The Evil of Catholicism (example)

[Darth Rock&Roll]

Darth I think the point the kid is trying to make is that it's relative and about perspective:

- From the perspective of some of the taliban, they believe they are doing a good, righteous act by killing the infadels that go against their god and try to force them to change their way of life.
- From your perspective, "they are stupid men who will be crushed". You seem to believe that killing these people is for the greater good and there is no problem with it because they threaten your way of life.
- From the perspective of the Nazi's in the early part of last century, the killing the Jews was for the greater good because they were bringing impurities into the human race.

While I agree with this, he seems to think it's possible for people to have no moral compass and see everything from this neutral position, which i disagree with. Everyone has an idea of what they think is good and evil. For the majority of us, most of these items are the same (eg im pretty sure everyone would think that if their entire family was tortured and killed that it is an act of evil), but there are instances where people will disagree.

I can't think of anyone who has had it happen to themselves or their family, who through that direct experience would see that kind of an act as anything but evil.

even detachment, zen etc etc etc are concepts that flourish in buddhism, which also is big on compassion, real big on it in almost all it's forms.

so, to completely devoid ourselves of emotion and empathy would allow us to view the world in such a way as to rid ourselves of morals.

we would simply go about our survival needs as a "matter of fact" of life.

We have emotions and compassion as mechanisms for survival as well. We care for others, especially those who are of our blood and flesh or of our line of blood and flesh.

To think that we could walk through life with a non emotional outlook on the suffering of others, with that emotion amplified the closer it gets to your own bloodline is not really plausible.
It is in the realm of psychopathy only.

accepting the wheel of life is one thing (lion eats gazzelle, granpa dies, cat gets hit by car, etc) but to detach yourself from humanity because you don't want to view it in a way that
is quite rational and reasonable can't build a better person or a better society. Who knows if a society could exist under that condition at all.

[Michael]

Yoo is the one who says morals are relative and I disagree. How can you say I proved you right and then say I can not prove myself right? And yet you completely avoid responding to the examples I gave.

No, Yoo says that it is morally ok to torture children of terrorists for info. You disagree. Both of you have different opinions on what is right and what is wrong. Opinions are not facts. By disagreeing with Yoo on what is moral, you prove moral relativism.

I'm not arguing on what is or isn't moral, I'm arguing that all the morals man holds are completely relative to the individual. By disagreeing with another person on what is moral, again, you prove moral relativism.

You're shoe-horning everything into your previously held conclusion, repeating that I can't prove something without responding to it, and then saying that you have proved something. And my disagreeing with Yoo proves moral relativism? Complete poppycock. You're not even getting into the discussion. You may go to the head of the "population culling" line.

[qiphlow]

extra points to michael for the use of "poppycock."

[Michael]

Been saving it up

[Darth Rock&Roll]

lol

[Craig]

Darth I think the point the kid is trying to make is that it's relative and about perspective:

- From the perspective of some of the taliban, they believe they are doing a good, righteous act by killing the infadels that go against their god and try to force them to change their way of life.
- From your perspective, "they are stupid men who will be crushed". You seem to believe that killing these people is for the greater good and there is no problem with it because they threaten your way of life.
- From the perspective of the Nazi's in the early part of last century, the killing the Jews was for the greater good because they were bringing impurities into the human race.

While I agree with this, he seems to think it's possible for people to have no moral compass and see everything from this neutral position, which i disagree with. Everyone has an idea of what they think is good and evil. For the majority of us, most of these items are the same (eg im pretty sure everyone would think that if their entire family was tortured and killed that it is an act of evil), but there are instances where people will disagree.

I can't think of anyone who has had it happen to themselves or their family, who through that direct experience would see that kind of an act as anything but evil.

even detachment, zen etc etc etc are concepts that flourish in buddhism, which also is big on compassion, real big on it in almost all it's forms.

so, to completely devoid ourselves of emotion and empathy would allow us to view the world in such a way as to rid ourselves of morals.

we would simply go about our survival needs as a "matter of fact" of life.

We have emotions and compassion as mechanisms for survival as well. We care for others, especially those who are of our blood and flesh or of our line of blood and flesh.

To think that we could walk through life with a non emotional outlook on the suffering of others, with that emotion amplified the closer it gets to your own bloodline is not really plausible.
It is in the realm of psychopathy only.

accepting the wheel of life is one thing (lion eats gazzelle, granpa dies, cat gets hit by car, etc) but to detach yourself from humanity because you don't want to view it in a way that
is quite rational and reasonable can't build a better person or a better society. Who knows if a society could exist under that condition at all.

I agree. However there are some lessor actions that some people view as evil that others would not. For example, slaughtering a kitten for food here in aus would pretty much bring you under all sorts or cuelty to animals charges and everyone would view you as a monster. do the same thing in china and its all good.

[Michael]

Saying there's no objective standards for morality because people perceive them differently according to individual beliefs is akin to saying there are no objective standards to reality because on a acid trip someone doesn't believe in gravity, e.g., "perception is reality".

There are facts which do not change, but our understanding of them changes and grows, partly as a result of morality. There are objective standards for reality and morality and while some can be readily measured, there are others that can not and are philosophy, but they still exist.

[The K Prodigy]

well, you will experience hardship at one point. I'm sure you'll get it at that point or shortly afterwards.
It happens with all of us eventually.

what you choose to define as reason and rational is drawn from morality. You can deny it all you want, but a rose is a rose by any other name.

Your fear of punishment is your morality. It's one level of it. You know it's wrong and fear the punishment of doing that wrong. That you get rarely offended is semantics.

Hey Darth, thanks for assuming you know shit about my life. It's been nothing but sunshine and rainbows.

No. Reason and rationality requires thinking, morality requires feeling. Saying reason is based on morality is like saying math is based on poetry. I do not steal, kill, rape, etc. not because I find them "Evil" but because I recognize that actions have consequences, I weigh the risks and the rewards and calculate my chance of success, if the numbers stack in my favor, then I'm about to do something "Evil."

Fear of punishment isn't morality. I do not fear punishment, I loathe pain. I shrug off what I can, but physical pain is hard to suppress with only the mind. The only reason I "know something is wrong," is because there is a law against it, or that by committing an act, I posit that it's ok for said act to be done to me.

While I agree with this, he seems to think it's possible for people to have no moral compass and see everything from this neutral position, which i disagree with. Everyone has an idea of what they think is good and evil. For the majority of us, most of these items are the same (eg im pretty sure everyone would think that if their entire family was tortured and killed that it is an act of evil), but there are instances where people will disagree.

It is entirely possibly to live a life without a "moral compass" that does not bar you from living life without emotions, although, since you are in control of your own life, you can choose how you feel anyway.

You're shoe-horning everything into your previously held conclusion, repeating that I can't prove something without responding to it, and then saying that you have proved something. And my disagreeing with Yoo proves moral relativism? Complete poppycock.

Alright then, how does having different moral standards than Yoo, not prove moral relativism? You and Yoo have different moral values, what makes your morals more correct than his morals? If both are acceptable moral standards than does that not imply they are relative? What is the unit of morality? How do I objectively measure the evilness of a deed?

There are objective standards for reality and morality and while some can be readily measured, there are others that can not and are philosophy, but they still exist.

If there are objective standards for morality please list them? Also, even if I did have a moral compass, if my morals didn't align with your morals, then moral relativism would still be in play.

I will say it again, good and evil are relative. Yes, it's a scary concept, a world without morals, where everyone acts upon logic.

If there was no evil in the world, how would you define good?

[Michael]

You're shoe-horning everything into your previously held conclusion, repeating that I can't prove something without responding to it, and then saying that you have proved something. And my disagreeing with Yoo proves moral relativism? Complete poppycock.

Alright then, how does having different moral standards than Yoo, not prove moral relativism? You and Yoo have different moral values, what makes your morals more correct than his morals? If both are acceptable moral standards than does that not imply they are relative? What is the unit of morality? How do I objectively measure the evilness of a deed?

It's difficult to prove a negative. You are asserting your position and repeating it over and over without elaboration and while giving very little response to those who disagree with you like me and Chris. However, I'll say again what Chris and I have already mentioned two you several times. The simplest standard in the case of John Yoo is to put him and his children in that situation and see if he still believes he's right. I believe he would quickly change his tune under the torture that he has justified and rationalized. Even if he is not actually put in that position, it is proven by what we know historically about people who are tortured they will say anything to make it stop regardless of the accuracy or sincerity , and specifically about the torture he has attempted to devise legal rationales for in order to provide a legal defense for crimes that have already been committed. For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested and tortured for years and has admitted to everything except killing Lincoln and Kennedy. He has admitted, under torture, that he personally blew up buildings which did not exist until after he was arrested. Part of the entire justification for the war in Iraq came from testimony given by another government designated "enemy combatant" (see the film, Taxi to the Dark Side (2007)) under torture, which later proved to be totally false, just like all the other reasons for invading Iraq.

Your response to Chris that if your family were murdered it would just be another meaningless event is completely unbelievable. Even if this were somehow true, it misses the point he was making.

There are objective standards for reality and morality and while some can be readily measured, there are others that can not and are philosophy, but they still exist.

As I mentioned, objective standards exist, but they are not easily measured or perfectly defined, although lots of work has been put into it by some of the greatest minds in human history. I have my understanding, which is a subset of these standards. Part of it includes not putting children's testicles in a vice to make their parents talk, parents who have not been charged or ever had a chance to defend themselves in open court. You've been given specific examples to make this conversation possible, but it seems you're evading them because they show how short-sighted it is.

If there are objective standards for morality please list them? Also, even if I did have a moral compass, if my morals didn't align with your morals, then moral relativism would still be in play.

I already addressed this. Disagreement doesn't mean relativism, it means disagreement based on individual perception. Can you explain a little better how you get from point A to point Z here?

I will say it again, good and evil are relative. Yes, it's a scary concept, a world without morals, where everyone acts upon logic.

Logic is what is consistently true under a wide variety of circumstances. It's an understanding of patterns. Morals are similar, they are an understanding of the consequences of your actions and what behavior can be repeated and sustained over a long period of time within a society.

If there was no evil in the world, how would you define good?

You're mixing two ideas, both of them incorrect. You're saying there is no evil and good because they don't exist independently, and because of this, blah, blah, blah, moral relativism. Ta-da! This is so easy and so basic. Something good brings benefits, is helpful. Something evil causes damage, is harmful. The difficulty in defining them is the limited line of sight we have in looking wide and far enough down the road to see the full consequences of our actions. We have limited perception, which is part of the problem of individuality.

Our limited perception doesn't negate reality. Some people are blind and can't see the sun, but the sun is still there. Just because you got your nose broken in sixth grade and can't smell doesn't mean that other people don't occasionally fart. Trust me, they're farting. Good and evil exist. Facts exist. Morals exist.

[Chris Fleming]

Michael, he's young. There will come a time when the pseudo zen philosophies of the new agers break down in each individual when that little thing called life experience knocks at the door.

[Michael]

I need the writing practice, so as long as K-Prodigy enjoys the discussion....

[Darth Rock&Roll]

hey K

I'm not assuming anything about you. I'm pointing out that what you think is morality is not.
You are not interpreting the definition correctly. It shows when you indicate it is tied to emotions alone.

Your fear of consequence is in fact caused by your sense of morality whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

Why do you think there is consequence? If you truly believed what you are saying, you wouldn't fear consequence with your actions because you would be indifferent to any consequence if you were void of morality.

not a bad rundown on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

[The K Prodigy]

It's difficult to prove a negative. You are asserting your position and repeating it over and over without elaboration and while giving very little response to those who disagree with you like me and Chris. However, I'll say again what Chris and I have already mentioned two you several times. The simplest standard in the case of John Yoo is to put him and his children in that situation and see if he still believes he's right. I believe he would quickly change his tune under the torture that he has justified and rationalized. Even if he is not actually put in that position, it is proven by what we know historically about people who are tortured they will say anything to make it stop regardless of the accuracy or sincerity , and specifically about the torture he has attempted to devise legal rationales for in order to provide a legal defense for crimes that have already been committed. For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested and tortured for years and has admitted to everything except killing Lincoln and Kennedy. He has admitted, under torture, that he personally blew up buildings which did not exist until after he was arrested. Part of the entire justification for the war in Iraq came from testimony given by another government designated "enemy combatant" (see the film, Taxi to the Dark Side (2007)) under torture, which later proved to be totally false, just like all the other reasons for invading Iraq.

Really, that just proves that morals are malleable. Inflict enough pain on someone and they'll say that killing puppies is good and helping the poor is bad. Besides, you honestly don't know if Yoo would change his position.

As I mentioned, objective standards exist, but they are not easily measured or perfectly defined, although lots of work has been put into it by some of the greatest minds in human history. I have my understanding, which is a subset of these standards. Part of it includes not putting children's testicles in a vice to make their parents talk, parents who have not been charged or ever had a chance to defend themselves in open court. You've been given specific examples to make this conversation possible, but it seems you're evading them because they show how short-sighted it is.

And you're ignoring the entire premise of my argument, if you and another man, have a different set of morals, your morals are relative. Self preservation is not a good method to define how someone defines an action as morals, bet you could find a man who abhors killing, but give him a gun and put him in a self defense situation, and you are probably going to have a killer on your hands.

I already addressed this. Disagreement doesn't mean relativism, it means disagreement based on individual perception. Can you explain a little better how you get from point A to point Z here?

I find action "A" morally bad. You find action "A" morally good. Action "A" is good or bad? Relative to my position, action "A" is good. Relative to your position action "A" is bad. If morals are not relative, action "A" must definitely be good or bad. How do we decide if action "A" is good or bad?

Logic is what is consistently true under a wide variety of circumstances. It's an understanding of patterns. Morals are similar, they are an understanding of the consequences of your actions and what behavior can be repeated and sustained over a long period of time within a society.

No, morals are what "you" define as good and evil.

You're mixing two ideas, both of them incorrect. You're saying there is no evil and good because they don't exist independently, and because of this, blah, blah, blah, moral relativism.

Well if they don't exist independently, does that not lend them to the idea that they are subjective to begin with? Defining good and evil are reliant on a person's experience, not an innate inner feeling.

This is so easy and so basic. Something good brings benefits, is helpful. Something evil causes damage, is harmful.

That is still completely subjective, and relies on the parties involved to define benefit and harm. I kill a man, if the murder benefits me it's a good act, right?

Our limited perception doesn't negate reality. Some people are blind and can't see the sun, but the sun is still there. Just because you got your nose broken in sixth grade and can't smell doesn't mean that other people don't occasionally fart. Trust me, they're farting. Good and evil exist. Facts exist. Morals exist.

Good and evil are subjective, they exist only in the mind. You can not test the evilness of something or it's goodness. If they were objective and measurable, you'd be giving me numbers and units and papers.

I'm not assuming anything about you.

well, you will experience hardship at one point. I'm sure you'll get it at that point or shortly afterwards.
It happens with all of us eventually.

Looks like an assumption to me, assuming I have lived a life without hardship.

Your fear of consequence is in fact caused by your sense of morality whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

Why do you think there is consequence?

No, it isn't. Saying that over and over again, does not make it true.

Because actions have reactions. Even if you don't believe in determinism, there are still clear deterministic rules in our world.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

K, I think youb are not grasping something, or perhaps being contrary for the sake of it.

Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. In certain religious communities, the Divine is said to provide these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.

Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality." Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.

Moral codes are often complex definitions of moral and immoral that are based upon well-defined value systems. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, oftentimes they are one and the same.

Examples of moral codes include the Golden Rule; the Five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism (see Śīla); the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at ;the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures; the ten Indian commandments; and the principle of the Dessek.

Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (e.g. Taoism, Moralism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive—part of human politics.

from wiki, I think this is accepted thinking on the subject.



and

Group morality develops from shared concepts and beliefs and is often codified to regulate behavior within a culture or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fiber", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labeled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of Cistercian reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the Dowager Empress in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within nationalist movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one common morality, regardless of in what it consists. Political Morality is also relevant to the behaviour internationally of national governments, and to the support they receive from their host population. Noam Chomsky states that [18][19]
“ ... if we adopt the principle of universality : if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others -- more stringent ones, in fact -- plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil. ”
“ In fact, one of the, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow. But that principle is overwhelmingly disregarded all the time. If you want to run through examples we can easily do it. Take, say, George W. Bush, since he happens to be president. If you apply the standards that we applied to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, he'd be hanged. Is it an even conceivable possibility? It's not even discussable. Because we don't apply to ourselves the principles we apply to others. There's a lot of talk about 'terror' and how awful it is. Whose terror? Our terror against them? I mean, is that considered reprehensible? No, it's considered highly moral; it's considered self-defense. Now, their terror against us, that's awful, and terrible. But, to try to rise to the level of becoming a minimal moral agent, and just entering into the domain of moral discourse is very difficult. Because that means accepting the principle of universality. And you can experiment for yourself and see how often that's accepted, either in personal or political life. Very rarely.

am i missing anything?

again, I'm not assuming anything about you, I am merely speaking to the argument you are making and addressing you as the creator of the argument.

[The K Prodigy]

Morality does not become objective simply because it is defined on wiki. We are different people, if something is right for me, who knows if it is right for you. If something is wrong for you, who knows if it wrong for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rela ... relativism