Evil

[elman]

Care to justify your premise?

Hitler and his holocaust is not subjective in being evil. Finding someone who will claim it is not evil does not change it from being evil.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Hitler and his holocaust is not subjective in being evil. Finding someone who will claim it is not evil does not change it from being evil.

(I'm coming at this from a purely subjective point of view, I in no way think what Hitler did was right)


What exactly is bad about killing?

 

[elman]

(I'm coming at this from a purely subjective point of view, I in no way think what Hitler did was right)

And that is the point, neither does any other mentally healthy human being.

What exactly is bad about killing?

Killing is not always bad. Murder is.

 

[Yggdrasil]

And that is the point, neither does any other mentally healthy human being.

Killing is not always bad. Murder is.

Why shouldn't people be murdered?

 

[elman]

Why shouldn't people be murdered?

You already know so it is not necessary anyone explain it. That is one of the consequences of being objective.

 

[Yggdrasil]

You already know so it is not necessary anyone explain it. That is one of the consequences of being objective.

I'm just trying to show you that pretty much everything is subjective. I may think murdering is bad, but others may not.

 

[quatona]

Why shouldn't people be murdered?

Excellent question!

 

[quatona]

I'm just trying to show you that pretty much everything is subjective. I may think murdering is bad, but others may not.

Since murder is downright defined as "bad killing" "good murder" is an oxymoron.
However, people´s opinions where to draw the line between good and bad killing differ.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Hitler and his holocaust is not subjective in being evil.

On the contrary, the holocaust is considered evil because of our culture. Genocide was a part of daily life for the Aztecs, yet they did not consider it evil.
To put it another way: if you do not think that the statement, 'The holocaust was evil', is not subjective, then I challange you to demonstrate it's morality objectively.

Finding someone who will claim it is not evil does not change it from being evil.

Nevertheless, we who call it evil do so subjectively. Good and Evil are artificial labels given to actions. If a person considers an action to be good, and another considers the same action to be evil, who is right?

 

[elman]

I'm just trying to show you that pretty much everything is subjective. I may think murdering is bad, but others may not.

Only murderers would not and even they probably would say it was a bad thing to do. No country or culture at any time in human history has said murder is a good thing.

 

[elman]

Since murder is downright defined as "bad killing" "good murder" is an oxymoron.
However, people´s opinions where to draw the line between good and bad killing differ.

That is true and why I said killing was not always bad.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Hitler and his holocaust is not subjective in being evil.

On the contrary, the holocaust is considered evil because of our culture.

On the contrary every human being would saying the slaughter of millions is a bad thing to do.

Genocide was a part of daily life for the Aztecs, yet they did not consider it evil.

I am not sure human sacrifice is the same as genocide and I suspect the aztecs did not last because some of them came to recognize the evil in human sacrifice.

To put it another way: if you do not think that the statement, 'The holocaust was evil', is not subjective, then I challange you to demonstrate it's morality objectively.

I already have. Show me someone that believes it is a good thing to kill millions of people in the gas ovens. Showing me someone who will do that is not showing me someone who thinks it is a good thing for people to be doing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Finding someone who will claim it is not evil does not change it from being evil.

Nevertheless, we who call it evil do so subjectively.

Some thingts are not subjectrive, such as the murder of innocent people in the holocost or the tortukring of babies to enjoy their screaming.

Good and Evil are artificial labels given to actions. If a person considers an action to be good, and another considers the same action to be evil, who is right?

If the person is saying torturing babies to hear them scream is a good thing, he is the one who is not right. You can refuse to accept this argument, but you yourself know it is not right and good to do that.

 

[quatona]

Only murderers would not and even they probably would say it was a bad thing to do. No country or culture at any time in human history has said murder is a good thing.

By the same token, nobody ever has said that delicious food tastes bad.
People disagree wildly on what is delicious food, though.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

On the contrary every human being would saying the slaughter of millions is a bad thing to do.

Hitler didn't.

I am not sure human sacrifice is the same as genocide and I suspect the aztecs did not last because some of them came to recognize the evil in human sacrifice.

They were slaughtered by the Spainish.

I already have. Show me someone that believes it is a good thing to kill millions of people in the gas ovens.

Hitler.

Showing me someone who will do that is not showing me someone who thinks it is a good thing for people to be doing.

Indeed. However, I am not arguing the morality of a specific action, but against the existance of absolute morality.

Some thingts are not subjectrive, such as the murder of innocent people in the holocost or the tortukring of babies to enjoy their screaming.

If the person is saying torturing babies to hear them scream is a good thing, he is the one who is not right. You can refuse to accept this argument, but you yourself know it is not right and good to do that.

Saying that something is subjective is not the same as saying it is right.

 

[elman]

By the same token, nobody ever has said that delicious food tastes bad.
People disagree wildly on what is delicious food, though.

I do see your point. It is kind of like killing I guess. I think we do disagree on taste, but somethings like feces we all agree is bad. We can disgree on killings, but some killings like the holocaust, we all pretty much agree on being bad.

 

[Yggdrasil]

I do see your point. It is kind of like killing I guess. I think we do disagree on taste, but somethings like feces we all agree is bad. We can disgree on killings, but some killings like the holocaust, we all pretty much agree on being bad.

Not all people think the holocaust was bad. So its not across the board agreement.

 

[quatona]

I do see your point. It is kind of like killing I guess. I think we do disagree on taste, but somethings like feces we all agree is bad.

Actually we do not all agree upon that (and much to my confusion, I may add).

We can disgree on killings, but some killings like the holocaust, we all pretty much agree on being bad.

Well, millions of Germans back then agreed that it was good, and many of them supported it actively.
Besides, whilst the amount of victims indeed has been unusually high in the holocaust, the underlying idea of rightfully eradicating those groups you feel are a threat to your society is not that unique. Rather, it is a repeating pattern throughout history.

One other thing to ponder, elman: Should we ever succeed in finding something that everybody agrees upon as being evil, this will be banal and hardly worth mentioning. It will not be disputed, after all. We don´t need any morality in regards to things that are agreed upon as evil. These notions are already universally accepted, after all. Morality becomes an issue not before the value of an action is disagreed upon.

 

[elman]

Not all people think the holocaust was bad. So its not across the board agreement.

Again, objective truth is not based on the agreement of all people.

 

[elman]

Actually we do not all agree upon that (and much to my confusion, I may add).

Well, millions of Germans back then agreed that it was good, and many of them supported it actively.
Besides, whilst the amount of victims indeed has been unusually high in the holocaust, the underlying idea of rightfully eradicating those groups you feel are a threat to your society is not that unique. Rather, it is a repeating pattern throughout history.

One other thing to ponder, elman: Should we ever succeed in finding something that everybody agrees upon as being evil, this will be banal and hardly worth mentioning. It will not be disputed, after all. We don´t need any morality in regards to things that are agreed upon as evil. These notions are already universally accepted, after all. Morality becomes an issue not before the value of an action is disagreed upon.

Evil is not based on majority vote. It is not about everyone agreeing. Two plus two is four and it matters not that you can find someone who disagrees with that. The murder of innocent people is evil and bad and not subject to wheather people have done that throughout history or not. People have been evil throughout history and that is the way they have been evil.

 

[elman]

Originally Posted by elman
On the contrary every human being would say the slaughter of millions is a bad thing to do.

Hitler didn't.

OK almost, but the absolute agreement of everyone is not required for something to be evil or not. If we all agreed it was good to torture babies to hear them scream, it would still be evil.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
I am not sure human sacrifice is the same as genocide and I suspect the aztecs did not last because some of them came to recognize the evil in human sacrifice.

They were slaughtered by the Spainish.

Another evil act.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Showing me someone who will do that is not showing me someone who thinks it is a good thing for people to be doing.

Indeed. However, I am not arguing the morality of a specific action, but against the existance of absolute morality.

And I am arguing there are some actions that are absolutely immoral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Some thingts are not subjectrive, such as the murder of innocent people in the holocost or the tortukring of babies to enjoy their screaming.

If the person is saying torturing babies to hear them scream is a good thing, he is the one who is not right. You can refuse to accept this argument, but you yourself know it is not right and good to do that.

Saying that something is subjective is not the same as saying it is right.

If it is not right, irrespective of subjectivity, there is absolute morality.