What is Root of All Evil?

[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.

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

Yes, but it's still a double-standard and false justification for rationalizing the elite's special moral status.

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.

You seem to be making my point. Are you saying there is no double standard, or that there is, but it's necessary....or what?

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.

More than what? If you're thinking I'm appealing to the divine, I'm not. I'm a deist, and for our intents and purposes, there's no difference between that and atheism. We must deduce a moral code on our own, it just happens that the shamans and politicians invented demagoguery long before scientists invented reason.

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.

None needed, and I agree with your last statement completely. But how does that affect the use of the double standard by the many who do, or our using it as the dead giveaway for evil that it is?

[Bust Nak]

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.

You say that like objectivists are immune from saying murder is OK for Hitler but not for Ghandi.

For subjectivististic oppressors wishing to enforce their moral double standard, yeah.

And you say that like objectivististic oppressors wishing to enforce their moral double standard don't think that.

Objectivists are guilty of far more wrong doing than subjectivists, if only because you guys have been in charge for far too long.

[connermt]

[Replying to post 16 by ThePainefulTruth]

Yeah, I was going on the "walks like a duck" principle, no offense.

So long as it's on record....

But does that ["Everyone is for their version of universal morality..."] mean we should throw the objective baby out with the subjective bathwater?

Probably depends on the person asked - again.

I think I have a good objective morality model, based on a nearly universally recognized, reasonably deduced, moral code.

I would think most everyone (99.99999%?) would say the same thing about themselves. Rather or not it's true....
This reminds me of the conversation I recently had with someone who was defending Noah's flood - that it was the moral thing to do from a supreme deity capable of anything. Obviously, their moral 'code' was much different than mine. In other words, I considered my code as being superior to theirs.

I don't believe that Truth will eventually be victorious.

Got it. Yeah, it's nice to think about - and maybe it will. But we will never know in the long run (not to mention defining what the 'Truth' is).

[ThePainefulTruth]

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.

You say that like objectivists are immune from saying murder is OK for Hitler but not for Ghandi.

Objectivism isn't a social/political/religious group, it's a stance on rationality. If someone says that, they wouldn't be an objectivist.

For subjectivististic oppressors wishing to enforce their moral double standard, yeah.

And you say that like objectivististic oppressors wishing to enforce their moral double standard don't think that.

Ditto above.

Objectivists are guilty of far more wrong doing than subjectivists, if only because you guys have been in charge for far too long.

Objectivists have almost never been in charge. When has there not been a legal/moral double standard for an elite oligarchy or despot. Actually, not even the early US qualifies, given slavery and non-universal suffrage. And no sooner do we start eliminating racism, than Johnson ushers in the era of inside the Beltway government, double standard for corruption. "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years"--LBJ to two governors on AF One in defense of his War on Poverty and Great Society programs for keeping blacks down on the Plantation. 50 years and counting. Call it the new KKK, matched bookends with the New Black Panthers.

[Bust Nak]

Objectivism isn't a social/political/religious group, it's a stance on rationality.

Rationality you say. Explain, in detail, what made you think that an objectivist cannot hold that murder is OK for Hitler but not for Ghandi. Go step by step, from the premise that morality is not a matter of opinion but of brute fact, to the conclusion along the lines of, therefore it is not the case that murder is OK for Hitler but not for Ghandi.

If someone says [murder is OK for Hitler but not for Ghandi], they wouldn't be an objectivist.

Trivially, someone who holds that "it is objectively true that murder is OK for Hitler but not for Ghandi" would be a objectivist by definition.

Objectivists have almost never been in charge. When has there not been a legal/moral double standard for an elite oligarchy or despot...

Highlighting double standards is moot until you demostrate that someone who holds a double standard, cannot be an objectivist.

[jerryxplu]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

First you need to define what IS Evil. Then we can have a conversation.

If you just want to talk about evil in the generic term as the cause that make people go do "bad" things.

I would say it's the combination of the lack of education and poverty.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

First you need to define what IS Evil. Then we can have a conversation.

I already have. The root or source of all evil is the legal/moral double standard. Evil itself, if you will, is the act of using that double standard to violate the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense.

If you just want to talk about evil in the generic term as the cause that make people go do "bad" things.

The cause is the desire to violate the rights of others, symbolized as the devil inside. We're all subject to such temptations, but most of us rarely submit to them. Violation of individually determined virtues is much more common, but ignoring them is not a violation of the rights of others.

I would say it's the combination of the lack of education and poverty.

Awareness of morality is inherent, brought about by our self-awareness. It forces us to realize the impact of some evil we're about to do to someone else, because we can't avoid imagining being in their shoes. But some become adept at stifling that vision, suppressing it into their subconscious. Sentients are the only beings who are aware of the inevitability and permanence of death. All others are innocent.

[zjsd26]

It's impossible to say what is the root of all evil. Many say money, many say murder, many say abortion, many say cheating. I believe evil does exist and is present on the earth. Psychopathic-sociopathic and destructive behaviors. The world and it's currency, is filled with evil, such as terrorism, kidnapping, and rape are just plain cruel. The root of all evil is what you see the most, and the biggest affect it's caused on someone. I personally believe Rape is the root of all evil, because it doesn't make sense to me, it's absolutely evil and disgusting. I also view murder, or even child molestation as very immoral and malicious. So those I would view as the root of evil, as for money.. I wouldn't call it the biggest form of evil, but I do think it can cause of people to act differently, and it can show a different side of people that are deemed negative.

[2ndRateMind]

In my experience, those who claim that the love of money is not a root of evil, are those who have it, and do not want to distribute it to others more needy.

As I write, Trump is threatening to cut corporation tax from 35% to 15%, which won't do him any harm, and simultaneously planning to increase government spending, typically on personal projects such as the Mexican wall. It can only end in sorrow.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[William]

If we are looking for the cause of purposeful actions which can then be deemed as 'evil', then self aware conscious entities are where evil derives.

Same goes for 'the source of all good'.

Both good and evil stem from initial ignorance. If we were ignorant about such things, then good and evil would not matter to any of us.