Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An evil thought?

DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 4:54:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Betrayal tends to lead to more betrayal.

These behaviors really are contagious, you know.

If you are a completely honest person, and everyone you meet betrays and robs you, it can become torturous to do the right thing. Not everyone has it in them to be steadfast in righteousness.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 7:36:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 4:54:59 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Betrayal tends to lead to more betrayal.

These behaviors really are contagious, you know.

If you are a completely honest person, and everyone you meet betrays and robs you, it can become torturous to do the right thing. Not everyone has it in them to be steadfast in righteousness.

I appreciate your concern, but this isn"t a call to group therapy.

the subject is to examine if betrayal is evil universally so to speak, for the lack of a better term, then one might see morals as objective, but maybe betrayal is an ethical issue in which case would leave morals relative to those in the agreement (you might be more familiar with covenant) and ethics is universal in respect to an "objective view or term"
SpiritandTruth
Posts: 2,315
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 7:43:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
From an abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. What I see looks pretty vile.

Maybe that is why my answer was not adequate. You must be trying to justify something.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. As many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the will of God. The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth,
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 9:07:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:43:51 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
From an abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. What I see looks pretty vile.

Maybe that is why my answer was not adequate. You must be trying to justify something.

no Mr. self-righteous, this is the philosophy section, and that is why your answer might be off the mark and not toward the subject at hand. you shot you missed and now it seems its time to blame that on how I don't meet your view of what a believer in Christ should be. really? are you going to get mr morals on me or something? stick to the subject at hand. where do these people come from? WOW
spirit and truth yea right. more like nut and job
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:24:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?
Is it universally evil?
Wait here, I've got about 4 billion adults to get a consensus from. Seriously. Where do nut jobs like you come from? "Universally" , wow......btw, I kid......
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:44:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 10:24:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?
Is it universally evil?
Wait here, I've got about 4 billion adults to get a consensus from. Seriously. Where do nut jobs like you come from? "Universally" , wow......btw, I kid......

I did mention later "for the lack of a better term" just can't think of a better term. some go with objective I guess. but it seems you're looking at it as if each individual has to decide if its evil or not before it's evil rather than its factually true that betrayal is evil no matter what anyone thinks.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2016 10:48:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Oh yea I already know I"m a nut job, I"m here ain"t I, I just want to stay on subject if possible.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:09:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 10:44:51 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:24:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?
Is it universally evil?
Wait here, I've got about 4 billion adults to get a consensus from. Seriously. Where do nut jobs like you come from? "Universally" , wow......btw, I kid......

I did mention later "for the lack of a better term" just can't think of a better term. some go with objective I guess. but it seems you're looking at it as if each individual has to decide if its evil or not before it's evil rather than its factually true that betrayal is evil no matter what anyone thinks.
That's the problem dp. How can something be factually true without input from what people think? Therefore the question "is betrayal evil factually true no matter what anyone thinks" is simply an impossible question to answer because someone somewhere has to think about betrayal and decide if it is evil. What people think has to be a part of the determination, because it's the thinking that "determines".
Note to self..stop doing this while I'm sleepwalking.......
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/17/2016 10:28:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 7:36:06 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:54:59 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Betrayal tends to lead to more betrayal.

These behaviors really are contagious, you know.

If you are a completely honest person, and everyone you meet betrays and robs you, it can become torturous to do the right thing. Not everyone has it in them to be steadfast in righteousness.

I appreciate your concern, but this isn"t a call to group therapy.

the subject is to examine if betrayal is evil universally so to speak, for the lack of a better term, then one might see morals as objective, but maybe betrayal is an ethical issue in which case would leave morals relative to those in the agreement (you might be more familiar with covenant) and ethics is universal in respect to an "objective view or term"

While the dictionary defines objective as "being not influenced by emotion", I think 99% of the time people on DDO mean to imply "objective" means the same in all frames of reference. Or at least consistent among all frames of reference.

In this regard morality is objective is if they are consistently "distasteful", "harmful", or whatever, in all references.

So betrayal. The willful counter action to what has been agreed upon or expected between parties. is it objectively "evil".

If we assume the agreed upon actions were mutually beneficial. That they were healthy to both parties. Then I see no benefit in the betrayal.

But you see arguing that we can not imagine a goal of morality, or an agreement between parties, or a beneficial betrayal, Just because we can not imagine a reference in which betrayal is inconsistent with other references, doesn't make morality objective Not logically following at least. It is a conclusion based on ignorance.

So what I would say is that Ethical, institutionalized behavior... to emotional empathetic reasoning for Moral behavior. IS generally consistent among all humans. And there for it is as objective as Grey hair meaning old. As objective as breasts meaning arousal. As objective as breathing meaning life.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 8:17:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Is there a reason to pick out betrayal? Couldn't one just as well ask if murder is only bad for the person killed?
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 4:25:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:28:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:36:06 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:54:59 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:
Betrayal tends to lead to more betrayal.

These behaviors really are contagious, you know.

If you are a completely honest person, and everyone you meet betrays and robs you, it can become torturous to do the right thing. Not everyone has it in them to be steadfast in righteousness.

I appreciate your concern, but this isn"t a call to group therapy.

the subject is to examine if betrayal is evil universally so to speak, for the lack of a better term, then one might see morals as objective, but maybe betrayal is an ethical issue in which case would leave morals relative to those in the agreement (you might be more familiar with covenant) and ethics is universal in respect to an "objective view or term"

While the dictionary defines objective as "being not influenced by emotion", I think 99% of the time people on DDO mean to imply "objective" means the same in all frames of reference. Or at least consistent among all frames of reference.

In this regard morality is objective is if they are consistently "distasteful", "harmful", or whatever, in all references.

So betrayal. The willful counter action to what has been agreed upon or expected between parties. is it objectively "evil".

In respect to objective you would be correct in the case of a judge in a court, but in the case of philosophy, it maybe the term "factually true" is the answer to that problem but it"s OED"s definition in respect to philosophy of the word objective that is definitive:

OED 2. Philos. Used of the existence or nature of a thing as an object of consciousness (as distinguished from an existence or nature termed subjective).
The Scholastic Philosophy made the distinction between what belongs to things subjectively (subjectWvU), or as they are "in themselves", and what belongs to them objectively (objectWvU), as they are presented to consciousness. In later times the custom of considering the perceiving or thinking consciousness as pre-eminently "the subject" brought about a different use of these words, which now prevails in philosophical language. According to this, what is considered as belonging to the perceiving or thinking self is called subjective, and what is considered as independent of the perceiving or thinking self is called in contrast objective. As to this transition of use (which primarily concerns the word subjective, and affects objective as its antithesis) resulting in what is almost an exchange of sense between the two adjectives, see Hamilton Reid's Wks. 806 note, R. L. Nettleship Philos. Lect. & Remains I. 193.
So though universally might not be correct, but not that far off.
Universally; OED 1. In every case or instance. 2. So as to include every individual of a group or number; without exception of any. 3. With extension to every part of a definite whole; in every part or place; everywhere.

hence not subjective or relative to the individual.

And still you stand with morals are objective, and that is imposable seeing morals are the "what is good and evil" and that is only to the living in respect to what is good for the living being. Eating the mouse is good for the cat because it sustains the cat"s wellbeing, and is evil to the mouse who experiences death in which in his case there is no wellbeing, and is not independent of the perceiving or thinking self.
But again morals are the rules of the agreement, betrayal just might be the essence of the ethics therefore. And agreements change or are fulfilled or nullified do to failure on all parties involved so on and so forth and without the agreement there is no "morals" only self-interest without mutual interest.

Even in the case of a judge, the judge is in agreement with the agreement or he wouldn"t be a judge (in ideal circumstances) therefore it"s relative to the judge and all that is in agreement of which anyone outside of that agreement isn"t bound to unless the outsider finds himself within the jurisdiction of the agreement.


If we assume the agreed upon actions were mutually beneficial. That they were healthy to both parties. Then I see no benefit in the betrayal.

But you see arguing that we can not imagine a goal of morality, or an agreement between parties, or a beneficial betrayal, Just because we can not imagine a reference in which betrayal is inconsistent with other references, doesn't make morality objective Not logically following at least. It is a conclusion based on ignorance.

that's assuming is correct, but assuming never finds the truth. one could argue that coming into agreement with one's enemy with the full intention of betraying that agreement is good for the allies of the betrayer. it goes on in war and politics all the time.

So what I would say is that Ethical, institutionalized behavior... to emotional empathetic reasoning for Moral behavior. IS generally consistent among all humans. And there for it is as objective as Grey hair meaning old. As objective as breasts meaning arousal. As objective as breathing meaning life.

Na, human nature can have a constancy through out the human race because it is human nature, just as the nature of cats are constant in behavior or similar if you prefer, but morals are relative because it requires an agreement between two or more living beings with compatible understanding. and all agreements between humans would have similar nature, but case in point is the ten commandments of which the Israelis agreed to in the desert but their own nature could not fulfill with satisfactory results to the One in whom they were in a agreement with.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2016 4:47:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/17/2016 10:09:52 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:44:51 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:24:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?
Is it universally evil?
Wait here, I've got about 4 billion adults to get a consensus from. Seriously. Where do nut jobs like you come from? "Universally" , wow......btw, I kid......

I did mention later "for the lack of a better term" just can't think of a better term. some go with objective I guess. but it seems you're looking at it as if each individual has to decide if its evil or not before it's evil rather than its factually true that betrayal is evil no matter what anyone thinks.
That's the problem dp. How can something be factually true without input from what people think? Therefore the question "is betrayal evil factually true no matter what anyone thinks" is simply an impossible question to answer because someone somewhere has to think about betrayal and decide if it is evil. What people think has to be a part of the determination, because it's the thinking that "determines".
Note to self..stop doing this while I'm sleepwalking.......

nope thinking may assist in the pursuit of realizing something it factually true or not, but if something is factually true it is factually true no matter what one thinks or knows. man's brains are not the proof of existence, or that something exists. no matter what one thinks knows or don't know the truth is the truth. the mind doesn't prove something is. it perceives if something is and might be used to persuade another mind something is.

your are saying that the continents don't move by virtue of platonic movement, or the earth isn't round unless you know about it, that's as dense as it gets. your right, you are asleep.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 5:04:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 4:47:06 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:09:52 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:44:51 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:24:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?
Is it universally evil?
Wait here, I've got about 4 billion adults to get a consensus from. Seriously. Where do nut jobs like you come from? "Universally" , wow......btw, I kid......

I did mention later "for the lack of a better term" just can't think of a better term. some go with objective I guess. but it seems you're looking at it as if each individual has to decide if its evil or not before it's evil rather than its factually true that betrayal is evil no matter what anyone thinks.
That's the problem dp. How can something be factually true without input from what people think? Therefore the question "is betrayal evil factually true no matter what anyone thinks" is simply an impossible question to answer because someone somewhere has to think about betrayal and decide if it is evil. What people think has to be a part of the determination, because it's the thinking that "determines".
Note to self..stop doing this while I'm sleepwalking.......

nope thinking may assist in the pursuit of realizing something it factually true or not, but if something is factually true it is factually true no matter what one thinks or knows. man's brains are not the proof of existence, or that something exists. no matter what one thinks knows or don't know the truth is the truth. the mind doesn't prove something is. it perceives if something is and might be used to persuade another mind something is.
The truth is the truth.....circular reasoning
The mind doesn't prove something is true? Ok, what proves it?
It perceives that something is....? So as long as a mind perceives something is true it is true without that mind or another mind proving it.
your are saying that the continents don't move by virtue of platonic movement, or the earth isn't round unless you know about it, that's as dense as it gets. your right, you are asleep.
Straw man. Thoughts are not related to movements and knowing about the Earth being round is not what I'm saying causes the Earth to be round. I'm merely saying that it matters what anyone thinks. You say it doesn't. But you can't apply whether or not it matters without there being a mind to determine that it matters.
You can't say that the Earth is a sphere no matter what everyone thinks when everyone thinks its flat because at least one mind is thinking it is round. If you argue historically it's a historians fallacy. The logic would simply be that people weren't being illogical they were simply misinformed. Its not an argument from ignorance unless the information is known and ignored.
Emgaol
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 8:06:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?

(I'll just quote the wiki reference to save me typing.)
https://en.wikipedia.org...
"On 20 July 1944, an attempt was made to assassinate Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of Nazi Germany, perpetrated by Claus von Stauffenberg and other conspirators, inside his Wolf's Lair field headquarters near Rastenburg, East Prussia. The name Operation Valkyrie, originally referring to a component part of the conspirators' overall plot, has become associated with the event. The apparent purpose of the assassination attempt was to seize political control of Germany and its armed forces from the Nazi Party (including the SS) in order to obtain peace with the western Allies as soon as possible. The underlying desire of many of the involved high ranking Wehrmacht officers was apparently to show to the world that not all Germans were like Hitler and the Nazi Party."

In your opinion, was this betrayal evil?
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:10:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 5:04:45 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:47:06 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:09:52 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:44:51 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:24:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?
Is it universally evil?
Wait here, I've got about 4 billion adults to get a consensus from. Seriously. Where do nut jobs like you come from? "Universally" , wow......btw, I kid......

I did mention later "for the lack of a better term" just can't think of a better term. some go with objective I guess. but it seems you're looking at it as if each individual has to decide if its evil or not before it's evil rather than its factually true that betrayal is evil no matter what anyone thinks.
That's the problem dp. How can something be factually true without input from what people think? Therefore the question "is betrayal evil factually true no matter what anyone thinks" is simply an impossible question to answer because someone somewhere has to think about betrayal and decide if it is evil. What people think has to be a part of the determination, because it's the thinking that "determines".
Note to self..stop doing this while I'm sleepwalking.......

nope thinking may assist in the pursuit of realizing something it factually true or not, but if something is factually true it is factually true no matter what one thinks or knows. man's brains are not the proof of existence, or that something exists. no matter what one thinks knows or don't know the truth is the truth. the mind doesn't prove something is. it perceives if something is and might be used to persuade another mind something is.
The truth is the truth.....circular reasoning
The mind doesn't prove something is true? Ok, what proves it?
It perceives that something is....? So as long as a mind perceives something is true it is true without that mind or another mind proving it.
your are saying that the continents don't move by virtue of platonic movement, or the earth isn't round unless you know about it, that's as dense as it gets. your right, you are asleep.
Straw man. Thoughts are not related to movements and knowing about the Earth being round is not what I'm saying causes the Earth to be round. I'm merely saying that it matters what anyone thinks. You say it doesn't. But you can't apply whether or not it matters without there being a mind to determine that it matters.
You can't say that the Earth is a sphere no matter what everyone thinks when everyone thinks its flat because at least one mind is thinking it is round. If you argue historically it's a historians fallacy. The logic would simply be that people weren't being illogical they were simply misinformed. Its not an argument from ignorance unless the information is known and ignored.

what are you talking about this isn't a third grade classroom Earth is a sphere no matter what everyone thinks there I said it and it's true no matter who does or doesn't know it.

whatever is out in space that hasn't been discovered yet is, and is still there whatever it is, whether mankind is aware of it or not. therefore, the truth is the truth no matter what the truth is. it's not circular, but maybe that is making you dizzy.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 3:12:37 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 8:06:22 AM, Emgaol wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?


(I'll just quote the wiki reference to save me typing.)
https://en.wikipedia.org...
"On 20 July 1944, an attempt was made to assassinate Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of Nazi Germany, perpetrated by Claus von Stauffenberg and other conspirators, inside his Wolf's Lair field headquarters near Rastenburg, East Prussia. The name Operation Valkyrie, originally referring to a component part of the conspirators' overall plot, has become associated with the event. The apparent purpose of the assassination attempt was to seize political control of Germany and its armed forces from the Nazi Party (including the SS) in order to obtain peace with the western Allies as soon as possible. The underlying desire of many of the involved high ranking Wehrmacht officers was apparently to show to the world that not all Germans were like Hitler and the Nazi Party."

In your opinion, was this betrayal evil?

I asked you first.
Emgaol
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 8:47:47 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:12:37 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/19/2016 8:06:22 AM, Emgaol wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?


(I'll just quote the wiki reference to save me typing.)
https://en.wikipedia.org...
"On 20 July 1944, an attempt was made to assassinate Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of Nazi Germany, perpetrated by Claus von Stauffenberg and other conspirators, inside his Wolf's Lair field headquarters near Rastenburg, East Prussia. The name Operation Valkyrie, originally referring to a component part of the conspirators' overall plot, has become associated with the event. The apparent purpose of the assassination attempt was to seize political control of Germany and its armed forces from the Nazi Party (including the SS) in order to obtain peace with the western Allies as soon as possible. The underlying desire of many of the involved high ranking Wehrmacht officers was apparently to show to the world that not all Germans were like Hitler and the Nazi Party."

In your opinion, was this betrayal evil?

I asked you first.

Oh, very well then, I thought the example was sufficient.
Applying the adjective "evil" to any act is subjective, thus betrayal is not universally evil.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 9:46:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 8:47:47 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 4/19/2016 3:12:37 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/19/2016 8:06:22 AM, Emgaol wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?


(I'll just quote the wiki reference to save me typing.)
https://en.wikipedia.org...
"On 20 July 1944, an attempt was made to assassinate Adolf Hitler, Fuhrer of Nazi Germany, perpetrated by Claus von Stauffenberg and other conspirators, inside his Wolf's Lair field headquarters near Rastenburg, East Prussia. The name Operation Valkyrie, originally referring to a component part of the conspirators' overall plot, has become associated with the event. The apparent purpose of the assassination attempt was to seize political control of Germany and its armed forces from the Nazi Party (including the SS) in order to obtain peace with the western Allies as soon as possible. The underlying desire of many of the involved high ranking Wehrmacht officers was apparently to show to the world that not all Germans were like Hitler and the Nazi Party."

In your opinion, was this betrayal evil?

I asked you first.

Oh, very well then, I thought the example was sufficient.
Applying the adjective "evil" to any act is subjective, thus betrayal is not universally evil.

After giving it some thought during this thread it seems that like anything else that falls into the good and evil basket, it"s relative or subjective (relative is better) to whomever it may help or hinder in their pursuits or goals. Not because of your Nazi example, Hitler"s betrayal of treaties he agreed to was to the good of him and the Nazi goals in their own judgement.

It seemed it could be otherwise seeing betraying trust is the favorite way of those who would do wickedly. The up-right are faithful to their word given.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 10:46:58 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Applying.... Evil.
I argue that people tend to mistake moral judgements for moral facts. If I say betrayal is evil i really mean I judge betrayal to. be evil. Moral judgements are subjective- if x want think baby rape or blowing up trains full of people is OK, then they can think that. Buy if x thinks baby rape is OK and y thinks it is evil, does that mean that baby rape isn't one or the other? That seems to be what a lot of people ddo think. But suppose x thinks the world is flat and y thinks it is a globe- does that mean the shape of the earth is 'subjective', a mere matter of opinion?
We don't use the existence of flat-earthets to 'prove' the shape of the earth is subjective, so what is the justification for using the existence of Nazis and perverts to'prove' morality is subjective?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:10:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/18/2016 4:25:46 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:28:35 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/14/2016 7:36:06 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:54:59 PM, SpiritandTruth wrote:

And still you stand with morals are objective, and that is imposable seeing morals are the "what is good and evil" and that is only to the living in respect to what is good for the living being. Eating the mouse is good for the cat because it sustains the cat"s wellbeing, and is evil to the mouse who experiences death in which in his case there is no wellbeing, and is not independent of the perceiving or thinking self.

There are problems with your cat and mouse example. 1. it attempts to assert that morals are relative by asserting that the same action is morally "good" for one side and relative to the other side morally "bad". It's assuming that the cat or mouse want to accomplish morally good tasks.

Let's make the example a robber who shoots a store clerk. The robber is morally good because he wants to feed his family with the money stolen? In a morally relativistic view such and example would be on par with your cat mouse example.

We know that humans do things that are morally wrong. Maybe the Cat is performing a morally "bad" action? Your argument of relative moral values on both sides of the coin only stands if the mouse and cat are obligated to be morally "good", which brings up another question. If something is physically incapable of performing in a different way, is it culpable for any morally "bad" actions?

That last question brings in the contention you had that the mouse dieing was morally "bad".

Quote :
Eating the mouse is good for the cat because it sustains the cat"s wellbeing, and is
evil to the mouse who experiences death in which in his case there is no wellbeing

Are you saying the cat is doing good and the mouse is doing bad? If the mouse has no choice in the matter, that the mouse physically has to die (albeit against it's wishes) The mouse shouldn't be responsible for the "evil" of death.

Maybe you intend to mean from one perspective the Cat killing the mouse is "good" and from another it is "bad". So you are ambivalent about the morality of the vat's behavior. Perhaps this conflict is not with the moral value of each perspective but a conflict between 2 objective morals. Such as we see sometimes in court when 2 sides have rights that conflict in a certain way. Right of press conflicting with the right to privacy. We make pragmatic decisions on which right trumps which.

Perhaps you can argue that Law is subjective, relative tot he individual. Not a hard case to make.

Or due to pragmatic reasons the Cat, is performing a morally "bad" action for ethical reasons.

Either way I don't think that example demonstrates moral relativism. And if moral relativism was true, then there would be no difference with the cat killing mouse, and the robber killing store keeper.

But again morals are the rules of the agreement, betrayal just might be the essence of the ethics therefore. And agreements change or are fulfilled or nullified do to failure on all parties involved so on and so forth and without the agreement there is no "morals" only self-interest without mutual interest.

Even in the case of a judge, the judge is in agreement with the agreement or he wouldn"t be a judge (in ideal circumstances) therefore it"s relative to the judge and all that is in agreement of which anyone outside of that agreement isn"t bound to unless the outsider finds himself within the jurisdiction of the agreement.

Well the parties agree to the jurisdiction of the judge to settle the contention surrounding the agreement. As citizen's they should be the ones electing their officials and by previous contract then agree to let the judge judge.

But this is a system to settle conflict. A system based upon social contracts, so I would put it in the realm of ethics. But.. We impeach and ask for the resignation of Judges. Somehow there is a standard by which we discern the moral character of a judge. And that moral standard would be objective morals. Such as a morally "bad" judge is one that accepts pay offs.

You yourself, are relying on a moral guideline to make an argument. In the Cta and Mouse example, You seem to equally accept that "the end justifies the means". You speak of benefit and the avoidance of harm as if they legitimize the action, or in the perspective of the mouse were insufficient to legitimize the action.



If we assume the agreed upon actions were mutually beneficial. That they were healthy to both parties. Then I see no benefit in the betrayal.

But you see arguing that we can not imagine a goal of morality, or an agreement between parties, or a beneficial betrayal, Just because we can not imagine a reference in which betrayal is inconsistent with other references, doesn't make morality objective Not logically following at least. It is a conclusion based on ignorance.


that's assuming is correct, but assuming never finds the truth. one could argue that coming into agreement with one's enemy with the full intention of betraying that agreement is good for the allies of the betrayer. it goes on in war and politics all the time.

Yes well war is deception. It doesn't make the point of relative morality if War and deception are immoral by an objective morality.


So what I would say is that Ethical, institutionalized behavior... to emotional empathetic reasoning for Moral behavior. IS generally consistent among all humans. And there for it is as objective as Grey hair meaning old. As objective as breasts meaning arousal. As objective as breathing meaning life.

Na, human nature can have a constancy through out the human race because it is human nature, just as the nature of cats are constant in behavior or similar if you prefer, but morals are relative because it requires an agreement between two or more living beings with compatible understanding. and all agreements between humans would have similar nature, but case in point is the ten commandments of which the Israelis agreed to in the desert but their own nature could not fulfill with satisfactory results to the One in whom they were in a agreement with.

"love is the fulfillment of the law." The Law is an agreement. But the stipulations that God wrote in the Ten commandments were inline with Objective Moral values. They didn't enumerate relative moral agreements.

An agreement is also struck by discussion. there was no discussion with the Ten Commandments. God wrote them out. ((tangent there was discussion between Moses and God in regards to the stipulations called the Law of Moses))

And you are correct it was a contract they could not bear. Because Human beings are selfish and corrupt, antithetical to "Love".

But if they had Love, they would have done morally correct things, They, and we could be, in accordance with the Objective Moral truths. And if they were inline with the Objective Moral Truths .. well fulfilling the law and not transgressing it would have been trivially accomplished.

Laws, legal agreements, well they don't establish Moral values. And "Good" contracts, and "Good" Legal council, and "Good" social agreements they adhere to, or follow Objective Moral truths. And we should strive to investigate what these truths are. So far I accept and affirm "The End justifies the Means" is one of them.

And it's the same statement people arguing for moral relativism accept. Only other opposition to Objective Morals would be Moral Nihilist.

Which you aren't arguing for so a short comment is Moral Nihilism doesn't attempt to answer the question, it just erases the question to begin with.
Emgaol
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 10:09:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 10:46:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Applying.... Evil.
I argue that people tend to mistake moral judgements for moral facts. If I say betrayal is evil i really mean I judge betrayal to. be evil. Moral judgements are subjective- if x want think baby rape or blowing up trains full of people is OK, then they can think that. Buy if x thinks baby rape is OK and y thinks it is evil, does that mean that baby rape isn't one or the other? That seems to be what a lot of people ddo think. But suppose x thinks the world is flat and y thinks it is a globe- does that mean the shape of the earth is 'subjective', a mere matter of opinion?
We don't use the existence of flat-earthets to 'prove' the shape of the earth is subjective, so what is the justification for using the existence of Nazis and perverts to'prove' morality is subjective?

It's fairly simple Keith, do you agree with me that von Stauffenberg's betrayal of Hitler was not evil?
If you (or anyone else) disagree(s) then you (or they) have proved my point; morality is subjective.
As for the shape of the Earth, that is not a question of morality, it is a question of Science.

There are many other issues which could be argued on moral grounds, such as:
Abortions, vaccinations, death penalty, separation of church and state, slavery, recognition of homosexual marriage, etc. Some of which you and I might disagree on. In which case, again, morality is subjective.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 11:06:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You miss my point. Say we disagree that slavery is evil. That disagreement is supposed to prove the morality of slavery is 'sunjective'. But if we disagree about the shape of the earth it does't mean geomorphology is subjective. Does disagreement prove subjectivity or not? It seems to me that disagreement only 'proves' subjectivity if you have already - unwittingly- decided morality is subjective.
If I think the world is flat and you think it's a globe- then one of is wrong. Why can't it be that if I support slavery iand you don't that one of us is simply wrong?
If its because 'morality is subjective so there' then fine, but we can't use disagreement to prove morality is subjective.
Our moral judgements are subjective-.but morality itself may be objective. We just make the wrong call sometimes.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 11:09:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
You miss my point. Say we disagree that slavery is evil. That disagreement is supposed to prove the morality of slavery is 'subjective'. But if we disagree about the shape of the earth it does't mean geomorphology is subjective. Does disagreement prove subjectivity or not? It seems to me that disagreement only 'proves' subjectivity if you have already - unwittingly- decided morality is subjective.
If I think the world is flat and you think it's a globe- then one of is wrong. Why can't it be that if I support slavery iand you don't that one of us is simply wrong?
If its because 'morality is subjective so there' then fine, but we can't use disagreement to prove morality is subjective.
Our moral judgements are subjective-.but morality itself may be objective. We just make the wrong call sometimes.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 4:22:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 4:10:43 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:25:46 PM, DPMartin wrote:
There are problems with your cat and mouse example. 1. it attempts to assert that morals are relative by asserting that the same action is morally "good" for one side and relative to the other side morally "bad". It's assuming that the cat or mouse want to accomplish morally good tasks.

Let's make the example a robber who shoots a store clerk. The robber is morally good because he wants to feed his family with the money stolen? In a morally relativistic view such and example would be on par with your cat mouse example.

We know that humans do things that are morally wrong. Maybe the Cat is performing a morally "bad" action? Your argument of relative moral values on both sides of the coin only stands if the mouse and cat are obligated to be morally "good", which brings up another question. If something is physically incapable of performing in a different way, is it culpable for any morally "bad" actions?

That last question brings in the contention you had that the mouse dieing was morally "bad".

Point taken but now that you mention it, it is presumed that both the cat and the mouse have a will to survive and not surviving is contrary to that will not matter how you slice it. So even in that context of what is good for or not good for it is still relative, not to mention man"s concepts of morals, which is still relative to the judgement of the beholder. Morals are a human thing, what is good for and not good for is relative and since morals are based on what is mutually good for more than one party. The same applies. If you brake the contract (agreement) you forfeit the benefits of the contract and suffer consequence should it be in the contract, or a superseding contract.

"love is the fulfillment of the law." The Law is an agreement. But the stipulations that God wrote in the Ten commandments were inline with Objective Moral values. They didn't enumerate relative moral agreements.

sorry that is a Christian "the Christians right to rule the world" view, mostly catholic in origin. for some dump reason they think because God made an agreement, it's with everyone. which is totally incorrect, the Lord God of the Bible has a history of coming into agreements with and through one person, Adam, Noah, Abraham, King David, and of course all are saved through Jesus Christ no other, that is also an agreement.
and coming into agreement with the children of Israel who is Jacob son of Isaac son of Abraham was promised to Abraham. and the ten commandments are an agreement God Himself called them a covenant that in English means agreement, contract, and was relative to Him and His people the Children of Israel go back and read it. and that covenant wasn't with the children of anyone else. which makes it relative to God and those He is in agreement with. more like they with Him. and that would brake down to one thing, God is the Judge of what is good for His creation, no exceptions. and because that one thing wasn't honored by Adam, here we are.


To the cat the end justifies the means to the Jews that were suffering Nazi persecution bombing and killing Germans would be justified. To the Germans not so much, and in the Nazi"s own judgment how they treated the Jews was justified, perceiving it was good for them to eradicate the Jews. To the clerk being robbed shooting the perp to save his own life is justified and good for him, to the robber not good.

It"s all based on the same premise, that what is good for, and not good for. And in human interaction there must be an agreement on what that is, else all is fair, without any guilt of betraying of some kind of agreement. That is what "Morals" are. Friendships, laws, national treaties, marriages, households, business dealings and transactions, so on and so forth. You walk down a public street it"s agreed that someone isn"t supposed to take out a gun and shoot you unless you have given that person justification to do so and that justification is agreed to in the law that would regulated that circumstance as to what is justified and not.

But if there"s no law or agreement, then there is no accountability or consequence because one is not guilty of braking an agreement. What is good for, and evil for is relative. And only to the living. And human endeavors require agreements between each other, and therein is "morals" which are relative to those bound to the agreement.
keithprosser
Posts: 1,904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 10:11:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
The Nazis didn't attempt genocide because they thought genocide morally good but because they thought the world would be a better place without 'untermensch'.
If we accept that genocide is objectively wrong (which is easier than accepting it is objectively good) then the Nazis made an error in their moral judgement, or in their perception of what is moral was mistaken.
I do not think the fact that the Nazis considered genocide justified as a means to an end casts the slightest doubt on the fact that genocide is objectively evil.
Likewise a man who shoots a shop clerk did abad thing, even if his moral judgement was clouded by his family's problems. Murder is objectively wrong.
The Nazis and the shop raider judged their actions s the lesser of two evils. They judged wrong - they did not cast any doubt on the objective evil of genocide and murder.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 11:43:54 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 10:46:58 PM, keithprosser wrote:
Applying.... Evil.
I argue that people tend to mistake moral judgements for moral facts. If I say betrayal is evil i really mean I judge betrayal to. be evil. Moral judgements are subjective- if x want think baby rape or blowing up trains full of people is OK, then they can think that. Buy if x thinks baby rape is OK and y thinks it is evil, does that mean that baby rape isn't one or the other? That seems to be what a lot of people ddo think. But suppose x thinks the world is flat and y thinks it is a globe- does that mean the shape of the earth is 'subjective', a mere matter of opinion?
We don't use the existence of flat-earthets to 'prove' the shape of the earth is subjective, so what is the justification for using the existence of Nazis and perverts to'prove' morality is subjective?

I agree. And I like the example of the Earth flat or round. Objectively the Earth is X shape. But people disagree over it. But the shape of the Earth is easier to discern than Objective Morals. Because Objective morals are abstract.

But abstract doesn't have to mean subjective, or non-existent. It means immaterial. And that's why in another thread I used an example of numbers.

2+2=4 is true. Does it remain true even if there were no minds around? I think so. But some would say numbers are purely mental objects. And it seems to me that they are implying mental objects are "subjective".

Okay Let's say I concede with that. Let's say 2+2=4 is a subjective mental object. Does that mean it's relative? that someone who holds 2+2=5 is just as correct? That their mental object is not wrong.

No. We read equations and some of those equations have no parallel with real world objects. And yet we can still discern if they are Mathematically true. And despite being abstract purely mental constructions we KNOW when an equation is wrong.

And you see people arguing for what is right and what is wrong. And I think those are judgements. And they use similar justifications. Action X is immoral because it pains A,B, and C.. and then there opponent counters Action X is Moral because it alleviates pains D,E, and G.

that's why I say we know of at least one Objective Moral value. The End justifies the Means. And it is mental. And genetically by definition maybe that makes it "subjective" but not necessarily relative.

((you should reply instead of add it's hard to follow your great comments))
Emgaol
Posts: 134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 3:14:19 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/20/2016 11:06:19 AM, keithprosser wrote:
You miss my point. Say we disagree that slavery is evil. That disagreement is supposed to prove the morality of slavery is 'sunjective'. But if we disagree about the shape of the earth it does't mean geomorphology is subjective. Does disagreement prove subjectivity or not? It seems to me that disagreement only 'proves' subjectivity if you have already - unwittingly- decided morality is subjective.
If I think the world is flat and you think it's a globe- then one of is wrong. Why can't it be that if I support slavery iand you don't that one of us is simply wrong?
If its because 'morality is subjective so there' then fine, but we can't use disagreement to prove morality is subjective.
Our moral judgements are subjective-.but morality itself may be objective. We just make the wrong call sometimes.
Every thought we have, every opinion we give, every reason we give to support our beliefs is subjective. If you can provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to convince me to reconsider my subjective opinion then I will gladly reconsider. The fact that there are now two of us with the same belief doesn't make it objectively true.

On whether the earth is flat or spherical, the flat earther has his subjective opinion and the spherical earther has his. The advantage the spherical earther has is that all of the available scientific evidence overwhelmingly supports a spherical earth. The flat earther may ignore or dismiss the scientific evidence and still maintain that the earth is flat. But, so what? Others who may be interested in the subject can make up their own minds as to whose argument sounds more rational.

Moral issues however result in mere differences of opinion. I gave the example of von Stauffenberg because in my opinion, von Stauffenberg's betrayal was not evil. I have thus given some of my reasoning for arguing that "betrayal" is not inherently evil.
Again I ask you for your opinion on von Stauffenberg's betrayal. If you think it was evil then I'd like to hear your reasoning. If it's because 'morality is objective so there' then fine.

You say: "Our moral judgements are subjective-.but morality itself may be objective." (My emphasis). I notice you use weasel words again in making your argument. Would you care to rephrase that so that it actually supports your argument? I could easily argue that morality itself may be, or may not be, objective. This doesn't establish anything as to the evidence for objective morality.

If there is an objective morality then what does it say in regard to betrayal?
Where is this objective morality?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:19:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At some point in the last few months the idea crept into ddo that because people disagreed over moral issues morality was 'therefore' subjective.
But why disagreement over morality implies morality is subjective but disagreement over the shape of the earth doesn't make geomorphology subjective has never been addressed.
The disagreement argument for the subjectivity of morality is not sound, so on that basis morality may be objective aftr all.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:50:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 3:10:57 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/19/2016 5:04:45 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/18/2016 4:47:06 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/17/2016 10:09:52 AM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:44:51 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 4/14/2016 10:24:18 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 4/14/2016 4:22:41 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Is betrayal evil?

And if so, then could it be evil only to the betrayed, or is it universally evil?
Is it universally evil?
Wait here, I've got about 4 billion adults to get a consensus from. Seriously. Where do nut jobs like you come from? "Universally" , wow......btw, I kid......

I did mention later "for the lack of a better term" just can't think of a better term. some go with objective I guess. but it seems you're looking at it as if each individual has to decide if its evil or not before it's evil rather than its factually true that betrayal is evil no matter what anyone thinks.
That's the problem dp. How can something be factually true without input from what people think? Therefore the question "is betrayal evil factually true no matter what anyone thinks" is simply an impossible question to answer because someone somewhere has to think about betrayal and decide if it is evil. What people think has to be a part of the determination, because it's the thinking that "determines".
Note to self..stop doing this while I'm sleepwalking.......

nope thinking may assist in the pursuit of realizing something it factually true or not, but if something is factually true it is factually true no matter what one thinks or knows. man's brains are not the proof of existence, or that something exists. no matter what one thinks knows or don't know the truth is the truth. the mind doesn't prove something is. it perceives if something is and might be used to persuade another mind something is.
The truth is the truth.....circular reasoning
The mind doesn't prove something is true? Ok, what proves it?
It perceives that something is....? So as long as a mind perceives something is true it is true without that mind or another mind proving it.
your are saying that the continents don't move by virtue of platonic movement, or the earth isn't round unless you know about it, that's as dense as it gets. your right, you are asleep.
Straw man. Thoughts are not related to movements and knowing about the Earth being round is not what I'm saying causes the Earth to be round. I'm merely saying that it matters what anyone thinks. You say it doesn't. But you can't apply whether or not it matters without there being a mind to determine that it matters.
You can't say that the Earth is a sphere no matter what everyone thinks when everyone thinks its flat because at least one mind is thinking it is round. If you argue historically it's a historians fallacy. The logic would simply be that people weren't being illogical they were simply misinformed. Its not an argument from ignorance unless the information is known and ignored.

what are you talking about this isn't a third grade classroom Earth is a sphere no matter what everyone thinks there I said it and it's true no matter who does or doesn't know it.
You gonna answer my question? You said the mind doesn't prove what the truth is....

"Who does of does not know it" changing the goal posts fallacy. We were discussing what people think. You're now attempting to change your logic to mean no matter what anyone "knows" as opposed to what anyone thinks. From that progression I would say this is 3rd grade yes. Nice dodge though.
A sphere is merely a word conceptualized by humans, therefore before the word was in existence and all synonyms aside, the Earth was not a sphere,it merely was. You keep claiming it doesn't matter "what everyone thinks" which is simply illogical. If you don't understand the difference between conceptualized descriptions and what people think you're missing the point. You cannot say the Earth is a sphere no matter what anyone thinks because the phrase itself, the Earth is a sphere, is what someone thinks.
whatever is out in space that hasn't been discovered yet is, and is still there whatever it is, whether mankind is aware of it or not. therefore, the truth is the truth no matter what the truth is. it's not circular, but maybe that is making you dizzy.
The truth is the truth no matter what the truth is.??
Hey not circular at all. You do realize that something outside the argument must verify it as the truth. Now you keep changing and evolving your "claimed" meaning of the phrase "no matter what anyone thinks". That's the phrase in issue not what anyone knows as you now want it to evolve into.