QUOTE (Good Elf+)
The example of Bushido, penal transportation, societies without the death penalty etc. For instance my country does not use the death penalty, so it does not have the "warm cultural significance" it seems to hold for some others... and our crime rate is still relatively low by international standards.
The crime rate is a tricky thing. It is dependent on a lot of factors and type of punishment is only one of them. In societies which are "softer", the punishment is "softer". The crime rate is less because the people are softer, it has little to do with type of punishment.
In my view the following factors lead to such a society -
1) Abundance of natural resources.
2) Very low population density
3) Moderate Climate
4) Neighbouring states also having enough natural resources.
The crime rate is a tricky thing. It is dependent on a lot of factors and type of punishment is only one of them. In societies which are "softer", the punishment is "softer". The crime rate is less because the people are softer, it has little to do with type of punishment.
In my view the following factors lead to such a society -
1) Abundance of natural resources.
2) Very low population density
3) Moderate Climate
4) Neighbouring states also having enough natural resources.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
You have not indicated what you are proposing for those who are sentenced in error and is it just you that do not care about the consequences?
The following sentence may seem outrageous to some people, but one were to give enough thought is quite logical - Sentencing in error is an accident which is no different from a road accident. Both should be reduced by all means possible.
All of us would agree that it is unnecessary to close roads or ban automobiles because accidents happen. It is equally logical to say that it is unnecessary to ban capital punishment because accidents happen.
I am no expert on the justice system, but Iam sure that errors can be reduced by the use of logical methods. I would assume a peer review system such as those used by doctors may be employed among judges. A second opinion (like testing of a second sample in a experiment) may reduce errors.
The following sentence may seem outrageous to some people, but one were to give enough thought is quite logical - Sentencing in error is an accident which is no different from a road accident. Both should be reduced by all means possible.
All of us would agree that it is unnecessary to close roads or ban automobiles because accidents happen. It is equally logical to say that it is unnecessary to ban capital punishment because accidents happen.
I am no expert on the justice system, but Iam sure that errors can be reduced by the use of logical methods. I would assume a peer review system such as those used by doctors may be employed among judges. A second opinion (like testing of a second sample in a experiment) may reduce errors.
Hi Knot of this world,
QUOTE (Knot of this world Posted on Today at 7:27 PM+)
Sorry Good Elf, I know you mean well, but these are important things that need to be known, and not belittled for any reason. Your 'founding fathers' also are dead, but their constitution (just words) is still very much in use, and being abused by its own enforcers.
You have a 'good' reputation here, and that gives you a certain amount of power.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - I think that applies to us all. And now we can see that this thing we call 'evil' is being generated everywhere, as long as we are unconscious of it...
You have a 'good' reputation here, and that gives you a certain amount of power.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" - I think that applies to us all. And now we can see that this thing we call 'evil' is being generated everywhere, as long as we are unconscious of it...
We can all know these things and I hope none of us are that separate from the events around us that we cease caring. If I am "going to Hell" I hope it is with like minded individuals and I will not be unhappy because I will be among friends, the "ambiance" compared with the company is secondary. I can easily endure a Hell with good friends rather than suffer an endless Heaven with my adversaries. 
Nobody is a greater fan of Einstein than myself and he certainly did have a great deal to say, I have used his quotes many time too, for what it is worth I probably have about 40 books about him and at one time I "collected" them avidly.
Sure... the "Founding Fathers" have passed on and so many people died in so many wars to keep the USA free... and still do. I respect that and I realize it has great symbolism. That symbolism is not enough and I think everyone realizes this. What I sometimes lament is each new generation brings with it its own values and the people that listened to the reasons behind the things are held "sacred' are reinterpreting these values for a newer richer and more personally centered generation. The destruction of a couple of buildings ... as grand as they are and as tragic the loss... has swept a lot of that sacrifice away and replaced it with an irrational fear and anger as you have correctly commented above. I really wonder if a war actually truly came to US shores what may happen instead of just 19 evil minded terrorists. How do you declare war on "Terror"? Hurricane Katrina also swept away a lot of hope in the "Land of the Free" and the words of Einstein cannot help them either. I only wish it could. There is no Dr. Martin Luther King there to help them either as the new Hurricane season begins.
All I am saying is if we all knew beforehand the results of this carnage and terror would it all still be worth it? My view is I hope not. The state of the US and also the state of much of the rest of the world is a consequence of the actions of the events that went before. If none of this was foreseeable then there are no people to blame, but there is a pattern behind this that suggest that we all could be doing a lot better than to rely on faulty decisions made by those in authority. You say there is evil but it is not enough to quote from another you just got to give evil a name so that others will take some notice.
As to power... you must be really joking. I treat people the way they treat me on this forum. Usually it is very good here and everyone is understanding of the problems associated with all this hubris. Whatever I have written I believe every word of it. Not just this "philosophy"... I never hold back anything. That is the only "power" I hold and I hold it only as long as I give it all away. I just answer peoples questions when I can and sometimes I might stretch too far. You can't blame me for trying. My specialty is in physics and some earth sciences but I have seen things that make me realize there is much more to this life as well.
What you may also realize I am not an American citizen, I live in Australia. You have always been able to see that in the information on my page and if you follow any of my threads you would not find it too hard to find me either. I realize you are interested in "religious" themes. I am very happy to discuss these points anywhere but you probably already realize I am a bit of a "pantheist". I speak of the "God of Spinoza" which is the "God" that Einstein really was referring to and it is one and the same as the "God" that "Founding Father" Thomas Jefferson paid heed to. It is not a personal "god".
The reference to "Einstein's death" is not one that is "disparaging"... death is simply inevitable and to understand that point is important to say "well done good and faithful servant". His role as moral guardian of the World ... never was ... he was a man and imperfect like us all. In life he was not able to change the world and His role was not on a pedestal or on an altar but simply as that of the observer and fellow traveler, a very influential fellow traveler.
I have often though of Einstein and wondered what he might say under various circumstances but it is not possible to capture that presence any more and it must be replaced with new more timely comments specifically suited for our altered conditions.
I see the same only more so when I sometimes try and grasp the essence of Jesus. Once again only a man and not a "god". I am afraid you will not see me bleeding spontaneously from the palms of my hands or torturing myself with trying to imagine his "godlike" suffering. His example is that of a man to another man (or woman) and his "death" is to be lamented no matter when it was supposed to have occurred. He also is "not around" but seems to make "appearances" like Elvis from time to time. I don't know if I should laugh or cry... That is just how difficult it is to me.
The suffering and death carried on in his name is something we cannot have two minds about that is why it is important to speak freshly about the things we really hold as very "sacred", not as "symbolic" but as tangible philosophy that is not read from a page of paper. That is the only reason why we should bother since we all have a duty to comment on our world and point out where it may be possible to really improve it rather than waiting for the end times as some seem to do. I guess it is the background I spring from that makes me and a lot of others here in Australia mistrust "authority". If you are wondering about America then you are not alone there. I also wonder about my own country and fear that it has lost its way too but we should not go looking for the answer in a book.
Cheers
Nobody is a greater fan of Einstein than myself and he certainly did have a great deal to say, I have used his quotes many time too, for what it is worth I probably have about 40 books about him and at one time I "collected" them avidly.
Sure... the "Founding Fathers" have passed on and so many people died in so many wars to keep the USA free... and still do. I respect that and I realize it has great symbolism. That symbolism is not enough and I think everyone realizes this. What I sometimes lament is each new generation brings with it its own values and the people that listened to the reasons behind the things are held "sacred' are reinterpreting these values for a newer richer and more personally centered generation. The destruction of a couple of buildings ... as grand as they are and as tragic the loss... has swept a lot of that sacrifice away and replaced it with an irrational fear and anger as you have correctly commented above. I really wonder if a war actually truly came to US shores what may happen instead of just 19 evil minded terrorists. How do you declare war on "Terror"? Hurricane Katrina also swept away a lot of hope in the "Land of the Free" and the words of Einstein cannot help them either. I only wish it could. There is no Dr. Martin Luther King there to help them either as the new Hurricane season begins.
All I am saying is if we all knew beforehand the results of this carnage and terror would it all still be worth it? My view is I hope not. The state of the US and also the state of much of the rest of the world is a consequence of the actions of the events that went before. If none of this was foreseeable then there are no people to blame, but there is a pattern behind this that suggest that we all could be doing a lot better than to rely on faulty decisions made by those in authority. You say there is evil but it is not enough to quote from another you just got to give evil a name so that others will take some notice.
As to power... you must be really joking. I treat people the way they treat me on this forum. Usually it is very good here and everyone is understanding of the problems associated with all this hubris. Whatever I have written I believe every word of it. Not just this "philosophy"... I never hold back anything. That is the only "power" I hold and I hold it only as long as I give it all away. I just answer peoples questions when I can and sometimes I might stretch too far. You can't blame me for trying. My specialty is in physics and some earth sciences but I have seen things that make me realize there is much more to this life as well.
What you may also realize I am not an American citizen, I live in Australia. You have always been able to see that in the information on my page and if you follow any of my threads you would not find it too hard to find me either. I realize you are interested in "religious" themes. I am very happy to discuss these points anywhere but you probably already realize I am a bit of a "pantheist". I speak of the "God of Spinoza" which is the "God" that Einstein really was referring to and it is one and the same as the "God" that "Founding Father" Thomas Jefferson paid heed to. It is not a personal "god".
The reference to "Einstein's death" is not one that is "disparaging"... death is simply inevitable and to understand that point is important to say "well done good and faithful servant". His role as moral guardian of the World ... never was ... he was a man and imperfect like us all. In life he was not able to change the world and His role was not on a pedestal or on an altar but simply as that of the observer and fellow traveler, a very influential fellow traveler.
I have often though of Einstein and wondered what he might say under various circumstances but it is not possible to capture that presence any more and it must be replaced with new more timely comments specifically suited for our altered conditions.I see the same only more so when I sometimes try and grasp the essence of Jesus. Once again only a man and not a "god". I am afraid you will not see me bleeding spontaneously from the palms of my hands or torturing myself with trying to imagine his "godlike" suffering. His example is that of a man to another man (or woman) and his "death" is to be lamented no matter when it was supposed to have occurred. He also is "not around" but seems to make "appearances" like Elvis from time to time. I don't know if I should laugh or cry... That is just how difficult it is to me.
The suffering and death carried on in his name is something we cannot have two minds about that is why it is important to speak freshly about the things we really hold as very "sacred", not as "symbolic" but as tangible philosophy that is not read from a page of paper. That is the only reason why we should bother since we all have a duty to comment on our world and point out where it may be possible to really improve it rather than waiting for the end times as some seem to do. I guess it is the background I spring from that makes me and a lot of others here in Australia mistrust "authority". If you are wondering about America then you are not alone there. I also wonder about my own country and fear that it has lost its way too but we should not go looking for the answer in a book.
Cheers
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 25 2006, 09:39 AM)
That definition of Evil will not be acceptable to Buddhists, vegetarians and many animal right activists. For these people killing an animal is Evil, it does not matter if it is used or not.
Are they more logical than I am?
Are they more logical than I am?
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 25 2006, 09:57 AM)
Here is Scenario 8. I say I am logical and you say you are logical. Now tell me how do we determine which one of us is right?
QUOTE (#8+)
8) Robber is hungry from several days and has no option but to enter store and rob money. Police shoot robber to death.
QUOTE (Myself+)
What the robber did was evil; what the police did was evil. What you are saying is it's okay to harm others to help yourself. I see no way where that is okay. If it's okay to rob a store to fill your stomach, why stop there? Why not kill someone for their house because you have nowhere to sleep?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
I am not saying it is ok to harm others to help yourself. But if someone's very survival is at stake, and they do something "wrong" without any other option, I don't think it is Evil.
What you are saying is that it's not evil to harm others over yourself. How is that logical?
What you are saying is that it's not evil to harm others over yourself. How is that logical?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
That definition of Evil will not be acceptable to Buddhists, vegetarians and many animal right activists. For these people killing an animal is Evil, it does not matter if it is used or not.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Are they more logical than I am?
There is no correct or incorrect answers here. You think you are more logical. The Buddhists think they are more logical.
This is the whole point.
There is no correct or incorrect answers here. You think you are more logical. The Buddhists think they are more logical.
This is the whole point.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
8) Robber is hungry from several days and has no option but to enter store and rob money. Police shoot robber to death.
I am not saying it is OK to harm others to help yourself. But if someone's very survival is at stake, and they do something "wrong" without any other option, I don't think it is Evil.
I am not saying it is OK to harm others to help yourself. But if someone's very survival is at stake, and they do something "wrong" without any other option, I don't think it is Evil.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
What you are saying is that it's not evil to harm others over yourself. How is that logical?
This man's very survival is at stake. Put yourself in his position and you will see that you don't have any other options remaining to survive. In this circumstance, what he did cannot be called Evil.
Its not logical to you. But it is logical to me. This is the whole point...again.
The definition of Evil is relative to you, the Buddhists and to me. If you still don't get it, I give up.
This man's very survival is at stake. Put yourself in his position and you will see that you don't have any other options remaining to survive. In this circumstance, what he did cannot be called Evil.
Its not logical to you. But it is logical to me. This is the whole point...again.
The definition of Evil is relative to you, the Buddhists and to me. If you still don't get it, I give up.
QUOTE (Upisoft+Aug 25 2006, 10:08 AM)
You see, you need fore-knowledge to start your logic here. You need to know that one of the guys is suicidal.
Could you make the same conclusions if the first statement was: "I run into two guys"? No, you couldn't. Your knowledge defines your logic. That's what all around try to say. Logic is relative too. It depends on knowledge one has.
I think I run into a bum and a suicidal guy. I shoot them both. If I had the mental to capacity realize good and evil I'd think since I helped one and harmed the other then I did good to one and evil to the other. The truth of the matter, though, is that niether one wanted to die. Thus, even though I think I did good for one and evil for the other, in reality I just did evil.
Could you make the same conclusions if the first statement was: "I run into two guys"? No, you couldn't. Your knowledge defines your logic. That's what all around try to say. Logic is relative too. It depends on knowledge one has.
I think I run into a bum and a suicidal guy. I shoot them both. If I had the mental to capacity realize good and evil I'd think since I helped one and harmed the other then I did good to one and evil to the other. The truth of the matter, though, is that niether one wanted to die. Thus, even though I think I did good for one and evil for the other, in reality I just did evil.
Hi Goodelf,
Not sure where you got the idea I am 'religious', but just to point out that I wasn't trying to point any 'blame'. The opposite, in fact.
You quite rightly point out that even the 'greats' are just people. I agree. In fact, that was the point of the post.
Influence happens all around us, all the time, as I'm sure you know...
The "road to hell.." statement was simply to point out the dangers of unconscious influence, from anyone (all of us). I do not exclude myself from this. That was all..
k.
Not sure where you got the idea I am 'religious', but just to point out that I wasn't trying to point any 'blame'. The opposite, in fact.
You quite rightly point out that even the 'greats' are just people. I agree. In fact, that was the point of the post.
Influence happens all around us, all the time, as I'm sure you know...
The "road to hell.." statement was simply to point out the dangers of unconscious influence, from anyone (all of us). I do not exclude myself from this. That was all..
k.
QUOTE (calnpals+Aug 25 2006, 10:55 AM)
In doing this act, you will have sent a message to the world that no matter how innocent you are, your life will be readily taken away from you if it could benefit some someone else's.
Someone else? I thought you said one person to save a million. Note that that has been done many times before. Note that embrionic stem cell research is in that form, maybe not in America, but in other parts of the world. Why having these things which you have predicted occured?
Someone else? I thought you said one person to save a million. Note that that has been done many times before. Note that embrionic stem cell research is in that form, maybe not in America, but in other parts of the world. Why having these things which you have predicted occured?
QUOTE (same+)
This will create a world without trust, people wouldn't trust their police officers who might decide would let someone murder you instead of taking the risk of having them both killed.
Did you know murder is unlawful homicide? So then it would be one person lawfully killed by another to keep them both dying. One question arises: why would they both die? From a fight between the two? Standerd proceedure is to break them up. That is a third choice. In the scenario given to me it was one way or the other, remember? That means there is no way out of it, right? which means I have to let one die or let millions. There is no way out of it. To suggest I mean kill one to save the other or to break up a fight is misleading.
Did you know murder is unlawful homicide? So then it would be one person lawfully killed by another to keep them both dying. One question arises: why would they both die? From a fight between the two? Standerd proceedure is to break them up. That is a third choice. In the scenario given to me it was one way or the other, remember? That means there is no way out of it, right? which means I have to let one die or let millions. There is no way out of it. To suggest I mean kill one to save the other or to break up a fight is misleading.
QUOTE (same+)
No one would trust firemen who would rather let you burn alive in a building instead of risking both their lives.
This two does not comply with the example given to me. For one thing, it's the fireman's JOB to risk his or her life for a person stuck in a fire. Not doing so would be rejecting his or her responsibility as a fireman.
This two does not comply with the example given to me. For one thing, it's the fireman's JOB to risk his or her life for a person stuck in a fire. Not doing so would be rejecting his or her responsibility as a fireman.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
No one would be able to trust anyone anymore. No one would go to the hospital, for the fear that they will be killed and there heart and liver be harvested to save two other people's lives.
Two or millions? I thought it was kill one to save millions.
Two or millions? I thought it was kill one to save millions.
QUOTE (same+)
With this loss of trust in the world no one could trust their government, neighbour or family. Thus no one would be able to work with each other, sell anything to eachother, nor believe each other. Society itself would break down. Mankind would regress back to chaos and mayhem.
It hasn't yet.
It hasn't yet.
QUOTE (same+)
Congradulations, through your infallible "logic", you've broken down the fabric of everything humans have worked for for the past 20,000 years.
According to YOUR logic we all can decide for ourselves what's good and what's evil and need not any laws prohibiting what we may find good. According to you every law in the world should be thrown out because that's enforcing someone else's point of view. If you got YOUR way a man could decide to rape his OWN daughter for punishment because some have because THEY thought it was good to do. Men can beat their wives whenever they express freewill. Muslims already do. Mothers can drown their children to save them from Santan because if you are a Christian you believe that most people go to hell and you'd believe most your children would go to hell if they die adults. You would be doing GOOD by doing what YOU think is good. The U.S. could wipe out all muslims and be rid of this terrorism because they may find it good. Any government could give you a time limit of how long you can be a bum because you make the city look trashy. After the time limit you and all like you would be killed. It's good because the government thinks it's good. A pregnant teenager wants a morning-after-pill but the pharmacist won't give it to her because he thinks it's evil. The child lives on only to die of malnourishment and desease. But the pharmacist did good because he believes he did good. So, basically what you are saying is you can do whatever you want and it's good as long as you think it is.
According to YOUR logic we all can decide for ourselves what's good and what's evil and need not any laws prohibiting what we may find good. According to you every law in the world should be thrown out because that's enforcing someone else's point of view. If you got YOUR way a man could decide to rape his OWN daughter for punishment because some have because THEY thought it was good to do. Men can beat their wives whenever they express freewill. Muslims already do. Mothers can drown their children to save them from Santan because if you are a Christian you believe that most people go to hell and you'd believe most your children would go to hell if they die adults. You would be doing GOOD by doing what YOU think is good. The U.S. could wipe out all muslims and be rid of this terrorism because they may find it good. Any government could give you a time limit of how long you can be a bum because you make the city look trashy. After the time limit you and all like you would be killed. It's good because the government thinks it's good. A pregnant teenager wants a morning-after-pill but the pharmacist won't give it to her because he thinks it's evil. The child lives on only to die of malnourishment and desease. But the pharmacist did good because he believes he did good. So, basically what you are saying is you can do whatever you want and it's good as long as you think it is.
QUOTE (calnpals+Aug 25 2006, 01:31 PM)
The point I was making is that if Joshua was to see this act as an "absolute good", then that would mean that EVERY act that saves more life than it kills would be good. So if EVERYONE acted that way without question, because it was an "absolute good", THEN there would be no trust in society, because no one would want to be that person that gets sacrificed.
This is logically good, though. Fewer die.
Let die many so you won't kill few—distrust lives on. Embryonic stem cells is just that. No one trusts the government because it would rather let many die to save few.
This is logically good, though. Fewer die.
QUOTE
This whole question was a ploy to prove to all those that believe that "good" and "evil" are absolutes to realize what their "absolute good" would have caused.
Let die many so you won't kill few—distrust lives on. Embryonic stem cells is just that. No one trusts the government because it would rather let many die to save few.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 28 2006, 12:44 PM)
There is no correct or incorrect answers here. You think you are more logical. The Buddhists think they are more logical.
Logic is absolute. Give me their logic. I don't know what it is, unless it's based on the whole "animals have emotions and thoughts". There is no evidence to show that any animal we eat has either. And we've been living with them for thousands of years. Thus, I cannot conclude that eating them (when every carnivore does) is evil.
Buddism is a religion. Logically, sex before marriage is not evil. Logically, doing what comes naturally is not evil. Logically, eating meat is not evil.
Logic is absolute. Give me their logic. I don't know what it is, unless it's based on the whole "animals have emotions and thoughts". There is no evidence to show that any animal we eat has either. And we've been living with them for thousands of years. Thus, I cannot conclude that eating them (when every carnivore does) is evil.
Buddism is a religion. Logically, sex before marriage is not evil. Logically, doing what comes naturally is not evil. Logically, eating meat is not evil.
QUOTE (same+)
This man's very survival is at stake. Put yourself in his position and you will see that you don't have any other options remaining to survive. In this circumstance, what he did cannot be called Evil.
Bottom line: the man took what was not his. I stand with what is good. I'd rather die.
Bottom line: the man took what was not his. I stand with what is good. I'd rather die.
QUOTE (same+)
But it is logical to me. This is the whole point...again.
How is it logical to you? Put more detail in your pointers. Tell me step by step. Because, logically, he is taking what is not his and as a result the other has less. It's that way if his survival's at stake or not. What you're saying is under certain circumstances it's okay to steal. It's not. It's never okay to take what is not yours.
How is it logical to you? Put more detail in your pointers. Tell me step by step. Because, logically, he is taking what is not his and as a result the other has less. It's that way if his survival's at stake or not. What you're saying is under certain circumstances it's okay to steal. It's not. It's never okay to take what is not yours.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
I don't know what it is, unless it's based on the whole "animals have emotions and thoughts". There is no evidence to show that any animal we eat has either.
The mere fact that animals feel pain is enough to conclude that killing animals is Evil. Does your Dog wag its tail when it sees you? Does it starve when you are not around? I once had a dog which did these things. It clearly proves to me that animals have emotions.
The mere fact that animals feel pain is enough to conclude that killing animals is Evil. Does your Dog wag its tail when it sees you? Does it starve when you are not around? I once had a dog which did these things. It clearly proves to me that animals have emotions.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Logically, sex before marriage is not evil. Logically, doing what comes naturally is not evil. Logically, eating meat is not evil.
To a psychopath, killing is natural. So is it not evil?
These are logical only to you. There is no logic in your choice, it is just your preferences based on your own reasoning.
To a psychopath, killing is natural. So is it not evil?
These are logical only to you. There is no logic in your choice, it is just your preferences based on your own reasoning.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
What you're saying is under certain circumstances it's okay to steal. It's not. It's never okay to take what is not yours.
So its never okay to take what is not yours??? What if I hold a gun to your head and make you steal? What if I hold a gun to the head of someone dear to you and make you steal?
Now, is your stealing Evil?
We could argue over this forever and never reach any conclusion, because there are no absolute answers. They are all individual preferences. You are calling your preference as logic.
So its never okay to take what is not yours??? What if I hold a gun to your head and make you steal? What if I hold a gun to the head of someone dear to you and make you steal?
Now, is your stealing Evil?
We could argue over this forever and never reach any conclusion, because there are no absolute answers. They are all individual preferences. You are calling your preference as logic.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 28 2006, 09:54 PM)
Logic is absolute.
Nope. Logic is man made. Hence, it's relative. Like geometry. Geometry also is not absolute. Both have set of "truths" called axioms. The result depends on axioms, hence logic and geometry are axiom dependent(relative). There are different geometries: Euclidean, elliptic, hyperbolic, etc. They have different rules and, for example, Pythagorean theorem is valid only in Euclidean geometry. The same is true for logic. To have the ability to make conclusions, one must have set of basic "truths" i.e. axioms. You may base then your logic on them. However, those axioms are not necessary true. Other guy could have different set of axioms and may think that you're totally wrong with yours.
You can't prove axioms. You may only accept them or not. I don't accept yours that Absolute Evil exists, because you think that Absolute Truth must also exist in this case(here I agree), but later can't exist as I already proved. Hence, Absolute Evil also does not exist. The same story is valid for your "Absolute Logic".
Nope. Logic is man made. Hence, it's relative. Like geometry. Geometry also is not absolute. Both have set of "truths" called axioms. The result depends on axioms, hence logic and geometry are axiom dependent(relative). There are different geometries: Euclidean, elliptic, hyperbolic, etc. They have different rules and, for example, Pythagorean theorem is valid only in Euclidean geometry. The same is true for logic. To have the ability to make conclusions, one must have set of basic "truths" i.e. axioms. You may base then your logic on them. However, those axioms are not necessary true. Other guy could have different set of axioms and may think that you're totally wrong with yours.
You can't prove axioms. You may only accept them or not. I don't accept yours that Absolute Evil exists, because you think that Absolute Truth must also exist in this case(here I agree), but later can't exist as I already proved. Hence, Absolute Evil also does not exist. The same story is valid for your "Absolute Logic".
Hi All,
It seems to me none of you seem to be able to tell when something is truly "evil" and then rate relative "evils" so that you choose the lesser of two evils. This is because you all want to discard your logic and "get your way" based on a private interpretation of what you would wish to be true. All your discussions seem to want some absolute level of evil associated with your individual, not so logical, social preferences. I see Upisoft's argument about all human logic being "relative" is flawed because Upisoft has not acknowledged that there are "experiments" where you can "rate your logic" against the unknown absolute Laws of the Universe and see which version is better. That is which version is the better solution... the Scientific Method. When people deny that there are standards of moral behavior that transcend all society and there are private "evils" in society that we all accept with our mothers milk and want to do to others without punishment. The truth is we sometimes do not like others living in our neighborhood who do not reflect our cultural values and we get angry and even plot evil against them.
Blake was a mystic.. but you all know someone like this and it is not far from all of us.
The version of logic (these could be humanly based theoretical Laws of Physics) though entirely human in origin, can be tested against the base unknown standard... the Universe itself. This does not rate things which are "intangible" but that is fine if we all agree that we measure those things which are indeed measurable but accept that some of our illogical preferences are not based in logic but in cultural values which could mean anything at all. One cultural value is as stated here is you kill people when you want something and there is an apparent cultural value that says this is sometimes OK. You want this apparent "value" culturally protected forever outside of human logic. Believe me you know and everyone who reads this knows you can sanction any evil with this "personal darkness".
Blake was a mystic.. but you all know someone like this and it is not far from all of us.
The version of logic (these could be humanly based theoretical Laws of Physics) though entirely human in origin, can be tested against the base unknown standard... the Universe itself. This does not rate things which are "intangible" but that is fine if we all agree that we measure those things which are indeed measurable but accept that some of our illogical preferences are not based in logic but in cultural values which could mean anything at all. One cultural value is as stated here is you kill people when you want something and there is an apparent cultural value that says this is sometimes OK. You want this apparent "value" culturally protected forever outside of human logic. Believe me you know and everyone who reads this knows you can sanction any evil with this "personal darkness".
To a psychopath, killing is natural. So is it not evil?
It seems to me none of you seem to be able to tell when something is truly "evil" and then rate relative "evils" so that you choose the lesser of two evils. This is because you all want to discard your logic and "get your way" based on a private interpretation of what you would wish to be true. All your discussions seem to want some absolute level of evil associated with your individual, not so logical, social preferences. I see Upisoft's argument about all human logic being "relative" is flawed because Upisoft has not acknowledged that there are "experiments" where you can "rate your logic" against the unknown absolute Laws of the Universe and see which version is better. That is which version is the better solution... the Scientific Method. When people deny that there are standards of moral behavior that transcend all society and there are private "evils" in society that we all accept with our mothers milk and want to do to others without punishment. The truth is we sometimes do not like others living in our neighborhood who do not reflect our cultural values and we get angry and even plot evil against them.
QUOTE
A Poison Tree
Poem lyrics of A Poison Tree by William Blake.
I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe;
I told it not, my wrath did grow.
And I water'd it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with my smiles
And with soft deceitful wiles.
And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright;
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine,
And into my garden stole
When the night had veil'd the pole:
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretch'd beneath the tree
Poem lyrics of A Poison Tree by William Blake.
I was angry with my friend:
I told my wrath, my wrath did end.
I was angry with my foe;
I told it not, my wrath did grow.
And I water'd it in fears,
Night & morning with my tears;
And I sunned it with my smiles
And with soft deceitful wiles.
And it grew both day and night,
Till it bore an apple bright;
And my foe beheld it shine,
And he knew that it was mine,
And into my garden stole
When the night had veil'd the pole:
In the morning glad I see
My foe outstretch'd beneath the tree
Blake was a mystic.. but you all know someone like this and it is not far from all of us.
The version of logic (these could be humanly based theoretical Laws of Physics) though entirely human in origin, can be tested against the base unknown standard... the Universe itself. This does not rate things which are "intangible" but that is fine if we all agree that we measure those things which are indeed measurable but accept that some of our illogical preferences are not based in logic but in cultural values which could mean anything at all. One cultural value is as stated here is you kill people when you want something and there is an apparent cultural value that says this is sometimes OK. You want this apparent "value" culturally protected forever outside of human logic. Believe me you know and everyone who reads this knows you can sanction any evil with this "personal darkness".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A Poison Tree Poem lyrics of A Poison Tree by William Blake. I was angry with my friend: I told my wrath, my wrath did end. I was angry with my foe; I told it not, my wrath did grow. And I water'd it in fears, Night & morning with my tears; And I sunned it with my smiles And with soft deceitful wiles. And it grew both day and night, Till it bore an apple bright; And my foe beheld it shine, And he knew that it was mine, And into my garden stole When the night had veil'd the pole: In the morning glad I see My foe outstretch'd beneath the tree |
Blake was a mystic.. but you all know someone like this and it is not far from all of us.
The version of logic (these could be humanly based theoretical Laws of Physics) though entirely human in origin, can be tested against the base unknown standard... the Universe itself. This does not rate things which are "intangible" but that is fine if we all agree that we measure those things which are indeed measurable but accept that some of our illogical preferences are not based in logic but in cultural values which could mean anything at all. One cultural value is as stated here is you kill people when you want something and there is an apparent cultural value that says this is sometimes OK. You want this apparent "value" culturally protected forever outside of human logic. Believe me you know and everyone who reads this knows you can sanction any evil with this "personal darkness".
To a psychopath, killing is natural. So is it not evil?
Of course logic does not appeal to the mentally insane so why argue his case? In times of war people behave like psychopaths (they are presumably not mad... what is the difference?)... It does not matter what society sanctions, killing to me is still "evil" even if in self-defense. It is simply the lesser of two evils. Test yourself on this one, I have no idea other than people are harboring a personal and private evil they will not admit even to themselves. Sane people choose and accept responsibility for the consequences. A soldier on a murdering rampage makes no choices and kills as if this was not evil. It is a fact if some people behave this way, no matter what they like to think personally, it is a war crime and in some countries they can be executed for it. A real psychopath does not choose, a person in control must choose and tries to minimize the "evil". A real psychopath is medically insane. Not a lot of difference but it is the only difference.
What makes us really human, even though we will commit some evil act, is we can choose the lesser of two relative evils or not... it is a free choice... the choice is very important and you do not need a "god" to watch you to keep you on the straight and narrow. If you are guided by that inner voice it might just be saying "kill, kill, kill", it is an imperfect guide. You can now understand what is the difference between your "psychopath" and your war hero or police officer on duty... the "humans" are still mindful of the harm and the evil they do but should try to reduce this even if they take some personal risks and even eventually kill at times. The psychopaths want their versions of "evil" to be negotiable and absolute.
Perhaps with our social conditioning... religious training, television, peer group pressures... we are making sane citizens into psychopaths and we are living with the results. Remember the Roman Empire went down in a similar fashion drinking water drawn from their advanced reticulated water systems piped to the users in lead pipes... they all went mad before the end. As they say "Those whom the 'gods' wish to destroy, they first send mad". I believe we all need to get a grip or we really are heading for madness.
Cheers
What makes us really human, even though we will commit some evil act, is we can choose the lesser of two relative evils or not... it is a free choice... the choice is very important and you do not need a "god" to watch you to keep you on the straight and narrow. If you are guided by that inner voice it might just be saying "kill, kill, kill", it is an imperfect guide. You can now understand what is the difference between your "psychopath" and your war hero or police officer on duty... the "humans" are still mindful of the harm and the evil they do but should try to reduce this even if they take some personal risks and even eventually kill at times. The psychopaths want their versions of "evil" to be negotiable and absolute.
Perhaps with our social conditioning... religious training, television, peer group pressures... we are making sane citizens into psychopaths and we are living with the results. Remember the Roman Empire went down in a similar fashion drinking water drawn from their advanced reticulated water systems piped to the users in lead pipes... they all went mad before the end. As they say "Those whom the 'gods' wish to destroy, they first send mad". I believe we all need to get a grip or we really are heading for madness.
Cheers
Excellent, GoodElf. Well said!
How easy is it for us to be influenced by other peoples 'madness'? When talking of 1930's europe, we like to pile all our 'evils' on to Adolf Hitler, but he was just one man. Mad, certainly, but why did a whole nation decide to follow his madness? It certainly is not because "all Germans(Austrians) are mad", for we would have to include some very eminent scientists and literary artists in the same 'group'. And today, Germany is one of the countries leading the world in eco-friendly technology.
It seems all too easy for the majority to get caught up in some mass hysteria of the times. In 1930's Europe, ALL nations were verging on the 'fascist' (extreme 'right wing') side of politics, despite of what they would have you believe. Hitler was allowed to spend six years preparing for war because nobody but the most intuitive few could see much wrong in what he was doing. It was not so much of a surprise that Poland was invaded.
These are lessons from the past that we could all learn about ourselves, as psychophysical beings. We surely hate to think of ourselves in such an extreme context as having a 'little Hitler', bubbling away inside, but he is an extreme example of what a Human being can become, just as at the other extreme we may have a 'mother theresa' bubbling away too! The truth, for most of us, is that we are somewhere hopefully 'balanced' between these 'extremes'.
Sometimes we do things that we regret afterwards; pointless arguments with partners, etc, and sometimes we are swept away with the current of popular thought, not wishing to 'stand out from the crowd', so we are blind to little bits of racism, petty thievery and such, that don't concern us personally, often 'egged-on' by the popular thought of the day. Gradually, this becomes acceptable by the 'masses', and the next level is introduced into the collective psyche. Once we tolerate a 'lesser evil', another doesn't seem so bad next time, and so these things creep into our thoughts, unconsciously.
Societies are collections of individuals, but when we gather in vast numbers we become one of the voiceless mass, and just go along with whatever seems to be 'working' at the time. Still, the power to decide is always a personal thing, but we often don't see it until it is too late. We are all capable of 'evil', under the right circumstances, and we need to be aware of its possibilities, and how easily it can creep up within us when we are unconscious of how it operates... Ask any German pensioner.
Not sure if I posted this before, but it's very relevant so...
"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people insidiously commiting evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every Human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
k.
How easy is it for us to be influenced by other peoples 'madness'? When talking of 1930's europe, we like to pile all our 'evils' on to Adolf Hitler, but he was just one man. Mad, certainly, but why did a whole nation decide to follow his madness? It certainly is not because "all Germans(Austrians) are mad", for we would have to include some very eminent scientists and literary artists in the same 'group'. And today, Germany is one of the countries leading the world in eco-friendly technology.
It seems all too easy for the majority to get caught up in some mass hysteria of the times. In 1930's Europe, ALL nations were verging on the 'fascist' (extreme 'right wing') side of politics, despite of what they would have you believe. Hitler was allowed to spend six years preparing for war because nobody but the most intuitive few could see much wrong in what he was doing. It was not so much of a surprise that Poland was invaded.
These are lessons from the past that we could all learn about ourselves, as psychophysical beings. We surely hate to think of ourselves in such an extreme context as having a 'little Hitler', bubbling away inside, but he is an extreme example of what a Human being can become, just as at the other extreme we may have a 'mother theresa' bubbling away too! The truth, for most of us, is that we are somewhere hopefully 'balanced' between these 'extremes'.
Sometimes we do things that we regret afterwards; pointless arguments with partners, etc, and sometimes we are swept away with the current of popular thought, not wishing to 'stand out from the crowd', so we are blind to little bits of racism, petty thievery and such, that don't concern us personally, often 'egged-on' by the popular thought of the day. Gradually, this becomes acceptable by the 'masses', and the next level is introduced into the collective psyche. Once we tolerate a 'lesser evil', another doesn't seem so bad next time, and so these things creep into our thoughts, unconsciously.
Societies are collections of individuals, but when we gather in vast numbers we become one of the voiceless mass, and just go along with whatever seems to be 'working' at the time. Still, the power to decide is always a personal thing, but we often don't see it until it is too late. We are all capable of 'evil', under the right circumstances, and we need to be aware of its possibilities, and how easily it can creep up within us when we are unconscious of how it operates... Ask any German pensioner.
Not sure if I posted this before, but it's very relevant so...
"If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people insidiously commiting evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every Human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
k.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 29 2006, 10:43 AM)
I see Upisoft's argument about all human logic being "relative" is flawed because Upisoft has not acknowledged that there are "experiments" where you can "rate your logic" against the unknown absolute Laws of the Universe and see which version is better.
The Laws of Universe are not absolute. You have promoted them. They're relative to our Universe. We don't know if other universes exists. However, promoting instance of Laws to absolute status, because of our low knowledge is wrong. Some people did it in the past. The result was "Almighty God". Now I expect that you'll create new entity to worship -- "Almighty Science".
The Laws of Universe are not absolute. You have promoted them. They're relative to our Universe. We don't know if other universes exists. However, promoting instance of Laws to absolute status, because of our low knowledge is wrong. Some people did it in the past. The result was "Almighty God". Now I expect that you'll create new entity to worship -- "Almighty Science".
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
It seems to me none of you seem to be able to tell when something is truly "evil" and then rate relative "evils" so that you choose the lesser of two evils. This is because you all want to discard your logic and "get your way" based on a private interpretation of what you would wish to be true.
We (atleast I) are only saying that "truly" evil is in itself a private interpretation. Rules and definitions have to be discarded because there are no absolute answers. Each of us have to go by our own "goodness" and create the rules "dynamically" based on the given situation. There is no other logic. There is no other option. The "Golden rules" can only take us so far.
We (atleast I) are only saying that "truly" evil is in itself a private interpretation. Rules and definitions have to be discarded because there are no absolute answers. Each of us have to go by our own "goodness" and create the rules "dynamically" based on the given situation. There is no other logic. There is no other option. The "Golden rules" can only take us so far.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
Of course logic does not appeal to the mentally insane so why argue his case?
The insanity plea is the weakest plea in most justice systems in the world. Every human is insane to a certain degree. Only computers / robots can be considered normal, because only they can apply absolute logic.
Having said this, it would be cruel to punish people who do not have control over their own actions. So again as I said, there are no absolute rules and definitions, we need to create the rules dynamically trusting our goodness.
The insanity plea is the weakest plea in most justice systems in the world. Every human is insane to a certain degree. Only computers / robots can be considered normal, because only they can apply absolute logic.
Having said this, it would be cruel to punish people who do not have control over their own actions. So again as I said, there are no absolute rules and definitions, we need to create the rules dynamically trusting our goodness.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
The mere fact that animals feel pain is enough to conclude that killing animals is Evil.
The reason for pain is so the animal will know when its body is damaged. It's a means of survival. Pain has no link to emotions.
The reason for pain is so the animal will know when its body is damaged. It's a means of survival. Pain has no link to emotions.
QUOTE (same+)
Does your Dog wag its tail when it sees you?
Do we eat dogs?
Do we eat dogs?
QUOTE (same+)
Does it starve when you are not around?
Why? If I eat it, will it starve?
Why? If I eat it, will it starve?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
I once had a dog which did these things. It clearly proves to me that animals have emotions.
If society goes black how many people will starve? That must mean, according to your logic that people have emotions. Fine. We all do. However, according to your logic, the humans who can hunt and live off the woods have no emotions and are barbarians. What the ***??!!! The reason your dog starved is it didn't know how to hunt and/or was locked up in the house.
The amygdale is the home of emotions. The animals that have amygdales have emotions. The animals that don't have them don't. Do cows have amygdales? Unfortunetely for them, they hardly have anything up there. All they do is eat sleep piss poop and reproduce. What kind of a life is that? Is that a life worth living? Note that humans are the only ones that actually live their lives. Animals are just alive.
If society goes black how many people will starve? That must mean, according to your logic that people have emotions. Fine. We all do. However, according to your logic, the humans who can hunt and live off the woods have no emotions and are barbarians. What the ***??!!! The reason your dog starved is it didn't know how to hunt and/or was locked up in the house.
The amygdale is the home of emotions. The animals that have amygdales have emotions. The animals that don't have them don't. Do cows have amygdales? Unfortunetely for them, they hardly have anything up there. All they do is eat sleep piss poop and reproduce. What kind of a life is that? Is that a life worth living? Note that humans are the only ones that actually live their lives. Animals are just alive.
QUOTE (same+)
To a psychopath, killing is natural. So is it not evil?
I'm talking about eating. Eating is natural. Maybe we should quit eating vegetables. Our means of eating plants is absolute barbaric. Maybe it's evil to eat them.
I'm talking about eating. Eating is natural. Maybe we should quit eating vegetables. Our means of eating plants is absolute barbaric. Maybe it's evil to eat them.
QUOTE (same+)
These are logical only to you. There is no logic in your choice, it is just your preferences based on your own reasoning.
Then you should find it easy to destroy my logic. How come I can refute every point you make?
Then you should find it easy to destroy my logic. How come I can refute every point you make?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
So its never okay to take what is not yours??? What if I hold a gun to your head and make you steal? What if I hold a gun to the head of someone dear to you and make you steal?
Now, is your stealing Evil?
YES!
Now, is your stealing Evil?
YES!
QUOTE (same+)
We could argue over this forever and never reach any conclusion, because there are no absolute answers.
Yes there are; you just gave up in finding them.
Yes there are; you just gave up in finding them.
QUOTE (Upisoft+)
You can't prove axioms. You may only accept them or not. I don't accept yours that Absolute Evil exists, because you think that Absolute Truth must also exist in this case(here I agree), but later can't exist as I already proved. Hence, Absolute Evil also does not exist. The same story is valid for your "Absolute Logic".
In that example you gave me you gave God limitations. Lose the limitations and you lose your proof.
In that example you gave me you gave God limitations. Lose the limitations and you lose your proof.
QUOTE (same+)
The Laws of Universe are not absolute. You have promoted them. They're relative to our Universe. We don't know if other universes exists. However, promoting instance of Laws to absolute status, because of our low knowledge is wrong. Some people did it in the past. The result was "Almighty God". Now I expect that you'll create new entity to worship -- "Almighty Science".
If we don't know if they're absolute then we don't know that they're not for the very same reason.
If we don't know if they're absolute then we don't know that they're not for the very same reason.
QUOTE
The insanity plea is the weakest plea in most justice systems in the world. Every human is insane to a certain degree. Only computers / robots can be considered normal, because only they can apply absolute logic.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Do we eat dogs?
So it is OK to eat chicken and cow, but not OK to eat dog? Excellent logic there. That was really profound.
So it is OK to eat chicken and cow, but not OK to eat dog? Excellent logic there. That was really profound.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
The reason for pain is so the animal will know when its body is damaged. It's a means of survival. Pain has no link to emotions.
I don't care. If a animal feels pain, it is evil to hurt it. If your little brother feels pain, it is evil to prick him with a needle.
I don't care. If a animal feels pain, it is evil to hurt it. If your little brother feels pain, it is evil to prick him with a needle.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
The amygdale is the home of emotions. The animals that have amygdales have emotions. The animals that don't have them don't. Do cows have amygdales? Unfortunetely for them, they hardly have anything up there
Cows have amygdalae. Your zoology teacher pulled a quick one on you my friend. All complex vertebrates (animals with back bone in case your zoology teacher didn't tell you) have amygdalae.
Cows have amygdalae. Your zoology teacher pulled a quick one on you my friend. All complex vertebrates (animals with back bone in case your zoology teacher didn't tell you) have amygdalae.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Then you should find it easy to destroy my logic. How come I can refute every point you make?
Stop. Pleaaaase. You are hilarious.
Stop. Pleaaaase. You are hilarious.QUOTE (vkamath+)
So its never okay to take what is not yours??? What if I hold a gun to your head and make you steal? What if I hold a gun to the head of someone dear to you and make you steal?
Now, is your stealing Evil?
Now, is your stealing Evil?
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
YES!
NO!!
NO!!
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Yes there are; you just gave up in finding them.
looks like you didn't give up searching Santa Claus.
looks like you didn't give up searching Santa Claus.
Good Elf I continue to notice that while we disagree so truly on matters of primogenitor/mind, I heavily agree with you on virtually everything else. I believe your views in this thread topic are the least sterile cold calculated ones, and by far the most human and sensitive one here. It is you that speaks most of conscience and virtue. And you're the scientist. (I do wonder if you truly wish there was a nonreligious god of lovely mind who creates with free will and autonomy and with no strings attached, and are dismayed that science shows no promise of such...! )
It is your comment
)It is your comment
QUOTE
It seems to me none of you seem to be able to tell when something is truly "evil" and then rate relative "evils" so that you choose the lesser of two evils.
that caught me (the rest of this is not directed at you). I said on page 4 (?) QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It seems to me none of you seem to be able to tell when something is truly "evil" and then rate relative "evils" so that you choose the lesser of two evils. |
that caught me (the rest of this is not directed at you). I said on page 4 (?) I think that the question of the absoluteness of evil has to do not with it's relation to itself or to virtue, but everything to do with our mutual recognition and awareness of it's presence. We know it when we see it
. "Truly" evil is by all means to me "absolute". What I was getting at in my post was that we can develop a definition for absolute evil to live by; a natural consensus of enlightened people, just like most other root social constructs are. The arguments here keep saying evil is not evil from the point of view of the sociopath, and even if mentally healthy people could agree on evil, the other views automatically make evil relative. For me, allowing the views from criminals as relevant is the same as using known faulty and skewed data as acceptable criteria in experiments. In cases like these, both the bathwater and the baby should be thrown out.
We are much much closer to an agreement here on knowticing evil than this thread would suggest. Exercises in debate skills and critical explorations of concepts is fine for classrooms and honing intellectual ability, but in terms of living one's life - when in the presence of evil we either know it or will at some point know it. You can call it relative, but out of the textbook and into your real life, it is absolute.
We are much much closer to an agreement here on knowticing evil than this thread would suggest. Exercises in debate skills and critical explorations of concepts is fine for classrooms and honing intellectual ability, but in terms of living one's life - when in the presence of evil we either know it or will at some point know it. You can call it relative, but out of the textbook and into your real life, it is absolute.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
I believe your views in this thread topic are the least sterile cold calculated ones, and by far the most human and sensitive one here.
While I can appreciate the fact that you try to be as human and sensitive as possible, Reality is cold and calculated. If you don't want to see "dead babies", don't go near a "train wreck".
While I can appreciate the fact that you try to be as human and sensitive as possible, Reality is cold and calculated. If you don't want to see "dead babies", don't go near a "train wreck".
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
What I was getting at in my post was that we can develop a definition for absolute evil to live by; a natural consensus of enlightened people, just like most other root social constructs are.
By the very suggestion of including only "enlightened" people in your consensus, you are making your definition relative to "enlightened" people. So you need to stop calling it absolute.
Also, how would you determine who is "enlightened"?
By the very suggestion of including only "enlightened" people in your consensus, you are making your definition relative to "enlightened" people. So you need to stop calling it absolute.
Also, how would you determine who is "enlightened"?
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
The arguments here keep saying evil is not evil from the point of view of the sociopath, and even if mentally healthy people could agree on evil, the other views automatically make evil relative. For me, allowing the views from criminals as relevant is the same as using known faulty and skewed data as acceptable criteria in experiments.
In effect you are saying that "dont allow Evil people to determine what is good". But to do this you would need to determine who is Evil. Yours is a recursive definition.
In effect you are saying that "dont allow Evil people to determine what is good". But to do this you would need to determine who is Evil. Yours is a recursive definition.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 29 2006, 01:53 PM)
So it is OK to eat chicken and cow, but not OK to eat dog? Excellent logic there. That was really profound.
Yeah. For one thing, dogs are stringy. For another thing, they are ten times more intelligent. Not many cows fetch. Not many chickens roll over. I don't know, if you want me to, I'll eat dog.
Yeah. For one thing, dogs are stringy. For another thing, they are ten times more intelligent. Not many cows fetch. Not many chickens roll over. I don't know, if you want me to, I'll eat dog.
QUOTE (same+)
I don't care. If a animal feels pain, it is evil to hurt it.
How do we know plants don't feel pain? Woudn't that mean YOU are evil because you eat them? Pain is only there to let the animal know it's damaged.
How do we know plants don't feel pain? Woudn't that mean YOU are evil because you eat them? Pain is only there to let the animal know it's damaged.
QUOTE (same+)
If your little brother feels pain, it is evil to prick him with a needle.
Tell that to the doctor.
Tell that to the doctor.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Cows have amygdalae. Your zoology teacher pulled a quick one on you my friend.
It's been a few years since I studied anatomy. Actually, the amygdala has less to do with emotions than I thought.
Go here
Amygdalae in animals merely assist in memory and in inducing fear.
If animals have emotions, why don't they love their offspring? Why don't they hate humans? Why don't they have any awareness of any of these concepts?
Stop. Pleaaaase. You are hilarious.
Pleaaaase explain.
It's been a few years since I studied anatomy. Actually, the amygdala has less to do with emotions than I thought.
Go here
Amygdalae in animals merely assist in memory and in inducing fear.
If animals have emotions, why don't they love their offspring? Why don't they hate humans? Why don't they have any awareness of any of these concepts?
QUOTE (same+)
Stop. Pleaaaase. You are hilarious.Pleaaaase explain.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
So its never okay to take what is not yours??? What if I hold a gun to your head and make you steal? What if I hold a gun to the head of someone dear to you and make you steal?
Now, is your stealing Evil?
Now, is your stealing Evil?
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
YES!
NO!!
Why not? Where's your logic? My logic: if it's wrong here, it's wrong there.
NO!!
Why not? Where's your logic? My logic: if it's wrong here, it's wrong there.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
looks like you didn't give up searching Santa Claus.
Now you're going to resort to childish name calling?
What a pitty.
Now you're going to resort to childish name calling?
What a pitty.
QUOTE (same+)
Also, how would you determine who is "enlightened"?
It is clear that a psychopath is not. The ones that are enlightened are the ones who use profound thought and do not name call.
It is clear that a psychopath is not. The ones that are enlightened are the ones who use profound thought and do not name call.
QUOTE (same+)
In effect you are saying that "dont allow Evil people to determine what is good". But to do this you would need to determine who is Evil. Yours is a recursive definition.
If you have an absolute definition of evil based on logic you won't have that problem.
If you have an absolute definition of evil based on logic you won't have that problem.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
How do we know plants don't feel pain? Woudn't that mean YOU are evil because you eat them? Pain is only there to let the animal know it's damaged.
Exactly!!! So now we think everyone is evil because everyone eats plants. I don't see any logic to prove this wrong absolutely.
Eating plants may be Good or Evil, it is relative to who you ask.
Eating animals may be Good or Evil, it is relative to who you ask.
Abortion may be Good or Evil, it is relative to who you ask.
Capital punishment may be Good or Evil, it is relative to who you ask.
There are no absolute answers. Logic cannot give us the answer to these questions.
If you ask me, I don't know if plants feel pain. Even if they did feel pain, I don't have many options other than eating them. But I know for sure that animals feel pain, and I do have the option of not eating them.
Exactly!!! So now we think everyone is evil because everyone eats plants. I don't see any logic to prove this wrong absolutely.
Eating plants may be Good or Evil, it is relative to who you ask.
Eating animals may be Good or Evil, it is relative to who you ask.
Abortion may be Good or Evil, it is relative to who you ask.
Capital punishment may be Good or Evil, it is relative to who you ask.
There are no absolute answers. Logic cannot give us the answer to these questions.
If you ask me, I don't know if plants feel pain. Even if they did feel pain, I don't have many options other than eating them. But I know for sure that animals feel pain, and I do have the option of not eating them.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
If animals have emotions, why don't they love their offspring?
Some animals love their offspring and some don't. It is the same with humans.
Humans as a species generally care for their offspring. Many animal species also do.
By the way, (in case you have forgotten), Humans are also a type of animal. Your religion may tell you otherwise, but this is the reality. We are the most "intelligent" among the animals, but that does not change the fact that we are a type of animal.
Some animals love their offspring and some don't. It is the same with humans.
Humans as a species generally care for their offspring. Many animal species also do.
By the way, (in case you have forgotten), Humans are also a type of animal. Your religion may tell you otherwise, but this is the reality. We are the most "intelligent" among the animals, but that does not change the fact that we are a type of animal.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Why don't they hate humans?
I don't see any reason why all animals must hate humans.
If some animals hated humans, how would they express that hate? I think they would attack us. Many animals do attack humans, especially when we enter their territory or do something bad to their offspring.
I don't see any reason why all animals must hate humans.
If some animals hated humans, how would they express that hate? I think they would attack us. Many animals do attack humans, especially when we enter their territory or do something bad to their offspring.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
It is clear that a psychopath is not. The ones that are enlightened are the ones who use profound thought and do not name call
So I am not enlightened, which is fine. Just don't ask me to accept your "absolute" definitions. You and your fellow "enlightened" group can keep your "absolute" definition.
So I am not enlightened, which is fine. Just don't ask me to accept your "absolute" definitions. You and your fellow "enlightened" group can keep your "absolute" definition.QUOTE (555Joshua+)
If you have an absolute definition of evil based on logic you won't have that problem.
I don't have any problem. My mind is clear on this issue.
I don't have any problem. My mind is clear on this issue.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Exactly!!! So now we think everyone is evil because everyone eats plants. I don't see any logic to prove this wrong absolutely.
You are not looking at the point. The point is if it's evil to eat animals it's evil to eat plants. No matter what. Is it evil to eat? Hell no.
You are not looking at the point. The point is if it's evil to eat animals it's evil to eat plants. No matter what. Is it evil to eat? Hell no.
QUOTE (same+)
Some animals love their offspring and some don't.
Which animals? Humans? Dolphins? Whales? What else?
Which animals? Humans? Dolphins? Whales? What else?
QUOTE (same+)
By the way, (in case you have forgotten), Humans are also a type of animal. Your religion may tell you otherwise, but this is the reality. We are the most "intelligent" among the animals, but that does not change the fact that we are a type of animal.
Yes. And we are part of the animal kingdom. And the animal kingdom eats itself. If there is a predator alive that can kill me by all means let it. But I'm going to fight for my life just like any other animal. And I still say humans have much more to live for.
Yes. And we are part of the animal kingdom. And the animal kingdom eats itself. If there is a predator alive that can kill me by all means let it. But I'm going to fight for my life just like any other animal. And I still say humans have much more to live for.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
I don't see any reason why all animals must hate humans.
Why did the Native Americans hate white man? Oh yeah.
Why did the Native Americans hate white man? Oh yeah.
QUOTE (same+)
If some animals hated humans, how would they express that hate? I think they would attack us.
They would organize a revolt against us. They haven't yet.
They would organize a revolt against us. They haven't yet.
QUOTE (same+)
Many animals do attack humans, especially when we enter their territory or do something bad to their offspring.
They do that with any other animal. They do that with themselves. That doesn't mean they hate anything.
They do that with any other animal. They do that with themselves. That doesn't mean they hate anything.
Hi Vkamath, soundhertz, 555Joshua, Upisoft, Knot of this world et al,
Thanks for the wrap Soundhertz. I agree that in some sense "absolute evil may exist" but we can never know of it... the same way we can never know "absolute truth". There is no true virtue in trying to know absolute truth or understand what is absolute evil. Everything we know of truth and of evil and of even scientific knowledge is relative ... relative to the "savage" that we originally came from and still exists not so deeply buried beneath our veneer of civilization. I applaud the Scientific Method as being the only way man has ever found to date to guarantee "progress" other than "evolution". I am not ashamed of man's very distant past because it is as much a part of me as any aspect of my character. This does not mean that I want to purposefully retain any particular part of it any more than I want to remember when my even more distant ancestors dragged themselves onto some swampy beach several hundred million years ago. I do not need to since this information is part of the basic genetic code from which I am comprised.
I know you will mostly disagree but science has saved more lives and preserved human dignity in every way it can within the realm of our complex social environment, and it does it almost without any political direction or religious fervor. It is the only "weapon" the common man has against the despots of our recent history and of our distant futures. In the past human ignorance allowed "evil" to prosper in almost every way. I can see few if any true benefactors of mankind in general that have actually stood for advancing individual human freedoms and human well being. I will say that the founding fathers of the US Constitution were closest to being those idealistic "stars" to guide the future of the country... a true "light on the hill" to the World, the Constitution of Australia took much of what was in that document, but not enough of it, to draft our constitution as well. To this day the struggle to become a Republic continues but there is little in our leadership that wishes to remind our people of these basic symbols.
The Founding Fathers of the US Constitution were men of the "Enlightenment", a forgotten ideal, anathema to present day political leadership in that country which has become centralist and authoritarian and being "guided" behind the scenes by murky self interested figures who resemble in some impersonal aspects... warring criminal factions ... that have become "respectable" through their great wealth. This pattern includes most of the religions as well. Regardless of the intentions of the founders of many (if not most) religions, none of them really had a primary interest in a positive view of human welfare. It is almost always seen as a secondary issue and other worldly goals were their primary targets. In fact it reminds us of our "evil" and how "good" the character models were in relationship to the unwashed masses. Yet they are not that perfect and they indulge in dark secrets of their own. Moreover it has been the sorry lot of mankind to suffer a lot of parasitic individuals that care nothing for the individual human and would spill his blood at the drop of a hat in endless wars about philosophical ideas and religious cults with an end goal of personal profit. It has also been my observation to notice that many humans are willing fellow travelers along this path of mayhem... vying among themselves to be the greatest dilettante or martyr for their chosen "ism".
Thanks for the wrap Soundhertz. I agree that in some sense "absolute evil may exist" but we can never know of it... the same way we can never know "absolute truth". There is no true virtue in trying to know absolute truth or understand what is absolute evil. Everything we know of truth and of evil and of even scientific knowledge is relative ... relative to the "savage" that we originally came from and still exists not so deeply buried beneath our veneer of civilization. I applaud the Scientific Method as being the only way man has ever found to date to guarantee "progress" other than "evolution". I am not ashamed of man's very distant past because it is as much a part of me as any aspect of my character. This does not mean that I want to purposefully retain any particular part of it any more than I want to remember when my even more distant ancestors dragged themselves onto some swampy beach several hundred million years ago. I do not need to since this information is part of the basic genetic code from which I am comprised.
I know you will mostly disagree but science has saved more lives and preserved human dignity in every way it can within the realm of our complex social environment, and it does it almost without any political direction or religious fervor. It is the only "weapon" the common man has against the despots of our recent history and of our distant futures. In the past human ignorance allowed "evil" to prosper in almost every way. I can see few if any true benefactors of mankind in general that have actually stood for advancing individual human freedoms and human well being. I will say that the founding fathers of the US Constitution were closest to being those idealistic "stars" to guide the future of the country... a true "light on the hill" to the World, the Constitution of Australia took much of what was in that document, but not enough of it, to draft our constitution as well. To this day the struggle to become a Republic continues but there is little in our leadership that wishes to remind our people of these basic symbols.
The Founding Fathers of the US Constitution were men of the "Enlightenment", a forgotten ideal, anathema to present day political leadership in that country which has become centralist and authoritarian and being "guided" behind the scenes by murky self interested figures who resemble in some impersonal aspects... warring criminal factions ... that have become "respectable" through their great wealth. This pattern includes most of the religions as well. Regardless of the intentions of the founders of many (if not most) religions, none of them really had a primary interest in a positive view of human welfare. It is almost always seen as a secondary issue and other worldly goals were their primary targets. In fact it reminds us of our "evil" and how "good" the character models were in relationship to the unwashed masses. Yet they are not that perfect and they indulge in dark secrets of their own. Moreover it has been the sorry lot of mankind to suffer a lot of parasitic individuals that care nothing for the individual human and would spill his blood at the drop of a hat in endless wars about philosophical ideas and religious cults with an end goal of personal profit. It has also been my observation to notice that many humans are willing fellow travelers along this path of mayhem... vying among themselves to be the greatest dilettante or martyr for their chosen "ism".
QUOTE (Upisoft+)
The Laws of Universe are not absolute. You have promoted them. They're relative to our Universe. We don't know if other universes exists. However, promoting instance of Laws to absolute status, because of our low knowledge is wrong. Some people did it in the past. The result was "Almighty God". Now I expect that you'll create new entity to worship -- "Almighty Science".
There is nothing magic about the physical Laws of the Universe, I am convinced if there was no "absolute" we could not progress the way we presently do. I am equally convinced as I have said that to seek absolutes is foolish and is tainted by error. This does not mean that mankind cannot seek the ever sharpening edge of truth as we refine our logic and wisdom and test it against that unknown standard of our Universe. Upisoft does not want to recognize this prior "wisdom" that actually transcends mankind in all its forms but I am sure he sees it and feels the tug of forces dragging us all, in some cases kicking and screaming, into the future. We can fight it and we can stay behind... or not... it is a free choice... a moral choice and a test of our collective character. Evolution or revolution, I am not sure which and it depends on a "balance".
I am reminded of a closing quote from the early 1936 motion picture "Things to Come" based on a book by HG Wells.
I am reminded of a closing quote from the early 1936 motion picture "Things to Come" based on a book by HG Wells.
QUOTE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come+)
H. G. Wells... The Shape of Things to Come
By 2036, mankind lives in gigantic underground cities. Everytown is one of them (the only one shown, with no information given on any others - or if there even are others), and the first flight to the Moon is about to be launched from a space gun nearby. However, Luddites among the population fear this new technology, lead by a sculptor who claims mankind needs a "rest" from further technological development, and that shooting people into the cold of space is not "natural". They start a riot, trying to destroy the space gun before it can be fired. The head scientist Cabal (the great grandson of the pilot in the previous section of the film, and also played by Massey) explains that the crowds are misguided and that technology has in fact saved humanity. He launches the space ship with his daughter and the daughter's boyfriend as the crew, and the blast from the launch knocks the crowd back. The film ends with Massey's character delivering a eulogy to the idea of Progress and man's quest for knowledge, claiming that if Man is merely an Animal then he must fight for every scrap of happiness he can, but if he is something more then he must strive for more...
“No, the world will never be safe for man - and there's no happiness in safety. Our choice is limited: either the whole Universe or nothing.”
...Taken from the original "uncut" version.
By 2036, mankind lives in gigantic underground cities. Everytown is one of them (the only one shown, with no information given on any others - or if there even are others), and the first flight to the Moon is about to be launched from a space gun nearby. However, Luddites among the population fear this new technology, lead by a sculptor who claims mankind needs a "rest" from further technological development, and that shooting people into the cold of space is not "natural". They start a riot, trying to destroy the space gun before it can be fired. The head scientist Cabal (the great grandson of the pilot in the previous section of the film, and also played by Massey) explains that the crowds are misguided and that technology has in fact saved humanity. He launches the space ship with his daughter and the daughter's boyfriend as the crew, and the blast from the launch knocks the crowd back. The film ends with Massey's character delivering a eulogy to the idea of Progress and man's quest for knowledge, claiming that if Man is merely an Animal then he must fight for every scrap of happiness he can, but if he is something more then he must strive for more...
“No, the world will never be safe for man - and there's no happiness in safety. Our choice is limited: either the whole Universe or nothing.”
...Taken from the original "uncut" version.
It is at the one time wildly "Utopian" and at the same time "pessimistic".
I personally resonate with this ideal and it is in my blood to want to travel to a "New World" as did my ancestors to escape oppression and to begin a new life without these "trappings" that are slowing gathering around me. In reply to Upisoft... I am a Pantheist but I do not worship any "god of science"... no Idolatry for me.... no "gods" on pedestals or saints made of plaster "weeping" with rose oil. No lines of flagellants or searches for holy blessed visions of some personified deity... No stains on sewer tunnels lit by hundreds of candles or welsh rarebits in the shape of the Holy Madonna. I am in the embrace of something that truly loves me that is so impersonal that it has no human face and no name but has sustained every generation of my family way back to the first living cell on this planet... an unbroken lineage. Everyone who reads this has a common ancestory with me as well. Just think on that. One day we will know a lot more about this "unknown god" that Upisoft complains about so passionately (I am sure Upisoft has not really begun to think about why he said that). It does not have the face of a man because its faces and forms are numberless and our generations cannot guess where we are heading and to its "endings". You must know where you have been to truly know where you are going. If you cannot trust in this as a truly benign force, and can't see that an unformed hand that really does guide all those who trust in the future, then we are surely lost. So we just have to choose wisely, our choices are limited, you may not be able to choose in the future.
Cheers
I personally resonate with this ideal and it is in my blood to want to travel to a "New World" as did my ancestors to escape oppression and to begin a new life without these "trappings" that are slowing gathering around me. In reply to Upisoft... I am a Pantheist but I do not worship any "god of science"... no Idolatry for me.... no "gods" on pedestals or saints made of plaster "weeping" with rose oil. No lines of flagellants or searches for holy blessed visions of some personified deity... No stains on sewer tunnels lit by hundreds of candles or welsh rarebits in the shape of the Holy Madonna.
I am in the embrace of something that truly loves me that is so impersonal that it has no human face and no name but has sustained every generation of my family way back to the first living cell on this planet... an unbroken lineage. Everyone who reads this has a common ancestory with me as well. Just think on that. One day we will know a lot more about this "unknown god" that Upisoft complains about so passionately (I am sure Upisoft has not really begun to think about why he said that). It does not have the face of a man because its faces and forms are numberless and our generations cannot guess where we are heading and to its "endings". You must know where you have been to truly know where you are going. If you cannot trust in this as a truly benign force, and can't see that an unformed hand that really does guide all those who trust in the future, then we are surely lost. So we just have to choose wisely, our choices are limited, you may not be able to choose in the future.Cheers
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
You are not looking at the point. The point is if it's evil to eat animals it's evil to eat plants. No matter what. Is it evil to eat? Hell no.
and you are not looking at the point that this logic applies only to you. It is not a "absolute" logic.
and you are not looking at the point that this logic applies only to you. It is not a "absolute" logic.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Which animals? Humans? Dolphins? Whales? What else?
Cows. They breast feed their offspring. Yet, you eat them.
Cows. They breast feed their offspring. Yet, you eat them.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Yes. And we are part of the animal kingdom. And the animal kingdom eats itself. If there is a predator alive that can kill me by all means let it. But I'm going to fight for my life just like any other animal. And I still say humans have much more to live for.
So are you saying any animal can kill and eat any other animal, that it is not evil? By your logic eating dog would not be evil. I am sure I can find a million meat eaters who would disagree with you.
You can call them illogical all you want. But that does not change the fact that, to them eating Dog is evil.
You logic works in contradictory ways when applied to different people and hence is not absolute.
So are you saying any animal can kill and eat any other animal, that it is not evil? By your logic eating dog would not be evil. I am sure I can find a million meat eaters who would disagree with you.
You can call them illogical all you want. But that does not change the fact that, to them eating Dog is evil.
You logic works in contradictory ways when applied to different people and hence is not absolute.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Why did the Native Americans hate white man? Oh yeah.
When you threaten the survival of another animal or human, they will fight back.
When you threaten the survival of another animal or human, they will fight back.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
They would organize a revolt against us. They haven't yet.
They are not intelligent enough to organize a revolt. But that does not mean that don't have emotions. It does not mean that they don't love their offspring.
They are not intelligent enough to organize a revolt. But that does not mean that don't have emotions. It does not mean that they don't love their offspring.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
They do that with any other animal. They do that with themselves. That doesn't mean they hate anything.
They hate it when another animal or another human enter their territory, in the same way that you hate it when a stranger enters your home without permission.
Animals are no different from Humans, except for being less intelligent.
They hate it when another animal or another human enter their territory, in the same way that you hate it when a stranger enters your home without permission.
Animals are no different from Humans, except for being less intelligent.
Hi vkamath,
The problem is when we try so hard to define our humanity via a textbook methodology as if we were perfectly programmable automatons. It won't work. We can look at any form of violence as evil even though some of that violence is necessary. E.g., eating anything that is alive can be seen as some sort of relative evil. Masticating a plant in one's mouth constitutes horrific predetermined intentional violence toward another form of true life so that we can selfishly continue our own existance, to the detriment of another sentient being, even if that being was a plant, let alone an animal. We eat animals that have the capacity of appreciating affection and nurture. Any experience with a cow will tell you that. They can be very gentle creatures and will seek you out for nothing more than company if they know you. Having a decades-old side career as a horticulturalist I also believe thru personal experience that plants are not unconscious. (I know that is controversial but that's for another debate).
So it does imply that our desire, impetus, to survive then has to employ a relative evil to maintain. In this sense, maggots and vultures have more virtue than we since they utilize decay to continue the species thus harming no life and keeping things 'clean' for the rest of us. So I ask, if we must utilize evil to continue the species, is it then evil? Did the development of our minds turn our impetus to survive evil? Is one's desire to exterminate our species then virtuous?
We can get so caught up in the minuteae of good/evil in our complex lives that there ends up being no way out; being born means being evil. This is one of the problems with relative evil. Whether great or small, we remain predeterminedly evil. As Good Elf said, science can provide the best solutions: in relation to the above, we could conceivably consume synthesized nutrient mediums that do not include destruction of life in any step of the process; that technology is either here now or soon to be. But if everyone is forced to eat this and it is made a crime to ingest any form of life, is that form of tyranny also evil? Obviously I could go on and on in dissections like this, and you and others indeed have, with the inescapable conclusion that tacitly 'if we are, then we are evil'.
If we don't include only enlightened people, then the consensus is tarnished by including aspects of unenlightenment as desired goals. Surely you can allow for our observations of the traits and wisdom that determine enlightenment. We have an entire world history to gauge that. We are doing that now every day; it's not some esoteric unknown world that we have never encountered before! I think you need to be careful just how far you keep breaking down each judgement that has to be made to determine anything. You can go far enough that no answer is applicable enough. Are you sure you are not being absolute in your dissections? How can any relative solution hold up to that scrutiny? That's a rather tyrannical employment of logical method, because we are slow, it needs to be done in steps, or it can lead to moral anarchy/turpitude. But we can formulate a near-absolute def of evil that is in a constant state of refinement as circumstances and their resultant experiential wisdom increases - within our extremely relative mutual livelihoods. I do not accept if you are implying that 'enlightened people cannot be determined from scoundrels so there can be no working consensus.' That leads to anarchy. And I think it's an intellectual cop-out misusing the tenet that 'we can't be sure of anything'. Based on other threads, we quite agree on that tenet - yes you may be the universe and I may be part of you - but it's an idea that we can't specifically utilize now. Specifically we need to determine who is enlightened to set standards. We can do that; it's still relative but wisdom has appeared and is comprehended and even though you can armchair dissect it into useless oblivion it nevertheless leads to clarity when employed. Of course you can just say that clarity is relative and therefore undependable, and I could go into another dissertation that you can pick a term from and say THAT is relative; two mirrors facing each other reflecting infinite disagreement, intellectual entropy, and no solution at all. Anarchy.
If we don't include only enlightened people, then the consensus is tarnished by including aspects of unenlightenment as desired goals. Surely you can allow for our observations of the traits and wisdom that determine enlightenment. We have an entire world history to gauge that. We are doing that now every day; it's not some esoteric unknown world that we have never encountered before! I think you need to be careful just how far you keep breaking down each judgement that has to be made to determine anything. You can go far enough that no answer is applicable enough. Are you sure you are not being absolute in your dissections? How can any relative solution hold up to that scrutiny? That's a rather tyrannical employment of logical method, because we are slow, it needs to be done in steps, or it can lead to moral anarchy/turpitude. But we can formulate a near-absolute def of evil that is in a constant state of refinement as circumstances and their resultant experiential wisdom increases - within our extremely relative mutual livelihoods. I do not accept if you are implying that 'enlightened people cannot be determined from scoundrels so there can be no working consensus.' That leads to anarchy. And I think it's an intellectual cop-out misusing the tenet that 'we can't be sure of anything'. Based on other threads, we quite agree on that tenet - yes you may be the universe and I may be part of you - but it's an idea that we can't specifically utilize now. Specifically we need to determine who is enlightened to set standards. We can do that; it's still relative but wisdom has appeared and is comprehended and even though you can armchair dissect it into useless oblivion it nevertheless leads to clarity when employed. Of course you can just say that clarity is relative and therefore undependable, and I could go into another dissertation that you can pick a term from and say THAT is relative; two mirrors facing each other reflecting infinite disagreement, intellectual entropy, and no solution at all. Anarchy.
In effect you are saying that "dont allow Evil people to determine what is good". But to do this you would need to determine who is Evil. Yours is a recursive definition.
The perfect example of my point. If we can't determine evil people AT ALL and we can't determine enlightened people AT ALL, who is being absolute? Whether evil is actually absolute on a universal scale is no more provable than whether God or Love or a certain mechanic of the Universe's birth is absolute. We don't have enough information to determine any of these things, nor a plethora more. But we gain info to refine a working intellectual model of what constitutes evil, get closer to a possible absolute, and proceed with greater fairness as a result. (I'm not saying that this is correctly occurring, only that we have the capability to do so)
Evil is certainly relative to humanity. Most of us would say that animals cannot be evil. Anything that is not completely known can be disagreed with, and so some will say there are animals who are 'aware enough' to commit evil, and they may be right, as opposed to the notion that 'no humans have ever existed', proven absolutely wrong by complete and repeatable observations to the contrary. In this case, 'wrong' is absolute, though the concept of 'wrong', like evil, right now is relative. I think it's better to say that the concept of evil cannot (yet) be proven absolute in general, and I don't maintain it at all is, but evil is absolute in specific situations within our experience.
The problem is when we try so hard to define our humanity via a textbook methodology as if we were perfectly programmable automatons. It won't work. We can look at any form of violence as evil even though some of that violence is necessary. E.g., eating anything that is alive can be seen as some sort of relative evil. Masticating a plant in one's mouth constitutes horrific predetermined intentional violence toward another form of true life so that we can selfishly continue our own existance, to the detriment of another sentient being, even if that being was a plant, let alone an animal. We eat animals that have the capacity of appreciating affection and nurture. Any experience with a cow will tell you that. They can be very gentle creatures and will seek you out for nothing more than company if they know you. Having a decades-old side career as a horticulturalist I also believe thru personal experience that plants are not unconscious. (I know that is controversial but that's for another debate).
So it does imply that our desire, impetus, to survive then has to employ a relative evil to maintain. In this sense, maggots and vultures have more virtue than we since they utilize decay to continue the species thus harming no life and keeping things 'clean' for the rest of us. So I ask, if we must utilize evil to continue the species, is it then evil? Did the development of our minds turn our impetus to survive evil? Is one's desire to exterminate our species then virtuous?
We can get so caught up in the minuteae of good/evil in our complex lives that there ends up being no way out; being born means being evil. This is one of the problems with relative evil. Whether great or small, we remain predeterminedly evil. As Good Elf said, science can provide the best solutions: in relation to the above, we could conceivably consume synthesized nutrient mediums that do not include destruction of life in any step of the process; that technology is either here now or soon to be. But if everyone is forced to eat this and it is made a crime to ingest any form of life, is that form of tyranny also evil? Obviously I could go on and on in dissections like this, and you and others indeed have, with the inescapable conclusion that tacitly 'if we are, then we are evil'.
QUOTE
By the very suggestion of including only "enlightened" people in your consensus, you are making your definition relative to "enlightened" people. So you need to stop calling it absolute.
Also, how would you determine who is "enlightened"?
Also, how would you determine who is "enlightened"?
If we don't include only enlightened people, then the consensus is tarnished by including aspects of unenlightenment as desired goals. Surely you can allow for our observations of the traits and wisdom that determine enlightenment. We have an entire world history to gauge that. We are doing that now every day; it's not some esoteric unknown world that we have never encountered before! I think you need to be careful just how far you keep breaking down each judgement that has to be made to determine anything. You can go far enough that no answer is applicable enough. Are you sure you are not being absolute in your dissections? How can any relative solution hold up to that scrutiny? That's a rather tyrannical employment of logical method, because we are slow, it needs to be done in steps, or it can lead to moral anarchy/turpitude. But we can formulate a near-absolute def of evil that is in a constant state of refinement as circumstances and their resultant experiential wisdom increases - within our extremely relative mutual livelihoods. I do not accept if you are implying that 'enlightened people cannot be determined from scoundrels so there can be no working consensus.' That leads to anarchy. And I think it's an intellectual cop-out misusing the tenet that 'we can't be sure of anything'. Based on other threads, we quite agree on that tenet - yes you may be the universe and I may be part of you - but it's an idea that we can't specifically utilize now. Specifically we need to determine who is enlightened to set standards. We can do that; it's still relative but wisdom has appeared and is comprehended and even though you can armchair dissect it into useless oblivion it nevertheless leads to clarity when employed. Of course you can just say that clarity is relative and therefore undependable, and I could go into another dissertation that you can pick a term from and say THAT is relative; two mirrors facing each other reflecting infinite disagreement, intellectual entropy, and no solution at all. Anarchy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By the very suggestion of including only "enlightened" people in your consensus, you are making your definition relative to "enlightened" people. So you need to stop calling it absolute. Also, how would you determine who is "enlightened"? |
If we don't include only enlightened people, then the consensus is tarnished by including aspects of unenlightenment as desired goals. Surely you can allow for our observations of the traits and wisdom that determine enlightenment. We have an entire world history to gauge that. We are doing that now every day; it's not some esoteric unknown world that we have never encountered before! I think you need to be careful just how far you keep breaking down each judgement that has to be made to determine anything. You can go far enough that no answer is applicable enough. Are you sure you are not being absolute in your dissections? How can any relative solution hold up to that scrutiny? That's a rather tyrannical employment of logical method, because we are slow, it needs to be done in steps, or it can lead to moral anarchy/turpitude. But we can formulate a near-absolute def of evil that is in a constant state of refinement as circumstances and their resultant experiential wisdom increases - within our extremely relative mutual livelihoods. I do not accept if you are implying that 'enlightened people cannot be determined from scoundrels so there can be no working consensus.' That leads to anarchy. And I think it's an intellectual cop-out misusing the tenet that 'we can't be sure of anything'. Based on other threads, we quite agree on that tenet - yes you may be the universe and I may be part of you - but it's an idea that we can't specifically utilize now. Specifically we need to determine who is enlightened to set standards. We can do that; it's still relative but wisdom has appeared and is comprehended and even though you can armchair dissect it into useless oblivion it nevertheless leads to clarity when employed. Of course you can just say that clarity is relative and therefore undependable, and I could go into another dissertation that you can pick a term from and say THAT is relative; two mirrors facing each other reflecting infinite disagreement, intellectual entropy, and no solution at all. Anarchy.
In effect you are saying that "dont allow Evil people to determine what is good". But to do this you would need to determine who is Evil. Yours is a recursive definition.
The perfect example of my point. If we can't determine evil people AT ALL and we can't determine enlightened people AT ALL, who is being absolute? Whether evil is actually absolute on a universal scale is no more provable than whether God or Love or a certain mechanic of the Universe's birth is absolute. We don't have enough information to determine any of these things, nor a plethora more. But we gain info to refine a working intellectual model of what constitutes evil, get closer to a possible absolute, and proceed with greater fairness as a result. (I'm not saying that this is correctly occurring, only that we have the capability to do so)
Evil is certainly relative to humanity. Most of us would say that animals cannot be evil. Anything that is not completely known can be disagreed with, and so some will say there are animals who are 'aware enough' to commit evil, and they may be right, as opposed to the notion that 'no humans have ever existed', proven absolutely wrong by complete and repeatable observations to the contrary. In this case, 'wrong' is absolute, though the concept of 'wrong', like evil, right now is relative. I think it's better to say that the concept of evil cannot (yet) be proven absolute in general, and I don't maintain it at all is, but evil is absolute in specific situations within our experience.
I think either "some" of us here don't recognize fact and truth - REALITY of the world (away from science please, which is not connected to what were discussing), apart from our own comfort (at the expense of mass others), or they're just living in fantasies.
GUY RAPED BABY for years
ABSOLUTE EVIL! (and more abuse I'll save)
And you cannot change my view on this, regardless if you may embarrass and put to shame yourself by defending or being tardy on these matters, as it shows only on ones own mental state.
See how our views are even so "lame" when "conjecturing" on morality and philosophy?
Scientific method used for matters, NOT with feeling and our personal life is fine (leaving aside animals which is undergone for our benefit).
It may have been the answer and overwhelmingly to most matters, which I prefer it over any other, but its lacking in human compassion or validity to be applied to humans, magnifying its flaws in methodology; only to provide answers, BUT incorrect ones, to fill gaps, leading to destruction of morality, common sense, and minds, with extreme "believers" in such an approach, who I doubt could ever see any sense, or flaws in it, even if obvious & translucent (if applied here). Its infact, so out of touch, for morality and realistic answers here for social, behavioural, moral and cognitive reasons, that I wouldn't even consider it, unless I'm seriously up for chaotic lifestyles, crude tyranny (worse than now), a sheepy life governed by "textbooks" of others beliefs and wants, contradictory to my own truth, me, & abhorred by my own views, dogmatic rule of "some" over masses, universal generalization and thus inferiority-superiority complex (with obviously the US etc being on top), & back to the Dark Ages, with dirty leaders, doing what they want when applying their "own" rulings to all others, without regard or qualitative analysis of TRUTH. It'll be the ultimate disaster to mankind, with regards to "free will" and even "free thought", with reasons for ourselves forced that are pure prevarications, and thus the decent but daring as usual punished, and the perpertrators given the leniency, love & sympathy.
How can one work out "anything" in regards to humans, if morality only ever existed in minorities; what in the world would a qualitative & quantitative analysis reap but an ELECTION style of "win" for a particular quest (and we now how unrealistic of represenatation that is)? It can only work out sufficiently, over much prolonged and maybe symbolistic, let alone shamblistic 'trail n testing' periods for "constants" and matters which are "absolute", which is NEVER the case in personal choice, view, nor like and belief.
Most present day humans are the worst judges, and intentioned people one can create, or ideate, when in regards to others they do not know intimately and find "pleasant/agreeable" and thats disregarding the impressing and proselytizing they conform to, but counting mere reason for doing something. Only minorities have the capable wisdom and qualities (its no hint) to "objectively" and "realistically" see, not be swept away with propaganda (by friends/family, everyone) and become doted to see moral right from wrong, in & for the short and long term, for JUSTICE & EQUALITY of good over bad; & thats very innate based on much reflection, thought, true knowledge of people/cultures and ethics to a certain degree- history plays a very crucial role in the development of this, and thus so do many religious teachings, worldwide: BUT it should not be something that pleases our hearts for eloquency, or its mannerism & presentation, or colorfulness, bashfulness and poetic speech 'n' lexicology, but for truthful principles, which again, many do simply not or cannot do nor bother to recognize, as long as they get ease, & comfort.
Here if if any "villain" does something "evil", sick or ignorant, (s)he will normally part with another doer of it and support him/her, (in this free world) and so will anyone else who does, has done or sees nothing wrong with such acts/deeds.
ANY theory or approach can become a sacrosanct BELIEF, and "extremist" and this is what is happening with science now.
Its more likely the application to a set of robots, who are "fixed" on principles, known fully, and can be seen "where they have gone wrong" rather than to a human, so diverse and dynamic, with much more factors at play than we can fathom, even yet!
But when used to work out humans then it "always" has failed, when used in Psychology, basing itself on ABSOLUTE truths & interpretations, correlations of two UNRELATED factors/events and happenings to provide an illogical answer, subjective and dependent on ones own "beliefs", knowledge and many other factors, and thus seriously flawed, and abysmal when used for application or "universal" truth finding on humans, innately "different" from each other.
The same questions as EVER remain unanswered, BUT with ones own inclinations and beliefs only, repeatedly incessantly.
Too many things to answer and say, it'll be extremely lengthy & verbose, and I don't even feel like beginning, after seeing the path of this discussion right now. SO thats simply my bit, and so far, I agree with Vkamath, Upisoft, Calnpals fully here, BUT not others, who present conflicting views, with inclinations to certain "doctrines" preconceived prior to discussion, and what seems not as objective analysis, but still I hold tentative agreement with Good Elf's views.
A lack in written constructiveness, flouty and impressive vocabulary, less mental effort/ability or depreciative argumentation without the beautifully apparent obsequiousness, or partisanship, doesn't make any opposed view stand as correct, any more than a drunken abuse is.
We'll have a multitudinous amount of extremely freaky and wildly nefarious societies, lifestyles, and environments driven by the "inspiration" and "revelations" of the mentally filthy (who are waiting this opportunity and since the WW's exist eversoincreasingly with better reputations & acceptance day by day) with base imaginations, any correlated relationships and banal "truths" such as 'tall people are more intelligent than short", based on whats passed as corollaries from facts, in utter futileness.
There is NO time in history where its not been witnessed, that to give "power" or "freedom" to a certain elect or authority, is proportionally destructive for society, civilization/s, & historically recently for the globe.
Arundhati Roy: “In the ‘free’ market, free speech has become a commodity like everything else—justice, human rights, drinking water, clean air. It’s available only to those who can afford it. And naturally, those who can afford it use free speech to manufacture the kind of product, confect the kind of public opinion, that best suits their purpose.”
Sometimes, its harsh to be truthful, i.e. truth hurts.
Nothing personal though & appreciated.
A few articles to absorb, sift through, & reflect on:
US built major Iranian nuclear facility
Britain's dirty secret: how Britain helped Israel make the A-bomb in the 1960s
What maybe a British Iranian War buildup on its borders
"Ethnic Profiling" and the "War on Terrorism" on Board Northwest Flight 42
If this is not chaos, systematic persecution, annihilation & intimidation or masses (other than us obviously), and the ruin of the "world" away from our eyes, the same CHAUVINIST ideology regurgitated and believed by our colonial "elitist" ancestors, than what is?
My apologise for pedantics, as I've typed in a little hurry.
GUY RAPED BABY for years
ABSOLUTE EVIL! (and more abuse I'll save)
And you cannot change my view on this, regardless if you may embarrass and put to shame yourself by defending or being tardy on these matters, as it shows only on ones own mental state.
See how our views are even so "lame" when "conjecturing" on morality and philosophy?
Scientific method used for matters, NOT with feeling and our personal life is fine (leaving aside animals which is undergone for our benefit).
It may have been the answer and overwhelmingly to most matters, which I prefer it over any other, but its lacking in human compassion or validity to be applied to humans, magnifying its flaws in methodology; only to provide answers, BUT incorrect ones, to fill gaps, leading to destruction of morality, common sense, and minds, with extreme "believers" in such an approach, who I doubt could ever see any sense, or flaws in it, even if obvious & translucent (if applied here). Its infact, so out of touch, for morality and realistic answers here for social, behavioural, moral and cognitive reasons, that I wouldn't even consider it, unless I'm seriously up for chaotic lifestyles, crude tyranny (worse than now), a sheepy life governed by "textbooks" of others beliefs and wants, contradictory to my own truth, me, & abhorred by my own views, dogmatic rule of "some" over masses, universal generalization and thus inferiority-superiority complex (with obviously the US etc being on top), & back to the Dark Ages, with dirty leaders, doing what they want when applying their "own" rulings to all others, without regard or qualitative analysis of TRUTH. It'll be the ultimate disaster to mankind, with regards to "free will" and even "free thought", with reasons for ourselves forced that are pure prevarications, and thus the decent but daring as usual punished, and the perpertrators given the leniency, love & sympathy.
How can one work out "anything" in regards to humans, if morality only ever existed in minorities; what in the world would a qualitative & quantitative analysis reap but an ELECTION style of "win" for a particular quest (and we now how unrealistic of represenatation that is)? It can only work out sufficiently, over much prolonged and maybe symbolistic, let alone shamblistic 'trail n testing' periods for "constants" and matters which are "absolute", which is NEVER the case in personal choice, view, nor like and belief.
Most present day humans are the worst judges, and intentioned people one can create, or ideate, when in regards to others they do not know intimately and find "pleasant/agreeable" and thats disregarding the impressing and proselytizing they conform to, but counting mere reason for doing something. Only minorities have the capable wisdom and qualities (its no hint) to "objectively" and "realistically" see, not be swept away with propaganda (by friends/family, everyone) and become doted to see moral right from wrong, in & for the short and long term, for JUSTICE & EQUALITY of good over bad; & thats very innate based on much reflection, thought, true knowledge of people/cultures and ethics to a certain degree- history plays a very crucial role in the development of this, and thus so do many religious teachings, worldwide: BUT it should not be something that pleases our hearts for eloquency, or its mannerism & presentation, or colorfulness, bashfulness and poetic speech 'n' lexicology, but for truthful principles, which again, many do simply not or cannot do nor bother to recognize, as long as they get ease, & comfort.
Here if if any "villain" does something "evil", sick or ignorant, (s)he will normally part with another doer of it and support him/her, (in this free world) and so will anyone else who does, has done or sees nothing wrong with such acts/deeds.
ANY theory or approach can become a sacrosanct BELIEF, and "extremist" and this is what is happening with science now.
Its more likely the application to a set of robots, who are "fixed" on principles, known fully, and can be seen "where they have gone wrong" rather than to a human, so diverse and dynamic, with much more factors at play than we can fathom, even yet!
But when used to work out humans then it "always" has failed, when used in Psychology, basing itself on ABSOLUTE truths & interpretations, correlations of two UNRELATED factors/events and happenings to provide an illogical answer, subjective and dependent on ones own "beliefs", knowledge and many other factors, and thus seriously flawed, and abysmal when used for application or "universal" truth finding on humans, innately "different" from each other.
The same questions as EVER remain unanswered, BUT with ones own inclinations and beliefs only, repeatedly incessantly.
Too many things to answer and say, it'll be extremely lengthy & verbose, and I don't even feel like beginning, after seeing the path of this discussion right now. SO thats simply my bit, and so far, I agree with Vkamath, Upisoft, Calnpals fully here, BUT not others, who present conflicting views, with inclinations to certain "doctrines" preconceived prior to discussion, and what seems not as objective analysis, but still I hold tentative agreement with Good Elf's views.
A lack in written constructiveness, flouty and impressive vocabulary, less mental effort/ability or depreciative argumentation without the beautifully apparent obsequiousness, or partisanship, doesn't make any opposed view stand as correct, any more than a drunken abuse is.
We'll have a multitudinous amount of extremely freaky and wildly nefarious societies, lifestyles, and environments driven by the "inspiration" and "revelations" of the mentally filthy (who are waiting this opportunity and since the WW's exist eversoincreasingly with better reputations & acceptance day by day) with base imaginations, any correlated relationships and banal "truths" such as 'tall people are more intelligent than short", based on whats passed as corollaries from facts, in utter futileness.
There is NO time in history where its not been witnessed, that to give "power" or "freedom" to a certain elect or authority, is proportionally destructive for society, civilization/s, & historically recently for the globe.
Arundhati Roy: “In the ‘free’ market, free speech has become a commodity like everything else—justice, human rights, drinking water, clean air. It’s available only to those who can afford it. And naturally, those who can afford it use free speech to manufacture the kind of product, confect the kind of public opinion, that best suits their purpose.”
Sometimes, its harsh to be truthful, i.e. truth hurts.
Nothing personal though & appreciated.
A few articles to absorb, sift through, & reflect on:
US built major Iranian nuclear facility
Britain's dirty secret: how Britain helped Israel make the A-bomb in the 1960s
What maybe a British Iranian War buildup on its borders
"Ethnic Profiling" and the "War on Terrorism" on Board Northwest Flight 42
If this is not chaos, systematic persecution, annihilation & intimidation or masses (other than us obviously), and the ruin of the "world" away from our eyes, the same CHAUVINIST ideology regurgitated and believed by our colonial "elitist" ancestors, than what is?
My apologise for pedantics, as I've typed in a little hurry.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I agree that in some sense "absolute evil may exist" but we can never know of it... the same way we can never know "absolute truth". There is no true virtue in trying to know absolute truth or understand what is absolute evil. Everything we know of truth and of evil and of even scientific knowledge is relative ... relative to the "savage" that we originally came from and still exists not so deeply buried beneath our veneer of civilization. I applaud the Scientific Method as being the only way man has ever found to date to guarantee "progress" other than "evolution". I am not ashamed of man's very distant past because it is as much a part of me as any aspect of my character. This does not mean that I want to purposefully retain any particular part of it any more than I want to remember when my even more distant ancestors dragged themselves onto some swampy beach several hundred million years ago. I do not need to since this information is part of the basic genetic code from which I am comprised.
This is an excellent point of view. I fully agree.
This is an excellent point of view. I fully agree.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
I know you will mostly disagree but science has saved more lives and preserved human dignity in every way it can within the realm of our complex social environment, and it does it almost without any political direction or religious fervor. It is the only "weapon" the common man has against the despots of our recent history and of our distant futures.
We humans are "wired" to go out and explore. Science is the tool we have to honestly evaluate our observations.
We humans are "wired" to go out and explore. Science is the tool we have to honestly evaluate our observations.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
The problem is when we try so hard to define our humanity via a textbook methodology as if we were perfectly programmable automatons. It won't work.
I agree. This is what I mean when I say there is no "absolute" to good and evil. Absoluteness is a textbook term and should not be used in relation to good and evil.
I agree. This is what I mean when I say there is no "absolute" to good and evil. Absoluteness is a textbook term and should not be used in relation to good and evil.
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
We can get so caught up in the minuteae of good/evil in our complex lives that there ends up being no way out; being born means being evil.
I agree. Instead of getting caught up in the minuteae, my view is that we should always perform actions with good intentions. Do our duties in the best way possible.
No rule book created by the enlightened can help us in this matter. We need to become enlightened instead.
I agree. Instead of getting caught up in the minuteae, my view is that we should always perform actions with good intentions. Do our duties in the best way possible.
No rule book created by the enlightened can help us in this matter. We need to become enlightened instead.
Good Elf,
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 30 2006, 06:42 PM)
Thanks for the wrap Soundhertz. I agree that in some sense "absolute evil may exist" but we can never know of it... the same way we can never know "absolute truth".
I'm disappointed Good Elf. You jumped into the "Absolutist" camp. I thought you agreed that the Absolute does not exist. Now you seem to agree that it exists, but we can't find it.
I'm disappointed Good Elf. You jumped into the "Absolutist" camp. I thought you agreed that the Absolute does not exist. Now you seem to agree that it exists, but we can't find it.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 30 2006, 06:42 PM)
I applaud the Scientific Method as being the only way man has ever found to date to guarantee "progress" other than "evolution".
I agree. Unfortunately science is capable to work effectively only with the physical world. And concepts we're discussing are abstract. You can't put 1 kg of "evil" in the fridge...
I agree. Unfortunately science is capable to work effectively only with the physical world. And concepts we're discussing are abstract. You can't put 1 kg of "evil" in the fridge...
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 30 2006, 06:42 PM)
I know you will mostly disagree but science has saved more lives and preserved human dignity in every way it can within the realm of our complex social environment, and it does it almost without any political direction or religious fervor.
In the same sense the science "killed" more people than anything else. A-bomb, machine gun, bio-weapons, chemical weapons, cars, synthetic narcotics... are all product of the science.
The science is neither "good" or "evil". People are.
In the same sense the science "killed" more people than anything else. A-bomb, machine gun, bio-weapons, chemical weapons, cars, synthetic narcotics... are all product of the science.
The science is neither "good" or "evil". People are.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 30 2006, 06:42 PM)
It is the only "weapon" the common man has against the despots of our recent history and of our distant futures.
And it can be "weapon" in the hands of future despots as well, if we allow such society(despot tolerant) to thrive.
And it can be "weapon" in the hands of future despots as well, if we allow such society(despot tolerant) to thrive.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 30 2006, 06:42 PM)
In reply to Upisoft... I am a Pantheist
And I am Theist Anti-Absolutist.
And I am Theist Anti-Absolutist.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 30 2006, 06:42 PM)
One day we will know a lot more about this "unknown god" that Upisoft complains about so passionately (I am sure Upisoft has not really begun to think about why he said that).
I don't complain about God. I complain about the human idea of existence of "Absolute"(Almighty) God. I'm passionate because non existence of Absolute is the foundation of my beliefs. Tell to some Christian guy that Jesus does not exist and you will get the same passionate response.
I don't complain about God. I complain about the human idea of existence of "Absolute"(Almighty) God. I'm passionate because non existence of Absolute is the foundation of my beliefs. Tell to some Christian guy that Jesus does not exist and you will get the same passionate response.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Aug 30 2006, 06:42 PM)
If you cannot trust in this as a truly benign force, and can't see that an unformed hand that really does guide all those who trust in the future, then we are surely lost.
No one guide us or take care of us. If we don't help ourselves, we're lost. If we don't care of us or the environment we're living in, no one will.
The idea that God will do those things for us is dangerous, because people believing in that will easily neglect the damage we're making to the nature or ourselves.
No one guide us or take care of us. If we don't help ourselves, we're lost. If we don't care of us or the environment we're living in, no one will.
The idea that God will do those things for us is dangerous, because people believing in that will easily neglect the damage we're making to the nature or ourselves.
QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 30 2006, 10:56 AM)
So are you saying any animal can kill and eat any other animal, that it is not evil? By your logic eating dog would not be evil. I am sure I can find a million meat eaters who would disagree with you.
Just because they disagree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong. I can find a billion people who believe eating dog isn't evil. Since I have the most people, according to you, I win.
Just because they disagree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong. I can find a billion people who believe eating dog isn't evil. Since I have the most people, according to you, I win.
QUOTE (same+)
You logic works in contradictory ways when applied to different people and hence is not absolute.
If it's correct it is.
If it's correct it is.
QUOTE (same+)
They are not intelligent enough to organize a revolt. But that does not mean that don't have emotions. It does not mean that they don't love their offspring.
There are cows in a field. One has a calf. I kill the calf. Why isn't the cow upset? Why isn't she crying? When a calf grows up, why doesn't it keep in touch with its mother? Why doesn't it return her calls?
There are cows in a field. One has a calf. I kill the calf. Why isn't the cow upset? Why isn't she crying? When a calf grows up, why doesn't it keep in touch with its mother? Why doesn't it return her calls?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
When you threaten the survival of another animal or human, they will fight back.
Native Americans fought back when we took their land and killed their people--just what we do to animals. Why don't animals fight back, too?
What do you feed your dog?
Native Americans fought back when we took their land and killed their people--just what we do to animals. Why don't animals fight back, too?
What do you feed your dog?
QUOTE (soundhertz+)
We can get so caught up in the minuteae of good/evil in our complex lives that there ends up being no way out; being born means being evil. This is one of the problems with relative evil. Whether great or small, we remain predeterminedly evil. As Good Elf said, science can provide the best solutions: in relation to the above, we could conceivably consume synthesized nutrient mediums that do not include destruction of life in any step of the process; that technology is either here now or soon to be. But if everyone is forced to eat this and it is made a crime to ingest any form of life, is that form of tyranny also evil? Obviously I could go on and on in dissections like this, and you and others indeed have, with the inescapable conclusion that tacitly 'if we are, then we are evil'.
This is why eating cannot be evil.
This is why eating cannot be evil.
QUOTE (SC+)
ABSOLUTE EVIL! (and more abuse I'll save)
Actually, according to several posters here, it's not as long as you don't think it is.
Actually, according to several posters here, it's not as long as you don't think it is.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
I agree. This is what I mean when I say there is no "absolute" to good and evil. Absoluteness is a textbook term and should not be used in relation to good and evil.
Where's the proof?
Soundhertz,
Is good and evil relative?
Where's the proof?
Soundhertz,
Is good and evil relative?
QUOTE (Upisoft+)
I'm disappointed Good Elf. You jumped into the "Absolutist" camp.
He saw the light.
He saw the light.QUOTE (same+)
And I am Theist Anti-Absolutist.
Then how come you didn't try to refute my posts? You just ignored them.
vkamath, you know I have posted on this thread and others almost unendingly that we cannot raise the conscience of the world. We can only raise our own. But people can be taught to aid in their progress, just like you and I can be taught . And we find enlightenment, because we search for it. We have come a long way from the far past. If they had the weapons and means we have now they would have obliterated their world. So far we haven't while knowing we can. I'm impressed, if no one else is.
Education cannot be forced, but it can be made available. Did you think I intended to rub people's noses in a rulebook from the enlightened? But what you're seemingly saying is we all have to be our own Howard Roarks of virtue, because no one else is worthy to be in our assistance. This method will take a long time...
Yes, we need to become ever enlightened. And the enlightened exist. There are levels, it is relative. And rulebooks have been written, and refined, in all guises and manner and kind. They will continue to be refined as we go on. Part of helping to raise the consciousness of the world is being both the teacher and the student, since we all have something to contribute to each other. Nothing needs to be coerced; there's enough who are asking already. You are what you teach. If you extend a helping hand and you look in those eyes with compassion and respect, what are you teaching? That is education. And enlightenment will follow, and come to both. Enlightened people can speak wisdom, and knowledge flows; a tonic of good will that expands understanding of goodness and mitigates evil. This method will also take time, but perhaps not as long. Maybe not even long enough to determine if evil is absolute.
Then how come you didn't try to refute my posts? You just ignored them.
QUOTE (same+)
The science is neither "good" or "evil". People are.
You cannot give an absolute reference to a relative concept. According to you, people are not good or evil.
You cannot give an absolute reference to a relative concept. According to you, people are not good or evil.
QUOTE
No rule book created by the enlightened can help us in this matter. We need to become enlightened instead.
vkamath, you know I have posted on this thread and others almost unendingly that we cannot raise the conscience of the world. We can only raise our own. But people can be taught to aid in their progress, just like you and I can be taught . And we find enlightenment, because we search for it. We have come a long way from the far past. If they had the weapons and means we have now they would have obliterated their world. So far we haven't while knowing we can. I'm impressed, if no one else is.
Education cannot be forced, but it can be made available. Did you think I intended to rub people's noses in a rulebook from the enlightened? But what you're seemingly saying is we all have to be our own Howard Roarks of virtue, because no one else is worthy to be in our assistance. This method will take a long time...
Yes, we need to become ever enlightened. And the enlightened exist. There are levels, it is relative. And rulebooks have been written, and refined, in all guises and manner and kind. They will continue to be refined as we go on. Part of helping to raise the consciousness of the world is being both the teacher and the student, since we all have something to contribute to each other. Nothing needs to be coerced; there's enough who are asking already. You are what you teach. If you extend a helping hand and you look in those eyes with compassion and respect, what are you teaching? That is education. And enlightenment will follow, and come to both. Enlightened people can speak wisdom, and knowledge flows; a tonic of good will that expands understanding of goodness and mitigates evil. This method will also take time, but perhaps not as long. Maybe not even long enough to determine if evil is absolute.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Just because they disagree with me doesn't mean I'm wrong. I can find a billion people who believe eating dog isn't evil. Since I have the most people, according to you, I win.
You don't get the point. There are people who believe that eating Dog is Evil. To them their logic is right. To you, your logic is right.
They will argue with you in the same manner that I argue with you that animals have emotions. You will not be able to prove anything to them in the same way that you have not been able to prove anything to me.
You will argue with them endlessly without any conclusion in the same manner you are doing with me.
The point is this -
It is impossible to prove that your absolute logic regarding good/evil is right, because morality cannot be determined by logic. Morality cannot be proved like Pythagoras theorem.
Everyone think and do what they feel is right. To each of us our logic is "absolute". So you need to stop being self-centered and try to see other peoples point of view.
I know you wont get it, despite me trying to explain this in 100 different ways and examples. So I am just going to give up on you.
You don't get the point. There are people who believe that eating Dog is Evil. To them their logic is right. To you, your logic is right.
They will argue with you in the same manner that I argue with you that animals have emotions. You will not be able to prove anything to them in the same way that you have not been able to prove anything to me.
You will argue with them endlessly without any conclusion in the same manner you are doing with me.
The point is this -
It is impossible to prove that your absolute logic regarding good/evil is right, because morality cannot be determined by logic. Morality cannot be proved like Pythagoras theorem.
Everyone think and do what they feel is right. To each of us our logic is "absolute". So you need to stop being self-centered and try to see other peoples point of view.
I know you wont get it, despite me trying to explain this in 100 different ways and examples. So I am just going to give up on you.
All,
Good/Evil to each of us is determined based on what we think is sacred. Which of the following is most important to you -
1) Self preservation.
2) Your country.
3) Your religion / god
4) Scientific method
5) Your philosophy
6) Your family
7) Your community
8) Your work.
A combination of the above in various percentages may be important to us. our priorities may change based on our experiences. Our interpretation of Good and Evil varies due to these factors.
Good/Evil to each of us is determined based on what we think is sacred. Which of the following is most important to you -
1) Self preservation.
2) Your country.
3) Your religion / god
4) Scientific method
5) Your philosophy
6) Your family
7) Your community
8) Your work.
A combination of the above in various percentages may be important to us. our priorities may change based on our experiences. Our interpretation of Good and Evil varies due to these factors.
Hi Vkamath, soundhertz, 555Joshua, Upisoft, Knot of this world, SC et al,
QUOTE (vkamath Posted on Today at 11:31 PM+)
You don't get the point. There are people who believe that eating Dog is Evil. To them their logic is right. To you, your logic is right.
Lets agree that at least in some way to take the dog's life and eat it is an act which contains "evil". Different cultures place different significances on it as an "absolute" level of evil. If I asked you all... what about eating a human after ritually killing him? Is this "evil"? A number of cultures actually did practice cannibalism and some say some still do. Some do it out of respect for the dead, this is a fact, they eat "granny" not because they hate her but because they loved her (this happens/happened in Papua New Guinea)... but only if the relative died "naturally". If they are killed ritually the intention is not to honor him (as in the latest version of the Pirates of the Caribbean... this never ever happened... its a movie folks!) the actions were always intended to denigrate this adversary, to bring the victim down to the level of a food source and to "consume" his strength. In these cultures that advocate this practice, there is no doubt that this is something "good" to do to your adversary. However this action is not able to be subjected to the test of the "Golden Rule", it would certainly fail, it is a social absolute and a test of social cohesion to "join in" with those around you. It distinguishes "you" from a member of another tribe and they would understandably give as good as they get. This occurred with the Anastasi Indians of North America which seem allied to the Aztecs in many ways in their practices. All cultures have these random absolute values... the question is can they really be absolute and are there any truly absolute values at all. I have said that though there may be "absolutes" ... we can never really know them independent of our culture.
Now I ask the question across cultural barriers... apply the golden Rule and now compare the relative "evils" of eating a dog or eating a man... both killed purposely. Which act according to the "Golden Rule" is the greater "evil". I ask that you do not compare those who are mentally insane here such as that sorry case in Germany recently and I do not want to think about those cases where people through starvation sometimes eat each other (the Donner Party etc.). Even though the relative merit or lack of merit of such an act varies between cultures we would all agree that if we apply strictly the golden rule we can compare the two acts and judge which is the more "evil"... in terms all cultures can appreciate... in purely relative terms. Here is the version of the "Golden Rule" I have proposed...
your "fur family"). So not only have we established "evil" we are able to judge different levels of evil... they will not agree on absolute levels but they will choose between the lesser of two situations from their own points of view.
Now we have established a "relative" standard this can be refined as time goes on as our understanding is honed to a sharp edge instead of our butchers knives. We are asked only to judge between two situations at a time (no more) and to decide what is the preference. I would judge them ingenuous if they apply an absolute standard to their adversaries that they would not apply to themselves and their family. Strip out of this any consideration of "pay back" or other social "preconditions" such as I have set out above where your "duty" is to "join in"... through "peer group pressures".
In the end you can always place these moral questions into this perspective. It is a perspective that may not be appreciated but it is the only one which transcends social and religious barriers. Global morality can never be an "absolute" but it is realizable with effort if we put aside these cultural "absolutes" and see things from the point of view of the "other". This is the "one thing" which all this argument is about... refusal to see the other point of view or to understand the reasons behind the decisions people make that we personally do not like and wish to punish.
Cheers
PS: Vkamath... asking a question to rate what is more important to someone is not a moral question is is a value based question only. Make up your mind and stay with the subject of 'mortality" here. The question is "What is "evil"?". What is more important to you... a $10 note or a $100 note? He he he!
Now I ask the question across cultural barriers... apply the golden Rule and now compare the relative "evils" of eating a dog or eating a man... both killed purposely. Which act according to the "Golden Rule" is the greater "evil". I ask that you do not compare those who are mentally insane here such as that sorry case in Germany recently and I do not want to think about those cases where people through starvation sometimes eat each other (the Donner Party etc.). Even though the relative merit or lack of merit of such an act varies between cultures we would all agree that if we apply strictly the golden rule we can compare the two acts and judge which is the more "evil"... in terms all cultures can appreciate... in purely relative terms. Here is the version of the "Golden Rule" I have proposed...
QUOTE
To test for "evil"... Just apply the "Golden Rule" and see if what you intend to do for others is the intention you would have them do for you and your family if the circumstances were entirely reversed.
If you are getting "double talk" from them, just make it quite clear that this is what you "wish" to happen in all circumstances not only what you would do to your adversary (or dog) but to you and your entire family (including your dogs your "fur family"). So not only have we established "evil" we are able to judge different levels of evil... they will not agree on absolute levels but they will choose between the lesser of two situations from their own points of view.Now we have established a "relative" standard this can be refined as time goes on as our understanding is honed to a sharp edge instead of our butchers knives. We are asked only to judge between two situations at a time (no more) and to decide what is the preference. I would judge them ingenuous if they apply an absolute standard to their adversaries that they would not apply to themselves and their family. Strip out of this any consideration of "pay back" or other social "preconditions" such as I have set out above where your "duty" is to "join in"... through "peer group pressures".
In the end you can always place these moral questions into this perspective. It is a perspective that may not be appreciated but it is the only one which transcends social and religious barriers. Global morality can never be an "absolute" but it is realizable with effort if we put aside these cultural "absolutes" and see things from the point of view of the "other". This is the "one thing" which all this argument is about... refusal to see the other point of view or to understand the reasons behind the decisions people make that we personally do not like and wish to punish.
Cheers
PS: Vkamath... asking a question to rate what is more important to someone is not a moral question is is a value based question only. Make up your mind and stay with the subject of 'mortality" here. The question is "What is "evil"?". What is more important to you... a $10 note or a $100 note? He he he!
555Joshua,
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 31 2006, 04:00 AM)
QUOTE (same+)
And I am Theist Anti-Absolutist.
Then how come you didn't try to refute my posts? You just ignored them.
No, I didn't ignored them. I proved that Absolute Truth can't exist. You tried to disprove my proof, but that led you into paradox and the proof stays. It looks like you're ignoring my proof.
Then how come you didn't try to refute my posts? You just ignored them.
No, I didn't ignored them. I proved that Absolute Truth can't exist. You tried to disprove my proof, but that led you into paradox and the proof stays. It looks like you're ignoring my proof.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 31 2006, 04:00 AM)
QUOTE (same+)
The science is neither "good" or "evil". People are.
You cannot give an absolute reference to a relative concept. According to you, people are not good or evil.
You're wrong. Some people I know are good and some are evil, according me. I can't tell anything about people I don't know. They, however, may be good or evil, according someone who knows them.
You cannot give an absolute reference to a relative concept. According to you, people are not good or evil.
You're wrong. Some people I know are good and some are evil, according me. I can't tell anything about people I don't know. They, however, may be good or evil, according someone who knows them.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
PS: Vkamath... asking a question to rate what is more important to someone is not a moral question is is a value based question only. Make up your mind and stay with the subject of 'mortality" here. The question is "What is "evil"?". What is more important to you... a $10 note or a $100 note? He he he!
I should have explained that in more detail. I was trying to figure out why each of us have different interpretations of Good and Evil.
My question in not regarding value. It is regarding what we hold "sacred". For some of us nationalism is sacred..to some other religion is sacred...to some others their family is sacred. Each of us may hold these as important to different degrees.
For Eg. To a person to whom nationalism is sacred, killing another who attacks his country may not be evil.
Anyone can answer which is more valuable among a $10 note and a $100 note. But I wish we had such a common and simple answer to the question I posed. If all of us had the same purpose and value the same things, there would not be any problem in finding a definition for Absolute morality.
I should have explained that in more detail. I was trying to figure out why each of us have different interpretations of Good and Evil.
My question in not regarding value. It is regarding what we hold "sacred". For some of us nationalism is sacred..to some other religion is sacred...to some others their family is sacred. Each of us may hold these as important to different degrees.
For Eg. To a person to whom nationalism is sacred, killing another who attacks his country may not be evil.
Anyone can answer which is more valuable among a $10 note and a $100 note. But I wish we had such a common and simple answer to the question I posed. If all of us had the same purpose and value the same things, there would not be any problem in finding a definition for Absolute morality.
QUOTE (Upisoft+Aug 24 2006, 10:16 PM)
555Joshua, All,
I was talking about Godel and his Incompleteness theorem. I think you may be interested to see one very simple proof, although not strictly mathematical.
So we were talking about Absolute Truth. Let's say there is an entity that possesses Absolute Truth. Let's give it name God. (For shortness)
If we give God a statement, He could always answer if it's true or false. In other words God can prove any statement to be true or false.
We can create 2 groups of true statements. Group 1 consists of true statements that God can prove to be true. Group 2 consists of true statements that, unfortunately, God can't prove to be true(but they actually are).
Obviously we suppose that Group 2 is empty, because God can prove any true statement to be true, because He possesses Absolute Truth.
Let we examine following statement:
(A) "God can't prove this statement to be true"
It can be false or true.
1. Let we suppose that (A) is false. Then following statement is true: "God can prove (A) to be true". Which means that (A) is part of Group 1. That is impossible, because Group 1 consists only of true statements and we supposed that (A) is false. Which means that (A) must be true.
2. OK, we now know that (A) must be true. Which means that what (A) says is true, i.e. (A) is not member of Group 1.
So, (A) is true statement and is not part of Group 1, which means it's member of Group 2. And that's what A says.
Conclusion: (A) is true statement which belongs to Group 2.
Now we know that we have at least one true statement that belongs to Group 2. Which is in contradiction with our original assumption that Absolute Truth exists. So, Absolute Truth does not exist.
#1. "God can't prove this statement to be true"
#2. "God can prove (A) to be true".
My only question is what point is made?
I was talking about Godel and his Incompleteness theorem. I think you may be interested to see one very simple proof, although not strictly mathematical.
So we were talking about Absolute Truth. Let's say there is an entity that possesses Absolute Truth. Let's give it name God. (For shortness)
If we give God a statement, He could always answer if it's true or false. In other words God can prove any statement to be true or false.
We can create 2 groups of true statements. Group 1 consists of true statements that God can prove to be true. Group 2 consists of true statements that, unfortunately, God can't prove to be true(but they actually are).
Obviously we suppose that Group 2 is empty, because God can prove any true statement to be true, because He possesses Absolute Truth.
Let we examine following statement:
(A) "God can't prove this statement to be true"
It can be false or true.
1. Let we suppose that (A) is false. Then following statement is true: "God can prove (A) to be true". Which means that (A) is part of Group 1. That is impossible, because Group 1 consists only of true statements and we supposed that (A) is false. Which means that (A) must be true.
2. OK, we now know that (A) must be true. Which means that what (A) says is true, i.e. (A) is not member of Group 1.
So, (A) is true statement and is not part of Group 1, which means it's member of Group 2. And that's what A says.
Conclusion: (A) is true statement which belongs to Group 2.
Now we know that we have at least one true statement that belongs to Group 2. Which is in contradiction with our original assumption that Absolute Truth exists. So, Absolute Truth does not exist.
#1. "God can't prove this statement to be true"
#2. "God can prove (A) to be true".
My only question is what point is made?
QUOTE (vkamath+)
You don't get the point. There are people who believe that eating Dog is Evil. To them their logic is right. To you, your logic is right.
But only one actually is right. It doesn't matter who thinks they are right, I could think a TV program is going to be on tonight. I am right to ME, but in actuality I am wrong.
But only one actually is right. It doesn't matter who thinks they are right, I could think a TV program is going to be on tonight. I am right to ME, but in actuality I am wrong.
QUOTE (same+)
They will argue with you in the same manner that I argue with you that animals have emotions.
Without proof?
Without proof?
QUOTE (same+)
You will argue with them endlessly without any conclusion in the same manner you are doing with me.
That's because you are STUBBORN.
That's because you are STUBBORN.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
It is impossible to prove that your absolute logic regarding good/evil is right, because morality cannot be determined by logic. Morality cannot be proved like Pythagoras theorem.
Where's the proof?
Where's the proof?
QUOTE (same+)
Everyone think and do what they feel is right.
And they could be wrong.
And they could be wrong.
QUOTE (same+)
So you need to stop being self-centered and try to see other peoples point of view.
Self-centered? I was the one that said no one person could know absolute good and evil but you all wanted me to come up with a definition.
Self-centered? I was the one that said no one person could know absolute good and evil but you all wanted me to come up with a definition.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
Good/Evil to each of us is determined based on what we think is sacred. Which of the following is most important to you -
You're placing the power of the earth in the hands of ants.
You're placing the power of the earth in the hands of ants.
QUOTE (same+)
Our interpretation of Good and Evil varies due to these factors.
Which is why good and evil can not be judged by them.
Vkamath,
Do you feed your dog?
Which is why good and evil can not be judged by them.
Vkamath,
Do you feed your dog?
QUOTE (Upisoft+)
No, I didn't ignored them. I proved that Absolute Truth can't exist.
You showed me a contridicting sentence. So what?
You showed me a contridicting sentence. So what?
QUOTE (same+)
You're wrong. Some people I know are good and some are evil, according me.
But are they really? You could be wrong. You could be right. If you're right, then yes, they are good or evil.
But are they really? You could be wrong. You could be right. If you're right, then yes, they are good or evil.
QUOTE (Good Elf+)
What is more important to you... a $10 note or a $100 note? He he he!
The one given to me by a loved one.
The one given to me by a loved one.
I'm sure you all will have at least SOME idea of science and its furthered and usages in evils - which are worse for usually "others" rather than yourself. Such as A-bomb- why make it but an extreme daftness, equppied with short sight, and paltry existence? It takes away autonomy, and provides more control like that of a tyrant and synergy of the power. I mean, why don't people object and spend years mulling, shouting over this? Couldn't progress have been made MUCH MUCH further and has been hindered by these aspects, more than anything?
Pity trillions go on these aspects. Oh thats TRILLIONS of your money, you do not object or revolt against. Hmmm
Such as:
"Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry has been used against Iraq for the first time in the history of recent wars. The magnitude of the complications and damage related to the use of such radioactive and toxic weapons on the environment and the human population mostly results from the intended concealment, denial and misleading information released by the Pentagon about the quantities, characteristics and the area’s in Iraq, in which these weapons have been used.
...
With the comprehensive sanctions that were imposed on Iraq, the USA & its allies purposely used these radioactive & toxic weapons to exhaust Iraq’s strength & population to prepare for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Hundreds of tons of (DU) expenditure were also used during the invasion of Iraq. This was done to worsen the radioactive contamination impact. Additionally, the occupying forces have forbade any kind of (DU) related exploration programs or research [2]. They have also covered up and denied DU’s damaging health effects, and refused to release information on the amounts, types and locations of these weapons within Iraq. As a consequence, thousands of Iraqi children and their families are suffering from different low level radiation (LLR) related diseases such as congenital malformations, malignancies, congenital heart diseases, chromosomal aberration and multiple malformations. Women in the contaminated areas suffered high rates of miscarriages and sterility [3]"
...
"The American and British occupation forces are totally responsible for:
1- Forbidding any release of statistics related to civilian casualties after the occupation [8].
2- Refusal to clean up contaminated areas [9].
3- Depriving international agencies and Iraqi researchers the right to conduct full (DU) related exploration programs by USA occupation forces [2] to prevent further damages is the best evidence that these forces are covering up their certain conclusive evidence of the harmful health impacts of DU."
References:
2. Bernard, K. et.al., 2005, “DU: Health and public health issues arising from the use of depleted Uranium munitions”, PSR, October 2005, page 8.
3. Al Ghurabi, S. et. al., 2002, “DU pollution in southern Iraq after ten years”, Proceedings of the Conference on the effects of the use of DU weaponry on human and environment in Iraq, published in Arabic, Vol. 1, March 26-27, 2002, Baghdad, Iraq.
8. USA Today, 2003, Iraq’s Health Ministry ordered to stop counting civilian dead from war, Dec. 12 2003.
9. Kirby, A., 2003, “US rejects Iraq DU clean-up”, BBC news online, April 14th 2003.
DU in Iraq by a Professor from research & analysis
Towards a 21st century military airship
"From one century to the next, military technology in the US is moving at nanosecond speed. The latest is a 'high altitude airship' that can be used as an underwater sensor and will be launched in 2008"
By John Yang
"The Pentagon is looking at some 19th century technology --gas-filled airships, also known as blimps or dirigibles – as it tries to transform America's military into a 21st century fighting force. The Army's Missile Defense Agency is spending tens of millions of dollars to develop what it calls a 'high altitude airship'.
The unmanned, untethered, helium-filled, solar-powered craft would stay aloft 65,000 feet above Earth for up to a year while carrying 500 pounds of equipment. According to Pentagon budget documents, officials hope to have a test flight for a HAA prototype as soon as 2008.
A potential use of a HAA would be to patrol a 500-mile buffer zone over the ocean along the US coastline, using infrared surveillance devices that could spot sophisticated cruise missiles more than 370 miles away and boats on the water nearly 200 miles away. Backers of the project say airships are much cheaper than manned surveillance aircraft or satellites.
The airship is being developed by defense contracting giants Lockheed Martin Corp., Raytheon Co., and Northrop Grumman Corp. It could be as much as 17 times bigger than the Goodyear blimp. It will be covered with a man-made fiber stronger than the material now used for blimps.
This fiber will protect the airship from harsh, high-altitude conditions and possible small-arms fire from enemy forces. "The vision for this stratospheric platform is an array of sensors to create a radar nearly as large as the airship itself," said Jeffery Mack, program director for the Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, N.Y.
The military already uses tethered gas-filled balloons – sometimes called aerostats- as floating observation posts in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and along the US -Mexican border. Positioned about 1,000 feet above the ground, these balloons are fitted with sensors and cameras.
The Israeli military has also equipped tethered balloons with remote-controlled rifles, turning them into floating snipers.
The Evolution of the Airship
The history of airships traces back to hot-air balloons, which were first flown by the brothers Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier as early as the spring of 1783. While the materials and technology are very different, the principles used by the earliest 18th century experimenters continue to carry modern sport and weather balloons aloft. Early balloons, however, were not truly navigable.
In 1852, French engineer Henri Giffard was credited with creating the first navigable full-size airship after he attached a small, steam-powered engine to a huge propeller and flew through the air for 17 miles at a peak speed of 5 mph.
The invention of the gasoline-powered engine in 1896 led to the production of practical airships, and Brazilian engineer Alberto Santos-Dumont was the first to construct and fly a gasoline-powered airship in 1898. Dirigibles –– whose name is derived from the French word dirigeable, which means 'steerable' – first saw military duty in World War I.
The Germans and French both used aircrafts as bombers until each side grew better at attacking the other's dirigibles with airplanes. The French, Germans, British and Americans continued to use them as transports and observation platforms.
In World War II, the United States used airships for coastal patrols and to escort naval convoys, directing ship movements and looking out for submarines. Only one was ever shot down during that war.
In July 1943, an airship spotted a German submarine on the surface of the ocean near Florida. As the airship moved into position to attack with depth charges, the submarine fired first, shooting it out of the sky. The crew survived the attack, but one crewmember later died from a shark attack while waiting to be rescued."
--www.abcnews.go.com
So long
I think we're agreed on most aspects now
Pity trillions go on these aspects. Oh thats TRILLIONS of your money, you do not object or revolt against. Hmmm
Such as:
"Depleted Uranium (DU) weaponry has been used against Iraq for the first time in the history of recent wars. The magnitude of the complications and damage related to the use of such radioactive and toxic weapons on the environment and the human population mostly results from the intended concealment, denial and misleading information released by the Pentagon about the quantities, characteristics and the area’s in Iraq, in which these weapons have been used.
...
With the comprehensive sanctions that were imposed on Iraq, the USA & its allies purposely used these radioactive & toxic weapons to exhaust Iraq’s strength & population to prepare for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Hundreds of tons of (DU) expenditure were also used during the invasion of Iraq. This was done to worsen the radioactive contamination impact. Additionally, the occupying forces have forbade any kind of (DU) related exploration programs or research [2]. They have also covered up and denied DU’s damaging health effects, and refused to release information on the amounts, types and locations of these weapons within Iraq. As a consequence, thousands of Iraqi children and their families are suffering from different low level radiation (LLR) related diseases such as congenital malformations, malignancies, congenital heart diseases, chromosomal aberration and multiple malformations. Women in the contaminated areas suffered high rates of miscarriages and sterility [3]"
...
"The American and British occupation forces are totally responsible for:
1- Forbidding any release of statistics related to civilian casualties after the occupation [8].
2- Refusal to clean up contaminated areas [9].
3- Depriving international agencies and Iraqi researchers the right to conduct full (DU) related exploration programs by USA occupation forces [2] to prevent further damages is the best evidence that these forces are covering up their certain conclusive evidence of the harmful health impacts of DU."
References:
2. Bernard, K. et.al., 2005, “DU: Health and public health issues arising from the use of depleted Uranium munitions”, PSR, October 2005, page 8.
3. Al Ghurabi, S. et. al., 2002, “DU pollution in southern Iraq after ten years”, Proceedings of the Conference on the effects of the use of DU weaponry on human and environment in Iraq, published in Arabic, Vol. 1, March 26-27, 2002, Baghdad, Iraq.
8. USA Today, 2003, Iraq’s Health Ministry ordered to stop counting civilian dead from war, Dec. 12 2003.
9. Kirby, A., 2003, “US rejects Iraq DU clean-up”, BBC news online, April 14th 2003.
DU in Iraq by a Professor from research & analysis
Towards a 21st century military airship
"From one century to the next, military technology in the US is moving at nanosecond speed. The latest is a 'high altitude airship' that can be used as an underwater sensor and will be launched in 2008"
By John Yang
"The Pentagon is looking at some 19th century technology --gas-filled airships, also known as blimps or dirigibles – as it tries to transform America's military into a 21st century fighting force. The Army's Missile Defense Agency is spending tens of millions of dollars to develop what it calls a 'high altitude airship'.
The unmanned, untethered, helium-filled, solar-powered craft would stay aloft 65,000 feet above Earth for up to a year while carrying 500 pounds of equipment. According to Pentagon budget documents, officials hope to have a test flight for a HAA prototype as soon as 2008.
A potential use of a HAA would be to patrol a 500-mile buffer zone over the ocean along the US coastline, using infrared surveillance devices that could spot sophisticated cruise missiles more than 370 miles away and boats on the water nearly 200 miles away. Backers of the project say airships are much cheaper than manned surveillance aircraft or satellites.
The airship is being developed by defense contracting giants Lockheed Martin Corp., Raytheon Co., and Northrop Grumman Corp. It could be as much as 17 times bigger than the Goodyear blimp. It will be covered with a man-made fiber stronger than the material now used for blimps.
This fiber will protect the airship from harsh, high-altitude conditions and possible small-arms fire from enemy forces. "The vision for this stratospheric platform is an array of sensors to create a radar nearly as large as the airship itself," said Jeffery Mack, program director for the Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, N.Y.
The military already uses tethered gas-filled balloons – sometimes called aerostats- as floating observation posts in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and along the US -Mexican border. Positioned about 1,000 feet above the ground, these balloons are fitted with sensors and cameras.
The Israeli military has also equipped tethered balloons with remote-controlled rifles, turning them into floating snipers.
The Evolution of the Airship
The history of airships traces back to hot-air balloons, which were first flown by the brothers Joseph and Etienne Montgolfier as early as the spring of 1783. While the materials and technology are very different, the principles used by the earliest 18th century experimenters continue to carry modern sport and weather balloons aloft. Early balloons, however, were not truly navigable.
In 1852, French engineer Henri Giffard was credited with creating the first navigable full-size airship after he attached a small, steam-powered engine to a huge propeller and flew through the air for 17 miles at a peak speed of 5 mph.
The invention of the gasoline-powered engine in 1896 led to the production of practical airships, and Brazilian engineer Alberto Santos-Dumont was the first to construct and fly a gasoline-powered airship in 1898. Dirigibles –– whose name is derived from the French word dirigeable, which means 'steerable' – first saw military duty in World War I.
The Germans and French both used aircrafts as bombers until each side grew better at attacking the other's dirigibles with airplanes. The French, Germans, British and Americans continued to use them as transports and observation platforms.
In World War II, the United States used airships for coastal patrols and to escort naval convoys, directing ship movements and looking out for submarines. Only one was ever shot down during that war.
In July 1943, an airship spotted a German submarine on the surface of the ocean near Florida. As the airship moved into position to attack with depth charges, the submarine fired first, shooting it out of the sky. The crew survived the attack, but one crewmember later died from a shark attack while waiting to be rescued."
--www.abcnews.go.com
So long
I think we're agreed on most aspects now
555Joshua,
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 31 2006, 09:12 PM)
#1. "God can't prove this statement to be true"
#2. "God can prove (A) to be true".
My only question is what point is made?
I'm checking all possible variants. First variant is that (A), or #1 in your notation, is supposed to be false. Then I look what conclusions I can make from that. Obviously when (A) is false, then ¬(A)(not (A)) is true. #2 is equivalent with ¬(A). So, #2 must be true(in this particular case). What #2 say is that (A) can be proved by God. That means it is member of Group 1, the true statements that can be proved by God. However we already supposed that it is false but the result wast that it is true. This is contradiction, so (A) cannot be false.
Now if (A) cannot be false, what is left is that (A) is true. Now we suppose that (A) is true and see what we can prove from that. If (A) is true, what (A) says is also true, which means that (A) is not member of Group 1. But (A) is true(because it is not false) so it must belong to Group 2, the true statements that God can't prove. Our result is again contradiction. This time, however, the contradiction is on different level. This time the contradiction is with the assumption that Group 2 is empty group. However, it is not empty, because (A) is member of Group 2 as I already have proved.
All that means the assumption of emptiness of Group 2 is not true. Which means that there is something true that God can't prove. And that means God does not posses Absolute Truth. But we have used the name God for any arbitrary entity that is supposed to posses Absolute Truth. Hence, no entity could posses it. Hence it does not exist.
#2. "God can prove (A) to be true".
My only question is what point is made?
I'm checking all possible variants. First variant is that (A), or #1 in your notation, is supposed to be false. Then I look what conclusions I can make from that. Obviously when (A) is false, then ¬(A)(not (A)) is true. #2 is equivalent with ¬(A). So, #2 must be true(in this particular case). What #2 say is that (A) can be proved by God. That means it is member of Group 1, the true statements that can be proved by God. However we already supposed that it is false but the result wast that it is true. This is contradiction, so (A) cannot be false.
Now if (A) cannot be false, what is left is that (A) is true. Now we suppose that (A) is true and see what we can prove from that. If (A) is true, what (A) says is also true, which means that (A) is not member of Group 1. But (A) is true(because it is not false) so it must belong to Group 2, the true statements that God can't prove. Our result is again contradiction. This time, however, the contradiction is on different level. This time the contradiction is with the assumption that Group 2 is empty group. However, it is not empty, because (A) is member of Group 2 as I already have proved.
All that means the assumption of emptiness of Group 2 is not true. Which means that there is something true that God can't prove. And that means God does not posses Absolute Truth. But we have used the name God for any arbitrary entity that is supposed to posses Absolute Truth. Hence, no entity could posses it. Hence it does not exist.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Aug 31 2006, 09:12 PM)
The one given to me by a loved one.
And what if that loved one decided to give you a hard kick in the ... (enter here any 3 letter anatomic property capable of bearing a kick)???
And what if that loved one decided to give you a hard kick in the ... (enter here any 3 letter anatomic property capable of bearing a kick)???
Hi Vkamath, soundhertz, 555Joshua, Upisoft, Knot of this world, SC et al,
This is why a stoning to death is so important if your wife has been "fooling around"... once the "goods" are tainted it is the "right" of the husband to destroy them to show that he still has "full control" and to act as a warning to others not to do the same.
I will quote a 'popular" interpretation of this idea from another source...
QUOTE
I should have explained that in more detail. I was trying to figure out why each of us have different interpretations of Good and Evil.
He he he... it really does not matter how much you explain this point. I know "exactly" what you mean... unfortunately. The difference in some cultures and some people between "good and evil" is entirely dependent on a "value" they place on the "commodity", and to the impact of the loss of such a "commodity"... perceived or otherwise. This aspect is seen strongly illustrated in some cultures where the wishes of the wife and her "sexual preferences" is seen as part of the bartered price paid to/by the husband by/to the brides family. In some cultures it is the price of a pig and in others it is expressed in rupees. In other cultures such as in the west it is the symbolism of the family that has to pay for the wedding celebrations.This is why a stoning to death is so important if your wife has been "fooling around"... once the "goods" are tainted it is the "right" of the husband to destroy them to show that he still has "full control" and to act as a warning to others not to do the same.
I will quote a 'popular" interpretation of this idea from another source...
QUOTE (->