# Necessary Evils: Poll and essay thread



## shesulsa (Aug 28, 2012)

Wide open here - and a simple question. Please post whatever you think is a necessary evil (legal or not) in the world and why, e.g. abortion, vivisection, eugenics ... and this is not just limited to the medical field. 

Some don't believe in "evil" but understand the gist.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 28, 2012)

I wish it were not so but, sadly, aye, there is a need for necessary evil in the world to prevent worse evil.  

The obvious example is World War II.  A horrible, horrible, conflict that caused more civilian casualties than military ones and saw a return to war upon the populace rather than between armies.  But, if it had not been fought, the evil of the Third Reich would have flourished.  The world is in a bad enough state as it is without having the tenets of Nazism running the show.

In more general terms, a necessary evil is the use of force to impose certain limits on the freedom of people to do as they wish when what they wish involves harm to others.  It would be lovely if we all lived by the morals that seem innate in many of us but there is a minority that is not 'wired' to cooperate and work for the common good.  So, for the benefit of society as a whole, that minority needs to be coerced or at least contained.  By any definition, such coercion is certainly not 'good' for those pressured by it but it serves a greater good for the majority.  That is a clear case of a lesser evil, or at least a less virulent one, being used to prevent a greater one.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 28, 2012)

Standing armed forces.

Welfare.

Police forces.

Public service announcements.

Equal access.

Workplace sensitivity training: sexual harrassment, etc.....

Traffic laws....hehe....:lfao:


----------



## Carol (Aug 28, 2012)

Telecom engineers 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

"Necessary" evil leads to more excuses.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 30, 2012)

Necessary evil does come in many different forms. 

Someone pushing another person out of the way of an oncoming car. (lesser of two evils). 

Sometimes making choices for other people for their own good. (Elderly) 
At 89 years old my mom had a heart attack and because of what she told me years before, I made the decision to let her pass. While I talked it over with my sister, my wife was talking to the doctor. While I made the decision with the help of my sister, the doctor asked me what her condition was before the attack, which was a very healthy 89 year old. Decision changed, she is now a healthy 94 year old.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Society is predicated upon control.  Control can be seen as a necessary evil.

Elder hit it, but it's bigger than that.  All human beings have their wants and needs.  These are to some extent restricted, controlled, protected, or provided by participation in society.  Participation in society, once established, is not voluntary, it is compulsory.

Because there is no absolute good or absolute evil, they are just human constructions, we live in societies that are always compromises between what the shifting beliefs of those who control that society find to be correct and incorrect behavior, and reflected in the laws of that society.  No one group controls all laws, and changes in laws do not always track shifting beliefs quickly; some laws become entrenched, others change more rapidly.  The fabric of law, like the fabric of society, is complex and subtle; no one truly understands all of it.  In such ways, however, we can say that in any society, there are segments that believe themselves to be oppressed, others that appear to be favored.  Laws appear to be excessively restrictive or without value based on current beliefs; all are seen as evil by some.  But societies cannot be perfect; so such things always exist.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2012)

I pretty much agree with *Sukerkin *here. Sometimes you have to fight evil with, well, doing what would otherwise be bad things. It sucks, but I don't have a better idea.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 30, 2012)

Lawyers.


----------



## pgsmith (Sep 30, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Lawyers.



  Don't know that I agree to them being necessary.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2012)

Necessary or otherwise, its still evil. And that's definition enough for me. I believe in the golden rule principle...if it would be evil if it happened to you or one you loved its evil to do to another.



> "None of us know our end, really, or what hand will guide us there. A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that." -King Baldwin, Kingdom of Heaven



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> "Necessary" evil leads to more excuses.



there are always excuses, more won't change a thing, but are very few solutions, sometimes a "Necessary evil" can help where a true solution is impossible


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Sensei_Dez said:


> there are always excuses, more won't change a thing, but are very few solutions, sometimes a "Necessary evil" can help where a true solution is impossible



Most of the time people make excuses to do evil because they want to do something evil.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Society is predicated upon control.



Who gets to control you? Hopefully good people?



Bill Mattocks said:


> Control can be seen as a necessary evil.



If you control yourself, within basic moral constraints like the non aggression principle and self ownership, are you still evil?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Who gets to control you? Hopefully good people?



The same people who control you.  Good, bad, it really doesn't matter.  It's all control.  Some we are glad is there, some we don't care for, but that's how it goes.



> If you control yourself, within basic moral constraints like the non aggression principle and self ownership, are you still evil?



Evil is a label.  It does not exist outside our minds, and each of us has a different notion of what it is.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If you control yourself, within basic moral constraints like the non aggression principle and self ownership, are you still evil?



If everyone did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But I have to live in the real world...or as Woody Allen put it: "Sure, reality sucks, but it's still the only place you can get a really good steak."


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2012)

Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its root motives and causes; however, I found a definition that pretty much covers the issue:

"evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence."

If you don't know evil when you see it, I think you are over rationalizing.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

arnisador said:


> If everyone did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But I have to live in the real world...or as Woody Allen put it: "Sure, reality sucks, but it's still the only place you can get a really good steak."



If that is the case, why do we even try to make society better?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The same people who control you.  Good, bad, it really doesn't matter.  It's all control.  Some we are glad is there, some we don't care for, but that's how it goes.



If evil people controlled society and an individual went along, what does that say about that person? 



Bill Mattocks said:


> Evil is a label.  It does not exist outside our minds, and each of us has a different notion of what it is.



How do you define evil? What would you excuse that met that definition?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If evil people controlled society and an individual went along, what does that say about that person?



Evil is defined by people.  People do not define themselves as evil.  Ergo, this does not happen.

Did the people who lived in societies that practiced human sacrifice consider themselves evil?  No.  Would we consider human sacrifice evil?  Yes.



> How do you define evil? What would you excuse that met that definition?



If I did, I'd be promptly tossed off of MT for good, so I will refrain.  Suffice to say, the society that I live in permits some behavior which I consider evil.  Most do not agree with me.  Therefore, I obey the law and put up with it.  As do you.  We just have different definitions of evil.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 30, 2012)

Wheat is evil, but we would starve without it.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

I agree the "evil" is a label, and because it's so relative we will never live in a world where everyone adheres to a standard of moral law, everyone will have their own version of what's "ok"

so in order to prevent such a system from falling into complete chaos and anarchy we develop societies in which some evils must exist to ensure stability, imagine if there were never weapon's created, there would be no way to make a large group of people follow any form of law, human society would never exist


----------



## Tgace (Sep 30, 2012)

Sensei_Dez said:


> I agree the "evil" is a label, and because it's so relative we will never live in a world where everyone adheres to a standard of moral law, everyone will have their own version of what's "ok"
> 
> so in order to prevent such a system from falling into complete chaos and anarchy we develop societies in which some evils must exist to ensure stability, imagine if there were never weapon's created, there would be no way to make a large group of people follow any form of law, human society would never exist



Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Sep 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?




_By *whom?*_



> Psalm 137:7-9
> hose Edomites,
> and remember the ruin of Jerusalem,
> That day they yelled out,
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 30, 2012)

That really does depend on context, *Tg*, which I think is the thing being alluded to in the past few comments here.  

All of us here at MT (I hope) would say it was evil but there are still societal conflicts around the world where such things happen and those that carry them out do not consider themselves 'evil' - the danger of indoctrination whether it be tribal, national or religious is that it can make the clearly immoral justifiable.  That's a different concept to a necessary evil.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

that's a cute response, I don't believe anyone here said ALL or even ANY form of evil is necessary, so that's obviously not one, but there are some, a necessary evil is letting someone have power knowing that they'll misuse it, but also knowing that the stability will prevent atrocities like mass genocide, a necessary evil is having one man killed so that 10 can live,

the bottom line is that I'm showing that there are shades of grey, and that's an obvious fact of reality, the perspective that there's a black and white line that nothing anyone can deem is bad should be done is naive, what shade of grey is too dark is moot, and I'm sure we'd all find we pretty much agree on it


----------



## Touch Of Death (Sep 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


Yes I can. Rio. It happens all the time. Next question.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

lol, I like you


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> "evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence."
> 
> If you don't know evil when you see it, I think you are over rationalizing.



People who bomb abortion clinics and shoot abortion doctors say this also.  They see such actions as self-defense the same way you might see shooting a rapist or a mugger who was trying to harm some passerby.   Do you agree that they are fighting evil?

That's the point.  Everyone decides what evil is, and everyone else's definition is wrong.  Evil is 'common sense' except that we don't all share the same definition.

"Everyone has some common definitions of evil that we can all agree on." Nope.  We don't.

And evil itself?  No such thing, except in our minds.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?



But that's just it...a hundred of _their _children. It's all tribal.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Evil is defined by people.  People do not define themselves as evil.  Ergo, this does not happen.
> 
> Did the people who lived in societies that practiced human sacrifice consider themselves evil?  No.  Would we consider human sacrifice evil?  Yes.
> 
> ...



Hmmmm. What is moral courage? How do you know if a person has it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Can you name me any place in the world today where, if I gathered up a hundred of their children and killed them, that I wouldn't be considered "evil"?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



A wedding party in Afghanistan.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> A wedding party in Afghanistan.



A sad commentary, but yeah, we're making lots of excuses for accepting the damage our drones do.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Hmmmm. What is moral courage? How do you know if a person has it?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_courage

As to how I'd know if a person had it, I don't.  I do not know the motivations other people have.  What appears to be one thing, might well be another.  I'm not inside their heads.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

. . . . did you really just cite wkikipedia?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 30, 2012)

Around here it is a sort of implicit understanding through common usage that the Wiki is a useful starting point for research by the reader, *Dez*.  It's not taken as an authoritative source but as a shorthand resource that, depending on supporting sources, can be refuted or agreed with by the reader as he or she is inclined.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

fair enough, if that's your prerogative, but in response to wiki definition of moral courage

*"Moral courage* is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences"

I'd say that moral reason is moot, if a person convinces them self a harmful act is morally just and acts upon it, would we still call it a courage? and example would be any form of revenge homicide


----------



## elder999 (Sep 30, 2012)

Sensei_Dez said:


> I'd say that moral reason is moot, if a person convinces them self a harmful act is morally just and acts upon it, would we still call it a courage? and example would be any form of revenge homicide



Again, it's a construct-in some of the tribal societies of Borneo, nothing could be more moral-or courageous-than leading a raid on a rival village and taking the heads of one's enemies in revenge-and that's only the mopst immediate example that comes to mind; I won't even get into what my ancestors might have thought of as "morally courageous," rather than, say-*evil*.:lfao:

In all seriousness, in spite of the insistence of some, morals *are not* absolute-they are societal constructs, and entirely arbitrary. What is defined as "moral" in one society is clearly "immoral" for another-a source of much conflict throughout the history of cross-cultural contact. Just as clearly, what one society calls "evil" is often seen as "good" in another.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Sensei_Dez said:


> fair enough, if that's your prerogative, but in response to wiki definition of moral courage
> 
> *"Moral courage* is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences"
> 
> I'd say that moral reason is moot, if a person convinces them self a harmful act is morally just and acts upon it, would we still call it a courage? and example would be any form of revenge homicide



That's why I did not want to be put in that box.  I don't believe in it, but I was asked what it is.  So I cited Wikpedia.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 30, 2012)

An intriguing question and one worthy of discussion.  Perhaps a separate companion thread to this one would be useful in which the nature of 'moral courage' is discussed?  Or do we think that the two subjects are closely enough intertwined that we can discuss them as sides of the same coin?  I can certainly see that for a 'good' person the two concepts of necessary evil and moral courage are related.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Sensei_Dez said:


> fair enough, if that's your prerogative, but in response to wiki definition of moral courage
> 
> *"Moral courage* is the courage to take action for moral reasons despite the risk of adverse consequences"
> 
> I'd say that moral reason is moot, if a person convinces them self a harmful act is morally just and acts upon it, would we still call it a courage? and example would be any form of revenge homicide



That would depend on someone's moral "reasoning" which, believe it or not, can be wrong. Moral courage can only be claimed if your reasoning is sound.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_courage
> 
> As to how I'd know if a person had it, I don't.  I do not know the motivations other people have.  What appears to be one thing, might well be another.  I'm not inside their heads.



I don't believe this. I think you do have a sense of right and wrong. You aren't a moral relativist, Bill. Real moral relatvists are psychopaths. Look at the thread I started about politics and psychopathic behavior. Moral relativism is a cornerstone for psychopathic behavior.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> That would depend on someone's moral "reasoning" which, believe it or not, can be wrong. Moral courage can only be claimed if your reasoning is sound.



All constructs.

Let me give you an example.

You are on a lifeboat, having fled a sinking ship.  You are an officer of said ship and have been ordered to convey these passengers to safety.

The lifeboat is crowded to the gunnels.  It's shipping water as it is.  You've taken on board all the people it can hold.

Towards you swims a survivor.  He is desperate, and wants to come aboard your lifeboat.

But if you haul him out of the water, your lifeboat will capsize.  All aboard will most likely die, including yourself.

You attempt to tell the man he can't board.  He ignores you.  You use an oar to attempt to keep him away.  He fights you.  As he wrestles with the oar, you come dangerously close to tipping the lifeboat.

You, the moral and good man, will take your oar and club that innocent victim to death.

Now tell me who is moral, who is right, who is wrong, who is evil, and who is good.

All of your constructs - evil, morality, and even 'correct thinking', require a universal frame of reference, and there isn't one.

That's an unsettling thought.  But it's a fact.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

I get what you're saying but still, "sound reasoning" is relative, suicide bombers probably think they have sound reasoning, but to us they don't, unless you can link morals to basic math you can't put it in a context that is universal to everyone


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I don't believe this. I think you do have a sense of right and wrong. You aren't a moral relativist, Bill. Real moral relatvists are psychopaths. Look at the thread I started about politics and psychopathic behavior. Moral relativism is a cornerstone for psychopathic behavior.



I recognize that my morality is not yours, my good and evil are not yours.  Our definitions overlap to a large extent, which is why we can live in relative peace with each other.  My definitions may be absolute (and they may not), but they are not universal.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I don't believe this. I think you do have a sense of right and wrong. You aren't a moral relativist, Bill. Real moral relatvists are psychopaths. Look at the thread I started about politics and psychopathic behavior. Moral relativism is a cornerstone for psychopathic behavior.



No, no, no.

Psychopathic behvior rests on a bedrock of narcissism. Believe me; I know. Real moral relatavists are often very moral people themselves, _within the constructed moral framework from which they operate._ These constructs are often societally imposed, but can be a matter of individual choice-determined from reason, if you like. 

I had an interesting discussion with one of my "born again" in-laws, who would not allow his children t read "Harry Potter" books because he called himself a "moral absolutist," and would not permit his children to be exposed to the notion that something "good" could come from something "evil," the evil in this instance being "magic/witchcraft." ( :lfao: ) 

Moral relatavism is the product of sound moral reasoning. Psycopathic behavior isn't at all based on any sort of "relatavism." The psycopath, by definition, knows what he does is wrong-he really just doesn't give a ****. He hasn't redefined what is "moral" or "immoral." He is *amoral*-and absolutely thinks of himself as above such distinctions-they have no meaning for him, save whatever he chooses to impose upon himself, for whatever *reason.*

Psycopathy is based on "moral reasoning," though not necessarily reasoning that would agree with the societal construct that is "morality."


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

here's a thought, would someone who enacts a necessary evil have moral courage? because they do what is deemed immoral by societal constructs for what is empirically beneficial to a greater number?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Sensei_Dez said:


> here's a thought, would someone who enacts a necessary evil have moral courage? because they do what is deemed immoral by societal constructs for what is empirically beneficial to a greater number?



What difference does it make?  And how does one tell?

The one to whom the 'necessary evil' is done may be a scientist who was on the verge of curing cancer.  The many on whose behalf the 'necessary evil' was done may be layabouts and criminals who contribute nothing to society.

Numbers don't mean anything, and worth is once again an abstract value.

There are no external and objective frameworks for good and evil.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

true, but to the curing cancer thing I'd say you can't factor in unknown possibilities they're too numerous and one cannot make a decision based on that type of abstract thinking, and according to causality if you made the decision to kill the scientist there was never going to be a cure, but I agree still all relative, so what else is there to talk about? lol


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Sensei_Dez said:


> true, but to the curing cancer thing I'd say you can't factor in unknown possibilities they're too numerous and one cannot make a decision based on that type of abstract thinking, and according to causality if you made the decision to kill the scientist there was never going to be a cure, but I agree still all relative, so what else is there to talk about? lol



That's the point.  There is nothing to talk about.  Society is a construct which requires people to subject themselves to external control.  Some of that control they will see as evil, some not.  But submit they will, nonetheless.  Oh well.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

well I agree, so this thread either needs someone to outright disagree or we can be done with it. thanks to all for the great conversation though


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> All constructs.
> 
> Let me give you an example.
> 
> ...



Lifeboat scenarios are strawmen arguments. There are lots of options that appear in real life that allow a person to choose a moral action. The lifeboat scenario is so extreme and so artificial that it can't actually exist.  Further, many times people who create lifeboat scenarios do so in such a way that leaves out peices of relavent information that might make a difference in the reasoning process. The whole thing is a fallacy based on the creators personal bias. Therefore, I think we can safely reject all "lifeboat" scenarios in favor of actual events that happen in a normal person's life.

As to the absence of a universal, imagine two people alone on the beach. Can those people agree to murder each other? How about rape? How about theft? As soon as those two agree, it isn't murder, rape, or theft. The moral principle revealed here is the non-aggression of force principle. This is a universally preferred behavior because two people can always live next to each other and uphold it without conflict.  From this principle we can derive most basic moral rules. Don't hit. Don't steal. Don't kill. Don't rape. We can also defend ourselves and our actions and uphold this principle, because if someone else initiates force against us, we can ward off that force with responsive aggressive action.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Sensei_Dez said:


> I get what you're saying but still, "sound reasoning" is relative, suicide bombers probably think they have sound reasoning, but to us they don't, unless you can link morals to basic math you can't put it in a context that is universal to everyone



I wish more philosophy was available to people. Moral reasoning can be linked to math. It's called logic.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

funny that murder, rape and theft are also the most likely things to happen if two people were separated from the society which makes them illegal


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

elder999 said:


> No, no, no.
> 
> Psychopathic behvior rests on a bedrock of narcissism. Believe me; I know. Real moral relatavists are often very moral people themselves, _within the constructed moral framework from which they operate._ These constructs are often societally imposed, but can be a matter of individual choice-determined from reason, if you like.
> 
> ...



So, let me summarize. Are you saying that a psychopath absolutely beleives in there incorrect moral reasoning and that this is narcissistic as you have pointed out?

Therefore, wouldn't moral relativism serve the psychopath by protecting his delusions? Couldn't a true psychopath latch on to real "moral relatvism" to justify any moral delusion?

Also, perhaps the "moral relativist" are simply skeptical of their own reasoning and always willing to learn? Despite that open mindedness, I'm sure there are lines that none of us will cross. 

That said, is it still fair to label people as moral relativists?


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

I have my own set of morals and truly believe they are right, but I also  know not everyone shares them and that I'm not infallible. so: morals  are relative, my morals are relative, but they are finite to me, and  they are all I can use to make decisions, it's just nice to be aware  that my opinion of right and wrong isn't the end all


----------



## elder999 (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> So, let me summarize. Are you saying that a psychopath absolutely beleives in there incorrect moral reasoning and that this is narcissistic as you have pointed out?



FOr a psycopath, their moral reasoning isn't incorrect. That in itself is no more narcissistic than a the behavior of a headhunter in Borneo, or South America. 



Makalakumu said:


> Therefore, wouldn't moral relativism serve the psychopath by protecting his delusions? Couldn't a true psychopath latch on to real "moral relatvism" to justify any moral delusion?



A true psychopath has no need to latch onto "moral relativism," and has no need of justification. He's under no "moral delusion." He is, quite simply, outside of "morals," in terms of his behavior. He does the things he does because they give him satisfaction, whether they are "wrong" or not. Example: if you were to cheat on your wife, you would probably enjoy it, AND you'd experience feelings of regret that we call "guilt." A psycopath wouldn't feel any of that regret-he's outside of such moral judgements upon himself-he'd simply enjoy it and move on, and likely beat a polygraph if questioned about his cheating.......



Makalakumu said:


> Also, perhaps the "moral relativist" are simply skeptical of their own reasoning and always willing to learn?



No, they might simply be academics whose "moral reasoning" allows them to recognize the morality of something like headhhunting or infanticide within a given society, since morals are arbitrary societal or individual constructs. THey might not engage in such behavior themselve, nor be capable of engaging in such behavior, nor have any desire to do so, but they refrain from condemning others or decrying their lack of morality for such behavior.

Unlike, say, Christian missionaries.....:lfao:




Makalakumu said:


> Despite that open mindedness, I'm sure there are lines that none of us will cross.



In spite of your education, John, statements like these lead me to believe that you've led a rather sheltered life. 

It's been my experience that there is *no* line _someone_ won't cross.





Makalakumu said:


> That said, is it still fair to label people as moral relativists?



Like morals themselves, it's completely dependent upon context. For some, "moral relativist" is a perjorative term. For others, it's the product of sound moral reasoning.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Lifeboat scenarios are strawmen arguments. There are lots of options that appear in real life that allow a person to choose a moral action. The lifeboat scenario is so extreme and so artificial that it can't actually exist.  Further, many times people who create lifeboat scenarios do so in such a way that leaves out peices of relavent information that might make a difference in the reasoning process. The whole thing is a fallacy based on the creators personal bias. Therefore, I think we can safely reject all "lifeboat" scenarios in favor of actual events that happen in a normal person's life.



We live in a lifeboat.  When you look at managed health care, you may see a parallel.

That's just one example.  There are many more.



> As to the absence of a universal, imagine two people alone on the beach. Can those people agree to murder each other? How about rape? How about theft? As soon as those two agree, it isn't murder, rape, or theft. The moral principle revealed here is the non-aggression of force principle. This is a universally preferred behavior because two people can always live next to each other and uphold it without conflict.  From this principle we can derive most basic moral rules. Don't hit. Don't steal. Don't kill. Don't rape. We can also defend ourselves and our actions and uphold this principle, because if someone else initiates force against us, we can ward off that force with responsive aggressive action.



All well and good.  But that's not the society we live in.  Is it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Sensei_Dez said:


> I have my own set of morals and truly believe they are right, but I also  know not everyone shares them and that I'm not infallible. so: morals  are relative, my morals are relative, but they are finite to me, and  they are all I can use to make decisions, it's just nice to be aware  that my opinion of right and wrong isn't the end all



Or maybe you acknowledge that your own moral reasoning could be faulty? If so, I would say that this does not mean you are a moral relativist.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Lifeboat scenarios are strawmen arguments. There are lots of options that appear in real life that allow a person to choose a moral action. The lifeboat scenario is so extreme and so artificial that it can't actually exist.



Actually, a real lifeboat scenario helped make my family's fortune, back in the 1800's. 

There's nothing more real.


----------



## Sensei_Dez (Sep 30, 2012)

no, I wouldn't say I am either


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

If we universalize the underlying principle of moral relativism, that there are no universal morals and that morality itself is simply an artificial construct, all psychopathic behavior is morally justified. This is why I think all psychopaths might very well be the perfect moral relativists.



elder999 said:


> Like morals themselves, it's completely dependent upon context. For some, "moral relativist" is a perjorative term. For others, it's the product of sound moral reasoning.



We make moral decisions everyday in our lives. For example, do I take that coffee or do I pay for it? Those are the products of moral reasoning. Moral relativism, as I'm beginning to understand more clearly, is simply a political term. Real moral relativists are psychopaths...which is why our leaders keep trying to convince us that this exists! Lol!

The last comment was tongue in cheek, but it leads to another idea that i'd like to interject. What if a society had convinced itself that their incorrect moral reasoning was correct? Perhaps that headhunter in Borneo beleives that his victims are human and are just animals, therefore he is justified in taking their head? 

This would be an example of an entire group of people who beleived in something rooted in a false premise. Therefore, the fact that the society beleives the above is good is not a proof of moral relativism. It simply is the product of faulty reasoning.

The same could be said of the Nazis...and any other society that justifies something atrocious.



elder999 said:


> In spite of your education, John, statements like these lead me to believe that you've led a rather sheltered life.



Far from it. I won't go into here. Come to Hawaii and we'll have a coffee someday...

Essentially, because of my life, I became interested in philosophy.  Our species is in dire need of philosophy...before we destroy each other and the world we live in.  Optimistically thinking, perhaps history books will record our time as a pre-logical phase of development. When humans realized that we could extinct ourselves, we reasoned better ways to live together.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We live in a lifeboat.  When you look at managed health care, you may see a parallel.
> 
> That's just one example.  There are many more.
> 
> ...



I see your point, Bill. We are forced into terrible decisions all of the time because of other people's terrible moral decisions. I don't know if that makes us immoral. I hope not...because I'm guilty too.

That said, it's truly terrifying, more terrifying then "moral relativism", to universalize real moral principles. We have a lot of work to do...and god damn psychopaths can push the button at any minute.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 30, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I see your point, Bill. We are forced into terrible decisions all of the time because of other people's terrible moral decisions. I don't know if that makes us immoral. I hope not...because I'm guilty too.
> 
> That said, it's truly terrifying, more terrifying then "moral relativism", to universalize real moral principles. We have a lot of work to do...and god damn psychopaths can push the button at any minute.



To quote Clint Eastwood in the movie "Unforgiven,"  _"We all got it coming, kid."_

The trick is to realize we're all scum and move past it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 30, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Actually, a real lifeboat scenario helped make my family's fortune, back in the 1800's.
> 
> There's nothing more real.



"Lifeboat scenarios" where immorality occurs exist. Some people get rich off of it.

This is the foundation of our corporatist economy...lol!


----------



## elder999 (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If we universalize the underlying principle of moral relativism, that there are no universal morals and that morality itself is simply an artificial construct, all psychopathic behavior is morally justified. This is why I think all psychopaths might very well be the perfect moral relativists.



Real psycopaths-and psycopathic behavior-are *amoral*-nothing is "relative" to anything, save their own desires and motivations. WHile they may care how someone _views_ them, and act accordingly, they really don't care about how someone else _feels_ *at all.* 




Makalakumu said:


> We make moral decisions everyday in our lives. For example, do I take that coffee or do I pay for it?



On the other hand, we might just go ahead and taste a couple of those grapes we're going to buy, or have a sip or two of that coffee before we've paid for it. We might take one or two grapes for a taste, decide the grapes aren't sweet enough, and not buy any. If the cashier gives us too much change, we might not return the extra. If the pump at the gas station is broken, and dispensing three gallons at the cost of one, we might just help ourselves to a full tank at a third of the price.  If someone is in the act of raping our little girl, we might just kill them. If someone raped our little girl yesterday, we might just hunt them down and kill them. If our family is starving-or even just hungry-we might just shoot a deer out of season, or on someone else's land, or steal a loaf of bread, or rob a bank. 

If we felt like it, we might just kill someone, cut out their liver and fry it up.



Makalakumu said:


> *Those are the products of moral reasoning*.



Indeed, they are. :lfao:



Makalakumu said:


> Moral relativism, as I'm beginning to understand more clearly, is simply a political term.



No, it's not. Going back to the headhunters in Borneo, for them, the height of "moral behavior" and "moral reasoning," and what exemplifies all that's right and just in the world, is to hunt down their enemies, cut off their heads and keep them. For my ancestors, the "right thing" to do was row their canoes across the Long Island Sound to what would become Connecticut, kill some Pequot warriors, kill their children, kidnap their women, take all their **** and burn their houses down......moral relativism is simply recognizing that such behavior constituted what was "moral" within the societal construct. Doesn't make it "moral" for you, me, or our current society.Just recognizes that it was moral for the people doing it.



Makalakumu said:


> Real moral relativists are psychopaths...



Or anthropologists, or Jesuits, or Maori tribesmen.....



Makalakumu said:


> which is why our leaders keep trying to convince us that this exists! Lol!



But it does exist. 



Makalakumu said:


> The last comment was tongue in cheek, but it leads to another idea that i'd like to interject. What if a society had convinced itself that their incorrect moral reasoning was correct? Perhaps that headhunter in Borneo beleives that his victims are human and are just animals, therefore he is justified in taking their head?



You can't call "a society's moral reasoning"  "_incorrect_-such terms don't apply. "Moral reasoning" is contextual, and takes place within the framework of that society's moral construct-that we judge such behavior to be immoral from the outside looking in is immaterial, and, in some cases, to be expected: in the face of monstrosities like Germany in WWII, the reaction of the rest of the world was to be expected, to some degree, but so was the confomity or complicit behavior of the majority of German society. They adapted to a new moral paradigm, or hid their disgust out of self-preservation, much as a psycopath might conceal his true nature behind charm and the appearance of "normalcy."



Makalakumu said:


> This would be an example of an entire group of people who beleived in something rooted in a false premise. Therefore, the fact that the society beleives the above is good is not a proof of moral relativism. It simply is the product of faulty reasoning.



Yes, it was morally right for European colonists in North America to own slaves, steal land from the Indians and kill them all. WHat made it morally right? They believed it to be so. They could quote scripture that supported both viewpoints, or political ideologies like "Manifest Destiny." Our country is the perfect demonstration of the truth of "moral relativism." What was right then is no longer right, but it truly *was* at  the time-it was a societal construct.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

All of what you describe above is the product of false premises.  When we rest our moral reasoning upon them, we make bad moral decisions.  It's not moral relativism, it's poor reasoning.  Entire cultures can be terrible at this. Philosophy helps.  

Example People X aren't human (A) and are responsible for all of the bad things (B), therefore we need to exterminate People X (C).  If premise A and B are false, then the moral conclusion would also be false.  It's not rocket science and there is no need to invoke moral relativism.  C is wrong and anyone who believes in C as a conclusion of A and B are wrong.  

Using this reasoning, we would be perfectly justified in pointing out this error in other people's moral reasoning.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> All of what you describe above is the product of false premises.



It's *your* societal construct that says that they are false premises. By all "reason" available to those making those decisions, they rested on firm moral reasoning. 



Makalakumu said:


> When we rest our moral reasoning upon them, we make bad moral decisions. It's not moral relativism, it's poor reasoning.



It's only "poor reasoning" when viewed from _outside_ the societal construct-that's called _judgement._ From inside the societal constuct, it was good moral reasoning.

It's moral relatavism to recognize this, and to recognize that there *is no such thing as a "bad moral decision",outside of a social constuct.*




Makalakumu said:


> Example People X aren't human (A) and are responsible for all of the bad things (B), therefore it is good to exterminate People X (C). If premise A and B are false, then the moral conclusion would also be false. It's not rocket science and there is no need to invoke moral relativism. C is wrong and anyone who believes in C as a conclusion of A and B are wrong.
> 
> Using this reasoning, we would be perfectly justified in pointing out this error in other people's moral reasoning.




Applying "logic" and "reason" to the motivations for human behavior can only get you so far: (A)people X kill us 90% of the time we show up, so (B)we should kill them first.

If premise (A) is true, (B) logically folllows. Sound reasoning, but not necessarily "moral," unless adapted as the norm by the societal construct. Thus it was that we had U.S. cavalry returning from the Sand Creek Massacre, parading through Denver with souvenir body parts to the cheers of crowds that lined the streets. It disgusts us-and "rightly so,"-but it was a grand time that no one present doubted the morality of....


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

elder999 said:


> It's *your* societal construct that says that they are false premises. By all "reason" available to those making those decisions, they rested on firm moral reasoning.



I beg to differ. Are we saying that the Nazi's believed anything TRUE about the Jews? Are we really saying that "nits make lice" rested on the best moral reasoning available?  I seem to remember a writer or two who thought this was ********.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

We should probably start thinking of morality as a form of technology. If ancient people mistreated each other because of poorly reasoned morality, this is akin to them treated headaches with drills through the skull. It's bad technology and misguided. The basic idea of moral relativism would have us equate skull drilling with modern medicine.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I beg to differ. Are we saying that the Nazi's believed anything TRUE about the Jews? Are we really saying that "nits make lice" rested on the best moral reasoning available? I seem to remember a writer or two who thought this was ********.



Is being "moral" more about being "true," or abotu being *right*, as in "_righteous?_ Regardless of the "truth" of what they believed about the Jews, it was "true" and "real" for them, and so they morally justified their actions. 

Do you doubt for a minute that they couldn't eloquently express the "morality" of what they were doing? Not that they could convince you of their morality, as much as that they could explain their justifications.If you can see that they would have been able to do this, *that's* moral relativism-your seeing it, regardless of how you feel about it, or how "immoral" it actually was (to you.)


----------



## elder999 (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> We should probably start thinking of morality as a form of technology. If ancient people mistreated each other because of poorly reasoned morality, this is akin to them treated headaches with drills through the skull. It's bad technology and misguided. The basic idea of moral relativism would have us equate skull drilling with modern medicine.



Trephination was used successfully in ancient times to relieve intercranial pressure-still is today.


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> We should probably start thinking of morality as a form of technology. If ancient people mistreated each other because of poorly reasoned morality, this is akin to them treated headaches with drills through the skull. It's bad technology and misguided. The basic idea of moral relativism would have us equate skull drilling with modern medicine.



  You insist on trying to paint society with a black and white brush, when everything is shades of gray. Here's a modern bit of moral relativism for you then ... To a large part of society, circumcision is a normal thing that is done to male babies without a second thought. To my grandmother's people, genital mutilation is a horrible and evil thing. So, are you circumcised? I am. The hospital didn't even ask my parents if they wanted it done, they just did it. My grandmother was horrified, but it didn't seem to bother my parents at all.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Trephination was used successfully in ancient times to relieve intercranial pressure-still is today.



I think you missed the point.  How common is trepanning now?  Or replace trepanning with leaching or insert another barbaric medieval practice.  The larger point is that morality could be viewed like technology and we could objectively measure benefits in how people treat each other with improvements in it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

elder999 said:


> Is being "moral" more about being "true," or abotu being *right*, as in "_righteous?_ Regardless of the "truth" of what they believed about the Jews, it was "true" and "real" for them, and so they morally justified their actions.
> 
> Do you doubt for a minute that they couldn't eloquently express the "morality" of what they were doing? Not that they could convince you of their morality, as much as that they could explain their justifications.If you can see that they would have been able to do this, *that's* moral relativism-your seeing it, regardless of how you feel about it, or how "immoral" it actually was (to you.)



Basing our morality on things that can be objectively defined as truth would prevent so many atrocities, I can't even begin to count. Imagine if we could all agree that every Homo Saipan was human and had unalienable rights?

I don't buy the argument that moral justification for society is merely a form of localized group think. We can apply logic to morality and live better.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Imagine if we could all agree that every Homo Saipan was human and had unalienable rights?



Yes, imagine that.  Convince the local mugger, the rapist, the bank robber.  Convince the CEO and the union official.  Convince the politician.  Convince everyone.

Personally, I don't see it happening.  Ever.

But we live in societies that attempt, albeit in a flawed way, to protect those ideals to the largest extent possible.  How? By force.

When you convince everyone in prison that they should not rape, murder, rob, or otherwise infringe on the inalienable rights of others, then we can fire the police and dismantle the governments and the military forces.

Until then...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, imagine that.  Convince the local mugger, the rapist, the bank robber.  Convince the CEO and the union official.  Convince the politician.  Convince everyone.
> 
> Personally, I don't see it happening.  Ever.
> 
> ...



Until then society gets to wrestle with a snake that turns around and bites it.

We're very early on in the jouney toward better human relations. An early step is realizing that our society is based on an Appeal to Force. Congratulations.

The next step is realizing an Appeals to Force is irrational.  The next is realizing that we can't reason with the irrational.  And the next is realzing that the individual can start Appealing to Force less in their private lives. 

That's how the world gets better.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Until then society gets to wrestle with a snake that turns around and bites it.
> 
> We're very early on in the jouney toward better human relations. An early step is realizing that our society is based on an Appeal to Force. Congratulations.
> 
> ...



Won't ever happen.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 1, 2012)

Idealised interactions between people can and do occur but it is always at the level of the individual or the small group.  As you aggregate more and more people into the 'community' then more and more you need a way of enforcing good and societally useful behaviour.  Anarchism becomes true anarchy without such controls.

It is the same way with communism; it works wonderfully in a small collective of balanced talents and resources which can be freely exchanged within the group.  Get beyond a handful of people and you end up with the dire 'One Big Tractor Factory' syndrome.

Both philosophies are founded on the idea of the basic good that resides in Man.  But not all Men are good and even the smallest leavening of deceit or selfishness spoils the whole.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Won't ever happen.



Pessimist.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Pessimist.



As my father used to say, _"Crap in one hand and wish in the other and see which one gets fuller faster."_


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Idealised interactions between people can and do occur but it is always at the level of the individual or the small group.  As you aggregate more and more people into the 'community' then more and more you need a way of enforcing good and societally useful behaviour.  Anarchism becomes true anarchy without such controls.
> 
> It is the same way with communism; it works wonderfully in a small collective of balanced talents and resources which can be freely exchanged within the group.  Get beyond a handful of people and you end up with the dire 'One Big Tractor Factory' syndrome.
> 
> Both philosophies are founded on the idea of the basic good that resides in Man.  But not all Men are good and even the smallest leavening of deceit or selfishness spoils the whole.



I know it's hard to imagine when our whole world seems like it is dominated by a "do this or I'll force you" attitude. We've been conditioned to this. 

But, there are huge tracts of our life that are voluntary, huge important tracts that were not voluntary generations ago. As we learn how to reason with each other, we resort to force less. 

Ultimately, the appeal to force is irrational and the areas where this dominates our lives will continue to defy reason. I don't think it needs to be this way no matter the size of the group. This is evidenced by marriage. No one forced me to marry my wife and yet this was the most important decision I have ever made. 

I'm glad we're discussing this. Rather than evil, we really should be talking about force. Is it necessary? Is it excusable? What rational basis do the fundaments of power rest upon?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> I know it's hard to imagine when our whole world seems like it is dominated by a "do this or I'll force you" attitude. We've been conditioned to this.
> 
> But, there are huge tracts of our life that are voluntary, huge important tracts that were not voluntary generations ago. As we learn how to reason with each other, we resort to force less.
> 
> ...



Good luck with that.  I'm frankly happier dealing with what is rather than what I wish would be.  Far fewer headaches than trying to rationalize why people are greedy, selfish, violent, and cruel.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Good luck with that.  I'm frankly happier dealing with what is rather than what I wish would be.  Far fewer headaches than trying to rationalize why people are greedy, selfish, violent, and cruel.



Rather than rationalize why people are like that, how about we not try to be like that in more and more areas of our lives.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 1, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Rather than rationalize why people are like that, how about we not try to be like that in more and more areas of our lives.



Because I have no plans to become a victim willingly.


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 1, 2012)

> This is evidenced by marriage. No one forced me to marry my wife and yet this was the most important decision I have ever made.


 
  Yet it's society that has _forced_ you to consider only one wife. Why have you allowed society to _force_ you into a decision like that? Or are you going to attempt to rationalize this decision as something you weren't forced into accepting by societal mores?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> Yet it's society that has _forced_ you to consider only one wife. Why have you allowed society to _force_ you into a decision like that? Or are you going to attempt to rationalize this decision as something you weren't forced into accepting by societal mores?



Dude, handling my wife is enough work for a man. Lol.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 1, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Because I have no plans to become a victim willingly.



Can you be a good person and not be a victim?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Can you be a good person and not be a victim?



Who gets to decide whether I'm good or not?


----------



## Carol (Oct 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Who gets to decide whether I'm good or not?



May I volunteer? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Who gets to decide whether I'm good or not?



First of all, Bill, aren't you Catholic? Don't you already have an answer for this question?

In the future, rationally defined ethics will tell you if you are right or wrong. It will be as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4.


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 2, 2012)

> First of all, Bill, aren't you Catholic? Don't you already have an answer for this question?


  Being Catholic means that it doesn't matter if you're evil or not. As long as you attend communion, go to confession, and perform your penance, then you're good to go.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2012)

pgsmith said:


> Being Catholic means that it doesn't matter if you're evil or not. As long as you attend communion, go to confession, and perform your penance, then you're good to go.



Isn't that moral relativism? Lol...oh the irony!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> First of all, Bill, aren't you Catholic? Don't you already have an answer for this question?
> 
> In the future, rationally defined ethics will tell you if you are right or wrong. It will be as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4.



You keep trying to tie your notions back to concepts which are inventions of humans.  Sorry, there are no objective good and evil references, so you can't keep trying to tie these things back to that.

My Catholicism has nothing to do with it.  That's my belief system, not objective, provable, reality.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Who gets to decide whether I'm good or not?



As Carol intimated, that's a community based thing in part - we all decide to some extent who we think is evil and who is good (I tend to the latter in BillM's case ) by what they say and what they do.  A persons belief system may have an impact on their behaviour or on how other people see them but it is by no means an absolute yardstick.  

For example, as we know because we have openly and frankly discussed it before, Bill's a Catholic, a religion of which I do not have a high opinion based on it's foundation and it's history.  But Bill's beliefs are personal to him and he gets something in his life from the Church that he wouldn't otherwise have and, most importantly, he does not use his religion as either a stick with which to beat others or as a measure of his views of others deeds.  So it is not an issue in how I perceive his innate 'goodness'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You keep trying to tie your notions back to concepts which are inventions of humans.  Sorry, there are no objective good and evil references, so you can't keep trying to tie these things back to that.
> 
> My Catholicism has nothing to do with it.  That's my belief system, not objective, provable, reality.



Sorry, I was raised Catholic, so I know a thing or two about it. One thing I know is that they believe in absolute morality. So, I'm wondering how you rationalize this.

I think the core of Catholicism is actually relativistic morality, which is why it has been used to justify so much psychopathic behavior throughout history.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Oct 2, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> One thing I know is that *they believe* in absolute morality.



And there is your answer.  What I believe and what I can prove objectively are two different things.

And with that, I'm resigning from this conversation.  It appears I cannot have a discussion without someone attacking my beliefs (not you).  I'm done, see ya later.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> You keep trying to tie your notions back to concepts which are inventions of humans.  Sorry, there are no objective good and evil references, so you can't keep trying to tie these things back to that.



0 is a concept of human invention, but it has a rationale proof. Therefore, it exists as a provable concept, despite it's abstract nature. Ethics will eventually follow suit.  In the future humans will have a rationale proof for secular ethics.  "Good" and "evil" will exist as provable concepts in a "unified field theory" of morality.  

Philosophers have a lot of work to do on this concept. Right now people are convinced that the human universe is relative and that there are no real "laws" that govern human behavior.  I think this is a twofold lie. On one hand, we don't know of any other place in the universe that isn't governed by laws, why would human interaction be any different? On the other hand, I think the concept of moral relativism is very convenient for the particular violent hierarchies in which we organize ourselves today. That's why these hierarchies invent religion with all kinds of top down morality for the masses and loopholes that excuse the elite managerial class from prohibitions against violence. Psychopaths have used religion, have used moral relativism to hide among us like vampires so they can prey at will. 

The consequences of this behavior are natural. Humanity is on the brink of extinction. A small group of humans could launch a thermonuclear attack that wipes everyone out tomorrow. It's too bad that the natural consequences for bad behavior are so subtle. Perhaps if humans were able to perceive the negative effects as easily as dropping an apple, we'd have already had our ethical version of the Principia. 

Yet, I think we're getting to the point where this is changing. Our society has reached the point where it can destroy itself at the drop of a hat and it seems to have hesitated. We have polluted to oceans so badly that we have trash islands larger than Texas and we're starting social actions to at least slow this. We've polluted our bodies so badly that my generation will be the first generation to be sicker, dumber, and poorer than our parents and some of us have rebelled against it.

I believe that all of this is governed by natural law.  The story of the human species is one of slowly recognizing each other as humans.  From man to man, from man to woman, from parents to children, we've grown better and more peaceful as we've extended more and more natural rights to each other. Martin Luther King said, the arc of humanity bends toward justice.  This arc is the rational proof of secular ethics. 

We're approaching it, but we still have a long way to go and people a lot smarter than me are going to figure this out.  I don't think I will see this in my lifetime. I don't know if my children will see it. Until then, I'll practice my martial arts.  Bob's site is safe for a few more generations.

Lastly, a note about psychopaths. For the normal person, it takes conditioning to overcome the arc of justice, as MLK put it. For the psychopath, they need no conditioning. They are amoral and self serving, crystallized beings of universalized moral relativism. These people are the natural predators of humanity and appear among us as handsome charismatic leaders. But I think it should be recognized that the lust they have for power is a natural outgrowth of who they are.  It's one of the reasons why they invent myths to cloak themselves in mantles of "goodness" that are merely expressions of their underlying moral relativism. They have dragged humanity into Dark Ages of ossified power structures where they sit in control of the sick violent hierarchy of society in the past.  And I think they seek to do so again in the future. Or as Joseph Cambell said, "we need a new myth."

Beware of your justifications for moral relativism. It's the same old myth repackaged into a new form. 

Amen Ra

I'm starting a cult next week. We will be the Math Pirates and demand booty^2.


----------



## pgsmith (Oct 2, 2012)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And with that, I'm resigning from this conversation. It appears I cannot have a discussion without someone attacking my beliefs (not you). I'm done, see ya later.



  Since the only other one that mentioned it in this thread was me, then I have to assume you are referring to me as attacking your beliefs. First off, I'm Catholic also. Second, there was no attack. Third, if you are so easily offended in your faith, then I think you should have a good long talk with your priest about it, and perhaps he can help you with whatever issues are troubling you.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 3, 2012)

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=duu0bCkSlUo&desktop_uri=/watch?v=duu0bCkSlUo



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## elder999 (Oct 3, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Basing our morality on things that can be objectively defined as truth would prevent so many atrocities, I can't even begin to count. Imagine if we could all agree that every Homo Saipan was human and had unalienable rights?
> 
> I don't buy the argument that moral justification for society is merely a form of localized group think. We can apply logic to morality and live better.



Search on MArtialTalk for the "68 degree rule," John-truth *is* relative, not objective-*facts* are objective, but easily enough to ignore. 

We cannot apply logic to morality across cultures-see more later.



Makalakumu said:


> First of all, Bill, aren't you Catholic? Don't you already have an answer for this question?
> 
> In the future, rationally defined ethics will tell you if you are right or wrong. It will be as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4.



Let's not confuse "ethics" with "morality," as they are two different , though related,things, okay? I'm sure we were discussing "morality."



Makalakumu said:


> Sorry, I was raised Catholic, so I know a thing or two about it. One thing I know is that they believe in absolute morality. So, I'm wondering how you rationalize this.
> 
> I think the core of Catholicism is actually relativistic morality, which is why it has been used to justify so much psychopathic behavior throughout history.



I think you need to look at what "moral relativisim" actually is, John, and stop conflating it with other things-psycopathic behavior is often its own justification-if not, there are plenty of other ways for the psycopath to justify his behavior _*to others*_-for himself, he needs no justification, as he considers himself beyond things like "morality." He accepts that others see his actions as "wrong," and may even accept that his actions *are* "_wrong_" 

He just doesn't give a flying* ****.
*

Now, as far as the cultural construct known as "morality" goes, and it's relation to "rationality,"-since tghat seems to be the particular altar you're bent upon worshipping at. 

Rationality-_science_, if you like-tells us that, as much as our brains are equipped for "rational thought," and "logic,"they are mostly equipped for _feelings_. In spite of what is logical, or rational, or *factual*, we humans respond _most_ to what we _feel._ To be fair, what we feel is a product of our cultural conditioning and rational thought, as much as or perhaps even more than what is instinctual. Thus it is that we have a near universal aversion to incest-it's _icky._. And yet, within the moral framework of ancient Egypt-which had a religious and moral framework, now dead, but one that lasted for more than 2000 years more than Christianity has existed-brothers regularly marrying their sisters, because such behavior was not only morally accepted, it was expected. Likewise, while the thought of even considering sexually penetrating my daughter disgusts me-and you may think, rightfully so-there are tribal societies where the expected duty of a father is to ritually deflower his daughter. He would never leave such a task to man outside his family, or subject his daughter unprepared to such a thing on her wedding night-it wouldn't be......._moral.
_


			
				 =Makalakumu said:
			
		

> Ethics will eventually follow suit.  In the future humans will have a rationale proof for secular ethics.  "Good" and "evil" will exist as provable concepts in a "unified field theory" of morality.



Never gonna happen. I think killing animals to eat them is "good," and others do not. I think imprisoning cetaceans at Sea World is a a great "evil," and others do not.



			
				Makalakumu said:
			
		

> Philosophers have a lot of work to do on this concept. Right now people are convinced that the human universe is relative and that there are no real "laws" that govern human behavior.  I think this is a twofold lie. On one hand, we don't know of any other place in the universe that isn't governed by laws, why would human interaction be any different? On the other hand, I think the concept of moral relativism is very convenient for the particular violent hierarchies in which we organize ourselves today. That's why these hierarchies invent religion with all kinds of top down morality for the masses and loopholes that excuse the elite managerial class from prohibitions against violence. Psychopaths have used religion, have used moral relativism to hide among us like vampires so they can prey at will.



I think that you have clearly demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about "moral relativisim," and you *really* don't know the first thing about psycopaths.



			
				Makalakumu said:
			
		

> Yet, I think we're getting to the point where this is changing. Our society has reached the point where it can destroy itself at the drop of a hat and it seems to have hesitated. We have polluted to oceans so badly that we have trash islands larger than Texas and we're starting social actions to at least slow this. We've polluted our bodies so badly that my generation will be the first generation to be sicker, dumber, and poorer than our parents and some of us have rebelled against it.
> 
> *I believe that all of this is governed by natural law.*



"Natural law" says that we're do to wipe out at least half, and maybe more of the human population-the sooner, the better, and the problems you've described will be resolved, for a time.



			
				Makalakumu said:
			
		

> he story of the human species is one of slowly recognizing each other as humans.  From man to man, from man to woman, from parents to children, we've grown better and more peaceful as we've extended more and more natural rights to each other. Martin Luther King said, the arc of humanity bends toward justice.  This arc is the rational proof of secular ethics.



ANd now I just want to sing "Kumbayah." Really? :lfao:



			
				Makalakumu said:
			
		

> We're approaching it, but we still have a long way to go and people a lot smarter than me are going to figure this out.  I don't think I will see this in my lifetime. I don't know if my children will see it.



What your children will se will be the natural progression of natural law. They'll either live safely through the crisis, or they'll be eaten.



			
				Makalakumu said:
			
		

> Lastly, a note about psychopaths.



Which you clearly don't know the first thing about. 



			
				Makalakumu said:
			
		

> For the normal person, it takes conditioning to overcome the arc of justice, as MLK put it. For the psychopath, they need no conditioning. They are amoral and self serving, crystallized beings



If they are "amoral" ( and we are) they *cannot b*e:



			
				Makalakumu said:
			
		

> of universalized moral relativism




Okay?. 

[


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2012)

As usual, I understand what you are saying, Jeff.  I may have run this train of thought to the end of the line...and right off the cliff.  I'm not sure, gotta take some time to consider a few points.

That said, here's an interesting book on a rational proof of secular ethics.  It blew my mind.  I never thought something like this was possible.  Check it out!

http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/stef...secular-ethics/paperback/product-1749260.html



> In many fairy tales, there lives a  terrible beast of stupendous power, a dragon or a basilisk, which  tyrannizes the surrounding lands. The local villagers tremble before  this monster; they sacrifice their animals, pay money and blood in the  hopes of appeasing its murderous impulses.  Year after year, decade after decade, wave after wave of hopeful  champions try to match their strength, virtue and cunning against this  terrible tyrant.  Try &#8211; and fail.  Inevitably, a man steps forward who strikes everyone as utterly  incongruous. He is a stable boy, a shoemaker&#8217;s son, a baker&#8217;s apprentice  &#8211; or sometimes, just a vagabond.  This book is the story of my personal assault on just such a beast.  This &#8220;beast&#8221; is the belief that it is impossible to define an objective,  rational, secular and scientific ethical system. This &#8220;beast&#8221; is the  illusion that morality must forever be lost in the irrational swamps of  gods and governments, forever lacking logical justification and clear definition..


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2012)

Here's a thought I had that i'd like to share. If evil is sometimes neccessary and morality is relative, aren't we actually placing power as the supreme human virtue? Are we saying that those who hold power in society are ultimate arbiters of good and evil? 

If power is the sole human virtue, how do people really feel about their "spiritual" lives? Does it even matter?

If power is the sole human virtue, how do people contend with things like human rights which flow from "natural" law?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 4, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Here's a thought I had that i'd like to share. If evil is sometimes neccessary and morality is relative, aren't we actually placing power as the supreme human virtue? Are we saying that those who hold power in society are ultimate arbiters of good and evil?



That's a leap-whether in logic or simply intuitive-that you'll have to  expand upon-evil may sometimes be necessary, and morality may be relative;though there's no doubt about where I stand on these matters, there are others have argued here on MartialTalk that morality is absolute.Accepting, though, that evil is sometimes necessary and morality is relative, I don't see how we're "actually placing power as the supreme human virtue," nor do I see how we're "saying that those who hold power in society are the ultimate arbiters of good and evil"

Many would argue, psycopaths and myself among them, that the *individual* is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil. "Morality," on the other hand, is a societal construct  and standard-this is what makes it relative: what is moral for one society may not be for another, mand vice versa. On an individual level, there are societies within societies. I just finished a successful elk hunt-to me, it's a far more moral way of obtaining meat than purchasing it anonymously, hygenically prepared and packaged for consumption, and there is a subset of our society that agrees with me. For a Zen macrobiotic all-organic pro-animal rights vegan, I've just committed a horribly immoral crime-and really, here in this part of New Mexico, I've envcountered them, both at parties and on the drive home from my hunt, elk head sticking out of the bed of the pickup and all.....



Makalakumu said:


> If power is the sole human virtue, how do people really feel about their "spiritual" lives? Does it even matter?



Again, something of a leap, but I'll bite: my power flows, in part, directly from my spiritual life. Power without some sort of framework for its tempering and correct exercise invariably leads to excess-it may not be so much that "power corrupts," but that those who are attracted to it are, to a degree, already corrupt. By "those who are attracted to it" I mean, of course, *everyone*. :lfao:



Makalakumu said:


> If power is the sole human virtue, how do people contend with things like human rights which flow from "natural" law?



The right exercise of power is that which infringes upon human rights the least, or not at all. The use of power which infringes upon human rights is, by definition, evil, and may well be the root of all "necessary evils": imosing ones power in a way that abrogates an individual's or groups human rights for the greater good.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 4, 2012)

I think y'all are misusing the term. IMO "evil" is not the same thing as an ugly necessity. Evil has evil "intent" or is so beyond the pale that its existence is evident. 

Sending people to the "showers" because they are Jews? Evil.

Killing German soldiers in the course of war? An ugly necessity but not necessarily "evil". Not "good" but not evil either.

In the end, pulling out examples of ancient history as proof of relativism does little....what matters is standing up for what you believe is good and standing against what you know as evil in the moment in which you exist. 

Holiness is in right action. Its what you believe in your head and heart and what you do that makes you good or bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvJFoOEOYpE&amp;feature=related 

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Oct 4, 2012)

Tgace said:


> I think y'all are misusing the term. IMO "evil" is not the same thing as an ugly necessity. Evil has evil "intent" or is so beyond the pale that its existence is evident.
> 
> Sending people to the "showers" because they are Jews? Evil.
> 
> ...



Well, to invoke the famous thought experiment, and put some spin on it: you're invited to travel back in time, to commit a murder and ensure that a genocidal dictator doesn't come to power. Catch is, though, you can only go back in time to kill his mother....when she's 6 years old. 

Do you do it? Do you view it as a "necessary evil?"

Remembver Psalm 137:_Blesseed is the man ho smashes the heads of his enemies babies upon the rocks."_ The idea of keeping a baby from growing into a full grown, bearded Babylonian or Assyrian warrior had some appeal as a great good.

Additionally, while most might view some form of dispensation as being in order for those who take lives in war, for others it is simply-and *absolutely*-_evil_ to take human life, under any circumstances-another instance that demonstrates the inherent relativism of a concept as nuanced as "morality." And, since I've still got my hunt on the brain (and under my fingernails, and in the small of my back....:lfao: ) I have to point out that for some my killing an elk is just as "evil" as killing a human being-that my going into its home and taking its life while it peacefully fed represents a true immorality.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 4, 2012)

Its a stupid thought experiment. With as much real value as talking about what was seen as good 2000 years ago....


Id get surgical training and sterilize her....if we are fantasizing.

If it feels wrong than its wrong.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk


----------



## elder999 (Oct 4, 2012)

Tgace said:


> *If it feels wrong than its wrong.
> *



:asian:

{And thus, it is relative.}


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2012)

If morality is determined by society and society is ruled by power, then morality is ruled by power.  Is this the fundamental argument of the moral relativist?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 4, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> If morality is determined by society and society is ruled by power, then morality is ruled by power.



*Is* society "ruled by power?"



Makalakumu said:


> Is this the fundamental argument of the m*oral relativist?*







:lfao:

Mostly, *no*, but you have to explore what those words really mean, _"moral relativist_."

Just because I can see how someone else's actions could be viewed by them as moral, doesn't necessarily make them moral for me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2012)

elder999 said:


> *Is* society "ruled by power?"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let's look at this in a deeper way. Why isn't an action moral for you? Is it because of the society in which you were educated? If so, how are the rules of society determined? 

Why is one thing moral for you and not for another?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 4, 2012)

Tgace said:


> Its a stupid thought experiment. With as much real value as talking about what was seen as good 2000 years ago....
> 
> 
> Id get surgical training and sterilize her....if we are fantasizing.\




The real value is in discerning how what one person or group views as "moral," another may not. As I posted upthread, for some tribal societies in the past (I don't know that the practice endures today) it was the very height of morality for fathers to ritually deflower their daughters-there were even a variety of rationales given to anthropologists about the practice. It was, at one time-in ancient Egypt, proper for sisters and brothers to marry, live together and have children as husband and wife, and this under the moral framework of a religious system that lasted 2,000 years more than Christianity has-this last demonstrates how, from a human and anthropological standpoint, morals are neither absolute nor unchanging. What was moral once is no longer, and what was immoral once may no longer be. What our society defines as "morality" today will *not* be what necessarily be the same mere decades from now.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 4, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Let's look at this in a deeper way. Why isn't an action moral for you?




I think Mr. Gace came awfully close to nailing it: if it feels wrong, then it is. 

Of course, this presupposes that one can *feel*  "right and wrong," as opposed to simply *knowing* the difference, vis a vis your psycopaths.



Makalakumu said:


> Is it because of the society in which you were educated?



Partly. Human societies have a near total aversion to incest, so the moral judgement of incest is nearly-but not entirely-universal. The idea is icky to most of us, so we judge those who might engage in it as "icky," that is to say, "wrong" or immoral.What makes an action immoral can also be the product of individual eduacation and reflection though: vegans who believe I'm immoral for hunting, for example, may not have been raised with that belief-in fact, it's been my experience that they typically are not. I watched _Flipper_ as a kid, and enjoyed it, and really didn't think much one way or the other about my family's history of whaling. As I grew more educated about cetaceans, though, I came to view the captivity of such creatures-for our amusement, especially-as criminal, and to view my family's history with a bit of shame thrown into the mixture that wasn't present before. This all by the time I reached fuil adulthood, and the product of my own study and reflection.I



Makalakumu said:


> f so, how are the rules of society determined?



PRetty much the way rules of individual behavior are determined: _we make them up._

I mean, put a headhunter from Borneo in the  Wall Street boardroom of a company that's clearcutting timber on his hunting grounds, and _somebody's_ gonna die....:lfao:

Whose to say who would be the immoral one in any of the possible ensuing scenarios, though?

Now, before your next question, a story:

In the peyote cerremony, a spoon is sometimes used. Peyote is often passed around the tepee in a powdered form, and the spoon is used to put the powder in one's hand, prior to eating it. Anthony, one of my teachers, once held up the spoon and said to several of us, _This spoon is sacred. What makes it sacred?_-well, we hemmed and hawed, or, in my case, stayed silent. One person said, "God." And Anthony said, _*No.* I do. *I* make it sacred.Otherwise, it's just a spoon._ Then he laughed....




Makalakumu said:


> Why is one thing moral for you and not for another?



Because* I* say so. Because it doesn't feel wrong to me, but it does for another. If I hold certain things to be "moral" or "immoral," and there are others who agree with me, then we form a society, of sorts, and those who disagree are clearly not part of it, though in _their_ society it may be that what's "moral" and "immoral" are diametrically opposed to my own society's. 

Put another way, you'll never convince an abortion clinic bomber of the "immorality" of his act, even if he killed children, any more than he'll convince you of its rightness. 

Because *I* say so.

Can there be a _society_ of one individual, though? Such a person might well be a psycopath-someone who does not feel what he does is "wrong," but recognizes that society does.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2012)

So, let me sum it up, in society, morality is determined by what the individuals feel is right.  Societies are constructed by individuals who believe similar things. Society makes rules to enforce morality. These rules are backed with the threat of force. The ability to force another person to do something is power.

Therefore, power is the driving force of morality within a society.  Power is virtue.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 4, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> So, let me sum it up, in society, morality is determined by what the individuals feel is right.  Societies are constructed by individuals who believe similar things. Society makes rules to enforce morality. These rules are backed with the threat of force.




You might be-like others-confusing-or conflating-ethics, morals and law. No matter.  

RUles aren't necessarily backed with the threat of force. THey might not even be rules.

_Bros before hos,_ and the like come to mind, something about our near universal-and early-revulsion towards informants, snitches, and _tattle-tales._

More to the point, while there may be a variety of moral judgements made about sexuality, these rules are not, typically, backed with the threat of force by _the greater society_-in fact, when such an instance of use of force takes place, it is typically prosecuted as a crime-this in spite of what a larger portion of the populace may feel about the morality of the victim of such acts/.



Makalakumu said:


> The ability to force another person to do something is power.



Another of those unecessary "intuitive" leaps of yours.



Makalakumu said:


> Therefore, power is the driving force of morality within a society.  Power is virtue.



PRetty much no, and *no*. 

The drivingt force of morality within a society is defined as its _ethos_-religion can be behind it, or an otherwise agreed upon set of principles, but it's part of the _social contract_ that members of a society _accept_ that society's morals.You needn't be part of a society-if you choose to belong to a society, you choose to accept its "morality," or get the greater society to accept a change in morality, as ours is doing with homosexuality.

Otherwise, you can just leave-or hide your "immoral" acts.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2012)

Aren't laws simply an expression of a societies morality if society is what determines morality? Perhaps a societies mores are simply laws that haven't been put in the books?

If the latter is true, what does that say about common law?

Can you see where I'm leading?


----------



## elder999 (Oct 4, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Aren't laws simply an expression of a societies morality if society is what determines morality?



No. Laws a response to a peceived need to regulate all sorts of behavior: commercial and residential come to mind immediately, but also educational. Laws rule all sorts of much more pedestrian areas than "morality."



Makalakumu said:


> Perhaps a societies mores are simply laws that haven't been put in the books?



THere's nothing "simple" about it, as this discussion reveals. There are, as I pointed out, sub sets within societies that have their own morals. Our own society, her in the U.S., is greatly divided over all sorts of behaviors-and laws-and what constitutes "moral" behavior," and what should be permissible. 

Always has been.

Not long ago, it wouldn't have been possible for an openly homosexual person to obtain the necessary clearances to work at my former employers. That is, of course, no longer so. In fact, though, there have always been openly homosexual employees at Los Alamos-since its inception. Or, at least, there have been those that the powers that be recognized as practicing homosexuals, and granted clearances to because they had otherwise unobtainable talent-an example, perhaps, of a necessary evil. Not long ago-even now, really, it wouldn't have been possible for a person with connections to the Communist party to get work in Los Alamos, yet, from the beginning, there have been such people-including Oppenheimer-another"necessary evil." More to the point, such distinctions: "commie," or "homo," seem quaint to most of us,now. The notion that two men might be arrested for going to bed together seems ridiculous to us, now. Yet such things happened.

Morals are relative.

Always have been.



Makalakumu said:


> If the latter is true, what does that say about common law?





The latter is, at best, only partially true.




Makalakumu said:


> Can you see where I'm leading?



No, John, quite frankly, I can't. You're trying to ascribe some sort of rational order to what is irrational and disorderly on its best days. At the end of the day, one has to forget about society, and do what's best for them. In this respects, we all must choose to be psycopaths, of a sort....:lol:


----------



## Tgace (Oct 4, 2012)

Many of The Commandments have been seen as "right and wrong" fairly consistently by many people from various cultures. Stealing and killing have been seen as "bad" for millennium....what has been "relative" is that its been seen as good or bad in varying degrees when done to others. When its YOU and yours you are talking about the relativism tends to narrow.

Relative or otherwise...the person who has no sense of right or wrong or is unwilling to take a stand for what they believe is a just cause is someone I wouldn't want at my back.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Oct 4, 2012)

elder999 said:


> . At the end of the day, one has to forget about society, and do what's best for them. In this respects, we all must choose to be psycopaths, of a sort....:lol:



And that mindset is why we remember and honor Hero's. Many men (and women) have given their lives out of love for their brothers.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2012)

elder999 said:


> No, John, quite frankly, I can't. You're trying to ascribe some sort of rational order to what is irrational and disorderly on its best days. At the end of the day, one has to forget about society, and do what's best for them. In this respects, we all must choose to be psycopaths, of a sort....:lol:



I've always wondered if it was an illusion that humanity progresses toward a more just society.  It seems that as time goes on and we become more capable of communicating we have less violence and we learn to live more peacefully.  I fully agree that morality is a chaotic irrational mess.  I don't know if there are some underlying principles that could one day be described rationally.  

However, when I see videos like this, I wonder if there is something to the idea of progress.  

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7421959887856210325



> Steven Pinker  charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and  argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq  and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species'  existence.



It makes sense for us to rationally and peacefully live with each other.  Everybody wins and more people can prosper in this situation.  The optimist in me really hopes this is true because it means that the future will be brighter and perhaps my offspring will live in lighter days.  

Perhaps as people become more rational, we discover that morality is reducible like other things in science.  It's a sexy idea.


----------



## Tgace (Oct 4, 2012)

My belief is that as a philosophy for living, relativism is simply an easy excuse to avoid taking a stand on anything at best and a rationalization for evil at worst. I just found this quote that sums up the idea that relativism is simply a thought game that leaves one with nothing to lay a hold of to help one to live a life of value.

"But the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything."

Orthodoxy &#8211; G. K. Chesterton. 

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 4, 2012)

I'll get into why exactly this is a complete load of bollux the next time I have a day off unless someone beats me to it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 4, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> I'll get into why exactly this is a complete load of bollux the next time I have a day off unless someone beats me to it.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



I don't see the quote as a demand. I see it as a plea. Please, give me something solid to stand for! 

That is the philosopher's call to action!


----------



## Josh Oakley (Oct 5, 2012)

Child rape is pretty solid, even for a die-hard skeptic like me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 5, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Child rape is pretty solid, even for a die-hard skeptic like me.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



Child rape when "children" are "human" is solid. Otherwise it's fair game.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 5, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Child rape is pretty solid, even for a die-hard skeptic like me.
> 
> Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2



If you mean that it's reprehensible, I'd agree-but we're mostly part of the same culture.


If you mean that it couldn't be a "necessary evil," I'd agree-but we're mostly part of the same culture.

In a variety of other cultures, what we'd call "child-rape" is often called "marriage," and no more or less morally acceptable than any other. In Dubai and Yemen, "child rape," or "child abuse" isn't even legally defined. 

By Tgace's standards, if a 40 year old man in Dubai marries a 9 year old girl and has interocourse with her, as grotesque as it sounds, he's done nothing wrong, because he's not going to feel that it's wrong. 

Seeing how he could see it that way-not condoning or accepting it, just allowing that within his cultural framework, he's done nothing wrong-is "moral relativism."


----------



## Tgace (Oct 5, 2012)

elder999 said:


> If you mean that it's reprehensible, I'd agree-but we're mostly part of the same culture.
> 
> 
> If you mean that it couldn't be a "necessary evil," I'd agree-but we're mostly part of the same culture.
> ...



What do you mean "by my standards"? I think moral relativism is a pointless thought exercise that gets us nowhere. I certainly do think he's done something wrong. I have no problem applying my standard of "right and wrong" on other people when it comes to life and death, abuse of the helpless, wanton murder/destruction etc....


----------



## Tgace (Oct 5, 2012)

Once again...







Im not saying that one should go about life ignoring the "facts" and live life in a fantasy land, but I believe that a persons conception of "the life well lived" or how they pursue a "life worth living" is predominately about how they choose to look at life. 

That quote from secondhand lions..in my interpretation..is saying.. "look kid there's nothing wrong in believing that the world is a place where honor, courage, and virtue mean everything and true love never dies. Even in the face of all those things in your life that "prove" otherwise. If that's the sort of world you want to live in, believe in it. If that's the sort of person you want to be that is a good thing." 

The Sociologist Max Weber believed that "facts", when it comes to human issues, are changeable both in themselves and in terms of perception taken by observers. He also believed that there was a profound difference between knowledge and facts about nature and knowledge/facts about human beings. Knowledge about nature is a question of causal behavior. Knowledge about human beings is concerned with meaning as well as causation. People behave in terms of values. 

In terms of this discussion...I believe that humans find "meaning" in life through a combination of experience/fact/truth and "faith" as in choosing a world view/perception of reality. You are what you think. 

http://www.lessons4living.com/you_are_what_you_think.htm

"All of us have a voice that talks to us. You might think of it as your conscience. It might be that "inner observer" who seems to sits in the corner and watches everything you do. You may recognize it as that voice that starts talking to you upon awakening in the morning. Sometimes it may wait until you look in the mirror before it actually speaks. It is that voice that says, "You sure are handsome." or "What a wonderful person you are." Or "You are going to have a great day." It might say, "You are so slim and your hair looks beautiful." If you don&#8217;t' recognize this voice then yours may be speaking to you in a different tone. You might be hearing, "You look like crap today" or "You sure have gained a lot of weight." "Your hair is a mess." "It's is a terrible day! Get back in bed." This voice, the negative, critical one, is one of the main reasons we have so many problems. It can destroy resiliency by opening the flood gates and draining away your energy. " 

I believe there's some truth in that paragraph, and if that's true based on self-talk about yourself...how much more so when its based on how you believe the world works.


----------



## elder999 (Oct 5, 2012)

Tgace said:


> What do you mean "by my standards"?





			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> If it feels wrong, then it's wrong.



He doesn't feel he's done anything wrong, so it's not wrong.



Tgace said:


> I think moral relativism is a pointless thought exercise that gets us nowhere. I certainly do think he's done something wrong.



ANd there's nothing at all wrong with that, or in conflict with moral relativism. I would certainly think it's wrong; I can certainly see how none of the parties involved, including him and his "bride" think it's not wrong at all.



Tgace said:


> I have no problem applying my standard of "right and wrong" on other people when it comes to life and death, abuse of the helpless, wanton murder/destruction etc....



And there's nothing at all in conflict with moral relatvism about that-nor is it necessarily as "absolute" as it sounds.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 5, 2012)

I have to wonder if the "victim" of aggression ever totally feels like they haven't been "victimized" no matter how a society rationalizes the act. Whether it's child rape, genital mutilation, or honor killing, what is going through the persons mind?


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 6, 2012)

I struggle to be a rational person on the best of days. I'm emotional and passionate and my subconscious is ruled by trends that take deep self reflection in order for my conscious mind to become aware of. Yet, I don't think my experience is an oddity among humans. 

Our species struggles with rationality. We struggle with the unknown and often find ourselves in deadends that seemed rational at the time. It's logical insanity, for example that ramped up the massive civilian casualties in WWII and led to the dropping of the Atomic Bomb.

Was that a neccesary evil? Is this an example of moral relativism? Maybe this is the wrong question to ask. Maybe everything about the situation was evil for everyone involved regardless of our culture and it doesn't matter how it's justified?

From a rational perspective, we would have been better off to not have the war in the first place, but the world is full of irrational actors, so the situation simple devolved into a tailspin of evil. How "neccesary" was any of it? That is the real question.

I think this is where the ethical questions come into play. What is evil? Aristole said that any ethical system that couldn't classify murder, rape, and theft as evil was not valid. I tend to agree with this test. If our ethics justify these activities for some, but not for others, our ethical system is based off of fatal contradictions. The society that uses that ethical system will not survive.

So, what ethical system can rationally explain why those things are wrong and give us a clear definition of evil that we can base our basic moral judgements upon? I don't think such a thing exists yet. I think humans need to learn how to think much more rationally before such a thing can exist. 

Until then, evil will alway be "neccesary" to someone and the logical insanity of the moral landscape continues. From the atomic bomb to chopping off a little girls clitorus with a pair of rusty scissors, it will all seem "good" to someone.

But, I maintain that both of those are illusions of the irrational nightmare from which our species is slowly awakening.


----------

