Ban All Religions

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

SGTObvious Good, Evil, babies, etc, Green Dragon 3/28/2004 11:22:25 AM

Let' just ignore, for a moment, that the baby in question can, in any way, avoid a future of mass death and destruction. Let's say, just for argument's sake, that an advanced alien culture has kidnapped a baby and is now returning it, but the baby has become a carrier of an incurable, unstoppable plague that will very likely decimate humanity if we dopn't blow the little tyke's spacecraft to bits before it reaches the Earth. This is not unlike, then, the instuctions that USAF pilots have now to destroy airliners filled with innocent people, if they must. It's not Evil. Traditionally, Ethical Judgements are not pinned to acts but to intended results. If the intended result of your killing a baby is the glee you will feel as the enemy baby endures an agonizing death (The islamist point of view) you are, no question, evil. If the intent is to save the world from a great future evil you are either basing your actions on sound thinking and therefore doing good, even though performing a sorrowful act, or basing your actions on unsound thinking and insane. Human Life is not "fungible". We are not all equally valuable- but that does not mean that we do not all deserve equal freedoms, opportunities, and rights. The life of a cruel and evil person cannot be accorded the same sanctity as the life of a person who contributes in wholesome ways to the rest of humanity. Likewise, a short term loss must sometimes be expected to achieve a long term gain. (or avoid a long term greater loss) .

Quote Reply

SGTObvious babies and inherrent evil 3/28/2004 11:31:32 AM

According to Stephen Pinker's "the Blank Slate", a small percentage of humans simply lack the mental circuitry needed to empathize with another human's suffering, and absolutely nothing can be done to "cure" this. It's simply missing gray matter. You can teach such an individual that as a fact, other people do suffer, but this person will never care, nor be bothered by the suffering of another at all. He (its usually a he) might even be fascinated with it, or enjoy it, and teaching he "It's wrong to hit people, Bobby, it makes them feel pain" could result in "They DO? COOL!". So there really are people who are biologically destined to be evil. Pinker, BTW, points out even where sympathy and empathy are non-existent, such people can be controlled through an even stronger drive- negative consequences to their actions. In other words, if "Don't hit, it causes pain to others" fails to have any impact, try "don't hit, or WE will cause pain to YOU."..

Quote Reply

FJV Intention also not a measure for evil. 3/28/2004 2:08:42 PM

Lots of evil has been done by people who had the best intentions of the world. For instance: - The WWII nazis who really believed that following Hitler was the right thing to do. - The doctors giving shock therapy to homosexuals with the best intentions. (to prevent them from a life in jail) - Communists who with the best intentions pave the way for a Stalin and enable him to kill millions. - Iraqi scientists who out of a misplaced love for Iraq develope chemical weapons for Saddam. (A female Iraqi WMD scientist stated that she developed chemical weapons intended for Iraqs defence) PS (before killing babies consider all the options) "My motive is that by preknwledge, I know that this child if allowed to reach childhood will be the next Josef Stalin. Is my act still evil?" A persons caracter is formed in part by his inherit nature and in part by the surroundings in which that person grows up. One could also consider the option of killing the people who create an environment which would create a Hitler. Or with foreknowledge one could alter that environment by educating the people and make it impossible for a Hitler to form.

Quote Reply

Vulture RE:inherrent evil-Yes they do exist 3/28/2004 2:10:28 PM

MEt one back in '97. The man suffered from a learning disability. But the scary part was the lack of empathy. Only negative reenforcement from the local police kept him from torturing others. Logic and morality was not an option. When you talked to him, you felt like you were speaking to an alien (ie non human).

Quote Reply

celebrim RE: Green Dragon 3/28/2004 5:29:17 PM

I'm not at all amused by your responce, but I'm glad that I at least made you momentarily happy. "A universe or even a country that is entirely good and has no evil is not self-sustaining because it is meaningless vacuousness." Isn't 'meaningless vacuouness' itself an evil? Therefore, if the society is 'meaningless' or 'vacuous' then it is not purely good. Your arguement would have me believe that building a building or painting a picture or learning a skill was a meaningless task? Do you really believe that being constructive is only meaningful if it opposes something destructive? "Egyptians witnessing the early Christian Easter rites could find little to distinguish them from their own FAR older Osiris rites." That's debatable. What's not debatable is that for the vast majority of the past 2000 years, noone has worshiped Osiris, and the recent neo-Pagan movement does not worship Oriris in any meaningful way like the original worshipers. Therefore, extinct religion. "I refer to The Golden Bough as my source on that statement." No offense, but that's hardly an unbiased source nor is it a source with much historical authority as it is actually of quite recent invention. If you are going to make this arguement, at least try to cite a historical text. "As to distinguishing good and evil, the only true way to determine good or evil acts is to understand the underlying motive and the action taken." I disagree. Both the motive AND the action are considerations in determining whether an action is good are evil, but neither is the sum total of judgement. For example, what if the person only _believed_ that the child would turn in Joseph Stalin. In this case, his motive is unimportant. Secondly, the action taken is more important than the motive. As others have pointed out, a good person, even knowing some child would turn into Joseph Stalin would not as thier first recourse decide to murder the child, but instead try to alter its future by benevolent means. But neither the purpose nor the act really determines whether something is good or evil. The most important determinent of whether something is good or evil is _the result_. In order for an act to be perfectly good (that is what we Christians refer to as Holy), the motive, the act, and the result must all pass. Because humans can't really know the result of actions, it is impossible for them to be perfectly good. "...who am I to judge whether or not the world needs another Josef Stalin, another 'Uncle Joe' could be just as necessary to the species as another Jesus." Well, isn't that the point. You aren't one to judge such weighty matters; however, to be perfectly frank, that you would even ask such questions makes me seriously wonder at your ability to make any sort of moral judgement. For example, anyone that seriously entertained the idea that Joseph Stalin was good for humanity, could easily justify doing _anything_ on the grounds that they believed it was good for humanity. By the standard that Joseph Stalin is necessary, and thense on the whole good, any action whatsoever maybe justified. THIS STRIKES ME AS TERRIBLY CONVEINENT, SINCE IT BASICALLY CREATES A MORAL OUTLOOK WHICH JUSTIFIES ONE ACTING HOWEVER THEY LIKE. It would seem to me, that a set of ethics which forbids nothing is not a set of ethics at all, but is instead a sort of opiate for people of bad conscious so that they might salve what little guilt they might feel for being wholly self-serving. "That argument was originally presented by Aleister Crowley." Oh yeah, now there is a guy with alot of moral authority. Adolf Hilter and Joseph Stalin wrote on ethics as well, you know. Incidently, Stalin's ethical outlook is not all that different than Crowley's. I would think by now arguements of 'committing evil for the greater good' would ring hollow, but then again Machiavelli still has his fans too.

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE: Green Dragon 3/28/2004 7:56:20 PM

>>Aw come on AK, what happened to open-mindedness<< Not hypothetically open enough to have my brain fall out? I was just pointing out the flaw in Aleister Crowley's "logic" without pointing out the fact that Crowley was a heroin-addicted serial rapist. Think about it. Would you want someone to kill you tomorrow, using the argument "Green Dragon will [do something horrible someday] if we don't kill him today?"

Quote Reply

appleciderus RE: Green Dragon 3/28/2004 8:19:40 PM

It doesn?t matter who said it, it is still a foolish argument. However, the argument can be reversed. If there is no pre-knowledge possible, then denying life to any person denies mankind the potential of that person?s contribution, i.e. Dr Salk, Beethoven, Erasmus, or the carpenter that remodeled your kitchen. Here is another thought. I believe people incapable of emotion are called sociopaths. They can learn to mimic responses, but really have no emotional response, as Vulture described. I liken it to thermo-dynamics. We all experience ?cold?, yet there is no such thing, only heat and the absence of heat. So too, there is ?good?, and the absence of ?good?, which we refer to as ?evil?. Over simplistic? Makes it difficult to understand the heinous crimes committed by ?evil? people. I attempt to assign a face and identity to ?evil? even though I understand that evil is committed by deficient human beings. Since these evil people cannot be predetermined, and once identified by their evil actions, cannot be fixed, they need to be prevented from performing further evil acts. Random Sunday evening thoughts.

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE: Green Dragon 3/30/2004 4:55:50 AM

Not hypothetically open enough to have my brain fall out? I was just pointing out the flaw in Aleister Crowley's "logic" without pointing out the fact that Crowley was a heroin-addicted serial rapist. >> He was also a cocaine addict and in his last days a two-bottles of Scotch a day alcoholic, please American Kaffir try to be fair to the man. Think about it. Would you want someone to kill you tomorrow, using the argument "Green Dragon will [do something horrible someday] if we don't kill him today?" Wasn't that very similar to Iraq, something similar to 'if we don't stop Saddam, we will find ourselves in a world of s***?.

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE: Green Dragon 3/30/2004 5:26:08 AM

I'm not at all amused by your responce, but I'm glad that I at least made you momentarily happy. >>Momentarily?, I'm still tickled! "A universe or even a country that is entirely good and has no evil is not self-sustaining because it is meaningless vacuousness." Isn't 'meaningless vacuouness' itself an evil? >>I thought I said that, if it was a tautology, I apologise. Therefore, if the society is 'meaningless' or 'vacuous' then it is not purely good. Your arguement would have me believe that building a building or painting a picture or learning a skill was a meaningless task? Do you really believe that being constructive is only meaningful if it opposes something destructive? >>No, the constructive/destructive dualism is another subject, I was talking about a good/evil dualism, your analogy, while interesting, does not address my main point. "Egyptians witnessing the early Christian Easter rites could find little to distinguish them from their own FAR older Osiris rites." That's debatable. What's not debatable is that for the vast majority of the past 2000 years, noone has worshiped Osiris, and the recent neo-Pagan movement does not worship Oriris in any meaningful way like the original worshipers. Therefore, extinct religion. >> You're missing the point, SYMBOLISM is one of the core foci of religion, the names can change, the inherent meaning lives on. If you, as a Christian, want to deny the origins of your ritual, then from my perspective, Christianity is a spiritual chop shop. I welcome your refutation, or anyone elses for that matter. "I refer to The Golden Bough as my source on that statement." No offense, but that's hardly an unbiased source nor is it a source with much historical authority as it is actually of quite recent invention. If you are going to make this arguement, at least try to cite a historical text. >>This statement is rather, well strange. The Golden Bough itself is not historical, or the collection? It so happens that I do not have copies readily to hand, but I can peruse them if you have specific queries. "As to distinguishing good and evil, the only true way to determine good or evil acts is to understand the underlying motive and the action taken." I disagree. Both the motive AND the action are considerations in determining whether an action is good are evil, but neither is the sum total of judgement. For example, what if the person only _believed_ that the child would turn in Joseph Stalin. In this case, his motive is unimportant. Secondly, the action taken is more important than the motive. As others have pointed out, a good person, even knowing some child would turn into Joseph Stalin would not as thier first recourse decide to murder the child, but instead try to alter its future by benevolent means. But neither the purpose nor the act really determines whether something is good or evil. The most important determinent of whether something is good or evil is _the result_. In order for an act to be perfectly good (that is what we Christians refer to as Holy), the motive, the act, and the result must all pass. >>I originally responded to a post stating ban evil & stupidity. I agreed on banning stupidity, but not evil. You then stated that that was a stupid position to adopt. I still contend that evil is still a painful necessity of the human experience by your arguments so far. Because humans can't really know the result of actions, it is impossible for them to be perfectly good. >>By The Creators standards, yes, however, you still have to make judgement decisions regardless of how flawed (or not)your understanding of the situation is. "...who am I to judge whether or not the world needs another Josef Stalin, another 'Uncle Joe' could be just as necessary to the species as another Jesus." Well, isn't that the point. You aren't one to judge such weighty matters; however, to be perfectly frank, that you would even ask such questions makes me seriously wonder at your ability to make any sort of moral judgement. For example, anyone that seriously entertained the idea that Joseph Stalin was good for humanity, could easily justify doing _anything_ on the grounds that they believed it was good for humanity. By the standard that Joseph Stalin is necessary, and thense on the whole good, any action whatsoever maybe justified. >>You completely missed the point so I will ask you to make a choice, is it best for humanity to strive for a lovey dovey sweetness and light good, or to evolve by subjugating our worst elements to our best? Morality is not defined by allowing the existence od a Josef Stalin or not but by how you respond to the nature of the presence. THIS STRIKES ME AS TERRIBLY CONVEINENT, SINCE IT BASICALLY CREATES A MORAL OUTLOOK WHICH JUSTIFIES ONE ACTING HOWEVER THEY LIKE. >>No it doesn't, reread my post, it's claustrophoboic, not agoraphobic, I use extreme terminology to emphasise a point, no other reason. I

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE: Green Dragon 3/30/2004 11:31:22 AM

"Not hypothetically open enough to have my brain fall out? I was just pointing out the flaw in Aleister Crowley's "logic" without pointing out the fact that Crowley was a heroin-addicted serial rapist. >> He was also a cocaine addict and in his last days a two-bottles of Scotch a day alcoholic, please American Kaffir try to be fair to the man.<< Hey, Do what thou wilt... It could well be he devised his amoral philosophy during a nasty bout of sobriety. But that's the point - that it's an amoral philosophy - "Nothing is wrong." Doesn't really matter if he was tripping the gaslight fantastic when he came up with it or not. We can see it in practice, in the diaries of Crowley himself, how his system of self-justification lead to some rather perverse and heinous acts inflicted upon others by Crowley himself. He was not a nice guy. "Think about it. Would you want someone to kill you tomorrow, using the argument "Green Dragon will [do something horrible someday] if we don't kill him today?" >>Wasn't that very similar to Iraq, something similar to 'if we don't stop Saddam, we will find ourselves in a world of s***?.<< I was hoping you'd respond that way. It helps to bring us back to the flaw in Crowley's logic of killing Stalin as a baby. How defensible would the argument be if someone in 1937 grabbed up the little infant Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti from his mother's arms and said "this baby will be a mass-murdering dictator in 40-something years, and therefore must die." The argument would prove useful only to the most primitive, superstitious, and barbaric of pre-destinationalists and "hard" determinists. And, mind the slight segue, the Islamic world is chock full of predestinationalists, Saddam included, who are finding the dead end of being dead-enders. The determinism / free will argument falls apart in wartime. As you can see throughout the various arguments for taking out Saddam, no one for or against the war questioned the evil of Saddam Hussein. We definitely didn't pick on a harmless baby.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT