Pitch's idea : what is evil??

[Avatar]

However on some level we "share" responsibility .. We have a duty of care to those we co-exist with .. in a variety of levels. You say why should I care? Why should you care if you kill yourself and leave a small child fatherless .. why should you care?

Here you raise a very interesting point. I'm not sure I can deny that a definite element of responsibility exists here, but at the moment, I'm not sure how to tie that in with the rest of my opinion. It may be that in this partiular circumstance, the harm that would be caused is more physical (actual) than emotional. If that child has no other means of support, and your suicide leads directly to his harm, then it would be wrong to kill yourself.

I don't think anyone's arguing with you here.

WEll if I am not mistaken you were

Brilliant .. I was of the opinion that you were arguing that it is not a 'wrong' as it is up to the individual and therefore .. could not be a wrong. You know the whole self-harm thing.

Oh no, FGM is not self-harm, it's harm inflicted unnecessarily on others, and as such, is against my beliefs.

you too av

I always do!

Later
--Avatar

[Skyweir]

However on some level we "share" responsibility .. We have a duty of care to those we co-exist with .. in a variety of levels. You say why should I care? Why should you care if you kill yourself and leave a small child fatherless .. why should you care?

Here you raise a very interesting point. I'm not sure I can deny that a definite element of responsibility exists here, but at the moment, I'm not sure how to tie that in with the rest of my opinion. It may be that in this partiular circumstance, the harm that would be caused is more physical (actual) than emotional. If that child has no other means of support, and your suicide leads directly to his harm, then it would be wrong to kill yourself.

Interesting ..

Oh no, FGM is not self-harm, it's harm inflicted unnecessarily on others, and as such, is against my beliefs.

and again .. interesting even if it is their choice? If so I think we have come to concur.

[Avatar]

Oh no, FGM is not self-harm, it's harm inflicted unnecessarily on others, and as such, is against my beliefs


Not sure about this. I don't know what the instances are of people agreeing to undergo it of their own free will, and in full and certain knowledge of the consequences..

Ah so you concede that the choice is not choice if it is not an informed choice In your world view who decides whether it is an informed choice or not?? I thought under your preferred philosophy if they believe it is right that is sufficient

So now the subject of FMG is required to meet an objective standard or if not who's standard of "informed"?

Are you talking means now? as in a standard of education

If, under these conditions, i.e. that they are aware of the result, and still desire it, they have the right. No-one but themselves will suffer. Of course, this rests on the supposition that it is an informed choice. If it is not informed, then it is not acceptable.

You know as well as I do that the majority of those subject to FMG have little to no formal education. I guess this makes this issue moot.

Another dimension is that it is performed/inflicted on children, who by definition, I think, are not capable, or responsible enough, to make such an informed choice. In these instances too, it cannot be justified.

Are you suggesting that if FMG is performed on a female infant or child at some age of premature responsibility that this is a wrong? mmm .. interesting

There are a number of conditions which nullify our ability to make responsible choices .. so are you agreeing that these conditions invalidate any such choices made? Like immaturity .. affects of drug or alchohol .. mental illness or insantiy???

If you chose to undergo such an operation, knowing everything you do about it, I wouldn't stop you.

and thats a nonsense .. because I would never choose to undergo such a self-harm .. to me it is entirely irrational and steeped in agenda.

What is not acceptable to me, is if someone forced you to undergo it. Then, they are harming you, regardless of your own wishes.

Well admirable as such sentiments actually but lets think of this:

The only sin (evil) lies in harming others (ANY others) unnecessarily.

You see I personally am more interested in the practice of FMG than the individual choice made or not to undergo this practice. So taking this further .. the practice is wrong .. because FMG is perpetrated by others on the victim .. er go .. they are committing harm on another ..

In your philosophy they err .. I dont want to argue the religious notions of sin etc .. but I will take you up on philosophical evils. This to me makes FMG an evil practice .. and well just an overall evil .. a wrong being fostered by a flawed baseless philosophical belief.

Baseless cos it is often claimed that it is a religious expectation yet there is nothing to support this practice in either the Koran or the Bible. FMG is practiced by "christian" and "muslim" groups.

Its a flawed philosophical dictate because it encroaches on the rights of others for no sound reason and places great pressure on victims to comply.

FMG is a wrong ..

[Fist and Faith]

However on some level we "share" responsibility .. We have a duty of care to those we co-exist with .. in a variety of levels. You say why should I care? Why should you care if you kill yourself and leave a small child fatherless .. why should you care?

Here you raise a very interesting point. I'm not sure I can deny that a definite element of responsibility exists here, but at the moment, I'm not sure how to tie that in with the rest of my opinion. It may be that in this partiular circumstance, the harm that would be caused is more physical (actual) than emotional. If that child has no other means of support, and your suicide leads directly to his harm, then it would be wrong to kill yourself.

For me, this just supports my position that there are no absolutes. (On Northern Exposure, Shelly asked Leonard, the healer, if getting married would make her hallucinations of dancers go away. He replied, "Absolutely. [pause] Or not.") Although I think there are times when commiting suicide is better than not, here's an example where I think it is better to stay alive.


And here's more of my thinking on FGM. Where it is a cultural practice, I believe it is wrong. AFAIK, it is generally performed on young girls, who do not have any choice in the matter. And the women in these cultures who support it have had a lifetime of what I will not call anything but brainwashing.

But, you know, there are people in the USA who are into extreme body-modifications. Amazing what some people do to themselves. I believe such people have the right to do these things.

Of course, that's not an absolute either. Some of these women were, doubtless, abused as children. Through different methods, they have as little choice in the matter as the women in cultures where it's practiced. So rather than allow it, maybe we should try to help them with psychologists/psychiatrists.

But can that work? Can someone who is, because of horrible abuse in the formative years, so very far removed from the cultural norm be changed? I'd be surprised. Childhood conditioning is extremely hard to overcome. And if it cannot be overcome in some reasonable amount of time, should we deny her getting FGM on herself if she has never wavered in her desire for it? As Avatar was saying some time back, however some people got to be the way they are, they are the way they are. At some point, it may be better to let them be happy within their mindset than to continue trying to change their mindset.

So for me, absolutes are very difficult to find.


And here's more on our responsibility to society, a-la Rand. Her definition of selfish people is those who are only fulfilled through themselves. Their joy comes from making their way using their own minds and bodies. Things like stealing are vile to them. No pride of accomplishment can come from it, only the feeling of self-disgust. And so, since cheating the other party goes against every fiber of their being, business dealings are always fair, and for mutual benefit.

So it is possible to act in the interest of both yourself and society.

[Dragonlily]

And here's more on our responsibility to society, a-la Rand. Her definition of selfish people is those who are only fulfilled through themselves. Their joy comes from making their way using their own minds and bodies. Things like stealing are vile to them. No pride of accomplishment can come from it, only the feeling of self-disgust. And so, since cheating the other party goes against every fiber of their being, business dealings are always fair, and for mutual benefit.

So it is possible to act in the interest of both yourself and society.

I knew you'd remember to point that out eventually.

People whose lives are rooted in ethics and good-will take that kind of thing for granted. What we expect from others depends on what we are used to seeing.

[Skyweir]

Fist you had me right with you until the Rand quote .. lol

Maybe its a typo LOL .. but it doesnt make sense in this context. I think you are taking Rand out of context which is why it really isnt making sense here.

After consulting with rivenrock I see that this may relate to Rand's Atlas Shrugged view of wealthy entrepeneurs responsibility to society but doesnt directly relate here imo.

You state that Rand's definition of selfish people are those who are only fulfilled through themselves .. their own minds and their own bodies.

But she relates this assertion to claims of social "responsibility" on the wealthy. Many accuse the wealthy of selfishness for not wanting to impart of their wealth. Rand's view is directly related to these wealthy that they are not selfish they have worked hard for what they have and are not selfish not to impart that wealth to others who have not earned it like they have.

Her definiton of selfish people are those who are self-sustaining entirely .. those unique class of individuals (a very small percent of the world population) who are wealthy and in terms of economic gain (an even smaller percentage I wager) revile the idea of committing unethical acts just to gratify themselves. How many corporate identities do you know who revile unethical conduct in business?

They are individuals who work for all they have and take joy in all they possess .. they never cheat because such unethical conduct is an affront to their superior sensibilities???? What a rare class of people?!!



And the very fact that you have assumed a prescribed notion of Rand selfishness as model .. and that it is so presciptive seems like it is being raised as an "absolute". And doesnt allow for individual variance .. cos surely not all who are fulfilled only through themselves are entirely revile notions of theft and greed?

Again .. its just another label .. an "absolutism" even .. and not an effective one in this context where what is being canvassed is the nature of an individuals responsibility and duty of care to another.

[Skyweir]

oh i cant believe I forgot ..

"so it is possible to act in the interests of both yourselves and society"

no arguement here .. I am not sure that your quote entirely makes that point though.

I would absolutely agree with this sentiment .. ofcourse it is possible but it doesnt come by negating responsibility to others

[Avatar]

Somethings gone wrong here.

Skyweir, I think that you tried to quote my post, but actually clicked on "edit", and with your moderatorly powers, overwrote my post with your own, and now it looks like I'm you, or vice versa. Only your quotes of me are left!

I'll try to answer what I can, but it's a bit confusing, and I'm not going to try and sort out quotes. I'm sure you'll know what I'm referring to.

Informed choice: I see your point in that it seems that what I say requires an objective, or universal standard of what an informed choice is, and in a sense, perhaps it does. My subjective interpretation of informed choice is simply that the particpant/victim/"chooser" is fully aware of all possible consequences and implications. I don't need to concede it, I never argued against it

If who believes it is right? If the person undergoing it believes it to be right, that is sufficient to prevent it from being "Evil", that doesn't necessarily mean that it is "Right". "Wrong" and "Evil" are not always synonomous.

Conditions negating choice:
Yes, there are certain circumstances which render the "chooser" unable to make such a choice. Immaturity, I'll definitley give you, within a given value of immaturity, i.e a combination of physical and mental/emotional. A child has no basis to make choices, because they (foolishly) trust "adults" to know whats best.

I agree that drugs or alcohol may temporarily negate the mechanisms of informed choice, but only temporarily. Insanity is a difficult one. What's an acceptable definition of insane?

You undergoing it:
It was a hypothesis to illustrate my point. IF you chose to, with all your knowledge, would I have the right to prevent you?

Yes, the practice is wrong, because they are commiting harm to another. No contest there, I think it's cruel and abominable. But Evil? As I said somewhere, it's the motivations that make for Evil. Wrong, definitley. But surely Evil only if it's done deliberatley to cause suffering. I don't think that that is the intent, although if it is, then certainly "Evil".

Fist and Faith-- I agree that absolutes are, practically, impossible. Everything should be judged in relation to the relevant circumstances of each individual case. Thats the only way in which justive can be achieved.

Later
--Avatar

[Fist and Faith]

Somethings gone wrong here.

Skyweir, I think that you tried to quote my post, but actually clicked on "edit", and with your moderatorly powers, overwrote my post with your own, and now it looks like I'm you, or vice versa. Only your quotes of me are left!

So that's what that was all about!! I was very confused. I thought maybe you needed lessons on using the quote function.

oh i cant believe I forgot ..

"so it is possible to act in the interests of both yourselves and society"

no arguement here .. I am not sure that your quote entirely makes that point though.

I would absolutely agree with this sentiment .. ofcourse it is possible but it doesnt come by negating responsibility to others

I’m grateful that you did address my final sentence, because, holy cow, what a difference it makes! After arguing against absolutes for the better part of this thread's thirteen pages, it would have been quite odd if I'd now claimed to have found one. Especially if I claimed that that one absolute was that business people never try to cheat anyone!

No, I was just saying: It is not an absolute that people who do not view the good of other individuals or their society as particularly important are going to try to harm other individuals or their society. They might not even agree that it is ok to benefit from the misfortune of others. There's no particular pride of accomplishment in that, either.


But your first post of those two brings up another point:

Many accuse the wealthy of selfishness for not wanting to impart of their wealth. Rand's view is directly related to these wealthy that they are not selfish they have worked hard for what they have and are not selfish not to impart that wealth to others who have not earned it like they have.

First, that is putting a few words in Rand's mouth. These wealthy people that represent her ideals will not impart their wealth to others who WILL not earn it like they have. Actually, she doesn't discuss those who are truly in need at all; that's not what Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are about. They are about people taking advantage of the fact that there are others who will give the fruits of their labor to the leeches of society. Not having read her non-fiction, I don't really know how Rand felt about people who truly could not help themselves. It's just not the point she was trying to make with the novels. And Atlas is already more than a thousand pages as it is!!

Second, Rand's point is valid. Why does anyone think they have a greater right to my earnings than I do? It's preposterous. I can do with it what I want, whether I want to buy hundreds of dollars worth of chocoate bars each week, give money to shelters for battered women, buy food for my family, or anything else. What right does anyone else have to my earnings? If you claim that you have such a right, and demand my stuff, you'll need to bring a gun.

And, as far as the leeches are concerned, what will they do if I decide to join their ranks, and look for handouts?

For myself (as I said, I don't know Rand's position on it), this is another are where there are no absolutes. I am entirely willing to help some people, and entirely UNwilling to help others.

[Skyweir]

Somethings gone wrong here.

Skyweir, I think that you tried to quote my post, but actually clicked on "edit", and with your moderatorly powers, overwrote my post with your own, and now it looks like I'm you, or vice versa. Only your quotes of me are left!

I'll try to answer what I can, but it's a bit confusing, and I'm not going to try and sort out quotes. I'm sure you'll know what I'm referring to.

Informed choice: I see your point in that it seems that what I say requires an objective, or universal standard of what an informed choice is, and in a sense, perhaps it does. My subjective interpretation of informed choice is simply that the particpant/victim/"chooser" is fully aware of all possible consequences and implications. I don't need to concede it, I never argued against it

If who believes it is right? If the person undergoing it believes it to be right, that is sufficient to prevent it from being "Evil", that doesn't necessarily mean that it is "Right". "Wrong" and "Evil" are not always synonomous.

Conditions negating choice:
Yes, there are certain circumstances which render the "chooser" unable to make such a choice. Immaturity, I'll definitley give you, within a given value of immaturity, i.e a combination of physical and mental/emotional. A child has no basis to make choices, because they (foolishly) trust "adults" to know whats best.

I agree that drugs or alcohol may temporarily negate the mechanisms of informed choice, but only temporarily. Insanity is a difficult one. What's an acceptable definition of insane?

You undergoing it:
It was a hypothesis to illustrate my point. IF you chose to, with all your knowledge, would I have the right to prevent you?

Yes, the practice is wrong, because they are commiting harm to another. No contest there, I think it's cruel and abominable. But Evil? As I said somewhere, it's the motivations that make for Evil. Wrong, definitley. But surely Evil only if it's done deliberatley to cause suffering. I don't think that that is the intent, although if it is, then certainly "Evil".

Fist and Faith-- I agree that absolutes are, practically, impossible. Everything should be judged in relation to the relevant circumstances of each individual case. Thats the only way in which justive can be achieved.

Later
--Avatar

ahh crap .. i dunno how i did that .. maybe i clciked edit instead of quote!! soo sorry about that!!

yeah like i was wondering how your post had suddenly turned the tables on me??!!!!! LOL

again a thousand apologies and may the sweet birds of paradise rain good luck upon you all your long days!!

[Avatar]

Don't worry about it. It only confused the hell out of me for a couple of minutes.

Be Safe
--Avatar

[Skyweir]

Many accuse the wealthy of selfishness for not wanting to impart of their wealth. Rand's view is directly related to these wealthy that they are not selfish they have worked hard for what they have and are not selfish not to impart that wealth to others who have not earned it like they have.

These wealthy people that represent her ideals will not impart their wealth to others who WILL not earn it like they have.

you do realise we are in agreement here?? These two statements are not dyametric opposites! They are the same sentiment exactly.

Actually, she doesn't discuss those who are truly in need at all; that's not what Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead are about. They are about people taking advantage of the fact that there are others who will give the fruits of their labor to the leeches of society. Not having read her non-fiction, I don't really know how Rand felt about people who truly could not help themselves. It's just not the point she was trying to make with the novels. And Atlas is already more than a thousand pages as it is!!

You also do realise that you were the one that introduced Rand to represent her specific view point to support your view on social responsibility dont you?? If she is refering to the social leeches of society what is your view on those in actual need?? And er go your stance on social responsibility .. do you believe we owe any responsibility to those we co-exist with within our societies?

We could take this thread downn a Rand as economic rationalist tangent or even argue economic philosophies till the cows come home .. but I am more interested in the components of your world view.

[CovenantJr]

Many accuse the wealthy of selfishness for not wanting to impart of their wealth. Rand's view is directly related to these wealthy that they are not selfish they have worked hard for what they have and are not selfish not to impart that wealth to others who have not earned it like they have.

These wealthy people that represent her ideals will not impart their wealth to others who WILL not earn it like they have.

This is why I'm opposed to the huge taxes levied on the wealthy. They are penalised for having the drive and work ethic to make themselves successful, while those who simply can't be bothered are mollycoddled. Grrr.

[Avatar]

Cj, good point. I pretty much agree with you here. The biggest problem with a welfare state is probably that it encourages reliance on it, making it less and less likely that the people who use it will ever stop using it.

The people who work hard and succeed end up bearing the burden of those who can't be bothered. It's certainly unjust to say the least.

--Avatar

[Fist and Faith]

If she is refering to the social leeches of society what is your view on those in actual need?? And er go your stance on social responsibility .. do you believe we owe any responsibility to those we co-exist with within our societies?

No, I do not believe we owe any responsibility to others. (The exception being my children. I believe having children automatically comes with the responsibility of taking care of them in many ways.) Personally, I have no problem giving to certain causes. Some people could really use a helping hand.

But that's different from telling others that they MUST help. I think we should all do as we feel we must, and not require others to do as we feel we must.

[Skyweir]

Cj, good point. I pretty much agree with you here. The biggest problem with a welfare state is probably that it encourages reliance on it, making it less and less likely that the people who use it will ever stop using it.

The people who work hard and succeed end up bearing the burden of those who can't be bothered. It's certainly unjust to say the least.

--Avatar

but doesnt this exercise involve a whole lot of judgment?? Who says that those who arent rich or more especially those who are in need .. are the same as those that cant be bothered??

Isnt wealth about a lot more than just hard work and personal intellect?? Arent there also elements of good fortune too?? Are all wealthy people also not lazy?? Are all wealthy folk non-apathetic individuals?? individuals who can be bothered?? bothered about what??? LOL

geesh .. there's a whole hell of a lot of assumption going on here .. almost sounding like people who place individuals in "absolute categories" .. like "lazy section of society" "poor people cant be bothered to get off their arses" kind of totally unreasonable rationalisations dont you think??

I've been hard up and worked my arse off at the same time .. a little inconguent to your world view would you say?? And I have always been bothered LOL

[Skyweir]

No, I do not believe we owe any responsibility to others. (The exception being my children. I believe having children automatically comes with the responsibility of taking care of them in many ways.)

Then individuals who are dependants of society a responsibility is owed??

Personally, I have no problem giving to certain causes. Some people could really use a helping hand. ((there the only ones i am concerned with))

But that's different from telling others that they MUST help. I think we should all do as we feel we must, and not require others to do as we feel we must.

What if no one feels to lift a finger to do anything for anyone else?? Do we sit back on our laurels and watch people suffer .. watch them starve? Sorry mate to me this isnt honourable or just. I am happy to share a portion of what I earn to invest in the lives of others. World Vision gives me that opportunity to assist and there are a lot of opportunities in our lives to assist others.

One example here at the Watch of a giver .. is Furls Fire. Furls wouldnt have lifted a finger to assist anyone if it wasnt an integral part of her makeup to act when a need is presented. Furls is lead by a commitment to certain social and spiritual ideals to do this ..

[Avatar]

It does involve a whole lot of subjective judgement. This is the problem with generalisations. It's very easy for us to say "these people are lazy" or "those people are hard workers."

In reality, every individual is a category unto themselves. Unfortunately, if people were to qualify every statement correctly to exclude those people who do not actually fall into a particular category, we'd end up never getting anywhere.

There are lazy rich people, there are dishonest rich people, there are hard-working people who still never become wealthy. Luck plays a part, fortune, circumstance, many variables.

It's impossible to accurately quantify a group. We are reduced to generalisations as a matter of course.

--Avatar

[Avatar]

Then individuals who are dependants of society a responsibility is owed??

I think that what Fist was suggesting here is that individuals who are dependants of other individuals are owed by those individuals on whom they are dependant.

What if no one feels to lift a finger to do anything for anyone else?? Do we sit back on our laurels and watch people suffer .. watch them starve? Sorry mate to me this isnt honourable or just. I am happy to share a portion of what I earn to invest in the lives of others. World Vision gives me that opportunity to assist and there are a lot of opportunities in our lives to assist others.

I agree that we should take those opportunities that we can to assist others. Although the suffering will continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether people lift a finger or not. It may make us feel better to contribute something, and that's just fine. There will always be those who do try to help, and thats great too.

But there is nothing that says we have to do so. No matter what reason we use in helping, whether it's a moral or religious compulsion, whether it's guilt, it comes down to our choice to do so. I hope everyone chooses to do so, but I'm not going to insist. I leave it up to their own feelings, secure in the knowledge that I at least, do what I can in my own small way. If you choose not to, I could no less condemn you than I could if you do help.

--Avatar

[CovenantJr]

Isnt wealth about a lot more than just hard work and personal intellect?? Arent there also elements of good fortune too??

No, I don't think so. It's a funny thing; the harder you work, the luckier you get.

Are all wealthy people also not lazy?? Are all wealthy folk non-apathetic individuals?? individuals who can be bothered??

Naturally it's different with people who have been born into money, but I'm talking about those who have become wealthy, and the answer is yes. The people who have made themselves wealthy are (with a few exceptions - there are always exceptions) the ones who were willing to push harder, go without sleep, work longer hours more diligently than anyone else. They are the ones who sacrifice in the short term for long term benefit. That's an enormous challenge of will and desire, and that's why most people never do it.

I could continue on this subject, but I think that'll do for now.