Do you believe in evil?

[Chuman]

"Evil" is like the word "crazy." Nothing's that one-dimensional, it's just an easy way to describe behavior that is incomprehensible and/or immoral/unethical.

That's crazy.

 

[Pinwheel]

There is no objective evidence to say good exist. Do you agree with this?

Yes. So we can agree that neither are objective then if the other is the same?

 

[Songbird]

Evil cannot even be quantified, let alone proven.
The ability for good and evil to exist as a sort've 'force' that is almost physical is derived soley from how the term useage has evolved over the years. It is all in what you believe at the time you state something is good or evil. You can literally change your mind later and nothing will be affected by this because good and evil are simply a logo we stamp onto things based on our moral observations of them.

Non-Smoker: Cigarettes are evil
Occasional Smoker: Cigarettes are meh.
Chain Smoker: Cigarettes are good.

Kind've a mental statement. These people might not believe these things or say them out loud, but the thought resides in their mind. Smokers may still think cigarettes are evil, but the part of them that wants it rejects that reality because it's simply a state of thought.

 

[bgizzles45]

Yes. So we can agree that neither are objective then if the other is the same?

No, I was not agreeing with the statement. I only asked you to get a better understanding of your argument.

Evil is defined as profoundly immoral and malevolent. According to you, there is no objective evil based on this definition. Let me give you some examples of evil in the real world.

One who goes out in the public and shoots everyone in sight.
One who is extorted into a brothel and is forced into prostitute against their will.
One who is brutally rapes a helpless victim
One who murders
One who is greedy
One who is envious
One who is jealous
One who is hateful
One who is self centered

Good is defined as something that is morally right, and righteous.

One who is altruistic
One who is compassionate towards all without any discrimination
One who gives to the less fortunate
One who practices non violence


Every culture around the world would all agree on these as objective truth to virtues and vices so as long as they're not ignorant.

As Greek philosophers would state,
"Ignorance, the stem and root of all evil" - Plato
"There is one good, knowledge. One evil, ignorance" - Socrates
"It is our choice of good or evil that determines our character, not our opinion of good and evil". - Aristotle



There are objective immoral acts in present day and in recorded history. As I stated before, evil is not measured by belief. It exists and the evidence is clear.

 

[Pinwheel]

One who goes out in the public and shoots everyone in sight.
One who is extorted into a brothel and is forced into prostitute against their will.
One who is brutally rapes a helpless victim
One who murders
One who is greedy
One who is envious
One who is jealous
One who is hateful
One who is self centered

Except there are people who do these things and still consider it right. It's perspective. There's nothing quantifiable about it being evil except that you believe it is.

Good is defined as something that is morally right, and righteous.

One who is altruistic
One who is compassionate towards all without any discrimination
One who gives to the less fortunate
One who practices non violence

So these are morally right because... why? Where's the quantifiable evidence it's evil? Your argument thus far has basically boiled down to "these are examples of things most people would say are good/evil" without actually providing evidence why.

Every culture around the world would all agree on these as objective truth to virtues and vices so as long as they're not ignorant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Appeals to popularity are fallacious. Not to mention you've just generalized every culture and sub-categorized those you would disagree with as ignorant.

As I stated before, evil is not measured by belief. It exists and the evidence is clear.

Except everything you stated as being evil is simply evil because people believe it is so. That means nothing objectively.

 

[bgizzles45]

You have yet to give counter my examples as to why they are not objective but subjective. It's perspective, right? I was not giving an ad populum argumentation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_universalism

Those vices are universally seen as immoral, thus an objective truth. If you see the examples I've given as subjective, then you are clearly psychopathic in trying to justify those acts as neither good or evil.

Except everything you stated as being evil is simply evil because people believe it is so.

You obviously missed the point.



I'm done entertaining your nonsense. Go troll somewhere else. You've already made yourself look foolish in the other thread.

 

[Pinwheel]

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position

So your idea for proving there is an objective morality is by showing me there's a belief that there is objective morality?

You have yet to give counter my examples as to why they are not objective but subjective.

Actually, I did. Repeatedly. You claimed they were objective. The only evidence you gave was that people generally agree that those things are good or evil, which is - unsurprisingly - subjective.

I was not giving an ad populum argumentation.

Every culture around the world would all agree on these as objective truth to virtues and vices so as long as they're not ignorant.

argumentum ad populum is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it

Right.

Those vices are universally seen as immoral, thus an objective truth. If you see the examples I've given as subjective, then you are clearly psychopathic in trying to justify those acts as neither good or evil.

Making an enormous generalization you can't support with evidence again. They AREN'T universally seen as immoral. You can go find people who believe killing is good in multiple parts of the word. It means that you SUBJECTIVELY disagree with them on the matter. Most people don't think it's good, obviously, but that doesn't make it a universal truth. That's yet another ad populum.

You obviously missed the point.

But of course you don't explain how I missed the point. You just saying I'm wrong and not explaining why is meaningless in a debate.

I'm done entertaining your nonsense. Go troll somewhere else. You've already made yourself look foolish in the other thread.

If you can't have a calm discussion without insulting people or just claim they're trolling, you should probably stay out of the sub-forum that promotes the opposite.

 

[Songbird]

One who goes out in the public and shoots everyone in sight.

What if those people were a group of extremists bent on killing others? What if this person was willing to sacrifice their own innocence to protect other people from something bad ever happening? And you can't say that everyone on the street is always innocent of wrongdoing. Because that is simply not true. I've stolen before. Am I evil for being greedy like that? What if I stole something because it was mine in the first place, or I stole it because someone needed it more than the one who had it at the time?

Everything can be justified by whomever is willing to find the way to justify it. All they need is the mindset and the means. You believe evil is something that is concrete - that it is black and white. I fail to see how that is a healthy opinion. Sure: thinking of things having a gray area doesn't allow for justice to ever feel like it's the right thing. But it's simply NOT always black and white. There are people who think what they're dong is right. Elsewise no one would EVER do bad things. And really...nobody does. Because there is ALWAYS someone who thinks it's right. The majority has nothing to do with it. Just because 9/10 people think killing Old Yeller was a horrible way to end it, there's 1 person who tries to understand the situation enough to see it from every angle.

 

[robvandam111]

Through out this week, I've been watching Star Wars highlights and stuff. I just couldn't help but to find this after awhile.

[video=youtube;sObyG9bTf5A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sObyG9bTf5A[/video]

 

[bgizzles45]

What if those people were a group of extremists bent on killing others?

Then they are the very definition of evil.

What if this person was willing to sacrifice their own innocence to protect other people from something bad ever happening?

If they wanted to protect them from anything bad from ever happening, then they should start by not committing a bad act towards them.

And you can't say that everyone on the street is always innocent of wrongdoing. Because that is simply not true. I've stolen before. Am I evil for being greedy like that?

I've never made the implication that everyone is innocent, nor did I stated that everyone who commits evil acts deserve to die. If the shooter is killing everyone in sight, the shooter is killing without the intent of knowing their past vices. The shooter wants to kill as much as possible regardless. Are you evil for being greedy? I'll let you be the judge of that.

What if I stole something because it was mine in the first place

You're not stealing if it belonged to you in the first place. You're simply taking back property that belongs to you.

I stole it because someone needed it more than the one who had it at the time?

There are other ways of acquiring what you need without stealing.

Everything can be justified by whomever is willing to find the way to justify it. All they need is the mindset and the means.

The self-centered and egocentric person will they try to justify it.

You believe evil is something that is concrete - that it is black and white.

I don't.

I fail to see how that is a healthy opinion. Sure: thinking of things having a gray area doesn't allow for justice to ever feel like it's the right thing. But it's simply NOT always black and white. There are people who think what they're dong is right. Elsewise no one would EVER do bad things. And really...nobody does. Because there is ALWAYS someone who thinks it's right. The majority has nothing to do with it.

Like the example I provided before, this would not be the issue if someone was altruistic. Only an egocentric individual will think they're right due to their selfishness.

 

[Songbird]

@bgizzles45: Your responses to me were completely based upon circumstances that you came up with, just as mine were as well. But mine were meant to oppose your argument as you asked Pinwheel to provide counterargumet. Your responses to mine were simply you warping the situation. So now I ask you:

Give me a counterargument for what I said rather than simply change the situation I presented you with.

 

[Professor Ven]

This argument is pointless, the "Good vs Evil" dichotomy is nothing more than a method by which humanity is divided among itself, no one is truly "good or evil," humans are capable of either entirely by their own evolved intelligence and general freedom of will in making choices and decisions. Most people will only see themselves as "good," and subconsciously ignore the "evil traits" within themselves - while also pointing out those same "evil traits" in others.

Nothing more than a tool by which nations and people categorize certain actions as moral and immoral towards society; what is "good" in the present-day can become "evil" within a generation. There is no "good or evil," only choices and their consequences/results.

 

[Taylor]

It is not a matter of believing in evil. Evil exists whether you believe it or not.

what the fuck



You're seriously going to come in here and say morality is objective?

 

[Taylor]

There are objective immoral acts in present day and in recorded history. As I stated before, evil is not measured by belief. It exists and the evidence is clear.

nvm you don't know what that words means

 

[Deleted member 36435]

The very fact that the people who commit "objectively immoral acts" believe they are doing the right thing literally proves that the concept of morality isn't objective

 

[Nyangoro]

The only thing about morality that is objective is the objective fact that the concept exists in human society.

To prove that morality is objective beyond that, you would basically need to demonstrate that certain actions are evil (or good) outside of the context in which those actions occur. Put another way, you would basically need to show why an action is wrong even in the event that there is no actor to perform it.

 

[bgizzles45]

The very fact that the people who commit "objectively immoral acts" believe they are doing the right thing literally proves that the concept of morality isn't objective

Only the irrational mind would justify their irrational acts of vice as correct. Just as the ignorant would try to prove 2 + 2 = 5. If one believes that the earth is flat, does it make it objective despite the evidence declaring otherwise? A belief in anything clouds one's judgement of what is determinate of the dualistic polarity of good and evil.

Immanuel Kant declares that:

... unless we wish to deny all truth to the concept of morality and renounce its application to any possible object, we cannot refuse to admit that the law of this concept [reason which determines a priori the will to duty] is of such broad significance that it... must be valid with absolute necessity and not merely under contingent conditions and with exceptions

(priori being universal and necessary knowledge).

​

Plato also believed in objective truth to morality in Book VI of The Republic.

Yes.
And you are aware too that the latter cannot explain what they mean by knowledge, but are obliged after all to say knowledge of the good?

How ridiculous!
Yes, I said, that they should begin by reproaching us with our ignorance of the good, and then presume our knowledge of it --for the good they define to be knowledge of the good, just as if we understood them when they use the term 'good' --this is of course ridiculous.

Most true, he said.
And those who make pleasure their good are in equal perplexity; for they are compelled to admit that there are bad pleasures as well as good.

Certainly.
And therefore to acknowledge that bad and good are the same?
True.
There can be no doubt about the numerous difficulties in which this question is involved.

There can be none.
Further, do we not see that many are willing to do or to have or to seem to be what is just and honourable without the reality; but no one is satisfied with the appearance of good --the reality is what they seek; in the case of the good, appearance is despised by every one.

Very true, he said.
Of this then, which every soul of man pursues and makes the end of all his actions, having a presentiment that there is such an end, and yet hesitating because neither knowing the nature nor having the same assurance of this as of other things, and therefore losing whatever good there is in other things, --of a principle such and so great as this ought the best men in our State, to whom everything is entrusted, to be in the darkness of ignorance?

Certainly not, he said.
I am sure, I said, that he who does not know now the beautiful and the just are likewise good will be but a sorry guardian of them; and I suspect that no one who is ignorant of the good will have a true knowledge of them.

 

[Deleted member 36435]

Only the irrational mind would justify their irrational acts of vice as correct. Just as the ignorant would try to prove 2 + 2 = 5. If one believes that the earth is flat, does it make it objective despite the evidence declaring otherwise? A belief in anything clouds one's judgement of what is determinate of the dualistic polarity of good and evil.

You're comparing testable and observable realities about our world to an abstract concept. You're just as irrational as the people you condemn. Provide me with one shred of concrete and testable evidence for ANYTHING being unquestionably "good" or "evil" and you might just change my mind.

 

[Nyangoro]

I think the problem here stems from a misunderstanding of the terms. Morality literally cannot be objective. It could be based on some criteria, and it can be objective insofar as it does, in fact, follow "x" criteria; but even the value of said criteria would be subjective in nature, so even at that it's impossible to escape that morality is a subjective thing.

Simply put, if something is objectively true, that means it's true regardless of whether anyone or anything is there to perceive it. The earth has one moon. This is an objective fact. All life could be wiped off the face of the earth right this very second, and it would still be true that the earth has one moon. Meanwhile, that "the moon is pretty" is a subjective statement. It is an appraisal by the viewer. They perceive and then appraise. That is how subjectivity works.

And that is also how morality works. The action must be appraised by the viewer. Someone has to decide that "y" action is either good or bad. It cannot be good or evil in and of itself. Those are human-made properties, not nature-made ones. We and we alone appraise it and give it that quality. That's what it means to be subjective. It doesn't matter how many people agree. It doesn't even matter if everyone agrees. Most agree that water tastes bland, but that doesn't make "water tastes bland" any less of a subjective statement.

 

[bgizzles45]

I think the problem here stems from a misunderstanding of the terms. Morality literally cannot be objective. It could be based on some criteria, and it can be objective insofar as it does, in fact, follow "x" criteria; but even the value of said criteria would be subjective in nature, so even at that it's impossible to escape that morality is a subjective thing.

Simply put, if something is objectively true, that means it's true regardless of whether anyone or anything is there to perceive it. The earth has one moon. This is an objective fact. All life could be wiped off the face of the earth right this very second, and it would still be true that the earth has one moon. Meanwhile, that "the moon is pretty" is a subjective statement. It is an appraisal by the viewer. They perceive and then appraise. That is how subjectivity works.

And that is also how morality works. The action must be appraised by the viewer. Someone has to decide that "y" action is either good or bad. It cannot be good or evil in and of itself. Those are human-made properties, not nature-made ones. We and we alone appraise it and give it that quality. That's what it means to be subjective. It doesn't matter how many people agree. It doesn't even matter if everyone agrees. Most agree that water tastes bland, but that doesn't make "water tastes bland" any less of a subjective statement.

Morality is an universal agreement that was imposed from the very beginning of civilization in order to keep mankind in order which is why laws were imposed due to our moral standards analyzed by the rationale conscience. Otherwise, murder would be just as common as saying hello to someone. Say for instance, a dictator decided one morning, out of the blue, that he will drop nuclear bombs all over the planet with no particular reasoning behind his (or her) motive. The entire world would be in total chaos because the universal consensus of an action causing a reaction in conjunction with one another.