A guide out of the swamp...

[FearlessLeader2]

First off, doing nothing is an act. Second off, everything that Spiff said in defense of MA is correct, and I would have said it myself(albeit probably not as well, Spiff you are as eloquent as a used car salesman and WAAAY more honest

) had I been awake and logged in to the forum. (I work nights.)

Your babe in the woods example, Magnus, and the camera crew as well, are situations that an absolutist would have no difficulty whatever in deciding how to respond to. An absolutist acts, for the greatest good, whenever possible. The baby must be saved, the suicide must be stopped. The absolutist's job does not stop there, however.

The baby must be placed in the care of people who will not let such a turn of events occur again. the man must be given counsel to try to work through this difficult time in his life.

Moral absolutists are duty-bound to be altruists as well. MA is the hardest possible path to take through life, which is my main proof for it being the only sure and certain path for a Christian to follow. Jesus said that any who followed him would have to '...take up their torture stake and follow in my footsteps...'

Even if you are not a Christian, if you can be honest with yourself, you will come to the inescapable conclusion that MA, if it were to be embraced by all mankind, would make this a world worth living in. And even if it is not, I'd still rather have absolutists for my neighbors. I KNOW they are decent people...

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2:
Below is the sole principle of MR:
The only crime is getting caught.

You go too far, sir!

In fact there are no crimes. (Outside of those agreed upon by society, religious groups, etc, of course)

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Ah! Many profuse apologies, enlightened one! My error is unforgivable, yet I must beg forgiveness.

 

[BorderPatrol]

Spiff you missed my point entirely. Maybe I rambled too much. The point is how can you consider when the fish kills another fish to be "good", but when that same fish kills a human being for that fish to be "evil".

And if you try to argue that because it is a fish it has no conscious thought and therefore cannot be "evil" I would totally agree with you.

However, I would also point out that some humans are just as that fish at time that they kill. There is no conscious thought of what they are doing. These people are mostly just reacting to fear that another person is going to harm them in some way.

That fear may be realistic or it may be imagined, but their fear is real and they are reacting to that fear and are not conscious of what they are doing and therefore it cannot be an "evil" act.

I hope that clears things up for you, Spiff. As you should be able to see now these people, whose actions are just as the fish, do not fit within the FL2's proposed MA view. I reason that is because the MA view is simply too narrow-minded and therefore inferior.

edit: FL2 your staement about MA in no way supports your introduction of christianity and how MA people are neccesarily good. (Reasoning that MR people are not neccesariliy good I suppose.)

2nd edit:stormerne you posted during the period in which I was posting and I would like to comment that some of us are trying to use logic in a well thought out manner. As to those that chose not to, well... They ARE the weakest link!

------------------
<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>

[This message has been edited by BorderPatrol (edited June 14, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by BorderPatrol (edited June 14, 2001).]

 

[stormerne]

I wonder why this topic exists at all.
I wonder even more why people are bothering to debate with FearlessLeader2.<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/confused.gif" border=0>
FearlessLeader2 is not interested in debate.
He is not interested in accepting the validity of anyone else's point of view.
He is not interested in reassessing his own view in the light of anyone's comments.
He is only interested in proselytizing, and that is not debate.
So there is no point in throwing your precious pearls before him, except maybe for fun.

I love a philosophical debate. I attended one last night between 20 people and it was interesting, illuminating and fun. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/yeah.gif" border=0> But that's because it was conducted philosophically with give and take on both sides.

The principal discernable difference between Eastern and Western philosophy is that Western philosophy uses logic as a key tool. I'm disappointed that with all the obviously talented and well-trained minds on this forum, there is not more philosophical debate with logic applied throughout. A wasted opportunity... <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by stormerne (edited June 14, 2001).]

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Hey BP, buddy! I truly don't believe I missed your point by that much, but I'll leave that open as a possibility.

I also don't want to cause a riff and oppose a friend over this. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif" border=0> I just happen to think there are a few minor flaws in your logic vs. FL2 this time. I thought you'd want to hear that from a friend instead of by the "opposition" (likely in a sarcastic and belittling fashion, unfortunately). I know you know that someone who agrees with everything you say is probably not really being a friend. But I'll stand down now because I don't oppose you and I don't want to get further caught in the middle. I am interested in what FL2 will say in response tonight.

Spiff <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/scan.gif" border=0>

Stormerne - I agree on nearly all points ... for me, this is fun. Stay tuned. It may not become the "good debate" you'd like, but this may still get interesting.

[This message has been edited by SpacemanSpiff (edited June 14, 2001).]

 

[BorderPatrol]

Hey Spiff,

I got no problem with you or anyone else for that matter. (Aside from those that flame me for no reason, but that's another story) I enjoyed your feedback, it gave me an opportunity to further explain myself. My logic is pretty solid, but you may see a hole in it I don't. However, there does come to a point where it comes down to what you chose to beleive and logic doesn't matter.

Peace

------------------
<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>

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Oh, puh-leeze!

First off, BP, settle down. I mentioned the C-word.

Well, just drag me out and shoot me.

Did I then go on a 'Jimmy Graham Crusade'?

Stormerne: just because I'm not willing to compromise on absolutism(a moral stance which, by definition, allows no compromises), doesn't mean I'm closed-minded. It just means I'm right.

Look, no one is going to convince me that absolutism is wrong. You can't prove something that isn't true. At least, you shouldn't be able to. I don't think you can...

Oh dear, I've gone cross-eyed again.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Okay. Now that that is over with...on to the BG crusade!!

When an animal kills another animal, whether for food, to protect its territory, or to obtain a mate, that is a part of nature. When a brick falls from a high place and kills you<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/dizzy.gif" border=0>, that is comedy <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/clown.gif" border=0> ...er, gravity. Accidents are accidents. Chance is a factor in all things. Evil requires intent. The man who chooses to leave the baby in the puddle has done evil because he did not act for the greater good.
The dog that bit a child who ran through his yard was protecting his master. I personally find it highly objectionable to read about some poor animal being destroyed because either it's owner failed to train it right, or the 'victim' failed to heed the animal's nature, or was not properly supervised.<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/mad.gif" border=0>

When a shark dines on surfer and turf, it is not evil, it is a dangerous natural predator that the surfer was regrettably unaware of, or ignored the warnings about.

All of which brings us to insanity. That is what you are talking about right? That, and crimes of passion? By my definition of evil, a genuinely insane person, by reason of disease, chemical imbalance, brain damage, or genetic defect, would fall under the category of animal. Since they cannot choose between good and evil, as they lack the capacity to comprehend those terms, they cannot be evil. Sociopaths, on the other hand, make the conscious choice to place themselves above the law and common decency, except in the obvious cases where some mental infirmity listed above is the culprit.
Basically, what I'm saying is neurological insanity obviates good or evil, psychological insanity does not, except where it stems from mental or physical abuse, or other extenuating circumstances apply. Most crimes of passion fall under mental abuse-based psychological insanity, but I for one would demand clear-cut evidence of extreme mental duress. I'm talking a woman who throws a lit match on her drunken husband's gasoline-soaked bed after fifteen years of beatings and belittlement, not some guy who empties a clip into his wife and her lover after catching them in bed. That's grounds for divorce, not murder. And you'd have to prove to me that the woman had no choice but to kill him in pre-emptive self-defense, like every time she'd run away, he hunted her down, beat her, and dragged her back home. And I'd like a word or two with the recklessly incompetent cops in her precinct too, for letting it go on that long.

[This message has been edited by FearlessLeader2 (edited June 15, 2001).]

 

[BorderPatrol]

Originally posted by FL2:

All of which brings us to insanity. That is what you are talking about right? That, and crimes of passion? By my definition of evil, a genuinely insane person, by reason of disease, chemical imbalance, brain damage, or genetic defect, would fall under the category of animal. Since they cannot choose between good and evil, as they lack the capacity to comprehend those terms, they cannot be evil. Sociopaths, on the other hand, make the conscious choice to place themselves above the law and common decency, except in the obvious cases where some mental infirmity listed above is the culprit.

ok, now I am confused becasue this sounds a heck of a lot more like MR than MA. FL2 you can't be absolutistic to a point and except some relativism. By definition an absolutist refuses to except any deviation from it's stance.

While I'm at it, I think it would be good for me to straighten out the definition of Moral Relativism since you seem to have tied it to what is legal and illegal. It has nothing to do with what is legal or illegal. It has to do with exactly what I have been talking about: Just because someone kills doesn't neccesarily make them "evil". It can depend on that person's mental capacity at the time of their killing. Whereas, I don't think moral absolutism, by definition can take these things into account.

But I guess the problem here is that this whole thread has aarguing the definitions of Moral Relativism and Moral Absolutism.

Now, in your original post: you really confuse me when you said that you beleive in the death penalty, that human life should be paid when a human life is taken, and then immediately followed it with saying that you are against abortion. That statement leads us to beleive that you think if a woman has an abortion that she should be killed.

My stand is still that MA is too narrow minded and therefore inferior. I think moral absolutism, by definition sets itself up to contradict itself when it says that it is morally ok for someone to kill somebody if they are legally insane. (you already said that just because something is legal that deosn't make it morally right.)

Also, could you please clarify how moral absolutism stands for human life should be paid for one taken? I am confused as to how absolute morals would want to kill somebody for any reason. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/confused.gif" border=0>

edit: I apoligize for my lack of smiles. I tend to be rather direct, without including all of the smiles. Tha by no means, means that I am uptight or upset, it just means I want to get to the point of the logic I am trying to define, or understand.
------------------
<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>

[This message has been edited by BorderPatrol (edited June 15, 2001).]

 

[Magnus]

storemerne you are so right - I don't know why I enter 'debates' with him, maybe because I have a soft spot for the irrational?

Moral Absolutism is certainly the best for those who do not wish to use their mind. It is a simplistic view of the world and does not allow for a person's judgement learned through experience to play a part. It is not based upon logic, it is based upon unshakeable belief that you are right. just like creation vs evolution - evolution has all the evidence, but creationists simply say 'neener neener neener, we are right" whereas evolutionists, being rational, will continually look at their work and theorize with new evidence - they are open-minded where the creationists are closed. thinkers vs non-thinkers. Once you have stopped thinking, you have stopped learning - and that is tragic - but i guess some people no longer wish to learn and find contentment in the fantasy in which they choose to live.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

OK, so here's the thing for me ...

FearlessLeader2 says "Good exists, likewise Evil."
I say "Prove it."
FL2 refers me to a thread where he says, "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."
Fine.

But the act of defining something is not proof of its existence. I could just as soon define fairies as "tiny humanoid creatures with wings that can fly and can cause human beings to fly with a magic dust." But that doesn't mean they exist (or that they don't).

I could also just as soon define "evil" as "any act that causes one's skin to turn green and monkeys to fly out of one's buttocks" and call that MX (Moral eXample-ism).

So now we have 2 human beings who have proposed differing definitions of "evil". If "evil" even exists (not yet proven), what makes your definition the right one over mine? What authority or judge determined that my definition is incorrect and your's is correct? It can't be by your own authority because my authority is equal ... unless you are God and just forgot to tell the rest of us. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>

Spiff <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/scan.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by SpacemanSpiff (edited June 15, 2001).]

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
Originally posted by FL2:

All of which brings us to insanity. That is what you are talking about right? That, and crimes of passion? By my definition of evil, a genuinely insane person, by reason of disease, chemical imbalance, brain damage, or genetic defect, would fall under the category of animal. Since they cannot choose between good and evil, as they lack the capacity to comprehend those terms, they cannot be evil. Sociopaths, on the other hand, make the conscious choice to place themselves above the law and common decency, except in the obvious cases where some mental infirmity listed above is the culprit.

ok, now I am confused becasue this sounds a heck of a lot more like MR than MA. FL2 you can't be absolutistic to a point and except some relativism. By definition an absolutist refuses to except any deviation from it's stance.

Yes, and evil as defined under absolutism requires the ability to choose evil over good. The insane do not have that choice. Under absolutism, it is necessary to render such aid to them as to allow them to recover from their insanity, and also to restrain or confine them so they cannot do harm to others while unable to act in a good manner.

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
While I'm at it, I think it would be good for me to straighten out the definition of Moral Relativism since you seem to have tied it to what is legal and illegal. It has nothing to do with what is legal or illegal. It has to do with exactly what I have been talking about: Just because someone kills doesn't neccesarily make them "evil". It can depend on that person's mental capacity at the time of their killing. Whereas, I don't think moral absolutism, by definition can take these things into account.

As shown above, it does. Absolutism recognizes genuinely extenuating circumstances, like self-defense or defense of others '...except where failing to act will allow such to happen to others...', (to paraphrase). You misapprehend my definition of absolutism's version of evil.

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
But I guess the problem here is that this whole thread has arguing the definitions of Moral Relativism and Moral Absolutism.

Well, in all honesty you still haven't offered a definition of evil under relativism. However, it basically is irrelevant, since relativism doesn't have one definition of evil. It really doesn't have ANY definition of evil. It defines good as that which is socially acceptable. One might infer that the reverse is true of evil, but then one must add the disclaimer '...unless it is considered acceptable in another society.' So the whole definition of evil in relativism is:
"That which is socially unacceptable is evil, unless it is considered acceptable in another society."
This bland statement is too vague to provide a moral compass to guide one's actions from. That is my main objection to relativism. It allows a society to tolerate evil by sacrificing morality on the altar of social acceptance. Just because everyone says it's okay doesn't make it okay. It just makes it legal.

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
Now, in your original post: you really confuse me when you said that you beleive in the death penalty, that human life should be paid when a human life is taken, and then immediately followed it with saying that you are against abortion. That statement leads us to beleive that you think if a woman has an abortion that she should be killed.

I categorically refuse to involve myself in an abortion debate. You may feel free to believe exactly that, and I will neither confirm nor deny it.

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
My stand is still that MA is too narrow minded and therefore inferior. I think moral absolutism, by definition sets itself up to contradict itself when it says that it is morally ok for someone to kill somebody if they are legally insane. (you already said that just because something is legal that deosn't make it morally right.)]

Ah, but I never said 'legally insane'. I said 'genuinely insane', and went on to define that as an actual physical insanity, and not the so-called temporary insanity of some guy who has a bad day and decides to climb up a clock tower and thin out the neighborhood a la Falling Down. Legal insanity is a sham defense designed to legalize vendettaism.

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
Also, could you please clarify how moral absolutism stands for human life should be paid for one taken? I am confused as to how absolute morals would want to kill somebody for any reason.

After considerable thought on this matter, I have decided that I no longer support capital punishment. Your argument is unassailable. Without realizing it, I have been supporting capital punishment with arguments that attack from a relativistic viewpoint, leaning on the legislated establishment of death as the prescribed penalty for a certain crime.

Congratulations, you have proven in an open forum that I have an open mind.

 

[SpacemanSpiff]

Hey, FL!

I noticed you have not yet responded to my most recent post on this topic (just above your's here). Again, I congratulate you on your open-mindedness that allowed you to totally alter your stance on the death penalty, but did you forget our core discussion in your excitement?

In case you did not see my post at all, I wanted to point it out and let you know I am watching for your reply. I look forward to hearing (OK, reading) your answer to my inquiry.

Thanks!
Spiff

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by SpacemanSpiff:
OK, so here's the thing for me ...

FearlessLeader2 says "Good exists, likewise Evil."
I say "Prove it."
FL2 refers me to a thread where he says, "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."
Fine.

But the act of defining something is not proof of its existence. I could just as soon define fairies as "tiny humanoid creatures with wings that can fly and can cause human beings to fly with a magic dust." But that doesn't mean they exist (or that they don't).

Right, you have to provide proof that someone has actually done something that qualifies under that definition. Many people have acted in the manner described by absolutism's definition of evil, therefore, from an absolutist's standpoint, evil exists. Some examples include: the guy who shot John Lennon(no name for him EVER!), Jack Ruby, Hitler, child molesters, wife beaters, rapists, hitmen, mafia goons, drug dealers, con men, and dictators/commie bastards.

When you can provide a creature that matches your definition of a fairy, I will have to acknowledge that fairies exist as defined by you. Likewise with the green skin and monkeys.

I hope this satisfies your question/request for proof. I have defined what I call evil, I have provided proof of that definition's existence.

 

[KnightOfNi]

Cheer up Stormerne,

Where there is life there is hope.

You seem a bit depressed ?

------------------
Ni !

 

[BorderPatrol]

Spiff I have to agree with FL2 that evil exists according to his definition that you quoted. I see evidence of it all around me and even with in myself. On a daily basis I am bombarded with "evil" thoughts, it's just part of reality. I'm not any different than anyone else in this.
Originally posted by FL2

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.

Your definition still looks like you mean "person" by "thing". And if so how can I be "always good" if I have evil thoughts? Likewise, how can I be "evil" if I have good thoughts?

But let's just say that you meant "act" by "thing". I still disagree. An act that is sometimes "evil" such as shooting a bullet into somebody's chest, can be viewed as "good" when done to protect that which is good.

This whole absolutism thing seems absolutely absurd the way you proposing. If you want to try to convince me about absolutism, then prove to me your definition above.

edit: btw I find your opening of your mind to be very fortuitous. I am always amazed at how much I grow when I open my mind.
------------------
<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>

[This message has been edited by BorderPatrol (edited June 19, 2001).]

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
But let's just say that you meant "act" by "thing". I still disagree. An act that is sometimes "evil" such as shooting a bullet into somebody's chest, can be viewed as "good" when done to protect that which is good. [/B]

But self-defense and defense of others is excluded from the definition. "except when acting..."

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
This whole absolutism thing seems absolutely absurd the way you proposing. If you want to try to convince me about absolutism, then prove to me your definition above.[/B]

??? I have no idea what you are asking me. You just said that you agreed with me that is does exist under my definition...

Originally posted by BorderPatrol:
edit: btw I find your opening of your mind to be very fortuitous. I am always amazed at how much I grow when I open my mind. [/B]

Well, the Bible does say that if you see a truth that you were ignorant of and choose to keep acting on the falseness you once knew, you are in the wrong. (It doesn't actually say hypocrisy, but I think it is clear enough in meaning.)

 

[Dogberry_Old]

This is an interesting debate.. but it all rests on constructs that we as a society erect. In the "Natural World" the whole thing is quite devoid of meaning. We humans can imagine good.. therefore we can do it. We can also imagine evil & do it too. The choices are ours.. not that of any entity called "God" ... or by any names. Nor.. are the choices for evil defined by somebody called Satan... again these are mere constructs put there by generations of trial & error. We are still going through that trial & error period & most likely be doing so for the rest of humanity's existance.

These constructs are neccessary in certain strengths in all societies.. otherwise that society would "fly apart" .. history demonstrates this over & over. The religious construct has had the most success over the years.. others have all failed, but the religious one fails too. Who now worships the Gods of Eygpt & Babylon ? They become obsolete, divorced from reality as it was concieved at that time.

The contructs exist in a state of tension between the practical reality of the world & the percieved need for "freedom". If the construct lies too heavily .. freedom is extinguished.. too light, anarchy & "moral" decay.

Of all the religions of today.. Christianity holds most of the Western World. Others are explored, but this is best suited for our culture. There are no gurantees that this mostly fortunate myth will provide the constructs needed in the future.. it has to be taken on faith NOT logic.

The practice of Christianity is mostly good..the practioners are frequently something else. Of course they are mere men ( & women ) & given over to doubts & manipulation. However the the veil drops when you hear such things as "liberal-whacks", "commie/bastards" & yes .. even "right-wing, crackpots"... or calling fallible political leaders ... things like "Klinton" or mixing up the "Stars & Stripes" with the unfortunate racist symbol of the "Stars & Bars".

Telling little white lies about one's feelings about Capital Punishment ( a currently changing evangelical dogma ) .. causes the veil to drop a little further .. Reverend.

You might think that you are on a sacred mission here.. & the subject is worthy of discussion.. but I see the manipulation behind it. Tell me .. what is the worse ? The pedophile that rapes a child's body.. or the manipulator that rapes his mind ?

I am a free-thinker.. raised a Catholic ( oh yes.. one of those ! ).. everyday I thank somebody .. for the hours that I spent in catechism class.. if not agreeing with what was said.. at least thinking about it.

I recognise the need for these constructs.. but unlike the long lost worshippers of the Gods of Eygpt & Babylon .. I do not bow before them.

Dog

Out of the swamps & into the jaws of Tyrants

 

[Magnus]

Pop quiz time for Moral Absolutists:

You have shot a man and killed him - please state under which of the following conditions where this will be considered to be an Evil Act:

1. He was shooting at you

2. He was in the process of raping your wife.

3. He looked at you funny

4. He was an enemy soldier invading your country and you were ordered to kill him.

5. You were inspecting a gun handed to you by a friend and it accidentally went off.

the answer? - ALL OF THE ABOVE!

this is why M.A. is irrational and left to the simpleminded fanatics of the world.