What is evil?

[Atticus]

I pay gladly taxes for good purposes.

I'm not saying that taxation is right, but unless I have mistaken, you have said that it's wrong. Now you're saying that there is no right or wrong.

So if "taxation is wrong" amounts only to "I don't like taxation", why are you demanding us to agree with you?

 

[warpus]

I have always been of the opinion that those who claim that morality is objective need to point to a viable source of morality if they are to be taken seriously.

I believe it to be partially objective - and point to our shared biology as the source.

 

[GoodGame]

I have always been of the opinion that those who claim that morality is objective need to point to a viable source of morality if they are to be taken seriously.

I believe it to be partially objective - and point to our shared biology as the source.

Tradition, social evolution, a history of legal system (babylonian, roman, anglosaxon etc..) Are those objective enough? It's kind of hard to point to one since they're generally historical things, not always formalized into writing, and the development of some might not even be observed, so only conjecturable.

The alternative is to digitalize everything that was formalized in writing or a bureaucratic file and scan such a database for trends. E.g. when did vigilante justice become unfashionable?

 

[Atticus]

Tradition, social evolution, a history of legal system (babylonian, roman, anglosaxon etc..) Are those objective enough?

Well they may be reason why people have the morals they do have, but they can't be source of objective morals. Unless you think that morality is defioned by tradition, laws etc.

 

[warpus]

Tradition, social evolution, a history of legal system (babylonian, roman, anglosaxon etc..) Are those objective enough? It's kind of hard to point to one since they're generally historical things, not always formalized into writing, and the development of some might not even be observed, so only conjecturable.

The alternative is to digitalize everything that was formalized in writing or a bureaucratic file and scan such a database for trends. E.g. when did vigilante justice become unfashionable?

Yeah, those are good, but in the end they result in partial objective morality only. There are those who claim it is fully objective.

But yeah, the things you mention nicely complement biology

 

[Angst]

I suppose youre right, no point to demand it. However, pointing out the contradiction of claiming to be a humane liberal and against all kinds of violence, all the while supporting the king of violence, the proud murderer of 100million in 20th century, the government, is surely worth it!

When the bleep will you stop being so ridiculous, providing postulates with insufficient or nonexistant basis, blindly twisting the world's actual situation in order to have your opinions fit truth without being pervertedly wrong?

I see both post hoc ergo procter hoc here as well as a complete lack of consideration about what the world would look like today if the whole world somehow pulled it through with the idiotic way of anarcho-capitalism.

With all due respect, everyone has the right to have an opinion. But when you actually draw this ridiculous debate into this thread (Read: Others did somewhat, but they left out the propaganda), I lose my temper. And if that wasn't enough, you're making self-contradicting statements, claiming that there is no objective truth, then stating that your world view is the only true and eternally right statement, and as people point it out, you do it again.

Are you a DL or something??

 

[Angst]

So dont just flame, show me where i made my mistakes.

What about you pull yourself together and make arguments? I've yet to see any argument from you that didn't fail gruesomely when equated with actual real world events. You know, the world that works. You have once been saying the pre-British Irish civilization was "anarchist" and that the said situation proved functioning on the premise that duration=good society system. Whenever you straighten your own views towards logic, answer my points instead of simply ignoring them and debating with me about the same thing later in another thread, and recognize the errors in your logic, followed by a correction of your views, hopefully ending up with an anarcho-capitalist argument that is reasonable; then I will answer you without thinking that point is idiotic. It's that simple.

Also, as I said in another thread: in the future, you should refrain from simply posting links to w/e weirdo book you just read, expecting us to read it.

The only time I've ever listened to you was back when you posted that comic about how economy worked; the thing with Able, Bob and C-something. However, that comic lost all connection to reality when "government" came running as an angry man, with one line talking about him, stating that the said government's mingling would do nothing but hurt the economy, The. End. Now, I think of the comic as no more worthy than Nazi propaganda.

Most of your arguments boil down to "I don't like paying taxes". And if you don't like it, sure, move to a deserted island and start your own Able story, only to await the government running towards you, angrily waving his fist, ready to beat you up. Because government always grows forth, you better be prepared.

 

[Lord Gay]

I believe it to be partially objective - and point to our shared biology as the source.

In what fashion do you believe biology lends to objectivity?

 

[warpus]

In what fashion do you believe biology lends to objectivity?

Some things are somewhat written in stone for us, humans, due to our common evolutionary descent/biology/whatever. We all (with some extreme exceptions) share certain biologically-driven urges, for example.

Some things are set in stone for us - that might not be for other sentient & intelligent species (if they exist).

I can't really think of any specific examples, but do we not all see the world through similar eyes due to our common biology? Things that appear to be objective for us as a species (i.e. are true for all of us), that might not be true for other species.

 

[El_Machinae]

In what fashion do you believe biology lends to objectivity?

Well, there are some objective truths regarding humans. Humans feel pain, for example.
Once you have some truths, you can build a morality off of something solid.