|
|
Post by walterpaisley on May 21, 2023 11:57:59 GMT
Of course "justice", in a judicial sense, is "objective". I don't know anyone who thinks that stoning adulterers, chopping the hands off thieves, or locking up gay people and the political opposition - for example - is an indicator of "justice": Or, indeed, anything less than an expression of "evil".
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 21, 2023 11:58:02 GMT
No. If you feel joy that a devious liar is not exposed and, instead, the sincere are falsely discredited, then you have evil motivations. We don't have to use my reference frame, we can use this person's I may be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that 'justice' is an objective concept. Not everyone will say that lying is evil. Some will say the end justifies the means, etc. We need only look at Kant's 'axe murderer' scenario to see that even supposedly 'moral' people can have very different views on when it is acceptable to lie. www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/culture/philosophy/kants-axe |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 21, 2023 11:59:23 GMT
Of course "justice", in a judicial sense, is "objective". I don't know anyone who thinks that stoning adulterers, chopping the hands off thieves, or locking up gay people and the political opposition - for example - is an indicator of "justice": Or, indeed, anything less than an expression of "evil". I'm sure there are fundamentalist Islamists who would disagree. They would say it is the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on May 21, 2023 12:03:14 GMT
I'm sure there are fundamentalist Islamists who would disagree. They would say it is the right thing to do. That's actually what I'm saying. To some people or groups, an act most find utterly abhorrent is "justice", and therefore "good". That's why concepts like "justice", and even "good" and "evil", are ultimately ENTIRELY objective. |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 21, 2023 12:05:17 GMT
I'm sure there are fundamentalist Islamists who would disagree. They would say it is the right thing to do. That's actually what I'm saying. To some people or groups, an act most find utterly abhorrent is "justice", and therefore "good". That's why concepts like "justice", and even "good" and "evil", are ultimately ENTIRELY objective. Sorry to be so slow, Walter. I understand the first two lines, but the sense of the last is eluding me. It's an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 21, 2023 12:07:31 GMT
No. If you feel joy that a devious liar is not exposed and, instead, the sincere are falsely discredited, then you have evil motivations. We don't have to use my reference frame, we can use this person's I may be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that 'justice' is an objective concept. Not everyone will say that lying is evil. Some will say the end justifies the means, etc. A justice oriented person can say that a lie is justified because the context of the lie allows / enables some more important truth, but, in such a framework, a lie in itself can't be its own justification in the same way a truth can be. In other words, a lie always needs a moral justification in a just framework, while the truth doesn't because it can contain its own justification. No framework of justice can be ambivalent about lying - it's a contradiction. Evil (imho) is an emotional preference for the lie to stand. |
|
|
|
Post by walterpaisley on May 21, 2023 12:13:06 GMT
It's an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? A simple example: I, personally, believe that helping Asylum Seekers is a "good" thing to do with my time and money. There are people here who believe - equally strongly - that anyone so doing is committing a "bad" (perhaps even "evil"?) act. See? It's (to me, at any rate) "objective" to others, an accusation of "evil" is just as "objective". In truth, of course, it's all SUBjective. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 21, 2023 12:16:31 GMT
It's an interesting statement. Can you elaborate? A simple example: I, personally, believe that helping Asylum Seekers is a "good" thing to do with my time and money. There are people here who believe - equally strongly - that anyone so doing is committing a "bad" (perhaps even "evil"?) act. See? It's (to me, at any rate) "objective" to others, an accusation of "evil" is just as "objective". In truth, of course, it's all SUBjective. To paint you as evil, rather than misguided, a case would have to be made regarding your motivations - that you knew you were harming / frustrating others and perused those aims in order to perpetrate that harm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2023 12:35:10 GMT
A simple example: I, personally, believe that helping Asylum Seekers is a "good" thing to do with my time and money. There are people here who believe - equally strongly - that anyone so doing is committing a "bad" (perhaps even "evil"?) act. See? It's (to me, at any rate) "objective" to others, an accusation of "evil" is just as "objective". In truth, of course, it's all SUBjective. To paint you as evil, rather than misguided, a case would have to be made regarding your motivations - that you knew you were harming / frustrating others and persued those aims in order to perpetrate that harm |
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 21, 2023 12:48:49 GMT
I may be misunderstanding you, but you appear to be saying that 'justice' is an objective concept. Not everyone will say that lying is evil. Some will say the end justifies the means, etc. A justice oriented person can say that a lie is justified because the context of the lie allows / enables some more important truth, but, in such a framework, a lie in itself can't be its own justification in the same way a truth can be. In other words, a lie always needs a moral justification in a just framework, while the truth doesn't because it can contain its own justification. No framework of justice can be ambivalent about lying - it's a contradiction. Evil (imho) is an emotional preference for the lie to stand. I understand what you're saying: a lie can be moral if it leads to a greater good, so it is still rooted in morality. But what the greater good is is itself a subjective concept. For instance, the Nazis thought murder to be wrong, but sanctioned mass murder for the greater good. In that case there was murder, and that murder didn't exist in a just framework. Or, at least, the question of whether that framework was itself just is a subjective concept. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2023 13:03:58 GMT
I just wonder how we can be sure what evil is if there is no firm recognition of what is good. The adversary is described as the father of all lies and deception is his MO. Aren't we living in a society where many if not most, have somehow accepted some evil is being ok? Aren't we guilty of moving the 'good' goalposts constantly into the realms of what was once considered bad/evil? Hasn't society largely abdicated from the need to be 'good' in favour of instant self gratification with little or no thought for any consequences? Isn't it possible that by denying both a God and devil we will fall between 2 stools ready to be swept up into eternal pain? Isn't it possible that the forces of evil are so cunning and wily that they are persuading as many as will fall for it that their evil ways have been right all along and anyway why worry as there is no such thing as eternal consequences? Isn't that too great a risk?
|
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on May 21, 2023 13:10:07 GMT
I just wonder how we can be sure what evil is if there is no firm recognition of what is good. The adversary is described as the father of all lies and deception is his MO. Aren't we living in a society where many if not most, have somehow accepted some evil is being ok? Aren't we guilty of moving the 'good' goalposts constantly into the realms of what was once considered bad/evil? Hasn't society largely abdicated from the need to be 'good' in favour of instant self gratification with little or no thought for any consequences? Isn't it possible that by denying both a God and devil we will fall between 2 stools ready to be swept up into eternal pain? Isn't it possible that the forces of evil are so cunning and wily that they are persuading as many as will fall for it that their evil ways have been right all along and anyway why worry as there is no such thing as eternal consequences? Isn't that too great a risk? There is no such thing as 'good'. If you are a Marxist, you will believe that our moral ideas are largely formed by the current economic base. So, marrying at 14 is 'good' until the economy enters a phase where it needs an educated work force. At that point, marrying 14 year olds becomes an obscenity, not because it is wrong itself (I think it is wrong in itself, btw), but because females who marry and have children at 14 don't attain the education standards the economy requires. Marxists say that marrying 14 year olds is sold as a moral evil, but the reality is that it is a hindrance to capitalism. If our economic base changes again, so will our moral notions of good and bad (according to the Marxists). |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on May 21, 2023 13:11:14 GMT
I just wonder how we can be sure what evil is if there is no firm recognition of what is good. Without evil there could be no good so it must be good to be evil sometimes |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2023 13:59:47 GMT
I don't see the relevance of either of these replies.
|
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on May 21, 2023 14:50:40 GMT
Evil used to be going agsinst the word of gos as defined in whatever text you believe.
It used to be that stealing was more of an evil than cutting off hands. Men and Women were routinely stoned. Compassion was in very short supply.
But the way i see it, evil is working against the common good. And that is about making sure everyone is allowed to be the best and happiest they can.
Whatever prevents people from achieving their potential for contributing to a compassionate allied species is evil.
|
|
