A guide out of the swamp...

[FearlessLeader2]

Spiff et al:

Maybe I don't know every last little detail of The Truth, but after years of debate, internal and external, and study of many philosophies, I do think that I am pretty darn close.

Moral Absolutism(MA) is right. Good exists, likewise Evil. A thing that is Evil is always Evil, no matter what culture, religion, race, or sexual orientation you have. Likewise, a thing that is Good will always be Good.

Don't even try throwing laughable arguments about taste or other subjective crap at me either. We all know I am talking about serious issues of existence, like the sanctity of human life, not mindless nonsense like flavors and nutrition.

Moral relativism(MR) is wrong, plain and simple. What is legal is not always Good, and what is illegal is not always(although almost always) Evil. The only purpose served by MR is to salve the conscience of those who do Evil, so that they can justify their actions. Well calling a three-legged dog a greyhound won't make it win the race, my friends.

Now some of you are going to call me on sanctity of human life, asking me how I can support the DP and still claim to value it. It is because I value human life that I feel it must be paid for in blood when it is taken. It is also why I am against abortion(and this is the only time I'm going to mention THAT topic here) except when the life of the mother is at stake, with the sole and rare exception of cases of rape and incest pregnancies, which account for an infinitesemal number of abortions.

My life philosophy can be summed up in a two simple catchphrases:

Love thy neighbor. This is what you should do.

Reap what you sow. This is what should happen if you don't.

The above two principle are the pillars of MA. Below is the sole principle of MR:

The only crime is getting caught.

Now to me, the math is pretty simple:

MA>>>>>>>MR

(MA is a whole lot greater than MR)

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

I guess you'd call me a moral relativist. But the real question for me doesn't lie in not being able to believe that some things are inherently evil. In fact I think I could readily do that. But I don't, for the very simple reason that I can't think of many things (beyond such examples as genocide, gang rape, etc.) that can even be *considered* absolutely 100% evil when completely detached from culture, religion, law, etc.

For instance, many people today consider homosexuality an evil. The bible apparently condemns it. Our bodies don't seem to have been 'made' to accommodate it. Many of us find it uncomfortable to watch gays being affectionate to each other. Etc etc etc.

But to the ancient Greeks, not only was it not considered evil, it was actually considered good. Yet the MR answer is not that homosexuality therefore *can't* be either good or evil. Just that until God comes down and whispers it in our ears we don't know. I personally will not condemn it *simply because* I have been conditioned through my society to regard same-sex relations as perverted.

You are perhaps luckier or more enlightened than I to be able to take the Bible as just that whisper from God, but I can't.

In fact, I often very strongly hope that one day I will be able to find that truth, to be able to say unequivocably that this or that is good or evil and know that I am right. It's not easy not knowing, and I hardly think that those who admit they don't know the truth are doing so because it's the easy way out. In fact I find that point of view rather naive and laughable.

It's far, far easier to live knowing (or thinking that you know) what the rules are than to trying to live as a good person while realizing you don't know the rules at all, and that in fact there may not be any.

[This message has been edited by goodbye_mr_bond (edited June 12, 2001).]

 

[drake]

Geez I thought this was going to be a thread about suntzu, since he's a hillbilly from Arkansas

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I agree with Fearless, and do view the universe as containing certain black and white issues, in addition to all its bleak colours and all its brilliant greyness.
I won't claim that I am close to the truth; I've got too many issues of my own to sort out before I can espouse that sort of doctrine.
I'd like to able to be a complete moral absolutist, as I crave order in my life and existence, but there are too amny issues, ****ups and variables that lie far beyond the normal ken in me for that to be the case.

Instead, I do sort of what Jon Shannow does; he tries to live in a MA way, but nows that the world is MR, but still tries anyway.

"Do you think we will ever have a world free for oppression, evil and pain?"
"No, but it is something worth striving for all the same."
"Amen to that."

I do not know all the answers, otherwise I would already rule the world. As it is, it will take a few more years, but I do see a light up ahead, a guide out of the swamp.
Without faith, what do we have?
Reality, and we need something to helpface that.

------------------
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.
- N.S.Khrushchev

 

[Magnus]

I, for one, really LIKE the swamp. There is always something happening there - its sterility that I abhor.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
Good exists, likewise Evil.

Prove it.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
A thing that is Evil is always Evil, no matter what culture, religion, race, or sexual orientation you have. Likewise, a thing that is Good will always be Good.

This, too.

Spiff

 

[BorderPatrol]

I am with Spiff on this. I see no foundation for your theory FL2, it is pure speculation.

Furthermore, how would your theory explain those people like Paul who was a serial killer that changed his ways and became the one person (aside from Jesus) who is the biggest influence in the New Testament.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0><FONT COLOR="green">If you cross the border, you better have your green card!</FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>

 

[animepornstar]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
Good exists, likewise Evil.

where can i find it?



------------------
<IMG SRC="http://home.oea.se/oea01190/all2.jpg" border=0>

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade:
"Do you think we will ever have a world free [FOR] oppression, evil and pain?"
"No, but it is something worth striving for all the same."
"Amen to that."

Hmm. A typo, or a subliminal message from the self-professed evil one? I'm on to your tricks, Darkshade!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Spiff and AnimePornStar:
Evil/Good thread

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
I am with Spiff on this. I see no foundation for your theory FL2, it is pure speculation.

First of all it isn't a theory. I made a statement. I did not ofer a hypothesis.

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
Furthermore, how would your theory explain those people like Paul who was a serial killer that changed his ways and became the one person (aside from Jesus) who is the biggest influence in the New Testament.

I didn't say an evil person would always be an evil person. I said evil would always be evil. If, to use your example, Paul took up serial killing again, he would be doing Evil again. People can perform evil and good acts in the same breath. But the evil acts they perform will always be evil, and the good acts they perform will always be good.

 

[KnightOfNi]

Originally posted by animepornstar:
where can i find it?

www.hell.com



------------------
You don't know you're falling until you crash

 

[BorderPatrol]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:

I didn't say an evil person would always be an evil person. I said evil would always be evil.

ok what you said was:

A thing that is Evil is always Evil...

I took "thing" to mean person. So you see where I misunderstood that. I don't think I am the only one who had this misinterpretation.

Now, I wanted to comment further on your original comment...

Now some of you are going to call me on sanctity of human life, asking me how I can support the DP and still claim to value it. It is because I value human life that I feel it must be paid for in blood when it is taken.

I am going to try to approach this differently than I have before and perhaps differently than anyone else has on this forum...

I can take that statement you made as your argument for the death penalty. There is two conspicuous defects to your argument, however.

Firstly, the death penalty is not always black & white. Sometimes when people kill they are not any more mentally competent than animals such as grizzly bears. I wouldn't call a grizzly bear that kills someone "evil".

And secondly, the system that judges these people is inherently flawed. The death penalty system has improved since the time Jesus Christ was sentenced to death but mistakes just plain happen. When the facts only prove the probability that someone committed a murder then people make their decision based on their on biases. Those biases may be religious, racial, ethnic, or others.

And there may be reasons , such as self defense that can't be proven by the defense and a person is sentenced to die for defending their life.

I know this totally blows your statement about moral absolutism to pieces, but that is the point. You need to look at things from every angle in order to see the whole picture. The "MA" view is narrow-minded and really serves no purpose but to protect it's believers from having to go through the pain of having to look at the whole picture.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0><FONT COLOR="green">If you cross the border, you better have your green card!</FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>

 

[Magnus]

A little (related) moral argument:

If you are walking through the woods and see a baby drowning in a puddle - are you morally obligated to save it?

If you leave it to die is that an evil act?

You didn't create the situation but you did nothing to change it. If you weren't there you couldn't have changed its fate, but you did see it, so you could do something but chose not to do so. I say it cannot be an evil act because you didn't DO anything, there was no 'act'ion.

This is akin to the camera crew not stopping a man from lighting himself on fire because their job is to film it, and interfering would ruin the event they are covering, the bearer of news is now changing what is news by acting to change the outcome - is that an evil act?

 

[BorderPatrol]

Originally posted by Magnus:

If you are walking through the woods and see a baby drowning in a puddle - are you morally obligated to save it?

If you leave it to die is that an evil act?

You didn't create the situation but you did nothing to change it. If you weren't there you couldn't have changed its fate, but you did see it, so you could do something but chose not to do so. I say it cannot be an evil act because you didn't DO anything, there was no 'action.

Problem is Magnus that you did do something. You made a choice, a decision to let the baby die. As a consequence of your decision the baby died.

See a decision implies action, since based on that decision it determines your actions, in this case your action was to walk away, or just stand there and watch the baby drown.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The action of your seeing the baby drowning causes your chemicals in your brain to flow to a point where you see what your choices are and then you move based on those choices. That decision you make based on what you think is morally right in the situation.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0><FONT COLOR="green">If you cross the border, you better have your green card!</FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>

 

[Magnus]

Yes, but THINKING about something and DECIDING on what to do are different from DOING.

In this hypothetical case, you could step on the baby's head and speed (and 100% guarantee) the process. Or you could pull him out (100% the other way). But deciding to not do anything falls in the middle - yes, you can say that by walking away condemns the baby, but you can't be 100% sure of the outcome. You owe the baby nothing. Morally, you do not have to act. (that is if you are an absolutist). A relative moralist would save the baby because relating it to other situations, you can see that saving the baby is a good thing. But from a purely white and black perspective, leaving the baby to the whims of nature is acceptable because walking away is neither good nor evil.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

BP & Magnus: Unfortunately, your counter-arguments do not seem to contradict FL2's self-proclaimed facts.

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2 (from the Good/Evil thread he linked above):
Evil is, defined under absolutism, the conscious act or decision to act in such a way as to deny life, liberty, comfort, or necessity to another, for personal gain or pleasure, or at one's whim, unless permitting the above to that individual or group will allow them to behave in evil fashion to another.

To Magnus's example: I would guess FL2 would want to replace "decision to act" with something like "decision to act or not to act". It's not stated as such above, but it is consistent with his view and encompasses your example. I don't think we can fault him for leaving those specific words out of that definition when the context clearly lends itself to it.

I think FL2's essential point above is that killing is inherently evil, and that allowing a death to occur (when one has any power to stop it) is also categorically evil. His absolutist view is probably that the death of the baby would be evil if you could have stopped it, and a decision not to act would "deny life", whether that decision came from "personal gain or pleasure or whim." It's consistent.

In short, I think FL2 would consider the inaction to be evil and therefore he, as an absolutist, WOULD act to save the baby. Essentially, I think this boils down to a false claim that your assertion represents the absolutist view. Sorry, friend. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0> I also have to agree that while making a decision is not a physical action, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." I think that's what BP means regarding the hypothetical you "doing" something by deciding or choosing.

Now, back up to BP's earlier argument to FL2: I'm sorry, bud, I really want to, but I don't see where this blows his argument to pieces. I think FL2 may say that the death itself is evil, whether by grizzly or human or grizzly human. Or he may also say that the death is evil if a human caused it because the human should have the power to decide and a grizzly should not ... or something like that. He may even agree that a murder is not evil if performed by a person that truly is diagnosed as "not able to be responsible for his actions", and then we would treat the person as such (i.e., not let him out into society again).

Based on my understanding, here's what else I think he'd say: yes the justice system is flawed but when it works, killing a killer is a "good" or "just" act and when it doesn't work, killing an innocent person would be an "evil" act. We may not always know the truth of the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but that doesn't change the fact that, when applied correctly it is good, and it is evil when misapplied. It is inherently good or evil, we just may not know which in every situation. This seems to cover all of your arguments. Nothing is blown away. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/hmph.gif" border=0>

I'm sure FL2 will correct me where I'm wrong.
Spiff <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/scan.gif" border=0>


[This message has been edited by SpacemanSpiff (edited June 13, 2001).]

 

[BorderPatrol]

Spiff I belive I did successfully argue that point. By trying to define "killing" as na "evil" act (which is an absolutistic view) you would have to find the opposing "good" thing you are working for. That would be "life". Problem is that by saying that "killing" is evil you are purposely ignoring the fact that death is a part of "life".

Death is a natural thing and when anybody dies something killed it. So you would have to say that the cancer, or the car accident, or "old age" or the murderer that killed the person is the harbinger of the "evil" act that caused the death.

Think about it this way. In the ocean the bigger fish eats the little fish. That's the the "pecking order". Would you say that the fish at the top of the pecking order are more evil because they eat more fish?

See where the absolutistic view gets you?

It is narrow-minded and takes less into consideration in it's view. In my view that in itself makes it an inferior view. You simply can't prove that everything is black and white.

You can make only round holes and be just fine as long as you only have round pegs, but sooner or later a square peg is gonna come along.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0><FONT COLOR="green">If you cross the border, you better have your green card!</FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>

 

[Magnus]

well, Spiff, by letting the baby die, you did not CAUSE the death, therefore you have done nothing wrong. It was going to die anyway. therefore you did not make the situation any worse. You COULD have improved the situation, but in choosing not to do so, you have not done anything worse than if you were never there.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Mag & BP: I should be more careful to clarify ... I do not agree that FL2's view is "right", or even necessarily "wrong", but when one states his/her views in terms of a definition (here, evil=X per above), arguments unrelated to that definition will only get you one thing in return: a repeat of the definition (because it wasn't really addressed and 'you apparently didn't read it the first time' or something like that).

What I'm trying to say is that I feel your arguments CAN FIT with his above definition of "evil". I've seen nothing here that can't be fit into what he's already said. My last post was intended to point out how the current arguments could be fit into his paradigm without changing or damaging the paradigm itself. That's all. That doesn't mean I think it's an open-minded way to live or that it gets you to the best places in life or that I myself would ever live that way, but it still seems to fit his definition. I'm just trying to explore this as objectively as possible. Y'know?

I'm not trying to bring you guys down. I'm trying to give some warning from what I see.

Continuing on that same track, here's how I see things here could still fit into his definition: killing and death are not the same thing, BP. I think in your first paragraph you made a leap from killing to death, as if they're equal. In FL2's def, if I understand it as intended, they are NOT equal. Some kinds of deaths (i.e., natural) are (in his view) inherently "good" ... other kinds of death (i.e., murder) are inherently "evil". Therefore, by labeling "killing" as evil, one has not ignored that "death" is a part of life ... but "killing" (e.g., murder) is NOT a necessary part of life. It happens, but it would be great if it never happened. Did I make sense there? ... this can be difficult to grapple with and write about sensibly.

I also think he would not regard cancer as "evil killing" because cancer is cancer and it doesn't have a choice as a "conscious act" (recheck his definition). Same with the fish ... that kind of killing could be considered "natural" for the pecking order (not a conscious "murder") and therefore "good". I'm just saying that if what you said is actually not an accurate restatement of the "absolutist view" (and I suspect FL2 will point out how it's not), then whatever you say should come next ("where it gets you") is not really where it leads to.

Magnus, for your example: Once you happen upon a situation, you ARE there (by definition) and to react based on if you were NEVER there is disigenuous. A paramedic has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to render aid when present. If a paramedic happens upon an injured victim, and the area is safe to render aid, AID MUST BE RENDERED or legal action can be taken against the paramedic (possibly criminal action, but I'm not sure about that part).

The key difference is one's presence. Sure, if you never happened up it, the baby would die and you would have clearly and inarguably done nothing "wrong". But once you are present, what you do next is based on that you ARE now there. To pretend you are not there when you are, and act as if you're not there or were never there sounds like entering a bit of a fantasy world to me. If you have any ability at all to assist a human life and prevent a death without causing any harm to yourself, and you choose not to, have you done something "wrong"? Fact is: I don't know .. you have to decide that for yourself. I'd look at how I felt about it.

For example, if you find an adult unconscious and laying on the railroad tracks, and let's say he/she is apparently somewhat injured, and then you hear the train coming. You are physically able to move him/her safely, without endangering yourself. Which of the following options "feels" most "right" or "wrong" or "good" or "bad" to you?

1) turn around and walk away (quickly, so you don't get blood splattered on your clothes

)
2) stand and watch the person get run over (oh no! your clothes!

)
3) move the person off the tracks

Have you done "right" or "wrong"? I won't judge you or judge for you. You have to decide that. That's my MR view. FL2's MA view would not even ask ... it would be: 1 & 2 are wrong/bad/evil, 3 is right/good. 1 & 2 still fit "evil" the way he has defined it. That's all I'm trying to say here.

Spiff