Evil - or is that too simple?

[roger]

In support of Yahzi's point, I recommend the book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. Hannah Arendt recounts the life and subsequent trial of Eichmann for crimes against humanity that he commited during the Holocaust.

Arendt's thesis, which was and still is widely argued, is that evil is 'banal' - that one doesn't have to be a raving monster to commit atrocities, but merely be mild-mannered, and unwilling to question orders.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement that "[anyone] is capable of the most horrific indifference and cruelty" - some people would resist doing these acts no matter the pressure applied to them, but I suspect that my disagreement rests largely on the definition of "capable", and so I won't belabor it.

In any case, it's an important book, and I heartily recommend reading it to anybody.

 

[hammegk]

I can't answer for Hammy, but the source of my absolute morals is biology and mathematics.

Perhaps biology plays a part, but math? Did someone finally write the book I've previously suggested?

I rather suspect the source of your morals -- like mine & everyone else's not very "absolute" at all -- was the cultural conditioning you received from parents, relatives, peers, teachers, media, etc particularly during the first few years of life. Religion, or lack thereof, as it effected/affected you and all those sources was part of the conditioning.

Then, who decides a behavior of yours is "evil"? You, or the society around you? I'd say in the final analysis, might makes right and society, either through religion or by Law makes the decision. Clubs beat fists, guns beat clubs, the best armed groups of men having a common cause prevail; history as I read it strongly suggests religion has been a significant factor in providing that common cause. The alternative is dictatorship and enforcement by force of the Emporer's wishes (or actually, of his minions who try to guess what he would prefer).

I fear that multicultural everything-is relative societies will always be overcome by opponents united by a common cause. For the US, can you say fascism? What would previous dictators have managed with weapons, technology, and trained police/military groups as are now available?

 

[hgc]

Well, I am flabbergasted.

Hammy, you have described your view of the source of morals, and it looks to me like a pretty fair description of moral relativity, and a reasonable explanation of how this works in human societies.

So why, then, do you stick your nose up at so-called materialists and atheists for being moral relativists when the non-divine, relativistic moral source is what you believe in anyway?

 

[Upchurch]

heh. hammegk acting hypocritical? No, surely not!

 

[hammegk]

So why, then, do you stick your nose up at so-called materialists and atheists for being moral relativists when the non-divine, relativistic moral source is what you believe in anyway?

The point is not what I believe, or what you believe, is "moral". Either you live with the societal/cultural definition of the day, or you tend to weaken rather than strengthen that societies' ability to find unifying common cause.

[size=1.5][Edit, add link & comment][/size]
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Federer20030924.shtml

Federer says it more succinctly than most, imo.

Which will you prefer for the future -- if history repeats itself and a culturally divided US falls from warring within and/or under foreign attack--Fascism, Islam, or "the barbarians".


Uppie , you following me around? Have fun; I find it humorous.

 

[hgc]

The point is not what I believe, or what you believe, is "moral". Either you live with the societal/cultural definition of the day, or you tend to weaken rather than strengthen that societies' ability to find unifying common cause.

Yeah, right. What again does this have to do with whether or not a person is an atheist or a materalist?

[size=1.5][Edit, add link & comment][/size]
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Federer20030924.shtml

Federer says it more succinctly than most, imo.

Which will you prefer for the future -- if history repeats itself and a culturally divided US falls from warring within and/or under foreign attack--Fascism, Islam, or "the barbarians".

You seem to subscribe to this fantastic notion that there are rights that the government cannot, in theory, take away, ie., those from God. But how should a government determine which rights are God-given and which are under secular authority? Does the government have to employ clerics to advise what its laws should be? What of the segments of the governed that have different notions of what their God-given rights are? (You know, religious diversity.) You can see where this is going. Theocracy.

This is just scratching the surface of why our government should not address religious questions with legal authority.

So now I'll ask the same old question: What is the source of this morality that is God-given? And no, the answer is not contained in the question. When I ask for source, I'm looking for something that is verifiable. You see, "bible" is not a verifiable as a God-given source.

Uppie , you following me around? Have fun; I find it humorous.

No one is following you around, hammy. You're not that fascinating.

 

[hammegk]

...No one is following you around, hammy. You're not that fascinating.

Actions belie words. So what else is new, chump?


As to your questions read Santayana and try to understand him.

 

[hgc]

Actions belie words. So what else is new, chump?


As to your questions read Santayana and try to understand him.

Case closed. Assertions unsupported.

 

[hammegk]

Case closed. Assertions unsupported.

Yeah, it would be a wonderful world if the proof -- or disproof -- of assertions actually effected that world, quick.

My unsupported assertions will be proved or disproved at the pace societies move (er, you know, it's a subject called "history" --try reading some with understanding) not by the words you & I type on a bbs.

Your readings apparently persuade you of the effectiveness of non-religion/moral relativity as a positive effect for long-term societal welfare; I disagree. I hope I'm wrong.

 

[Suddenly]

Yeah, it would be a wonderful world if the proof -- or disproof -- of assertions actually effected that world, quick.

My unsupported assertions will be proved or disproved at the pace societies move (er, you know, it's a subject called "history" --try reading some with understanding) not by the words you & I type on a bbs.

Your readings apparently persuade you of the effectiveness of non-religion/moral relativity as a positive effect for long-term societal welfare; I disagree. I hope I'm wrong.

Lemmie get this straight hammegk:

Are you saying that you favor a monolithic culture and morality for a nation state more due to pragmatic concerns than a sense that the religion/morality in place is universal truth?

 

[hgc]

Yeah, it would be a wonderful world if the proof -- or disproof -- of assertions actually effected that world, quick.

I didn't complain that you didn't prove you assertion, but that you didn't support it. None of what we do here in this forum affects the world, except in the usual way that conversations among private individuals make a difference.

My unsupported assertions will be proved or disproved at the pace societies move (er, you know, it's a subject called "history" --try reading some with understanding) not by the words you & I type on a bbs.

I don't know if it'll ever be proved or disproved, if it hasn't already. But my problem is that I don't understand what your assertion is at this point. On the one hand you gave a detailed explanation of your belief above that reads to me like a non-divine, relativistic source of morals in human societies, and on the other hand, you deride so-called atheists and materialists as moral relativists. Whici is it?

Your readings apparently persuade you of the effectiveness of non-religion/moral relativity as a positive effect for long-term societal welfare; I disagree. I hope I'm wrong.

So I guess the problem here is the definition of moral relativity. It is hard to separate religion and morality, only because there have been so few non-religious societies in history, and religious societies seem to think that their morality is derived from supernatural sources, or at least is tied to their gods in some way. But do you actually think that a non-religious person has less of a stake in, and puts less emphasis on, the need for a common set of rules by which we live our lives, so as to be civilized? Many of those rules are encoded into law, and many others are just part of the common set of behaviors that we adopt and hope that others will also adopt in respect to ourselves (golden rule). I see no need for religion to accomplish this.

 

[hammegk]

Thanks for the intelligent comments/questions.

I may not have the opportunity to respond for a couple days, but [arnie=on] I'll be back! [arnie=off]

 

[jimmygun]

Let's say I wish to rule a particular society. Not justly or humanely or fairly but just to rule. Of course I don't have more right to rule others than the others I rule so I come up with a concept of a supernatural being that rules us all. Let's say I name that supernatural being... oh I don't know...God?

Now let's say I can convince the majority that I alone can interpret the signs of god and I alone can interpret the desires of this god. Of course I won't be able to get all the people of the society to follow me as there will be some who oppose me for what ever reason. Do I argue with them? Try to reason with them? No of course not. I have no arguement, and my authority is not based on reason, just superstition and fear.

What do I do with those that oppose me? If the god I created is all powerful and all knowing and all seeing then anyone who would dare to oppose him (me) must be at the other end of the scale...evil! Tada! I now have a term which will put all my opposition into a category repugnant to my followers.

I do not deem that opposition to have any validity, I don't allow that we can exist on the same earth with different points of view. I simply dismiss him with a convenient label....evil. It is something everyone who listens to my preaching will understand without questioning...evil.

See how it goes?

 

[hammegk]

After jimmygun, not much else to say, is there? Rulers who perpetuate their societies -- holding against all comers -- provide "successful" societies, imo.

Which is the oldest profession; courtesan, or Priest?

Repeating myself -- deja vu all over again -- Rulers wIll exist, they will define "evil" and apply it to their societies via force. Which atheistic (which is at heart anarchist every-man-for-himself) society has made a positive contribution to mankind with that society enduring for a historically significant span?

In recent times atheistic societies have certainly made historically significant contributions, none for the better imo. Those societies all ceased to exist often not outliving a single Ruler.

 

[jimmygun]

Perhaps if "Atheists" rose up, siezed power and started murdering their opposition then they could form a society, whitewash all its crimes, and claim the moral high ground.

Perhaps your humble opinion of atheist society is wrong. I know no atheists who adopt the anarchaic, every man for himself attitude. That is a strawman argument and it does not apply to anything other than your humble opinion.

 

[uruk]

Those societies all ceased to exist often not outliving a single Ruler.

I dunno, China seems to be going strong.

 

[Foodbunny]

Evil is too subjective and too loaded of a term to have any real use in serious conversation, in my opinion. If you find what someone has done horrendous it's better to say what they did and let the people you are conversing with draw their own judgements then to just say that they were "evil".

 

[hammegk]

Evil is too subjective and too loaded of a term to have any real use in serious conversation, in my opinion. If you find what someone has done horrendous it's better to say what they did and let the people you are conversing with draw their own judgements then to just say that they were "evil".

Good argument for multiculturalism & moral relativity. Is that how you raise your children?

I dunno, China seems to be going strong.

You must have a point, but damned if I see it. I get to bring up China on my side of the argument.

Perhaps if "Atheists" rose up, siezed power and started murdering their opposition then they could form a society, whitewash all its crimes, and claim the moral high ground.

Perhaps if you defended any moral gtound other than what appeals to you, today, you might find a broader support for your opinion. In case you hadn't noticed, that is how nation-states form and perpetuate themselves.

Perhaps your humble opinion of atheist society is wrong. I know no atheists who adopt the anarchaic, every man for himself attitude. That is a strawman argument and it does not apply to anything other than your humble opinion.

Yeah, I know that is your humble opinion.

Let's discuss the successes societies ruled by atheism have enjoyed. Oh, I know; human nature has changed for the better in the last 100 years (or is it only 50), and we are now all so intelligent & good-hearted that mans inhumanity to man will no longer be a problem.

Bah!

 

[jimmygun]

Do you claim that all positive advancements are the result of religious based governments? I would dissagree with you whole heartedly. It was not until the iron grip of religion was relaxed that mankind started to make giant, positive strides in science.

How many computers did Jim Bakker invent? How many new crops were invented by Rex Humbard? What pleasure pastimes were invented by the Catholic church? All these examples have had to run the biggoted gauntlet of religion just to be heard, let alone developed.

When the common man threw off his religious shackles he was free to inquire, to seek, to teach and transfer his knowledge. Today we live in a society that is trying to actually put a real barrier between the state and religion because it has proven to be absolutely imperative for us to go forward. Those that would reattach the state to religion would stiffle and punish free thinking.

 

[c4ts]

The causes of a successful society are so numerous that you cannot simply point to something like establishment and determine it to be the cause. In fact, religion is often so politicized it's indistinguishable from law, especially with ancient civilizations.