Evil

[elman]

Sure it does, leaving a baby on a cliff to die in china are found to fit moral persona's in certain communities. Waiting for the baby to come out after birth then stick a needle in its head to nuetralize its brain function isnt exactly moral to us, but it still happens does it not? Hitler found it alright to kill 6 million jews, 5 million russians, 2 million poles, and a million other unwanted peoples, and somehow his entire reich did not challenge him. Tutsi's were murdered by the thousands every day in Rwanda and yet no summit was held in the united nations to aid their suffering.

You have not yet pointed out the culture that believes it is alright to torture a baby for the purpose of hearing it scream. Try to stay focused.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You have not yet pointed out the culture that believes it is alright to torture a baby for the purpose of hearing it scream. Try to stay focused.

Im talking about related topics......they are the exact same are they not? Moral right and wrongs are not universal. Why would contries (1/6 of the worlds population) commit such acts that are displeasing to the rest of society? We say death is incorrect but yet the united states has killed 24,000-60,000 iraqi's.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Hi Elman, Hi ExistencePrecedesEssence

I agree with you both

You have raised a valuable addition to the list of evils, a very valuable one.

But first the agreements

I agree about the absoluteness of morality in a sense; a community can't go killing each other. This applies to any genetically related community facing competitive pressure from outside communties or individuals anywhere in the universe.

Voracious predators often have a mechanism to avoid eating their own offspring.

That which is successful at surviving and reproducing becomes more numerous. That is an unavoidable truth that underlies 'absolute' morality.

But as EPE pointed out this rule has uneven success in extending beyond the genetically related community.

There is an element of fellowship of man in the sympathetic response where a person identifies the pain of another with their own pain.

But equally other people are competors so most people draw the line somewhere over who are 'us' and who are 'them'.

So the 'absolute' morality that exists within communities may fail to extend to a distinctly different group such as with Hitler and the Jews.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Hi Elman, Hi ExistencePrecedesEssence

I agree with you both

You have raised a valuable addition to the list of evils, a very valuable one.

But first the agreements

I agree about the absoluteness of morality in a sense; a community can't go killing each other. This applies to any genetically related community facing competitive pressure from outside communties or individuals anywhere in the universe.

Voracious predators often have a mechanism to avoid eating their own offspring.

That which is successful at surviving and reproducing becomes more numerous. That is an unavoidable truth that underlies 'absolute' morality.

But as EPE pointed out this rule has uneven success in extending beyond the genetically related community.

There is an element of fellowship of man in the sympathetic response where a person identifies the pain of another with their own pain.

But equally other people are competors so most people draw the line somewhere over who are 'us' and who are 'them'.

So the 'absolute' morality that exists within communities may fail to extend to a distinctly different group such as with Hitler and the Jews.

Its not absolute, or natural...similar created only to enhance happiness and minimize sadness, despair, and pain.

 

[elman]

Im talking about related topics......they are the exact same are they not? Moral right and wrongs are not universal. Why would contries (1/6 of the worlds population) commit such acts that are displeasing to the rest of society? We say death is incorrect but yet the united states has killed 24,000-60,000 iraqi's.

You keep saying moral right and wrong is not universal but you never show any culture that does not think it is wrong to torture babies to hear them scream so there must be some universal agreement. This is a post from another poster on another thread-I liked it.

"There have been a number of studies where we have tested how common human morality is by examining how they respond to various moral dilemmas (various situations of killing one to save many, asking what a person would sacrifice to save another, and other moral questions that are specifically chosen to not have cultural or religious significance). The result is, overwhelmingly, that in such situations, the answers people give are completely independent of culture, ethnicity, and religion. Approximately 90%-95% of all respondents (depending upon the question) provide the same answer, independent of their background.

So we need not worry that there not be a belief system to teach people morals. People are moral anyway! The legal system can pick up those few who don't conform to the morals of the rest of society. "

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You keep saying moral right and wrong is not universal but you never show any culture that does not think it is wrong to torture babies to hear them scream so there must be some universal agreement. This is a post from another poster on another thread-I liked it.

"There have been a number of studies where we have tested how common human morality is by examining how they respond to various moral dilemmas (various situations of killing one to save many, asking what a person would sacrifice to save another, and other moral questions that are specifically chosen to not have cultural or religious significance). The result is, overwhelmingly, that in such situations, the answers people give are completely independent of culture, ethnicity, and religion. Approximately 90%-95% of all respondents (depending upon the question) provide the same answer, independent of their background.

So we need not worry that there not be a belief system to teach people morals. People are moral anyway! The legal system can pick up those few who don't conform to the morals of the rest of society. "

What if the actual relation happened...what if someone was put in the situation of actually choosing "should i do it?" they might agree with it when they arent put in the situation but im sure when the person is on the verge of a great moral decision such as dying in the name of another the person would think much more intensly into the idea. "Would my life be more beneficial? I dont know this person so why is it my problem? I have so much ahead of me, so much waiting for me." When the choosing of preserving life and ending it in someone who may be a complete stranger is a serious dilemma and how many people would actually choose the decision of dying for a person they dont know?

Late in 2006 a man saved a man from being killed by a train in New York...when asked why he said"i didnt want my daughters seeing him die, that just wouldnt be good." Only through the effecting outside idea did he actually choose to do it.

Tutsi babies were tortured and killed with machetes during the Rwanda massacre.....babies were burned alive in mass graved at Buna, and Buchenwald by representatives of the nazi empire.

 

[elman]

Tutsi babies were tortured and killed with machetes during the Rwanda massacre.....babies were burned alive in mass graved at Buna, and Buchenwald by representatives of the nazi empire.

You are not paying attention. I never said babies were not killed by anyone. That they were is not on point and does not address what I said.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You are not paying attention. I never said babies were not killed by anyone. That they were is not on point and does not address what I said.

Torturing babies without killing them?

 

[elman]

Torturing babies without killing them?

Read what I said. You are not responding to what I said.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

You are not paying attention. I never said babies were not killed by anyone. That they were is not on point and does not address what I said.

Ive read what youve said, about babies being tortured and cultures agreeing its wrong....considering tutsi's are a culture and Hutu's are a culture of Rwanda they did not agree, considering SS were part of the nazi culture they represent that culture....many germans were fully aware of the atrocities but still did nothing. The world looked as nearly 1 million Tutsi's were murdered and did nothing....I seem to be answering the question....

 

[elman]

Ive read what youve said, about babies being tortured and cultures agreeing its wrong....considering tutsi's are a culture and Hutu's are a culture of Rwanda they did not agree, considering SS were part of the nazi culture they represent that culture....many germans were fully aware of the atrocities but still did nothing. The world looked as nearly 1 million Tutsi's were murdered and did nothing....I seem to be answering the question....

Read closer, babies being tortured for the purpose of hearing them scream. Killing babies is not on the point of what I said. Killing babies is wrong and almost everyone would agree it is wrong. Showing that it has been done does not mean it was accepted as the right thing to do. When it is accepted as the right thing to do we do not have normal human beings, but human beings with defective thinking and morals.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Read closer, babies being tortured for the purpose of hearing them scream. Killing babies is not on the point of what I said. Killing babies is wrong and almost everyone would agree it is wrong. Showing that it has been done does not mean it was accepted as the right thing to do. When it is accepted as the right thing to do we do not have normal human beings, but human beings with defective thinking and morals.

The executors found it the right thing to do...the Hutu murder squads had no government telling them to do it, they chose to kill the babies. Just because i state we have no natural right and wrong and views are at times similar, does not mean there is a set definition to right and wrong. I do not say we dont need them, because they are required, im saying though more so stating people have killed babies for the joy they get out of it. Honestly, nearly 65% of the SS were psychopathic megalomaniacs totally dedicated to hitlers plan, im sure they produced a sense of joy from slaughtering and killing those babies.

 

[elman]

The executors found it the right thing to do...the Hutu murder squads had no government telling them to do it, they chose to kill the babies. Just because i state we have no natural right and wrong and views are at times similar, does not mean there is a set definition to right and wrong. I do not say we dont need them, because they are required, im saying though more so stating people have killed babies for the joy they get out of it. Honestly, nearly 65% of the SS were psychopathic megalomaniacs totally dedicated to hitlers plan, im sure they produced a sense of joy from slaughtering and killing those babies.

People chosing to do the wrong thing does not prove they found it the right thing to do. If a sense of joy is derived from torturing babies this is a defective human being, as you said above. The presence of defective human beings does not prove there is no set of defintion to right and wrong.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

People chosing to do the wrong thing does not prove they found it the right thing to do. If a sense of joy is derived from torturing babies this is a defective human being, as you said above. The presence of defective human beings does not prove there is no set of defintion to right and wrong.

Well when you put into affect nearly 2 million boys were in the SS thats nearly 1/5 of the german war machine, only a 1 in 100 people are estimated to be psychologically instable in our society, if your saying that many boys in a population so little is defection, i dont understand.

 

[elman]

Well when you put into affect nearly 2 million boys were in the SS thats nearly 1/5 of the german war machine, only a 1 in 100 people are estimated to be psychologically instable in our society, if your saying that many boys in a population so little is defection, i dont understand.

It does not matter how many metally defective people you have, they are still mentaly defective, as in abnormal if they enjoy torturing babies. I suspect most of our leading psychologist would agree with that. The ratio of stabilty in our society is not relevant. Also envioronment can be such as to cause mental instability which is probably what happened in most cases in the boys in the SS. You could also induce mass mental instability by mass injection of drugs. If the number of crazy people reach a majority, they are still crazy even if in that scenerio crazy becomes the nomal condition.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Maybe you have a joy to kill babies but have not tapped into it, never been put in the situation, having control over something that cannot defend for itself. Like a kid crushing ants. I feel totally weird for just now saying that. Im not portraying a baby as importance of an ant, but what if you were raised where it was no big deal to kill another person, that person comes to become something of importance to the life of an ant, expendable.

We are capable of terrible cruelties and revolutionary comendations, if im raised in a situation where human life has no importance i would have no trouble killing someone, while since im raised in a christian society with mixes of other cultures, i find it wrong. Children in Nazi germany stoning and persecuting children they went to school with all because they were told the jews were horrid...that makes no sense to me if there is a set rule or a basis by which all morals are completed and displayed.

Are you saying also that a Hutu at the moment that the Tutsi massacre began would suddenly change from a normal citizen of Rwanda to a cold blooded murderer just in the time it takes up his machete? Hutus and Tutsis lived next to each other as neighbors, those same neighbors who they have known their entire life suddenly got the urge to kill their fellow, and it consumed an entire nation...i dont understand how you can say there is a set moral standard or a similar moral standard when such things can happen from peace to utter hysteria and paranoia.

 

[elman]

=ExistencePrecedesEssence;33741699]Maybe you have a joy to kill babies but have not tapped into it, never been put in the situation, having control over something that cannot defend for itself. Like a kid crushing ants. I feel totally weird for just now saying that. Im not portraying a baby as importance of an ant, but what if you were raised where it was no big deal to kill another person, that person comes to become something of importance to the life of an ant, expendable.

Then you would be mentally and morally defective as the result of your raising, or environment.

We are capable of terrible cruelties and revolutionary comendations, if im raised in a situation where human life has no importance i would have no trouble killing someone, while since im raised in a christian society with mixes of other cultures, i find it wrong. Children in Nazi germany stoning and persecuting children they went to school with all because they were told the jews were horrid...that makes no sense to me if there is a set rule or a basis by which all morals are completed and displayed.

Yes your intinct to be loving and moral can be trained out of you and you can be made into a defective person with no morals. This does not prove basic morality is the same for all humans.

Are you saying also that a Hutu at the moment that the Tutsi massacre began would suddenly change from a normal citizen of Rwanda to a cold blooded murderer just in the time it takes up his machete? Hutus and Tutsis lived next to each other as neighbors, those same neighbors who they have known their entire life suddenly got the urge to kill their fellow, and it consumed an entire nation...i dont understand how you can say there is a set moral standard or a similar moral standard when such things can happen from peace to utter hysteria and paranoia

. I am saying it was wrong and they knew it was wrong and did it anyway. What are you saying? That it was not wrong?

 

[very_irreverand_Bill]

On a practical level, the larguest contributers to "evil"{term used "loosely" as "practical evil"} are REVEALED RELIGION and, "ABSOLUTISM" in general[whether religiously,politically, or otherwise}.

In Reason:
Irrev.Bill

 

[MorkandMindy]

On a practical level, the larguest contributers to "evil"{term used "loosely" as "practical evil"} are REVEALED RELIGION and, "ABSOLUTISM" in general[whether religiously,politically, or otherwise}.

In Reason:
Irrev.Bill

'Doubt is the greatest thing there is, not certainty. For example, no-one ever killed someone because they were not sure about something. Plenty have killed because they were sure.'

(my debt to David Gould for this gem!)

And Hi very_irreverand_Bill you might like to go over to Politics > General Political Discussion and vote in the poll: God told me to invade Iraq

 

[MorkandMindy]

I think one big improvement would be

Instead of talking endlessly about what we should do
and even the letters of Paul admit to the utter failure, in fact even reverse effect of human nature when told what to do, it often just gets worse

We should take human nature more seriously and evaluate the effects of the way we live on our sanity, not to put too fine a point on it.

The US has a massive prison population, drugs problem, and seems more prone to killing sprees than most places.

Instead of just saying it is wrong -

Find out why and do something about it.