Shezbeth wrote:... and again I point out that there are societies in which child rape - as one such example - are customary. Oh, you DIDN'T know about Afghanistani (NOT exclusively, but a childhood friend has first-hand testimony so I'm focusing on them) men and their penchant (read: culturally/socially accepted practice) for raping boys? You should read more.

Alright look, everyone has their opinion on what 'is' evil, but there is no consistent opinion. What's more, an individual's opinion - no matter how collectively agreed upon - is not an argument.

I have yet to see my argument refuted; that 'evil' is what people refer to the actions which they oppose as, usually with the intent to moralize the discussion and in so doing demonize whatever is receiving the label. I assert that it is far easier for people (who 'naturally' want to see themselves as 'good') to decry something/someone else as evil, but quite simply this is intellectual laziness.

Don't feel bad though, no one at Avalon could manage either. Far easier to play games with rhetoric about how 'this position is what enables evil',... blah blah blah.

P.S. For all the idiots in the audience, I'm not saying that what is usually called (by the ignorant) 'Evil' is not horrible, etc., nor that it should be tolerated/accepted/unopposed; I'm simply putting to rest this notion that 'evil' is anything BUT a convenient and lazy way of denouncing something/someone rather than doing any empirical observation/analysis.

You know? You almost had me going there for a minute until I realized something.

All you're doing is sitting on the fence and attempting to get people going.

Dude. Seriously. What are you really trying to accomplish?

I don't use "evil" to describe things I'm opposed to, I use it to describe a conscious being intentionally causing pain to another form of life that it knows can feel pain. The act, when that's all I experience, perhaps I'd label the being with it, if I observed it to be a pattern.

I happen to be opposed to it. I agree that the term is often misused...is your distress over that being the case your reason for championing anti-morality?

Anti-morality. That's funny.

Phil, there's some really great literature available on the philosophy of evil, the problem of evil. Let me know if you're interested and I'd be happy to throw some titles up here for you.

Again, I think the real situation here is less to do with a debate, and a lot more to do with stirring up shit for the sake of being the one with the spoon.

I believe I can demonstrate that it's reasonable to believe that evil is morally objective. But I don't believe that's Sherbet's actual intentions are to debate that topic, or to engage in "discussion".

The Sherbet thing? That was auto correct, not me.

I never took a proper debate class, nor have I read up on Greek modicum, lol, but I hope y'all don't take anything I say for granted. It is not meant to be absolute truth, only a perspective.

This thread continues to be fascinating.

Here is a question, from DUNE, I guess; is Order itself, ie classism and its double standard, the true evil?

Or should we wear "the very noble armor of obedience"?

I don't take what you say for granted. I don't think Order (in that context, if understand it) is "evil", if not maintained by deception (willfully keeping others ignorant) or other intentionally harmful way...it may be true that some people like to follow/take orders, and it's not necessarily "evil" to like to give them.

It might be though...it sure don't seem "human" to me, to want to be any part of any heirarchy, top, bottom or in between. But maybe we're anomolous in that way?

Both of you. A very important question.

What is the number one?

I suppose it's the agreed upon symbol for the most basic/first quantity of physical entities/items in a discussion/observation among humans.

Hermit wrote:Both of you. A very important question.

What is the number one?

Some might say the concepts of indivisibility and perfection are grand illusions.

What is a man without a teacher?
What is a child with no family?

Is any group perfectly complete? Is any individual perfectly polished?

Of the five smooth stones David carried into battle against Goliath, which was the first?

Lol I'm rambling.

However Kabbalah mentions 1 a lot and so does the Army, ... Oh dear.

Then of course theres Neo, "the One" .. Lol.

1 has many enemies at times but also receives lots of romantic & academic interest.

1 is a prize.

1 is I and we are all 1 of them, but theres no I in Team. Lmao

.99$ =\= 1

Good both of you! It's an idea! But more than an idea, it's a belief. In fact, most mathematicians agree on that belief. It's a basic belief. Namely, if you get right down to it there comes a point where you can't explain or define any further than it's just one. It's an idea. If you close your eyes and try to visualize it, you see something...a symbol. But it's there.

Now. Close your eyes and picture pure goodness. Spontaneously, what does it look like? Some people (most people) see pure white light, other people get more abstract than that.

But the idea exists right? You need to have the idea to assign it (as Shez and Phil suggest) to anything. It's a basic idea, or belief, in the very same vein as numbers.

Is the number one subjective?

If you say yes, I will sit back and let you demonstrate how, and then blow you out of the water. If one isn't always one, what is it...two? Numbers are objective. Period.

I believe, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe, that good and evil are *also* objective in a similar, if not the same way.

Can I prove that? Well no I can't. But I can't prove that after I hit submit other people with other minds will read what I'm writing, and maybe submit replies or give thanks or challenge what I'm writing here. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to believe with a certain amount of certainty that other minds do in fact exist. I know with a fair amount of certainty my own mind exists. I know that in my mind certain ideas exist innately. Hard wired. Two of those ideas are the concepts of good and evil.

I know that certain theories state that evil and good are subjective ideas when applied to circumstances, individual events, or moments of matter. I know that the human mind also tends to blur the lines of objective ideas when it gets in the way of subjective desires. (Am I slipping out of philosophy? Perhaps, but where some may want to point at theology I would say, instead, psychology; and in turn, knowing one's psychology is in fact one of the tenants of an intellectual "great" here at EE: I will then refrain from theology and keep to psychology.) This, then, becomes not a debate about the subjectivity of good and evil, but rather a debate about our own personal relation to our desires and how they may or may not co-operate with what we know to be objective truths.

I reject the idea of subjective truth. If anyone disagrees with me, you have provided me with the means to prove the weakness of your own position. For if truth is subjective, that very truth is in fact in doubt, and who would listen to someone who doesn't know what he's talking about? (Knock wood.)

As to a psyop, I would suggest that it has less to do with good and evil and far more to do with personal agendas, big and small, on this forum and in the bigger world. When in doubt, revert to Occam's razor. What's the simpler solution?

It is reasonable to believe that evil exists, is not a psyop, but rather a fact of the universe.

Why it exists is another question, one that people have been considering for at least 3 thousand years.

It exists precisely because of the reasons you mentions, the subjective moral values on even things that should be objectively evil (to us humans) are blurred and charged.

Killing is not in itself evil, unless the intent is selfishly causing harm. That makes it tricky cause as you point out it seems we can never objectively know even the entirety your own intent in most (if not all) cases.

A tendancy that seems to be an evolutionary weakness in our species is how easily manipulable we are through our emotions. A species that has better understanding of it than we do could potentially control us, which would seem "evil"...to us.

I agree with shez that it may not "correct" for us to label it so, but my contention is that on the evolutionary scale it may be useful. Especially if we can learn to look it analytically and almost objectively to solve it as a proble rather than fear the "evilness" of it.

Ignorance of the intent seems to be the reason for slapping on the label (again, another agreement I think I may have with shez if I'm not "misrepresenting" him again). But ultimately it doesn't matter. A deer in the headlights would be better served to avoid the "evil" headlights if he learned it seemed to kill his mate, rather than stand in the road with his instincts freezing him in place.

So my point is (and I believe sorta always has been), that we can (and should) come to an agreement in defining "evil" as close to as objectively as we can "one". Which requires the subtly and nuance that (perhaps an "evil" species) seems to have twisted us up, defaulting us to binary black/white thinking.

It's idea that continually cause the conflict in this arena, applying "exceptions" to "rules" (usually incorrectly) that we allow to negate them. Abortion would be a good example here I think, most seem to be either "for" or "against"...where I feel it's the generalities that cause the complexity (and emotional attachments that arise from them). Each case should be looked at in its own context with, with the near objective fact that intentional removing human life normally potentially "weakens" the species, allowing the understanding that sometimes there is "addition by subtraction".

Applying a generality to any case is where the potential for evil that is unintended by the actor but possibly (I'm getting psyopy here) it was intended by an "evil-to-us" being that implants bad ideas so that we harm ourselves so that they somehow benefit. Just throwing out ideas here, I hate getting even close straw men but I find epigenetics to be an idea that can get twisted to be so close to evil but is based on "evolutionarily correct" assumptions

Applying compassion and specific and critical thinking to each example as it comes to the "black/white" objective survival rules/laws we've discovered on our journey as a species is my stab at a suggestion for a solution