Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Titan
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    America's Hat
    Posts
    12,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Stelio Kontos View Post
    How come I knew OP would be behind this thread when I read the title mumbo jumbo?
    Not to mention has changed their username 3 times at least in the last few hours.

  2. #22
    Old God Grimbold21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    10,466
    This just in: Anger and Hatred are easy and immature emotional responses. Stability is hard.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    you seem to get it but I'm gonna ask you then:

    like some guy makes an accident that troubles you. And it's legitimately an accident and he didn't mean to do it but it causes you a lot of hurt. Instead of seeing it this way and forgiving, isn't it more easy to just call him evil and hate him?

    That's one tame example
    Your scenario answers itself.

    You don't even have to add the "accidental" part. If someone goes out of their way to insult or harm you, of course our most immediate response to defend ourselves. But set that aside for a moment and think: why would you succumb to the temptation of hating someone who derives some measure of pleasure from hurting someone else?

  3. #23
    The Forgettable Forgettable's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Calgary, Canada
    Posts
    5,065
    Because the human brain is programmed to use mental shortcuts. It makes surviving much easier. It's a survival tactic to label other people as "evil" or "bad" because then you don't consider them human, or as much of a human, anymore. With that train of thought, you can do anything to them - Kill them, steal from them, or any other thing that promotes your survival over theirs.

    Not saying this is "moral" or "right," rather it's just the way the human brain has evolved to survive.

  4. #24
    Stealthed Defender unbound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    All that moves is easily heard in the void.
    Posts
    6,211
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    It's so much easier and gratifying to succumb to or give in to deep-rooted hate, irrational thinking, and black and white thinking.
    That's it right there. It is so much easier to deal with simplistic black and white thinking. It takes time, effort, and thought to understand what is actually going on, and so much easier to simply create a straw man and knock it down instead.

    "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong. The ancients, in the case at bar, laid the blame upon the gods: sometimes they were remote and surly, and sometimes they were kind. In the Middle Ages lesser powers took a hand in the matter, and so one reads of works of art inspired by Our Lady, by the Blessed Saints, by the souls of the departed, and even by the devil." - H. L. Mencken, Prejudices: Second Series

    As for the idea that "...the perceived bad people in life might not be so bad realistically...", that ends up being a bit of a misconception. Bad people are indeed bad. Good people are indeed good. But there is no such thing as a good person that is near angelic in all respects, nor is there such a bad person that is near devilish in all respects. To think that for a person to be bad requires them to be evil in all ways will set you up for just as much of a disappointment as when you find out that even the really good people have their flaws.

    But, when we talk about bad people, they don't need to be flawed in every conceivable way. The person who rapes children is still a bad person even if they are kind to their neighbors and volunteers at a local shelter...their good deeds do not balance out such extreme evil inflicted on others.

    Ultimately, if you want to understand more of the reality around you, you are going to have to spend a lot of time reading and interacting. It is true that you will never get to all of the truth, but understanding 95% of what is going on gets you plenty of understanding of reality. To state that you will never get to the truth because you can never understand 100% of it is just another form of black and white thinking.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Moral relativism is a disease.
    Debatable. The last time we tried moral absolutes we got fun things like the inquisition, religious wars, "benevolent" colonialism, gay bashing and other fun stuff like that.

    Moral relativism has its place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    It doesnt destroy the land to bury styrofoam 25 feet below the ground
    Today Obama once again kneeled at the altar of environmental naziism and hurt this once great country. He has now banned all drilling in the Atlantic Ocean

  6. #26
    Yes, yes it is. Though I don't feel any connection in that it feels good to hate someone... usually being angry and full of hate is something I dislike.

  7. #27
    I am Murloc! Saninicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iron city of Dis
    Posts
    5,828
    Quote Originally Posted by Stelio Kontos View Post
    How come I knew OP would be behind this thread when I read the title mumbo jumbo?
    Predictably?

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'm sure you can therefore explain the one objectively "true" morality to us all, then, having solved a problem that philosophers have failed to achieve in literally thousands of years of study.

    Note that you need to be able to explain that objectiveness to such a degree that we'll all agree that you're right, and it's a fact. Just declaring that you prefer a particular viewpoint yourself is just you describing your own subjective preference.

    And that's the thing; you're not God, so your subjective preference doesn't mean anything outside of your own head. And everyone else has their own subjective outlooks. And without an objective touchstone to refer to, there's no way to establish any one subjective interpretation as "correct" and the others as "wrong".

    And that's moral relativism. Basically, the recognition that other people's views have subjective validity too. That's it. Opposing it is like trying to argue that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is the untopped pinnacle of filmmaking and everyone who disagrees with that is wrong. You're trying to force your subjective views on others who disagree, and you've got no objective basis for that.
    For me, the absolute cornerstones of morality are:

    A. Every single action can be separated into either Good or Bad components. There are no Grey actions, because that is just failing to collect enough facts about that specific action. Just because you are unable to determine if something is more Good or Bad, doesn't mean that it cannot be objectively determined.

    B. Bad and/or Evil is about intentionally causing harm to innocent consciousnesses. Be it physical or emotional pain or hardship. Good is about doing the opposite.

    C. The Good doesn't wash away the Bad, nor the other way round. (Yes I know Stannis said that in aSoIaF, but I didn't take it from there originally).

    If you brutally torture an orphan because it is the only way to feed a million other starving orphans, it is not a morally grey act. You are an evil person trying to do a good thing. Own up to it and don't be a pussy.

    First, for all intents and purposes, I might as well be the God. I mean, the existence of my own consciousness is the only thing in the entire universe that I can objectively know for sure, so what ever morality I subscribe to has to come from myself. Though I don't literally think that I am the only conscious observer this universe has, just that I am the only one I can be sure exists.

    And about this:
    And that's moral relativism. Basically, the recognition that other people's views have subjective validity too. That's it. Opposing it is like trying to argue that Star Wars: The Last Jedi is the untopped pinnacle of filmmaking and everyone who disagrees with that is wrong. You're trying to force your subjective views on others who disagree, and you've got no objective basis for that.
    There is no point in recognizing every view point as equally valid. That is absurd. When you pick every component action of an act apart down to the smallest level, you can absolutely say if an individual action is good or bad. Anyone that claims that when observed alone, the act of torturing an innocent person could just as well be a good act, is an idiot, and their viewpoint can safely be dismissed.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalik View Post
    Debatable. The last time we tried moral absolutes we got fun things like the inquisition, religious wars, "benevolent" colonialism, gay bashing and other fun stuff like that.

    Moral relativism has its place.
    Subscribing to moral relativism is admitting that you don't trust yourself to uphold morals.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    I struggle with the fact that I know logically black and white morality does not exist because humans are complicated and there are reasons for everything in life that can't just be chalked up as "evil" from an intellectual POV.
    If morality didn't exist...then this thread has no reason to exist either.
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    But the problem is when put under pressure and stress, I feel it's just so difficult to maintain this line of rational thinking. It's so much easier and gratifying to succumb to or give in to deep-rooted hate, irrational thinking, and black and white thinking. For example, it's super frustrating to think that the perceived bad people in life might not be so bad realistically, but it's super satisfying to pin all blame and misfortune on them (even if it makes no sense) under bad times.
    I prefer a life-death scenario...it takes morality out of the question.

  10. #30
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    63,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    For me, the absolute cornerstones of morality are:

    A. Every single action can be separated into either Good or Bad components. There are no Grey actions, because that is just failing to collect enough facts about that specific action. Just because you are unable to determine if something is more Good or Bad, doesn't mean that it cannot be objectively determined.

    B. Bad and/or Evil is about intentionally causing harm to innocent consciousnesses. Be it physical or emotional pain or hardship. Good is about doing the opposite.

    C. The Good doesn't wash away the Bad, nor the other way round. (Yes I know Stannis said that in aSoIaF, but I didn't take it from there originally).

    If you brutally torture an orphan because it is the only way to feed a million other starving orphans, it is not a morally grey act. You are an evil person trying to do a good thing. Own up to it and don't be a pussy.
    This has absolutely fuck-all to do with moral relativism.

    However, to raise a few points;

    Regarding A.; is eating a sandwich a morally Good or Evil act? You said all actions are one or the other, right? Also, the separation out into components argues for a utilitarian "does this do more Good than Evil" tabulation approach, which you decry at the end.

    B. is problematic; where does negligence fall? Apathetic disconcern for the needs of others? You're presuming "hot" malice for evil to exist, which is silly. You also add in "harm to innocent consciousnesses", which suggests you think torturing murderers to death for fun is totes okay. Which is horrible.

    C., again, is argued against by A. They're not consistent with each other.

    First, for all intents and purposes, I might as well be the God. I mean, the existence of my own consciousness is the only thing in the entire universe that I can objectively know for sure, so what ever morality I subscribe to has to come from myself. Though I don't literally think that I am the only conscious observer this universe has, just that I am the only one I can be sure exists.
    Simple question;

    Do you really think you're the only person that exists? We're not talking about "prove without making reasonable assumptions", which nihilism would demand, just whether you believe it to be true in practice.

    If not, this derail into hypothetical nihilist philosophy is a distraction, and has fuck-all to do with your personal moral theory.

    If so, why would morality exist at all? You've just argued there aren't any other consciousnesses, they're all figments of your imagination, so why should it matter if you start torturing, cooking, and eating the babies that you're just imagining?

    There is no point in recognizing every view point as equally valid. That is absurd.
    Literally not what moral relativism is about.

    It would help if you understood what a thing was before calling it a "disease".

    When you pick every component action of an act apart down to the smallest level, you can absolutely say if an individual action is good or bad. Anyone that claims that when observed alone, the act of torturing an innocent person could just as well be a good act, is an idiot, and their viewpoint can safely be dismissed.
    If this were true, some philosopher would have developed a moral theory predicated upon it, and it would have been found to be objectively true.

    That's not the case. Because it isn't. You literally can't boil every action down that simplistically.

    As I opened this post with, let's say I make myself a BLT sandwich. Is eating it a Good or Bad act? Assume it's just a normal BLT, on stuff I acquired at a normal store, in a normal life. Note that I expect your answer to be universally true, here, of any hypothetical "me" in this circumstance. I also won't accept "it's not an issue of morality at all", because that's A> not true, and B> you yourself said "all actions", and this is an action. If you're gonna admit nuance and shades of gray here, then you're admitting your hypothesis thus far is incorrect.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Subscribing to moral relativism is admitting that you don't trust yourself to uphold morals.
    Again, literally and definitively not what moral relativism is about.

    Learn what terms are about before crusading against them. Seriously.

  11. #31
    The Insane Orange Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    001100010010011110100001101101110011
    Posts
    18,990
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    you seem to get it but I'm gonna ask you then:

    like some guy makes an accident that troubles you. And it's legitimately an accident and he didn't mean to do it but it causes you a lot of hurt. Instead of seeing it this way and forgiving, isn't it more easy to just call him evil and hate him?

    That's one tame example
    No not really. It's much easier to just forgive and forget.
    I have a fan. Seems he was permabanned.
    Yo, don't mind my "street talk"

  12. #32
    Over 9000!
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Daegu, South Korea
    Posts
    9,947
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Moral relativism is a disease.
    Pretty sure people on this forum engages in some form of moral relativism all the time. Just look at the discussions pertaining to exercising authority that has appeared in several threads, especially about more authoritarian countries. People assert the way the west do things is the right way and that the people in (insert country) are being oppressed, another person points out that they themselves don't think they are being oppressed but because those people from west thinks people should live under their (western) ideas of freedom, then the government is oppressing the people if they don't allow the same freedoms as people in the west have and are pretty much dictators and evil.

    Like, people went ballistic at me when I explained how defamation works(Truth is not a defense against it here) in South Korea, to protect people and tried to refer to US law as the right one. When it's a matter of different values and as such one can't be right, which one is right depends on which values you have.
    Last edited by Freighter; 2020-04-23 at 08:39 PM.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    This has absolutely fuck-all to do with moral relativism.

    However, to raise a few points;

    Regarding A.; is eating a sandwich a morally Good or Evil act? You said all actions are one or the other, right? Also, the separation out into components argues for a utilitarian "does this do more Good than Evil" tabulation approach, which you decry at the end.

    B. is problematic; where does negligence fall? Apathetic disconcern for the needs of others? You're presuming "hot" malice for evil to exist, which is silly. You also add in "harm to innocent consciousnesses", which suggests you think torturing murderers to death for fun is totes okay. Which is horrible.

    C., again, is argued against by A. They're not consistent with each other.



    Simple question;

    Do you really think you're the only person that exists? We're not talking about "prove without making reasonable assumptions", which nihilism would demand, just whether you believe it to be true in practice.

    If not, this derail into hypothetical nihilist philosophy is a distraction, and has fuck-all to do with your personal moral theory.

    If so, why would morality exist at all? You've just argued there aren't any other consciousnesses, they're all figments of your imagination, so why should it matter if you start torturing, cooking, and eating the babies that you're just imagining?



    Literally not what moral relativism is about.

    It would help if you understood what a thing was before calling it a "disease".



    If this were true, some philosopher would have developed a moral theory predicated upon it, and it would have been found to be objectively true.

    That's not the case. Because it isn't. You literally can't boil every action down that simplistically.

    As I opened this post with, let's say I make myself a BLT sandwich. Is eating it a Good or Bad act? Assume it's just a normal BLT, on stuff I acquired at a normal store, in a normal life. Note that I expect your answer to be universally true, here, of any hypothetical "me" in this circumstance. I also won't accept "it's not an issue of morality at all", because that's A> not true, and B> you yourself said "all actions", and this is an action. If you're gonna admit nuance and shades of gray here, then you're admitting your hypothesis thus far is incorrect.

    - - - Updated - - -



    Again, literally and definitively not what moral relativism is about.

    Learn what terms are about before crusading against them. Seriously.
    I'll answer tomorrow after I've had some sleep.

  14. #34
    Old God Orby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Essex, England
    Posts
    10,187
    Only Siths deal in absolutes :P

  15. #35
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    18,256
    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    I struggle with the fact that I know logically black and white morality does not exist because humans are complicated and there are reasons for everything in life that can't just be chalked up as "evil" from an intellectual POV.

    But the problem is when put under pressure and stress, I feel it's just so difficult to maintain this line of rational thinking. It's so much easier and gratifying to succumb to or give in to deep-rooted hate, irrational thinking, and black and white thinking. For example, it's super frustrating to think that the perceived bad people in life might not be so bad realistically, but it's super satisfying to pin all blame and misfortune on them (even if it makes no sense) under bad times.
    For "evil" one important thing to realize is that evil is caused by a lack of knowledge, both personally and collectively. People generally don't try to be evil but humans will be forever ignorant and so we can't say that anyone will ever be 100% immune to being evil no matter how much wisdom they have at a given time.

    Don't worry about "evil people" and "evil groups" though because that often leads people into conspiracy theories, typically about how a small evil group of people are the cause of society's ills (Jews, bourgeoisie, etc). Instead the cause of your ills are a combination of parochial problems which are inherited from one generation to the next as well as the new types of problems that are created by technological change and side effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by YUPPIE View Post
    but it's super satisfying to pin all blame and misfortune on them
    If you don't like someone or a group then it should be because they have a bad idea that's not as good as your good idea. Instead of being angry or attacking the person, attack their idea and show them how implementing your idea makes more sense. If you are just against 'person x' or 'group x' then you'll never make progress since the evolution of ideas is truly what rules the world/history.
    Last edited by PC2; 2020-04-24 at 02:07 AM.
    -------
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to pre-determine the future.

  16. #36
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    21,702
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    For "evil" one important thing to realize is that evil is caused by a lack of knowledge
    A lack of knowledge never stopped you from trying to explain stuff though.
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  17. #37
    Good and Bad is relative to the situation.


  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    Moral relativism is a disease.
    Truth is ugly after all.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    As I opened this post with, let's say I make myself a BLT sandwich. Is eating it a Good or Bad act? Assume it's just a normal BLT, on stuff I acquired at a normal store, in a normal life. Note that I expect your answer to be universally true, here, of any hypothetical "me" in this circumstance. I also won't accept "it's not an issue of morality at all", because that's A> not true, and B> you yourself said "all actions", and this is an action. If you're gonna admit nuance and shades of gray here, then you're admitting your hypothesis thus far is incorrect.
    It can be argued that eating the BLT sandwich is bad because it reinforces one to think eating meat is not harmful to animals when really it is.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by ErrandRunner View Post
    It can be argued that eating the BLT sandwich is bad because it reinforces one to think eating meat is not harmful to animals when really it is.
    It can also be argued that it's good to eat meat. Since if we didn't eat meat it's likely that a lot of animals we keep around for meat would be extinct now. So us humans eating meat gives life to animals so we can later eat them.
    - Lars

  20. #40
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    18,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    A lack of knowledge never stopped you from trying to explain stuff though.
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet. I have the financial freedom that a lot of self-proclaimed 'geniuses' don't have and that leads me to believe that a lot of them prioritize prestige as opposed to more tangible results.

    Anyways back the original point, the notion of "evil" doesn't really exist in a traditional sense and so people should stop labeling people as evil except in light of them having an absence of moral knowledge. So for example even felons in prison aren't really evil but they simply have a blind spot where they think it's possible to justify the initiation of violence or violate the consent of another person.
    Last edited by PC2; 2020-05-22 at 06:41 AM.
    -------
    Logical Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to pre-determine the future.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •