There is no such thing as evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-06-2014, 01:49 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 12:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Anyway, if you aren't all enthusiastic about what I say, just say so.

We're so far from enthusiastic it's not even funny. Go away.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 02:26 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 07:03 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Well, I would certainly agree that things would be coerced if there is always a threat of force, although if you reach some sort of stalemate, or there is a third party with a monopoly on force, that also opens things up. That's basically how a lot of society functions.
Yeah, but it's a self-perpetuating anachronism. People are beaten and indoctrinated into obeying authority by violent upbringing. 90 % of kids are spanked today. Secular authority is a crutch of broken childhood.

(18-06-2014 07:03 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Any two people who know and trust each other operate outside of it, but if you don't know someone, it's kind of hard to trust them. Sure, it'd be nice if we could trust everyone, and I supposed this could be describing a hypothetical "perfect" world.
People are not trustworthy with an unprocessed childhood trauma. I know I have a pretty mean streak in me. No, not perfect world. This world is so messed up, that it is an Orwellian/Huxleyan dystopia. I don't preach utopia. I just want... a topia, if that makes any sense.
And I know how to improve upon that topia so that it doesn't have this annoying capitalism and money thing, but regretfully I must leave that for later, until there is really some capitalism. The thing we have now is basically an ancient power bureau centrally and ignorantly controlling economy with some outer signs of free market. Not really a proper capitalism yet.

(18-06-2014 07:03 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  This is where I feel like you're getting more into your own opinion. I think I agree with a lot of what you said, but this is where I'd consider your meta morality to be subjective.
As I said, my effort is to connect the subjective and objective, point out the shared properties between the known and unknown, physical and metaphysical. I don't think there are many alternatives to that formulation.
If you can't think of any, then maybe it's objective, it just may really make you nervous when people make big and definite claims about reality. That might mean some obligations are coming your way, right? Wink

(18-06-2014 07:03 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(17-06-2014 04:47 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But science is not the content. It is the method. We choose the method, because it can reproduce the results consistently.

Yes, that's what I was commenting on: the method. I mean, we can make some terrifying things with science, but I was just talking about intellectual honesty. I personally find that super important.
Yes, the scientific method and intellectual honesty are white. But remember, there is also such a thing as a knowing, intentional, intellectual dishonesty.
There's stone evil, as Stef would say. This stuff is outright black. Yes, there are grey areas. If people had traumatized childhood and didn't process it, they may be pretty miserable and do some bad things and we may cut them some slack. But the moment they start attacking and sacrificing children to the god of their anxiety, they are for all intents and purposes evil and must be held totally responsible.

There are terrifying things in science, but they are nothing compared to the terrifying social technology called moral argument. Everything human exists or is destroyed because of a moral argument - and a bad one, at that. Moral theories sweep the world and leave tens of millions dead people in their wake. Moral philosophy is probably the most dangerous discipline.

However, I have one secret: all destruction from moral theories is based on philosophical errors, and very simple ones, at that. All evil is logically inconsistent. Get that through your head, let it sink deep. Evil is inconsistent. Evil makes no sense logically, unless you're alone on an empty island. Look for special cultural exceptions and you will find evil. The better at logic you are, the more evil you will see. But you can see no evil or use no logic if you first don't examine your family and upbringing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 02:42 PM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2014 02:54 PM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
EK: When your posts get too short, I don't read them. Your personality is disintegrating with your attention span.

(18-06-2014 12:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you use the actual dictionary you will find that your definition doesn't fit.
Core to morality is a distinction between good and bad.
Doing good things is moral.
Doing bad things is immoral.

Along this construct a person must be able to recognise what is good and what is bad.
A moral nihilist has no belief in moral truths. Thus to us moral statements are nonsensical. e.g. "theft is bad" is nonsensical. It is non nonsensical because bad has no meaning. What do you mean when you claim that something is bad? Maybe you mean it is detrimental? But detrimental to who, towards what goal?
Is everyone expected to consider this bad or just the proclaimer?
If it is the proclaimer then isn't that just a personal opinion rather than a moral truth (attribute of the universe)?

In your own definition all animals that live in social constructs have moral frameworks because they make social choices. But what is not clear about your definition is what would be the distinction between moral and immoral?
does it mean that those whom don't make choices are immoral and those that do make choices are moral?

Personally, I think your definition is lacking. You don't seem to have thought this through, which is why you are getting confused with my position.
Please pay attention, this is going to get really abstract. I don't speak about any social choices. I speak about consistent social choices. Animals don't exactly have much capacity for inconsistency, no matter how social they are. You made a great point there:
Doing good things is moral.
Doing bad things is immoral.
Fine by me!

Now, tell me, what do we see in human culture?
Doing X is immoral. But if you wear a costume of the right color, this very immoral thing suddenly becomes moral!
Doing Y is moral. But if you share a part of genes with some person, then it's immoral.
Doing Z is immoral. But if lots of people agree that you should do Z, then it's moral. Still the same thing.
WTF is that? I can't say, because most people here believe in hyper-morality of costumes, genes and popular agreement. They wouldn't get it. But that is what they believe, they believe that colourful costumes, blood and people's opinion have the power to alter logic and reality. When I put it like that, it's the same bullshit we hear at church.

I don't care about content of what is "good" or "bad". All I care about is, that good be always good and bad be always bad. Always, unless there are some objective biological exceptions. We must always uphold the first principle of identity, a thing is itself and nothing else, especially not its opposite.
Basically, it's about consistency of language. Language must be used consistently, things must be called their true names. Definitions must be unanimous and must not change according to what costume I wear, that sort of thing. Consistent language is our way of collective holding onto reality, morality and goodness. We may have a word for an evil thing, but evil people invent another label to call the evil thing, only this word has a good meaning, even though the content of this label is still evil. The problem is not that we wouldn't know what is or isn't evil, the problem is in not calling evil evil and good good.

If we've got consistency, any social rules will sort themselves VERY quickly, because they will apply to everyone. Bad rules only get made because those who make them are protected from suffering the consequences. They have a monopoly on rules and therefore a monopoly on bullshit arbitrary exceptions from these rules.

Hint:
CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY CONSISTENCY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 02:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  EK: When your posts get too short, I don't read them. Your personality is disintegrating with your attention span.

(18-06-2014 12:44 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If you use the actual dictionary you will find that your definition doesn't fit.
Core to morality is a distinction between good and bad.
Doing good things is moral.
Doing bad things is immoral.

Along this construct a person must be able to recognise what is good and what is bad.
A moral nihilist has no belief in moral truths. Thus to us moral statements are nonsensical. e.g. "theft is bad" is nonsensical. It is non nonsensical because bad has no meaning. What do you mean when you claim that something is bad? Maybe you mean it is detrimental? But detrimental to who, towards what goal?
Is everyone expected to consider this bad or just the proclaimer?
If it is the proclaimer then isn't that just a personal opinion rather than a moral truth (attribute of the universe)?

In your own definition all animals that live in social constructs have moral frameworks because they make social choices. But what is not clear about your definition is what would be the distinction between moral and immoral?
does it mean that those whom don't make choices are immoral and those that do make choices are moral?

Personally, I think your definition is lacking. You don't seem to have thought this through, which is why you are getting confused with my position.
Please pay attention, this is going to get really abstract. I don't speak about any social choices. I speak about consistent social choices. Animals don't exactly have much capacity for inconsistency, no matter how social they are. You made a great point there:
Doing good things is moral.
Doing bad things is immoral.
Fine by me!

Now, tell me, what do we see in human culture?
Doing X is immoral. But if you wear a costume of the right color, this very immoral thing suddenly becomes moral!
Doing Y is moral. But if you share a part of genes with some person, then it's immoral.
Doing Z is immoral. But if lots of people agree that you should do Z, then it's moral. Still the same thing.
WTF is that?

Basically, I don't care about content of what is "good" or "bad". All I care about is, that good be always good and bad be always bad. Always, unless there are some objective biological exceptions. We accept corrections from science, nobody else.
If we've got consistency, any social rules will sort themselves VERY quickly, because they will apply to everyone. Bad rules only get made because those who make them are protected from suffering the consequences. They have a monopoly on rules and therefore a monopoly on bullshit arbitrary exceptions from these rules.

You just described a subjective system congratulations.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Revenant77x's post
18-06-2014, 03:11 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 02:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't care about content of what is "good" or "bad". All I care about is, that good be always good and bad be always bad.
I understand your emphasis on consistency. I'm looking for that too.
But when considering "morality" you cannot merely wave your hand to the issue of distinction between moral and immoral acts. Without this distinction, you are not talking about morality.
(18-06-2014 02:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Language must be used consistently, things must be called their true names.
I agree with this, which is why I don't use moral terminology.
Calling something immoral, in my opinion is an act of hiding the true name, the true objection you have. Is it immoral because you think it endangers your own safety? Is it immoral because you feel strong negative emotions to it? Is it immoral because you are taught to believe that your god doesn't like it? Is it immoral because it goes against Kant's rules?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 03:18 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 02:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  EK: When your posts get too short, I don't read them.

You're missing out.

But then it's quite easy to put forward a whole essay of word salad and obfuscation and think that it means something because it sounds erudite. It's a lot harder to respond to people when they have scrutinised exactly what you are saying and are pointing out the actual flaws in it.


I thought EK made some very good points.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
18-06-2014, 03:22 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 03:18 PM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 02:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  EK: When your posts get too short, I don't read them.

You're missing out.

But then it's quite easy to put forward a whole essay of word salad and obfuscation and think that it means something because it sounds erudite. It's a lot harder to respond to people when they have scrutinised exactly what you are saying and are pointing out the actual flaws in it.


I thought EK made some very good points.

NUH UH CUZ IF EVERYONE AGREED WITH MY SELF-SATISFIEDEVIDENT OBJECTIVE CORRECTNESS EVERYTHING WOULD BE PERFECT FOREVER CUZ REASONS

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
18-06-2014, 03:37 PM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2014 03:44 PM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 03:11 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 02:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't care about content of what is "good" or "bad". All I care about is, that good be always good and bad be always bad.
I understand your emphasis on consistency. I'm looking for that too.
But when considering "morality" you cannot merely wave your hand to the issue of distinction between moral and immoral acts. Without this distinction, you are not talking about morality.
(18-06-2014 02:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Language must be used consistently, things must be called their true names.
I agree with this, which is why I don't use moral terminology.
Calling something immoral, in my opinion is an act of hiding the true name, the true objection you have. Is it immoral because you think it endangers your own safety? Is it immoral because you feel strong negative emotions to it? Is it immoral because you are taught to believe that your god doesn't like it? Is it immoral because it goes against Kant's rules?
These things have no moral or universal meaning. They're just facts at best, representing themselves and perhaps a few other facts. No moral (universal meaning in them. Sure, we shouldn't ignore facts such as health and safety, but they don't belong to the domain of moral philosophy. In fact, if you feel a strong negative emotions to something, you absolutely SHOULD deal with this first according tho the science of psychology, because this can severely affect your reasoning abilities. Having a belief in gods is already bad enough.

We can not focus on any specific content and call it moral or immoral. Why? Because language changes, technology changes, culture changes...
We just can't possibly keep track of it all. Specifics would be handled by objective scientific exceptions. Everything else is just shake your head and go back to the first principles. Hold onto the first principles (identity, contradiction and so on) and then apply them one any relationships between people or things that you see. That is a difficult, elite discipline.
http://www.hyoomik.com/phi205/arche.htm

But we can do this fairly quickly: First thing we do is to analyse internal consistency of a proposition. If it holds, we examine external consistency, with the world. We check what happens if I break a rule. And especially we find out what happens when someone who made the rule breaks the rule.
One inconsistent thing to do is to make up a positive rule for everyone. We can make up rules for ourselves, it's called having a will. But we can't make positive unchosen moral obligations for other people. We can tell them whatever, but they won't be immoral for disobeying us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 03:39 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 03:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But we can't make positive unchosen moral obligations for other people. We can tell them whatever, but they won't be evil for disobeying us.

In which case, I don't think you understand what objective morality entails...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-06-2014, 03:55 PM (This post was last modified: 18-06-2014 03:58 PM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(18-06-2014 02:45 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  You just described a subjective system congratulations.
I don't understand. What is a noun and what is an adjective? Aren't you missing an "of" somewhere in there?

(18-06-2014 03:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-06-2014 03:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  But we can't make positive unchosen moral obligations for other people. We can tell them whatever, but they won't be evil for disobeying us.

In which case, I don't think you understand what objective morality entails...
No argument? I win! Clap

Show me a positive universal moral rule and I'll believe you. Right now I'd say it's impossible, except for objective biological differences, such as childhood and parenting. But these are not universal, they're empirical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: