Pitch's idea : what is evil??

[Fist and Faith]

There is a tendancy not to use these terms in preference of a politically correct non-judgemental speach .. or basically to pursue some notion of a-morality!

"morality" itself has become a politically "dirty word".

I think it's more that they want to make sure they aren't giving the impression that they think THEIR way is the objectively correct one. Which, imo, is wrong. Because, if you remember, I disagree with things like this:

To me there are absolute truths .. absolute wrongs and even rights. Murder is a wrong .. who can say it is not? I am not talking about self-defence ..which is by definition is NOT murder??

Yes, I agree with you. But entire cultures have and do not. They can say it is not wrong to murder. They are the chosen, for whatever reason their culture decided that, and so murder is only getting rid of the inferior. You and I could talk until we pass out, and we'd never convince them otherwise.

[Ninquelote]

I do also agree. Murder is not right (in those meanings you wrote before. and if the case was euthanasia).

I hope those americans who want capital punishment don't agree with that: if, they would be part of a great act of contradicting.

But what if it is like this: There's a God up there who has decided that people who live too long will come to hell after death. People who die too early will come to heaven. Then, you really should be glad if you die when you're young.

It's silly thinking like that. But, what if? And if that's the case, murderers are sent from heaven to save us from the eternal red fire. Because of our very unwitting mind, we can't for sure say what's right, what's wrong and what's true. But, then again, if we live like that, we would probably be too confused to evolve ourselves and technology.

[Fist and Faith]

heh That's the most stretching I've ever seen anyone do to make a point. But yes, it is a point. We cannot possibly claim to know everything there is to know, and so cannot rule out some pretty silly thoughts.

But I like your point about capital punishment. It is nothing more than vengeance. Locking up the person for the rest of their life makes society safe from their monstrous actions.

[Skyweir]

quote]Yes, I agree with you. But entire cultures have and do not. They can say it is not wrong to murder. They are the chosen, for whatever reason their culture decided that, and so murder is only getting rid of the inferior. You and I could talk until we pass out, and we'd never convince them otherwise.

Yes you are right .. but even though there are cultures that would not agree .. that is only their subjective opinion .. which in my mind makes it flawed.

FGM .. is a perfect example of this .. this is a culturally accepted and practiced norm .. in some cultures. The subjective opinion of those who impose this practice on females .. is that it is a "right" .. or .. moreso that .. it is "right" .. righteous even. Which makes it oh so much more concerning!

Regardless of these cultural diverse practices .. they are not rights .. Objective observation tells us that Female Genitalia Mutilation is an objective harm .. and thus "a wrong". Even a philosphical ill or evil.

I think the "harm rule" is a more sound measure of rights and wrongs.

I agree with you and Ninq re: capital punishment too! It seems a barbaric practice that one would hope we had outgrown ..

[Brinn]

I've been preaching against this very thing in the tank for a while now and it really forms the centerpiece of my argument against terrorism. I agree with Sky. IMHO, there are rights and wrongs and good and evil.

FGM is wrong although it is culturally accepted. Sati, the practice where a widow is expected to immolate herself on the funeral pyre of her husband was accepted in India prior to british colonization. Although culturally accepted it is wrong. Slavery is and has been accepted and practiced where a cheap source of labor is/was required yet slavery is wrong. That is the problem with multiculturalism and relativism. Under its auspices one cannot condemn any practice regardless of how barbaric and one can condone anything in the spirit of "tolerance and respect". To take the opposite side of the coin Ninq, if we are prepared to respect other cultures and their right to do as they see fit what right did anyone have to oppose the Holocaust. Obviously the Germans, as a people, felt that the extermination of other races in order to create a purer race was a culturally noble goal. All we can hope in these cases is that the majority of people in the global community are prepared to condemn these practices and to engage in action (dialogue, sanctions, war etc...) to enforce these decisions.

As I've always espoused and stated in many, many threads: Individual freedom coupled with respect for other's individual freedom is the highest ideal. In many ways Sky, this is a corollary to your "harm rule" which I agree with wholeheartedly.

[duchess of malfi]

Very well said, Brinn.

[Skyweir]

I've been preaching against this very thing in the tank for a while now and it really forms the centerpiece of my argument against terrorism. I agree with Sky. IMHO, there are rights and wrongs and good and evil.

FGM is wrong although it is culturally accepted. Sati, the practice where a widow is expected to immolate herself on the funeral pyre of her husband was accepted in India prior to british colonization. Although culturally accepted it is wrong. Slavery is and has been accepted and practiced where a cheap source of labor is/was required yet slavery is wrong. That is the problem with multiculturalism and relativism. Under its auspices one cannot condemn any practice regardless of how barbaric and one can condone anything in the spirit of "tolerance and respect". To take the opposite side of the coin Ninq, if we are prepared to respect other cultures and their right to do as they see fit what right did anyone have to oppose the Holocaust. Obviously the Germans, as a people, felt that the extermination of other races in order to create a purer race was a culturally noble goal. All we can hope in these cases is that the majority of people in the global community are prepared to condemn these practices and to engage in action (dialogue, sanctions, war etc...) to enforce these decisions.

As I've always espoused and stated in many, many threads: Individual freedom coupled with respect for other's individual freedom is the highest ideal. In many ways Sky, this is a corollary to your "harm rule" which I agree with wholeheartedly.

brilliantly stated .. not only because we agree LOL but .. you made this point far more eloquently than i could have!!

kudos!!

[Avatar]

I'm too lazy to read the whole of what is obviously a very interesting and involved thread, and so my comment for the moment must, per force, be brief.

As usual, Brinn makes an excellent point.

I will merely repeat something I've said before:
The only sin (evil) lies in harming others (ANY others) unnecessarily.

Of course, this opens the question of what is neccessary, but I think that analysis of the motive is a primary consideration in determining the "Good" or "Evil" of any action. (Not necessarily the only consideration though, it is always important to consider the result as well)

I've always liked the Judaic approach to evil, which basically says that there is no incarnate Evil, but rather that it arises from the actions of men (and women I suppose )

Sati for example, is only wrong if the wife doesn't want to leap on the pyre. If she does, then it must be up to her.

Same goes for Euthanasia. Any law forbidding it in the case of a person who WANTS it, is one which makes your life the property of the state, and is thus intolerable to me.

Peace
--Avatar

[Skyweir]

i like that av!! I too do not believe that humankind is inherently evil. Evil arises from our actions .. our choices!

If we say humankind is inherently evil .. we then provide ill actions or harms with an excuse! We extract the element of "responsibility" from the equasion

.. and doing that leaves people with only instinctive- ness! ..

cant think how to explain that concept .. will mull over it and return!

[Avatar]

Evil arises from our actions .. our choices!

If we say humankind is inherently evil .. We extract the element of "responsibility" from the equasion...

Exactly! I think one of the most important requirements for mankind's eventual advancement is the acceptance of responsibility for our actions. There's far too much of "The Devil made me do it", or "I was only following orders".

Don't people realise that there is always choice? Even if someone put a gun to your head and said "Do this, or else...", you still have the choice. It might be an unpalatable one, but it's still a choice.

You decide whether to enable that "Evil" or to deny it. On the whole though, humanity is unfortunately not a responsible race. I hope this changes one day.

--Avatar

[Brinn]

Sati for example, is only wrong if the wife doesn't want to leap on the pyre. If she does, then it must be up to her.

Same goes for Euthanasia. Any law forbidding it in the case of a person who WANTS it, is one which makes your life the property of the state, and is thus intolerable to me.

Exactly. Individual choice. If a widow chooses to immolate herself she has that right in my book.

Now you guys are talking my language!

[Avatar]

Exactly. Individual choice.

You'll get no argument from me on this score. If only more people spoke this language.

Take it easy
--Avatar

[Ninquelote]

i like that av!! I too do not believe that humankind is inherently evil. Evil arises from our actions .. our choices!

If we say humankind is inherently evil .. we then provide ill actions or harms with an excuse! We extract the element of "responsibility" from the equasion

Exactly,
But that's what I tried to say before . Sometimes I have a minor problem in expressing myself.

Brinn, you should be a politician.

[Brinn]

Brinn, you should be a politician.

I'd like to figure out some way that I could take that as a compliment but man, that's difficult.

Thanks Ninq...I guess.

[CovenantJr]

Perhaps she meant "politicians should be like you" More complimentary?

[Brinn]

hmmmmm....I like that Cov. Thanks!

[Fist and Faith]

Heh. Yes, well done, CJ.

So then, let me say that I agree with everything that's been said since my last post. Isn't that easy? Especially about the rights of the individual. I mean, have I mentioned Ayn Rand now and then?!? lol

But, as far as I'm concerned, even that's not enough. The woman who chooses to throw herself on her husband's funeral pyre should have the right to do so. But why would she choose to do so? Because certain ideals were drilled into her head from the moment she was born. She was told that this was her role in life, she did not choose her role.

And in the cultures that practice FGM can be found women who support it. Just as I insist my kids get an education, they insist their daughters go through this. We both believe that our kids will be better off in the long run.

How do we free every individual in the world from such things? I never cared whether or not Iraq had WMD's. Saddam was butchering people, and I'm glad he's out. It's certainly not practical, or even possible, to march in and prevent FGM, and other horrible things, all over the world, but I don't have a moral problem with it. But that's more political than cultural. What about the cultures that have been perpetuating pain and slavery for centuries? If the members of a culture believe something we consider to be evil is good, is it wrong to try to free them?

[Avatar]

If the members of a culture believe something we consider to be evil is good, is it wrong to try to free them?

From whose point of view?

If someone believes something, it is the same to them as if it was true. This counts for everything. For Christians, god does exist. He influences their lives, and their actions, irrespective of his actual existence. The fact that they act as though he existed, makes it as though he really does. We could argue that the very fact of belief, brings god into existence.

From their point of view, you are not freeing them, merely forcing them to behave as if your beliefs were the true ones.

It's a very difficult moral question, and I could argue it either way.

--Avatar

[Skyweir]

wow this discussion is getting very meaty!!

Ninq you express yourself really well and I agree with the points you made!!

Cov jr that was a superlative interpretation of that brilliant complement!! I couldnt agree with Ninq more .. lol .. again LOL If politicians had the kind of social conscience that Brinn and others here have we would never have need to fear the actions of our leaders!

Fist you made some interesting points and I must ask .. are they points you hold or are you acting per devils advocate?

FMG .. is an objective wrong .. regardless of its acceptance and practice. To me the same is so for women who throw themselves on thier husbands burial pyres! Some do choose this action but not necessarily entirely of their own volition and there are some that are forced to comply with this cultural/religious practice.

So there are categories of compliance .. Is the same act right for the individual who choses to comply? but that very act is not right for the individual who is forced to comply??

The act is a wrong regardless of the degree of compliance imo. As for the individual's right to choose how to act .. I can not agree more that nothing short of 'harm' even 'self-harm' should prevent an individual from acting as they choose.

In both cases of FMG .. and the PAKISTANI practice (or wherever this is prevalent) of widows being burned with their dearly departed spouses .. are acts reprehensible to notions of humanity! and humaness!

These acts are inhumane acts .. and acts of violence .. Violating an individuals inherent right to life ..

I say inherent losely .. in search of a more appropriate term .. but to signify that we are born to life .. to live .. anything that compromises that purpose is the anti-thesis of humanity!

If a widow chooses to immolate herself she has that right in my book.

Now you guys are talking my language

She has the right of choice .. but she does not have the right of action.

To see these distinct concepts clearly we must seperate and distinguish choice from action.

You see how much volition does a women in this scenario really possess?? As Fist has already said .. these choices are premeditated on cultural and religious conditioning. Is it her choice if she should so choose to throw herself on a burning pyre next to her husband? Or is it a choice she has made because of what she has learned that she is EXPECTED to make?

Is it a choice that with re-education she would make differently? By re-education I mean .. not "conditioning" .. but education. There is a movement of women in Pakistan and India "The National Committee of Women" are speaking out against these inhumane and barbaric practices!

Interesting to note that one posited motivation for such acts comes from greed. .. but read on and decide for yourself.

For Hindu women in India, the rite of Suttee was abolished first by the Muslim emperor, Akber, then the British in 1829. Suttee was the ritual suicide or murder of women on the funeral pyres of their dead husbands, an act of immolation reserved for the eilite, for queens. Nonetheless, in the last few decades, there has been throughout India a resurgence and revival of 'dowry-deaths' or bride-burnings, in which young women are driven to suicide by greedy
and rapacious in-laws disappointed in their dowries.

www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=0000 ... el=gulberg


here is a BBC article covering a ritual Sati .. and addressed is the question of volition or compulsion.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2180380.stm

Regardless of the result of the investigation into this death .. this woman's choice was never completely her own. whether the maddened crowd forced her onto the pyre releiving her of choice or whether she sat calmly ontop of the pyre and accepted her horrific fiery death .. The total lack of rationality of this act decries it as free or humane!

The currents of change and regression, the stagnation of rigidly inflexible traditionalism and the absence of family suport- structures in modern self-determinism. The irrational impulses at work in this power struggle trigger an
odyssey into the mind's insanity and hell. As the individual is stripped of power in favor of Group-Think, the collective self-deception of a system steeped in parochial patriarchies, a form of cultural abuse and conditioning occurs: The woman becomes a victim of submission, easily losing her sense of self-esteem and personhood. The manipulators opportunistically exploit the veil of religion and tradition (distorting the true essence of spirituality,) to suit their own selfish and greedy interests and motivations of power. Religion
thus becomes a pretense masking narcissism, egoism, and hubris. The weak and oppressed, primarily women and children, are scapegoated in this power-lust.

www.chowk.com/show_article.cgi?aid=0000 ... el=gulberg


There exists objective rights and wrongs .. When you speak of socially culturally even religious accepted norms .. you speak of subjective opinions through which clear and distinct boundaries are not readily visible.

The means to distinguish an objective view from a subjective one .. is by an examination of the overiding principles involved.

And in this Mill's "harm principle" rises to the occassion. Is there harm associated with this act?

[Avatar]

..Violating an individuals inherent right to life ..

I agree that it's getting interesting here, and I appreciate the distinction that you draw regarding the difference between choice, and the causative relationship between choice and upbringing (social conditioning).

However, we get back to what I was saying about belief. If the person believes that it is right, it's the same as if it was actually right (for them as individuals at least).

I think that what you call objectivity, is merely subjectivity that is removed from the relevant environment. I'm not sure that any question of right or wrong can lay claim to pure objectivity. Just as those people have been conditioned into believing that what they do is right, we are conditioned (often by ourselves) to believe that we are right in turn.

It is perhaps not the choice that she would make with suitable "education", but lacking that education is the same as if that option did not exist.

As long as she has the right to refuse self-immolation, do the reasons behind her choice matter? (I'm not talking about morally here, but practically.)

We're setting ourselves up as the final arbiters of what others may or may not do. We are not responsible for their choices, for whatever reason they are made. We may have to be satisfied that they at least have the choice.

And just to comment on the part of your post that I quoted, doesn't the existence of a right imply an equal and opposite right not to excercise it? We have the right to express ourselves, so too must we have the right to remain silent. The right to freedom of association, and the right not to associate with anybody. In light of this, it is logical to me that we have the right not to live, if we so choose.

Later
--Avatar