Root of all evil

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Root of all evil
Sticky Infiltrator Member # 4256	written Friday, January 21 2005 21:47 Profile #75 I fail to see the distinction, enlighten me. The issue that I have with Hobbes definition is that this calls any pleasurable activity/thought good. Perhaps any activity that the ultimate result was pleasure, could be considered good. This would be going with the view that evil actions are punished either by their very nature or by a God. In example. I hate Mr. X because he is a Y I brutally kill Mr. X I enjoy it immensly According to Hobbes this would be good? What if (in the opposite of altruism) you enjoy doing what you think is evil. Then doing evil is good. I don't see it. Posts: 564 \| Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00
Stugri-La Guardian Member # 3521	written Saturday, January 22 2005 11:14 Profile #76 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: I suppose it's worth pointing out that Hinduism is so completely decentralized that while this may be a general trend, it's hardly universally true. I'm more than aware of the fact that the beliefs I hold aren't identical to those held by all Hindus. I don't, however, feel the need to account for what all the primitive village yokels in India happen to still believe. My beliefs represent the forefront of Hinduism. The others will catch up eventually. -------------------- *Stughalf* "Delusion arises from anger. The mind is bewildered by delusion. Reasoning is destroyed when the mind is bewildered. One falls down when reasoning is destroyed."- The Bhagavad Gita. Posts: 1798 \| Registered: Sunday, October 5 2003 07:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Saturday, January 22 2005 13:59 Profile #77 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: quote: Originally written by KernelKnowledge12: I assume it is currently accepted that Hobbes' definition of good/evil is correct. I don't know where you would get an idea like this, but no, it's not, really. There have been a few hundred years of thought since him that have been spent supporting, refuting, and ignoring him. If there's one broad generalization one can make about the state of philosophy and moral thought, it's that there is no consensus, like, at all. I meant that for this thread, and when I wrote that I just meant to say that I was using his definiton as a base for what I was about to write. And Thuryl's right, we're still trying to hammer out a definiton. Sorry for the confusion. quote: Originally written by Bad-Ass Mother Custer: I refuse to acknowledge anything Hobbes says as correct, for instance. I refuse to have any truck whatsoever with his damnedable social contract, and I'm sure as hell not going to drop to my knees and start beating off because the poor are not directly subject to the hungering of wolves. Hobbes DID NOT come up with the social contract as we think of it today, Locke did in his "Second Treatise on Civil Government." Hobbes' version (outlined in Leviathan) grants the sovereign all the power to do whatever it wants. quote: Originally writtwn by Thuryl: For me, the problem with Hobbes's definitions is that while they may be adequate for what ethicists like to call natural good and evil, they fail to capture the concept which many people have of moral good and evil. (I don't happen to draw a distinction between the two, but I'm very much in the minority there, and language is a democracy.) We should have made this distinction a while ago. I don't believe Hobbes ever made a clear cut distinction, but here are Lockes ideas on the subject: quote: John Locke, "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding", Book II, Chapter 28: 5. Moral good and evil. Good and evil, as hath been shown, (Bk. II. chap. xx. SS 2, and chap. xxi. SS 43,) are nothing but pleasure or pain, or that which occasions or procures pleasure or pain to us. Moral good and evil, then, is only the conformity or disagreement of our voluntary actions to some law, whereby good or evil is drawn on us, from the will and power of the law-maker; which good and evil, pleasure or pain, attending our observance or breach of the law by the decree of the lawmaker, is that we call reward and punishment. Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Saturday, January 22 2005 14:32 Profile #78 quote: Originally written by All-American Alorael: Another little point is that change and evolution are not the same. But they ARE! EXACTLY the same thing! Evolution does not mean "progress". It means CHANGE. Most of the mutations and such that appear in individual members of a species are either disadvantageous or at least not advantageous. A few select quirks will prove to be advantageous in that environment adn will be more likely to be passed on. In short: Species A lives in watery environs and developes webbed hands/feet which give it an advantage over members without said webbing. Species B's natural woodland camoflauge causes it to stick out like a sore thumb now that the envirnmment it lives in has been deforested. It is quickly driven to extinction by predators. BOTH are examples of evolution in action. quote: Religion and culture, for example, are memes that change quickly and erratically, but not necessarily for the better. There is hardly any pressure towards cultural "fitness," and one would be hard pressed to define an evolutionarily fit meme. Oh there most certainly IS selection pressure on religions. The reason why Christianity is not being led by Charlemagne's descendents on bloody sword-point conversions today is because the environment changed, making such 'traits' a disadvantage. There is not a religion you could name which did not either change or die due to selection pressures. quote: Language, incidentally, does the same. There's no real reason why the way we speak now is superior to the way we spoke hundreds or thousands of years ago. Things just change. You are correct that there is no such thing as "superior" in evolution. Only "better fit" for whatever environment the thing exists in. English has evolved drastically in the last hundred years or so and, like ancestral species has branched into several new "species"/variations. The english spoken by a Mississipi mountain man is quite different from the 'King's english' and the english spoken by urban youths in South Central L.A. is different from both of those. quote: Polytheism went out of style in the western world, but millions and millions of Hindus would disagree if you asserted that monotheism is more fit. Please understand that "better fit" does not = "Better quality". It is a simple fact that the progress of technology & scientific discovery puts selection pressure on religion. We become increasingly reliant on 'convenience' and it is much more convenient & user friendly to have one almighty deity who can allegedly do anything and more than someone else's whole pantheon. It is easier to teach/indoctrinate one about what "God" wants/commands then it is to do so for scores of conflicting personalities who allegedly control our lives. quote: [qb In fact, a great deal of conversion came by way of adaptation of previous monotheistic religion and militant mass conversions by the sword. Religions do not, for the most part, affect how well they spread.[/qb] Agreed. Changing environments(re: society becoming less barbaric and more tolerant in general as exposure to others becomes the norm) are the thing. quote: Other things do that. A particularly fit religion might be one that mandates the forcible conversion of all infidels, but that's arguable. Not today though, except perhaps in some isolated instances(tribal governments and such in remote areas of the world). BGut yes, that would be correct. In an envirnment where such totalitarian & despotic measures flourish, a religion which peacefully encourages otehrs to use their own free will to decide will be at a disadvantage against the "sword-point conversion religion". For evidence of this, look no further than American enslavery of blacks in the south 150 years ago. Blacks were not introduced to Christianity through kindness, but rather through torment and violence. Any reprieve a black person got from his agony came with the caveat that it was God's merciful and gracious nature that allowed this, even though they(the black slaves) did not deserve it. It is quite a common phenomenom that slaves will adopt the religion of their masters/oppressors adn keep it even afgter being freed which is why so many blacks today are fundementalist christrians. The Bible was also used to justify the acts of violence and torment as well but only to those who held the increasing sentiment of abolotionism, not to the slaves themselves for the most part. quote: —Alorael, who would also argue that trying to say that gods are or are not worthy of worship based on human standards is starting from a false premise. Gods aren't human. ... Can you claim to know better than God, assuming He exists? We humans, no matter WHAT our attitudes towards religion are, make determinations about what is moral, immoral and amoral based upon our own subjective experiences. We cannot think with God's mind. We must use our own faculties and experience to determine if an action is 'right' or 'wrong'. THat we often argue/rationalize that God agrees/commands/disagrees is beside the point. To that end, we are hard pressed to find someone who runs around demanding praise or worship or otherwise making it clear that he desires such treatment as being worth of such treatment. Humility and treating others as equals is a pretty universal condition for someone being worthy of idolation/worship and such persons would not want such(and would probably be dismayed by such behavior). [ Saturday, January 22, 2005 14:36: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Saturday, January 22 2005 14:51 Profile #79 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Whew, this topic is spiraling out of control, as I expected it would eventually. A few thoughts: quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: However Occam's razor would dictate he is using simple stage magic/cold-reading. Until the simpler/mundane explanation is ruled out, we do not give crerdence to the "extraordinary" explanation. This is a hideously inaccurate understanding of Occam's Razor, and it is made no less inaccurate by its being common. Occam's Razor states, simply, that all other things being equal, the simplest explanation is usually the truest. Little advice for you: if you are going to call someone out and correct them in such a way, make sure you know what you are talking about yourself. Occam's razor is the principle that we do not unnecesarily multiply entities for explanation. THe definition YOU provide above is the common, erroneous one. If it were the "simpler" explanation that would be best then you don't get much simpler than "God did it!" or "The tooth fairy gave me all that money!". What is meant by Occam's razor(OR form here on out) is that, for example, if I get a flat tire and pull over to the side of the road and then find a rusty nail sticking out of the tire, I conclude that I must have run over a rusty nail and immediately disregard someone's explanation that a malicious gremlin sabotaged my driving experience by using a magical nail gun to pop my tire. The reason why the "gremlin explanation" does not pass the test of OR is because it unnecessarily multiplies entities which would themselves require extensive explanation(what is a gremlin? WHere did it come from? How do we know it will do such things and has? What is the mechanism behind it's "sorcery"?) in order to explain, mechanistically, what happened. quote: It is a rule of thumb, not a law, and it applies to simplicity of explanation, not whether something is mundane or extraordinary. Wrong. It is a principle of logic and rationality(not a "law" OR a "rule of thumb") and does indeed have everything to do with the mundane vs. the extraordinary. If I CANNOT explain some phenomena(not just "currently lacking information to do so" but rather that such an explanation is impossible or at least incredibly unlikely) then, and ONLY THEN do I look to the extraordinary because "mundane" explanations do not unnecessarily multiply entities while extraordinary ones DO). [ Saturday, January 22, 2005 14:55: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Saturday, January 22 2005 15:27 Profile #80 quote: Originally written by KernelKnowledge12: [quote=SkeleTony] [qb]"God" cannot exist for the same reason that round squares cannot exist. SOmething cannot be both 'A' and 'Not A' at once. Obviously if something is true, its complement cannot be true, but this proves absolutely nothing of the existence of any god or anything else for that matter. All this says is that God must either exist or not exist. Please clarify the reason for why you believe god does not exist, and on a further note, why you follow such a religious form of atheism.[/quote]Sigh The "atheism is a religion." or "YOUR atheism is a religion!" thing again... Neither atheism NOR theism can be "a religion" themselves. There are theistic and atheistic religions as well as non-theistic religions and theists who do not have religions. Having said that, I do not have any religion nor is my atheism religious unless you are so braodly defining the word "religion" as to make it useless/meaningless. I have no codified behaviors or ethics tied to or rooted in my atheism. I have no political leanings or convictions born of my atheism. My atheism is NOT a worldview, a mvement or even an organization of any sort. My atheism is akin to someone's position that square shaped circles do not exist. Now, as for how I conclude that God is an impossible and imaginary thing: Simple logic. In order for the term "God" to have any relevance or meaning here, it must be distinguishable from natural things which already have names, even though they may well be worshipped by some as gods(the sun, Kim Jong Il, a volcano, the universe etc.). Breaking the term down to essentials, a god would be a sentient entity that is supernatural or transcendent. Otherwise, if you are saying that, for example, "Money is a god." then I would agree that money exists, I just don't call it a "god". In order for a thing to have an independent existence(re: does not only exist within our minds or as a function of some physically existing thing like a brain) in OUR reality(the only reality which matters here), it MUST, by definition be bound by linear time and physical laws such as gravity and energy conservation adn such. If the alleged being is NOT bound by such then it's alleged existence is indistinguishable from it's non-existence or imaginary status. In other words, Sagan's "Garage Dragon" does not exist FOR US, even if it does exist because an invisible, intangible entity which does not physically affect anything in our universe = an imaginary thing. As Sagan also pointed out in his introduction to Broca's Brain, we live in a universe with LIMITATIONS. Limitations are what make reality knowable/comprehensible. WIthout there being limitations on what exists or what is possible, we could not say whether we were walking the dog or slaying infants or anything else at any given moment. If we lived in an "anything is possible" universe we could not say that there were ANY planets(or that there were not 43 qunitrillion in my bedroom alone) or that gravity existed or anything else. Science is about exploring the limitations of the universe to determine what is possible, what is likely and what is real. If something exists within our universe then it must be bound by the constraints of our universe or else our universe does not have such constraints at all. THE Judeo-Christian and Islamic God is described as being "omniscient" and yet having a free will of it's own(able to ponder decisions) and even granting US this ability to make decisions(whence cometh "evil" according to many theologians). This is a logical impossibility because decision-making cannot occur in the certainty of knowledge of the results of said decision. If God KNEW(as immutable fact) 10 million years ago that Adam would sin then he could NEVER have contemplated a decision to create humans. If he was able to change his mind about doing so then his "knowledge" of what Adam would do is NOT knowledge at all, but rather 'suspicion'. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, January 22 2005 15:56 Profile Homepage #81 That's very nice, but I'm not sure how much of it is relevant to the topic at hand. Can we have a little order here? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Saturday, January 22 2005 19:02 Profile #82 A little more on Locke's thoughts of moral good/evil, from the same part as the last posted excerpt. (it includes the last excerpt, but a little more that might help with the definition.) quote: 4. Ideas of moral relations. Fourthly, There is another sort of relation, which is the conformity or disagreement men's voluntary actions have to a rule to which they are referred, and by which they are judged of; which, I think, may be called moral relation, as being that which denominates our moral actions, and deserves well to be examined; there being no part of knowledge wherein we should be more careful to get determined ideas, and avoid, as much as may be, obscurity and confusion. Human actions, when with their various ends, objects, manners, and circumstances, they are framed into distinct complex ideas, are, as has been shown so many mixed modes, a great part whereof have names annexed to them. Thus, supposing gratitude to be a readiness to acknowledge and return kindness received; polygamy to be the having more wives than one at once: when we frame these notions thus in our minds, we have there so many determined ideas of mixed modes. But this is not all that concerns our actions: it is not enough to have determined ideas of them, and to know what names belong to such and such combinations of ideas. We have a further and greater concernment, and that is, to know whether such actions, so made up, are morally good or bad. 5. Moral good and evil. Good and evil, as hath been shown, (Bk. II. chap. xx. SS 2, and chap. xxi. SS 43,) are nothing but pleasure or pain, or that which occasions or procures pleasure or pain to us. Moral good and evil, then, is only the conformity or disagreement of our voluntary actions to some law, whereby good or evil is drawn on us, from the will and power of the law-maker; which good and evil, pleasure or pain, attending our observance or breach of the law by the decree of the lawmaker, is that we call reward and punishment. 6. Moral rules. Of these moral rules or laws, to which men generally refer, and by which they judge of the rectitude or pravity of their actions, there seem to me to be three sorts, with their three different enforcements, or rewards and punishments. For, since it would be utterly in vain to suppose a rule set to the free actions of men, without annexing to it some enforcement of good and evil to determine his will, we must, wherever we suppose a law, suppose also some reward or punishment annexed to that law. It would be in vain for one intelligent being to set a rule to the actions of another, if he had it not in his power to reward the compliance with, and punish deviation from his rule, by some good and evil, that is not the natural product and consequence of the action itself For that, being a natural convenience or inconvenience, would operate of itself, without a law. This, if I mistake not, is the true nature of all law, properly so called. Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, January 22 2005 19:18 Profile Homepage #83 5 and 6 seem to essentially reduce morality to self-interest (with the sole addition that the benefit or harm comes in the form of rewards and punishments administered via an enforcer in order to reward or punish voluntary actions), which makes talking about good or evil at all instead of benefit and harm rather pointless, and makes the idea of a morality that applies equally to everyone rather arbitrary at best and absurd at worst. [ Saturday, January 22, 2005 19:18: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Saturday, January 22 2005 19:59 Profile #84 I didn't think there was a moral code that applied to everyone. Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Saturday, January 22 2005 20:16 Profile Homepage #85 I hate dealing with quotes in quotes like this. I didn't want to do it. And then I did it anyway, which may or may not make me evil. quote: Originally written by SkeleTony: quote: Originally written by All-American Alorael: Another little point is that change and evolution are not the same. But they ARE! EXACTLY the same thing! Evolution does not mean "progress". It means CHANGE. Most of the mutations and such that appear in individual members of a species are either disadvantageous or at least not advantageous. A few select quirks will prove to be advantageous in that environment adn will be more likely to be passed on. Evolution is directed change. Yes, evolution is also neutral, undirected change or even negative but insignificant change, but the general trend of evolution is towards fitness, not towards randomness. Evolution isn't progressing towards anything in the long term, but it is almost always progressing towards something in the short term. There are always evolutionary pressures. quote: quote: Religion and culture, for example, are memes that change quickly and erratically, but not necessarily for the better. There is hardly any pressure towards cultural "fitness," and one would be hard pressed to define an evolutionarily fit meme. Oh there most certainly IS selection pressure on religions. The reason why Christianity is not being led by Charlemagne's descendents on bloody sword-point conversions today is because the environment changed, making such 'traits' a disadvantage. There is not a religion you could name which did not either change or die due to selection pressures. I see your point. I still call social pressures on religion and other memes far more complicated and hard to follow than simple biological fitness, but religions are indeed among the evolving memes. quote: quote: Language, incidentally, does the same. There's no real reason why the way we speak now is superior to the way we spoke hundreds or thousands of years ago. Things just change. You are correct that there is no such thing as "superior" in evolution. Only "better fit" for whatever environment the thing exists in. English has evolved drastically in the last hundred years or so and, like ancestral species has branched into several new "species"/variations. The english spoken by a Mississipi mountain man is quite different from the 'King's english' and the english spoken by urban youths in South Central L.A. is different from both of those. There is "superiority" in evolution, but superiority is defined as being more fit. Language is probably among the least evolutionary memes, the scope of linguistic fitness is more or less restricted to adding new words for new objects and concepts. English has certainly changed a great deal, and in many directions (and no doubt branches have died out as well), but I call language unevolving because the changes are essentially random. Yes, you can call this evolution, but it's not evolution in the sense that it is becoming more fit. It's simply changing based on no pressure at all. quote: quote: Polytheism went out of style in the western world, but millions and millions of Hindus would disagree if you asserted that monotheism is more fit. Please understand that "better fit" does not = "Better quality". It is a simple fact that the progress of technology & scientific discovery puts selection pressure on religion. We become increasingly reliant on 'convenience' and it is much more convenient & user friendly to have one almighty deity who can allegedly do anything and more than someone else's whole pantheon. It is easier to teach/indoctrinate one about what "God" wants/commands then it is to do so for scores of conflicting personalities who allegedly control our lives. First, to Stuggie, I acknowledge that Hinduism is a bad example. However, the only pressure on religion is the pressure to gain members and keep them. I wouldn't want to discuss how easy it is to indoctrinate into monotheism versus polytheism, nor am I an expert on reconciling technology with religion. Certainly millions of strongly Christian Americans do so and see no conflict. Religious pressure exists, as I already conceded, but it takes far more knowledge than I or probably you have to analyze them. Not that that should ever stop us! quote: quote: Other things do that. A particularly fit religion might be one that mandates the forcible conversion of all infidels, but that's arguable. Not today though, except perhaps in some isolated instances(tribal governments and such in remote areas of the world). BGut yes, that would be correct. In an envirnment where such totalitarian & despotic measures flourish, a religion which peacefully encourages otehrs to use their own free will to decide will be at a disadvantage against the "sword-point conversion religion". That was an over the top example. My point is that the only fitness characteristic of a religion, like that of an organism, is propagation. Religions that can gain converts through any means are successful to some extent. However, as you brought up slave conversions, note that the slaves created a significantly different form of Christianity. Again, meme evolution, but whether you call it a "fitness victory" for the Christianity of the slavers is debatable. quote: quote: —Alorael, who would also argue that trying to say that gods are or are not worthy of worship based on human standards is starting from a false premise. Gods aren't human. ... Can you claim to know better than God, assuming He exists? We humans, no matter WHAT our attitudes towards religion are, make determinations about what is moral, immoral and amoral based upon our own subjective experiences. We cannot think with God's mind. We must use our own faculties and experience to determine if an action is 'right' or 'wrong'. THat we often argue/rationalize that God agrees/commands/disagrees is beside the point. To that end, we are hard pressed to find someone who runs around demanding praise or worship or otherwise making it clear that he desires such treatment as being worth of such treatment. Humility and treating others as equals is a pretty universal condition for someone being worthy of idolation/worship and such persons would not want such(and would probably be dismayed by such behavior). You may be hard pressed to praise and worship such a being. Others disagree. Such differences of opinion are the basis for religious schisms, different religions, and bloody wars. —Alorael, who feels overwhelmed by the simultaneous debates on religion, evolution, good and evil, and Occam's Razor. [ Saturday, January 22, 2005 20:18: Message edited by: A name anon ] Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Saturday, January 22 2005 20:20 Profile #86 Please, someone start a new topic! Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Saturday, January 22 2005 20:57 Profile Homepage #87 Okay, fine, if you want to be strict about it, Wikipedia's entry has a pretty good explanation. A sampling: "Ockham's Razor is now usually stated as follows: Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred." Given that Occam himself didn't write anything even particularly resembling the things that are ascribed to him as "Occam's Razor," I don't it matters much how it is stated. However, it is a principle, not a law, that reduces assumptions to what is strictly necessary. Thus, while I don't like the wording of your original post, I agree with the idea that you were trying to convey; at this point, I don't think it matters much. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Saturday, January 22 2005 22:18 Profile Homepage #88 quote: Originally written by KernelKnowledge12: I didn't think there was a moral code that applied to everyone. Surely a universally acceptable definition of "good" and "evil", if only we could agree on one, would amount to just that? Oh, and Alorael, you're confusing evolution with natural selection a little. Evolution itself doesn't imply an increase in fitness; fitness applies only to natural selection, a major mechanism (although not the only mechanism) by which evolutionary change occurs. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Sunday, January 23 2005 07:02 Profile #89 Aloreal: We seem to be mostly in agreement anyway and what trivial details we disagree on are probably not worth me cluttering up this thread anymore or even starting a whole new thread on "evolution & the religious meme" or somesuch. However, if you feel the need to start one yourself, I will be happy to poke my head in. Enjoyed your thoughtful replies. [ Monday, January 24, 2005 02:08: Message edited by: SkeleTony ] -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00
Or else o'erleap. Law Bringer Member # 335	written Sunday, January 23 2005 09:47 Profile Homepage #90 Thuryl: Yes, I am. Thank you. It felt like I was trying to fit words around the wrong concepts, and now I know it's because I was. —Alorael, who apologizes for posting at great length to defend being wrong. Oops. Posts: 14579 \| Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Sunday, January 23 2005 12:40 Profile #91 quote: Originally written by Thuryl: Surely a universally acceptable definition of "good" and "evil", if only we could agree on one, would amount to just that? If you're looking for an explicit definition, I'm not sure this is possible. Otherwise, I believe Locke's definition of moral good/evil (excluding his explicit reference to reward/punishment) is acceptable, but this will not amount to a universally accepted moral code. Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Sunday, January 23 2005 14:28 Profile Homepage #92 I don't think such a definition is possible either, but continued along that line of argument in order to rule out the possibility to the greatest extent possible. Are there any absolutists in this discussion at all, by the way? It's not going to make for much of an argument if we're all subjectivists. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Sunday, January 23 2005 17:20 Profile #93 How long are we supposed to wait? Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
Sticky Infiltrator Member # 4256	written Sunday, January 23 2005 18:04 Profile #94 I'll take absolutist side. Along with this I will append my old sig onto my present one. :P The issue with my perspective of the absolutism point of view is that it really can't make much sense without the simultaneus conviction in a divine being. It doesn't have to be the Christian God, but it must be a divine being. Now, since you are arguing from Locke I figure it is fair if I argue based on others works as well. I hope that we can avoid the tiresome rants however. Posts: 564 \| Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00
Thuryl ...b10010b... Member # 869	written Sunday, January 23 2005 18:45 Profile Homepage #95 In your view, why does morality need a deity? Is it simply as an enforcer of what would be morally good and evil independently of that deity's enforcement, or does the deity actually define what's good and what's evil? Is the act of enforcement itself an act of defining good and evil; that is, is administering unavoidable rewards and punishments actually equivalent to defining absolute standards of good and evil, or is something else involved? If it's the act of enforcement that defines good and evil as such, how is a deity different from any other sufficiently powerful tyrant? -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 \| Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
KernelKnowledge12 Shock Trooper Member # 4557	written Sunday, January 23 2005 18:50 Profile #96 Are we still talking about good/evil? Nevermind. [ Sunday, January 23, 2005 18:52: Message edited by: KernelKnowledge12 ] Posts: 264 \| Registered: Wednesday, June 16 2004 07:00
E=MC Hammered Infiltrator Member # 1092	written Sunday, January 23 2005 23:41 Profile Homepage #97 This religion crap is gettin way of course... And doesn't Islam, Judaisism an christaintity seem a little similar? -------------------- When you think you can't get any lower in life and hit rock bottom, God hands you a shovel. Following the rights movements You clamped on with your iron fists drugs being conviently available for all the kids Minor drug offenders fill your prisons You don't even flinch All our takes paying For your wars against the new non rich Posts: 615 \| Registered: Friday, May 3 2002 07:00
Drakefyre Triad Mage Member # 7	written Monday, January 24 2005 01:27 Profile Homepage #98 That's because they basically are all the same. Christianity is based on Judaism and Islam is based on Christianity and Judaism. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah and in the Trinity, both of which are not accepted by Judaism. Muslims believe that both Jesus and Mohammed were prophets, and that's basically the only difference between Islam and Judaism. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 \| Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00
SkeleTony Shock Trooper Member # 156	written Monday, January 24 2005 02:06 Profile #99 What Thuryl said(er...asked). The absolutist/moral objectivist runs into some serious problems answering those questions. If what is "good" is simply whatever "God" says is good, then God could concievably declare child molestation to be good and the theistic absolutist must either agree or rebel against his God in that hypothetical. IF "good" and "evil" simply ARE(independent of God's arbitrary decree) and God is just one who recognises these things for what they are, then the absolutist is conceding that God is not necessary for morality. A catch 22. -------------------- "I am in a very peculiar business. I travel all over the world telling people what they should already know." - James Randi Posts: 219 \| Registered: Saturday, October 13 2001 07:00