- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 96,122
- Reaction score
- 33,465
- Location
- SE Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm sure they do, but they don't care. They want money, like bank robbers.No, because there is no absolute morality that everyone subscribes to defining good and evil. People all have their own personal perceptions and opinions of what is good and what is evil.
For instance, considering that these pirates are humans and not animals do you think that they perceive what they are doing as evil?
I'm sure they do, but they don't care. They want money, like bank robbers.
It's a nice dodge, but you still define "evil" down to meaninglessness.
Every post you've directed at me.
By your own statement above, how can you know this?
And what is an "act of evil"?
Part of it yes. We have the capability of making these things, animals do not. Civilization exists because we have the ability to make it. Human isn't defined, however, through civilization. People can live outside "civilization", they're still human.
"Civilization" is not only physical, but a measure of the way in which we choose to live, i.e., accept cognitively that we should not always act by instinct if it brings harm to others. Much of the progress of which you speak is only possible because of those choices.
So, if you disregard that, if you act according to base instincts and leave the rules of civilization behind, then you become animalistic.
Obviously, you're still physically and genetically human. If anyone thought I was saying otherwise, well, that's just stupid.
"Civilization" is not only physical, but a measure of the way in which we choose to live, i.e., accept cognitively that we should not always act by instinct if it brings harm to others. Much of the progress of which you speak is only possible because of those choices.
So, if you disregard that, if you act according to base instincts and leave the rules of civilization behind, then you become animalistic.
Obviously, you're still physically and genetically human. If anyone thought I was saying otherwise, well, that's just stupid.
Good and evil become meaningless when you try to assign those attributes to a person instead of their actions.
I can understand the motivation of all kinds of crime, even heinous ones. That makes them no less evil.
Please point out exactly where I "judged" you. I don't even think I've assigned judgment to your posts, let alone your person.
My response is subjective, so you can't dispute it.How could you possibly be sure? Their motivation is money and to them money is good and they are willing to get it at whatever cost. That doesn't make them evil.
Social construct and morality is another aspect of human creation. A lot of the construction was in such a way as to maximize human's innate ability to think and create, the level of our advancement is possible in part because of that; it's true. People can reject that and leave that and live according to rules opposed to what society has dictated. But they are still in all senses of the word human.
How could you possibly be sure? Their motivation is money and to them money is good and they are willing to get it at whatever cost. That doesn't make them evil.
OK, first of all, I don't agree -- a person who knowingly, remorselessly, repeatedly engages in acts of evil can fairly be described as an evil person.
Capt. Tibbets said:Tibbets expressed no regret regarding the decision to drop the bomb. In a 1975 interview he said: "I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it, and have it work as perfectly as it did... I sleep clearly every night."[5] In March 2005, he stated, "If you give me the same circumstances,I'd do it again."
As in, the crimes are evil.
Right from the very first post when you scolded me about how calling them animals "gets us nowhere." What other conclusion can one draw than that you judged my post, my conduct, as wrong?
How could you possibly be sure? Their motivation is money and to them money is good and they are willing to get it at whatever cost. That doesn't make them evil.
You're splitting hairs; I largely said that.
Then let's go about the question in another way -- the accusation that you're "dehumanizing" someone is saying that you're devaluing that person.
Where does the special human value come in? In what sense is a human more valuable than other animals? Why is it so heinous to call a human an animal? (Because, of course, there's no question that humans are animals.)
It doesn't get us anywhere. Dehumanization is responsible for the worst atrocities of all time.
My response is subjective, so you can't dispute it.
Then there is no evil.
See how easy liberalism is, anything can mean anything you want.Exactly. No absolute evil anyway. There is only opinion.
And they want the money to fund their Jihad. And by your standard a man that murders for money is somehow less evil than a man who murders out of anger.
See how easy liberalism is, anything can mean anything you want.
Perhaps, but you'd have to be infinitely familiar with those people to understand their knowledge and their level of remorse.
You must also take circumstances into account and put yourself in that persons shoes. For instance, Captain Tibbets dropped a bomb that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese and he'll go to his deathbed claiming what he did was right.
It doesn't get us anywhere.
Dehumanization is responsible for the worst atrocities of all time.
What do you mean by worst atrocities? Using your moral relativism these atrocities were perfectly justifiable. Put yourself in the place of a Hitler, he believed that the Jew was destroying Germany, and he felt that the only way to protect his kin and kith was to exterminate world Jewry, after all who are you to judge his motivations and his actions? Good and evil after all is subjective. :doh Dehuminization maybe responsible for the worst atrocities of all time but moral relativism is what is used to justify them.
Exactly. No absolute evil anyway. There is only opinion.
Humans are a form of animal, but a form never before seen on this planet. A vastly superior form at that. In the brief time we've been on this planet, we've completely colonized the planet, radically reshaped it (not in the physical shape of the planet, but environmentally and such), escaped its gravity, and even scratched at the surface of understanding the base of the universe itself. Our intellect separates us from the herd and allows us to dominate the rest. While many species have varying degrees of intelligence, no species comes close to the level of intelligence and extelligence innately possessed by humans. We are the superior species till a better one comes along.
I've always likened humans to the mage class of RPGs. Not strong, not fast, not nimble. Nature neglected all other attributes which are found in other animals and focuses almost exclusively on intelligence. One on one against most other animals, the human is screwed. We're rather fragile when compared to much of the rest of the animal kingdom. But we can think and we can create, and because of that we can dominate. We may not win at arm wrestling a bear, but we sure as hell can invent the gun to kill the bear before it gets to that stage.
Then there is no right, either. And there's no point to any of this, no point to politics; no policy is any better than any other. No form of government and no act of government is any better than any other. There is no better or worse, there is only difference. People living free; people being herded into gas chambers -- it's all the same.
It's always fun to use hyperbole in lieu of actually discussing the topic, isn't it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?