Why it's important to stop Al Qaeda

[Walsingham]

Is pedophilia evil? Was it evil in ancient greek or japan where it was a part of the culture? Is murder evil? What if you're murdering in self defense? What if you could save someone else? What if you're given permission by your country to kill anyone they say is an enemy?

 

There is no such thing as universal good or evil and you're pretty damn stupid if you believe there is.

 

Please forward me your postal address. I wish to do a large number of revolting things to you then claim they are good where I come from.

[Lare Kikkeli]

well, english food is pretty damn revolting yet i don't hold it against you.

[alanschu]

Futhermore, he wasn't saying that if the Nazi's had won, you'd be a Nazi (I'm skeptical that Hitler would have concerned himself with the United States if the United States hadn't bothered to get into the war). However, if you think that you'd still be in any way the same person you are today, if you had grown up with compulsory Hitler Youth participation, I'd say you are sorely mistaken.

Look up "strawman argument".

 

 

Perhaps you should, because it's not a strawman argument. What you consider to be good or evil very much depends on how you are socialized. If you were a young person growing up in Nazi Germany, and a part of Hitler Youth, you wouldn't be the same person that you are today right now. This directly relates to the discussion in this thread, particularly relating to your commentary about how things are flowing in the right way, as well as Walsingham's following quote: "I would have thought it was fairly logical to observe that rather than history moving inexorably towards your notion of right it was more probable that your concept of right had been shaped by the direction history already took?"

 

I'm not saying that you're some monster or anything. I'm saying that if you grew up in Nazi Germany, you'd have been socialized differently and would have different views of what is right/good and wrong/evil. The same goes pretty much for any culture.

 

Heck, you can see it easily on this very forum. Not surprisingly the people that tend to be the most right-wing (which isn't a bad thing), tend to be American. Those that feel unchecked capitalism is bad are from Europe, and especially the Scandinavian countries. I'm Canadian, and not surprisingly I'm pretty pragmatic about everything.

 

It's easy to say that things are flowing in the right way, when you are living in, and socialized by, a nation that was on the winning side of the conflicts you gave as examples.

 

But I'd argue vehemently, if not expertly, that there is such a thing as abstract good and evil.

 

Then I'll adamantly argue against you. I tend to be a believer in moral relativism.

 

 

Mother Theresa - universally good.

 

Hitler - Universally evil.

 

Neither of your examples are good ones.

 

Hitler wasn't called a demagogue for nothing. It's only after the fact that he gets regarded as evil, but he was hero worshipped at the time. He doesn't enact his policies if he doesn't have the unwavering support of his people. He still gets hero worshipped by some today, though it's definitely not socially acceptable to do so in any mainstream society, so it's on a much smaller scale. Mother Theresa faced criticism from people because her beliefs about suffering being a road to salvation meant that she wouldn't actively prevent people from suffering, because she felt that through suffering people would grow closer to Jesus. According to David Scott, Mother Theresa's efforts were devoted to keeping people alive, but not actually addressing poverty. Whether or not you agree with Mr. Scott, he's not alone in feeling this way, and IMO counters any idea that Mother Theresa is considered universally good.

Edited December 17, 2009 by alanschu

[Lare Kikkeli]

Mother Teresa also stole money donated to her charity and had multiple mansions around the world. Or so Penn & Teller say.

 

Gandhi was a racist.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Wrath of Dagon]

@alanschu: It's a strawman argument because you're arguing against something I didn't say, however I did misread your statement and you're saying "in any way" which I read as "in every way". In that case you're still wrong because certainly is some ways I'd still be the same, or at least there's no proof that I'd be completely different, it not like there weren't people with morals even under the worst circumstances in history.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Judging by your right wing rhetoric I'd say you would have been happy to join the Hitler Jugend.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Judging from you lack of knowledge of right and wrong I'd say you would be.

 

Edit: It's a slur on the conservatives to say the nazis were right wing, how can Socialists be right wing, it makes no sense at all.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon

[Junai]

In an editorial (12/27/84), the Washington Post offered this encomium to the Afghan rebels:

"They managed to put down a brave resistance. Simple people, fighting with hand-me-down weapons, have borne tremendous costs and kept a modern well-armed state from imposing an alien political will. The fight for freedom in Afghanistan is an awesome spectacle and deserves generous tribute."

from Fair.org

 

Now we generously offer them mr. Karzai!

 

Universal evil, or just hypocrisy?

 

J.

[Lare Kikkeli]

There is no right and wrong, there are only cultures. What we consider right or wrong has been taught to us. I couldn't rape or kill anyone but that's only because it's such a taboo in western culture. In South Africa one in four men admit to having committed rape and iirc half of all boys think group rape would be fun. Are one in four South African men evil? Are half of the boys?

[Wrath of Dagon]

Yes, and they must live in an evil culture if what you say is true.

[alanschu]

@alanschu: It's a strawman argument because you're arguing against something I didn't say, however I did misread your statement and you're saying "in any way" which I read as "in every way". In that case you're still wrong because certainly is some ways I'd still be the same, or at least there's no proof that I'd be completely different, it not like there weren't people with morals even under the worst circumstances in history.

 

It's not strawman. You mentioned that it's easy to imagine how things would have gone had the results of past events gone differently. I contend that it's impossible to imagine how things would have gone with any accuracy. Given ideas of some things being objectively good or evil, coupled with your notion (and support for a diety) because "things have gone well," my commentary directly relates to the topic since my point is that the only reason why things "have gone well" is because it is in line with your current socialization. However, since you did just state that there certainly is some ways you'd still be the same, would you care to elaborate on which ways you'd still be the same?

 

 

Edit: It's a slur on the conservatives to say the nazis were right wing, how can Socialists be right wing, it makes no sense at all.

 

Conservatism extends beyond fiscal policy, and fascists are typically regarded as right wing for their socially conservative beliefs.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2009 by alanschu

[Walsingham]

Culture can say something is good or bad when it isn't in the same way it can say anything at all. It said the Earth was basically flat when it wasn't. That didn't change the curvature of the earth. Likewise virtually everyone in the 1940s was racist. Didn't make it right. It merely made it more understandable, and ultimately more manageable.

 

Interesting that you mentioned the South Africans. I had two aunts, both in their eighties, They had their home broken into. They were apparently raped by at least four individuals who then beat them to death. If their culture says that's OK then yes it's evil. I'm not convinced it does, tho, before anyone gets any crazy ideas about South Africans.

[alanschu]

Culture can say something is good or bad when it isn't in the same way it can say anything at all. It said the Earth was basically flat when it wasn't. That didn't change the curvature of the earth. Likewise virtually everyone in the 1940s was racist. Didn't make it right. It merely made it more understandable, and ultimately more manageable.

 

Sorry Walsingham, what is good or evil isn't a fact that describes the physical universe. Good or evil are defined by their subjective interpretation. The interesting thing is you actually acknowledge this in one post here, only to later state that evil is absolute.

 

You state that the racism of the 1940s isn't "right," because that's way our society's beliefs have evolved. If you lived in the 1940s, you likely wouldn't feel that your racist beliefs were evil, because otherwise you wouldn't believe in them.

Edited December 17, 2009 by alanschu

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Mother Theresa - universally good.

 

No.

 

Hitler - Universally evil.

 

Again, no.

[Zoraptor]

Edit: It's a slur on the conservatives to say the nazis were right wing, how can Socialists be right wing, it makes no sense at all.

National Socialism is roughly as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic. It's a conservative ideology as with similar philosophies espoused by groups such as the KKK, with the supposed socialism being appeals to rank nationalism- it was marketed to the poor and ignorant, who know they could be rich and informed if only [groupname] weren't keeping them down.

[Hurlshort]

What exactly do we mean by universal, anyways? If you take a thousand people from around the world and from different cultures, and then tell them the story of Hitler and Mother Theresa, and then ask them who is the good and who is the bad, how do you think they will vote?

 

Now I'm willing to concede that evil is a difficult label to put on someone. Typically there are multiple factors going into making someone commit horrible acts, including mental illness and conditioning.

[Wrath of Dagon]

@alanschu: It's a strawman argument because you're arguing against something I didn't say, however I did misread your statement and you're saying "in any way" which I read as "in every way". In that case you're still wrong because certainly is some ways I'd still be the same, or at least there's no proof that I'd be completely different, it not like there weren't people with morals even under the worst circumstances in history.

 

It's not strawman. You mentioned that it's easy to imagine how things would have gone had the results of past events gone differently. I contend that it's impossible to imagine how things would have gone with any accuracy. Given ideas of some things being objectively good or evil, coupled with your notion (and support for a diety) because "things have gone well," my commentary directly relates to the topic since my point is that the only reason why things "have gone well" is because it is in line with your current socialization. However, since you did just state that there certainly is some ways you'd still be the same, would you care to elaborate on which ways you'd still be the same?

Well, having been born in a totalitarian dictatorship, I'd say I'd pretty much be the same in every aspect.

 

Edit: It's a slur on the conservatives to say the nazis were right wing, how can Socialists be right wing, it makes no sense at all.

 

Conservatism extends beyond fiscal policy, and fascists are typically regarded as right wing for their socially conservative beliefs.

Yes, nice chart there, socially conservative beliefs are fascist, and conservatism is authoritarian, someone needs to hurry up and tell Thomas Jefferson.

[Trenitay]

I don't know if you know this but it's 2009, and Jefferson is dead.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

If you take a thousand people from around the world and from different cultures, and then tell them the story of Hitler and Mother Theresa, and then ask them who is the good and who is the bad, how do you think they will vote?

 

Everyone in the world could agree that X is evil and Y is good and I would still say that they are not universally evil or universally good. Good and evil are just labels that people put on things, or people, they like or dislike - nothing more and nothing less. I would agree that some things are more evil than others, just as some people are more evil than others, but, for the most part, even the most abhorrent things are not purely evil - just as the most laudable things are, for the most part, not wholly good. There are few things, if any, that are not, in fact, a mix of the two - albeit possibly mixed so inconsistently that the deed or person is prominently one and only slightly, minutely the other.

[Hurlshort]

That's why I think we need to define universal here. My point of view is that if the large majority of people call something a spade, then it is universally accepted as a spade. But I'm open to discussing it further, I haven't thought too deeply my definition.

[Darth InSidious]

I would have thought it was fairly logical to observe that rather than history moving inexorably towards your notion of right it was more probable that your concept of right had been shaped by the direction history already took?

 

I don't mean that in an insulting way. I used to feel similarly until I worked it out.

 

I think you bumped into the presentist fallacy: link. Pesky devil; the huge majority of just about everyone falls foul of it.

 

See also: chronological snobbery, whig history, how to make competent historians explode and/or melt, Wicked Witch-style.

 

This is partly why I really can't take statements like "The Roman Empire was evil" very seriously, or indeed as terribly meaningful. For my part I do believe there are absolutes of good and evil.

 

Also, this debate appears to be backing into meta-ethics for no very good reason. I'd like to point out that as yet no-one has managed to define any of the terms being used, but that would spiral into another entirely redundant, circular argument. I will point out that no-one has, as yet, presented an argument as to why there is/is not any such thing as absolute good or absolute evil.

 

Furthermore, the first person to seriously put forward non-cognitivism gets fed to the hounds. That's not evil, incidentally; just a way of expressing the mood, "Boo to non-cognitivism!", or "Hooray to cognitivism!"

Edited December 18, 2009 by Darth InSidious

[Hell Kitty]

Everyone who doesn't fit into your tiny box of normality is evil or mentally insane. Well I'm pretty damn happy here on the outside!

 

Frankly, if raping someone to death makes my morality box tiny then I couldn't be happier to be in a tiny tiny box.

 

Raping good people to death = evil.

 

Raping bad people to death = good.

 

Hope this helps!

[Moose]

You mean like this http://www.federalpost.ru/crime/issue_32387.html

 

"Baku, Azerbaijan.

 

In October 2009, a 17-year old - Rapist A, lured an 8-year old boy into his truck and raped him. A passer-by scared off Rapist A. The passer-by (hereinafter - Rapist B), seeing Rapist A flee, climbed into the truck, threatened the boy and raped the boy again.

 

The boy's father, the boy's uncle and the father's relative eventually tracked down Rapist A. The boy's father raped rapist A, captured the rape on his mobile phone and started sending the video of the rape to everybody in Baku.

 

Both rapists (A and B) and the father's boy, uncle and relative are now in custody.

 

Only in Azerbaijan"

 

Two, three or four wrongs make a right huh?

[Hurlshort]

I'm going to go out on a limb and label rape as bad under every circumstance.

[kingofsquid]

Right.

 

If anybody here actually thinks Osama Bin Laden is a good, moral person, say it, I dare you.