Forums of the Megaverse®

anapuna wrote:

13eowulf wrote:

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:If looking at nude women is evil, then I'm evil so be it, I can live with it.

If this is the criteria then I should join like a League of Evil or some such...

oddly enough...
having stacks or hard drives of porn is not evil. maybe pervy, but not evil.

now creating a lot of porn and selling it may be considered evil and is the one actually doing the debasement. even according to the womens lib type.

now the porn guys are the only ones actually creating a market that pays women more than men, and always will. HBO special here. now we have a women or two creating there own porn movie companies and they were in the biz so they know the ins and outs (no puns here) and are putting more protection and benefits in for women that no other company would.

and i had a friend who "danced" for money (and that is all she did) through college she made over 2K a weekend and had plenty of time after that to go full time to school she got her 4 year in business and found out that people wanted to pay her $12 and treat her like a crappy wage slave. so she kept dancing and got her 6 year. they did not equal her dance pay so she danced a lot and saved it and invested some and now she runs investments and makes the upper 6 figures. got married has kids. the family is comfortable and safe. her kids will not feel poverty. she doesn't spoil them. she is saving for a nice college for them.
all because she looked good and was willing to cash in on it.

so who is evil now? this is a crazy world we live in sometimes.

Firstly, well done to your friend, much respect there.

Secondly, this is a great example of Evil being subjective, aka, in the eye of the beholder....
In my opinion that is...

13eowulf wrote:Secondly, this is a great example of Evil being subjective, aka, in the eye of the beholder....
In my opinion that is...

From my perspective, we'd need to take a closer look before knowing what it's an example of.

To me, there is nothing inherently evil about naked people, nor about pictures of naked people.
There is nothing inherently evil about pictures/film of naked (or clothed) people having sex.
I think that most people would agree with me so far.
IF there are exceptions, we can look at them as they arise (so to speak).

There IS something evil about the ways that a lot of pornography is procured, though. Women or girls are often bullied, conned, manipulated, or (in worst-case scenarios) enslaved in order to make pornography.
And I think that this is one of the places where people get confused, and declare that because some pornography is created using immoral means, then ALL pornography must be immoral.
But if a couple who loves each other happen to film themselves for their own enjoyment, where is the evil in that?
I can't see any.

Some extremists (who are few and far betwee) would likely argue that ANY filming of women having sex with men is demeaning to the women... but such extremists in my experience tend to have their perceptions colored to the point where they tend to think that women having sex with men is demeaning to women in general, whether it's filmed or not.
So even then, the problem that they're seeing isn't actually the filming, it's the act being filmed.
The filming would simply be a compounding of something that they already see as demeaning to women.
Now, I might disagree with these extremists that sex is inherently demeaning to anybody... but I DO agree with them that demeaning women is bad.

Okay, now step aside for a minute, and say that I am in the jungle with one of these extremists.
(So as not to offend anybody, we are not having sex)
Suddenly, we're confronted by a snake.
The extremist says, "Snakes are poisonous!!!"
I say, "That's not a poisonous snake; it's safe."
Whether or not what I'm saying makes ANY sense to them, whether or not they perceive the difference between poisonous and non-poisonous snakes... that doesn't affect the fact that there ARE poisonous snakes out there.
It doesn't make venom something that is subjective.
It doesn't mean that venom isn't real.
It doesn't mean that venom exists in some kind of mental state, dependent upon belief.
All it means is that some people have trouble telling whether or not something IS venomous.

I see no reason why the same principle would not apply to evil.
Just because some people see it where other people do NOT see it, that does not mean that it isn't real, or that it's subjective, or that its existence in any way depends on belief.

In discussion regarding evil, in my experience, the primary issue is that people aren't seeing things the same way (though this doesn't mean that what they're seeing is actually subjective).
Switching from porn to drugs:
Person A says, "Drugs are EVIL!"
Person B says, "Drugs are GOOD!"
Then they argue, tooth and nail about the disagreement.

The thing is, usually they're not talking about the same thing.
When Person A says the word "Drugs," that sound they're making with their mouth is shorthand for a concept, for a huge bundle of information based on the speaker's experience and information.
When Person A says "Drugs," they mean "addictive substances that re-prioritize people's lives in a negative way, bringing significant harm to not only that person, but to the people around them."
When Person B says "Drugs," they mean "Chemicals that, when ingested, are really, really, really FUN, stuff that make a person mellow, and expands their perceptions of the world."

Even if they're talking about the same specific chemical substance, they're NOT talking about the same thing. Or, at least, they're not talking about the same substance from the same angle.
It kind of ends up being like the story about the Blind Men and the Elephant, where they're all examining the same thing, but they each only see different things.

From my perspective, it's not that Evil is actually subjective, it's that our perceptions of Evil are subjective.
Sometimes we see it where it is not.
Sometimes we fail to see it where it exists.
But none of that means that it doesn't exist at all, or that it only exists when seen.

The elephant is an elephant, not a snake, or a wall, or a tree, or a rope, or anything else.
It's real. It exists independent of external observation.
The thing is, it's not always observed correctly.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Noon wrote:Well, there's the thing - no claim to perfection, then a claim of recognition without any qualifier to say such recognition is imperfect.

Sorry, too strong willed to fall into doubt and let lines grey again.

What act of strength?

To believe is the easiest thing in the world. It takes effort and strength to raise a child - but to raise a belief? Tis but a feather.

Doubts are the heaviest to carry, yet it's a strong will to avoid them?

If you do not like my belief system or think it is invalid that is your right but its be assured it has already been tried and tested. There is no need for you to try to challange that merely because you would see spiritual conviction as evil. I do not just adhere to whatever happy belief pops into my head or makes me feel safe or comfortable. I recolonize evil because I know it. I was raised in and by evil and I have been evil and by no means will I ever choose that again nor turn a blind eye to it so it might infect others. I will not and I cannot. "Evil" has taken people I love from me. From friends to lovers. Be it from substance abuse or to in subjugation to blind unreasoning hatred. In my world, in my life... evil is something that is very real and ever present like a wolf at the door. So yeah, if I couldn't recognize it... well, I wouldnt be "wasting my time" posting on this board nor the man I am today.

The thing to ask is how many of these evil acts where commited by doubtful people? Or were they absolutely certain?

The thing about porn is the human disconnect it drives into culture. And the jadedness.

Ultimately it would be good if some kind of 'ethical porn' came out - kind of like how you have free range eggs as an ethical alternative! Ideally there'd be a fund to ensure that the performers can live reasonably well for the rest of their life. Some way that fiscal pressure wont basically force them way outside what they'd choose. Then again, as with the $12 an hour wage slave example above, perhaps lots of jobs inflict debasement on people - and were being over selective to simply focus on those to do with sexuality.

So you don't just have people used up and spat out like so much consumer goods. Because then that creates a 'cattle' class of human being. Which you might be fine with, until you somehow fall into that class (but we all win the lottery and never lose, so that'll never happen, of course).

Rifts®: Between Disaster and Atrocity.
Player Clue #3: Things you need to know if you are going to avoid ending up carbonized ash beneath the Wicker Man's feet.

The oldest fire in the universe burns brighter than the power of the Wicker Man.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131505&p=2560595#p2560408

1. What IS Evil?

(partially plagiarized from Wikipedia) Evil is the dualistic opposite of good. It's associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence.

2. What causes Evil?

(My opinions from here on out) A corrupt moral code.

3. Is Evil inherently self-destructive and/or self-defeating?

In general, I would say so. Sometimes the 'self' dies before the 'self's' evil destroys or defeats the 'self', but in the end, evil itself always loses.

4. Does an evil person/creature have to think of itself as evil in order to BE evil?

No. They have to make a conscious decision to do something evil, but most evil people either live in conscious denial of what they are, or they reject the concept of evil entirely in favor of moral relativity or moral nihilism.

5. Is evil contained in nature, in action, or in intent? Or someplace else?

It's intent, though intent tends to be strongly influence by nature (a predisposition to evil), and action (the slippery slope). Very few people are evil by nature, but there are a few. Most who I would call evil know what's right, but just don't have the moral courage to do it when an easier, but evil, alternative exists.

6. What kind of sociological/political effects would powers like Sense Evil (or other definite means of detecting alignment, or evilness in person/beings) have on societies? What would the implications be?

That's an aspect of a psychic society that I considered for my short story. Sense Evil could be part of a vetting process prior to business transactions or hiring, but only under limited circumstances. Intrusive mind probes with no regulation are a slippery slope. The more you permit people to peer into other people's minds, the more you'll eventually permit people to alter or interfere with other people's minds.

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. What IS Evil?

In a nutshell, it's the inflicting of pain /suffering upon others, for essentially no reason connected to cause-and-effect. (e.g., I'm not going to burn down that village because they killed my family. I'm going to burn down that village pretty much just for the hell of it.)

2. What causes Evil?

Conscious intent on the part of those who would perpetrate it. In some special cases, there is a 'genetically' built-in desire to do evil that is partially beyond the creature's control (e.g., the innate desires and appetites to cause pain and suffering that are present in a wide variety of evil supernatural creatures), but a component of 'free will to do evil' MUST be a part of the equation...even if the would-be evildoer in question is partially warped in his or her mind to begin with by mental illness, a difficult life, injustice/pain/suffering dealt to them by others, etc.

Animal predators, following their instincts, cannot by definition be evil -not even if they slaughter a village of helpless, unarmed, men women and children right down to the last man.

This makeshift definition also assumes that at least some level of knowledge of what is evil, is possessed by the would-be perpetrator.
As another example, a low-level Coalition grunt, conditioned from his earliest days to suspect each and every D-bee he ever meets of being a lethal threat to humankind and therefore worthy of termination with extreme prejudice, is not doing evil if he wipes out that same village. His more well-educated superiors, on the other hand, are engaging in evil when they send the grunt on an extermination mission.

3. Is Evil inherently self-destructive and/or self-defeating?

Not necessarily. It may very well be the flip-side of what Good would do, given a chance to rule unopposed. Personally, I find the 'self-destructive, evil psychotic society' to be a boring thing to read in fiction, and in real life, "Evil" often does quite well for itself and can make for a lasting society (by the way, I also like the fictional Splugorth Kingdoms for the same reason: they're not one-dimensional comic book evil, but fully-functioning societies).

4. Does an evil person/creature have to think of itself as evil in order to BE evil?

That's the second, 'lesser' part to Evil: the conclusions reached by outside observers. Sometimes they are correct (judging the actions of the bank robber), sometimes they are incorrect (judging the actions of, say, a swarm of killer bees), and sometimes both 'sides' are correct in terms of good/evil and evil/good (judging the actions of a terrorist as evil, while the terrorist honestly believes that his or her God says it is good to terrorize others).

In the game, Evil is pretty clear-cut; but in real life, most evil has been done by people who honestly believed themselves to be doing good at the time.
It's a case-by-case sort of thing.

5. Is evil contained in nature, in action, or in intent? Or someplace else?

Intent only. If a villain successfully and deliberately dislodges a bunch of boulders to smash the village below, only the villain is the evil party there, not the landslide of boulders that kills dozens.

6. What kind of sociological/political effects would powers like Sense Evil (or other definite means of detecting alignment, or evilness in person/beings) have on societies? What would the implications be?

In real life, most people would probably scan as "good" -at least to other members of the same society with the same moral code who are doing the scanning. Outsiders would almost certainly get different reads of that society, with possibly, dramatically differing results.

It would be interesting, for one example, to see what a hardened Coalition Psi-Battalion Officer would "see" if he psi-scanned the peaceful Lemurians, or the peaceful Lyn-Srial, or the peaceful people of Dweomer.

Killer Cyborg wrote:For those that believe that Evil does exist in some way, here's a question:
Can a person in complete isolation commit acts of evil?
As in, if a person was removed completely from the world, so that he/she would live the rest of their life without having any of their actions affect anybody but themselves, would they be able to take an action that would count as evil?
If so, what?

No. Evil isn't an substance or 'thing', it's a relationship. Without anything to relate it to, there's no meaning to the term.

In the real world, I'd say flatline's got it down pretty well. In a fantasy realm, good and evil can be objectively defined by authorial fiat, often in the form of adherence to a "higher being's" will/rebellion against such. Even then, of course, these terms of good and evil will almost invariably be founded on the author's IRL cultural upbringing.

paxmiles wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:For those that believe that Evil does exist in some way, here's a question:
Can a person in complete isolation commit acts of evil?
As in, if a person was removed completely from the world, so that he/she would live the rest of their life without having any of their actions affect anybody but themselves, would they be able to take an action that would count as evil?
If so, what?

I think evil is one of those about both intentions and perceptions, so I think an isolated person could commit evil actions. Though if truly isolated, these actions would really only be done to themselves and judged by themselves.
-Pax

So if somebody did something to themself that they considered to be evil, that would be evil?

Good question. Deep subject.

I always thought I knew what evil was, but now, a request to define it... hmmm...

OK, here's my two cents on "What is evil?"
I have always tried to explain "good" and "evil" as the value one places on a stranger's life and well being. To keep things on a Palladium perspective, I'll use "good", "selfish", and "evil".

A "good" character/person/being values ALL life, from those closest to them to the stranger down the street. Taking a life, any life, is seen (by the "good" guy) as a tragedy. Despite their views on local law and/or tradition (Principled or Scrupulous), life is seen as precious and sacred (regardless of how the character may TRY to explain it). There are varying degrees of this philosophy, but a "good" character/person/being will normally try to help a stranger as best as their abilities and/or situation will allow. If a "good" guy witnesses the loss of life (even a stranger's), they are trully remorseful of the loss (even if just for a moment).

A "selfish" character/person/being values THEIR life, certainly, but it is their value of someone else's life that ultimately defines their morality. Unprincipled beings may value MOST life, especially once they have a personal investment in that life (friends, family, etc...), but still value THEIR life and freedom above most. Anarchist beings may value SOME life, usually because they have a personal investment in that life (friends, family, business, etc...) and THEIR life has the most value by far.

An "evil" character/person/being sees life as a commodity. With over six billion people on this world alone, life is seen as cheap and replaceable. Other people's suffering is seen as affirmation of their own weaknesses.

I'm a little too busy at the moment to elaborate on this, but I DO believe that the value one places on a stranger's life and well-being is the definition of "good" or "evil". I've seen some of the other examples and think most of them are more along the lines of "good or BAD", not evil. (Watching porn is NOT evil, although some people may say it's "bad".)

Good post, Phella.

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. What IS Evil?
2. What causes Evil?
3. Is Evil inherently self-destructive and/or self-defeating?
4. Does an evil person/creature have to think of itself as evil in order to BE evil?
5. Is evil contained in nature, in action, or in intent? Or someplace else?
6. What kind of sociological/political effects would powers like Sense Evil (or other definite means of detecting alignment, or evilness in person/beings) have on societies? What would the implications be?

Your question has made me think alot durring my last 2 week hitch working.

And I must now admit I must change my whole thought process to include this ..

By whose view are you asking ?

Lenwen wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. What IS Evil?
2. What causes Evil?
3. Is Evil inherently self-destructive and/or self-defeating?
4. Does an evil person/creature have to think of itself as evil in order to BE evil?
5. Is evil contained in nature, in action, or in intent? Or someplace else?
6. What kind of sociological/political effects would powers like Sense Evil (or other definite means of detecting alignment, or evilness in person/beings) have on societies? What would the implications be?

Your question has made me think alot durring my last 2 week hitch working.

And I must now admit I must change my whole thought process to include this ..

By whose view are you asking ?

Whatever you got, for the most part.
Your view on reality.
Or your personal opinion, if you think that Evil is subject to opinion.
Or your view on in-game evil in Rifts.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Good post, Phella.

Call 'em like I see 'em. Thanx.

Strictly speaking, it's whatever a group or society decides it is. In terms of human societies, the only cross-cultural taboo is unsanctioned killing. Ie. In the western world, murder (unsanctioned killing) is condemned as evil, whereas killing (military operation, etc. which is sanctioned killing) is not.

cyberdon wrote:Strictly speaking, it's whatever a group or society decides it is. In terms of human societies, the only cross-cultural taboo is unsanctioned killing. Ie. In the western world, murder (unsanctioned killing) is condemned as evil, whereas killing (military operation, etc. which is sanctioned killing) is not.

Killing is evil. You're gonna have to trust me on that. Sanctioned killing is sanctioned evil.

PhellaOne wrote:

cyberdon wrote:Strictly speaking, it's whatever a group or society decides it is. In terms of human societies, the only cross-cultural taboo is unsanctioned killing. Ie. In the western world, murder (unsanctioned killing) is condemned as evil, whereas killing (military operation, etc. which is sanctioned killing) is not.

Killing is evil. You're gonna have to trust me on that. Sanctioned killing is sanctioned evil.

Sorry, I just can't swallow that. Killing is not categorically evil.

If I empty my glock into someone who's just kicked in my bedroom door in the middle of the night, I have not committed an evil act. Self-defense is never evil.

If I poison a fire ant mound, I am not committing an evil act even though I'm willfully poisoning thousands of living creatures.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

PhellaOne wrote:

cyberdon wrote:Strictly speaking, it's whatever a group or society decides it is. In terms of human societies, the only cross-cultural taboo is unsanctioned killing. Ie. In the western world, murder (unsanctioned killing) is condemned as evil, whereas killing (military operation, etc. which is sanctioned killing) is not.

Killing is evil. You're gonna have to trust me on that. Sanctioned killing is sanctioned evil.

Sorry, I just can't swallow that. Killing is not categorically evil.

If I empty my glock into someone who's just kicked in my bedroom door in the middle of the night, I have not committed an evil act. Self-defense is never evil.

If I poison a fire ant mound, I am not committing an evil act even though I'm willfully poisoning thousands of living creatures.

--flatline

What makes you so certain?

good and evil is cultural base then anything else.

as for killing, there are numerous example through out history of people killing people in thier "gods" name for all that was good and holy, or to have a good harvest or the sun would rise tomorrow.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

PhellaOne wrote:

cyberdon wrote:Strictly speaking, it's whatever a group or society decides it is. In terms of human societies, the only cross-cultural taboo is unsanctioned killing. Ie. In the western world, murder (unsanctioned killing) is condemned as evil, whereas killing (military operation, etc. which is sanctioned killing) is not.

Killing is evil. You're gonna have to trust me on that. Sanctioned killing is sanctioned evil.

Sorry, I just can't swallow that. Killing is not categorically evil.

If I empty my glock into someone who's just kicked in my bedroom door in the middle of the night, I have not committed an evil act. Self-defense is never evil.

If I poison a fire ant mound, I am not committing an evil act even though I'm willfully poisoning thousands of living creatures.

--flatline

What makes you so certain?

Enlightened self-interest.

Any society that considers either of those acts to be evil would be at a tremendous disadvantage compared to a society that doesn't. As such, as soon as there is competition between the two societies, the first will either change its views in order to compete or it will be replaced by the other society.

Morality is subject to selective pressure just like everything else.

--flatline

It occurs to me that you asked the wrong question. Evil is defined in relation to a "moral" frame of reference, so you really should have asked "What is morality?".

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:If I empty my glock into someone who's just kicked in my bedroom door in the middle of the night, I have not committed an evil act. Self-defense is never evil.
If I poison a fire ant mound, I am not committing an evil act even though I'm willfully poisoning thousands of living creatures.

--flatline

What makes you so certain?

Enlightened self-interest.

Any society that considers either of those acts to be evil would be at a tremendous disadvantage compared to a society that doesn't. As such, as soon as there is competition between the two societies, the first will either change its views in order to compete or it will be replaced by the other society.

Morality is subject to selective pressure just like everything else.

--flatline

This may sound like a stupid question, but sometimes those are the questions most worth answering:
Why would a society which considered the mass-killing of ants to be evil, and/or which considered killing in self-defense to be evil, be at a tremendous disadvantage compared to other societies?

I would appreciate as detailed of an answer as you can make.

flatline wrote:It occurs to me that you asked the wrong question. Evil is defined in relation to a "moral" frame of reference, so you really should have asked "What is morality?".

--flatline

Okay.

What is morality?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:If I empty my glock into someone who's just kicked in my bedroom door in the middle of the night, I have not committed an evil act. Self-defense is never evil.
If I poison a fire ant mound, I am not committing an evil act even though I'm willfully poisoning thousands of living creatures.

--flatline

What makes you so certain?

Enlightened self-interest.

Any society that considers either of those acts to be evil would be at a tremendous disadvantage compared to a society that doesn't. As such, as soon as there is competition between the two societies, the first will either change its views in order to compete or it will be replaced by the other society.

Morality is subject to selective pressure just like everything else.

--flatline

This may sound like a stupid question, but sometimes those are the questions most worth answering:
Why would a society which considered the mass-killing of ants to be evil, and/or which considered killing in self-defense to be evil, be at a tremendous disadvantage compared to other societies?

I would appreciate as detailed of an answer as you can make.

A society that is unwilling to kill insects will lose the vast majority of their crops to pests and so will have to focus a larger percentage of their available land and labor resources to feeding itself. There will be fewer resources available to participate in other industries and, as a result, in wartime, the society will have to make the deadly choice between feeding itself and pulling manpower away from the fields to muster an army. And even then, since their sustainable population density will be so much lower, the army they could muster will likely be pathetically small (in addition to being under-trained due to the lack of industry specialization) compared to their opponent. This is why hunter-gatherer societies were trivially eliminated by agricultural societies even though they were healthier (early agrarian societies were terribly malnourished since they supported themselves on just one or two food staples).

A society that is unwilling to kill when someone is trying to kill them is similarly doomed, but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:If I empty my glock into someone who's just kicked in my bedroom door in the middle of the night, I have not committed an evil act. Self-defense is never evil.
If I poison a fire ant mound, I am not committing an evil act even though I'm willfully poisoning thousands of living creatures.

--flatline

What makes you so certain?

Enlightened self-interest.

Any society that considers either of those acts to be evil would be at a tremendous disadvantage compared to a society that doesn't. As such, as soon as there is competition between the two societies, the first will either change its views in order to compete or it will be replaced by the other society.

Morality is subject to selective pressure just like everything else.

--flatline

This may sound like a stupid question, but sometimes those are the questions most worth answering:
Why would a society which considered the mass-killing of ants to be evil, and/or which considered killing in self-defense to be evil, be at a tremendous disadvantage compared to other societies?

I would appreciate as detailed of an answer as you can make.

A society that is unwilling to kill insects will lose the vast majority of their crops to pests and so will have to focus a larger percentage of their available land and labor resources to feeding itself. There will be fewer resources available to participate in other industries and, as a result, in wartime, the society will have to make the deadly choice between feeding itself and pulling manpower away from the fields to muster an army. And even then, since their sustainable population density will be so much lower, the army they could muster will likely be pathetically small (in addition to being under-trained due to the lack of industry specialization) compared to their opponent. This is why hunter-gatherer societies were trivially eliminated by agricultural societies even though they were healthier (early agrarian societies were terribly malnourished since they supported themselves on just one or two food staples).

A society that is unwilling to kill when someone is trying to kill them is similarly doomed, but I leave that as an exercise to the reader.

--flatline

Okay.
It sounds like you believe that a society is never willing to DO things that the society itself considers to be evil.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Okay.
It sounds like you believe that a society is never willing to DO things that the society itself considers to be evil.

Not at all. Most societies are perfectly willing to rationalize "Evil" acts if they seem necessary or expedient. But if they commit the same "Evil" act often enough, the society's morals adjust to accommodate so that the act is no longer "Evil". This actually happens pretty quickly and you and I have probably seen it happen multiple times in our lifetimes whether we were aware of it or not. Remember when certain states refused to raise speed limits above 55 because they didn't want "blood on their hands" from the victims of the car crashes that it would cause? How many states still limit interstates to 55mph? Any?

In early WWII, the Americans were unwilling to bomb non-military targets in Germany, but then what did we do to Japan to end the war? We could have used much smaller bombs if we were really just targeting the factories as we claimed. We haven't dropped any nukes since, so this is a good example of where we rationalized it twice but didn't adjust our morals to make it easier to justify.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this is a slippery slope where once the society thinks it's okay to use pesticides that suddenly murder is okay. Morals evolve just like anything else to survive the necessities of the times.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Okay.
It sounds like you believe that a society is never willing to DO things that the society itself considers to be evil.

Not at all. Most societies are perfectly willing to rationalize "Evil" acts if they seem necessary or expedient. But if they commit the same "Evil" act often enough, the society's morals adjust to accommodate so that the act is no longer "Evil". This actually happens pretty quickly and you and I have probably seen it happen multiple times in our lifetimes whether we were aware of it or not. Remember when certain states refused to raise speed limits above 55 because they didn't want "blood on their hands" from the victims of the car crashes that it would cause? How many states still limit interstates to 55mph? Any?

Actually, I don't remember that. But I do get what you mean.

In early WWII, the Americans were unwilling to bomb non-military targets in Germany, but then what did we do to Japan to end the war? We could have used much smaller bombs if we were really just targeting the factories as we claimed. We haven't dropped any nukes since, so this is a good example of where we rationalized it twice but didn't adjust our morals to make it easier to justify.

Unfortunately, I think that would have something to do with skin color.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this is a slippery slope where once the society thinks it's okay to use pesticides that suddenly murder is okay. Morals evolve just like anything else to survive the necessities of the times.

Hm.
I'm not sure whether or not people would think that stuff like the Hiroshima bombing were "good" or whether they were "necessary."

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Okay.
It sounds like you believe that a society is never willing to DO things that the society itself considers to be evil.

Not at all. Most societies are perfectly willing to rationalize "Evil" acts if they seem necessary or expedient. But if they commit the same "Evil" act often enough, the society's morals adjust to accommodate so that the act is no longer "Evil". This actually happens pretty quickly and you and I have probably seen it happen multiple times in our lifetimes whether we were aware of it or not. Remember when certain states refused to raise speed limits above 55 because they didn't want "blood on their hands" from the victims of the car crashes that it would cause? How many states still limit interstates to 55mph? Any?

In early WWII, the Americans were unwilling to bomb non-military targets in Germany, but then what did we do to Japan to end the war? We could have used much smaller bombs if we were really just targeting the factories as we claimed. We haven't dropped any nukes since, so this is a good example of where we rationalized it twice but didn't adjust our morals to make it easier to justify.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this is a slippery slope where once the society thinks it's okay to use pesticides that suddenly murder is okay. Morals evolve just like anything else to survive the necessities of the times.

--flatline

I don't think the nuclear bombings in WWII really fit that criteria, given how there would have been far more death on both sides including the likelihood of mass suicides of civilians far in excess of the populations of those cities it would have been immoral not to take the route that saved the most lives, if not edging into evil. While it was seen as wrong to indiscriminately target civilians like some countries did the bombings were necessary to save as many lives as possible, making them a good thing since many lives were going to be lost however one went it was only a question of how many and where not if.

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Okay.
It sounds like you believe that a society is never willing to DO things that the society itself considers to be evil.

Not at all. Most societies are perfectly willing to rationalize "Evil" acts if they seem necessary or expedient. But if they commit the same "Evil" act often enough, the society's morals adjust to accommodate so that the act is no longer "Evil". This actually happens pretty quickly and you and I have probably seen it happen multiple times in our lifetimes whether we were aware of it or not. Remember when certain states refused to raise speed limits above 55 because they didn't want "blood on their hands" from the victims of the car crashes that it would cause? How many states still limit interstates to 55mph? Any?

In early WWII, the Americans were unwilling to bomb non-military targets in Germany, but then what did we do to Japan to end the war? We could have used much smaller bombs if we were really just targeting the factories as we claimed. We haven't dropped any nukes since, so this is a good example of where we rationalized it twice but didn't adjust our morals to make it easier to justify.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this is a slippery slope where once the society thinks it's okay to use pesticides that suddenly murder is okay. Morals evolve just like anything else to survive the necessities of the times.

--flatline

I don't think the nuclear bombings in WWII really fit that criteria, given how there would have been far more death on both sides including the likelihood of mass suicides of civilians far in excess of the populations of those cities it would have been immoral not to take the route that saved the most lives, if not edging into evil. While it was seen as wrong to indiscriminately target civilians like some countries did the bombings were necessary to save as many lives as possible, making them a good thing since many lives were going to be lost however one went it was only a question of how many and where not if.

Was it a good idea to nuke Japan twice? Probably, and maybe even for exactly the reasons you stated, but if nuking civilians wasn't "Evil", you probably wouldn't have felt the need to try to explain why it was justified. Your post is an excellent example of how we rationalize when we feel that a particular "Evil" act is necessary.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

A "Good" act requires no rationalization and, in fact, might be performed even if it actually does more harm than good. The fact that we can use critical thinking to realize that an "Evil" act is, in fact, the proper course of action is what makes us such amazing survivors. And the more practice we get with critical thinking, the more likely we are to realize when "Good" acts really aren't.

This is a good thing

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Okay.
It sounds like you believe that a society is never willing to DO things that the society itself considers to be evil.

Not at all. Most societies are perfectly willing to rationalize "Evil" acts if they seem necessary or expedient. But if they commit the same "Evil" act often enough, the society's morals adjust to accommodate so that the act is no longer "Evil". This actually happens pretty quickly and you and I have probably seen it happen multiple times in our lifetimes whether we were aware of it or not. Remember when certain states refused to raise speed limits above 55 because they didn't want "blood on their hands" from the victims of the car crashes that it would cause? How many states still limit interstates to 55mph? Any?

In early WWII, the Americans were unwilling to bomb non-military targets in Germany, but then what did we do to Japan to end the war? We could have used much smaller bombs if we were really just targeting the factories as we claimed. We haven't dropped any nukes since, so this is a good example of where we rationalized it twice but didn't adjust our morals to make it easier to justify.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this is a slippery slope where once the society thinks it's okay to use pesticides that suddenly murder is okay. Morals evolve just like anything else to survive the necessities of the times.

--flatline

I don't think the nuclear bombings in WWII really fit that criteria, given how there would have been far more death on both sides including the likelihood of mass suicides of civilians far in excess of the populations of those cities it would have been immoral not to take the route that saved the most lives, if not edging into evil. While it was seen as wrong to indiscriminately target civilians like some countries did the bombings were necessary to save as many lives as possible, making them a good thing since many lives were going to be lost however one went it was only a question of how many and where not if.

Was it a good idea to nuke Japan twice? Probably, and maybe even for exactly the reasons you stated, but if nuking civilians wasn't "Evil", you probably wouldn't have felt the need to try to explain why it was justified. Your post is an excellent example of how we rationalize when we feel that a particular "Evil" act is necessary.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

A "Good" act requires no rationalization and, in fact, might be performed even if it actually does more harm than good. The fact that we can use critical thinking to realize that an "Evil" act is, in fact, the proper course of action is what makes us such amazing survivors. And the more practice we get with critical thinking, the more likely we are to realize when "Good" acts really aren't.

This is a good thing

--flatline

Falling into a fallacy there flatline, disputing your contention that it was an evil act isn't proof that it was or that it was a rationalization to justify an evil act it's only someone offering a counter-argument to your position. Good acts just as often as evil ones get explanations for why people did them and why they were good, an example of which is protestors against racism. Public belief had them as quite evil for daring to suggest that blacks and other minorities (remember all those Chinese who died building the railroads and buried in unmarked graves along their routes? ) were equal to whites and deserved equal treatment.

If the nuclear weapons hadn't been used and instead a conventional war continued far more would have died and the US government vilified for not using the bombs to end the war early, being accused of doing something evil by refusing to use them. Even if it had failed to bring them to submission and they'd continued their suicidal course the response would have been 'well at least you tried to get them to surrender and save lives', because sometimes acts of good are hard choices and you can't save everyone. It's the Hero's dilemma.

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Okay.
It sounds like you believe that a society is never willing to DO things that the society itself considers to be evil.

Not at all. Most societies are perfectly willing to rationalize "Evil" acts if they seem necessary or expedient. But if they commit the same "Evil" act often enough, the society's morals adjust to accommodate so that the act is no longer "Evil". This actually happens pretty quickly and you and I have probably seen it happen multiple times in our lifetimes whether we were aware of it or not. Remember when certain states refused to raise speed limits above 55 because they didn't want "blood on their hands" from the victims of the car crashes that it would cause? How many states still limit interstates to 55mph? Any?

In early WWII, the Americans were unwilling to bomb non-military targets in Germany, but then what did we do to Japan to end the war? We could have used much smaller bombs if we were really just targeting the factories as we claimed. We haven't dropped any nukes since, so this is a good example of where we rationalized it twice but didn't adjust our morals to make it easier to justify.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this is a slippery slope where once the society thinks it's okay to use pesticides that suddenly murder is okay. Morals evolve just like anything else to survive the necessities of the times.

--flatline

I don't think the nuclear bombings in WWII really fit that criteria, given how there would have been far more death on both sides including the likelihood of mass suicides of civilians far in excess of the populations of those cities it would have been immoral not to take the route that saved the most lives, if not edging into evil. While it was seen as wrong to indiscriminately target civilians like some countries did the bombings were necessary to save as many lives as possible, making them a good thing since many lives were going to be lost however one went it was only a question of how many and where not if.

Was it a good idea to nuke Japan twice? Probably, and maybe even for exactly the reasons you stated, but if nuking civilians wasn't "Evil", you probably wouldn't have felt the need to try to explain why it was justified. Your post is an excellent example of how we rationalize when we feel that a particular "Evil" act is necessary.

And there's nothing wrong with that.

A "Good" act requires no rationalization and, in fact, might be performed even if it actually does more harm than good. The fact that we can use critical thinking to realize that an "Evil" act is, in fact, the proper course of action is what makes us such amazing survivors. And the more practice we get with critical thinking, the more likely we are to realize when "Good" acts really aren't.

This is a good thing

--flatline

Falling into a fallacy there flatline, disputing your contention that it was an evil act isn't proof that it was or that it was a rationalization to justify an evil act it's only someone offering a counter-argument to your position. Good acts just as often as evil ones get explanations for why people did them and why they were good, an example of which is protestors against racism. Public belief had them as quite evil for daring to suggest that blacks and other minorities (remember all those Chinese who died building the railroads and buried in unmarked graves along their routes? ) were equal to whites and deserved equal treatment.

If the nuclear weapons hadn't been used and instead a conventional war continued far more would have died and the US government vilified for not using the bombs to end the war early, being accused of doing something evil by refusing to use them. Even if it had failed to bring them to submission and they'd continued their suicidal course the response would have been 'well at least you tried to get them to surrender and save lives', because sometimes acts of good are hard choices and you can't save everyone. It's the Hero's dilemma.

I'm not going to argue, but I am sorry that my example didn't demonstrate my point the way I had intended.

--flatline