Necessary Evils: Poll and essay thread

Is there such a thing as "necessary evil?"

  • Yes.

  • No.

  • I don't know


Results are only viewable after voting.
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 – G. K. Chesterton.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
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'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!
 
Child rape is pretty solid, even for a die-hard skeptic like me.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
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."
 
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."

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....
 
Last edited:
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’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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top