Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Let’s See If Graham2 Sticks To His Nihilist Guns

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The commenter who goes by “jerry” writes:

‘What does the term evil mean?’ If we are going to use it, then we should define it . . . I have asked this question several times over the years on this site and so far no one has been able to answer it . . . no one will offer up a definition.

I responded:

OK, why don’t you offer up a definition? Your choices now are: 1. Dodge the question (which is what I predict you will do); 2. Offer up a definition; 3. Say the word has no meaning.

Graham2 jumped in uninvited and responded:

I would pick 3.

Let’s test this. Consider the following truth claim: Torturing an infant for pleasure is evil.

Given Graham2’s statement, he must respond that the truth claim is false. He says the word “evil” has no meaning. He says that the statement is akin to saying “torturing infants for pleasure is mudnelsday, where “mudnelsday” is a made up word without any meaning.

BTW, for those who are curious, jerry fulfilled my prediction by offering a “definition” of evil that is absurd on its face. Under jerry’s definition, torturing infants for pleasure would not be considered evil. Thus, he essentially dodged the question.

I am thankful for both Graham2’s and jerry’s willingness to express their nihilism so candidly on these pages so that we can examine it. (Truly, I sometimes wonder if they are not fundamentalist Christians shilling for rhetorical effect.) We are back where we started. A self-evident proposition is one that can be denied only on pain of descent into absurdity. Both Graham2 and jerry appear more than willing to descend into such absurdity. They do not need an argument. Again, one cannot argue for self-evident propositions. Graham2 and jerry need simple correction, and I will correct them once again.

Graham2: The term “evil” does have meaning, which I am sure you would be the first to admit if you were kidnapped, robbed, raped, shot and left for dead. You would not say of your assailant that in your fallible subjective estimation you believe he might possibly have done evil if only that word had meaning. You would say he did evil, and the word you used to describe your assailant’s actions would have meaning, and the meaning would apply to the evil done to you, and you would be absolutely certain of your conclusion (and correct BTW).

Jerry, torturing infants for pleasure is evil. You are a fool (and a liar) if you say otherwise.

Of people like jerry and Graham2, I believe KF has had the best word.

Those who choose to cling to absurdity after correction, we can only expose, ring-fence and seek to protect ourselves from. And, we can look at the systems that lead people into such confusion and ring fence them too as utterly destructive.

Comments
vjtorley,
(1) Would you consider taking the life of an innocent human child at the behest of an Omniscient Being Who informed you that the child would certainly suffer a fate worse than death if its life were not taken, and Who assured you that the child would suffer absolutely no pain or distress whatsoever in the process of being killed, to be evil or not?
Where does the Bible say the Canaanite babies were "better off" by being killed? Where does it say they didn't suffer? Why didn't the Israelites simply adopt the babies rather than kill them?
(2) Would you consider trusting the word of a Being that had given you numerous signs of its claim to omniscience by demonstrating its uncanny ability to foretell future events, to be a reasonable thing to do, on epistemic grounds?
I've never met anyone like that. Have you? And I have no empirical evidence that any such being told the Israelites to kill the babies. Or that the massacres actually happened. If I did meet some supernatural entity with all kinds of "omniscient" powers and s/he told me to kill babies, I would tell him to go and do it himself. I wouldn't have any part of it. Would you?
(3) Would you consider trusting the goodness of such a Being, if it had likewise given signs of the same, by saving human lives on numerous occasions, to be epistemically rational?
No. I would assume that I was having an encounter with Satan.
(4) Would you also agree that there is nothing in the Old Testament accounts which explicitly indicates that any of the children killed suffered any pain or distress in dying?
Where does it say they didn't suffer? What do you think about this? "Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." --Psa 137 You don't think those Babylonian babies suffered? You think God was happy about it? Would YOU dash a baby's head against a rock if your "God" told you to?
(5) Would you agree that the act of killing in the scenario described above is quite different, morally speaking, from killing and torturing a child for fun, since the accompanying intentions – namely, to promote what’s best for the child – are different?
No. I don't consider it different since the Israelites could have adopted the babies, a much more humane and "divine" thing to do.
(6) Would you also agree that people in our own time (such as euthanasia proponents) who advocate killing children “to put them out of their misery” err gravely, precisely because, unlike God, they are not omniscient, and do not know what’s best for the child?
I think anyone who advocates killing of children for any reason, including that "God told them to", errs greatly, and I think the Old Testament account of Israelites killing babies is pure fiction. Maybe your God told Hitler to kill the Jews. What if he did? Would the Holocaust still be evil in your eyes? I'm amazed at the things people will believe in order to defend the indefensible.CentralScrutinizer
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Finally, it pays to keep in mind that good Christians have held differing views on the Canaanite killings. C. S. Lewis, for instance, could not stomach them, and was forced to conclude that although Scripture as a whole was inspired, at least some parts of Scripture were not inspired. If that sounds like a more reasonable position to you, then please, take it.
True, but that can make things more difficult rather than provide a solution. There's a wide variety of things that people find hard to stomach. "The things that I don't like in Scripture are obviously the non-inspired parts." :-)Silver Asiatic
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Hi Central Scrutinizer, You ask: "Killing Canaanite babies: evil or not?" Here's my answer: (1) Would you consider taking the life of an innocent human child at the behest of an Omniscient Being Who informed you that the child would certainly suffer a fate worse than death if its life were not taken, and Who assured you that the child would suffer absolutely no pain or distress whatsoever in the process of being killed, to be evil or not? (2) Would you consider trusting the word of a Being that had given you numerous signs of its claim to omniscience by demonstrating its uncanny ability to foretell future events, to be a reasonable thing to do, on epistemic grounds? (3) Would you consider trusting the goodness of such a Being, if it had likewise given signs of the same, by saving human lives on numerous occasions, to be epistemically rational? (4) Would you also agree that there is nothing in the Old Testament accounts which explicitly indicates that any of the children killed suffered any pain or distress in dying? (5) Would you agree that the act of killing in the scenario described above is quite different, morally speaking, from killing and torturing a child for fun, since the accompanying intentions - namely, to promote what's best for the child - are different? (6) Would you also agree that people in our own time (such as euthanasia proponents) who advocate killing children "to put them out of their misery" err gravely, precisely because, unlike God, they are not omniscient, and do not know what's best for the child? I've written at length concerning the Canaanite massacres here: http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/dawkins.html (scroll down to "My own thoughts on the slaughter of the Canaanites") and see also "A final thought". Finally, it pays to keep in mind that good Christians have held differing views on the Canaanite killings. C. S. Lewis, for instance, could not stomach them, and was forced to conclude that although Scripture as a whole was inspired, at least some parts of Scripture were not inspired. If that sounds like a more reasonable position to you, then please, take it.vjtorley
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, The text of yours I wanted to use was this @ 97:
Evil actions follow from the intention of the person doing them. They’re measured against a reason or purpose for the act.
But it seems like I understood you correctly.
However, if a person is willing to imagine that God exists, then imagine that God has certain properties (power, eternity, wisdom), then that God created the world for a purpose, and God created human beings for a reason … then we wouldn’t be stuck trying to judge God’s actions from a finite perspective. You have to try to take God’s point of view. That means you have to try to understand how radically different God is from yourself.
Adding that with the first paragraph of what William J. Murray typed @ 115, it's logical.seventrees
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
William J Murray @ 115:
Also, IMO, the consequences of immoral behavior would be as sewn into the fabric of reality as gravity, entropy or time. There is no need for god to “punish” anyone for immoral behavior because the consequences are innately inescapable and something even god cannot change. But I admit I haven’t heard all such arguments :)
You are correct. This is the reason that I am a Christian and why I believe that God had to die on the cross in order to save us. God could not do it just by forgiving the world. Not even God can go against karma. Every debt must be paid somehow and that is what karma is all about. It all comes down to being ONE with everything. In the end, the law of karma corrects all violations to spiritual unity. There is no getting around it. Unity is morality. Unless we can become one with God and everything else, we are doomed.Mapou
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT
Hi seventrees,
If I consider that it is moral evil you are talking about, the real problem, which I agree with you is this: Why the infants, when meting out capital punishment? I cannot tell.
I'm not sure if I agree with your view but maybe yes. Good and evil are not substances that can be evaluated by themselves. They're always in a relationship. Evil is a lack of perfection -- it's something missing. Good is the fulfillment of things. It's related to the purpose and meaning of things. Intention is essential in judging the action. Intention points to purpose or "the reason" for an act. So, it doesn't make sense to judge moral acts from a non-purpose perspective. Atheism does allow for moral norms, but the source of those norms is the individual. But the individual doesn't know where he or she gets the norms, or why. The individual atheist denies an ultimate purpose, thus eliminates any sort of evaluation of acts. That's why it's difficult to answer an atheist who asks: "Why would God do ... whatever?" When you ask about God, you have to understand a universe created and governed by God. So you can't ask about why God does things and expect an answer that fits a purposeless universe. God created. If a person is unwilling to imagine that point, then it's almost impossible to explain what God's purpose is in various acts. However, if a person is willing to imagine that God exists, then imagine that God has certain properties (power, eternity, wisdom), then that God created the world for a purpose, and God created human beings for a reason ... then we wouldn't be stuck trying to judge God's actions from a finite perspective. You have to try to take God's point of view. That means you have to try to understand how radically different God is from yourself. And that's quite difficult for us to do at times (speaking for myself). :-)Silver Asiatic
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
WJM @ 115, Sounds like you believe in Karma.CentralScrutinizer
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
A god that provides morality by decree, or by authority, is as guilty of might-makes-right as any human. The only way to avoid "might makes right" is if "what is good" refers to an innate characteristic of god that god itself cannot change, which would then show up in the fabric of whatever god creates. Also, IMO, the consequences of immoral behavior would be as sewn into the fabric of reality as gravity, entropy or time. There is no need for god to "punish" anyone for immoral behavior because the consequences are innately inescapable and something even god cannot change. But I admit I haven't heard all such arguments :)William J Murray
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Ooopps! Greetings Silver Asiatic. I forgot that I deleted a text you typed which I wanted to use in my first post. Sorry about that.seventrees
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Greetings Central Scrutinizer. Just my thoughts on what you the issue you are raising. I will begin with the argument on genocide. Barry Arrington @ 77
Consider the following Genocide is self-evidently evil The holocaust was an instance of genocide Therefore, the holocaust was self-evidently evil This syllogism meets is certainly valid in that the conclusion follow inexorably from the premises. But is the argument sound?
CS @ 79
Genocide is self-evidently evil The holocaust was an instance of genocide The Biblical killing of babies was an instance of genocide Therefore, the holocaust and the Biblical killing of babies self-evidently evil
If genocide is understood as the killing of a particular group of people, then there is a problem with the premise that “Genocide is self-evidently evil”. Killing any person is not necessarily wrong, like police men killing armed robbers in a shootout. It is only murder which is wrong. I do not know your understanding of the term genocide. But so far, I see it as murder of a particular race. Hypothetically speaking, say the Creator of the world decided that particular races had to be exterminated because of crimes He deems deserving of capital punishment. And He asks a particular race to do such a thing. Can one genuinely say it was wrong to mete out capital punishment in this circumstance through this race? Can one call it murder? I know some people will disagree with capital punishment. If so, they can ignore my argument. CS @ 80
Killing Canaanite babies: evil or not?
Yes, it is evil. But in the sense that it causes damage. Same way as killing an armed robber in a shootout is evil. But I believe you are talking of moral evil. If I consider that it is moral evil you are talking about, the real problem, which I agree with you is this: Why the infants, when meting out capital punishment? I cannot tell. CS @ 83,
Get some humility, people, and stop pretending you’re some cherub flitting around next to God’s right hand.
Deuteronomy 9:6 makes me think differently on this issue. P.S: In case I misunderstood you, Silver Asiatic, please correct me.seventrees
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
105 KF I tried - I really tried - to understand what you were writing - but I failed. Perhaps if you put your comment through one of the many on-line reading comprehension tests until you it down to my level?Mark Frank
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Franklin, have you bothered to read the previously linked discussion? You do not sound like it, so please, read then come back in that light
I don't need to read any apologetics to understand that abortion is not genocide (which is the topic of the OP by-the-way) and to predicate a response to previously asked questions on an aside topic is disingenuous at best. Sorry you can't see that. From the apologetics then genocide is self-evidently evil except when it isn't. Got it!franklin
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Franklin, have you bothered to read the previously linked discussion? You do not sound like it, so please, read then come back in that light. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Pardon, but not so.
Yes, very much so. There is no need for CS to answer anyquestions in order for his/her question about genocide to be addressed. If any acts of genocide are self-evidently evil then it easily follows that all instances of genocide are evil including the instances cited in the OT. Unless genocide is not self evidently evil in which case what is self evident about evil if genocide doesn’t fit the bill? Asking someone to answer a question before their prior questions are answered is recognized for the obfuscation that these type of questions need to be answered before I answer your question represent. Certainly, no different than me stating that I will answer your questions after you tell me if you have stopped beating your wife.franklin
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Pardon, but not so. Yes, very much so. There is no need for CS to answer anyquestions in order for his/her question about genocide to be addressed. If any acts of genocide are self-evidently evil then it easily follows that all instances of genocide are evil including the instances cited in the OT. Unless genocide is not self evidently evil in which case what is self evident about evil if genocide doesn't fit the bill? Asking someone to answer a question before their prior questions are answered is recognized for the obfuscation that these type of questions need to be answered before I answer your question represent. Certainly, no different than me stating that I will answer your questions after you tell me if you have stopped beating your wife.
franklin
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, Thanks for the link. It is not an issue with me but it seems to be with others. To see my real interests on this topic if you are interested go to https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/is-this-a-photo-is-this-a-slur-is-this-an-argument/#comment-463638 and then follow the discussion between keiths and myself over several comments as we discuss God and evil. I am sorry he was banned. He made a good foil to flesh out one's point of view.jerry
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
jerry, I call your attention to what I noted and linked at 92 above. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
WJM (& MF etc): Of course, one of the key first self-evident certain principles is as Josiah Royce pointed out, namely that error exists. This is an example of the due balance of humility about error and proper certainty where that is warranted. Indeed, on inspection we see that E = "error exists" is undeniably true. To see that simply form the conjunction E AND NOT-E, which is necessarily false. Inspecting to see which is the error we see that it is the one that denies that error exists. The very attempt to deny that error exists immediately confirms its truth, on pain of absurdity. So, we find ourselves undeniably certain that error exists. Hence a humbling balance of due certainty and caution that we may err. And also, we see that the true danger does not so much lie in the existence of such certainty, but rather in refusing to yield to the right, when corrected. Such stubborn closed mindedness is not equal to certainty, but it has its own name: closed-mindedness. Which, patently, is an intellectual fallacy and vice. So, instead we acknowledge that there is at least the truth that error exists as undeniably true. So, truth exists as what accurately describes reality. Knowledge even in the strong form exists as that which is warranted and certainly true. A fortiori, weak form knowledge exists as that which is credibly true and provisionally but not absolutely warranted, thought he support may be to moral certainty so that we would be irresponsible or absurd in a weaker sense to ignore it. And, since we may be stubbornly in error we OUGHT to -- we have a duty of care to -- be open to correction towards truth and knowledge. Never mind that among morally certain truths is that we are finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill willed. So the call to virtue of the mind and conscience goes forth. Which, again, indicts Hitler and co, and those who were weak -- and thus, enabling -- in the face of manifest evil. Let us give the White Rose martyrs their due voice on this, bought at the price of their own lives for speaking the truth to evil in power:
WR, II: Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way . . . The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals . . . Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! WR, IV: Every word that comes from Hitler's mouth is a lie. When he says peace, he means war, and when he blasphemously uses the name of the Almighty, he means the power of evil, the fallen angel, Satan. His mouth is the foul-smelling maw of Hell, and his might is at bottom accursed. True, we must conduct a struggle against the National Socialist terrorist state with rational means; but whoever today still doubts the reality, the existence of demonic powers, has failed by a wide margin to understand the metaphysical background of this war.
Can we do any less today? KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Barry, Several comments: 1. Are you going to strike out my name in the OP since it is obvious that none of it is true and does not apply to me? I doubt that you or the other commenters that have attacked what I said are morally superior under your own criteria. There are definitely people who are better human beings than I am but I don't find any hard evidence that they are necessarily on this site though I suspect there may be a couple. There definitely are several people I have seen comment here whose positions I respect. 2. What is your definition of evil? I am the one questioning the term but am not using it. You and others use it frequently so the obligation should be on those who use it. The reason I posed the question is because I have been down this path before and have found that no one has a good definition of it. The Teaching Company has a course on evil, 36 half hour lectures. I have been through over half of them before getting my mind glazed over. No where does the author define "evil" clearly.
He said it was something against the moral order, however, one construes the moral order but that it is also includes the characteristic of intentionally against the moral order.
I bet if he used a more restrictive definition he would have to eliminate many of the lectures because any such definition would narrow the focus of the course. I found his definition essentially non useable because if I were a nazi, I could point to the Jews, slavs, etc as in our way for a better moral order. Hence these groups were evil. An absurdity but one that I am sure that many of the nazis agreed with. In other words the definition proposed above was extremely relativistic and I found non usable. If a guy giving a course on the subject cannot define it clearly, then maybe the use of the term has problems. The word tends to be an all purpose term for whatever one doesn't like or is dysfunctional or harms etc. In a war, the other side is always evil. How else could you justify the war? Try substituting "bad" for "evil" and one gets the same sense except that "evil" sounds more extreme or intense. It is like evil means "really, really bad." But "bad" describes more than what people have in mind for "evil". Like the Health Care website is really, really bad. Is the Health Care website evil? Like "bad", the word "evil" is too generic. 3. I actually understand your frustration with certain groups of people who express relativistic views of morality. But there are others who have non-relativistic views who we don't agree with. And these people can be extremely dysfunctional. I would lump the communist and nazis in that category and certainly some religious groups. The Taliban seem to have very non-relativistic points of view but will use pragmatic, often seemingly contradictory tactics to accomplish their objectives. We sometimes confuse pragmatism with relativism and others who we disagree with who seem to be relativist but are just being pragmatic about what they think will help reach their concrete objectives. Hitler, Lenin, Mao and Stalin definitely wanted to accomplish something concrete. Then there are others who have noble objectives but their approach is flawed and have actually caused more harm than some of those we call "evil." Witness the War on Poverty. It has harmed large groups of people. 4. No one has gotten into the real issue of evil. Namely, is God evil because He permits evil or seemingly commands it such as the Canaanite babies? As I said, my real interest in this is the Theodicy issue and my objectives are just the opposite of nihilism. I happen to believe that my point of views helps understand the issue but for that I was mocked by a few here.jerry
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
MF @101: I agree that it's speculative - but I think you have it basically right. I can agree with your characterization. However, IMO that leaves us agreeing that people basically need a tension between ideological belief and skepticsm/doubt; not so much skepticism/doubt as to leave one functionally apathetic, but not so little as to allow us to go along with or aid dangerous/destructive ideologies. I think people should be wary of any claimed "obvious" or "self-evident" truth because of what adopting such a view might lead to, but one cannot let that wariness stand as an inviolate wall between them and the capacity to commit (conditionally) to something as true. That other people might use the terms "obviously" or "self-evident" to spread a message of hate and intolerance doesn't mean that there are no self-evident and/or obvious truths that we can and should admit to. We can and should commit to the principle of non-contradiction. We can and should commit to the core principle that some acts are universally, unequivocally evil. We can and should commit to the principle that we are obligated to resist and fight such evil. Just because some people abuse or err doesn't matter (other than to make us check ourselves and views): if we commit to not committing because of our fear of error, we are allowing others to do evil. In order to stand up and stop others from committing obviously evil acts, we must commit to the view that what they are doing is wrong. I don't see how one can motivate themselves to stopping what someone else is doing if they cannot even commit to the perspective that what that other person is doing is wrong.William J Murray
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT
Morality is embedded in us – I would describe that as being moral is part of human nature – and there is an enormous amount of commonality in what people hold to be right or wrong(although clearly there are large exceptions as well, some of which most people regard as disastrous).
I agree. The moral sense is there. We could call it "conscience" also.
Principles are derived from this morality. I would describe this as saying principles should be descriptive not prescriptive. They should try to articulate our moral sentiments not tell us our moral sentiments.
In articulating our moral views, we're evaluating them - yes. We have to do that because, although the knowledge of good and evil is in us, we get confused or even have an immoral attitude towards morality itself. For example, we adopt a cruel selfishness in advancing our own benefits at the expense of others. There's moral goodness in part of that (helping ourselves), but the intention is evil.
Given all this, does it matter in practice whether that common core of moral sentiment evolved or was placed there by God?
Yes, it does matter -- it's absolutely essential. We agree that a moral sense is in us. But we have to discern what that means. Or as you said, we have to "articulate" it. The whole process of doing that is understanding "why". We're looking for reasons for our moral views. We have a moral sense, awareness of good and evil. We see it in general, universal terms. The classical virtues are good -- leading to happiness. The capital sins damage ourselves and others. But the question is "why" do we forbid one thing and encourage another? We can see that we all have freedom to choose. We can go against conscience. We can make our conscience dull. We can build evil habits, even as a society. Even though we have a moral sense in us, we have to review it -- and check against its source. If the source is evolution -- then that's not fixed. It evolves. Obviously, the Darwinian view is a radically different standard than a view based on God (or a transcendent standard). We ask "why" should we do it, or not do it. If nature determines our moral outlooks, then there's no reason to ask why. There's no reason for outrage. Basically, if morality is a product of natural laws (evolution or chemical or physics), then there's nothing to discern or to articulate. We do some things and we don't do other things. There's no moral sense in that at all. With a transcendent focal point as the source (God), our moral decisions point beyond natural law. There's a fixed reason why we choose good and evil. Good acts bring us closer to a goal. Evil acts take us away from it. There is no goal with evolution. We can't accomplish the moral purposes that evolution "wants" from us. Evolution doesn't care if all human life is destroyed. It doesn't matter if all humanity is left suffering from violence against each other. Evolution might "want" us to do evil. There no sense to this. It's an irrational basis for human life. If evolution created us, evolution might want to destroy us. That would be "good" by evolutionary standards. Hitler would be quite right, in that case. Killing unfit people would be a good thing. But maybe getting rid of all humans would be better. Some radical environmentalists think that. Humanity itself is an evil. Some have said that if humans were gone from all existence, this would be good (although they don't apply that to themselves personally). That's what happens when the source of moral sense (embedded in us) is misunderstood. If our morality came from evolution, then nature owns us. The reason we're moral would be for evolutionary purposes. If our morality comes from God, then God "owns" us. The reason we're moral would be for God's purposes. That makes a huge difference, in whatever way a person chooses to accept it. When we agree that morality is embeded in us, that is not to say that "morality comes from us".Silver Asiatic
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
#100 WJM
The tide is not the result of a lack of doubt, but rather just the opposite. The tide is more likely comprised of the doubtful and the “go along to get along-ers” than it is likely to be populated by the zealous.
This is an interesting sociological question. We should accept that in the absence of a rigorous empirical study we are only conjecturing. I conjecture the role of ideology in the tide is two-fold: * A small group, possibly one person, is generally an ideologue who initiates and sustains the tide. These are the people I find dangerous. * Followers in mass unquestioningly accept ideology as propagated by this group. This makes the idea of the ideology dangerous rather than specific people. You see this in everything from a Nuremberg rally to a lynch mob. I admit that another large group - maybe the largest - goes along with the tide because they haven't the resolution resist it and some kind of principles could provide that resolution. The whole picture is complicated but it seems to me that ideology plays a vital role.Mark Frank
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
But how much nicer if the tide had not been there in the first place and that tide is frequently the result of a lack of doubt.
I disagree with this. The tide is not the result of a lack of doubt, but rather just the opposite. The tide is more likely comprised of the doubtful and the "go along to get along-ers" than it is likely to be populated by the zealous. When you consider the kind of committed zealotry necessary to commit atrocities, I think there are relatively few people capable of that kind of certitude. I think most people have far less certainty and would falter and doubt the rightness of such acts. I think "the tide" is mostly populated with average people who don't have much of a commitment for or against whatever the handful (relatively speaking) zealots at the top are doing. I think that it is far more likely that it is the doubtful and unsure that populate the tide in any such scenario than it is likely that the tide is populated by the zealous. People that go along to get along, don't want to cause trouble and are not committed to any contradictory view, who will at the very least turn a blind eye to what is going on.William J Murray
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
05:55 AM
5
05
55
AM
PDT
96 WJM Good comment. Clearly different kinds of principle have helped people to stand up against tyranny (and these principles have often been religious). I don't accept that:
One cannot stand up (and risk their lives and their family & friend’s lives) to a tyrannical ideology without being committed to some other ideology that obligates one to do so.
It is hard to look into people's minds but I suspect they stand up against tyranny for all sorts of reasons. Nevertheless I don't deny the role of principles in helping people "swim against the tide". But how much nicer if the tide had not been there in the first place and that tide is frequently the result of a lack of doubt.Mark Frank
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
#97 SA
If the proposal is that moral responsibilities are “out there somewhere” as abstract principles, then I would agree with your concern. But what happens instead is that there are universal moral principles that all humans hold, in general. We see this in every human society through history. Morality is embedded in us. From that, principles are derived. For me, the debate is about the principles. What source do they have?
I agree with much of this. Morality is embedded in us - I would describe that as being moral is part of human nature - and there is an enormous amount of commonality in what people hold to be right or wrong(although clearly there are large exceptions as well, some of which most people regard as disastrous). Principles are derived from this morality. I would describe this as saying principles should be descriptive not prescriptive. They should try to articulate out moral sentiments not tell us our moral sentiments. When they become prescriptive the danger is they become detached from compassion and humanity and lead to horrendous results. Given all this, does it matter in practice whether that common core of moral sentiment evolved or was placed there by God?Mark Frank
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT
#94 MF
My point was that idealogies, principles, and being sure you are right, are among the most dangerous things in history (especially when they are mixed with paranoia).
If the proposal is that moral responsibilities are "out there somewhere" as abstract principles, then I would agree with your concern. But what happens instead is that there are universal moral principles that all humans hold, in general. We see this in every human society through history. Morality is embedded in us. From that, principles are derived. For me, the debate is about the principles. What source do they have?
[If he had been] ...more ready to respond to human suffering rather than abstract ideas, then the world would have been a much, much better place.
There's an abstract principle in your moral concern: "respond to human suffering". That would be the basis of any number of moral norms. Most people would agree. Hitler, however, reached a different moral order because he started from different principles (as KF quoted in #91). That's the danger of Darwinian thought. The materialist-evolutionary impulse (aside from determinism and lack of free will) would not "respond to alleviate human suffering". That kind of suffering is viewed as the necessary default condition of nature, and those who successfully "struggle" against competitors are the survivors and replicators. Darwin argued directly against giving aid to those who are suffering in some cases, because that weakens the human species. That's the way Hitler saw it (just as Darwin did). So, I agree with your view that Hitler had some benefit in mind in his plan and that the Nazi's thought they were doing something "good". But the community of human beings evaluate that good on a higher moral standard. It's measured against the "things we can't not know". In that, we see (as the whole world does now) that Hitler's plan was twisted and evil. But an individual can take legitimate moral norms and twist them, or misuse them -- thinking that he's doing good. That doesn't mean that there are no standards or that we don't know what evil is. A final point: We could agree that "being too sure" of being right is a problem, but that still misses the point under debate: "Can we know we're right at all?". Those are two extremes. Absolute certainty in all cases about good and evil actions or absolute skepticism about what we know about good and evil. We do have absolute certainty about good and evil actions in many universal cases. Evil actions follow from the intention of the person doing them. They're measured against a reason or purpose for the act.Silver Asiatic
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
05:08 AM
5
05
08
AM
PDT
I clearly haven’t explained the point because your excerpt supports my case! My point was that idealogies, principles, and being sure you are right, are among the most dangerous things in history (especially when they are mixed with paranoia). Hitler had an idealogy – racial purity – which is demonstrated in the excerpt. He did not act to make money, or give himself a comfortable life, or attract beautiful women (although he might have come to enjoy these things as well). He acted out of a principle – one that all of us would reject vehemently but which was sufficient to galvanise a nation. If he or his followers had been more sceptical, less sure they were right, more ready to respond to human suffering rather than abstract ideas, then the world would have been a much, much better place.
I absolutely agree that there is a case to be made for humbly admitting that one can be in error and for maintaining a certain degree of skepticism. As MF rightly points out, a bit more humility and skepticism is in order especially when you are being asked to go along with that which your conscience tells you is wrong. There is a problem that arises, however, when one applies too much skepticism and commits to the idea of the fallibility of their own minds to a degree that will accommodate that which their conscience alerts them to be wrong. Too little skepticism can sweep one up in a false ideology; too much can result in the apathy and acquiescence that allows dangerous and destructive ideologies power. The case can be made that Hitler and core, ideological Nazis ran roughshod over a nation not because most people were too ideologically committed to Nazi views, but rather because most of the nation was too uncommitted to any ideology that would obligate them to intervene even at the expense of their own comfort. For the most part, they were willing to turn a blind eye even though their consciences were telling them that what was going on was wrong. Yes, it takes someone committed to an ideology to do what the Nazis did; it also takes someone committed to an ideology to do what Miep Gies did in hiding Anne Frank at the risk of her own life. One cannot stand up (and risk their lives and their family & friend's lives) to a tyrannical ideology without being committed to some other ideology that obligates one to do so. The ideology of skepticism and potential error, where one will not even commit to calling the holocaust an obvious evil, is not an ideology that can generate the kind of sacrifice Miep Gies was willing to make. Some degree of skepticism and admission that one might be in error is a good thing; too much of it is simply a coward's way of avoiding making a commitment to what they believe is right. There are some things where skepticism is appropriate; there are some things, like the principle of non-contradiction, where skepticism is a self-negating absurdity. Skepticism should never be an ideology in itself; it should only be a tool appropriately and reasonably applied in examining one's views.William J Murray
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT
MF: Ideologies do influence but ideology is another word for worldview that influences the community. The real pivot of your assertion is that you stricture "being sure," by invidious association and by asserting its danger. We were not born yesterday. What I showed above was that amorality and relativism on morality are indeed associated with key ideologies that had much to do with the biggest mass murders of all time. By contrast, being certain that 2 + 3 = 5; or, more directly relevant, being certain -- let's say it: morally certain -- that humans are valuable and have equal worth to be respected through the neighbour love principle, and through justice, are NOT dangers to be grouped with the likes of the amoral and nihilist tyrannies discussed above. Pardon directness, but it is blatantly outright irresponsible and absurd to pretend or suggest that "being certain" (especially regarding self evident moral truths such as that the holocausst or torturing innocent children and raping then murdering them are self evidently evil . . . the specific context of this discussion) is a danger to be grouped with ideologies that led to the holocaust or to the Marxist police states and their crimes. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
04:44 AM
4
04
44
AM
PDT
#91 KF I clearly haven't explained the point because your excerpt supports my case! My point was that idealogies, principles, and being sure you are right, are among the most dangerous things in history (especially when they are mixed with paranoia). Hitler had an idealogy - racial purity - which is demonstrated in the excerpt. He did not act to make money, or give himself a comfortable life, or attract beautiful women (although he might have come to enjoy these things as well). He acted out of a principle - one that all of us would reject vehemently but which was sufficient to galvanise a nation. If he or his followers had been more sceptical, less sure they were right, more ready to respond to human suffering rather than abstract ideas, then the world would have been a much, much better place. Not sure why you included all the numbers. I am not disputing that tens of millions of people died horribly.Mark Frank
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
MF: On definition, the cases you list show the underlying -- too often under-appreciated -- significance of ostensive definition, especially the question of grass. Ostensive definition is fraught with difficulties and an assumed common pool of experience (which BTW is also inextricably entangled in the concept of self evidence), but so are precising necessary and sufficient condition statements, operational statements and genus-difference approaches. In that context brief authoritative summaries as we find in responsible dictionaries are quite useful on the whole. (Part of why I cited Webster in no 8 above.) Where, finally, there is a serious definition of evil on the table: the privation or perversion of good . . . , which of course implies a purpose to being, which is held a good. That is, I am highlighting that a root challenge is the worldview level problem faced by systems of thought that rest on foundations cannot bear the weight of purpose -- which leads straight to the IS-OUGHT challenge. As a general claim, I assert that worldviews that have in them no foundational IS that provides purpose to being [especially conscious intelligent being] cannot bear the weight of OUGHT, and so run straight into an incongruity with morality, such as good/evil, morality generally, and rights, freedoms and responsibilities. Where further, the dressing up of such worldviews in lab coats inappropriately captures the prestige of science for such views, leading to warping of science by ideology. In that context, vicious curiosity lurks, nihilism lurks, abuse of sci and tech in pursuit of deception and evil lurk, and frustration of the freedom of science to follow the weight of evidence where it leads through holding truth as a principal purpose and aim lurks as well. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 6

Leave a Reply