Not towards evil per say, but towards selfishness and putting self interest above the need of others which is only natural. You see it in nature all the time, survival of the fittest. But there are those who constantly ruin others without getting any material value out of it besides happiness. They are the true evil.
30 Guests
viewing this page
[OOC] Myriad Reality Page 3170
- Large Group
- Casual
- Free
- GM DarkwolfX37 Co-GM LegendBegins Co-GM Galaxy Raider
Join Status:
Apply
Not towards evil per say, but towards selfishness and putting self interest above the need of others which is only natural. You see it in nature all the time, survival of the fittest. But there are those who constantly ruin others without getting any material value out of it besides happiness. They are the true evil.
Focus on the self is the pinnacle of evil—all of it stems from there. Pride, hate, theft, laziness, uncontrolled anger, etc.
That is... so basically every human is born evil because every human, at one point in their life has done something selfish, however small and minuscule it may have been. But that is just the way of the world, so in one word the world is evil?
That is a very broad categorization of evil. You can't just call the way nature works evil. Putting yourself before others is survival at its basics. So survival is evil?
That is a very broad categorization of evil. You can't just call the way nature works evil. Putting yourself before others is survival at its basics. So survival is evil?
That is... so basically every human is born evil because every human, at one point in their life has done something selfish, however small and minuscule it may have been. But that is just the way of the world, so in one word the world is evil?
That is a very broad categorization of evil. You can't just call the way nature works evil. Putting yourself before others is survival at its basics. So survival is evil?
Yes, actually. Committing evil just once makes a person evil and deserving of Hell. To answer your question, by nature, yes, everyone is evil.
Because evil is broad. That was a false equivocation—survival is not the same concept as selfishness, though there may be overlap. The idea is that people attribute to themselves unjust and unwarranted qualities that induce an inflated idea of self. I.e. The issue is not the fact that they care about self, but rather the fact that they care about self righteousness.
Forgive my blatancy but that is totally wrong. Not everyone is driven by the need to stand above others, to be superior than those around them. While selfishness is a part of humanity, self righteousness isn't. There are a lot of people who feel like that but far from every human.
Will you indulge me with this imaginary scenario?
"You just got accepted to work for a company. Your life has been going very bad until the news came that you got the job. You need this job. Now, you have one of your coworkers come to you asking for help. He wants you to fix and better his project for him for the upcoming presentation. He got the job through connections but his lack of skill has sent him close to being fired. Either you helped him at first or not, he will always come to you for help. You have to sacrifice some of your work quality to help him. He begs you and says that his life depends on this job. What do you do? Risk your own job to help him or ignore him?"
Will you indulge me with this imaginary scenario?
"You just got accepted to work for a company. Your life has been going very bad until the news came that you got the job. You need this job. Now, you have one of your coworkers come to you asking for help. He wants you to fix and better his project for him for the upcoming presentation. He got the job through connections but his lack of skill has sent him close to being fired. Either you helped him at first or not, he will always come to you for help. You have to sacrifice some of your work quality to help him. He begs you and says that his life depends on this job. What do you do? Risk your own job to help him or ignore him?"
@Bishop
Self-righteousness isn't necessarily pride or moral superiority. Rather, it's the belief that the focus of your own life is on yourself. Someone could be extremely humble, yet still fall to something as common as lying, in the interest of self preservation or comfort. Or, they steal something in the interest of having more for themselves. The fact that you only attack my use of the term "self-righteousness" is a straw man and not particularly important to the argument as a whole.
Easy. I manage my time and help them with whatever I have left after fulfilling my own responsibilities. If I can finish my project tomorrow with plenty of time to spare, I help them as much as I can in the meantime. If I'm struggling to finish it myself, I refuse. The idea isn't that you can't do anything for yourself, but rather that making your life about self-interest is the source of evil. The main problem with the scenario that you presented is that it assumes that one action is inherently superior to another. Rather, it is only the intention of humans that can be good or evil. There's a reason killing isn't evil in and of itself—people kill all the time in war or self defense. Instead, it is killing out of evil intentions that makes it murder instead of the act itself.
Self-righteousness isn't necessarily pride or moral superiority. Rather, it's the belief that the focus of your own life is on yourself. Someone could be extremely humble, yet still fall to something as common as lying, in the interest of self preservation or comfort. Or, they steal something in the interest of having more for themselves. The fact that you only attack my use of the term "self-righteousness" is a straw man and not particularly important to the argument as a whole.
Easy. I manage my time and help them with whatever I have left after fulfilling my own responsibilities. If I can finish my project tomorrow with plenty of time to spare, I help them as much as I can in the meantime. If I'm struggling to finish it myself, I refuse. The idea isn't that you can't do anything for yourself, but rather that making your life about self-interest is the source of evil. The main problem with the scenario that you presented is that it assumes that one action is inherently superior to another. Rather, it is only the intention of humans that can be good or evil. There's a reason killing isn't evil in and of itself—people kill all the time in war or self defense. Instead, it is killing out of evil intentions that makes it murder instead of the act itself.
For that imaginary scenario I had planned to allow you only 2 routes. Either help him and get fired or don't help him, he is fired and later on he commits suicide. Since you stated:"If I'm struggling to finish it myself, I refuse" then we'll go with the latter conclusion. I know this is extreme but please bare with me. Are you called evil for doing that even if you didn't know the consequences? One way or another, you hypothetical actions indirectly caused that person's demise.
When I attacked the term I thought it was all that you meant by using it, and that was the point of your second argument after establishing what evil is in your views. But living only for yourself can not be considered evil. You may choose to not interact with others. You neither help anyone nor cause anyone harm. And the lies you may say to preserve this way of living may not cause any harm. But that raises the question, is not helping someone in need considered to be evil and immoral? What responsibility do you have to help that person? His problems are his own and even if you lose nothing by helping him you have no duty to do so.
Now getting back to evil. Evil is subjective same as morality. It can be and has been defined by various cultures/religions and people but in the end, at its root it is subjective. It is left for the person to decide what truly can be called evil. So if you call killing in self defense not evil, someone else calls it so. They call all killing evil and would rather die than perform the action for whatever reason. They call the act itself immoral. And that is the point with hell. Everyone who has done something evil goes there but evil by whose standards? Does anyone have the power to set those boundaries between evil and good? You can set them for yourself and to others in your own head but are you truly right with them?
So who goes to hell, what standards and moral codes set by which person should be followed to go to hell? Does some amoral psychopath or autistic person who has killed countless people and performed countless crimes for immoral reasons, as seen by you, go to hell? He himself sees nothing wrong with those actions because he has no concept of right or wrong. Does he go to hell? Who is to decide?
When I attacked the term I thought it was all that you meant by using it, and that was the point of your second argument after establishing what evil is in your views. But living only for yourself can not be considered evil. You may choose to not interact with others. You neither help anyone nor cause anyone harm. And the lies you may say to preserve this way of living may not cause any harm. But that raises the question, is not helping someone in need considered to be evil and immoral? What responsibility do you have to help that person? His problems are his own and even if you lose nothing by helping him you have no duty to do so.
Now getting back to evil. Evil is subjective same as morality. It can be and has been defined by various cultures/religions and people but in the end, at its root it is subjective. It is left for the person to decide what truly can be called evil. So if you call killing in self defense not evil, someone else calls it so. They call all killing evil and would rather die than perform the action for whatever reason. They call the act itself immoral. And that is the point with hell. Everyone who has done something evil goes there but evil by whose standards? Does anyone have the power to set those boundaries between evil and good? You can set them for yourself and to others in your own head but are you truly right with them?
So who goes to hell, what standards and moral codes set by which person should be followed to go to hell? Does some amoral psychopath or autistic person who has killed countless people and performed countless crimes for immoral reasons, as seen by you, go to hell? He himself sees nothing wrong with those actions because he has no concept of right or wrong. Does he go to hell? Who is to decide?
@Bishop
No, I disagree. My inaction led to a situation where he could not escape being exposed. And it isn't that suicide is inevitable. It isn't done to him, but done by him. How is it my responsibility if someone chooses to off themselves? The answer is that it's not. There's no moral dilemma here; the person couldn't handle the weight of his own choices and made a bad choice, something totally unrelated to me.
You can live for good even in an isolated environment. Our responsibilities as humans extend far beyond just interpersonal communications. You do bring up an interesting question, however: at what point does inaction become evil? Again, I argue that it never does; rather the intentions of the person committing the action or inaction are what constitutes his state of good or evil. If I pass a homeless person on the street, it would be good to give him food. Would it be evil to pass him by? No, probably not. Is someone starving and begging me in my excess for a moresel to eat and I refuse? Yes, I probably would be committing evil.
I'm glad you said that—we can get to the heart of the problem. Either good and evil are objective or they do not exist at all. Instead of going about this in the usual emotional way, consider it from the perspective of beauty, something we can agree if subjective. In my eyes, modern art is, for the most part, stupid and pointless and lacks the meaning that people claim it has. Is my view on beauty objectively superior to any other? Even someone who thinks all art is beautiful or ugly? No, not at all. And if I considered all art beautiful and I made something hideous and called it beauty, I wouldn't get arrested for it (this will be important later). However, the only reason that we can have these subjective and differing views of beauty is necause beauty is not an inherent or intrinsic quality of anything on Earth. It is entirely a figment of the human mind and only has any existence because humans, for the most part, agree that it exists. But you cannot claim that beauty exists in reality beyond the human concept of it, unless you manage to find some beauty quark that physicists aren't aware of. Therefore, if morality follows the same abstract and subjective definition that beauty holds, then people can consider anything, nothing, or everything good/evil and there is no logical reason for there to be any consequence resulting from the holding or execution of such a belief. If morality doesn't exist because it is subjective, then feeding a homeless person and killing him are equally valid options with no inherent superiority. And, in that same vein, it is illogical to face any consequence for doing so because A) I haven't done anything wrong and B) Because if we base good and evil on our perspective of it rather than the fact that it doesn't exist, I still haven't done anything wrong if I believe that murder isn't evil. We don't arrest people for creative ugly art, in the same way we shouldn't arrest people for doing anything they believe is good or not evil. Perhaps you wish to argue that in the same way we only perceive beauty as real because we agree it is as a society, we perceive murder as "evil," and therefore we agree that people should be punished for it. However, in doing so, you inadvertently admit that the position held by society is illogical. Under this perspective, the objectively superior societal structure (in terms of logical foundation) is anarchy, in which the only consequence for action or inaction is what others decide to execute. If you desire to take that stance, very well—it's the road that many high profile naturalists end up down, and we can agree that our axioms differ. However, if you wish to argue that society ought to be some way that takes good and evil into consideration, then the stance falls apart under inspection of its parts.
I can answer this rather succinctly. No human decides what is moral or amoral. If you want to go down the road of Christian theology, then the answer of "who goes to Hell?" Is "Anybody who does not ask God for forgiveness and do good as defined by him."
No, I disagree. My inaction led to a situation where he could not escape being exposed. And it isn't that suicide is inevitable. It isn't done to him, but done by him. How is it my responsibility if someone chooses to off themselves? The answer is that it's not. There's no moral dilemma here; the person couldn't handle the weight of his own choices and made a bad choice, something totally unrelated to me.
You can live for good even in an isolated environment. Our responsibilities as humans extend far beyond just interpersonal communications. You do bring up an interesting question, however: at what point does inaction become evil? Again, I argue that it never does; rather the intentions of the person committing the action or inaction are what constitutes his state of good or evil. If I pass a homeless person on the street, it would be good to give him food. Would it be evil to pass him by? No, probably not. Is someone starving and begging me in my excess for a moresel to eat and I refuse? Yes, I probably would be committing evil.
I'm glad you said that—we can get to the heart of the problem. Either good and evil are objective or they do not exist at all. Instead of going about this in the usual emotional way, consider it from the perspective of beauty, something we can agree if subjective. In my eyes, modern art is, for the most part, stupid and pointless and lacks the meaning that people claim it has. Is my view on beauty objectively superior to any other? Even someone who thinks all art is beautiful or ugly? No, not at all. And if I considered all art beautiful and I made something hideous and called it beauty, I wouldn't get arrested for it (this will be important later). However, the only reason that we can have these subjective and differing views of beauty is necause beauty is not an inherent or intrinsic quality of anything on Earth. It is entirely a figment of the human mind and only has any existence because humans, for the most part, agree that it exists. But you cannot claim that beauty exists in reality beyond the human concept of it, unless you manage to find some beauty quark that physicists aren't aware of. Therefore, if morality follows the same abstract and subjective definition that beauty holds, then people can consider anything, nothing, or everything good/evil and there is no logical reason for there to be any consequence resulting from the holding or execution of such a belief. If morality doesn't exist because it is subjective, then feeding a homeless person and killing him are equally valid options with no inherent superiority. And, in that same vein, it is illogical to face any consequence for doing so because A) I haven't done anything wrong and B) Because if we base good and evil on our perspective of it rather than the fact that it doesn't exist, I still haven't done anything wrong if I believe that murder isn't evil. We don't arrest people for creative ugly art, in the same way we shouldn't arrest people for doing anything they believe is good or not evil. Perhaps you wish to argue that in the same way we only perceive beauty as real because we agree it is as a society, we perceive murder as "evil," and therefore we agree that people should be punished for it. However, in doing so, you inadvertently admit that the position held by society is illogical. Under this perspective, the objectively superior societal structure (in terms of logical foundation) is anarchy, in which the only consequence for action or inaction is what others decide to execute. If you desire to take that stance, very well—it's the road that many high profile naturalists end up down, and we can agree that our axioms differ. However, if you wish to argue that society ought to be some way that takes good and evil into consideration, then the stance falls apart under inspection of its parts.
I can answer this rather succinctly. No human decides what is moral or amoral. If you want to go down the road of Christian theology, then the answer of "who goes to Hell?" Is "Anybody who does not ask God for forgiveness and do good as defined by him."
GM
DarkwolfX37 Absolute L User
Member
Seen
18 days ago
Forgive my blatancy but that is totally wrong. Not everyone is driven by the need to stand above others, to be superior than those around them. While selfishness is a part of humanity, self righteousness isn't. There are a lot of people who feel like that but far from every human.
Will you indulge me with this imaginary scenario?
"You just got accepted to work for a company. Your life has been going very bad until the news came that you got the job. You need this job. Now, you have one of your coworkers come to you asking for help. He wants you to fix and better his project for him for the upcoming presentation. He got the job through connections but his lack of skill has sent him close to being fired. Either you helped him at first or not, he will always come to you for help. You have to sacrifice some of your work quality to help him. He begs you and says that his life depends on this job. What do you do? Risk your own job to help him or ignore him?"
Dude he's a super-christian. Arguing from a natural perspective will get you literally nowhere.
@DarkwolfX37
I don't plan on it. The fact that you're incoherent means that you're fine.
Truer words might never have been spoken. I can literally FEEL the crash I'm going to have. I'm either going to have the deepest sleep of my life or sleep for 3 minute and not need to again for sixteen years.
<Snipped quote by Bishop>
Dude he's a super-christian. Arguing from a natural perspective will get you literally nowhere.
<Snipped quote by Meta>
Truer words might never have been spoken. I can literally FEEL the crash I'm going to have. I'm either going to have the deepest sleep of my life or sleep for 3 minute and not need to again for sixteen years.
No, it'll get you somewhere. I can live with someone taking the naturalistic approach, but I will demand that it be on an all or nothing level.
Enjoy that. I'll be here.
Therefore, if morality follows the same abstract and subjective definition that beauty holds, then people can consider anything, nothing, or everything good/evil and there is no logical reason for there to be any consequence resulting from the holding or execution of such a belief.
Firstly, laws and a person's morality are very different things. The laws of a society and the morality that a person has who lives in that society are completely different things. That person may find doing something completely ethical and justifiable but the way that the society views those actions are the guiding factors that in the end lead to his decision on doing them or not, based on if he wants to live in said society. Laws are set for a reason. They protect the rights of an individual so that individual isn't forced to protect it himself. Not everyone has the same views on things or the same morality and so the laws that are set for a specific community serve as a guideline on what everyone should and shouldn't do. In few words they guide our lives to peacefully co-exist with other humans in a far bigger society than what is our family, effectively nullifying the different views that we have on what is right or wrong, things that one should do or do not.
We don't punish people because what they have done is evil or not, we punish them if they have broken a set of rules in the society that they live, rules that were formed and placed on logical reasoning.
Furthermore the breaking of these rules doesn't make one "evil" no matter which rule he broke, it just means that that person is a danger for the society in which he lives in and isn't capable of co-existing with said society anymore.
If morality doesn't exist because it is subjective, then feeding a homeless person and killing him are equally valid options with no inherent superiority.
What you said there is called amorality which means exactly that, that morality doesn't exist, right and wrong are the same with no difference.
Morality does exist, given that it doesn't exist in the physical world it does exist in a subjective manner. As you said, like beauty but different from it in the sense that the beauty that one perceives can not be dictated or have set boundaries placed by others. It is yours to have and enjoy, it is part of an individual and born with him. Different from morality which can be dictated and have someone raised with a number of set moral codes. You were raised as a christian no? As one, you have been raised with a number of moral codes by your family/guardian that you have learned to live with and live by. You can't treat and dictate the concept of beauty within a person like that. You can say to him "this painting is ugly" every single day of his life but if that person really likes that painting he will still go on to like it til the end.
Morality, unlike beauty, is the deciding factor on our actions. Once again I repeat, it is different from laws, which if broken there are consequences, in the sense that it is subjective and if you break your own moral code, the only consequence(other than the law if you broke it) is your conscience, all subjective. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It very much does and it is there with a very important guiding influence on every action that we take. We could follow moral codes set by the ones who raised us, formed by ourselves based on past experiences or even just to to fit in with the environment that we are in but they do exist, even if not in the physical world.
@Bishop
I said that.
Rights also don't exist.
This entire first paragraph is a restatement of
You just admitted to this, which is a fine position to take, but it also requires accepting the fact that an anarchy is an ideal society because people determine for themselves the cost of their own actions and execute responses accordingly. You keep throwing abstract terms out there such as "coexist," when these are totally meaningless when broken down into concrete components. It is not possible to construct a logical argument without breaking down a concept into its parts.
I disagree with this paragraph. Beauty can be taught as well; studies into neurological development show that most of what we perceive in a subjective manner is generated and established well into youth. Our idea of beauty and other abstract concepts is directly correlated to our experiences in the past and how we grew up. In the same way you can reject the idea of beauty, you can reject the idea of morality. If I grew up being taught that watching movies was evil, I very well could decide when I was older that I disagreed with that and make my own decision regarding the ethics of doing so. Every subjective concept is the exact same as any other, a structure formed uniquely by the human mind and the way it perceives reality around it, be it morality, beauty, fun, music, etc. You admit that they do not exist on a physical level but assign it some abstract value when, under your assumptions, it is not even real on some abstract level because all it is comprised of is neurons firing in specific ways that results in behavior that may be perceived as similar to the behavior of other individuals who assign the term "moral" to it. But in all, there is no foundation for the belief that the concept is real on any level or any reason any human should follow what is defined as moral guidelines. In fact, unless there is some real, tangible or even intangible foundation for defining exactly what morality is, there is no basis for the claim that it exists in the first place.
I never equated morality to laws; read more closely. I stated that having laws at all is illogical under the assumption that morality doesn't exist (or exists "subjectively," if you insist that it is possible) and that the logical conclusion is that an ideal society is an anarchy.
The problem is that you define "exist" as "what humans perceive as real," which is purely false. A schizophrenic may perceive an elephant to exist even if there is none in the room. The fact of the matter is that our perceptions and definitions do not define what reality is and no matter what we choose to believe, something that does not have a foundation in reality doesn't have any justification for its existence. Unless you have evidence that morality, beauty, or any other abstract concept exists beyond collections of people agreeing that it does, there is not a basis for the claim that any of them are real. A concept that does not extend beyond the brain is not real, and even if large collections of people claim that their perception of a concept is real, unless there is something that backs up their claim, they are incorrect. The closest to real any of these are to "real" is an agreement in mankind's perception that they are, which is totally meaningless and has no impact on the physical world around us. If you want to claim that morality, art, beauty, or any other abstract concept is "real" in the collective human perception, sure, have at it. But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.
I said that.
Rights also don't exist.
This entire first paragraph is a restatement of
Perhaps you wish to argue that in the same way we only perceive beauty as real because we agree it is as a society, we perceive murder as "evil," and therefore we agree that people should be punished for it. However, in doing so, you inadvertently admit that the position held by society is illogical. Under this perspective, the objectively superior societal structure (in terms of logical foundation) is anarchy, in which the only consequence for action or inaction is what others decide to execute.
You just admitted to this, which is a fine position to take, but it also requires accepting the fact that an anarchy is an ideal society because people determine for themselves the cost of their own actions and execute responses accordingly. You keep throwing abstract terms out there such as "coexist," when these are totally meaningless when broken down into concrete components. It is not possible to construct a logical argument without breaking down a concept into its parts.
I disagree with this paragraph. Beauty can be taught as well; studies into neurological development show that most of what we perceive in a subjective manner is generated and established well into youth. Our idea of beauty and other abstract concepts is directly correlated to our experiences in the past and how we grew up. In the same way you can reject the idea of beauty, you can reject the idea of morality. If I grew up being taught that watching movies was evil, I very well could decide when I was older that I disagreed with that and make my own decision regarding the ethics of doing so. Every subjective concept is the exact same as any other, a structure formed uniquely by the human mind and the way it perceives reality around it, be it morality, beauty, fun, music, etc. You admit that they do not exist on a physical level but assign it some abstract value when, under your assumptions, it is not even real on some abstract level because all it is comprised of is neurons firing in specific ways that results in behavior that may be perceived as similar to the behavior of other individuals who assign the term "moral" to it. But in all, there is no foundation for the belief that the concept is real on any level or any reason any human should follow what is defined as moral guidelines. In fact, unless there is some real, tangible or even intangible foundation for defining exactly what morality is, there is no basis for the claim that it exists in the first place.
I never equated morality to laws; read more closely. I stated that having laws at all is illogical under the assumption that morality doesn't exist (or exists "subjectively," if you insist that it is possible) and that the logical conclusion is that an ideal society is an anarchy.
The problem is that you define "exist" as "what humans perceive as real," which is purely false. A schizophrenic may perceive an elephant to exist even if there is none in the room. The fact of the matter is that our perceptions and definitions do not define what reality is and no matter what we choose to believe, something that does not have a foundation in reality doesn't have any justification for its existence. Unless you have evidence that morality, beauty, or any other abstract concept exists beyond collections of people agreeing that it does, there is not a basis for the claim that any of them are real. A concept that does not extend beyond the brain is not real, and even if large collections of people claim that their perception of a concept is real, unless there is something that backs up their claim, they are incorrect. The closest to real any of these are to "real" is an agreement in mankind's perception that they are, which is totally meaningless and has no impact on the physical world around us. If you want to claim that morality, art, beauty, or any other abstract concept is "real" in the collective human perception, sure, have at it. But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.
@MetaYou explicitly use the term "exist" to refer to any and every physical material but you erase the word's value when the subject is more of a subjective nature? I was using it as a term to refer to how something "is" in the sense that it "is" perceived by humans. Now I notice that you are completely disregarding my arguments on the basis that it doesn't "exist" as for the dictionary's definition of the word. My usage of it was meant to imply that it is perceived by humans all the same. No need to put people with hallucinations on the mix. It doesn't help you make your point. I already know the difference between what humans perceive, ideas etc and the things made of matter. By saying it was "real" I meant to imply that it has very real effects on our actions and in a sense can be considered real.
Laws and right are very real. They are written if that is what you need to consider them real. They are ink on a piece of paper.
Or are you gonna say that words are also how we perceive different shapes on a piece of paper as they have no real value on "having no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes."
As for what you say here...I don't know how to counter this. Please elaborate as in my eyes this is completely wrong in a logical sense. Please indulge my foolishness and elaborate this part.
And more importantly, from where the hell did you get that "I desire anarchy"???
I was going to ignore this faulty connection between being amoral and desiring anarchy in order to focus on the argument but how is anarchy more logically superior to any other form of government/ruling organ? Hell, even if I didn't believe in evil/good or any subjective ideals how would I come to see that anarchy is better?
Laws and right are very real. They are written if that is what you need to consider them real. They are ink on a piece of paper.
Or are you gonna say that words are also how we perceive different shapes on a piece of paper as they have no real value on "having no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes."
If you want to claim that morality, art, beauty, or any other abstract concept is "real" in the collective human perception, sure, have at it. But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.
As for what you say here...I don't know how to counter this. Please elaborate as in my eyes this is completely wrong in a logical sense. Please indulge my foolishness and elaborate this part.
And more importantly, from where the hell did you get that "I desire anarchy"???
Perhaps you wish to argue that in the same way we only perceive beauty as real because we agree it is as a society, we perceive murder as "evil," and therefore we agree that people should be punished for it. However, in doing so, you inadvertently admit that the position held by society is illogical. Under this perspective, the objectively superior societal structure (in terms of logical foundation) is anarchy, in which the only consequence for action or inaction is what others decide to execute
I was going to ignore this faulty connection between being amoral and desiring anarchy in order to focus on the argument but how is anarchy more logically superior to any other form of government/ruling organ? Hell, even if I didn't believe in evil/good or any subjective ideals how would I come to see that anarchy is better?
@Bishop
I agree that it affects our actions, but my point has always been that it has no logical foundation. There is nothing to base the concept of "morality" on, and therefore it is a baseless concept. We both agree that people perceive it to exist but there is no physical (or other equally real plane, if you want to go down that road) groundwork for its appearance in the perception in human consciousness.
Laws are real; I never disputed that. Rights, on the other hand, are considered inherent factors of existence that all people have. To quote, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” This is entirely reliant on the assumption that these rights have a spritual foundation. If you'd want to argue that rights are government given or man-made, fine, but it doesn't help your case. They're just as real as laws, a human structure of societal ranking and treatment.
Words are real because we can write them. They have a very specific definition with all pieces defined based on a real, logical/physical concept. Morals, on the other hand, do not have a logical or physical basis in a naturalistic point of view. Yeah, we can agree that they exist, but there's no impact resulting from that.
To restate that, if a concept cannot be defined by breaking it down into its parts, and its parts into their own parts, if we cannot eventually break it down into a concrete definition with a logical or physical basis for all of those parts, then the concept is abstract and therefore totally meaningless because we can redefine it as we please. Here is an example: We know that calculus works because you can break it down into algebraic pieces that we know work. How do we know those work? It's because we have mathematical axioms, foundations of all of math that are combined in unique ways to perform mathematical formulas. Take 2^3, for instance. That can be broken down into 2*2*2, which can be broken down into (2+2) + (2+2), which can be broken down further into 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. Its a concrete concept. It's real. Now let's say, for instance, we have an imaginary math concept labeled 3@4. At some point 3@4 has 2x as one of its parts—x can be defined as anything by the performer of the formula. This means that 3@4 is abstract: it holds no real meaning. Even if we all agree "Oh, 3@4 is 92," there is no reason to actually believe that because it cannot be broken down into mathematical axioms. You get stuck where someone can make it whatever they want to and there's no way to disprove that. There isn't a logical or physical basis for 3@4 in the same way you won't find a logical or physical basis for morality in a naturalistic worldview.
I never claimed that you did—rather, I believed you didn't. By a naturalistic outlook, anarchy becomes the logically superior form of government (in terms of objective foundation) because it requires the fewest assumptions, compromises, agreements, subjective beliefs, forcing anyone to do anything (not that forcing people to abide by a set of rules can be considered "wrong"). Any governmental structure requires consensus among people about how things ought to be run, which is wrought with inconsistencies, disagreements, and a lack of basis for the ideas presented. For example, a democracy assumes "rule by the majority is the way society ought to be structured." There is no foundation for what society "ought" to be other than personal opinion. It's abstract. If the goal is to make society as "better" as possible, then it runs into the issue of "better" being the same as 3@4; it has no concrete definition. The most money? The most happiness? Why ought society be run this way? Even if it is the most money, why is this inherently better than a poor society? In all, it requires people to force their view of an ideal society upon the entirety of said society. If you have a concrete definition of an ideal society and what it ought to be that is unanimously agreed upon by 100% of individuals involved, then perhaps you have an equivalent system, because now the number of assumptions and other previously mentioned factors have been reduced to zero. But (other than the severe unlikelihood of vast quantities of people agreeing and continuing agree), it runs into the issue of the assumption that people will continue to abide by this set of rules, which introduces one more than anarchy. Anarchy requires zero assumptions, agreements, or any other factor that a structured society is in need of. Rather, it is totally based on an action/consequence style of social interaction. Can I go murder someone? Sure, but I'll probably also be killed. I'm not saying that society ought to be an anarchy or even that anarchy is a subjectively superior style of non-governance in a naturalistic outlook. What I am saying is that, judging by logical foundations, anarchy requires the fewest non-logically based assumptions, beliefs, agreements, etc. when compared to other systems of governance.
I agree that it affects our actions, but my point has always been that it has no logical foundation. There is nothing to base the concept of "morality" on, and therefore it is a baseless concept. We both agree that people perceive it to exist but there is no physical (or other equally real plane, if you want to go down that road) groundwork for its appearance in the perception in human consciousness.
Laws are real; I never disputed that. Rights, on the other hand, are considered inherent factors of existence that all people have. To quote, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness….” This is entirely reliant on the assumption that these rights have a spritual foundation. If you'd want to argue that rights are government given or man-made, fine, but it doesn't help your case. They're just as real as laws, a human structure of societal ranking and treatment.
Words are real because we can write them. They have a very specific definition with all pieces defined based on a real, logical/physical concept. Morals, on the other hand, do not have a logical or physical basis in a naturalistic point of view. Yeah, we can agree that they exist, but there's no impact resulting from that.
To restate that, if a concept cannot be defined by breaking it down into its parts, and its parts into their own parts, if we cannot eventually break it down into a concrete definition with a logical or physical basis for all of those parts, then the concept is abstract and therefore totally meaningless because we can redefine it as we please. Here is an example: We know that calculus works because you can break it down into algebraic pieces that we know work. How do we know those work? It's because we have mathematical axioms, foundations of all of math that are combined in unique ways to perform mathematical formulas. Take 2^3, for instance. That can be broken down into 2*2*2, which can be broken down into (2+2) + (2+2), which can be broken down further into 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1. Its a concrete concept. It's real. Now let's say, for instance, we have an imaginary math concept labeled 3@4. At some point 3@4 has 2x as one of its parts—x can be defined as anything by the performer of the formula. This means that 3@4 is abstract: it holds no real meaning. Even if we all agree "Oh, 3@4 is 92," there is no reason to actually believe that because it cannot be broken down into mathematical axioms. You get stuck where someone can make it whatever they want to and there's no way to disprove that. There isn't a logical or physical basis for 3@4 in the same way you won't find a logical or physical basis for morality in a naturalistic worldview.
I never claimed that you did—rather, I believed you didn't. By a naturalistic outlook, anarchy becomes the logically superior form of government (in terms of objective foundation) because it requires the fewest assumptions, compromises, agreements, subjective beliefs, forcing anyone to do anything (not that forcing people to abide by a set of rules can be considered "wrong"). Any governmental structure requires consensus among people about how things ought to be run, which is wrought with inconsistencies, disagreements, and a lack of basis for the ideas presented. For example, a democracy assumes "rule by the majority is the way society ought to be structured." There is no foundation for what society "ought" to be other than personal opinion. It's abstract. If the goal is to make society as "better" as possible, then it runs into the issue of "better" being the same as 3@4; it has no concrete definition. The most money? The most happiness? Why ought society be run this way? Even if it is the most money, why is this inherently better than a poor society? In all, it requires people to force their view of an ideal society upon the entirety of said society. If you have a concrete definition of an ideal society and what it ought to be that is unanimously agreed upon by 100% of individuals involved, then perhaps you have an equivalent system, because now the number of assumptions and other previously mentioned factors have been reduced to zero. But (other than the severe unlikelihood of vast quantities of people agreeing and continuing agree), it runs into the issue of the assumption that people will continue to abide by this set of rules, which introduces one more than anarchy. Anarchy requires zero assumptions, agreements, or any other factor that a structured society is in need of. Rather, it is totally based on an action/consequence style of social interaction. Can I go murder someone? Sure, but I'll probably also be killed. I'm not saying that society ought to be an anarchy or even that anarchy is a subjectively superior style of non-governance in a naturalistic outlook. What I am saying is that, judging by logical foundations, anarchy requires the fewest non-logically based assumptions, beliefs, agreements, etc. when compared to other systems of governance.
But that has no impact on the logical progression of anything because they are isolated, irrelevant, and have no bearing on the course the world around us takes.
This would be the exact part that I needed clarification for. Do you mean material as in having no direct physical effect on the world or none at all?
I didn't express myself correctly on the last question from my previous post. I knew you believed that I didn't believe on evil/good but I still couldn't see how anarchy was better on a logical sense.
As for having no governmental ruling organ being the best logical way things should work on a society of naturalists because it "requires the fewest possible non-logically based assumptions, beliefs, agreements, etc. when compared to other systems of governance."
In the parts that you covered you are right on having more freedom and being less restricted by the ruling organ but what is all that worth when everything is in chaos? You could be stabbed in the street just because the other person felt like stabbing someone that day. Your whole building could be bombed just because there were no laws to prevent for such a thing to be made. If you take everything into consideration besides the positives of having no government you come out at a loss.
From the start I was of the belief that morals and such did not physically exist. Just my way of expressing my argument could have led you to see it otherwise. We are on the same page there.
My argument on the initial subject was over when you said:
I can answer this rather succinctly. No human decides what is moral or amoral. If you want to go down the road of Christian theology, then the answer of "who goes to Hell?" Is "Anybody who does not ask God for forgiveness and do good as defined by him."
So basically no one really knows what is good or evil, they just follow a set of morals which they attained through their lives to make that judgement. All the other things I've mentioned were to clarify some other points that you made.
Words are real because we can write them.
I'd also like to argue otherwise. Words, writings, words, noises, they are just forms, sounds that we have attached a subjective value to. Take that subjective value and meaning away and these "Words, writings, words, noises" lose their value and become just that, scribbles and random noises. "Words" is just another name we have attached to something. So aren't they all abstract? Why should they be considered to "exist"?
@Bishop
Material as in anything with a physical or logical (or any other ical that I'm missing) basis. i.e concrete, not abstract, can be broken down into trivially provable facts.
Perhaps, but do we know that people won't self-govern well enough? Whether they will or not, the idea of anarchy isn't that it's superior because it leads to more happiness (not enough data to conclusively say), but rather that it is the most logical state to be in. Logic doesn't take human thoughts or feelings into account. So in the end, I'm not saying that a naturalistic point of view means that you should end up believing you'd be happier in anarchy, satisfied, or in any way better off. Instead, I'm saying that logically speaking, anarchy is the path to go down when taking pure facts and concrete truths into consideration—it's part of why the animal kingdom is in anarchy—it doesn't exactly have a system of feelings and ideas of what "ought" to be.
Christianity clearly outlines good and evil and how to live according to each. It also states that no matter how evil someone is, if they turn from it (and turn to God—that's important), they they're saved.
No, the meanings of words are more abstract than the words themselves. A word is just a series of characters separated by a delimiter such as a space. We also have very formal definitions for the meanings of some words, while others are very abstract—I would be inclined to agree with you for those words that are. However, that circles back to my original point that morality is one of those abstract words without a concrete meaning, so we can't have something that is truly "moral" in the naturalistic point of view without succumbing to abstraction.
Material as in anything with a physical or logical (or any other ical that I'm missing) basis. i.e concrete, not abstract, can be broken down into trivially provable facts.
Perhaps, but do we know that people won't self-govern well enough? Whether they will or not, the idea of anarchy isn't that it's superior because it leads to more happiness (not enough data to conclusively say), but rather that it is the most logical state to be in. Logic doesn't take human thoughts or feelings into account. So in the end, I'm not saying that a naturalistic point of view means that you should end up believing you'd be happier in anarchy, satisfied, or in any way better off. Instead, I'm saying that logically speaking, anarchy is the path to go down when taking pure facts and concrete truths into consideration—it's part of why the animal kingdom is in anarchy—it doesn't exactly have a system of feelings and ideas of what "ought" to be.
Christianity clearly outlines good and evil and how to live according to each. It also states that no matter how evil someone is, if they turn from it (and turn to God—that's important), they they're saved.
No, the meanings of words are more abstract than the words themselves. A word is just a series of characters separated by a delimiter such as a space. We also have very formal definitions for the meanings of some words, while others are very abstract—I would be inclined to agree with you for those words that are. However, that circles back to my original point that morality is one of those abstract words without a concrete meaning, so we can't have something that is truly "moral" in the naturalistic point of view without succumbing to abstraction.
whizzball1 Spirit
Member
Seen
4 yrs ago
today at being an intern
Today begins the Summer Discipleship Program. That means more high-schoolers will come to be discipled, and also to help us out, because we've got a lot of extra work to prepare for our park day for the youth.
Today begins the Summer Discipleship Program. That means more high-schoolers will come to be discipled, and also to help us out, because we've got a lot of extra work to prepare for our park day for the youth.
GM
DarkwolfX37 Absolute L User
Member
Seen
18 days ago
I still don't understand the "I want to die" mentality. Even if you are living in the streets begging for money, there are a lot who do that, and they still want to live. Logically its stupid. I mean damn, what hormone causes that desire to die?
There's a massive difference though. Being in a situation like homelessness triggers the survival instinct, which isn't the case in other situations. And there's a large difference between wanting to die and actually trying to die.
@Meta In my honest unqualified opinion, if you at least have 1 person left who cares for you, wanting to die is a selfish fcken thought and you really deserve hell for being that selfish.
Well, yeah, it's selfish. And depending on how you view hell as being, either nobody deserves it or everyone does. It's rarer for something to be in between than at those two extremes.
<Snipped quote by Bishop>
While I agree that it's selfish, I'm also willing to argue that Hell is something everybody deserves because humanity naturally inclined toward evil. It's inescapable.
Yeah but you also think that people are accountable for things that their ancestors did so your opinion doesn't really count here, since you'd think everyone deserves hell regardless.
1x Laugh
The World A Thoroughly Unlikable Person
Member
Seen
2 hrs ago
David you gotta be careful with picking new pictures for Baphumet. Masks are a critical plotpoint coming up that I've been planning to explain for a long time, so it's possible that you'll use one I'm planning to if you just pick random ones. Though that one is safe, no worries.
Webmaster Katherine
Member
Seen
16 hrs ago
David you gotta be careful with picking new pictures for Baphumet. Masks are a critical plotpoint coming up that I've been planning to explain for a long time, so it's possible that you'll use one I'm planning to if you just pick random ones. Though that one is safe, no worries.
Don't worry yourself over it; I know none of ours will conflict.
"Yeah but you also think that people are accountable for things that their ancestors did"
Except I don't.
30 Guests
viewing this page
of
3,709
© 2007-2024