It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionDo you hate evil and fight against it(255 posts) (255 posts) 
(255 posts) 
Pages:
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
17
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 03, 2021
low rated
in short evil exists regardless of political view
Posted January 03, 2021
Everyone is a philosopher claiming that evil does not exist, until one mentions one particular Austrian fella.
Same goes for the saying "Victors write the history".
Posted January 03, 2021
low rated
Everyone is a philosopher claiming that evil does not exist, until one mentions one particular Austrian fella.
Or one very annoying orange....on the interwebs.

*pic related*
Attachments:
annoyingorngdude.jpg (58 Kb)
Posted January 03, 2021
avatar
BlueMooner: Imagine two people get in a car to go somewhere. One says they should go left at the light, and the other insists they obviously must go right. They argue and yell, incredulous that the other can't see how WRONG they obviously are. What they don't realize is that one is heading to the supermarket, which means going left, and the other wants to go to the post office, which necessitates going right.
I'm not a learned man so I won't delve deeply into your post, I'll just expand on this part here.

Imagine there's a war, six people: one starving looter and one parent of four who happen to have a small stash of food. Starving looter comes barging into family's home, demanding their food. Parent refuses because it would mean their children would starve to death. Words come to blows and both looter and the parent die in the fight. The situation is evil from the point of view of all six people involved - doesn't it mean that OBJECTIVELY evil thing happened here?
Post edited January 03, 2021 by OptimalBreez
Posted January 04, 2021
avatar
scientiae: Interestingly, Ruth Ginsburg was of the opinion that the political mess that has resulted from the US Supreme Court ruling of Roe versus Wade was more because of the ham-fisted over-reach of the court than the conflict of underlying morality.
I'm not sure why you diverted to governmental action (and society's reaction) on a side point, from a discussion of morality; legal actions aren't directly connected to morals. But I'll bite.

The tension in the US over abortion is not due to the specifics of the Court's ruling, but due to christians seeking power. Abortion, like gay rights, are hot button issues that christian leaders saw as a means to rouse their base, get flooded with donations, and gain more of their religious beliefs in law. And it worked. Countless churches were flooded with more money to stop women "murdering babies" and stop gays "destroying everything good and moral". And christian voters were moved to go to the polls pushing for more christian values. Abortion and gays, along with other issues, have been used to increase the power and wealth of christian leaders, and the influence of christians as a whole.

avatar
OptimalBreez: The situation is evil from the point of view of all six people involved - doesn't it mean that OBJECTIVELY evil thing happened here?
No. Everyone agreeing on a belief doesn't make that belief right or wrong, true or false. If I found six people in the past, or even six people today, who believed slavery was good, would that mean slavery was objectively good? The number of people who believe something, few or many, has ZERO bearing on the "correctness" of that belief. A billion people can be wrong... one person alone can be right.

Argumentum ad numerum (argument of numbers)
[url=http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#:~:text=Argumentum%20ad%20numerum%20(argument%20or,make%20it%20true%20or%20right]http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#:~:text=Argumentum%20ad%20numerum%20(argument%20or,make%20it%20true%20or%20right[/url]

Argumentum ad populum (argument of the public)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

"Objective" should be reserved for "facts", things that are demonstrably evident. Everyone can agree 2+2 = 4. There is no disagreement, no OPINION involved... it is a demonstrable fact (it can be shown/proven), and is therefore objective. Topics where people offer opinions, perspectives, beliefs... no position can be called objective. Can we prove objectively that strawberry ice cream is better or worse than pistachio ice cream? Or one music band is better than another? Or this person is "hotter" than that one?

When discussing social issues, be it slavery or something else, claiming it is right/wrong or good/bad is a lazy argument. Nobody should ever adopt a position on something just "because". It should be shown WHY people should support/oppose something with reasons, facts, data, arguments. Too many people IMHO hold positions without ever examining or questioning why they hold them. Is incest bad? Why? Is prayer good? Why? In theory, we should be able to justify why we hold every position we do on things, and if our justification on a particular thing is lacking, we should be open to "better" arguments.

EDIT
Gog doesn't like my first link... : (
Post edited January 04, 2021 by BlueMooner
Posted January 04, 2021
avatar
scientiae: Interestingly, Ruth Ginsburg was of the opinion that the political mess that has resulted from the US Supreme Court ruling of Roe versus Wade was more because of the ham-fisted over-reach of the court than the conflict of underlying morality.
avatar
BlueMooner: I'm not sure why you diverted to governmental action (and society's reaction) on a side point, from a discussion of morality; legal actions aren't directly connected to morals. But I'll bite.
I "diverted to governmental action (and society's reaction) on a side point, from a discussion of morality" because, as you correctly noted: "legal actions aren't directly connected to morals."
:)

avatar
BlueMooner: The tension in the US over abortion is not due to the specifics of the Court's ruling, but due to christians seeking power. […] And christian voters were moved to go to the polls pushing for more christian values. Abortion and gays, along with other issues, have been used to increase the power and wealth of christian leaders, and the influence of christians as a whole.
I think we are in violent agreement.
avatar
scientiae: In other words, because the court adjudicated that not only that the Texan law under review was unconstitutional, but, further, that any law against abortion was, this created waves of protest that are still reverberating around the political arena a half-century later. She believed that had the court merely struck down the Texan law, then the legal-political process would have worked out what society really wanted, rather than have an elite group of lawyers decide for them.
[…] So, according to this late, feted, progressive jurist, the problem is not a continuing moral argument between the extremists (they will always argue) it is instead the fact that an unelected body made a unilateral decision that potentially reaches every person. […]
So I concur with your assessment that the power grab of the special-interest group (in this case Right-to-Life advocates) is the cause of the political unrest. Don't you agree?
Posted January 04, 2021
avatar
BlueMooner: Gog doesn't like my first link... : (
The website's abbreviation character (the tilda) seems to mess with Gog's link parser.
link:
[url=http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html]http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html[/url]

So, use the cSun site
and (ignore the page) then add this suffix to the address, manually, starting with a (forward) slash and:
~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Post edited January 04, 2021 by scientiae
Posted January 04, 2021
evil or good is just a matter of perspective.

so no i dont fight it i embrace it.
Posted January 04, 2021
low rated
avatar
Abishia: evil or good is just a matter of perspective.

so no i dont fight it i embrace it.
no it is not
some evil just want you to believe this, so they can get away with their evil doings easier
Post edited January 04, 2021 by Orkhepaj
Posted January 04, 2021
avatar
scientiae: This is why libertarian policies are superior to socialist policies, since socialism seeks to treat every member of a group (a very arbitrary political calculus) with the attributes ascribed to that group, whereas libertarian policies devolve responsibility to each individual and (using John Stuart Mill's harm principle) that each individual cannot control any other. It is politics that provides an individual, acting on behalf of their society, with a power over another; this power is dangerous (like a motor vehicle) and must be stringently regulated lest those with power use it for their own desires and not pro bono publico as they ought.
I am sure you aren't using the words "socialist" and "libertarian" correctly. Regardless there is alot of political discussion packed in there. You should describe the specifics you refer to instead of trying to pack them into nebulous words of "socialist" and "libertarian"
Post edited January 04, 2021 by myconv
Posted January 04, 2021
low rated
avatar
scientiae: This is why libertarian policies are superior to socialist policies, since socialism seeks to treat every member of a group (a very arbitrary political calculus) with the attributes ascribed to that group, whereas libertarian policies devolve responsibility to each individual and (using John Stuart Mill's harm principle) that each individual cannot control any other. It is politics that provides an individual, acting on behalf of their society, with a power over another; this power is dangerous (like a motor vehicle) and must be stringently regulated lest those with power use it for their own desires and not pro bono publico as they ought.
avatar
myconv: I am sure you aren't using the words "socialist" and "libertarian" correctly. Regardless there is alot of political discussion packed in there. You should describe the specifics you refer to instead of trying to pack them into nebulous words of "socialist" and "libertarian"
well those are not directly in those meanings, but true for their results
so he is right and used socialist and libertarian well
Posted January 04, 2021
To keep it short - yes.
I also hate moral relativism.
Posted January 04, 2021
avatar
scientiae:
avatar
myconv: I am sure you aren't using the words "socialist" and "libertarian" correctly. Regardless there is alot of political discussion packed in there. You should describe the specifics you refer to instead of trying to pack them into nebulous words of "socialist" and "libertarian"
And I am sure that I am.

Socialism was a term invented, after the French Revolution and Le Terreurs, by Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon (who lived from 1760–1825).

It was his alternative to Individualism. Libertarianism is the political theory that the individual is more important than the society in which she lives.

So socialism can lead to a tyranny of the majority, and especially to a situation where an individuals' rights are subservient to the society; when Kant's categorical imperative is bypassed "for the good of the many".

Which was the point I made.

edit: two links in one paragraph give Gog conniptions.
Post edited January 04, 2021 by scientiae
Posted January 04, 2021
high rated
These topics are becoming more pathetic by the minute.
Posted January 04, 2021
low rated
avatar
BlueMooner: ...
Someone informed this Christian that he should check this thread out to remind people that not all Christians are Jesuits. Please catch up.
Pages:
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
17
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionDo you hate evil and fight against it(255 posts) (255 posts) 
(255 posts)