their having one would be pretty decisive. As would the question of what sort of "personal code of morality" it would be.

and seeking happiness from within themselves than seeking it from others.
I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. That sounds a lot more like Zen than like individualism.

Take me however you want.

:eek: Whoa! Did you not just hear me? I said I barely even know you!

I take it that you believe in a basic set of absolute morals?

I not only believe in an absolute basic set of morals, but on three levels of law: Human, Natural, and Divine.

:eek: Whoa! Did you not just hear me? I said I barely even know you!
Come on tiger!:D No, I mean that I don't care whether you view me as being honest or dishonest on my views. Either way should prove interesting enough, right?

Fun historical fact! Nazi Germany was not the third reich, If it was a reich at all, it was the fourth. After the sacking of Constantinople, the seal of Rome was taken to Moscow, which was the less successful "Third Rome".
They don't count Roman Empires though.

There was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (ie the confederation of German kingdoms that was headed by an elected Emperor), then the Second Empire created when Wilhelm I. was crowned Emperor in Versailles in 1871, and then the Third Empire when Hitler declared it so with no basis whatsoever, moreso as a rhetorical gag to insinuate that a "new age" had begun.

As for the topic: No, of course it's not inherently evil. Indeed, I tend to think that the supreme judge of one's actions should still be one's own conscience and reason, even though there is a need for law enforcement when that conscience fails.

Come on tiger!:D No, I mean that I don't care whether you view me as being honest or dishonest on my views. Either way should prove interesting enough, right?

If we had a deeper question with which to work. Feel free to host one, I'll be here awhile hot-shot.

Well, they do, either because they exist objectively or because we create them. And I tend towards the former.

No, good and evil do NOT exist objectively. They have absolutely no physical reality beyond possible electrochemical states within the human brain.

If we had a deeper question with which to work. Feel free to host one, I'll be here awhile hot-shot.
You want me to be creative??? HELL NO!!!!!! :p

:eek: Whoa! Did you not just hear me? I said I barely even know you!
Call it kinky (or perverted if you prefer) but some people prefer it that way...;)

You want me to be creative??? HELL NO!!!!!! :p

Werent you just asking me to "be creative" in a sense, awhile back? You are such a hypocrite...and a tease :p

No, good and evil do NOT exist objectively. They have absolutely no physical reality beyond possible electrochemical states within the human brain.

Well, no. Aside from the fact that assumes humanity is the only possible being with conception of good and evil, it does nothing to argue about the existence of objective good and evil. All it says is that our brains possess the capability to discern good and evil through biochemical processes.

If anything, it raises the question of what advantage a conception of good and evil have on our species; it certainly doesn't help us survive because we sure as hell can't agree on it, and given that the state of nature is inherently amoral I just don't see what advantage this trait conveys. I mean, it's a lot easier to do whatever it takes to survive and thrive than to waste time and resources arguing about good and evil.

Werent you just asking me to "be creative" in a sense, awhile back? You are such a hypocrite...and a tease :p
I am sorry, it is so true. I am a horrible tease.:p

when the rest of the natural world is amoral

Why do you conclude that?

Why do you conclude that?

Because of the sheer brutality of nature; it is a cruel system that encourages starvation, suffering, misery, and death in order to advance things through natural selection, which is in itself nothing more than a survival of the fittest competition where everyone who is weak, disadvantaged, or deformed is killed or abandoned to die by starvation. I see no morality in nature other than the cold mechanisms of ecological equilibrium.

Of course, interestingly, the animals that display higher-order intelligence like elephants and dolphins don't have this same level of brutality and show a lot more altruism and cooperation. Perhaps the birth of self-awareness is also the birth of a free-willed soul and the moral responsibility that entails, and any creature that achieves that has to deal with its ramifications.

Because of the sheer brutality of nature; it is a cruel system that encourages starvation, suffering, misery, and death in order to advance things through natural selection, which is in itself nothing more than a survival of the fittest competition where everyone who is weak, disadvantaged, or deformed is killed or abandoned to die by starvation. I see no morality in nature other than the cold mechanisms of ecological equilibrium.

No morality in natural selection, no. It does not follow that there is no morality in natural creatures other than humans.

Of course, interestingly, the animals that display higher-order intelligence like elephants and dolphins don't have this same level of brutality and show a lot more altruism and cooperation. Perhaps the birth of self-awareness is also the birth of a free-willed soul and the moral responsibility that entails, and any creature that achieves that has to deal with its ramifications.

I think the correlation has more to do with both altruism and intelligence being necessary for the kinds of social creatures you mention - elephants, dolphins, and, I would add, apes.

No morality in natural selection, no. It does not follow that there is no morality in natural creatures other than humans.

The problem is, I see that many of the actions of other creatures in the natural world do not appear to take morality in to account when it comes to what we would consider moral decisions; I mean, abandoning a deformed child, an older person, or the weak to starvation, predation, and ultimately death is utterly alien and immoral to me as a human being.

It really seems that higher-order thinking is necessary for morality, no matter the species.

I think the correlation has more to do with both altruism and intelligence being necessary for the kinds of social creatures you mention - elephants, dolphins, and, I would add, apes.

Apes, including humans of course. Of course, it's interesting to speculate why altruistic morality is necessary to the survival of intelligent social creatures but not to others that display a lower level of intelligence. I just wonder if morality is part of the burden a species assumes when it reaches a level of complexity capable of conscious thought; it seems like that is the "divine spark" that makes these creatures what they are.

The problem is, I see that many of the actions of other creatures in the natural world do not appear to take morality in to account when it comes to what we would consider moral decisions; I mean, abandoning a deformed child, an older person, or the weak to starvation, predation, and ultimately death is utterly alien and immoral to me as a human being.

Yes, but that reluctance is based on a natural tendency to aid others that is very much evolutionarily beneficial. (Who will be able to produce more children? A group where the members protect each other when they're in need, or a group where this does not occur?)

Apes, including humans of course. Of course, it's interesting to speculate why altruistic morality is necessary to the survival of intelligent social creatures but not to others that display a lower level of intelligence.

Even bees and ants cooperate, and animals of all kinds care for their young (though this is not a universal trait).

I just wonder if morality is part of the burden a species assumes when it reaches a level of complexity capable of conscious thought; it seems like that is the "divine spark" that makes these creatures what they are.

Morality, perhaps, because morality presumes abstraction. But not the natural altruism that underlies morality.

Yes, but that reluctance is based on a natural tendency to aid others that is very much evolutionarily beneficial. (Who will be able to produce more children? A group where the members protect each other when they're in need, or a group where this does not occur?)

A group that protects each other, naturally. But at the same time, that procreation can also lead to the kind of overpopulation and starvation that causes these populations to turn on their weakest members and eliminate them.

Even bees and ants cooperate, and animals of all kinds care for their young (though this is not a universal trait).

Yes, but bees and ants also have a very strong centralized organization; is that cooperation willing or is it enforced? And, for that matter, does it matter if objective morality is willing determined or enforced by a more powerful organizing force?

I'd say another important thing to consider is whether our morality is freely chosen or not; obviously, it would be very difficult or impossible for us to test if ants can choose freely, but it would be interesting nonetheless.

Morality, perhaps, because morality presumes abstraction. But not the natural altruism that underlies morality.

That raises the question of why we feel the need to expand upon altruism to create a more abstract morality.

A group that protects each other, naturally. But at the same time, that procreation can also lead to the kind of overpopulation and starvation that causes these populations to turn on their weakest members and eliminate them.

Yes. It depends on the species and the environment. But the point is that there clearly can be an evolutionary benefit to altruism.

Yes, but bees and ants also have a very strong centralized organization; is that cooperation willing or is it enforced?

I don't think ants and bees have much in the way of "wills," but I would assume that is a natural tendency. I doubt their minds are complicated enough to produce groups with enforced hierarchies. Though I really don't know.

And, for that matter, does it matter if objective morality is willing determined or enforced by a more powerful organizing force?

An act that I am forced to do is not to my moral credit.

I'd say another important thing to consider is whether our morality is freely chosen or not

That would depend on whether or not one accepts the existence of free will.

That raises the question of why we feel the need to expand upon altruism to create a more abstract morality.

For the same reason we abstract with regard to everything else. It is simply part of the human capacity for abstract thought.

Yes. It depends on the species and the environment. But the point is that there clearly can be an evolutionary benefit to altruism.

Yes, and it can also swing very rapidly in regard to resource scarcity or overpopulation (whichever comes first) to a brutal and efficient killing machine for reducing population.


I don't think ants and bees have much in the way of "wills," but I would assume that is a natural tendency. I doubt their minds are complicated enough to produce groups with enforced hierarchies. Though I really don't know.


An act that I am forced to do is not to my moral credit.

So it does matter; could we possibly argue from that if something has no free will, than for it the concepts of good and evil do not exist? Or, more accurately, if they do exist they are not done according to good and evil but rather coercion from someone or something else.

That would depend on whether or not one accepts the existence of free will.

I'd say it is hard to argue that we don't have some control over it, or at the very least our actions are probabilistic rather than deterministic. We know in quantum theory that there are things which are indeterminate, and that depend on truly random probability to have their affects; if this basis of the physical world is random, then there is no determinism in the most basic sense.

For the same reason we abstract with regard to everything else. It is simply part of the human capacity for abstract thought.

It's the reasons behind why we want to think abstractly that interest me...it seems like there's more there than we can possibly conceive.

Well, no. Aside from the fact that assumes humanity is the only possible being with conception of good and evil, it does nothing to argue about the existence of objective good and evil. All it says is that our brains possess the capability to discern good and evil through biochemical processes.

If anything, it raises the question of what advantage a conception of good and evil have on our species; it certainly doesn't help us survive because we sure as hell can't agree on it, and given that the state of nature is inherently amoral I just don't see what advantage this trait conveys. I mean, it's a lot easier to do whatever it takes to survive and thrive than to waste time and resources arguing about good and evil.

Given that the state of nature is inherently amoral . . . good and evil therefore exist in the supernatural? Empirical verification, please :confused:

I'm here to open that particular flame-attracting can of worms.

Here comes the can-opener...

* twist, twist, twist *

What is good, what is evil? How can it be defined?

There! I opened Pandora's Box.

What is good, what is evil? How can it be defined?It is whatever damn thing you say it is.

Yes, but bees and ants also have a very strong centralized organization; is that cooperation willing or is it enforced? And, for that matter, does it matter if objective morality is willing determined or enforced by a more powerful organizing force?

Actually ant colonies and beehives possess a very decentralized organization structure. All the ants do is follow a few simple rules and as an emergent property the hive acts like a single entity more or less. The queen doesn't tell the other ants what to do. She just eats and lays eggs. There aren't any overseer ants.

Individualism is the epitamy of the degeneration of human society, it is the anti-society that threatens to turn us against each other. It is war within ourselves, it is the fundamental divide of class struggle in modern society. When your dastardly materialistic egos collapse when the material world falls, their will be chaos, idealism by it's very nature must destroy materialism.

We must resist and indeed destroy the anti-state of the transnational, if we do not think about our brothers and work as a community of humans we shall surely not survive the rigours of progression as a race, and what nature of this world will throw at us. Inward thought and action can only produce fruits for the individual until sated, we must indeed overcome hedonism and capitalism and work for a communal future.

Given that the state of nature is inherently amoral . . . good and evil therefore exist in the supernatural? Empirical verification, please :confused:

You can't empirically verify the supernatural; it's not an empirical question. A logical question, yes, but not empirical (or scientific for that matter). That's why the natural world is not useful when it comes to defining good and evil; there's an entire logical fallacy called the "naturalistic fallacy" that pretty much means you cannot use nature to justify good or evil acts.

However, good and evil do exist in humans, and it comes from somewhere. And there is one question that we can't answer: why do we need a sense of morality at all? And from there, we go backwards through the chain of justification to the regress problem. Evolution and natural selection cannot explain morality. They can explain how it may have developed, but not why it developed...in fact, why questions are beyond the realm of science (without resorting to faith-based "just so" arguments, which are inherently unscientific).

In short:
Our fundamental limitations prevent us from empirically verifying everything. We will never be able to provide an emprical basis for all of our beliefs.

No, but neither is it inherently good.

You can't empirically verify the supernatural; it's not an empirical question. A logical question, yes, but not empirical (or scientific for that matter). That's why the natural world is not useful when it comes to defining good and evil; there's an entire logical fallacy called the "naturalistic fallacy" that pretty much means you cannot use nature to justify good or evil acts.

However, good and evil do exist in humans, and it comes from somewhere. And there is one question that we can't answer: why do we need a sense of morality at all? And from there, we go backwards through the chain of justification to the regress problem. Evolution and natural selection cannot explain morality. They can explain how it may have developed, but not why it developed...in fact, why questions are beyond the realm of science (without resorting to faith-based "just so" arguments, which are inherently unscientific).

In short:
Our fundamental limitations prevent us from empirically verifying everything. We will never be able to provide an emprical basis for all of our beliefs.

Then why believe? I'm sorry, but from "However" on sounds like so much hot air.

Then why believe?

Primarily because moral relativism doesn't work, and secondly because it hedges my bet in case God does exist. If there are good and evil, living in line with them will probably help me if there is a God, and if there's karma then I should also be in good shape.

I'm sorry, but from "However" on sounds like so much hot air.

No, it's valid. The regress problem pretty much means that our fundamental justification for everything we do are neither arbitrary nor rationally justified. It means all of the axioms that justify our existence have to be self evident, and that self-evidence has to be taken on faith.

Faith is the underlying principle of our reality. It's neither arbitrary nor rational.

Primarily because moral relativism doesn't work

Why not?

no, if you don't want to be involved with other people then why should you? on the other hand you can't expect much of them in return.

Individualism is the epitamy of the degeneration of human society, it is the anti-society that threatens to turn us against each other. It is war within ourselves, it is the fundamental divide of class struggle in modern society. When your dastardly materialistic egos collapse when the material world falls, their will be chaos, idealism by it's very nature must destroy materialism.

We must resist and indeed destroy the anti-state of the transnational, if we do not think about our brothers and work as a community of humans we shall surely not survive the rigours of progression as a race, and what nature of this world will throw at us. Inward thought and action can only produce fruits for the individual until sated, we must indeed overcome hedonism and capitalism and work for a communal future.

HAHAHAHAHA what a funny joke! Sorry... I just felt like being a jerk...

Aside from that... What good is there in a communal future? It almost seems as if you wish to destroy the hall mark of self-awareness, the ability of an individual to identify itself as an individual different from the group. If this is the case then you are trying to get rid of one of the defining traits of being human and contradicting your own argument.

Why not?

Well, because it doesn't appear to have any desirable benefits. Equating rape, torture, and murder with altruism and honesty just doesn't seem to fly, and it definitely doesn't enhance our chances of survival, personal development, mental development, or material well being.

Also, by its very nature it is contradictory; if all theories are equal, why do you choose moral relativism?

Well, because it doesn't appear to have any desirable benefits. Equating rape, torture, and murder with altruism and honesty just doesn't seem to fly, and it definitely doesn't enhance our chances of survival, personal development, mental development, or material well being.

Also, by its very nature it is contradictory; if all theories are equal, why do you choose moral relativism?

I choose moral relativism because it promotes circumstance over action. In absolute morality if someone does something, no matter what its right or wrong. In relative morality if there is circumstantial reason and logic especially for the preservation of one's own life, then it can be justified as right.

Equating rape, torture, and murder with altruism and honesty just doesn't seem to fly

Moral relativism does nothing of the sort.

It states merely that our moral judgments are relative in some sense - that there is no objective, absolute standard by which we can judge them. It does not follow that our judgments are somehow wrong or illegitimate; they are merely based upon relative standards.

Also, by its very nature it is contradictory; if all theories are equal, why do you choose moral relativism?

It does not say that "all theories are equal." It says that ethical positions are relative, and is not an ethical position in itself - it deals with meta-ethics, and is concerned with the nature of ethical judgments, not with their content.

It states merely that our moral judgments are relative in some sense - that there is no objective, absolute standard by which we can judge them. It does not follow that our judgments are somehow wrong or illegitimate; they are merely based upon relative standards.

If our standards are relative, what justification is there for applying them to anyone other than ourselves? The concepts of society and law break down unless our standards are applied objectively to the community.

It does not say that "all theories are equal." It says that ethical positions are relative, and is not an ethical position in itself - it deals with meta-ethics, and is concerned with the nature of ethical judgments, not with their content.

But doesn't that entail the assumption that our ethical position is correct and so can be applied to the nature of ethics in the first place? At some point, doesn't it require a positive statement that your relativist position is objectively the best method for analyzing ethics?

And you've also got the problem that a lot of people who espouse relativist positions use it for more than meta-ethics and apply it to moral arguments as well as the nature of ethics.

I choose moral relativism because it promotes circumstance over action. In absolute morality if someone does something, no matter what its right or wrong. In relative morality if there is circumstantial reason and logic especially for the preservation of one's own life, then it can be justified as right.

But that doesn't always work; in medicine, for example, intentions and circumstances mean nothing. If a patient dies or is injured because of your decisions, there are no extenuating circumstances...you are held responsible and you will be punished in some way because of it. There is a very strict objective standard of ethics in medicine that is not relative for practical reasons as well as idealistic ones.

If our standards are relative, what justification is there for applying them to anyone other than ourselves?

If our standards are relative, then our justification is relative. Do you think it's okay to watch someone brutally kill another?

But doesn't that entail the assumption that our ethical position is correct and so can be applied to the nature of ethics in the first place?

No, because our ethical positions concern content, not nature. We are not applying them to the nature of ethics at all; the fact that I think murder is wrong has nothing to do with my meta-ethical standpoint.

At some point, doesn't it require a positive statement that your relativist position is objectively the best method for analyzing ethics?

No, only the truest.

And you've also got the problem that a lot of people who espouse relativist positions use it for more than meta-ethics and apply it to moral arguments as well as the nature of ethics.

Yes, but they are rarely serious about it, if you challenge them.

If our standards are relative, then our justification is relative. Do you think it's okay to watch someone brutally kill another?

Literally, no. But in the context of, for example, a movie I would say it's okay because its purpose is (hopefully) not entertainment but rather for dramatic or emotional purposes. However, I don't get pleasure or happiness from it; if anything, it's horrifying and disturbing.

It's like watching footage of the Holocaust or the rape of Nanking; it's okay to watch it, but you're not watching it for entertainment.


No, because our ethical positions concern content, not nature. We are not applying them to the nature of ethics at all; the fact that I think murder is wrong has nothing to do with my meta-ethical standpoint.

I still see the concept as positing something based upon an ultimately ethical standpoint; if we choose relativism because it is the truest position, why is truth a desirable position to hold?

No, only the truest.

But why do we necessarily want the truest method? It seems like you'd have to resort to some form of positive moral judgment about the truth in order to argue that the truest position is the most logically tenable.

Yes, but they are rarely serious about it, if you challenge them.

Yeah, that's true.

Primarily because moral relativism doesn't work, and secondly because it hedges my bet in case God does exist. If there are good and evil, living in line with them will probably help me if there is a God, and if there's karma then I should also be in good shape.



No, it's valid. The regress problem pretty much means that our fundamental justification for everything we do are neither arbitrary nor rationally justified. It means all of the axioms that justify our existence have to be self evident, and that self-evidence has to be taken on faith.

Faith is the underlying principle of our reality. It's neither arbitrary nor rational.

Outside of some very specific mathematical definitions, I fail to see how anything could be irrational without also being arbitrary.

Outside of some very specific mathematical definitions, I fail to see how anything could be irrational without also being arbitrary.

You can't establish what it is; it's neither rational nor arbitrary because both of those presuppose a knowble justification.

Axioms might be rational or arbitrary, but we can't know; it's not that we don't know now and someday will, it's that we've reached the axiomatic level and those have to be established as true without proof. Human epistemology stops at the axiomatic level, whatever that level is established to be.

You can't establish what it is; it's neither rational nor arbitrary because both of those presuppose a knowble justification.

Axioms might be rational or arbitrary, but we can't know; it's not that we don't know now and someday will, it's that we've reached the axiomatic level and those have to be established as true without proof. Human epistemology stops at the axiomatic level, whatever that level is established to be.

So, who decides which axioms?
And faith, well, yes, it does all come down to that, I guess, but at that level, language is inadequate. To perceive reality, transcend language.

Is individualism inherently evil? If so, why?

I don't it's evil, but can lead to it it you make the wrong choices.

However, if God gave us individuality, it can not be inherently evil and therefore He cannot get all pissy at us if our individuality interferes with His plan. That is why I am maltheist.

So, who decides which axioms?

Usually, in short, you do it by asking for justification until you reach something that can't be justified by a preceding concept or until you reach something that would require an infinite chain of justifications. For example, the existence of "truth" as a concept is an axiom; you can't define or prove that truth is true, so it's an axiom. It exists, however, because otherwise there would be no knowledge whatsoever.

Or, in math, all of the basic operations are axioms, as are the existence of numbers themselves.

And faith, well, yes, it does all come down to that, I guess, but at that level, language is inadequate. To perceive reality, transcend language.

Exactly. That is something that can only be done by us as individuals. Our public language inherently limits interpretation and keeps us from communicating our perception of reality to others.

It's interesting that perception of reality is ultimately only conceivable within our minds; any attempt to describe it limits it.

Usually, in short, you do it by asking for justification until you reach something that can't be justified by a preceding concept or until you reach something that would require an infinite chain of justifications. For example, the existence of "truth" as a concept is an axiom; you can't define or prove that truth is true, so it's an axiom. It exists, however, because otherwise there would be no knowledge whatsoever.

Or, in math, all of the basic operations are axioms, as are the existence of numbers themselves.



Exactly. That is something that can only be done by us as individuals. Our public language inherently limits interpretation and keeps us from communicating our perception of reality to others.

It's interesting that perception of reality is ultimately only conceivable within our minds; any attempt to describe it limits it.

I would argue that truth does not exist outside the mind either. Truth =/= reality. But there's that darn language thing again :p

I would argue that truth does not exist outside the mind either. Truth =/= reality. But there's that darn language thing again :p

Well, I tend to feel that truth does exist out of the mind, but what is limited is our ability to interpret it. Since we are limited beings, so is our conception of objective reality.

Well, I tend to feel that truth does exist out of the mind, but what is limited is our ability to interpret it. Since we are limited beings, so is our conception of objective reality.

As an empiricist, I can certainly agree with the second part, but the first part is a bit too platonic for my tastes. I'm more existentialist. "Existentialism is the realization that no one else can take a bath for you."

As an empiricist, I can certainly agree with the second part, but the first part is a bit too platonic for my tastes. I'm more existentialist. "Existentialism is the realization that no one else can take a bath for you."

Yeah, I've always taken a kind of Platonic view of the whole thing, so my ideas do reflect that. Although I do like some of the ideas of existentialism at the same time; my ideas kind of draw from both depending on the issue. I even have some Buddhist views as well...I'm sure if you examined everything you could find pieces of a bunch of philosophies in there.

Yeah, I've always taken a kind of Platonic view of the whole thing, so my ideas do reflect that. Although I do like some of the ideas of existentialism at the same time; my ideas kind of draw from both depending on the issue. I even have some Buddhist views as well...I'm sure if you examined everything you could find pieces of a bunch of philosophies in there.

Zen is very good for breaking the bondage of words *nods*

Zen is very good for breaking the bondage of words *nods*

I'd have to agree. I guess it's a great example of what applying logical thought to beliefs and encouraging prospective followers to think for themselves will do to a religion. Zen Buddhism works as a belief system...that's really all you can say.

In regards to the way civilization has progressed thus far, individualism would seem to be a necessary result of the Enlightenment's gift of 'rational' thought.

The emphasis on rationality in human thought as well as in decision-making institutions brought pluralism into Western states. Humanitarian imperatives were formed by what was perceived as 'rational' thought. Pluralism was the prescribed means to tolerate the growing differences of other-than-national identities in society which humanitarian imperatives necessitated.

Thus, instead of denying citizens their right to be perceived more descriptively, society deemed it more proper to perpetuate and tolerate differences. "Not being one's brother's keeper" was a solution to non-national identity pluralism. In this way, individualism was nurtured. Freedom isn't free. One could argue that racism, sexism, and bigotry were allowed to persist because of this. I don't think the opposite tendency would eradicate these ills, so I'm not making that argument. The ascendency of individualism does have consequences, however, but I'm not sure what they are. That's just what I remember reading from a stall in a truckstop bathroom outside of Harrisburg. It ended before it said whether it was evil or not, though.

In regards to the way civilization has progressed thus far, individualism would seem to be a necessary result of the Enlightenment's gift of 'rational' thought.

The emphasis on rationality in human thought as well as in decision-making institutions brought pluralism into Western states. Humanitarian imperatives were formed by what was perceived as 'rational' thought. Pluralism was the prescribed means to tolerate the growing differences of other-than-national identities in society which humanitarian imperatives necessitated.

Thus, instead of denying citizens their right to be perceived more descriptively, society deemed it more proper to perpetuate and tolerate differences. "Not being one's brother's keeper" was a solution to non-national identity pluralism. In this way, individualism was nurtured. Freedom isn't free. One could argue that racism, sexism, and bigotry were allowed to persist because of this. I don't think the opposite tendency would eradicate these ills, so I'm not making that argument. The ascendency of individualism does have consequences, however, but I'm not sure what they are. That's just what I remember reading from a stall in a truckstop bathroom outside of Harrisburg. It ended before it said whether it was evil or not, though.
LOL

I'd have to agree. I guess it's a great example of what applying logical thought to beliefs and encouraging prospective followers to think for themselves will do to a religion. Zen Buddhism works as a belief system...that's really all you can say.

Although I've studied it sporadically for 25 years, I'm not convinced that Zen Buddhism is a belief system . . .

Although I've studied it sporadically for 25 years, I'm not convinced that Zen Buddhism is a belief system . . .

Well, I use it as a catchall phrase; it's the most convenient description of what is really a way of life, philosophy, spiritual belief system, and even a form of psychology. "Belief system" probably doesn't even do it justice since it's so broad and varied.

I love it. The right too do as you please, with full rights too life, liberty and property. you may do as you wish, as long as your actions do not conflict with others rights. Socialists argue you abstain from using your poetntials too the benefit of the welfare of society, but in my view, why the hell should you have too work for the benefit of others? Those who do not work at all? Those who refuse too work? Not thank, when I make money the money goes too me, and i'll spend it how I like, thanks.

Literally, no. But in the context of, for example, a movie I would say it's okay because its purpose is (hopefully) not entertainment but rather for dramatic or emotional purposes. However, I don't get pleasure or happiness from it; if anything, it's horrifying and disturbing.

It's like watching footage of the Holocaust or the rape of Nanking; it's okay to watch it, but you're not watching it for entertainment.

Well, I was more interested in the passivity aspect than any pleasure derived. But more to the point, why should the reasons you have for seeing it as "horrifying" and "disturbing" cease to apply simply because they are relative? A person is still being brutally killed. A life has still been lost unnecessarily. The fact that it is just relatively wrong does not make it any less wrong.

But why do we necessarily want the truest method? It seems like you'd have to resort to some form of positive moral judgment about the truth in order to argue that the truest position is the most logically tenable.

Yes, you would, but that position is not incompatible with moral relativism, and that fact does not affect its truth. Moral relativism can be absolutely true even if, in order to advocate it, its advocates must subscribe by some relative values.

Well, I was more interested in the passivity aspect than any pleasure derived. But more to the point, why should the reasons you have for seeing it as "horrifying" and "disturbing" cease to apply simply because they are relative? A person is still being brutally killed. A life has still been lost unnecessarily. The fact that it is just relatively wrong does not make it any less wrong

But in that case, aren't you still using objective concepts of good and evil as benchmarks for wrongness? I mean, even if something is relatively wrong it still requires an objective concept of "wrong" to compare it to, right?

Yes, you would, but that position is not incompatible with moral relativism, and that fact does not affect its truth. Moral relativism can be absolutely true even if, in order to advocate it, its advocates must subscribe by some relative values.

It just seems that by being forced to subscribe to a particular set of values that you limit the relativeness of the position. In other words, you accept your position as absolutely true but see all others as relative.

But in that case, aren't you still using objective concepts of good and evil as benchmarks for wrongness? I mean, even if something is relatively wrong it still requires an objective concept of "wrong" to compare it to, right?

No, you're using your own subjective concepts of good and evil. You have a subjective conception of what is right and what is wrong, and that forms the basis for your standard. You feel that murder is wrong; this wrongness is not an objective trait of murder, but merely an application of one's subjective moral sentiments to it. (Can you point to the wrongness of murder? You can point out the elements of it that make it wrong when weighed against your standards, but the wrongness is not evident in the act itself.)

Someone whose personal moral perspective does not include the wrongness of murder will never be convinced of its wrongness, try as you will; you can never find a given fact that will demonstrate it to her, the way evidence can be assembled in favor of a scientific contention.

It just seems that by being forced to subscribe to a particular set of values that you limit the relativeness of the position. In other words, you accept your position as absolutely true but see all others as relative.

No, you accept your ethical position as relative as well. You accept your meta-ethical position as true, and all other meta-ethical positions as false - just as is done with all other cases where some kind of objective truth exists.