The meaning of the word 'evil'

[jwreck]

That kind of anger belies your professed belief that morality is purely subjective. There is absolutely no reason to get angry if HER morality is just as right as yours is.

If you truly believe that what she did was not actually wrong, then you have no reason to criticize or condemn her... any more than you would have a reason to condemn or criticize someone for doing something as mundane as tying their shoes or scratching an itch on their arm.

You're completely discounting the human factor. The species survival factor. I'm not sure why you believe that anger is somehow tied to morality. Dropping a hammer on my toe makes me very angry, and is not in any way an "evil" act.

[lily]

It's irrational to get mad at the person if you don't believe in free will. But, it remains natural.

You're bringing up a new topic now (we've already gotten off the original topic, a few pages ago.) But since you did, what are your thoughts on free will?

Anyway, this is becoming absurd. What's next, stating someone is being irrational for objecting to being tortured or false accused of a capital crime and put on death row? Would anyone actually assert that, in a real life situation? Uh, no.

This is one of the many problems with moral subjectivism. It goes against reality. It doesn't match up with what happens in every day life. You can try to defend it in a purely theoretical way, but it falls apart if you try to act it out in the real world around us.

Also irrational but natural if you logically don't really believe in free will.

I disagree, but let's move forward here.

I do.

I don't want to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. I just find it hard to believe that you really think everyone in the world is being irrational for objecting to being wronged. Maybe you need to think about that a bit more.

Objecting and morally blaming aren't the same thing.

What's your point? If moral subjectivism is true, then you can't object OR morally blame anyone.

Just...no. It's not the naturalists (philosophical naturalism) out there doing bad things or refusing to do things to help people. We still have a conscience and morality. We're quite good at being good people and working to make people's lives better. We just come at it all from a different set of beliefs/suspicions about how the world works.

To be clear, I wasn't claiming that moral subjectivists in particular are out there doing bad things. btw, most people in the world probably don't think about these 'viewpoints' as much as you and I do. But I do believe that when the viewpoint of subjectivism is taken to its logical end, it is bad news for everyone. It can lead to all sorts of things, if people actually do believe it and practice it. (Thankfully, even among the people who do believe it, most don't act as if they do.)

And how many people agree with him? That's like me bringing up the Westboro people.

I don't know how many people agree with him, but the better question is - if people like him get in power, do you think they be guided by their ideas? And does it matter how many people disagree? Someone like him is dangerous, and it's that same "textbook" mindset taken to the extreme, to the point of absurdity (or insanity).

Me, too. I'm not scared of being dead at all.

But, if you knew you were going to die in 5 minutes from, say, an electric shock execution (assuming it was 100% certain that it wouldn't hurt at all and would be instant) painlessly...you'd still be scared, right? Possibly or probably?

If I knew for sure that it was going to be instant and not hurt, I think I'd be able to just close my eyes, remind myself of that and think about the positive (what is on the other side). But I can't say for sure, not being in that situation.

[kellyb]

What's your point? If moral subjectivism is true, then you can't object OR morally blame anyone.

Yes, you can object to being hurt and others being hurt even if you believe morality is relative/subjective. I and most people believe that human suffering is "bad". We're back to that arrogance you've accused me of. I think we're the closest things to gods known of in the known universe. Our own, frighteningly flawed subjective morality on both an individual and collective level is what will HAVE to do, because there is nothing higher. We answer to ourselves and each other. I wish there were something more authoritative, but there's not (that I know of/believe in.)

But I do believe that when the viewpoint of subjectivism is taken to its logical end, it is bad news for everyone. It can lead to all sorts of things, if people actually do believe it and practice it. (Thankfully, even among the people who do believe it, most don't act as if they do.)

I see religion the same way, especially the teachings of Jesus taken literally.

If I knew for sure that it was going to be instant and not hurt, I think I'd be able to just close my eyes, remind myself of that and think about the positive (what is on the other side). But I can't say for sure, not being in that situation.

Me, too, but it would be spooky. That same spookiness/fear is an INSTINCT, like getting angry with people who do bad things is an instinct. Even small toddlers have those instincts when it comes to seeing people be "mean" (there's a bunch of new, interesting research about that.)

[kellyb]

This is one of the many problems with moral subjectivism. It goes against reality. It doesn't match up with what happens in every day life.

Sort of like the counter-intuitiveness of believing that the sun does not, in fact, revolve around the Earth.

[lily]

Wow you missed the point so bad you'd think I had it stealthed. First off, the things that piss me off about the story have nothing to do with evil. It has to do with the fact that people suck and are infuriating creatures to deal with. Espaecially modern self-important suburbanites.

I didn't say that you were pissed off because she was evil. You shouldn't be pissed off AT ALL, about what anyone else did, because they did nothing wrong, or negative. You yourself claimed that actions had no inherent meaning, and that all morality (which I'm beginning to see you are defining in a very narrow way) is purely subjective.

Except for the fact that I'm a member of this society, and therefore subject to the societal parameters of it, just like every other member of this society. The laws of my state are not universal, doesn't mean its okay for people to break them. However, I'm not going to label her as evil. Funny that you haven't either. You didn't answer any of my questions about that article. You just decided I was attacking God and went off on a tangent.

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you, but you're still not seeing the inconsistency. You claim to believe that morals are purely subjective and that actions are inherently meaningless - yet you seem to be genuinely outraged at certain news stories involving the actions of other people. It doesn't matter if the laws of your state are not universal - if moral subjectivism is true, then breaking ANY law is not actually wrong. When you say, "doesn't mean its okay for people to break them" - well, it IS OK for people to break any law, if nothing (even lawbreaking) is actually wrong, in an external way.

Objective truth is like quantum mechanics. We have a feeling its there, we have a pretty good idea how it works, but there are still a lot of holes until we can say that something is an absolute truth. And quite frankly, its really not very relevant in our day to day lives because as far as day to day society goes, societal truths (ie relative truths) have a much greater impact on our lives.

Like I said earlier on this thread, I think if one really puts some thought into this topic, studies it in more depth, and weighs all the evidence, the weight of the evidence falls on the side of objective truth. And I do think it is relevant to our everyday lives. And I get what you're saying, but if societal truths do have a greater impact on our lives, as you said... and those societal "truths" are (in reality) false... or detrimental, then that is a problem for society... I'd hope you'd agree.

[lily]

You're completely discounting the human factor. The species survival factor. I'm not sure why you believe that anger is somehow tied to morality. Dropping a hammer on my toe makes me very angry, and is not in any way an "evil" act.

I never claimed that anger was only tied to morality. Morality is what we've been talking about here, and I was pointing out the absurdity of getting angry and passionate about actions of other people who did nothing wrong, according to your own viewpoint.

[kellyb]

I never claimed that anger was only tied to morality. Morality is what we've been talking about here, and I was pointing out the absurdity of getting angry and passionate about actions of other people who did nothing wrong, according to your own viewpoint.

You can believe and even know it was wrong to you, while also understanding that they might not think it was so wrong. Like when we dropped nukes on Japan.

[lily]

The objective truth is that there is not an objective morality. Does that help?

That's a good try, but that objective truth is describing morality, is it not? It's not an objective truth regarding mathematics or the universe, or things like that. It's describing human behavior - it is an assertion that nothing people do is truly right/wrong or good/evil. So if you are claiming that there are no objective truths in terms of morality, that is false, because your own claim would be an objective truth in terms of morality.

Btw, I'm not trying to be argumentative or to give you a hard time here. I just want to point out the many problems with that viewpoint, and we haven't even gotten into all of them yet.

[kellyb]

That's a good try, but that objective truth is describing morality, is it not? It's not an objective truth regarding mathematics or the universe, or things like that. It's describing human behavior - it is an assertion that nothing people do is truly right/wrong or good/evil. So if you are claiming that there are no objective truths in terms of morality, that is false, because your own claim would be an objective truth in terms of morality.

Let me help you:


"The objective truth is that there is not an objective beauty. Does that help?"



"That's a good try, but that objective truth is describing beauty, is it not? It's not an objective truth regarding mathematics or the universe, or things like that. It's describing beauty - it is an assertion that nothing people paint is truly beautiful/ugly. So if you are claiming that there are no objective truths in terms of beauty, that is false, because your own claim would be an objective truth in terms of beauty."

[kellyb]

I just want to point out the many problems with that viewpoint, and we haven't even gotten into all of them yet.

It's impossible for you to consider that maybe you're the one that's wrong, isn't it?

[lily]

It's impossible for you to consider that maybe you're the one that's wrong, isn't it?

That's the exact same feeling I'm getting from some of you. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, and I never claimed that I'm always right. I'm just pointing out all the problems with the view. You do realize that most philosophers don't believe that morals are purely subjective? Even some atheists don't believe it. In their view, believing that there are objective moral truths doesn't necessarily require a belief in God. But that is another issue.

[kellyb]

That's the exact same feeling I'm getting from some of you. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, and I never claimed that I'm always right. I'm just pointing out all the problems with the view. You do realize that most philosophers don't believe that morals are purely subjective? Even some atheists don't believe it. In their view, believing that there are objective moral truths doesn't necessarily require a belief in God. But that is another issue.

I have used "think/know/believe/SUSPECT" with the "suspect" part being the most often used to describe my thinking.

Regaring atheists who believe in objective morality, I bet they're referring to instinctive morality. Which I believe exists, too.

[lily]

I have used "think/know/believe/SUSPECT" with the "suspect" part being the most often used to describe my thinking.

Regaring atheists who believe in objective morality, I bet they're referring to instinctive morality. Which I believe exists, too.

Yes, I know you have been careful in your wording. But I get the feeling that some of you have your minds already made up, and it doesn't matter what is posted or how many flaws there are in the subjectivist viewpoint, you already have a conclusion. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sorry - and I hope I am wrong about that.

About those atheists - I'm not sure if that is their reasoning. If it is, I would disagree that human instincts can be absolute or objective. Not to get into yet another topic though! I have to go pretty soon.

[Pwingly]

Sometimes people are just dumb and dont know any better

[lily]

Sometimes people are just dumb and dont know any better

Are you saying that evil actions can also be explained by mere stupidity or ignorance? I'd agree that some probably fall into that category. But there are also some smart people (at least book smart) who do some very evil things.

Ok, I really should go now.

[kellyb]

Yes, I know you have been careful in your wording. But I get the feeling that some of you have your minds already made up, and it doesn't matter what is posted or how many flaws there are in the subjectivist viewpoint, you already have a conclusion. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sorry - and I hope I am wrong about that.

We are skeptics. Doubt is our primary MO. "Fairly confident" and "pretty darn sure" are about as close as we can get to having our minds made up.

ETA:
To clarify, that's for more esoteric topics. When it comes to stuff like "Is 2 + 2 really 4?" and "Does the Earth really revolve around the sun?" we delve into the fanatical territory of "virtually certain." But we know there's a chance, however small, that even those perceptions might not be right.

[Pwingly]

Are you saying that evil actions can also be explained by mere stupidity or ignorance? I'd agree that some probably fall into that category. But there are also some smart people (at least book smart) who do some very evil things.

I dont know if people are actually ignorant or stupid I think there caught up in their own little world and have been for along time so things lead up to what they do that maybe their in the wrong circumstances. I could be the enviroment. But I dont think people are born evil. Not the sane ones.

[jwreck]

I didn't say that you were pissed off because she was evil. You shouldn't be pissed off AT ALL, about what anyone else did, because they did nothing wrong, or negative. You yourself claimed that actions had no inherent meaning, and that all morality (which I'm beginning to see you are defining in a very narrow way) is purely subjective.



I get what you're saying, and I agree with you, but you're still not seeing the inconsistency. You claim to believe that morals are purely subjective and that actions are inherently meaningless - yet you seem to be genuinely outraged at certain news stories involving the actions of other people. It doesn't matter if the laws of your state are not universal - if moral subjectivism is true, then breaking ANY law is not actually wrong. When you say, "doesn't mean its okay for people to break them" - well, it IS OK for people to break any law, if nothing (even lawbreaking) is actually wrong, in an external way.

Where did you get all this meaningless crap? I never said everything is meaningless. Just because something isn't objectively true doesn't mean its meaningless.

Like I said earlier on this thread, I think if one really puts some thought into this topic, studies it in more depth, and weighs all the evidence, the weight of the evidence falls on the side of objective truth. And I do think it is relevant to our everyday lives. And I get what you're saying, but if societal truths do have a greater impact on our lives, as you said... and those societal "truths" are (in reality) false... or detrimental, then that is a problem for society... I'd hope you'd agree.

I don't agree. I have put quite a bit of thought into this and come up with the conclusions I have now. I'm not just making this up as I go along. I'm also not regurgitating the words of someone else here. These are my thoughts and my conclusions.

I never claimed that anger was only tied to morality. Morality is what we've been talking about here, and I was pointing out the absurdity of getting angry and passionate about actions of other people who did nothing wrong, according to your own viewpoint.

Again, just because its not an objective truth, doesn't mean it has no meaning. Violating societal law causes society to break down, which makes my life more difficult, which pisses me off. Leaving gum on the ground that I step on is not some great universal evil, but it makes my day worse, which pisses me off. Get it?

[jwreck]

That's the exact same feeling I'm getting from some of you. I'm not claiming to have all the answers, and I never claimed that I'm always right. I'm just pointing out all the problems with the view. You do realize that most philosophers don't believe that morals are purely subjective? Even some atheists don't believe it. In their view, believing that there are objective moral truths doesn't necessarily require a belief in God. But that is another issue.

Honestly it doesn't sound like you've put much thought into this. It sounds more like you've done a lot of research on what other people think about this. I don't give a fuck if every philosopher in the world disagrees with me or what their religious affiliation is. Truth is not a popularity contest. EVERYONE should look at the evidence presented, and reach their own conclusion.

You like to talk about logic, but you should know from logic that for an absolute statement to stand, all it takes is one exception for that statement to not be absolute. Therefore, if there is even on instance where it doesn't hold up, then it is not an absolute. "rape is always wrong". Sounds great, but doesn't hold up. "Murder is always wrong" "Killing is always wrong" all these are statements that have exceptions to them. Even "God is good" is not an absolute. SO, if you know some moral value that has no exceptions, please share it with the class.

[jwreck]

Oh, and you STILl haven't answered my questions about the article. Is that woman evil?