What is Root of All Evil?

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

What is Root of All Evil?

Post #1

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

It's not money, fame, power or sex. A moral/legal double standard is the root of all evil. Those that want to subvert the rights of others to their own can only justify their evil by declaring that morality is subjective, which would immediately castrate any possible concept of morality at all. These purveyors of subjective morality know it's an absurd contradiction, but their skill is in keeping a straight face on both faces.
Truth=God

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Re: What is Root of All Evil?

Post #11

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Bust Nak wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: People on this site are "justifying" the Holocaust due to subjective morality.
Morality is either subjective or objective. We are no more "justifying" the Holocaust due to subjective morality then we are "justifying" all the virtue of the world due to subjective morality.
If you say something is subjectively moral, that means it be changed to anything you or the state has the power to enforce. What I'm doing here is echoing the cynical meaning of justification for subjective morality, because you are right, it is an oxymoron, we can't "justify" anything with subjective morality, but we do, all the time,--like slavery, or political correctness. That's my point.
Who is this "we?" We aren't justifying it, because it makes no sense. I've never see anyone say slavery is moral because morality is subjective.[/quote]

But we're seeing the same thing when people say the Holocaust is moral because morality is subjective. What do you think they mean when they say something like that?
Exactly, under subjective morality we decide individually (or by mob rule) whether genocide, slavery, rape, torture, pedophilia, human sacrifice etc. are "justified" or not.
Why is justified in quote? Who has ever say that Holocaust was moral because morality is subjective?
They're those saying it right here on this site. Those who won't acknowledge it, are just sweeping it under the rug. Subjective morality is irrational, it's an oxymoron, which is why it is used, because making a rational argument isn't possible, but in their eyes, being irrational is it's own excuse.
You do see the difference between saying "this pizza is tasty because I love the smoky bacon topping on it" and "this pizza is tasty because taste is a matter of opinion"? Have you ever hear anyone say anything resembling the latter?
Pizza is a moral issue? I think we're done here.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Re: What is Root of All Evil?

Post #12

Post by Bust Nak »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: But we're seeing the same thing when people say the Holocaust is moral because morality is subjective. What do you think they mean when they say something like that?
Seeing the same what exactly? I have never heard anyone say Holocaust is moral because morality is subjective. Who is saying anything like that?
They're those saying it right here on this site.
No, there aren't. And I should know, since I am the resident moral subjectivist here.
Those who won't acknowledge it, are just sweeping it under the rug.
If they said it, the forum would perserve it, whether they acknowledge it or not. Quote them. Find me a quote along the lines of XYZ is moral/immoral/good/evil because morality is subjective, or because morality is a matter of opinion.
Subjective morality is irrational, it's an oxymoron, which is why it is used, because making a rational argument isn't possible, but in their eyes, being irrational is it's own excuse.
Making a rational argument isn't possible BECAUSE moral is subjective. You can't argue about tastes. It's strange how you accept our premises but reject the conclusion.
Pizza is a moral issue?
No, but both pizza and morality are matters of opinion.
I think we're done here.
Great, I love having the last word.

connermt
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5199
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:58 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #13

Post by connermt »

[Replying to post 10 by ThePainefulTruth]
so what should we do, ignore evil?
No
...if you say no, don't we have to be able to understand evil enough so that it's recognizable, in order to avoid it?
It's unavoidable as it's part of what makes us us. "Evil" is a judgement of an action, nothing more.
There's no evil storm or animal (or car or word or book, etc). Storms are storms and animals are animals (etc). The actions of storms/animals/etc may (or may not) be called evil by some (and not by others).
Looking at things called evil today:
Hitler. Many consider him evil. He likely didn't. Many of his followers didn't. Some still today might not. Does that mean Hitler's 'evil' - end of story? It depends on whom you ask and the totality of Hitler's actions.
Maybe if Hitler did one good thing, he can't be considered 'evil'? Not that this is my view - simply thinking out loud.
So no, we aren't to ignore it since that does nothing but.... :confused2: ignore it. Things that are/will be called evil will happen as long as people exist and accept that actions can be evil so ignoring it won't 'make it go away'.
Are we to understand it? Perhaps, but that still won't make it go away. Will it help us avoid it? Not IMO, simply because what we do now, today, may, at some point in the future, be considered 'evil'.
Basically:
Our 'understanding' &/or 'ignoring of evil' has not, and will not, help eliminate nor avoid it as evil is determined by others throughout time. Neither 'time' or 'others' are within our control as an overall ideal.

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #14

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Bust Nak wrote:No, but both pizza and morality are matters of opinion.

I love having the last word.
8-)

connermt wrote: [Replying to post 10 by ThePainefulTruth]
so what should we do, ignore evil?

No
...if you say no, don't we have to be able to understand evil enough so that it's recognizable, in order to avoid it?


It's unavoidable as it's part of what makes us us. "Evil" is a judgement of an action, nothing more.
So since we agree that we shouldn't ignore evil, I could use my judgement and say what you just said there is evil, and further, using my best subjective judgement, I executed you. Not a jury or judge would convict me in the court of all is subjective opinion. My only defense needed is, "My intentions were pure and I believed it was right, I rest my case, and may he rest in peace." Court dismissed, sine die.
Our 'understanding' &/or 'ignoring of evil' has not, and will not, help eliminate nor avoid it as evil is determined by others throughout time. Neither 'time' or 'others' are within our control as an overall ideal.
Ohhhhhhh, why'n't you say you were an anarchist? At least that make sense. Everyone is for universal morality and the closer to good order it brings us (or would bring us if we'd only focus on actual morality)--everyone that is except for anarchists and tyrants...with nihilists sitting on the fence, and you're vastly outnumbered, tens of millions to one, by materialists. Hmm, maybe the Truth will out after all.
Truth=God

connermt
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5199
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 5:58 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #15

Post by connermt »

[Replying to post 14 by ThePainefulTruth]
I could use my judgement and say what you just said there is evil, and further, using my best subjective judgement, I executed you. Not a jury or judge would convict me in the court of all is subjective opinion.
It depends on how the judge/court views your action and the laws of the area/time.
..why'n't you say you were an anarchist?
I never made that claim. Others could I suppose.
Everyone is for universal morality....
More accurately: "Everyone is for their version of universal morality..."
...maybe the Truth will out after all.
I'm not sure what that means so yes...no...maybe...? :confused2:

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #16

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

connermt wrote: [Replying to post 14 by ThePainefulTruth]
I could use my judgement and say what you just said there is evil, and further, using my best subjective judgement, I executed you. Not a jury or judge would convict me in the court of all is subjective opinion.


It depends on how the judge/court views your action and the laws of the area/time.
Of course, that's the point. They could acquit a murderer, or hang someone for murder they knew was innocent. Subjective means the reasons for doing something can be logical or ebb and flow with political whim--sort of like what our executive is doing right now, liberalism being the prime proponent of subjective morality and the law being whatever they say it is. Damn the Constitution, it's an instrument of objectivity. All you need is political clout, a police force and a sycophantic media to pull it off. People will eventually rise up, but it could be too late.
..why'n't you say you were an anarchist?
I never made that claim. Others could I suppose.
Yeah, I was going on the "walks like a duck" principle, no offense.
Everyone is for universal morality....
More accurately: "Everyone is for their version of universal morality..."
That's an easy accusation to make because more often than not it's true. But does that mean we should throw the objective baby out with the subjective bathwater? I think I have a good objective morality model, based on a nearly universally recognized, reasonably deduced, moral code. But I so often can't get past the knee-jerkers, or the ones who actually want to "justify" their wrongdoing with subjectivity. Everyone rightfully imprisoned for a crime against a victim, or on his way, is a moral relativist.
...maybe the Truth will out after all.


I'm not sure what that means so yes...no...maybe...? :confused2:
I don't believe that Truth will eventually be victorious. It is entirely dependent on it's defenders to stand up for it against the slick purveyors of SM. If the world is destroyed, it will be at the hands of a lunatic or an SMer. Some people just want to watch the world burn, literally. Hitler was one. First the Jews, oddballs and gypsies; then when he'd lost, he ordered a scorched earth, but his orders weren't carried out. All that "justified" by subjective morality, which is what they're calling it now instead of National Socialism. Lenin's crowning achievement (credit dubious) was his cynical term, useful idiots. Whoever used it were a self-serving elite reserving their greatest contempt for their own naïve underlings. Of course some find out about that contempt, and leave, but most don't or won't. A little bit of power is addictive, and blinding. Even the lowly pawn is usually credited by the knights and bishops with some degree of awareness.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Post #17

Post by Bust Nak »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: Some people just want to watch the world burn, literally. Hitler was one. First the Jews, oddballs and gypsies; then when he'd lost, he ordered a scorched earth, but his orders weren't carried out. All that "justified" by subjective morality, which is what they're calling it now instead of National Socialism.
What made you think Hitler was a subjectivist? His work indicated that he was an objectivist, he insisted he was only doing what was morally right. What makes National Socialism subjective?

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #18

Post by Neatras »

To put it simply, the root of all evil isn't grounded in an abstract like ethics or conventional goodwill. The standard to present something as evil never arose from a universal desire to eradicate it. It's simply a twisted aberration of language. A composition of words meant to elicit fear and loathing toward opposing forces.

Leaders, priests, and icons of the past are maestros of wordplay and vicious other methods. When one finds the correct method of corralling their followers and pitting them against another group, they will undoubtedly use that method. Machiavellian leaders used fear of the hierarchy to enforce subordination. Militaristic leaders used fear of the enemy to enforce subordination. But to create any fear at all, you have to determine the will of your followers, weigh what they want and what they're willing to do to get it, and then simply declare that your enemies are against those values.

The root of all evil lies in whatever you personally don't like, because that root will be twisted and used by leaders to manipulate and control the community.

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #19

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Neatras wrote: To put it simply, the root of all evil isn't grounded in an abstract like ethics or conventional goodwill. The standard to present something as evil never arose from a universal desire to eradicate it. It's simply a twisted aberration of language. A composition of words meant to elicit fear and loathing toward opposing forces.
It can be that of course. A subjectivist can call something anything they want. But saying murder is OK for Hitler but not for Ghandi, is to establish a moral double standard no matter how one tries to rationalize it, it's irrational.
Leaders, priests, and icons of the past are maestros of wordplay and vicious other methods. When one finds the correct method of corralling their followers and pitting them against another group, they will undoubtedly use that method. Machiavellian leaders used fear of the hierarchy to enforce subordination. Militaristic leaders used fear of the enemy to enforce subordination. But to create any fear at all, you have to determine the will of your followers, weigh what they want and what they're willing to do to get it, and then simply declare that your enemies are against those values.
Your point appears to be that demagogs exist. So what? What of the target of the demagogue who see his forces advancing in an invasion? Is their only option to resort to similar demagoguery? Can victims not defend themselves rationally and honorably?
The root of all evil lies in whatever you personally don't like,
For subjectivististic oppressors wishing to enforce their moral double standard, yeah.
because that root will be twisted and used by leaders to manipulate and control the community.
Yes it can, and has been. But that doesn't mean all leaders do, or all followers are dupes. Talk about absolutism.

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #20

Post by Neatras »

ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Neatras wrote: To put it simply, the root of all evil isn't grounded in an abstract like ethics or conventional goodwill. The standard to present something as evil never arose from a universal desire to eradicate it. It's simply a twisted aberration of language. A composition of words meant to elicit fear and loathing toward opposing forces.
It can be that of course. A subjectivist can call something anything they want. But saying murder is OK for Hitler but not for Ghandi, is to establish a moral double standard no matter how one tries to rationalize it, it's irrational.
The double standard is an effective tool used by leaders in the past, of course. Revolutionaries will talk about the injustice of the hierarchy, then seat themselves at the top and simply change the name of the oppressor.
Leaders, priests, and icons of the past are maestros of wordplay and vicious other methods. When one finds the correct method of corralling their followers and pitting them against another group, they will undoubtedly use that method. Machiavellian leaders used fear of the hierarchy to enforce subordination. Militaristic leaders used fear of the enemy to enforce subordination. But to create any fear at all, you have to determine the will of your followers, weigh what they want and what they're willing to do to get it, and then simply declare that your enemies are against those values.
Your point appears to be that demagogs exist. So what? What of the target of the demagogue who see his forces advancing in an invasion? Is their only option to resort to similar demagoguery? Can victims not defend themselves rationally and honorably?
Rational and diplomatic sessions have occurred in history. This is only natural. I'm just trying to lay out scenarios where the 'root of all evil' has been manifested in speeches to promote chaos or war.
The root of all evil lies in whatever you personally don't like,
For subjectivististic oppressors wishing to enforce their moral double standard, yeah.
Agreed. But given your patterns of speaking, it seems you think there's something more.
because that root will be twisted and used by leaders to manipulate and control the community.
Yes it can, and has been. But that doesn't mean all leaders do, or all followers are dupes. Talk about absolutism.
That's not what I intended to say. I'm trying to say it's happened throughout all of history, not that all humans instantly fall into this category. If I failed to make that clear, I apologize.

Post Reply