There is no such thing as evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-06-2014, 02:12 AM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2014 02:33 AM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(22-06-2014 07:37 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  What makes avoiding violence, pain, and destruction moral?
Damn you! You did it again! Angry You and your darwinistic seductive trickery. This is not about avoiding violence, pain and destruction, this is about avoiding initiating them. Ever heard of non-initiation of aggression? We can not influence what happens and often we have to react, but we can influence what we initiate. If someone else initiates aggression against us, all bets are off.
Note, that I did not say that avoiding is moral. I was already a little off the track by your Gondwanian arts, but I talked about consistency. This is what I said.
(22-06-2014 12:27 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Secondly, what makes it (consistency) moral is the fact that it's a reliable way to avoid violence, pain and destruction and have a plenty of freedom on top of that. Fair enough?
I might as well talk to a Christian apologist!

What makes it moral is consistency and universality.

We all can do these things (not initiating aggression) at the same time, because it's a negative obligation. If some positive obligation was moral in itself, then a guy lying in a coma doing nothing would be immoral. Because, let's say he can't make a journey to Kaaba once in a lifetime.

As for consistency, theft is theft, because a thief believes in property, wants to keep the stolen goods or money as property, so there are two kinds of people, a thief and a victim. And they can't both be moral at the same time, because they do opposite things. And as you know from the first principle of identity, "things can not be themselves and their opposites at the same time".
The same works for murder, only a murderer very much believes in not being murdered and he uses his aliveness to deprive someone else of life.

Yes, people can simultaneously take wallets from their pockets, but then it's not theft, it's exchange. Yes, people can make a duel and shoot themselves at the same time, but then it's not murder.

Only in not initiating aggression we can be all united and all moral. That is consistent and universal. These might actually be related to each other, because something can't be all that widespread (universal) without being consistent and something truly consistent will also be universal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 05:39 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 02:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Damn you! You did it again! Angry You and your darwinistic seductive trickery.

Damn you! You did it again! Angry You and your assumptions that things can be inherently moral.


(23-06-2014 02:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I might as well talk to a Christian apologist!

Says the person who thinks morality is objective.


(23-06-2014 02:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  What makes it moral is consistency and universality.

No, it only makes it consistent. It doesn't make it moral. It also doesn't make it peanut butter, happy, fart, velocity, or pungent. Words have meanings. When you start stretching the meanings of the words "subjective" and "objective" in ways no one else uses them to make your point that morality is objective, it isn't compelling.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
23-06-2014, 05:49 AM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2014 05:55 AM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 05:39 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 02:12 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Damn you! You did it again! Angry You and your darwinistic seductive trickery.

Damn you! You did it again! Angry You and your assumptions that things can be inherently moral.
No, you do it again. Things can not be moral, only actions! (such as methods) I keep saying all the time that specific things and contents can not be moral, but actions are general, they can be universally undertaken (or not undertaken) by anyone.

Things have their own identity, but actions/methods have identity of anyone who does them. This is why actions/methods reflect on morality of people who act.

(23-06-2014 05:39 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  No, it only makes it consistent. It doesn't make it moral. It also doesn't make it peanut butter, happy, fart, velocity, or pungent. Words have meanings. When you start stretching the meanings of the words "subjective" and "objective" in ways no one else uses them to make your point that morality is objective, it isn't compelling.
And I already told you that subjectivity is not the topic here. Anything that we actually do and say outwardly, is under objective evaluation of consistency and this is the only way that objective morality can exist.

I swear, there must be a couple dozen of readers around who totally get it, and they're just hiding. People, show yourself! Like my posts!
[Image: Salsola-tragus_0.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 06:31 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 05:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Things have their own identity, but actions/methods have identity of anyone who does them. This is why actions/methods reflect on morality of people who act.

Okay, so what makes the act of murder morally bad or the act of carrying someone's groceries morally good?

I personally evaluate the first as "bad" and the second as "good", but I don't see any universal truth behind it. I don't see God/souls/consistency as making it objectively bad/good.


(23-06-2014 05:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  And I already told you that subjectivity is not the topic here.

Yes it is! Here is your very first post in this thread, responding to me, which spawned this whole discussion:

(17-06-2014 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 07:07 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I think the concepts of good and evil are subjective. I don't believe in any universal good or evil.
OK. So what would you do if I provided you an objective definition of good and evil? What difference would it make in your life? Do you have a deep, almost religious desire to be a good person and to do good? Is caution about definitions the last thing stopping you from spreading and teaching the message of good and fighting evil?

It's you trying to prove good and evil are objective, as opposed to subjective. You've lost the context of where this started.



(23-06-2014 05:49 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I swear, there must be a couple dozen of readers around who totally get it, and they're just hiding. People, show yourself! Like my posts!

Perhaps you're too smart for us and we don't get it. Or perhaps you're too smart for us to communicate effectively. Or perhaps you're wrong and people don't agree with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
23-06-2014, 11:38 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 06:31 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Okay, so what makes the act of murder morally bad or the act of carrying someone's groceries morally good?

I personally evaluate the first as "bad" and the second as "good", but I don't see any universal truth behind it. I don't see God/souls/consistency as making it objectively bad/good.
I don't see any universal truth behind carrying someone's groceries, because it's not there. If carrying groceries would be good, then you would be not good for all the time of your life that you don't carry groceries. The truth is, it's optional, not moral, not immoral, not grey zone, it's quite neutral. You're not initiating aggression if you refuse to help someone. (except to children, they are biologically dependent)

The act of murder, I already said that. If you don't understand that yet, then allow me please, out of tiredness, to use the author's words, not mine. Maybe they will make more sense to you.
Let us return to our two moral guinea pigs sitting in a room – we’ll call them Bob and Doug. If murder is morally good, then clearly refraining from murder is immoral. Thus the only chance that Bob and Doug have to be moral is in the instant that they simultaneously murder each other. Physically, this is impossible of course – if they both stand and grip each other’s throats, they will never succumb to
strangulation at exactly the same moment. If Bob dies first, his grip on Doug’s throat will loosen, thus condemning Doug to the status of immorality until such time as he can find another victim. Because Bob dies first – and thus cannot continue to try murdering Doug – Bob’s death renders him more immoral than Doug’s murder.
Intuitively, we fully recognize the insanity of the moral proposition that murder is good. Logically, we know that the proposition is incorrect because if it is true, it is impossible for two men in a room to both be moral at the same time. Morality, like health, cannot be considered a mere “snapshot,” but must be a process, or a continuum. The UPB framework confirms that Bob cannot be “evil” whilee is strangling Doug, and then achieve the pinnacle of moral virtue the moment that he kills Doug – and then revert immediately back to a state of evil. Moral propositions must be universal, and independent of time and place.

The proposition that murder is moral fails this requirement at every level, and so is not valid. If murder were morally good, then it would also be the case that a man stranded on a desert island would be morally evil for as long as he lived there, since he would have no victims to kill. A man in a coma would also be evil, as would a sleeping man, or a man on the operating table. A torturer would be an evil man as long as he continued to torture – but then would become a good man in the moment that his victim died at his hand.
We can thus see that the proposition that “murder is good” is not only instinctively bizarre, but also logically impossible.
See UPB, page 73.


(23-06-2014 06:31 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Perhaps you're too smart for us and we don't get it. Or perhaps you're too smart for us to communicate effectively. Or perhaps you're wrong and people don't agree with you.
It doesn't look that way to me. It seems to me you always seek the positivist fuzzy logic of evolution and resist the clear-cut logic of philosophy.

The truth is, I vastly underestimate how alien this way of thinking is. It might be just that almost nobody is trained in abstract thinking. Abstract thinking is a discipline which one gains when one is trained in too many disciplines and sees that each discipline has a general pattern. So they start studying the patterns and similarities, rather than the contents. And it works, because the deepest basis of nature is clear-cut. The complexity we see in nature and society is emergent, but it does not invalidate the simplicity of general principles. They are still in there somewhere.
In the end, we are all confused. The truth is, nobody understands me unless I teach them everything from basics. And I forget how alien this stuff is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 11:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 06:31 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Okay, so what makes the act of murder morally bad or the act of carrying someone's groceries morally good?

I personally evaluate the first as "bad" and the second as "good", but I don't see any universal truth behind it. I don't see God/souls/consistency as making it objectively bad/good.
I don't see any universal truth behind carrying someone's groceries, because it's not there. If carrying groceries would be good, then you would be not good for all the time of your life that you don't carry groceries. The truth is, it's optional, not moral, not immoral, not grey zone, it's quite neutral. You're not initiating aggression if you refuse to help someone. (except to children, they are biologically dependent)

And how many times must it be pointed out to you that "initiating aggression" is a facile and tremendously subjective standard?

But, uh, you keep on doing your thing, man. 'Cause preaching is always a better way to communicate than actual discussion...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
23-06-2014, 12:10 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 11:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If murder is morally good, then clearly refraining from murder is immoral.
...
We can thus see that the proposition that “murder is good” is not only instinctively bizarre, but also logically impossible.

So far as I can tell, the claim the author makes is "saying murder is good makes no sense, so it must be bad". Allow me to submit to you the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

Also, the way he gets to his conclusion is really weird. I would submit that refraining from murder is neutral, not the opposite of committing murder. Also, why do you get to invoke that carrying groceries is neutral, and then say that not committing murder is not neutral?

It's different cuz you say so?


(23-06-2014 11:38 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It doesn't look that way to me. It seems to me you always seek the positivist fuzzy logic of evolution and resist the clear-cut logic of philosophy.

The truth is, I vastly underestimate how alien this way of thinking is. It might be just that almost nobody is trained in abstract thinking.

So long as we're busting out credentials, I write software for a living and have for a decade. I'm very familiar with boolean algebra, logical thinking, and representing both real-world and abstract principles in math and logic. This is nothing new to me.

Your "clear-cut logic" appears to involve a fair amount of leaps via questionable induction, and is backed by claiming that philosophical logic doesn't need to be concerned with such problems of empiricism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
23-06-2014, 01:14 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 12:10 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Your "clear-cut logic" appears to involve a fair amount of leaps via questionable induction, and is backed by claiming that philosophical logic doesn't need to be concerned with such problems of empiricism.

Yeah, but, like, it's totally objective, dude, 'cause True Feels Facts always come from various orifices self-evident first principles, and calling your own particular subjective nonsense self-evident is totally in no way the harbinger of unrepentant crankery, and absolutely definitely not a self-absorbed appeal to (personal, subjective) authority.

That's the ticket...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
23-06-2014, 01:44 PM (This post was last modified: 23-06-2014 01:52 PM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 11:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And how many times must it be pointed out to you that "initiating aggression" is a facile and tremendously subjective standard?

But, uh, you keep on doing your thing, man. 'Cause preaching is always a better way to communicate than actual discussion...
If you think the difference between getting attacked and not getting attacked is facile and tremendously subjective, tell that to law-makers and judges.

(23-06-2014 12:10 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So far as I can tell, the claim the author makes is "saying murder is good makes no sense, so it must be bad". Allow me to submit to you the logical fallacy of the false dilemma.

Also, the way he gets to his conclusion is really weird. I would submit that refraining from murder is neutral, not the opposite of committing murder. Also, why do you get to invoke that carrying groceries is neutral, and then say that not committing murder is not neutral?

It's different cuz you say so?
Weeping Oh my god, you think this is some kind of symmetric trichotomy that classifies things on moral, immoral and neutral? You think there is some one kind of thing or action that makes one virtuous?
Right, not murdering is not an action. Refraining from bad actions does not make us good, it only makes us not bad. Morality and virtue is a process of striving towards consistency in all our relations, not any single thing we do or don't do. That's why the book is called Universally Preferable Behavior, striving towards what is universally preferable is the virtue.


As for the groceries, if I have a free set of hands, do people have the right do demand that I must help them carry groceries, or I am a bad person?
Let's say I'm a woman and I have a vagina, do men have the right to demand that I offer it to them as a warmer of extremities, or I am a bad person?
Nope. We own ourselves and we decide what to do with ourselves.

(23-06-2014 12:10 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  So long as we're busting out credentials, I write software for a living and have for a decade. I'm very familiar with boolean algebra, logical thinking, and representing both real-world and abstract principles in math and logic. This is nothing new to me.

Your "clear-cut logic" appears to involve a fair amount of leaps via questionable induction, and is backed by claiming that philosophical logic doesn't need to be concerned with such problems of empiricism.
It is not difficult to use clear-cut logic in virtual world with virtual objects, it is extremely difficult to use it in the seeming chaos of social world. Many give up after their fourth birthday or so, mostly because parents are stronger. Sorry to bother you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-06-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(23-06-2014 01:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(23-06-2014 11:52 AM)cjlr Wrote:  And how many times must it be pointed out to you that "initiating aggression" is a facile and tremendously subjective standard?

But, uh, you keep on doing your thing, man. 'Cause preaching is always a better way to communicate than actual discussion...
If you think the difference between getting attacked and not getting attacked is facile and tremendously subjective, tell that to law-makers and judges.

A classic non-response.

What is "aggression"? What is "initiation" thereof?
Protip: those judgements are subjective. They admit of much disagreement and contextual sensitivity.

Vacuously declaring shit doesn't help anyone. Least of all when you can't substantiate it.

Studying nuance is literally the entire point of law courts. Do you have literally any idea what a trial is?

Your self-congratulatory and smugly masturbatory rhetoric grows ever less compelling.

I do plenty to make my opinions known within the free and democratic society in which I live, thanks.

Now, I realize that that's not an answer you like, because you're inextricably wedded to a deranged conspiracist delusion, but tough shit.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: