Necessary Evils: Poll and essay thread

[elder999]

Basing our morality on things that can be objectively defined as truth would prevent so many atrocities, I can't even begin to count. Imagine if we could all agree that every Homo Saipan was human and had unalienable rights?

I don't buy the argument that moral justification for society is merely a form of localized group think. We can apply logic to morality and live better.

Search on MArtialTalk for the "68 degree rule," John-truth is relative, not objective-facts are objective, but easily enough to ignore.

We cannot apply logic to morality across cultures-see more later.

First of all, Bill, aren't you Catholic? Don't you already have an answer for this question?

In the future, rationally defined ethics will tell you if you are right or wrong. It will be as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4.

Let's not confuse "ethics" with "morality," as they are two different , though related,things, okay? I'm sure we were discussing "morality."

Sorry, I was raised Catholic, so I know a thing or two about it. One thing I know is that they believe in absolute morality. So, I'm wondering how you rationalize this.

I think the core of Catholicism is actually relativistic morality, which is why it has been used to justify so much psychopathic behavior throughout history.

I think you need to look at what "moral relativisim" actually is, John, and stop conflating it with other things-psycopathic behavior is often its own justification-if not, there are plenty of other ways for the psycopath to justify his behavior to others-for himself, he needs no justification, as he considers himself beyond things like "morality." He accepts that others see his actions as "wrong," and may even accept that his actions are "wrong"

He just doesn't give a flying ****.


Now, as far as the cultural construct known as "morality" goes, and it's relation to "rationality,"-since tghat seems to be the particular altar you're bent upon worshipping at.

Rationality-science, if you like-tells us that, as much as our brains are equipped for "rational thought," and "logic,"they are mostly equipped for feelings. In spite of what is logical, or rational, or factual, we humans respond most to what we feel. To be fair, what we feel is a product of our cultural conditioning and rational thought, as much as or perhaps even more than what is instinctual. Thus it is that we have a near universal aversion to incest-it's icky.. And yet, within the moral framework of ancient Egypt-which had a religious and moral framework, now dead, but one that lasted for more than 2000 years more than Christianity has existed-brothers regularly marrying their sisters, because such behavior was not only morally accepted, it was expected. Likewise, while the thought of even considering sexually penetrating my daughter disgusts me-and you may think, rightfully so-there are tribal societies where the expected duty of a father is to ritually deflower his daughter. He would never leave such a task to man outside his family, or subject his daughter unprepared to such a thing on her wedding night-it wouldn't be.......moral.

Ethics will eventually follow suit. In the future humans will have a rationale proof for secular ethics. "Good" and "evil" will exist as provable concepts in a "unified field theory" of morality.

Never gonna happen. I think killing animals to eat them is "good," and others do not. I think imprisoning cetaceans at Sea World is a a great "evil," and others do not.

Philosophers have a lot of work to do on this concept. Right now people are convinced that the human universe is relative and that there are no real "laws" that govern human behavior. I think this is a twofold lie. On one hand, we don't know of any other place in the universe that isn't governed by laws, why would human interaction be any different? On the other hand, I think the concept of moral relativism is very convenient for the particular violent hierarchies in which we organize ourselves today. That's why these hierarchies invent religion with all kinds of top down morality for the masses and loopholes that excuse the elite managerial class from prohibitions against violence. Psychopaths have used religion, have used moral relativism to hide among us like vampires so they can prey at will.

I think that you have clearly demonstrated that you don't know the first thing about "moral relativisim," and you really don't know the first thing about psycopaths.

Yet, I think we're getting to the point where this is changing. Our society has reached the point where it can destroy itself at the drop of a hat and it seems to have hesitated. We have polluted to oceans so badly that we have trash islands larger than Texas and we're starting social actions to at least slow this. We've polluted our bodies so badly that my generation will be the first generation to be sicker, dumber, and poorer than our parents and some of us have rebelled against it.

I believe that all of this is governed by natural law.

"Natural law" says that we're do to wipe out at least half, and maybe more of the human population-the sooner, the better, and the problems you've described will be resolved, for a time.

he story of the human species is one of slowly recognizing each other as humans. From man to man, from man to woman, from parents to children, we've grown better and more peaceful as we've extended more and more natural rights to each other. Martin Luther King said, the arc of humanity bends toward justice. This arc is the rational proof of secular ethics.

ANd now I just want to sing "Kumbayah." Really? :lfao:

We're approaching it, but we still have a long way to go and people a lot smarter than me are going to figure this out. I don't think I will see this in my lifetime. I don't know if my children will see it.

What your children will se will be the natural progression of natural law. They'll either live safely through the crisis, or they'll be eaten.

Lastly, a note about psychopaths.

Which you clearly don't know the first thing about.

For the normal person, it takes conditioning to overcome the arc of justice, as MLK put it. For the psychopath, they need no conditioning. They are amoral and self serving, crystallized beings

If they are "amoral" ( and we are) they cannot be:

of universalized moral relativism

Okay?.

[

 

[Makalakumu]

As usual, I understand what you are saying, Jeff. I may have run this train of thought to the end of the line...and right off the cliff. I'm not sure, gotta take some time to consider a few points.

That said, here's an interesting book on a rational proof of secular ethics. It blew my mind. I never thought something like this was possible. Check it out!

http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/stef...secular-ethics/paperback/product-1749260.html

In many fairy tales, there lives a terrible beast of stupendous power, a dragon or a basilisk, which tyrannizes the surrounding lands. The local villagers tremble before this monster; they sacrifice their animals, pay money and blood in the hopes of appeasing its murderous impulses. Year after year, decade after decade, wave after wave of hopeful champions try to match their strength, virtue and cunning against this terrible tyrant. Try – and fail. Inevitably, a man steps forward who strikes everyone as utterly incongruous. He is a stable boy, a shoemaker’s son, a baker’s apprentice – or sometimes, just a vagabond. This book is the story of my personal assault on just such a beast. This “beast” is the belief that it is impossible to define an objective, rational, secular and scientific ethical system. This “beast” is the illusion that morality must forever be lost in the irrational swamps of gods and governments, forever lacking logical justification and clear definition..

 

[Makalakumu]

Here's a thought I had that i'd like to share. If evil is sometimes neccessary and morality is relative, aren't we actually placing power as the supreme human virtue? Are we saying that those who hold power in society are ultimate arbiters of good and evil?

If power is the sole human virtue, how do people really feel about their "spiritual" lives? Does it even matter?

If power is the sole human virtue, how do people contend with things like human rights which flow from "natural" law?

 

[elder999]

Here's a thought I had that i'd like to share. If evil is sometimes neccessary and morality is relative, aren't we actually placing power as the supreme human virtue? Are we saying that those who hold power in society are ultimate arbiters of good and evil?

That's a leap-whether in logic or simply intuitive-that you'll have to expand upon-evil may sometimes be necessary, and morality may be relative;though there's no doubt about where I stand on these matters, there are others have argued here on MartialTalk that morality is absolute.Accepting, though, that evil is sometimes necessary and morality is relative, I don't see how we're "actually placing power as the supreme human virtue," nor do I see how we're "saying that those who hold power in society are the ultimate arbiters of good and evil"

Many would argue, psycopaths and myself among them, that the individual is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil. "Morality," on the other hand, is a societal construct and standard-this is what makes it relative: what is moral for one society may not be for another, mand vice versa. On an individual level, there are societies within societies. I just finished a successful elk hunt-to me, it's a far more moral way of obtaining meat than purchasing it anonymously, hygenically prepared and packaged for consumption, and there is a subset of our society that agrees with me. For a Zen macrobiotic all-organic pro-animal rights vegan, I've just committed a horribly immoral crime-and really, here in this part of New Mexico, I've envcountered them, both at parties and on the drive home from my hunt, elk head sticking out of the bed of the pickup and all.....

If power is the sole human virtue, how do people really feel about their "spiritual" lives? Does it even matter?

Again, something of a leap, but I'll bite: my power flows, in part, directly from my spiritual life. Power without some sort of framework for its tempering and correct exercise invariably leads to excess-it may not be so much that "power corrupts," but that those who are attracted to it are, to a degree, already corrupt. By "those who are attracted to it" I mean, of course, everyone. :lfao:

If power is the sole human virtue, how do people contend with things like human rights which flow from "natural" law?

The right exercise of power is that which infringes upon human rights the least, or not at all. The use of power which infringes upon human rights is, by definition, evil, and may well be the root of all "necessary evils": imosing ones power in a way that abrogates an individual's or groups human rights for the greater good.

 

[Tgace]

I think y'all are misusing the term. IMO "evil" is not the same thing as an ugly necessity. Evil has evil "intent" or is so beyond the pale that its existence is evident.

Sending people to the "showers" because they are Jews? Evil.

Killing German soldiers in the course of war? An ugly necessity but not necessarily "evil". Not "good" but not evil either.

In the end, pulling out examples of ancient history as proof of relativism does little....what matters is standing up for what you believe is good and standing against what you know as evil in the moment in which you exist.

Holiness is in right action. Its what you believe in your head and heart and what you do that makes you good or bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvJFoOEOYpE&feature=related

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

I think y'all are misusing the term. IMO "evil" is not the same thing as an ugly necessity. Evil has evil "intent" or is so beyond the pale that its existence is evident.

Sending people to the "showers" because they are Jews? Evil.

Killing German soldiers in the course of war? An ugly necessity but not necessarily "evil". Not "good" but not evil either.

In the end, pulling out examples of ancient history as proof of relativism does little....what matters is standing up for what you believe is good and standing against what you know as evil in the moment in which you exist.

Holiness is in right action. Its what you believe in your head and heart and what you do that makes you good or bad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvJFoOEOYpE&feature=related

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Well, to invoke the famous thought experiment, and put some spin on it: you're invited to travel back in time, to commit a murder and ensure that a genocidal dictator doesn't come to power. Catch is, though, you can only go back in time to kill his mother....when she's 6 years old.

Do you do it? Do you view it as a "necessary evil?"

Remembver Psalm 137:Blesseed is the man ho smashes the heads of his enemies babies upon the rocks." The idea of keeping a baby from growing into a full grown, bearded Babylonian or Assyrian warrior had some appeal as a great good.

Additionally, while most might view some form of dispensation as being in order for those who take lives in war, for others it is simply-and absolutely-evil to take human life, under any circumstances-another instance that demonstrates the inherent relativism of a concept as nuanced as "morality." And, since I've still got my hunt on the brain (and under my fingernails, and in the small of my back....:lfao: ) I have to point out that for some my killing an elk is just as "evil" as killing a human being-that my going into its home and taking its life while it peacefully fed represents a true immorality.

 

[Tgace]

Its a stupid thought experiment. With as much real value as talking about what was seen as good 2000 years ago....


Id get surgical training and sterilize her....if we are fantasizing.

If it feels wrong than its wrong.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

If it feels wrong than its wrong.

:asian:

{And thus, it is relative.}

 

[Makalakumu]

If morality is determined by society and society is ruled by power, then morality is ruled by power. Is this the fundamental argument of the moral relativist?

 

[elder999]

If morality is determined by society and society is ruled by power, then morality is ruled by power.

Is society "ruled by power?"

Is this the fundamental argument of the moral relativist?

:lfao:

Mostly, no, but you have to explore what those words really mean, "moral relativist."

Just because I can see how someone else's actions could be viewed by them as moral, doesn't necessarily make them moral for me.

 

[Makalakumu]

Is society "ruled by power?"

:lfao:

Mostly, no, but you have to explore what those words really mean, "moral relativist."

Just because I can see how someone else's actions could be viewed by them as moral, doesn't necessarily make them moral for me.

Let's look at this in a deeper way. Why isn't an action moral for you? Is it because of the society in which you were educated? If so, how are the rules of society determined?

Why is one thing moral for you and not for another?

 

[elder999]

Its a stupid thought experiment. With as much real value as talking about what was seen as good 2000 years ago....


Id get surgical training and sterilize her....if we are fantasizing.\

The real value is in discerning how what one person or group views as "moral," another may not. As I posted upthread, for some tribal societies in the past (I don't know that the practice endures today) it was the very height of morality for fathers to ritually deflower their daughters-there were even a variety of rationales given to anthropologists about the practice. It was, at one time-in ancient Egypt, proper for sisters and brothers to marry, live together and have children as husband and wife, and this under the moral framework of a religious system that lasted 2,000 years more than Christianity has-this last demonstrates how, from a human and anthropological standpoint, morals are neither absolute nor unchanging. What was moral once is no longer, and what was immoral once may no longer be. What our society defines as "morality" today will not be what necessarily be the same mere decades from now.

 

[elder999]

Let's look at this in a deeper way. Why isn't an action moral for you?

I think Mr. Gace came awfully close to nailing it: if it feels wrong, then it is.

Of course, this presupposes that one can feel "right and wrong," as opposed to simply knowing the difference, vis a vis your psycopaths.

Is it because of the society in which you were educated?

Partly. Human societies have a near total aversion to incest, so the moral judgement of incest is nearly-but not entirely-universal. The idea is icky to most of us, so we judge those who might engage in it as "icky," that is to say, "wrong" or immoral.What makes an action immoral can also be the product of individual eduacation and reflection though: vegans who believe I'm immoral for hunting, for example, may not have been raised with that belief-in fact, it's been my experience that they typically are not. I watched Flipper as a kid, and enjoyed it, and really didn't think much one way or the other about my family's history of whaling. As I grew more educated about cetaceans, though, I came to view the captivity of such creatures-for our amusement, especially-as criminal, and to view my family's history with a bit of shame thrown into the mixture that wasn't present before. This all by the time I reached fuil adulthood, and the product of my own study and reflection.I

f so, how are the rules of society determined?

PRetty much the way rules of individual behavior are determined: we make them up.

I mean, put a headhunter from Borneo in the Wall Street boardroom of a company that's clearcutting timber on his hunting grounds, and somebody's gonna die....:lfao:

Whose to say who would be the immoral one in any of the possible ensuing scenarios, though?

Now, before your next question, a story:

In the peyote cerremony, a spoon is sometimes used. Peyote is often passed around the tepee in a powdered form, and the spoon is used to put the powder in one's hand, prior to eating it. Anthony, one of my teachers, once held up the spoon and said to several of us, This spoon is sacred. What makes it sacred?-well, we hemmed and hawed, or, in my case, stayed silent. One person said, "God." And Anthony said, No. I do. I make it sacred.Otherwise, it's just a spoon. Then he laughed....

Why is one thing moral for you and not for another?

Because I say so. Because it doesn't feel wrong to me, but it does for another. If I hold certain things to be "moral" or "immoral," and there are others who agree with me, then we form a society, of sorts, and those who disagree are clearly not part of it, though in their society it may be that what's "moral" and "immoral" are diametrically opposed to my own society's.

Put another way, you'll never convince an abortion clinic bomber of the "immorality" of his act, even if he killed children, any more than he'll convince you of its rightness.

Because I say so.

Can there be a society of one individual, though? Such a person might well be a psycopath-someone who does not feel what he does is "wrong," but recognizes that society does.

 

[Makalakumu]

So, let me sum it up, in society, morality is determined by what the individuals feel is right. Societies are constructed by individuals who believe similar things. Society makes rules to enforce morality. These rules are backed with the threat of force. The ability to force another person to do something is power.

Therefore, power is the driving force of morality within a society. Power is virtue.

 

[elder999]

So, let me sum it up, in society, morality is determined by what the individuals feel is right. Societies are constructed by individuals who believe similar things. Society makes rules to enforce morality. These rules are backed with the threat of force.

You might be-like others-confusing-or conflating-ethics, morals and law. No matter.

RUles aren't necessarily backed with the threat of force. THey might not even be rules.

Bros before hos, and the like come to mind, something about our near universal-and early-revulsion towards informants, snitches, and tattle-tales.

More to the point, while there may be a variety of moral judgements made about sexuality, these rules are not, typically, backed with the threat of force by the greater society-in fact, when such an instance of use of force takes place, it is typically prosecuted as a crime-this in spite of what a larger portion of the populace may feel about the morality of the victim of such acts/.

The ability to force another person to do something is power.

Another of those unecessary "intuitive" leaps of yours.

Therefore, power is the driving force of morality within a society. Power is virtue.

PRetty much no, and no.

The drivingt force of morality within a society is defined as its ethos-religion can be behind it, or an otherwise agreed upon set of principles, but it's part of the social contract that members of a society accept that society's morals.You needn't be part of a society-if you choose to belong to a society, you choose to accept its "morality," or get the greater society to accept a change in morality, as ours is doing with homosexuality.

Otherwise, you can just leave-or hide your "immoral" acts.

 

[Makalakumu]

Aren't laws simply an expression of a societies morality if society is what determines morality? Perhaps a societies mores are simply laws that haven't been put in the books?

If the latter is true, what does that say about common law?

Can you see where I'm leading?

 

[elder999]

Aren't laws simply an expression of a societies morality if society is what determines morality?

No. Laws a response to a peceived need to regulate all sorts of behavior: commercial and residential come to mind immediately, but also educational. Laws rule all sorts of much more pedestrian areas than "morality."

Perhaps a societies mores are simply laws that haven't been put in the books?

THere's nothing "simple" about it, as this discussion reveals. There are, as I pointed out, sub sets within societies that have their own morals. Our own society, her in the U.S., is greatly divided over all sorts of behaviors-and laws-and what constitutes "moral" behavior," and what should be permissible.

Always has been.

Not long ago, it wouldn't have been possible for an openly homosexual person to obtain the necessary clearances to work at my former employers. That is, of course, no longer so. In fact, though, there have always been openly homosexual employees at Los Alamos-since its inception. Or, at least, there have been those that the powers that be recognized as practicing homosexuals, and granted clearances to because they had otherwise unobtainable talent-an example, perhaps, of a necessary evil. Not long ago-even now, really, it wouldn't have been possible for a person with connections to the Communist party to get work in Los Alamos, yet, from the beginning, there have been such people-including Oppenheimer-another"necessary evil." More to the point, such distinctions: "commie," or "homo," seem quaint to most of us,now. The notion that two men might be arrested for going to bed together seems ridiculous to us, now. Yet such things happened.

Morals are relative.

Always have been.

If the latter is true, what does that say about common law?

The latter is, at best, only partially true.

Can you see where I'm leading?

No, John, quite frankly, I can't. You're trying to ascribe some sort of rational order to what is irrational and disorderly on its best days. At the end of the day, one has to forget about society, and do what's best for them. In this respects, we all must choose to be psycopaths, of a sort....:lol:

 

[Tgace]

Many of The Commandments have been seen as "right and wrong" fairly consistently by many people from various cultures. Stealing and killing have been seen as "bad" for millennium....what has been "relative" is that its been seen as good or bad in varying degrees when done to others. When its YOU and yours you are talking about the relativism tends to narrow.

Relative or otherwise...the person who has no sense of right or wrong or is unwilling to take a stand for what they believe is a just cause is someone I wouldn't want at my back.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Tgace]

. At the end of the day, one has to forget about society, and do what's best for them. In this respects, we all must choose to be psycopaths, of a sort....:lol:

And that mindset is why we remember and honor Hero's. Many men (and women) have given their lives out of love for their brothers.



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Makalakumu]

No, John, quite frankly, I can't. You're trying to ascribe some sort of rational order to what is irrational and disorderly on its best days. At the end of the day, one has to forget about society, and do what's best for them. In this respects, we all must choose to be psycopaths, of a sort....:lol:

I've always wondered if it was an illusion that humanity progresses toward a more just society. It seems that as time goes on and we become more capable of communicating we have less violence and we learn to live more peacefully. I fully agree that morality is a chaotic irrational mess. I don't know if there are some underlying principles that could one day be described rationally.

However, when I see videos like this, I wonder if there is something to the idea of progress.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7421959887856210325

Steven Pinker charts the decline of violence from Biblical times to the present, and argues that, though it may seem illogical and even obscene, given Iraq and Darfur, we are living in the most peaceful time in our species' existence.

It makes sense for us to rationally and peacefully live with each other. Everybody wins and more people can prosper in this situation. The optimist in me really hopes this is true because it means that the future will be brighter and perhaps my offspring will live in lighter days.

Perhaps as people become more rational, we discover that morality is reducible like other things in science. It's a sexy idea.