Is "Evil" Irrational
Offline Is "Evil" Irrational...
Ok folks, ere' ve go! ere' ve go!
Informal debate, lets try to not move off on to many tangents (not that i'd care if it was a cool tangent )
Mohammed supports the claim that "Evil" is irrational, why me and Sinphanius hold to the claim that "Evil" is rational
any one out there in the audience is welcome to pick a side and join the fray! but every-one else is kindly asked to stay behind the redcoated "Blood Spray" line, for you own safety.
Since Mohammed made the claim (and brought it to light... so to speak ) we'll let him (or anyone who supports that claim ) go first, and subsequently take this discussion where-ever they feel like (+10 points for involving boobs in some way or form... irregardless of the fact that we dont have a points system )
So, Mohammed, and supporters of "Evil is Irrational"... da floor is yours!
What Would Kharn Do?
- Login to post comments
{edit} On second thought reforming answer. Boobs are still awesome though (points plz..){/edit}
Pi is irrational. One must use Pi to calculate the surface area and volume of boobs.
The square root of 2 is irrational, but we use it to measure the distance between labia and hip flexor.
However, both of those things have objective definitions whereas 'evil' has a very subjective definition.
Perchance, could we have the choice of: Is 'goodness' irrational? in order to balance the equation for modernists? I don't do well with unbalanced postmodernist discussions.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Yin Yang , all is one .... evil/good is equal , and so the "middle" a famous buddha said .... as all is connected as One. Matter/Antimatter says modern science .... Wow, so buddha intuitive wise .... I like knowing that my ancient ancestors were not just all dumb shits .....
"Evil/Good", Hate/Love , Competition/Cooperation, are broad and even complicated concepts as in the study of advanced ethics. An understanding of each is equal to understanding the other. I think this is part of what is meant by pursuing a solid grasp of a truer "middle", as in the buddha writings.
"To know good is to do good." ~ Socrates
"They do not know what they do." ~ story Jesus
Atheism Books.
Hmm, wonder what the common root of 'ratio' and 'rational' is...
Seems they both come from the Latin rationalis, from ratio(n-) ‘reckoning, reason’. Interesting, so I guess 'reckoning', as in calculation of things like 'ratios', is a particular form of 'reasoning'... (from my online Dictionary)
Re 'Goodness', I think this is where we need 'nonrational', ie not actually contrary to reason, just not entirely derived by reason, but involving personal and emotional preferences.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
In an effort to be as humorless about this as possible, I'll point out that "rational"in the common usage refers to a conclusion that follows from valid logic and true premises. "Irrational" refers to any conclusion which follows from either invalid logic, false premises, or both. Therefore, anything which is not the conclusion to an argument is "arational" -- neither rational nor irrational.
Definitions may be coherent or incoherent. I suggest that you reformulate your question and either:
1) Ask if "evil' is coherent.
2) Ask if the conclusion "X is evil" is irrational.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Are we talking theory or practice?
Well I AM, talking science sarcasticly using religious linguistics and memes. I try to blow my own mind playing with words, as most always I giggle when I scribble. Wow, that rhymes
.... I write mostly to shock, to entertain, for fun, and to challenge the norm .... you say tomato, I say tamoto ....
Atheism Books.
Sorry, guys. I forgot to put the [/SARCASM].
I'll stop trying to be phunny with philosophy for a while.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Please keep on darth, pedal to the metal bro ....
No. They're right. I can't stand that same shit either. It really isn't funny. Primarily because one can never know who is actually thinking that way and who is not.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
"Evil" is relative.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Guess we're still waiting for Mohammed to arrive
Communication Break Down, tower of babel, linguitist problems ....
Occams Razor
Umm, what isn't god, does god want worship, what is worship, isn't science appreciation, isn't religion basically dogmatic wishful make believe idol worship for so many wrong irrational reasons ??? ....
Go appreciation, Stop worship.
Atheism Books.
Seriously? This isn't a real philosophical debate. Evil is an abstract concept, as is Good, it may be rational to use such terminology, where the author has defined their meaning. Mostly I agree with Hamby, they're both arational.
Atheist Books
Mo will return after these massages from our sponsor....
you did say, 10+ for boobs, didn't you ?
Of course it isn't real. We got points for 'boobs'. Doomed Soul is waiting for Mohammed - Wow. Now, there is the title to a book.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Anyway... good/evil is, I guess, a way of grouping beneficial and detrimental events, with regard to a given subject. Once one crosses the bounds of subjectivity, it ceases to be a tenable framework through which to view the world, because what one considers evil to oneself, one must often inevitably commit on another. Take the proverbial fisherman/fish scenario. One lives at the expense of another, by what one would consider evil if committed against oneself, by necessity. It is impossible to apply the golden rule to a fish, without sacrificing oneself for its sake.
I believe that evil is a point of view. If you think it's funny or cool to engage in morally reprehensible behavior then you're naive or a social misfit with mental problems, but not necessarily irrational.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Yes. There's competition for survival.... and then there's evil. The two are not the same nor are they entirely different.
IMHO, competition for survival is essentially a necessity while pure evil, that is, acts or events that fall outside said necessity, can more readily be construed as irrational. From our perspective, those events that are often called evils from nature are distinctly separate in this regard. Occurrence vs. intention.
I would say evil is a concept, not something that actually exists.
That was the most entertaining thing I've read all night.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Evil is irrational, because it's not constructive. Evil is a sign of immaturity. Eventually, an individual will realize, that he is important for others. From this self-importance arises a sense of responsibility over others.
Of course, the evil is an important stage of development, from being animally unconscious, to sacrificing those selfish needs for the greater good. It has a beginning and end, which is in fact even greater beginning.
I have a hypothesis, that the human race evolves to have still more of altruists among it. But this is too slow to be easily observable, I think the best example is how do we meet people on the internet, most of people today in the civilized world wouldn't personally kill, rob or rape someone. We are forced to live in a close society, which requires a social, civilized behavior, and increasing degree of altruism, this is what we evolve towards. The greater closeness there is in society, the more dangerous the evil is. (For example, we can now attack people on the other side of globe by nuclear weapons) This is why the evil is what we must leave behind, if we want to survive. In this final phase, the evil becomes a threat, and sacrifices itself to make the society better.
As for a physical manifestation of pure evil, this is something which is based on selfish unequality. For example, Adolf Hitler and his idea of German race being in rule and all other races being enslaved and eventually erradicated. Or, even better example, the contemporary global financial system, where a handful of billionaires has several times more money than all the remaining milliards of people together.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Why would that distinction be? The example given was to show the inevitability of an evil act, would that a universal standard be applied. But this is, of course, an arbitrary distinction; for the injured party is still injured, and is no less so for our rationalization. Then one must draw a second distinction of questionable legitimacy: where the will of nature ends. Who's to say that an act of, subjectively speaking, pure malice is not the manifestation of some natural sequence of events? Or better, how could it not be?
One mans good is another mans bad , and so to who's method is the best way of what? Preservation and happiness means what, to who and what is best, by who's ideal? .... Mine of course .... and so always war. War is Peace, dammit .... fucked we are. What is the middle?
Can we change this separatist thinking? ... I "Imagine" so .... to live as ONE , more fully aware of separation thinking. Living for today, as late John Lennon sang, in the wishful "idea of oneness", all for one, one for all .... world cooperation. No Bombs evermore.
Atheism Books.
Exactly. They are concepts based on personal morality. Nothing more.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Then again, morality rises from impulse to rationalization just as naturally as malevolence. I think good and evil are just positions in a conceptual framework for how a society happens to be at a given point. Depending on what particular values developed, good and evil will be different things; but they really embody the same things in each instance relative to a society, and more accurately could be called fulfillment and aberration. One can fulfill the ideal of that society, or break its rules most thoroughly.
I am way Rum drunk again but ,
Oneness is an understanding of the "middle" an ancient buddha philosophy suggested ....
Relate as realist wise current Pat Condell's most resent video rant on separatism thinking reveals, of obvious good and evil, as directed to those with little grasp of the middle, as meaning reality awareness of a rational sense ability to understand the yin yang of oneness, as there is no war when understanding, as thermodynamics, matter /antimatter, the "middle" .... of all connectedness, Go Pat,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-KHHKuVVRc
Atheism Books.
Yeah magilum, and so is the yin yang and middle .... as all is contained in one, as in themodynamics of no cosmic war. But here I sadly am with my gun loaded .... ???
Atheism Books.
But good in 1 society can be a polar opposite to good in another.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yes... ?
And from one point in time to another within the same society. Think of a society's morality as a swarm of bees crossing from one tree to another. Each individual bee makes more or less the same trip, but the proximal relationship is maintained so that a swarm it remains. If an individual bee goes too far ahead, or lags behind, that bee is an aberration. Those bees are behaviors. By this analogy, evil is simply straying from the norm; or more commonly, from the relative ideal (because standards rarely accommodate reality). What's mutable in the broader chronological and geographical picture is criminal at the local and individual level. Another analogy could be to evolution. Pick two points far enough apart in time and environmental pressures within a genealogy, and you'll see differences that can neither be achieved within an individual animal, or between two generations. The changes in societies are likewise distributed over time and individuals.
(That "1" bothers me a lot. Just saying.)
But abberations are not necessarily problematic toa society. It could be argued that a society can only be enhaced with some abberations. Yet a society can also become an abberation to it's members, like the example of the American justice system, where a huge percentage of the population has spent time in prison.
You have to forgive me for taking brevity where I can. I'm not at a keyboard.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Uh. I'm not sure how to break this to you, Doomed, but the prophet's been MIA for a really long time.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Meh. I'm not quite sure where I was going this morning. I should really have my morning coffee before I start getting into intelligent conversations.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't assign nature a will. I see a vast system of checks and balances that form a universal system where occurrences take place. To me, will implies intention. To me, intention implies processes of thought. Pure 'malice' would not fit under natural events due to the defined implication of the word malice. Perhaps you and I, in this case, either define words differently and/or view the various sequences within nature in contrastive light.
I understood your example and primarily agree, especially when it involves living things which require "fitting into a food chain" or if you prefer sustenance. But then again, in all manner of speaking, I'm a bit of a carbon chauvinist. So to answer your second question? Uhhh, that would be, me.
Doomed, I hope this may serve as some consolation after having been stood-up by Mohammed:
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Ah, but if so framed, the question then becomes where will begins, and where it ends. To say that a person has a will apart from the will of nature--that is, humanity within the whole context of its interaction with the world--one would have to tangle with determinism. We are aware of our actions, but our actions being the consequence of who we are, and that being a consequence of nature, I think the line blurs.
*shrug*
I knew it was gonna happen, thats the sole reason i did it...
Yet another arguement he cant backup
You wouldnt happen to know the name of the series those mechs at 1;22 were from do you?
Everything else i recognized, sadly
(which is really pathetic the more i think about it )
What Would Kharn Do?
Just a humble request... could you guys please quote only the most relevant sentence or two to which you are responding? It's annoying to have to scroll down through all those concentric squares when the whole argument can be followed quite easily just by knowing towards whom a response is directed, and by seeing one or two sentences excerpted from the relevant post.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I see your side but disagree to an extent. Sometimes, it is best to answer one question prior to trying to answer another. In this way, definitions aren't taken for granted.
The original question from The Doomed Soul was, "Is Evil Irrational?"
I stand by what I've stated previously. Further, in order to have an honest discussion parties would need to agree upon the definitions of "evil" and irrational".
In attempting to define "evil", the parties may (or may choose not to) tangle with determinism, if by determinism you are using the typical definition and the parties agree to consider determinism as an acceptable theory, for purposes of such a discussion.
I would probably be a "hold-out" on concurring to any line that remain blurred. That is, I wouldn't see the point of beginning a discussion where the general consensus of the chosen sides was to leave definitions and/or parameters open ended.
Guess that's why I've always thought I wouldn't make a very good diplomat.
And again, I simply don't assign nature a will. A snowflake hitting the ground doesn't intend to cause an avalanche, neither does nature that made it. Duh, okay, not such a great analogy on my part but I'm on my 23rd consecutive hour of non-REM state, so I'll close for now. It's off to
~sigh~
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
My lovely
just woke me up.
Yes Hamby, you are quite correct.
A bit of laziness on my part.
Not sure I'll get back to this particular discussion.... but I will make an effort in all future RRS threads where I respond.
Thanks
Back to bed now
Uh. Full Metal Panic, I think?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
So, the original topic is evil. Ok so, evil isn't necessarily a correct thing to say with regards to human beings or life in general for that matter. A crazy guy that killed someone might determine that commiting that act was a good thing because his thought process is just totally out of whack. A desperate person accidently kills someone during a robbery attempt at a quik mart because his gun went off or whatever. That guy isn't evil; he's just stupid. The same can be applied to any humanistic behavior. Some think abortion is evil while others are in favor of it. Some think that capital punishment is evil while others say "light up the scumbags!" Evil is really just thoughts being interpreted differently in people. It is a state of mind, true, but we're just adhering to the natural order of things; dog eat dog. It's been like that since the dawn of man so, why are we all of a sudden gaining a conscience? Is it because we think we've evolved past our deep-seeded reptilian mentality of brute applications and non-logistic ways of thinking about certain aspects of life? We'd like to think so, but if you look around a little closer, you'll realize that most of what we're being told is mostly false. Seriously, though, look how we've treated each other in the past. It's been way worse than gang wars, Middle Eastern skirmishes and violent protests ten fold. Roman diplomats and emperors watched it's own people kill slaves in arenas, get eaten alive by lions and betray each other in times where diplomacy should have been exercised. The holocaust taught us a thing or two about how much we've grown past survival instincts and revenge. Anthropological studies concluded that the earliest man most likely was verbal, handy and very dextrous. How do we know that they didn't have wars of epic proportions or some sort of major territorial dispute among tribes?
My whole point is that we're not evil. People are not evil. We might be brutal, savage, misled, primitive at heart, but we are not evil creatures. We are animals that can talk and have very high brain functions, but we are still very much feral in our own right.
The thing about determinism is it draws into question the existence of will at all. Unless we're to brake free from the very dynamics which define us, and make decisions outside of physical existence, all we can really claim is a simultaneous awareness of our own existence, and an unawareness of the intrinsic processes that would make our own actions (and all actions) generally predictable (thus giving us the feeling that what we're doing is somehow free).
As to evil, barring total abstraction or incoherence, it can only represent someone's impression of something. Generally what is considered evil is what causes a perceived harm. It can be the obvious act of murder, or it can be what's apparently harmless but seen to have potential spiritual implications (e.g. homosexuality). But, as I'd said before, to disembody the concept from subjectivity is to rob the idea of the only circumstance in which it can be meaningful. It would be like saying something is objectively beautiful. It's just a qualitative statement, and worse, one that puts us at odds with our own actions if we try to avoid it.
I think it's 'evil' for them to do it. lol.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Do what?
You know. That thing where people hijack a thread by quoting.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
... Looks like we're staying on topic, to me
What Would Kharn Do?
Oh. Wait, can you run it by me again?
You know. Like when there are two subjects in a thread and everybody is waiting for someone to correlate them. Descriptive noun and object noun vs. object noun and object noun. 'Evil' behavior vs. irrational behavior and 'Evil' vs. irrational.
Some people might construe keeping the quote line going as irrational, but could we say it is 'evil'. And vise versa too. Is it 'evil' because it is viewed as irrational?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
Bah, i thought we're just doing it because it annoyed Hamby...
...wait, wouldnt that make it "Good"? o_O
What Would Kharn Do?