The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion - Page 70

Tendronai · 03-09-2007, 05:40 PM

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the statement that there is ever a true "good" or "evil". People are both too biased within their own experiences and too varied in opinions for there to ever a concrete definition of either. Take murder. Most people agree it is an evil act. But (and here gets kind of weird, but bear with me, it helps me make my point) if it were possible to murder Hitler before his rise to power, would it still be evil? The point that I'm trying to make is that circumstance, more often than not, can morph an evil act to good or good to evil. As such, there can't be any objective morality system, since they all depend too much upon circumstances.

ZAKtheGeek · 03-09-2007, 06:42 PM

It seems to me that people are being all too vague in this and that this vagueness causes them to be arguing over fairly differing issues. Thus no one gets anywhere because no one fully understands what anyone else is really saying.

One thing people seem to be arguing over is the "shades of gray" idea: is there anything in between moral right and wrong? The answer is that there is no answer; it depends entirely on the moral system. Usually a complicated set of morals will have overlaps where doing something (or not doing something) can be considered both good and bad, because most actions affect multiple things in multiple ways. Of course, it's also (probably) possible to have a system where this never occurs - although this system is probably a relatively simple code.

Elminster_Amaur · 03-09-2007, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Take murder. Most people agree it is an evil act. But (and here gets kind of weird, but bear with me, it helps me make my point) if it were possible to murder Hitler before his rise to power, would it still be evil?

Yes. It would be. The problem with killing someone before they did something important in the past could disrupt the entire time-space continuum. Killing Hitler before his rise to power would likely have caused a global government run by the soviets. Not that communism is bad, but forced communism will always fail, and I don't know about you, but the world under Stalin would have been far worse than letting Hitler rise and WWII occur. It is very likely that without Hitler, there would have been no America to rise to power to counter the Soviet Union.

Tendronai · 03-09-2007, 07:22 PM

Well, I agree with that historical analysis. But the point I was trying to make was that it is possible for even the most morally reprehensible act to have its own beneficial properties, therefore meaning that there could be no action which would be considered completely and irredeemably evil.

Elminster_Amaur · 03-09-2007, 10:22 PM

Quote:

But the point I was trying to make was that it is possible for even the most morally reprehensible act to have its own beneficial properties, therefore meaning that there could be no action which would be considered completely and irredeemably evil.

Lets take Hitler as an example again. The Holocaust. I can see no beneficial property to it. Merely invading other nations would have caused WWII, since as long as it wasn't THEIR families, no one was willing to get involved. What were the benefits of the Holocaust. If you can come up with some that at least make up for the loss of 1 life, I'll concede your point.

Tendronai · 03-09-2007, 11:44 PM

Remember, I'm Jewish, too, so don't try any of that "I'm a racist" crap. What I am about to say is done solely to prove my point, and not because I believe six million people had to die. It was an evil act in my point of view, but that doesn't mean it was evil to everyone.

From the point of view of the Germans : This act rejuvenated their country as a whole. Their economy was rescued by the new government. Even more important, it restored faith in the country as a whole. People were proud to be German again. With the subsequent restoration of pride, the Germans were willing to try to prove to the world that they were the best. Such arrogance inspired the other countries to take action, to varying degrees of success. The mobilization which followed was enough to pull these countries out of their economic recessions. Without such a flash point, it becomes less likely that the Depression would have ended as it did, which could then have led to the collapse of the Capitalist system worldwide. This would have led the USSR to grab the reigns of power, and it has been well documented how bad Stalin and the following leaders were in regards to the people of their country. Had they both been unchecked by any other power, and had free reign over the world, it is highly probable that Stalin's current records would pale in comparison to what he would have done had he thought he had no one else to worry about.

Therefore, it can be said that the deaths of those in the events leading up to and during the second world war protected us from the potential slaughterhouse that could have been created.

Elminster_Amaur · 03-10-2007, 01:13 AM

I suppose that is one way to view it. I said I'd concede you your point, and I do. But these exercises in past actions aren't very good, because a single, seemingly insignificant change would cause a drastically different outcome this many years in the future. We both agree that there are, at the very least, some actions that cannot be atributed to pure good or pure evil.

I'm now going to make the case that neither exists. I'll try from a monotheistic perspective(i.e. Judiasm or its several spawned religions).

God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God exists in all things.
Varying Good and Evil are varying degrees of separation from God.
If even the highest Good is still separated from God by Imperfection,
And God is everywhere and in all things,
Then Good and Evil are not in anything. They do not exist at all.

I couldn't get to that conclusion from athiestic assumptions. The closest I could get are "Good and Evil are electrical impulses". I suppose I'm running out of juice.

Tendronai · 03-10-2007, 09:47 AM

I'll agree with that statement. There doesn't seem to be that much room for argument, and I'm sure the fact that I've been arguing the same thing doesn't help me in finding places to dispute it.

ZAKtheGeek · 03-10-2007, 02:20 PM

There's about as much a need to prove that good and evil exist from an atheist perspective as there is one to prove that gods exist. First somebody has to give reason to think there is any such thing as good and evil (or at least define them, for Zeus' sake...), then we can work on showing they don't exist.

Elminster_Amaur · 03-10-2007, 03:06 PM

Fine, I'll try to define good and evil from the athiest perspective.

Good - Any action or inaction that promotes the growth of the individual or society, without stagnating the growth or continued survival of the species.

Evil - Any action or inaction that causes harm to befall the individual, society or species, from least evil to greatest.

Are those broad enough definitions for you athiests? I am finding it hard to think from that point of view.

03-09-2007, 06:42 PM	#692
ZAKtheGeek Worth every yenny Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: not my mind that's for sure! Posts: 1,299	It seems to me that people are being all too vague in this and that this vagueness causes them to be arguing over fairly differing issues. Thus no one gets anywhere because no one fully understands what anyone else is really saying. One thing people seem to be arguing over is the "shades of gray" idea: is there anything in between moral right and wrong? The answer is that there is no answer; it depends entirely on the moral system. Usually a complicated set of morals will have overlaps where doing something (or not doing something) can be considered both good and bad, because most actions affect multiple things in multiple ways. Of course, it's also (probably) possible to have a system where this never occurs - although this system is probably a relatively simple code. __________________ Pyro Icon - It needs your love. I haven't looked at it in months.

03-10-2007, 01:13 AM	#697
Elminster_Amaur Her hands were cold and small. Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: My Mind Posts: 2,049	I suppose that is one way to view it. I said I'd concede you your point, and I do. But these exercises in past actions aren't very good, because a single, seemingly insignificant change would cause a drastically different outcome this many years in the future. We both agree that there are, at the very least, some actions that cannot be atributed to pure good or pure evil. I'm now going to make the case that neither exists. I'll try from a monotheistic perspective(i.e. Judiasm or its several spawned religions). God is omnipotent. God is omnipresent. God exists in all things. Varying Good and Evil are varying degrees of separation from God. If even the highest Good is still separated from God by Imperfection, And God is everywhere and in all things, Then Good and Evil are not in anything. They do not exist at all. I couldn't get to that conclusion from athiestic assumptions. The closest I could get are "Good and Evil are electrical impulses". I suppose I'm running out of juice. __________________ "It just rubs me the wrong way." -CJ, most likely about non-yaoi porn or something

03-10-2007, 02:20 PM	#699
ZAKtheGeek Worth every yenny Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: not my mind that's for sure! Posts: 1,299	There's about as much a need to prove that good and evil exist from an atheist perspective as there is one to prove that gods exist. First somebody has to give reason to think there is any such thing as good and evil (or at least define them, for Zeus' sake...), then we can work on showing they don't exist. __________________ Pyro Icon - It needs your love. I haven't looked at it in months.

03-10-2007, 03:06 PM	#700
Elminster_Amaur Her hands were cold and small. Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: My Mind Posts: 2,049	Fine, I'll try to define good and evil from the athiest perspective. Good - Any action or inaction that promotes the growth of the individual or society, without stagnating the growth or continued survival of the species. Evil - Any action or inaction that causes harm to befall the individual, society or species, from least evil to greatest. Are those broad enough definitions for you athiests? I am finding it hard to think from that point of view. __________________ "It just rubs me the wrong way." -CJ, most likely about non-yaoi porn or something

03-09-2007, 05:40 PM	#691
Tendronai I will crush your economy. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Magical mystical land of Canada. Posts: 1,364	I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the statement that there is ever a true "good" or "evil". People are both too biased within their own experiences and too varied in opinions for there to ever a concrete definition of either. Take murder. Most people agree it is an evil act. But (and here gets kind of weird, but bear with me, it helps me make my point) if it were possible to murder Hitler before his rise to power, would it still be evil? The point that I'm trying to make is that circumstance, more often than not, can morph an evil act to good or good to evil. As such, there can't be any objective morality system, since they all depend too much upon circumstances.

03-09-2007, 07:22 PM	#694
Tendronai I will crush your economy. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Magical mystical land of Canada. Posts: 1,364	Well, I agree with that historical analysis. But the point I was trying to make was that it is possible for even the most morally reprehensible act to have its own beneficial properties, therefore meaning that there could be no action which would be considered completely and irredeemably evil.

03-09-2007, 11:44 PM	#696
Tendronai I will crush your economy. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Magical mystical land of Canada. Posts: 1,364	Remember, I'm Jewish, too, so don't try any of that "I'm a racist" crap. What I am about to say is done solely to prove my point, and not because I believe six million people had to die. It was an evil act in my point of view, but that doesn't mean it was evil to everyone. From the point of view of the Germans : This act rejuvenated their country as a whole. Their economy was rescued by the new government. Even more important, it restored faith in the country as a whole. People were proud to be German again. With the subsequent restoration of pride, the Germans were willing to try to prove to the world that they were the best. Such arrogance inspired the other countries to take action, to varying degrees of success. The mobilization which followed was enough to pull these countries out of their economic recessions. Without such a flash point, it becomes less likely that the Depression would have ended as it did, which could then have led to the collapse of the Capitalist system worldwide. This would have led the USSR to grab the reigns of power, and it has been well documented how bad Stalin and the following leaders were in regards to the people of their country. Had they both been unchecked by any other power, and had free reign over the world, it is highly probable that Stalin's current records would pale in comparison to what he would have done had he thought he had no one else to worry about. Therefore, it can be said that the deaths of those in the events leading up to and during the second world war protected us from the potential slaughterhouse that could have been created.

03-10-2007, 09:47 AM	#698
Tendronai I will crush your economy. Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Magical mystical land of Canada. Posts: 1,364	I'll agree with that statement. There doesn't seem to be that much room for argument, and I'm sure the fact that I've been arguing the same thing doesn't help me in finding places to dispute it.