What is Root of All Evil?
Moderator: Moderators
- ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
What is Root of All Evil?
Post #1It'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
- ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Re: What is Root of All Evil?
Post #11Bust Nak wrote: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.ThePainefulTruth wrote: People on this site are "justifying" the Holocaust due to subjective morality.
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]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.
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?
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.Why is justified in quote? Who has ever say that Holocaust was moral because morality is subjective?Exactly, under subjective morality we decide individually (or by mob rule) whether genocide, slavery, rape, torture, pedophilia, human sacrifice etc. are "justified" or not.
Pizza is a moral issue? I think we're done here.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?
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9866
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Re: What is Root of All Evil?
Post #12Seeing the same what exactly? I have never heard anyone say Holocaust is moral because morality is subjective. Who is saying anything like that?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?
No, there aren't. And I should know, since I am the resident moral subjectivist here.They're those saying it right here on this site.
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.Those who won't acknowledge it, are just sweeping it under the rug.
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.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.
No, but both pizza and morality are matters of opinion.Pizza is a moral issue?
Great, I love having the last word.I think we're done here.
Post #13
[Replying to post 10 by ThePainefulTruth]
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.... 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.
Noso what should we do, ignore evil?
It's unavoidable as it's part of what makes us us. "Evil" is a judgement of an action, nothing more....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?
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.... 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.
- ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #14
Bust Nak wrote:No, but both pizza and morality are matters of opinion.
I love having the last word.
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.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.
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.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.
Truth=God
Post #15
[Replying to post 14 by ThePainefulTruth]
It depends on how the judge/court views your action and the laws of the area/time.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.
I never made that claim. Others could I suppose...why'n't you say you were an anarchist?
More accurately: "Everyone is for their version of universal morality..."Everyone is for universal morality....
I'm not sure what that means so yes...no...maybe...?...maybe the Truth will out after all.
- ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #16
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.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.
Yeah, I was going on the "walks like a duck" principle, no offense.I never made that claim. Others could I suppose...why'n't you say you were an anarchist?
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.More accurately: "Everyone is for their version of universal morality..."Everyone is for universal morality....
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....maybe the Truth will out after all.
I'm not sure what that means so yes...no...maybe...?
-
- Savant
- Posts: 9866
- Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
- Location: Planet Earth
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 266 times
Post #17
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?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.
- Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #18
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.
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.
- ThePainefulTruth
- Sage
- Posts: 841
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
- Location: Arizona
Post #19
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.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.
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?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.
For subjectivististic oppressors wishing to enforce their moral double standard, yeah.The root of all evil lies in whatever you personally don't like,
Yes it can, and has been. But that doesn't mean all leaders do, or all followers are dupes. Talk about absolutism.because that root will be twisted and used by leaders to manipulate and control the community.
- Neatras
- Guru
- Posts: 1045
- Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
- Location: Oklahoma, US
- Been thanked: 1 time
Post #20
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.ThePainefulTruth wrote: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.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.
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.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?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.
Agreed. But given your patterns of speaking, it seems you think there's something more.For subjectivististic oppressors wishing to enforce their moral double standard, yeah.The root of all evil lies in whatever you personally don't like,
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.Yes it can, and has been. But that doesn't mean all leaders do, or all followers are dupes. Talk about absolutism.because that root will be twisted and used by leaders to manipulate and control the community.