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
WJM: I ask you to read here on in context -- take particular note of the Hitchens-Boteach New Atheist-Rabbi exchange, and then let's chat. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
MF: Pardon, but the evidence is there all around, this is living memory history. On the part of the Marxist dictators, the death toll is well known to in aggregate exceed 100 millions. Such Marxism was premised on atheistical dialectic and historical materialism and led to a cynically nihilist totalitarianism of unprecedented proportions. I suggest you read Havel and Solzhenitsyn etc if you genuinely are unfamiliar. In the case of herr Schicklegruber, let me clip the annotated cite I used in what I just linked to Franklin, from Mein Kampf, I, Ch XI:
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents . . . Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life [ --> an allusion to Evolution as a law of nature, and an indication of his own neopagan inclinations] . . . The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. [--> the racialist premise against mixing races, never mind the issue of hybrid vigour] Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he after all is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development of organic living beings would be unthinkable. The consequence of this racial purity, universally valid in Nature, is not only the sharp outward delimitation of the various races, but their uniform character in themselves. The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens. [ --> an intended measure of the "fitness" of those best fitted to survive and propagate] But you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese, as similarly there is no cat with a friendly inclination toward mice [--> the basis for a social darwinist predatory view of relationships between races of humankind] . . . . In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb [--> i.e. natural selection as he understood it] , while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. [--> That is, Darwinian sexual selection.] And struggle is always a means for improving a species’ health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development. [--> Notice the central concept of struggle] If the process were different, all further and higher development would cease and the opposite would occur. For, since the inferior always predominates numerically over the best, if both had the same possibility of preserving life and propagating, the inferior would multiply so much more rapidly that in the end the best would inevitably be driven into the background, unless a correction of this state of affairs were undertaken. [--> NB: this is a theme in Darwin's discussion of the Irish, the Scots and the English in chs 5 - 7 of his second major work on Evolution, Descent of Man, 1871] Nature does just this by subjecting the weaker part to such severe living conditions that by them alone the number is limited, and by not permitting the remainder to increase promiscuously, but making a new and ruthless choice according to strength and health . . .
The cynically nihilist corruption of morality, nay the naked amorality in this is patent. The toll for what we see above from 1925 - 6, was a devastated continent and was it 40 - 50 millions dead in Europe because of this demonic madman? (And I here deliberately use the terms the White Rose movement's Catholic martyrs used in the pamphlets that cost them their lives.) Barry's point is all too apt. KFkairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT
CS:
So is this what people do by default?
No, it's what people who wish to have a rationally sound foundation for their worldviews do; they first find obvious self-evident truths to work from and with, the denial of which would lead to absurdity, as Mr. Arrington has pointed out. This is not a "default" activity in humans; it is in fact one that requires some purposeful thought and consideration.
If not, what do they do by default, in their human nature?
IMO, humans by default simply act and believe from need, desire and emotion. This can lead to all sorts of self-defeating, hypocritical, and irrational views and behaviors. It takes application of conscience, will and reason, IMO, to escape the default human condition make rational sense out of our existence.
Is it something people need to be enlightened about?
I guess that depends on how you define "need", and what purpose the need is moving towards, and for whom.
Or is it self-evident?
Some things are indeed self-evident, even if not obvious. Some self-evident things have to be pointed out, but the problem is that people can be so committed to what they already believe that even when the self-evident is pointed out to them, they deny it. Free will can be used to deny anything, even the self-evident. A person is either committed to the truth (being brutally honest with themselves), or they are committed to something else - say, an ideology. I have found that many anti-theists are committed to atheistic materialism because they are emotionally charged against the Christian god in particular and historical (and current) religious atrocities. That was why I was an atheist for so long - along with the fact that it made me feel intellectually superior to most of the rest of the population. I can understand why people can come face to face with both obvious truths and self-evident truths and deny them because of the emotionally charged a priori commitments they have against theism, and also because it would be too demeaning for them to admit they were wrong.
Is it something that will put one in the “liar” category if they deny it?
Is a person lying when they say that 1 + 1 is not necessarily 2? Are they lying when they say there could be a 4-sided triangle? Are they lying when they say that they might not even exist? Are they lying when they say there may be conditions where torturing babies for personal pleasure isn't evil? Even granting charitable interpretation, should a person be given a pass on being called a liar no matter how egregiously they must be deceiving themselves by making statements that are nothing short of absurd? If a person says "I don't know if the holocaust was evil or not", you and I both know that if they are not consciously being deceitful in the debate, they have used intellectual gymnastics to hide from themselves what their conscience knows without doubt to be true - that the holocaust was evil. In that sense, they are liars, but primarily they are lying to themselves. They must be. To actually not know, in conscience, that the holocaust was evil is being a sociopath. So yes, they are either lying (to themselves) or they are a sociopath.
People believe all kinds of things. How can you prove your point of view beyond all refutation?
Because a person has an unlimited capacity to deny evidence and argument doesn't mean they have refuted the argument. Some arguments that have been presented at this site are beyond refutation, even if they have been denied.
Can’t we just all get along?
Should we get along with everyone, regardless of what they say or do? Even when they use your "get along" philosophy against you?
Killing Canaanite babies: evil or not?
Of course it's evil.William J Murray
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Franklin, Pardon, but not so. In the USA since 1973, some 53 - 55 million unborn children have fallen victim to abortion, mounting at about a 9/11 per day (something that chilled me to the pit of my stomach at the time -- I could not but help notice how eerily close the numbers were . . . ). Globally, over the past generation, the number is massively more. (I have seen suggested totals that basically blanked my internal screen, I literally cannot believe them absent a detailed count.) In addition, in certain places, a huge proportion are of girls, leading to a disproportion of boys born. These matters would constitute the largest case of mass blood-guilt, ever; one that is going on with the sanction of law, the support of major institutions of influence, and more. It is even militantly proclaimed a "right" in major quarters. In short, there is a highly material question of blood-guilt warped judgement and turnabout accusation designed in material part to deflect serious reflection. SB's question is, sadly, on target. KF PS: For those who genuinely are troubled and want to explore a cluster of difficult issues, I suggest the 101 here on in context, and onward discussions. The time for village ["New"] atheist shut-up rhetoric talking points is over.kairosfocus
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT
StephenB #70 and #71
[c] Since you can’t define evil, it follow[s] that you don’t know what it is.
This doesn't follow. Defining things in a useful way is often very hard. Consider: "green" "beauty" "mathematics" in anything other than a trivial way. For example, it is no good defining green as the colour of grass unless you already understand what green is but have not been able to put a name to it. We could both agree to define "evil" as that moral sentiment associated with the holocaust but that would not go any distance to resolving our dispute about the nature of evil. You will no doubt turn to the dictionary definitions of these words. You will find they are all either obviously wrong or trivial in this sense.Mark Frank
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
Before I defend God’s actions in the Old Testament, I have a question for you: What is your position on abortion?
Ah, the 'have you stopped beating your wife' gambit. Well played!franklin
October 31, 2013
October
10
Oct
31
31
2013
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
Barry #77
But I don’t see how a materialist can say that genocide is self-evidently evil, ..... Therefore, one of two things is true. Genocide is not self-evidently evil or materialism is false.
That is all you need - the rest of your comment is superfluous. All you have said is: If a materialist cannot claim X then either not X or not materialism. Seems pretty watertight to me! But so what?Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT
Barry #76
No, this is obviously false. The most dangerous people, including the three most prolific mass murderers in history (Mao, Stalin, Hitler – in that order BTW), are those who do not believe there is such a thing as “right.”
Evidence please. Of course it is hard to get inside the head of such people and their views may change over time. But on the face of it all three subscribed to ideologies which they believed justified their actions. Their motivation and justification may not have been religious but it was based on a strong conviction that their principles told them what was right. I would add the caveats that real people are driven by a complex mixture of motives and that eventually they probably ended up driven more by paranoia and the practicalities of maintaining their dictatorship - but a certainty they knew what was right was key - especially in the early stages of their careers.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT
Central Scrutinizer @80. Before I defend God's actions in the Old Testament, I have a question for you: What is your position on abortion?StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:39 PM
10
10
39
PM
PDT
Well Mapou, I may not agree with all of your "theology", but I know your heart is good. You have humility. It's obvious. Some people pomp around thinking they know God. Well, they don't. Not even close. Get some humility, people, and stop pretending you're some cherub flitting around next to God's right hand. You're not. Not even close.CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
I had decided to stop commenting because of the underlying fundamentalist religious views that permeate this forum but this thread is just too much. As a Christian, I can assure you that there is indeed a solid definition of good and bad. It's a definition that comes straight from the Bible but it is also taught in other religions and belief systems. Anything that promotes or leads to unity is good and anything that promotes or leads to disunity is bad. It is that simple, folks. This is the reason that Jesus prayed to the Father thus, "Let them be ONE with us, as we are ONE together." We live in a yin-yang reality. Oneness exists when two complementary opposites (i.e., Father/Son, male/female, left/right, etc. come together. To be good is to be one with everything. Oneness is the mother of all conservation laws in both the physical and the spiritual realms. The law of karma, for example, is based on spiritual oneness. And the law of the conservation of energy is based on the oneness of the cosmos. Why must reality be ONE? That is a different story for another time. Rest assured that there is an explanation for everything. I'll continue to lurk.Mapou
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:56 PM
9
09
56
PM
PDT
How some one can consider the Holocaust "obviously evil" and not consider the slaughter of Canaanite babies "obvious evil" has an obvious DISJUNCT. Can I get a witness? Come on, Barry, grow up.CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:37 PM
9
09
37
PM
PDT
Oh But GOD ITS OK. HYPOCRITE. Can't you see how ridiculous your position is. You harp and harp and harp on others, and yet you cannot see this HUGE plank in your own eye. Killing Canaanite babies: evil or not?CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
Barry: Consider the following 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
Hey, Barry, we know you think the Holocaust was evil. (So do I.) But why won't you call and spade a spade and call the Biblical killing of Canaanite babies evil. HYPOCRITE!!!!CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
09:33 PM
9
09
33
PM
PDT
Barry, Nobody except for sociopaths thinks genocide (including the Biblical genocides) is good. Everyone thinks it's evil. Really and truly evil. Do you seriously thinks anyone believes otherwise? (Except for sociopaths, in which case, there is no discussion. They are missing a part of normal brain.) So what's your game in all of this?CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
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? I say that “self-evident” means that if you understand it you understand not only that it is true but that it must be true and to deny it results in absurdity. 2+2=4 is the classic case of a self-evidently true statement. I say that “evil” is a privation of the good, and that genocide is a privation of the good. Therefore, I say the syllogism is sound. Now it seems to me that the materialist can say that genocide is evil, and most of them do. But I don’t see how a materialist can say that genocide is self-evidently evil, and some, such as Mark Frank, refuse to do so. Therefore, one of two things is true. Genocide is not self-evidently evil or materialism is false.Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
Mark Frank:
It has usually been the people who are sure they know what is right who have done the most terrible things.
No, this is obviously false. The most dangerous people, including the three most prolific mass murderers in history (Mao, Stalin, Hitler – in that order BTW), are those who do not believe there is such a thing as “right.”Barry Arrington
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT
So, what is it that must, of necessity . . . 1. Have more power than God, 2. But is more evil than the devil. 3. The super rich think they need it, 4. The poor almost have it. 4. And if you eat it, you'll die? :-)
The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. - Genesis 2:9 NIV
Tell me, from which tree are we arguing about?Querius
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
People believe all kinds of things. How can you prove your point of view beyond all refutation? You can't. Everyone. Admit it. Can't we just all get along? (That's my appeal. But I can't give any absolute reasons why anyone should follow along. But I hope you do. What else can anyone really say?)CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT
Mung @ 72, For whom are you speaking? If you're speaking for yourself, thank you for your honesty. If you're being sarcastic, shame on you.Daniel King
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
[a] I believe God exists. [b] I can't define God. [c] Since I can’t define God, it follows that I don’t know what God is. [d] Therefore, I don't know what it is I think exists. Does that about cover it?Mung
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
[c] Since you can't define evil, it follow[s] that you don't know what it is.StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Mark
I don’t understand what you hope to gain by so blatantly misrepresenting what I have written. Anyone can look up the thread and see that I have repeatedly said that “evil” means something and therefore people can be evil.
I certainly don't want to misrepresent your position. As a tribute to your appeal for a fair hearing, I reviewed all your comments in greater detail and I now understand your position to be this: [a] You think evil exists, [b] You can't define evil, [c] Since you can't define evil, it followd that you don't know what it is. [d] Therefore, you don't know what it is that you think exists. Does that about cover it?StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
#62 Barry
Graham2 @ 58: I will tell you why I harp on this issue so much. People like you and Mark Frank genuinely frighten me.
Well I am sorry to hear that. It mostly means I have failed to explain what I believe clearly enough. If it is any comfort I find your idealism rather frightening. It has usually been the people who are sure they know what is right who have done the most terrible things. Awful atrocities are rarely done out of selfishness.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
WJM: Basically, the same principle appealed to to found the country I live in; self-evident truths (presumed to be reflective of absolutes), and logical reasoning thereof. That gives me the grounds for moral obligation and authority to act.
So is this what people do by default? If not, what do they do by default, in their human nature? Is it something people need to be enlightened about? Or is it self-evident? Is it something that will put one in the "liar" category if they deny it? (Disregarding sociopaths.)CentralScrutinizer
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
StephenB #59 and #63
In any case, I get your drift. There are no evil people, only crazy people; and crazy people are unusual people. Naturally, that raises the question: Are all unusual people crazy?
I don't understand what you hope to gain by so blatantly misrepresenting what I have written. Anyone can look up the thread and see that I have repeatedly said that "evil" means something and therefore people can be evil. The discussion of craziness only came up because you wanted to know what I meant by "twisted" (not evil) and even then I stressed that there was more to it just the craziness. I said that Hitler was so strange in his beliefs that he might be considered nuts. It obviously does not follow from this that all unusual people are crazy.Mark Frank
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
What do you offer as The Principle?
Basically, the same principle appealed to to found the country I live in; self-evident truths (presumed to be reflective of absolutes), and logical reasoning thereof. That gives me the grounds for moral obligation and authority to act.William J Murray
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
Barry @62. You have captured my sentiments perfectly. Thank you.StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
F/N: I think it is getting a bit buried, so let us revisit 28, where I give a description of what evil is:
evil is that which is a privation, abuse or perversion of the good out of proper purpose, which therefore ends in harm, damage, chaos, confusion, deception, ruin, destruction and in the end shame. If unredeemed, eternal shame. This being particularly manifest in violation of duty, in violation or abuse of neighbours who are as we are, and in breakdown of stewardship through neglect or breach of trust.
Yes, I know, I know, this is in a theistic framework; one that has no problems identifying evil and its ways. Now, think a tad about what it would be like to live in a world where that has been lost sight of. (And yes, there is a text for that -- and another one. Not a very pretty one, but a telling one. Time to rethink.) KFkairosfocus
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
Mark
Pathological is not a synonym for twisted. It means “involving or caused by a physical or mental disease.
I know what the words mean. I asked you to define twisted, and you used pathological and unusual as part of your definition. So it was fair for me to say you were using pathological as a synonym. In any case, I get your drift. There are no evil people, only crazy people; and crazy people are unusual people. Naturally, that raises the question: Are all unusual people crazy?StephenB
October 30, 2013
October
10
Oct
30
30
2013
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6

Leave a Reply