BS, @DrakeICN. Even an idiot can see that firing a gun is essentially the same physical action (aim, squeeze, etc.) in all cases, and what matters morally is what you're firing at and why.
Your grasp of logic couldn't actually be that weak, not even if you're only five years old. On the contrary, you're obviously making false substitutions quite deliberately, so you're definitely a troll. I'm reporting you (again).
There still seems to be some misunderstanding about the core problem. The question isn't "is rape/torture/murder/whatever evil?", the questions are "what *is* 'evil'?" and, once we can answer that, "is there such a thing as absolute/objective/inherent/intrinsic evil?" (the same of course is true for 'good', respectively).
Examples where people may commonly agree on usage of the term does NOT equal a definition of the term.
Thank you for saying that, your Lordship. People seem to have trouble with grasping that concept.
Yes please. It is called phylogenetic memories, and / or instincts. Lets put it this way; if I gave everyone in this thread a jigsaw puzzle, you would all put it together the same way, because the pieces only fit one way, at least if the motive is to make sense. Likewise, with the, uh, neurotypical (is that the right word?) brain certain simulatory clues will elicit the same response.
What I said was: "It is not possible to construct some class of "normal humans", who would serve as "sound observers".". You do not disprove that, because you assess some analogy, without really backing it up. And you keep mistaking order of obligations with order of facts. Given sentence a ("when witnessing rape, human brain will react in the way so the person will feel resentment towards rapist") and sentence b ("rape is evil") cannot be linked in implication within zeroth-order logic. To create proper implication, you'd need to attach axiom c ("instinctive perceiving something as evil means that something is evil") - and then you can say a -> b. Of course, that would raise bunch of problems: nature of implication orders that b can true even if a is false (and that would leave us with question: what about evil things that human instinct doesn't perceive as evil?). Among other things, we would be required to assume that "evil" is something not intelectual, but observable, at least via introspection, at primitive, first-order level, and that is highly questionable. It would also exclude from ethics anyone who is not "normal", and give them automatic "pass", as they are as unable to be ethical, as stones. And still it leaves us with substancial problem of definition of "neurotypicality" and what kind of measure we use: is it electric pattern on neurons? Feelings individual feels? Hormons raise?
What I said was: "It is not possible to construct some class of "normal humans", who would serve as "sound observers".". You do not disprove that, because you assess some analogy, without really backing it up. And you keep mistaking order of obligations with order of facts. Given sentence a ("when witnessing rape, human brain will react in the way so the person will feel resentment towards rapist") and sentence b ("rape is evil") cannot be linked in implication within zeroth-order logic. To create proper implication, you'd need to attach axiom c ("instinctive perceiving something as evil means that something is evil") - and then you can say a -> b. Of course, that would raise bunch of problems: nature of implication orders that b can true even if a is false (and that would leave us with question: what about evil things that human instinct doesn't perceive as evil?). Among other things, we would be required to assume that "evil" is something not intelectual, but observable, at least via introspection, at primitive, first-order level, and that is highly questionable. It would also exclude from ethics anyone who is not "normal", and give them automatic "pass", as they are as unable to be ethical, as stones. And still it leaves us with substancial problem of definition of "neurotypicality" and what kind of measure we use: is it electric pattern on neurons? Feelings individual feels? Hormons raise?
But I do insist. With a typical palette, you will find grapefruits bitter, mangoes sweet, lemons sour, saltwater salty and uh... raw fish (?) umami. Are there humans perceiving grapefruits sweet? Mayhaps... but that is indicative of a non-typical palette. Are there humans perceiving rape non-different from sex? Yes... but such individual, surely, have non-typical brain configurations or in the very least are substantially conditioned by their environment. Both factors causing non-standard response are measurable - the first type could perhaps be someone with narcissistic personality disorder, and the second kind a membership of a cult or somesuch.
So, yes, I do say "instinctively perceiving something as evil means that something is evil" in much the same way "instinctively perceiving something as bitter means that something is bitter", although the concept of evil is less straight-forward and thus may require some jigsawing - but all neurotypicals would solve this jigsaw in much the same way. Which also answers your question "what about evil things that human instinct doesn't perceive as evil?"; we jigsaw them, and we WILL arrive at the same conclusion (barring narcissism and cultism)... in, as you say, first order evils. The more factors you add, the more our brains solution to the equation will diverge - which is why I at least tried to consistently press upon the basics of evil. The same can also be said about the more subtle the evil is.
Also, yes, inanimate objects and concepts can be evil, even though they are lacking of will. War is an evil. HIV is an evil.
but all neurotypicals would solve this jigsaw in much the same way.
Would they, though? What your argument basically reads like is
1) I am neurotypical and have a set of morals and ethics 2) I know other people I consider neurotypical who share a similar set of morals and ethics 3) therefore, I know what is good and evil for all
But I do insist. With a typical palette, you will find grapefruits bitter, mangoes sweet, lemons sour, saltwater salty and uh... raw fish (?) umami. Are there humans perceiving grapefruits sweet? Mayhaps... but that is indicative of a non-typical palette. Are there humans perceiving rape non-different from sex? Yes... but such individual, surely, have non-typical brain configurations or in the very least are substantially conditioned by their environment. Both factors causing non-standard response are measurable - the first type could perhaps be someone with narcissistic personality disorder, and the second kind a membership of a cult or somesuch.
So, yes, I do say "instinctively perceiving something as evil means that something is evil" in much the same way "instinctively perceiving something as bitter means that something is bitter"
I'd just like to point out that this is a faulty analogy. Bitterness is a property that can be objectively defined (certain chemicals) even if subjectively it may be interpreted in various ways (due to taste/smell receptor configuration). The whole problem with concepts like 'evil', however, is that we LACK a truly objective definition, and, consequently cannot determine whether there is or is not an absolute/objective evil. Assuming that there is such a definition or concept in the premise, even implicitly, to then conclude with that very premise is circular logic. Note that this holds true whether or not the people who can perceive bitterness are a majority or not (the objective fact remains).
Also, yes, inanimate objects and concepts can be evil, even though they are lacking of will. War is an evil. HIV is an evil.
This is a titanic leap in logic that I would very much like to see explained. Never mind the fact that "war" is a very complex concept in and of itself that one could struggle to properly define, but ascribing 'evil' to not only processes without agency but inanimate objects does seem quite a reach to me. How is that 'evil' defined for it to be so clear to you that inanimate objects can be evil? Where is the line drawn? Is entropy evil? Is time evil? Is existence evil?
but all neurotypicals would solve this jigsaw in much the same way.
Would they, though? What your argument basically reads like is
1) I am neurotypical and have a set of morals and ethics 2) I know other people I consider neurotypical who share a similar set of morals and ethics 3) therefore, I know what is good and evil for all
I wouldn't call this brilliant logic. Sorry.
First off, all three of your premises are misrepresentative. 1) While I am neurotypical (as is the vast majority) I talk not about morals and ethics. Morals and ethics (such as ideas of right and wrong) are essentially different from good and evil, as is evident from the fox-rabbit example I gave a couple of posts upstreams. Many morals and ethics are derived from conceptions of good and evil, to be sure, but the complex nature of more advanced dilemmas - especially when one must chose between two evils - makes them unsuitable to be crammed into the rather narrow definitions of good and evil. For instance, Cuba isolated all HIV patients, and denied entry for HIV positive immigrants / tourists. Because of this, Cuba was for a long time spared an HIV epidemic. Does this positive take away the negative of imprisonment of what amounts to essentially innocent patients? The answer to that question is the subject of right and wrong - the evils, both that of imprisonment and that of HIV, and especially of those few of the whole subpopulation that would go on to knowingly infecting other with HIV were they not imprisoned, are a subject of base evil. 2) Not only do I know many neurotypicals, I assert that all but the deranged have normal levels of compassion, be they present day or historical. Your premise make it sound like my assertion comes from an islet of mankind, not the ocean, which is incorrect. 3) There is no good and evil for all. There is eternal (base) good and eternal (base) evil. For a comparison, water is not dry merely because someone is convinced that water is dry. Water is wet, regardless of anyones perception on the matter. We merely use our senses to determine whether water is wet or dry, just like we use our senses to determine whether grapefruit is bitter or not. If someone have a damaged palette, we do not say that grapefruits are sweet anymore than we say that water is dry. Or anymore we say that evil is good. Evil and good are eternal concepts that we happened upon and described, in they same manner we happened upon and described gravity and evolution.
Secondly, well, the argument is also backed by empirical data. I propose to you, that find me anyone who thinks genocide is fine and dandy, and dig deep enough and surely you will find a mental illness or personality disorder, or cult level degree of brainwashing. Even socities that favor genocide, such as the Nazi:s, instinctively know it is an inherent evil, as evident by their propaganda. Did they showcase soldiers pushing people into ovens to justify their deeds? No, they did not, they instead demonised their targets of genocide, accusing them of causing all manner of social upheaval, and the manner of which they made these people disappear was sure as hell not broadcasted, it was more of a dirty dirty open secret than most civilians in the very least pretended they knew nothing about, as it made them uncomfortable on a, let say pre-logical, level.
If this plethora of supposedly normal non-brainwashed people that applaud atrocities exists, show them to me. If my assumptions are incorrect, they should not be difficult to find, should they? If they, to the contrary, are as rare as people who think water is dry and people who think grapefruits are sweet are, then we assuredly conclude that good and evil are eternal (or objective) concepts.
It is not my job to disprove your assumptions. Rather, it is your job to offer support in favor of them. But even better if you could construct such a rigorous argument as to not require assumptions at all.
EDIT: And for my use of "morals and ethics", fine, I offer a revised version
1) I am neurotypical and have established a knowledge of good and evil 2) I know other people I consider neurotypical who share a similar knowledge of good and evil 3) therefore, I know what is good and evil for all
Please, the point is not semantics. It's the chain of logic.
In answer to the original question, no. No, I am not going to explain my reasoning--either you accept it or you do not.
It is cute that any of you think that you are actually going to persuade anyone else that your point of view is correct. That being said, please carry on.
It is not my job to disprove your assumptions. Rather, it is your job to offer support in favor of them. But even better if you could construct such a rigorous argument as to not require assumptions at all.
EDIT: And for my use of "morals and ethics", fine, I offer a revised version
1) I am neurotypical and have established a knowledge of good and evil 2) I know other people I consider neurotypical who share a similar knowledge of good and evil 3) therefore, I know what is good and evil for all
Please, the point is not semantics. It's the chain of logic.
Empirical evidence trumps logic. That is the tl:dr of the scientific method.
I have offered support in several instances. Fairly universal disdain for atrocities. Even those supposedly in favor of atrocities regard them as such, as evident by their otherwise curious behaviour, such as the chroniclers of Alexander the Great and Nazi propaganda.
I keep documenting white swans. What else can I do? What else is falsifiable? How many people dead of rabies unless given vaccination or put in suspended coma do you need to conclude that rabies is 100% lethal unless treated? Meanwhile, not a single black swan have been presented for me.
But I do insist. With a typical palette, you will find grapefruits bitter, mangoes sweet, lemons sour, saltwater salty and uh... raw fish (?) umami. Are there humans perceiving grapefruits sweet? Mayhaps... but that is indicative of a non-typical palette. Are there humans perceiving rape non-different from sex? Yes... but such individual, surely, have non-typical brain configurations or in the very least are substantially conditioned by their environment. Both factors causing non-standard response are measurable - the first type could perhaps be someone with narcissistic personality disorder, and the second kind a membership of a cult or somesuch.
So, yes, I do say "instinctively perceiving something as evil means that something is evil" in much the same way "instinctively perceiving something as bitter means that something is bitter"
I'd just like to point out that this is a faulty analogy. Bitterness is a property that can be objectively defined (certain chemicals) even if subjectively it may be interpreted in various ways (due to taste/smell receptor configuration). The whole problem with concepts like 'evil', however, is that we LACK a truly objective definition, and, consequently cannot determine whether there is or is not an absolute/objective evil. Assuming that there is such a definition or concept in the premise, even implicitly, to then conclude with that very premise is circular logic. Note that this holds true whether or not the people who can perceive bitterness are a majority or not (the objective fact remains).
Does love exist? What is the truly objective definition? Does happyness exist? What is the truly objective definition? Does rudeness exist? What is the truly objective definition?
Even as we struggle to clearly define them, their consequences are very real. I love you, so I saved you and not Joe Schmoe from the burning building. Like the concepts of good and evil, they are vivid and clear in their most basic examples, like the loving father smiling to his child, and less clear in the extremes of its boundaries, such as an estranged ex wife.
The very real consequences they exercise on our behaviour suggest to me, that yes, they are real, even if I too struggle to define them. But where, pray tell, in the uh... whatever bible logic considers its, does it state that only concepts of clearly defined form exist? Now, I do realize someone could use this line of argument to argue the existance of pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, but in a sense, those concepts too are real enough for the believers, if they can determine the actions of the believers. However, love, happyness, rudeness, good and evil are more real, as they are universal (barring again the deranged) while pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monster are far from universal.
Also, yes, inanimate objects and concepts can be evil, even though they are lacking of will. War is an evil. HIV is an evil.
This is a titanic leap in logic that I would very much like to see explained. Never mind the fact that "war" is a very complex concept in and of itself that one could struggle to properly define, but ascribing 'evil' to not only processes without agency but inanimate objects does seem quite a reach to me. How is that 'evil' defined for it to be so clear to you that inanimate objects can be evil? Where is the line drawn? Is entropy evil? Is time evil? Is existence evil?
It is indeed very simple, they cause suffering, and they are... hmmm... interactable, or perhaps preventable, in a way that cannot be said of time, entropy and existance. No amount of tinkering will stop the passage of time. The urge is not evil, it just is.
I see good and evil as a spectrum rather than as two absolutes. Can somebody be absolutely good? Maybe if they were a Jesus or Buddha.
Intelligent animals like ravens don't like cheaters, wolves have an "apology" behavior for accidental injury and the like...there are clear and undeniable similarities between human moral behaviors and the moral behaviors of other animals, so I can't buy into the moral relativist position.
The very real consequences they exercise on our behaviour suggest to me, that yes, they are real, even if I too struggle to define them.
But that is not the question. Does a concept of 'evil' exist in the collective consciousness of most human cultures? Absolutely. Heck, the ontological proof is enough for that. Same with 'love', or 'justice', or 'elves' and 'unicorns' - the concepts exist, the question lies in how we negotiate the meaning of those concepts. But the question in this specific case is not whether there exists a CONCEPT of 'evil' but whether there exists an intrinsic ABSOLUTE evil. Those two are some very, very, very different things.
But where, pray tell, in the uh... whatever bible logic considers its, does it state that only concepts of clearly defined form exist?
The Bible is very rudimentary in its language and conceptualization, and generally just doesn't need it because "God did it" trumps everything there. Is there 'good'? Yes, it's with God. Humans can never truly know it. The end. It's one way to solve it, but of course that way precludes all argument because it's not an argument (since it's not falsifiable).
It is indeed very simple, they cause suffering, and they are... hmmm... interactable, or perhaps preventable, in a way that cannot be said of time, entropy and existance. No amount of tinkering will stop the passage of time. The urge is not evil, it just is.
I believe I have already gone over why substitution is not a definition in another post. Using one undefined term to try and define another undefined term leads nowhere. What is "suffering", objectively? Or, to approach it from the other side, if suffering is entirely subjective and evil is what causes suffering, then does it not follow that evil is also entirely subjective? Of course I would never assume such simplistic causality, but just to humor your line of argument. Going further from that, would you then categorically exclude ANYTHING that cannot be "tinkered" with? How do you define such "tinkering"? Is changing the subjective passage of time through relativistic effects "tinkering" with time? Is it therefore subject to possible "suffering"? A lot of people would certainly say that the relentless passage of time, or, respectively, the inexorable progress of entropy, cause considerable suffering - physical for certain, but psychological as well. Where do you draw the line between immutable natural law and "tinkering"? Is gravity evil because we can alter its effects on us? Was gravity not evil when we couldn't, but is evil now that we can?
@Gallowglass: We have noticed your reports and have already begun discussing a course of action. As per the Site Rules, of course, the moderating team's decision(s) are strictly confidential.
That being said...
You and everyone else in this thread should be aware that directly accusing other posters of trolling in-thread is not acceptable. If somebody is trolling, report it--and then stop.
Every single time I have ever seen somebody accuse another person of being a troll, it has never accomplished anything. All it does is make everyone angrier and meaner.
Trying to flame trolls into submission has never worked.
Second, reporting posts is not supposed to be a public affair. The whole point of the anonymous reporting system is so that people can call attention to rulebreaking posts without provoking each other (this, too, is explained in the Site Rules). If you tell somebody "hey I reported your post," it just gives them a scapegoat in the event they receive a warning. It lets them blame the warning on your complaint instead of their own behavior.
The "Flag" system is meant to quietly and anonymously enforce the Site Rules.
It is NOT a weapon for you to use against your enemies.
Your grasp of logic couldn't actually be that weak, not even if you're only five years old. On the contrary, you're obviously making false substitutions quite deliberately, so you're definitely a troll.
Other forumites have agreed with @DrakeICN, so obviously some people find his or her logic convincing.
Sometimes people are wrong because they make a misjudgment, not because they're bad people who are trying to make you angry for no reason.
And, of course, sometimes other people are actually right, and we're the ones who were wrong. Lord knows I've said stupid stuff before.
It seems to me quite unusual to have public discussion of moderating policy, but fair enough, you've implicitly invited it by posting publicly, so I'll reply likewise.
You and everyone else in this thread should be aware that directly accusing other posters of trolling in-thread is not acceptable.
Yes, I acknowledge that it's against the rules (although I'll argue that an accusation of trolling cannot be so serious a breach as doing the trolling).
However, I was (absurdly, and IMO maliciously) accused of trolling earlier in the thread, yet there was no apparent reaction from mods. When the trouble-making continues vigorously with neither visible intervention nor acknowledgement of a private report, what's a user supposed to think, other than that the mods must be taking a break or busy elsewhere? And in that case ... well, if there's no cop on the street corner to call, then one must defend oneself against a thug however one can, no?
Trying to flame trolls into submission has never worked.
Absolutely, I've never seen it persuade a troll to stop. They always go on and on until banned.
However, what does sometimes work is that when it's drawn to public attention, other users may stop feeding the troll. You'll notice that I was (more subtly) trying to encourage that earlier in the thread.
Second, reporting posts is not supposed to be a public affair. The whole point of the anonymous reporting system is so that people can call attention to rulebreaking posts without provoking each other (this, too, is explained in the Site Rules). If you tell somebody "hey I reported your post," it just gives them a scapegoat in the event they receive a warning.
Good point, yes, I shouldn't have mentioned it and apologise for doing so.
Other forumites have agreed with [a certain other user], so obviously some people find his or her logic convincing.
I see no sign that others are trolling (thankfully!), but trolls love it when they can deceive someone else into believing that the troll is a legitimate contributor with a genuine point, thereby creating potential disharmony between the legitimate users and doing the troll's disruptive "work" for him.
@Gallowglass: I actually think we agree on basically everything.
I wasn't trying to bring the Site Rules up for discussion; the Site Rules themselves state that they're not up for discussion to begin with--mostly because, historically, the folks who want to change the rules have tended to be the ones who want to twist them for their own advantage. I was just here to clarify some of our existing policies.
To answer your question: yes, we always receive your reports. They pop up in a private thread where the moderators can deliberate on the matter together, which usually starts the same day (I check those threads multiple times per day, as do other moderators). We don't send you a notification because it always happens.
As for the action we take based on your reports, that is strictly confidential. Whether it's a short PM or a formal warning or a jailing, a temporary ban, a permanent ban, or nothing at all, you won't be informed. You can see a ban on somebody's profile, but you won't receive a notification if you reported them.
Once you send the report, that's it. Everything that happens after that is between the moderating team and the person you reported.
We do it this way because it's nobody else's business if you get a warning. It's always confidential (unless you decide to publicize your own warning for some reason, which has happened before). Public naming and shaming isn't our policy; that just generates resentment. And issuing warnings in public would give gratification to that person's enemies, which is not the kind of motivation we want to reward.
In a nutshell, the idea is to prevent people from trying to weaponize the Site Rules.
Perhaps it would be better to inquire into less contentious platonic forms before moving onto the big boys? What is absolute cuteness is the internet's standard refuge I believe . Historically, agreeing upon the ontological basis for God's goodness/ existence was the route chosen by Descartes (and Anselm) to underpin further enquiry into the nature of reality so I can understand the attraction though.
Secondly, well, the argument is also backed by empirical data. I propose to you, that find me anyone who thinks genocide is fine and dandy, and dig deep enough and surely you will find a mental illness or personality disorder, or cult level degree of brainwashing. Even socities that favor genocide, such as the Nazi:s, instinctively know it is an inherent evil, as evident by their propaganda. Did they showcase soldiers pushing people into ovens to justify their deeds? No, they did not, they instead demonised their targets of genocide, accusing them of causing all manner of social upheaval, and the manner of which they made these people disappear was sure as hell not broadcasted, it was more of a dirty dirty open secret than most civilians in the very least pretended they knew nothing about, as it made them uncomfortable on a, let say pre-logical, level.
You're making contentious claims. You need to back them up.
This assertion that people who do bad things must be mentally ill is not empirically supported as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you know of studies that I haven't read, in which case now would be a good time to link them . . . or back off from this claim.
It's not unusual for people to try to make mental illness an immoral state. That doesn't mean it's accurate. What is accurate is that mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
I think your example (referring back to the Nazis) undermines your argument. Too many people knew what was going on and were involved in what was going on for all of them to be mentally ill. You don't even have any empirical data as to whether any of the leaders were mentally ill, let alone all of them. You're basically arguing by assertion that "evil" is only possible because of mental illness. There's no more substance to the argument than that.
Empirical evidence trumps logic. That is the tl:dr of the scientific method.
I have offered support in several instances. Fairly universal disdain for atrocities. Even those supposedly in favor of atrocities regard them as such, as evident by their otherwise curious behaviour, such as the chroniclers of Alexander the Great and Nazi propaganda.
I keep documenting white swans. What else can I do? What else is falsifiable? How many people dead of rabies unless given vaccination or put in suspended coma do you need to conclude that rabies is 100% lethal unless treated? Meanwhile, not a single black swan have been presented for me.
I read every post of yours in this thread and found no empirical data. I did find several accounts interpreted through your biases. I found no objective accounts.
Pfeh. Neurotypicality itself can cause great evil indeed. Believe me. The urge to conform to the their favored group, or even their immediate surroundings, is often insurmountable pressure for a neurotypical. This, more often than not, happens regardless of the actions of the group a given neurotypical is currently conforming to. Suppose it is a group of bullies that is picking on someone with a mental disability (a situation I am extremely familiar with). I have seen friends of the different person join the bullies in situations like this. Believe me, I was the different person!
I could honestly go on for hours listing the various flaws and failings I have observed in the neurotypical mind over the years, but I don't really have the time or inclination for quite a few reasons.
Secondly, well, the argument is also backed by empirical data. I propose to you, that find me anyone who thinks genocide is fine and dandy, and dig deep enough and surely you will find a mental illness or personality disorder, or cult level degree of brainwashing. Even socities that favor genocide, such as the Nazi:s, instinctively know it is an inherent evil, as evident by their propaganda. Did they showcase soldiers pushing people into ovens to justify their deeds? No, they did not, they instead demonised their targets of genocide, accusing them of causing all manner of social upheaval, and the manner of which they made these people disappear was sure as hell not broadcasted, it was more of a dirty dirty open secret than most civilians in the very least pretended they knew nothing about, as it made them uncomfortable on a, let say pre-logical, level.
You're making contentious claims. You need to back them up.
This assertion that people who do bad things must be mentally ill is not empirically supported as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you know of studies that I haven't read, in which case now would be a good time to link them . . . or back off from this claim.
It's not unusual for people to try to make mental illness an immoral state. That doesn't mean it's accurate. What is accurate is that mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
I think your example (referring back to the Nazis) undermines your argument. Too many people knew what was going on and were involved in what was going on for all of them to be mentally ill. You don't even have any empirical data as to whether any of the leaders were mentally ill, let alone all of them. You're basically arguing by assertion that "evil" is only possible because of mental illness. There's no more substance to the argument than that.
Except I did not say that. I said that even when a society accepts atrocities (such as the Nazi:s) they cannot escape their human nature. The Nazi propaganda did not glorify the atrocities commited upon those deemed unworthy, they instead vilified their victims and the killings were hush-hush. This is because the inbreed wireing in the brain of neurotypicals is not so easily defeated. Each and every nazi (barring the deranged) would come up with morals and ethics (=rhetoric manure) justifying their right to commit those atrocities that their brains kept telling them were wrong. Of course, eventually people become desensitized after repeat exposure, it's like learning to bike, just instead you are learning to accept evil, and the brain stops telling them what they are doing is wrong. Well, mostly.
However, for the non repeat exposed, the atrocities are "fresh", and they are horrified to learn what their evil empire is up to. So, contrary to what has been claimed repeatedly, the conceptions of base evil does not change with society. This is why the chroniclers of Alexander the Great reacted so strongly to his sacking a village of innocents, despite him having - according to the greeks rhetoric manure - every right to do so. You cannot take the human out of the human equation.
Now, the reason I keep bringing up mental illness and personality disorders, is because non-neurotypical brain wiring might mean a person is - contrary to the norm - from origin is indifferent to atrocities. I say origin, because saying "from birth" is incorrect, since like most traits, the risk of penetrance is of course influenced by background. Stalin, for instance, had an abusive father. Would he have turned out differently, had he had a loving father? None can say for sure, but the risk would certainly have decreased. It is a constant disclaimer I must use, or people would say "but some people are different".
So, to be very clear, far from everyone in the Nazi empire were deranged, in fact, there as everywhere the vast majority were neurotypical. I did not try to explain the Nazi empire with mental illnesses. To further clarify, I am well aware that most mental illnesses does not turn the patient into a psycotic mess. Most mental illnesses are minor or major inconveniences, taking the form of brief periods of abberant although ultimately harmless behavior, that hopefully is controllable with will or medicines.
The only mental illness (or in fact personality disorder) that I specified, as far as I can tell, was narcissism. High grade narcissism of course, is certainly a disease that may (but also may not) influence how a person percieves atrocities - these people would be outliers in the context discussed in this here fine thread. And "deranged", by which I mean illnesses of narcissism or similar to narcissism. You know, whatever else in a persons combined effort of genes and upbringing that may cause indifference to atrocities. So, what I keep saying is merely that these outliers do not overturn the fact that certain base evils are universally recognized as such.
I did not mean to offend, but obviously I did, so I should no longer mention "illness" or "deranged". Perhaps you could be helpful with suggesting a wording that will convey my message without offending? If not, I will from now on use the term "antisocial X", where X can be brain, or behaviour or something similar. Are you fine with that?
Empirical evidence trumps logic. That is the tl:dr of the scientific method.
I have offered support in several instances. Fairly universal disdain for atrocities. Even those supposedly in favor of atrocities regard them as such, as evident by their otherwise curious behaviour, such as the chroniclers of Alexander the Great and Nazi propaganda.
I keep documenting white swans. What else can I do? What else is falsifiable? How many people dead of rabies unless given vaccination or put in suspended coma do you need to conclude that rabies is 100% lethal unless treated? Meanwhile, not a single black swan have been presented for me.
I read every post of yours in this thread and found no empirical data. I did find several accounts interpreted through your biases. I found no objective accounts.
Fine then. Go on. I am listening. Why do soldiers develop PTSD if they commit atrocities. Why did the Nazi propaganda not glorify the atrocities commited against their victims? Why did Alexander the Greats chroniclers respond so negatively to the sacking of a village? In all these instances, the perpetrators had all manner of morals and ethichs and rights and so on on their side - surely, if evil is relative and not absolute, they would have no qualms with their actions?
But I do insist. With a typical palette, you will find grapefruits bitter, mangoes sweet, lemons sour, saltwater salty and uh... raw fish (?) umami. Are there humans perceiving grapefruits sweet? Mayhaps... but that is indicative of a non-typical palette.
Okay. Let's assume that both of us taste the same apple. I take a bite and say: "hey, it's sweet!". You take a bite and say "sure it is!". How will you prove that both of us have the same feeling of reference? How will you prove that what I perceive as "sweet" is what you would call "bitter", and my sense of taste is "upside down"? It could be possible if I perceived, let's say, apple tasting the same as fish, but if my entire palette of tastes is changed, then we will never know. Also - I would appreciate if you'd keep to some metaphysical vocabulary, because it's tiring to have to deal with more and more new terms. Is non-typical palette the same sane observer? Is sane observer someone with neurotypical brain, or can someone with neurotypical brain be insane?
Are there humans perceiving rape non-different from sex? Yes... but such individual, surely, have non-typical brain configurations or in the very least are substantially conditioned by their environment.
1. Are you going to deny that everyone is product of one's society? 2. Give me standard measure of brain typicality.
Both factors causing non-standard response are measurable - the first type could perhaps be someone with narcissistic personality disorder, and the second kind a membership of a cult or somesuch.
Okay. Wouldn't you agree that living in highly organised and incredibly complicated system that somehow creates one organism, uniting millions of people over hundreds of kilometeres if heavily conditioning for people, especially given that this organism forces you into certain system of education. It seems like mere fact of being a citizen causes unparalelled conditioning. If we agree on that - how can we know that our perception of rape ins't "natural" response, but result of that conditioning? Riddle me that.
Also, yes, inanimate objects and concepts can be evil, even though they are lacking of will. War is an evil. HIV is an evil.
I'm sorry, but your whim is not enough to convince aynone.
Empirical evidence trumps logic. That is the tl:dr of the scientific method.
I have offered support in several instances. Fairly universal disdain for atrocities. Even those supposedly in favor of atrocities regard them as such, as evident by their otherwise curious behaviour, such as the chroniclers of Alexander the Great and Nazi propaganda.
I keep documenting white swans. What else can I do? What else is falsifiable? How many people dead of rabies unless given vaccination or put in suspended coma do you need to conclude that rabies is 100% lethal unless treated? Meanwhile, not a single black swan have been presented for me.
Logic describes theorethical figures, not the world, and it cannot be "trumped" by empirical evidence. If this is your "tl;dr" of scientific method, then you have not a slightlest idea what it even is.
And you show that ignorance in next sentences: if you knew how scientific method work, then you'd knew that any general statement is refuted by single example of event that negates that statement.
@Lord_Tansheron The recent great minds of scientific theory were summarized as such:
"Scientific theories are judged by the coherence they lend to our natural experience and the simplicity with which they do so. The grand principle of the heavens balances on the razor's edge of truth.
Commissioner Pravin Lal "A History of Science" "
In the computer game Alpha Centauri. Now, of course, the scientific theory is a branch of philosophy, valid only for matters that can be falsified. On interesting sidenote is that despite all the hullabaloo and mud flicking back and forth from theology and self-appointed representatives of the scientific community, God cannot be falsified and is therefore not a subject of science (although things like the great flood can be disproven).
Anyway, the point is that regardless whether good and evil exists or not, "pretending" that they do does lend coherence to our natural experience! We can explain, in very simple terms, the disdain most people feel for rape etc. That makes them tangible enough, no? In the same way love etc is tangible enough?
Now, if you want absolute evil defined by scientific standards, well, what can I say. It is not a falsifiable concept, therefore it lies outside the reach of science, therefore it cannot be percieved as absolute, wearing those glasses. The question is then what do you label it as? For you cannot deny that it none the less is tangible, can you?
Anyway, the point is that regardless whether good and evil exists or not, "pretending" that they do does lend coherence to our natural experience! We can explain, in very simple terms, the disdain most people feel for rape etc. That makes them tangible enough, no? In the same way love etc is tangible enough?
Now, if you want absolute evil defined by scientific standards, well, what can I say. It is not a falsifiable concept, therefore it lies outside the reach of science, therefore it cannot be percieved as absolute, wearing those glasses. The question is then what do you label it as? For you cannot deny that it none the less is tangible, can you?
At the danger of repeating myself, this is once again the wrong question. Concepts of good, evil, love, etc. exist and make sense in the context of human experience. No one is refuting that here, I don't think. But this discussion is about the existence of an ABSOLUTE evil, which, again, is a very different thing from a mere (more or less heuristic) concept of evil. That question (and related ones) has wide-ranging implications that go far beyond the assemblage of subjective experiences negotiated in socialization that essentially make up our current concepts of 'evil', not the least of which is the already touched-upon problem of coming up with an actual definition of 'evil' that doesn't involve listing a bunch of examples or substitution with another undefined term (like 'suffering').
And whether or not that statement is falsifiable is, in fact, also up for debate. Unless you take the religious way out, of course, and retreat to illogical safeguards like "only God can know".
Speaking of nazi atrocities, I once read parts of a book (can't remember the name) with transcribed conversations and diaries of people who had commited or witnessed these atrocities . What I found chilling was that many of them didn't try to justify it in any way. Like a fighter pilot who laughingly remembered how "fun" it was to do strafing runs on civilians. No purpose beyond that.
Then there was this strange diary of a soldier. One day he talks about the flowers in his room, the next about how they shot 22 innocent people and the next of how they had a small party and drank beer. There just seems to be so many kinds of evil. From the sadistic joy of the fighter pilot to the laconic apathy of this diary.
Anyone knows what book this was? I'd like to read more of it, even though it made me feel sick.
1. Are you going to deny that everyone is product of one's society? 2. Give me standard measure of brain typicality.
1. Again, you are confusing right and wrong with good and evil. All sound observers react negatively to genocide, whether they can justify it or not. 2. I already did.
Okay. Wouldn't you agree that living in highly organised and incredibly complicated system that somehow creates one organism, uniting millions of people over hundreds of kilometeres if heavily conditioning for people, especially given that this organism forces you into certain system of education. It seems like mere fact of being a citizen causes unparalelled conditioning. If we agree on that - how can we know that our perception of rape ins't "natural" response, but result of that conditioning? Riddle me that.
When show comes to push, nature often chews through layer upon layer of intellectual appreciations of morality or other societal standards.
Despite harsh punishments, you could not prevent the deaf from communicating with sign languages. Anti-gay therapy is largely ineffective. Abstinence only education in fact only increase the number of teen pregnancies and STDs.
The stronger a natural urge is, the more difficult it is to suppress. Even when people accept atrocities, they still have that voice in the back of their skull yelling "WRONG WRONG WRONG" as evident for instance by PTSD, Nazi propaganda and Alexanders Chroniclers.
Logic describes theorethical figures, not the world, and it cannot be "trumped" by empirical evidence. If this is your "tl;dr" of scientific method, then you have not a slightlest idea what it even is.
And you show that ignorance in next sentences: if you knew how scientific method work, then you'd knew that any general statement is refuted by single example of event that negates that statement.
Massively incorrect on both accounts. For instance, a logical assumption is that swimming after eating might cause cramps. Why?
Premise 1: After lunch, you (may) become fatigued for digesting food. Premise 2: Cramps can result from overexpending your energy. Premise 3: Swimming expends energy Conclusion: Swimming right after eating lunch is inadviseable as you might cramp.
HOWEVER, when tested empirically, we find that the conclusion is not justifiable. There are all manner of alternative medicine and other assorted hocus-pocus that indeed are logical enough but simply will not perform when put to the test.
The second part is not only obfuscation, but secondly accredites a logical assumption to the scientific method. The scientific method absolutely do not reject theories based on one contradictionary finding - in fact, by the mathematical rigors utilized by science, around one in every 20 findings should be incorrect. This is why we do meta-studies and subgroup analyses and so on and so forth.
But moving on, most all concepts have boundaries. For instance, a low dose of a medicine does nothing, while a high dose is harmful or even lethal. The therapeutic window is the range during which the drug is effective but without causing (unacceptable) harm - which BTW is relative, so feel free to rage about modern medicine as well. We for instance accept more harm from a drug that inhibits HIV reproduction than we do from a drug that causes headache.
Likewise, the concept of evil have a "therapeutic window" as it were, such as rape and murder, but is less effective near it's boundaries, such as stealing your sisters candy bar.
So, by your own words, no medicine may exist, because the therapeutic window means that the claim "drug X treats condition Y" is untrue during certain circumstances, in this case lower concentrations.
Anyway, the point is that regardless whether good and evil exists or not, "pretending" that they do does lend coherence to our natural experience! We can explain, in very simple terms, the disdain most people feel for rape etc. That makes them tangible enough, no? In the same way love etc is tangible enough?
Now, if you want absolute evil defined by scientific standards, well, what can I say. It is not a falsifiable concept, therefore it lies outside the reach of science, therefore it cannot be percieved as absolute, wearing those glasses. The question is then what do you label it as? For you cannot deny that it none the less is tangible, can you?
At the danger of repeating myself, this is once again the wrong question. Concepts of good, evil, love, etc. exist and make sense in the context of human experience. No one is refuting that here, I don't think. But this discussion is about the existence of an ABSOLUTE evil, which, again, is a very different thing from a mere (more or less heuristic) concept of evil. That question (and related ones) has wide-ranging implications that go far beyond the assemblage of subjective experiences negotiated in socialization that essentially make up our current concepts of 'evil', not the least of which is the already touched-upon problem of coming up with an actual definition of 'evil' that doesn't involve listing a bunch of examples or substitution with another undefined term (like 'suffering').
And whether or not that statement is falsifiable is, in fact, also up for debate. Unless you take the religious way out, of course, and retreat to illogical safeguards like "only God can know".
If you do not, like I do, accept the collective unconsciousness labeling of evil as absolute in much the same way love is absolute, I think it is VERY difficult to see evil as an absolute without some manner of belief system. But I get the sense that you are gently nodding the conversation into some certain direction, although I cannot figure out towards what - so I direct the question back at you.
Is evil absolute?
Edit: Well, there is this poem; "For what purpose does God have a Visage, of there is none around to appreciate it?", essentially saying all the splendor of the universe is wasted unless there also exists life somewhere in the universe. From this viewpoint, any disruptive force, such as war and HIV can be seen as enemies of God, as they uglify the splendor of the Universe, so to speak. If life is short, brutish and unpleasant, life need not exist, therefore the Universe need not exist. However, I feel this viewpoint is quasi-religious.
Comments
Your grasp of logic couldn't actually be that weak, not even if you're only five years old. On the contrary, you're obviously making false substitutions quite deliberately, so you're definitely a troll. I'm reporting you (again).
If you think someone is breaking the Site rules, report it to the moderators.
Don't focus on other users, focus on the subject that is being discussed. This is the only way a discussion can move forward.
Examples where people may commonly agree on usage of the term does NOT equal a definition of the term.
Thank you for saying that, your Lordship.
@DrakeICN:
What I said was: "It is not possible to construct some class of "normal humans", who would serve as "sound observers".". You do not disprove that, because you assess some analogy, without really backing it up.
And you keep mistaking order of obligations with order of facts. Given sentence a ("when witnessing rape, human brain will react in the way so the person will feel resentment towards rapist") and sentence b ("rape is evil") cannot be linked in implication within zeroth-order logic. To create proper implication, you'd need to attach axiom c ("instinctive perceiving something as evil means that something is evil") - and then you can say a -> b.
Of course, that would raise bunch of problems: nature of implication orders that b can true even if a is false (and that would leave us with question: what about evil things that human instinct doesn't perceive as evil?). Among other things, we would be required to assume that "evil" is something not intelectual, but observable, at least via introspection, at primitive, first-order level, and that is highly questionable. It would also exclude from ethics anyone who is not "normal", and give them automatic "pass", as they are as unable to be ethical, as stones. And still it leaves us with substancial problem of definition of "neurotypicality" and what kind of measure we use: is it electric pattern on neurons? Feelings individual feels? Hormons raise?
Part 1/2
So, yes, I do say "instinctively perceiving something as evil means that something is evil" in much the same way "instinctively perceiving something as bitter means that something is bitter", although the concept of evil is less straight-forward and thus may require some jigsawing - but all neurotypicals would solve this jigsaw in much the same way. Which also answers your question "what about evil things that human instinct doesn't perceive as evil?"; we jigsaw them, and we WILL arrive at the same conclusion (barring narcissism and cultism)... in, as you say, first order evils. The more factors you add, the more our brains solution to the equation will diverge - which is why I at least tried to consistently press upon the basics of evil. The same can also be said about the more subtle the evil is.
Also, yes, inanimate objects and concepts can be evil, even though they are lacking of will. War is an evil. HIV is an evil. And so you did, appearently, yet no more than two sentences earlier said; TBF though, I also accused you of trolling, before you accused me. Lets agree to disagree on the validity on your statement then?
1) I am neurotypical and have a set of morals and ethics
2) I know other people I consider neurotypical who share a similar set of morals and ethics
3) therefore, I know what is good and evil for all
I wouldn't call this brilliant logic. Sorry.
1) While I am neurotypical (as is the vast majority) I talk not about morals and ethics. Morals and ethics (such as ideas of right and wrong) are essentially different from good and evil, as is evident from the fox-rabbit example I gave a couple of posts upstreams. Many morals and ethics are derived from conceptions of good and evil, to be sure, but the complex nature of more advanced dilemmas - especially when one must chose between two evils - makes them unsuitable to be crammed into the rather narrow definitions of good and evil. For instance, Cuba isolated all HIV patients, and denied entry for HIV positive immigrants / tourists. Because of this, Cuba was for a long time spared an HIV epidemic. Does this positive take away the negative of imprisonment of what amounts to essentially innocent patients? The answer to that question is the subject of right and wrong - the evils, both that of imprisonment and that of HIV, and especially of those few of the whole subpopulation that would go on to knowingly infecting other with HIV were they not imprisoned, are a subject of base evil.
2) Not only do I know many neurotypicals, I assert that all but the deranged have normal levels of compassion, be they present day or historical. Your premise make it sound like my assertion comes from an islet of mankind, not the ocean, which is incorrect.
3) There is no good and evil for all. There is eternal (base) good and eternal (base) evil. For a comparison, water is not dry merely because someone is convinced that water is dry. Water is wet, regardless of anyones perception on the matter. We merely use our senses to determine whether water is wet or dry, just like we use our senses to determine whether grapefruit is bitter or not. If someone have a damaged palette, we do not say that grapefruits are sweet anymore than we say that water is dry. Or anymore we say that evil is good. Evil and good are eternal concepts that we happened upon and described, in they same manner we happened upon and described gravity and evolution.
Secondly, well, the argument is also backed by empirical data. I propose to you, that find me anyone who thinks genocide is fine and dandy, and dig deep enough and surely you will find a mental illness or personality disorder, or cult level degree of brainwashing. Even socities that favor genocide, such as the Nazi:s, instinctively know it is an inherent evil, as evident by their propaganda. Did they showcase soldiers pushing people into ovens to justify their deeds? No, they did not, they instead demonised their targets of genocide, accusing them of causing all manner of social upheaval, and the manner of which they made these people disappear was sure as hell not broadcasted, it was more of a dirty dirty open secret than most civilians in the very least pretended they knew nothing about, as it made them uncomfortable on a, let say pre-logical, level.
If this plethora of supposedly normal non-brainwashed people that applaud atrocities exists, show them to me. If my assumptions are incorrect, they should not be difficult to find, should they? If they, to the contrary, are as rare as people who think water is dry and people who think grapefruits are sweet are, then we assuredly conclude that good and evil are eternal (or objective) concepts.
EDIT: And for my use of "morals and ethics", fine, I offer a revised version
1) I am neurotypical and have established a knowledge of good and evil
2) I know other people I consider neurotypical who share a similar knowledge of good and evil
3) therefore, I know what is good and evil for all
Please, the point is not semantics. It's the chain of logic.
In answer to the original question, no. No, I am not going to explain my reasoning--either you accept it or you do not.
It is cute that any of you think that you are actually going to persuade anyone else that your point of view is correct. That being said, please carry on.
I have offered support in several instances. Fairly universal disdain for atrocities. Even those supposedly in favor of atrocities regard them as such, as evident by their otherwise curious behaviour, such as the chroniclers of Alexander the Great and Nazi propaganda.
I keep documenting white swans. What else can I do? What else is falsifiable? How many people dead of rabies unless given vaccination or put in suspended coma do you need to conclude that rabies is 100% lethal unless treated? Meanwhile, not a single black swan have been presented for me.
Even as we struggle to clearly define them, their consequences are very real. I love you, so I saved you and not Joe Schmoe from the burning building. Like the concepts of good and evil, they are vivid and clear in their most basic examples, like the loving father smiling to his child, and less clear in the extremes of its boundaries, such as an estranged ex wife.
The very real consequences they exercise on our behaviour suggest to me, that yes, they are real, even if I too struggle to define them. But where, pray tell, in the uh... whatever bible logic considers its, does it state that only concepts of clearly defined form exist? Now, I do realize someone could use this line of argument to argue the existance of pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters, but in a sense, those concepts too are real enough for the believers, if they can determine the actions of the believers. However, love, happyness, rudeness, good and evil are more real, as they are universal (barring again the deranged) while pink unicorns and flying spaghetti monster are far from universal. It is indeed very simple, they cause suffering, and they are... hmmm... interactable, or perhaps preventable, in a way that cannot be said of time, entropy and existance. No amount of tinkering will stop the passage of time. The urge is not evil, it just is.
Intelligent animals like ravens don't like cheaters, wolves have an "apology" behavior for accidental injury and the like...there are clear and undeniable similarities between human moral behaviors and the moral behaviors of other animals, so I can't buy into the moral relativist position.
That being said...
You and everyone else in this thread should be aware that directly accusing other posters of trolling in-thread is not acceptable. If somebody is trolling, report it--and then stop.
Every single time I have ever seen somebody accuse another person of being a troll, it has never accomplished anything. All it does is make everyone angrier and meaner.
Trying to flame trolls into submission has never worked.
Second, reporting posts is not supposed to be a public affair. The whole point of the anonymous reporting system is so that people can call attention to rulebreaking posts without provoking each other (this, too, is explained in the Site Rules). If you tell somebody "hey I reported your post," it just gives them a scapegoat in the event they receive a warning. It lets them blame the warning on your complaint instead of their own behavior.
The "Flag" system is meant to quietly and anonymously enforce the Site Rules.
It is NOT a weapon for you to use against your enemies. Other forumites have agreed with @DrakeICN, so obviously some people find his or her logic convincing.
Sometimes people are wrong because they make a misjudgment, not because they're bad people who are trying to make you angry for no reason.
And, of course, sometimes other people are actually right, and we're the ones who were wrong. Lord knows I've said stupid stuff before.
Haven't we all?
However, I was (absurdly, and IMO maliciously) accused of trolling earlier in the thread, yet there was no apparent reaction from mods. When the trouble-making continues vigorously with neither visible intervention nor acknowledgement of a private report, what's a user supposed to think, other than that the mods must be taking a break or busy elsewhere? And in that case ... well, if there's no cop on the street corner to call, then one must defend oneself against a thug however one can, no? Absolutely, I've never seen it persuade a troll to stop. They always go on and on until banned.
However, what does sometimes work is that when it's drawn to public attention, other users may stop feeding the troll. You'll notice that I was (more subtly) trying to encourage that earlier in the thread. Good point, yes, I shouldn't have mentioned it and apologise for doing so. I see no sign that others are trolling (thankfully!), but trolls love it when they can deceive someone else into believing that the troll is a legitimate contributor with a genuine point, thereby creating potential disharmony between the legitimate users and doing the troll's disruptive "work" for him.
I wasn't trying to bring the Site Rules up for discussion; the Site Rules themselves state that they're not up for discussion to begin with--mostly because, historically, the folks who want to change the rules have tended to be the ones who want to twist them for their own advantage. I was just here to clarify some of our existing policies.
To answer your question: yes, we always receive your reports. They pop up in a private thread where the moderators can deliberate on the matter together, which usually starts the same day (I check those threads multiple times per day, as do other moderators). We don't send you a notification because it always happens.
As for the action we take based on your reports, that is strictly confidential. Whether it's a short PM or a formal warning or a jailing, a temporary ban, a permanent ban, or nothing at all, you won't be informed. You can see a ban on somebody's profile, but you won't receive a notification if you reported them.
Once you send the report, that's it. Everything that happens after that is between the moderating team and the person you reported.
We do it this way because it's nobody else's business if you get a warning. It's always confidential (unless you decide to publicize your own warning for some reason, which has happened before). Public naming and shaming isn't our policy; that just generates resentment. And issuing warnings in public would give gratification to that person's enemies, which is not the kind of motivation we want to reward.
In a nutshell, the idea is to prevent people from trying to weaponize the Site Rules.
This assertion that people who do bad things must be mentally ill is not empirically supported as far as I'm aware. Perhaps you know of studies that I haven't read, in which case now would be a good time to link them . . . or back off from this claim.
It's not unusual for people to try to make mental illness an immoral state. That doesn't mean it's accurate. What is accurate is that mentally ill people are more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators.
I think your example (referring back to the Nazis) undermines your argument. Too many people knew what was going on and were involved in what was going on for all of them to be mentally ill. You don't even have any empirical data as to whether any of the leaders were mentally ill, let alone all of them. You're basically arguing by assertion that "evil" is only possible because of mental illness. There's no more substance to the argument than that. I read every post of yours in this thread and found no empirical data. I did find several accounts interpreted through your biases. I found no objective accounts.
I could honestly go on for hours listing the various flaws and failings I have observed in the neurotypical mind over the years, but I don't really have the time or inclination for quite a few reasons.
However, for the non repeat exposed, the atrocities are "fresh", and they are horrified to learn what their evil empire is up to. So, contrary to what has been claimed repeatedly, the conceptions of base evil does not change with society. This is why the chroniclers of Alexander the Great reacted so strongly to his sacking a village of innocents, despite him having - according to the greeks rhetoric manure - every right to do so. You cannot take the human out of the human equation.
Now, the reason I keep bringing up mental illness and personality disorders, is because non-neurotypical brain wiring might mean a person is - contrary to the norm - from origin is indifferent to atrocities. I say origin, because saying "from birth" is incorrect, since like most traits, the risk of penetrance is of course influenced by background. Stalin, for instance, had an abusive father. Would he have turned out differently, had he had a loving father? None can say for sure, but the risk would certainly have decreased. It is a constant disclaimer I must use, or people would say "but some people are different".
So, to be very clear, far from everyone in the Nazi empire were deranged, in fact, there as everywhere the vast majority were neurotypical. I did not try to explain the Nazi empire with mental illnesses. To further clarify, I am well aware that most mental illnesses does not turn the patient into a psycotic mess. Most mental illnesses are minor or major inconveniences, taking the form of brief periods of abberant although ultimately harmless behavior, that hopefully is controllable with will or medicines.
The only mental illness (or in fact personality disorder) that I specified, as far as I can tell, was narcissism. High grade narcissism of course, is certainly a disease that may (but also may not) influence how a person percieves atrocities - these people would be outliers in the context discussed in this here fine thread. And "deranged", by which I mean illnesses of narcissism or similar to narcissism. You know, whatever else in a persons combined effort of genes and upbringing that may cause indifference to atrocities. So, what I keep saying is merely that these outliers do not overturn the fact that certain base evils are universally recognized as such.
I did not mean to offend, but obviously I did, so I should no longer mention "illness" or "deranged". Perhaps you could be helpful with suggesting a wording that will convey my message without offending? If not, I will from now on use the term "antisocial X", where X can be brain, or behaviour or something similar. Are you fine with that? Fine then. Go on. I am listening. Why do soldiers develop PTSD if they commit atrocities. Why did the Nazi propaganda not glorify the atrocities commited against their victims? Why did Alexander the Greats chroniclers respond so negatively to the sacking of a village? In all these instances, the perpetrators had all manner of morals and ethichs and rights and so on on their side - surely, if evil is relative and not absolute, they would have no qualms with their actions?
@DrakeICN:
Okay. Let's assume that both of us taste the same apple. I take a bite and say: "hey, it's sweet!". You take a bite and say "sure it is!". How will you prove that both of us have the same feeling of reference? How will you prove that what I perceive as "sweet" is what you would call "bitter", and my sense of taste is "upside down"? It could be possible if I perceived, let's say, apple tasting the same as fish, but if my entire palette of tastes is changed, then we will never know.
Also - I would appreciate if you'd keep to some metaphysical vocabulary, because it's tiring to have to deal with more and more new terms. Is non-typical palette the same sane observer? Is sane observer someone with neurotypical brain, or can someone with neurotypical brain be insane?
1. Are you going to deny that everyone is product of one's society?
2. Give me standard measure of brain typicality.
Okay. Wouldn't you agree that living in highly organised and incredibly complicated system that somehow creates one organism, uniting millions of people over hundreds of kilometeres if heavily conditioning for people, especially given that this organism forces you into certain system of education.
It seems like mere fact of being a citizen causes unparalelled conditioning. If we agree on that - how can we know that our perception of rape ins't "natural" response, but result of that conditioning?
Riddle me that.
I'm sorry, but your whim is not enough to convince aynone.
I have offered support in several instances. Fairly universal disdain for atrocities. Even those supposedly in favor of atrocities regard them as such, as evident by their otherwise curious behaviour, such as the chroniclers of Alexander the Great and Nazi propaganda.
I keep documenting white swans. What else can I do? What else is falsifiable? How many people dead of rabies unless given vaccination or put in suspended coma do you need to conclude that rabies is 100% lethal unless treated? Meanwhile, not a single black swan have been presented for me.
Logic describes theorethical figures, not the world, and it cannot be "trumped" by empirical evidence. If this is your "tl;dr" of scientific method, then you have not a slightlest idea what it even is.
And you show that ignorance in next sentences: if you knew how scientific method work, then you'd knew that any general statement is refuted by single example of event that negates that statement.
"Scientific theories are judged by the coherence they lend to our natural experience and the simplicity with which they do so. The grand principle of the heavens balances on the razor's edge of truth.
Commissioner Pravin Lal
"A History of Science" "
In the computer game Alpha Centauri. Now, of course, the scientific theory is a branch of philosophy, valid only for matters that can be falsified. On interesting sidenote is that despite all the hullabaloo and mud flicking back and forth from theology and self-appointed representatives of the scientific community, God cannot be falsified and is therefore not a subject of science (although things like the great flood can be disproven).
Anyway, the point is that regardless whether good and evil exists or not, "pretending" that they do does lend coherence to our natural experience! We can explain, in very simple terms, the disdain most people feel for rape etc. That makes them tangible enough, no? In the same way love etc is tangible enough?
Now, if you want absolute evil defined by scientific standards, well, what can I say. It is not a falsifiable concept, therefore it lies outside the reach of science, therefore it cannot be percieved as absolute, wearing those glasses. The question is then what do you label it as? For you cannot deny that it none the less is tangible, can you?
And whether or not that statement is falsifiable is, in fact, also up for debate. Unless you take the religious way out, of course, and retreat to illogical safeguards like "only God can know".
Then there was this strange diary of a soldier. One day he talks about the flowers in his room, the next about how they shot 22 innocent people and the next of how they had a small party and drank beer. There just seems to be so many kinds of evil. From the sadistic joy of the fighter pilot to the laconic apathy of this diary.
Anyone knows what book this was? I'd like to read more of it, even though it made me feel sick.
2. I already did. When show comes to push, nature often chews through layer upon layer of intellectual appreciations of morality or other societal standards.
Despite harsh punishments, you could not prevent the deaf from communicating with sign languages. Anti-gay therapy is largely ineffective. Abstinence only education in fact only increase the number of teen pregnancies and STDs.
The stronger a natural urge is, the more difficult it is to suppress. Even when people accept atrocities, they still have that voice in the back of their skull yelling "WRONG WRONG WRONG" as evident for instance by PTSD, Nazi propaganda and Alexanders Chroniclers. Massively incorrect on both accounts. For instance, a logical assumption is that swimming after eating might cause cramps. Why?
Premise 1: After lunch, you (may) become fatigued for digesting food.
Premise 2: Cramps can result from overexpending your energy.
Premise 3: Swimming expends energy
Conclusion: Swimming right after eating lunch is inadviseable as you might cramp.
HOWEVER, when tested empirically, we find that the conclusion is not justifiable. There are all manner of alternative medicine and other assorted hocus-pocus that indeed are logical enough but simply will not perform when put to the test.
The second part is not only obfuscation, but secondly accredites a logical assumption to the scientific method. The scientific method absolutely do not reject theories based on one contradictionary finding - in fact, by the mathematical rigors utilized by science, around one in every 20 findings should be incorrect. This is why we do meta-studies and subgroup analyses and so on and so forth.
But moving on, most all concepts have boundaries. For instance, a low dose of a medicine does nothing, while a high dose is harmful or even lethal. The therapeutic window is the range during which the drug is effective but without causing (unacceptable) harm - which BTW is relative, so feel free to rage about modern medicine as well. We for instance accept more harm from a drug that inhibits HIV reproduction than we do from a drug that causes headache.
Likewise, the concept of evil have a "therapeutic window" as it were, such as rape and murder, but is less effective near it's boundaries, such as stealing your sisters candy bar.
So, by your own words, no medicine may exist, because the therapeutic window means that the claim "drug X treats condition Y" is untrue during certain circumstances, in this case lower concentrations.
Please.
Is evil absolute?
Edit: Well, there is this poem;
"For what purpose does God have a Visage, of there is none around to appreciate it?", essentially saying all the splendor of the universe is wasted unless there also exists life somewhere in the universe. From this viewpoint, any disruptive force, such as war and HIV can be seen as enemies of God, as they uglify the splendor of the Universe, so to speak. If life is short, brutish and unpleasant, life need not exist, therefore the Universe need not exist. However, I feel this viewpoint is quasi-religious.