|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
So it's evil to make your children eat their vegetables. It's evil to prevent a suicide. It's evil to vote for a different candidate than somebody else.
Evil = when your actions affect someone else and the person affected deems those actions to be unwanted. Stile writes:
What if the victim isn't innocent? Is it okay to rape a murderer?
Because it involves hurting an innocent victim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Sure it does. It's a collective evil. How does that absolve the individuals of complicity in the evil?
Me voting for someone you don't like isn't an action (in and of itself) that affects you. Stile writes:
So there's "evil but justifiable"? Can we say then that God is evil but He is justified in the evil He does? This question no longer deal with the evil/good judgment of the action. It's now asking if the rapist is justified to do the action anyway. Is there a corresponding "good but unjustifiable"?
Stile writes:
That statement seems to be treading pretty close to absolute morality. Separating good and evil from justifiable seems to be treading pretty close to absolute morality. If good and evil are truly in the eye of the beholder, then the topic is meaningless.
The action itself is still evil. You just decided to do it for whatever reasons you decided on. Others are still free to accept your justification for doing the evil act or reject it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Of course it does. Don't be silly. Even if it's indirect, it affects you.
The voting doesn't affect you (unless you're a candidate). Stile writes:
Neither does firing a shotgun on a crowded bus.
Voting in-and-of-itself doesn't affect other people. Stile writes:
But we can't assume that everything else is equal. Some of the people may have dependents. Some may be rapists on their way to discovering a cure for cancer.
Assuming everything else is equal... killing 2 people is better than killing 3 people. Stile writes:
Now you're getting onto slippery semantic ground. You're lucky I don't use argumentum ad dictionarium. Next you'll be saying that something can be higher without having height.
"Better" doesn't make killing 2 people "good." Stile writes:
Absolutely?
Killing 2 people is still "evil." Stile writes:
Killing six million people "can be justified" as the lesser of two evils. Words seem to be losing all meaning in your argument.
But choosing to kill 2 people instead of 3 can be justified by choosing "the lesser of two evils."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
I can see that you're confused. You seem to understand that morality is subjective and relative, yet you also seem to think that rape is somehow absolutely bad and that allowing rape to occur is evil.
Again... your tone seems to imply that you're arguing against me, but everything you say is actually agreeing with me 100%.I find this incredibly confusing. Stile writes:
Huh? It's society that decides what's good or bad.
If good/bad are to have honest meanings.. they must be decided on by the person affected by the action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
But you still seem to think that rape is absolutely bad in that context.
I do not think rape is absolutely bad. That's why I keep saying that rape is only bad when the victim doesn't want to be raped. Stile writes:
No we don't. I'm saying that the good or bad of an action has little or nothing to do with the opinion of the person it's done to. Good or bad is decided collectively, not just by insiders. A rape victim may or may not agree with society's opinion of rape. A rapist may or may not agree with society's opinion of rape and how rapists are treated by society.
And society is made up of people affected by actions... which is who I'm saying decides what's good or bad. We seem to agree on this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
So you're refining to the point where the word "absolute" is meaningless: It's absolute if it's absolute.
Just like everything is absolute if you refine it's context and stay within that context. Stile writes:
No. Individual cases will still differ.
So, is rape absolutely bad within the context of a society that has decided rape is bad? Stile writes:
You seem to be suggesting a system in which everybody defines his own absolute morality from his own viewpoint. If everybody is equally corrupt, how does that remove corruption?
I'm saying my way of looking at it removes this ability for corruption to exist. Stile writes:
I might agree that flying pigs would be a good thing (although it would increase the price of bacon) but that doesn't make it possible.
And, if you agree that removing corruption from a system of morality is a good thing...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Not at all. It just means that rape isn't absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
If a society decides what's good or bad, but individual cases still differ.. then society isn't deciding what's good and bad, something else is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
And I say that rape is only bad when society says it's bad. The victim's opinion doesn't really enter into it. The victim is, after all, partial.
That's why I keep saying that rape is only bad when the victim doesn't want to be raped.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Stile writes:
Then he gets to lobby society to come around to his point of view. It happens all the time - take abortion as an example. What happens when society deems something good, but an individual deems it bad? Now your turn: What happens when society deems something bad, but an individual deems it good? Take Charles Manson as an example.
Stile writes:
Well, it does continue, so what's your point?
With your system, it can simply continue? Stile writes:
Of course. How do you think slavery changed from "good" to "bad"? Because the slaves thought it was bad?
Until what, enough individuals agree that it's bad so that they change the opinion of society?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
You ignored my example. Charles Manson didn't leave society.
ringo writes:
That's easy. They can leave society. Why wouldn't you leave people who didn't agree with things you wanted? What happens when society deems something bad, but an individual deems it good? Take Charles Manson as an example. Stile writes:
So let's be clear: The society-based system is reality while your individual-based system is pie in the sky.
My individual-based system has no downside compared to the society-based system. Stile writes:
Why wouldn't we switch from fossil-fuel-based transportation systems to flying unicorns?
Why wouldn't we switch to it? Stile writes:
As I said, it was a group of individuals that decided that slavery was bad. That group became bigger until it became society; then society decided that slavery was bad. I repeat, it was not the victims of slavery thinking it was bad that made the difference.
How can you have a group of individuals deciding that society is bad if society decides what's good/bad?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
Society is the group that sets the standards, makes the laws, etc. Consensus is what makes a society. It wasn't until there was a consensus against slavery that slavery could be abolished.
There is no "then society decided that slavery was bad." It's all just people. Unless, of course, you can introduce me to this "society" you keep speaking about as if it's some sort of single entity? Stile writes:
When people see ice cream and their taste buds inform them that ice cream is good, it isn't the ice cream that's making the decision.
... where do you think they got the idea from in the first place?They saw the slaves themselves who were not happy and their sense of empathy informed them that slavery was bad. Stile writes:
So, if the victims of drug addiction don't think drug addiction is bad, there will never be anybody to campaign against drug addiction?
Without the victims of slavery thinking slavery was bad... there would never have been any group anywhere that thought it was a bad idea, let alone a group that grew enough to take over society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It really is, though. When somebody sees a slave he may think that he wouldn't want to be a slave; he might even want to help relieve the slave's suffering. But it isn't until other people have the same thoughts and feelings that he thinks of dealing with the overall problem instead of the individual symptoms. It's not that some "society" makes up laws and standards and a consensus that then trickles down to the individuals in the population who then accept it. Group problems need group solutions. One individual can free one slave but only society can end slavery.
Stile writes:
It's not being decided by the ice cream. The ice cream is only influencing the decision. ...it's all decided by the person being affected by the action (ice-cream). Edited by ringo, : spelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
I thought you said it started with the victims, which is nonsense. As I have said, the victims have nothing to do with it. It's only the observers' perception of the problem that leads to a solution.
Which is what I'm saying... a bunch of individuals get together to affect all of society... it all starts with the individuals.Where do you say it starts?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
It's the observer that has the empathy. It's the observer that acts on his empathy to solve a perceived problem. What does an observer have to do with anything if there's nothing to observe in the first place? A perceived problem. Only the observer's perception is relevant. There doesn't have to be an actual problem. Hence, the problem itself is irrelevant. There are all kinds of perceived problems with perceived victims and all kinds of busybodies trying to solve problems for "victims" who don't perceive the problem.
Stile writes:
And my main point is that that system is no good because the "victim" has a vested interest. We have people claiming to be victims and we have observers thinking people are victims when the "victims" don't think they are. A better system than yours is detached objective observation in which the victim's viewpoint may be taken into account but isn't given any special weight.
My main point is that "the best system I've heard of" so far for deciding if the action was good/bad is that during the observer's judgment call... the best thing to do is to listen to what the victim has to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Stile writes:
No. The people who opposed slavery were not the ones who observed it directly - i.e. the Southerners. They were people who heard about it from a guy who heard about it from a guy. In that case, hearsay was more objective. The Southerners subjectively put the thought that they wouldn't want to be slaves behind the thought that they didn't want to pick their own cotton.
Aren't you talking about the "objective observation" that a person doesn't want to be a slave? Stile writes:
I'm a victim of the gas company; they make me pay for heat even though I need it to survive. So why shouldn't I decide if the gas company should be punished? Because that would be Bizarro World.
Why shouldn't the victim decide if they want something done to them or not? Stile writes:
Objectivity is a group endeavour.
Seriously. What is the objective reason that makes buying a coffee for my friend a good thing that doesn't rely on my friend's feelings about receiving the coffee?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024