User Controls
Scientists say humans can't imagine the fourth dimension.
-
2018-08-27 at 4:26 PM UTCYou lose. Accept it.
-
2018-08-27 at 4:32 PM UTC
-
2018-08-27 at 4:37 PM UTC
-
2018-08-27 at 4:40 PM UTC
-
2018-08-27 at 4:49 PM UTC
Originally posted by Enterita https://thoughtcatalog.com/jim-goad/2018/01/why-the-concept-of-evil-is-a-bad-idea/
^ Not pulling a cootehill, I've read that article numerous times. If you read it, it's legit.
Not trying to be a dick but that's a pretty atrocious article. The closest thing to a "logical argument" I see can be summarized as:
People don't agree about what constitutes good verses evil
If we can't agree about the fact of the matter about a thing, there can be no objective truth to the matter
QED good and evil don't exist.
The second premise being unstated, probably because the issue here becomes obvious when you consider it and realize there are a great many things people disagree about which still exist and have a fairly objective status.
Very few people consider themselves to be "stupid" and often deride other's as being stupid. This doesn't mean no one is stupid, the most we can gather from that fact is that our faculties for assessing our relative levels of intellegence is imperfect.
The last sevral paragraphs are basically contentless, uhhh, I don't even know what to call it. It doesn't even count as rhetoric since it doesn't seem to even attempt to support the author's thesis. The most comic part of it is that the author talks about "ethical" people as an objective class. Like to be "good" and to be "ethical" are synonymous absent some more technical set of definitions. As far as I can tell the author isn't actually trying to make the point that "there no such thing as good or evil", rather he's just complaining about the use of the word "good"?
It's not very good writing my dude. -
2018-08-27 at 5:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Not trying to be a dick but that's a pretty atrocious article. The closest thing to a "logical argument" I see can be summarized as:
People don't agree about what constitutes good verses evil
If we can't agree about the fact of the matter about a thing, there can be no objective truth to the matter
QED good and evil don't exist.
The second premise being unstated, probably because the issue here becomes obvious when you consider it and realize there are a great many things people disagree about which still exist and have a fairly objective status.
Very few people consider themselves to be "stupid" and often deride other's as being stupid. This doesn't mean no one is stupid, the most we can gather from that fact is that our faculties for assessing our relative levels of intellegence is imperfect.
The last sevral paragraphs are basically contentless, uhhh, I don't even know what to call it. It doesn't even count as rhetoric since it doesn't seem to even attempt to support the author's thesis. The most comic part of it is that the author talks about "ethical" people as an objective class. Like to be "good" and to be "ethical" are synonymous absent some more technical set of definitions. As far as I can tell the author isn't actually trying to make the point that "there no such thing as good or evil", rather he's just complaining about the use of the word "good"?
It's not very good writing my dude.
I'm actually looking to have my opinion that there's no such thing as evil swayed, and this:
> Very few people consider themselves to be "stupid" and often deride other's as being stupid. This doesn't mean no one is stupid, the most we can gather from that fact is that our faculties for assessing our relative levels of intellegence is imperfect.
is a good point.
but do you actually believe evil exists. if so, why. -
2018-08-27 at 5:32 PM UTC
Originally posted by Enterita I'm actually looking to have my opinion that there's no such thing as evil swayed, and this:
> Very few people consider themselves to be "stupid" and often deride other's as being stupid. This doesn't mean no one is stupid, the most we can gather from that fact is that our faculties for assessing our relative levels of intellegence is imperfect.
is a good point.
but do you actually believe evil exists. if so, why.
I belive unethical action exists, "evil" can be a bit of a loaded term and I don't tend to use it as condemnation as a result. I hold to a fairly standard sort of act utilitarianism, you can read about the usual metaethical justificaions for that. But moral realism (the commitment to the existence of moral truths, an by extension a beleif in "evil" or something similar) is much broader than utilitarianism and there are many other arguments for positions in this category. -
2018-08-28 at 2:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I belive unethical action exists
But isn't that completely subjective, meaning there's really no such thing as good or bad (and therefore "evil")?
Example, we consider it "bad" to throw women into volcanoes, burning them alive. But back in the day, people considered it "good" because they were appeasing the Gods.
Back in the day, it was considered "bad" to fuck another man in the ass, and now if I wanted to, I could go down to my local gay district and get fucked in the ass by as many hot guys as I wanted to.
Humans who decided they're going to be the "government" or "police" can kill so many innocent people in wars if they consider them the opposition, and it's "good", but if an individual human kills someone who they consider to be the opposition, it's "bad".
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS? -
2018-08-28 at 2:42 AM UTCReality is subjective, so it doesn't exist.
-
2018-08-28 at 2:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by LegalizeSpiritualDiscovery Reality is subjective, so it doesn't exist.
Hi mother beater. Unlike most people on this site and the internet, I'm actually open to having my opinion changed, this topic in particular because ideally I'd like to be a "good" person. The reason I'm debating Lanny about this topic instead of you, is because your retorts are just shitty strawman one liners. -
2018-08-28 at 2:53 AM UTCYour argument is that since it's subjective, it doesn't exist. I am saying subjective things exist. Or else we wouldn't be talking about it. Guadalopagropplewonk doesn't exist because I just made it up. Morality exists according to everyone for a bajillions of years.
-
2018-08-28 at 2:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by LegalizeSpiritualDiscovery Your argument is that since it's subjective, it doesn't exist. I am saying subjective things exist.
Then say it. Don't give these coy, one-liner metaphors with no explanation. Even though I knew that's what you were getting at, I'm not having a fucking conversation about something this important to me that way. -
2018-08-28 at 3:19 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enterita But isn't that completely subjective, meaning there's really no such thing as good or bad (and therefore "evil")?
Example, we consider it "bad" to throw women into volcanoes, burning them alive. But back in the day, people considered it "good" because they were appeasing the Gods.
Back in the day, it was considered "bad" to fuck another man in the ass, and now if I wanted to, I could go down to my local gay district and get fucked in the ass by as many hot guys as I wanted to.
Humans who decided they're going to be the "government" or "police" can kill so many innocent people in wars if they consider them the opposition, and it's "good", but if an individual human kills someone who they consider to be the opposition, it's "bad".
DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS?
The fact that cultural beliefs about something vary by region and era says nothing about the subjectivity of that thing. It used to be a common belief that the earth was the center of the universe, today we have a different model of our planet in relation to other celestial bodies. Does that mean that the relative mechanics of the earth and sun are subjective, that there's no truth to the matter, and in fact any motion between the two bodies doesn't exist? No, of course not. Controversy around a subject says nothing as to its status as subjective or objective. -
2018-08-28 at 12:02 PM UTC
Originally posted by Enterita But isn't that completely subjective, meaning there's really no such thing as good or bad (and therefore "evil")
Light is subjective. There is no such thing as perfect dark, even in the darkest place a neutrino will cause the occasional flash of light. This doesn't mean that there is no such thing as light and dark.Example, we consider it "bad" to throw women into volcanoes, burning them alive. But back in the day, people considered it "good" because they were appeasing the Gods.
This is a matter of morality, and no one ever believed that the people (or animals) being sacrificed or thrown into the volcano enjoyed it. It was simply that the God demanded it, so the wishes of the flesh and blood creatures were irrelevant.
This is called moral exceptionalism - anything we do is OK, even if it is evil, and it's the core tenet of Judaism and Islam.Back in the day, it was considered "bad" to fuck another man in the ass, and now if I wanted to, I could go down to my local gay district and get fucked in the ass by as many hot guys as I wanted to.
Casual buttsex spreads disease and causes the anal sphincter to distend. It also leads to emotional problems, and is generally regarded as a pathology. I don't think anyone could argue that is a preferable behaviour, and most of it's proponents are what I regard as evil.Humans who decided they're going to be the "government" or "police" can kill so many innocent people in wars if they consider them the opposition, and it's "good", but if an individual human kills someone who they consider to be the opposition, it's "bad".
It's possible for people to be evil without even realising it.
For instance I was once at a meeting about monetary reform, and I realised from my long reading in the history of economics that the ideas being spouted (interest free money, etc) were rubbish and if they were enacted would be a great tragedy for everyone. In that case I realised I was been evil, and I realised that everyone else in that room was being evil as well.
Logic aside, I do believe that some people associate themselves with "evil" and as opposed to most other people. I get an evil feeling from them, they're creepy, seem utterly unconcerned about others, are self promoters, and even the people who get to know them closely quickly run away and don't speak much of the experience.
If someone came and killed my family, burned my stuff, etc, I could fairly say that they had done a great evil upon me, but is there such a thing as objective good or evil? Perhaps the greatest good was when the universe was created, since all good things came from that, and the greatest evil will be the time when all life dies out and the universe becomes cold and dark, and everything that occurs in the meantime are just shades of those two extremes. -
2018-08-28 at 2:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny The fact that cultural beliefs about something vary by region and era says nothing about the subjectivity of that thing. It used to be a common belief that the earth was the center of the universe, today we have a different model of our planet in relation to other celestial bodies. Does that mean that the relative mechanics of the earth and sun are subjective, that there's no truth to the matter, and in fact any motion between the two bodies doesn't exist? No, of course not. Controversy around a subject says nothing as to its status as subjective or objective.
But beliefs about the earth's position change and stay that way once we have objective facts/science to back that up, you know? With morals, they're always changing repeatedly throughout time because they're not really based on anything substantial like science. Do you see the difference? -
2018-08-28 at 3:06 PM UTCWas math discovered or invented? Do numbers really exist or are they just made up?
Human experience is intrinsically tied to human perecption. Would there be evil without humanity? My cats don't eat mice, they were never told by their mother how to kill efficiently for food so they don't do it. They play with the mice, though. The claw and bite them until they are torn up and very much dead and then they walk away happy (?) and come up to me and purrrr and are so cute. Shit is absolutely cruel but I don't think they grasp that. I don't think that they are evil but what they do is pretty evil.
Hmmm.... -
2018-08-28 at 7:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Enterita But beliefs about the earth's position change and stay that way once we have objective facts/science to back that up, you know? With morals, they're always changing repeatedly throughout time because they're not really based on anything substantial like science. Do you see the difference?
To be honest, I don't really see the difference. The Copernican model succeeded because it was compelling, using argumentation, mathematical reasoning, and well known observations it convinced people. Likewise moral arguments draw on a similar body of principles: logic, argument, and commonly agreed upon premises. I really don't see what about the argument for a heliocentric model makes it objective while something like, say, Kant's categorical imperative and subsequent moral condemnation of slavery are subjective. If anything Kant relies less on fallible and subjective human senses and makes a tighter structural argument. -
2018-08-28 at 10:42 PM UTC"Scientists say humans can't imagine the fourth dimension."
***********
Really?
How do they know? -
2018-08-29 at 7:27 PM UTCWhy imagine it when you can live it.
-
2018-08-29 at 7:29 PM UTC2 dimensions is necessity, 3 luxury, 4 extravagance.
