): EVIL

[gizz72]

Greetings,

What is your concept of EVIL :evil:? Is there anything wrong with it's concept?(ei. evil knievel, evil step-mom, or if you're evil, you go to hell, evil people die hard... etc) enjoy. :-)


Regards,

Gizz

[whabang]

Cats.

[Robert17]

Women.

[Morley]

George W. Bush

...or maybe he's jsut stupid? :-?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Rwanda

[X-ray]

@ Connie

Nah, mate, cats are cool. I found that out the first time I had to remove dog turds from the lawn.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Hieronymus Bosch, a medieval Dutch painter, has painted some imaginable paintings about the hell
here's one example
Garden of Earthly Delights (http://www.nelepets.com/art/images/artists/internet-A-B/bosch-1.jpg)
(kinda explicit)

[Vincent]

Religion - that's what most wars are based on. Biggest killer of them all.

[Karlos]

An upturned 3 pin plug in a pitch dark room, situated directly in your path as you sightlessly fumble barefoot towards the light switch...

[Karlos]

Vincent wrote:
Religion - that's what most wars are based on. Biggest killer of them all.

A common enough sentiment, but I have to point out something:

The two largest, most brutal and indiscriminate wars in human history, accounting for the majority of people killed in warfare (subjective - but I'd reckon it's true), were nothing to do with religion.

Well, that is to say they that WW1 & 2 were not instigated by any religious motives, just sheer greed and despotism.

[KennyR]

Capital.

[X-ray]

@ Jefferson Betamax's upturned plug:

:lol:

[Karlos]

X-ray wrote:
@ Jefferson Betamax's upturned plug:

:lol:

You just have to have experienced it to know that it's one of the nastiest little things in everyday life ;-)

[Vincent]

Karlos wrote:
The two largest, most brutal and indiscriminate wars in human history, accounting for the majority of people killed in warfare (subjective - but I'd reckon it's true), were nothing to do with religion.

Well, that is to say they that WW1 & 2 were not instigated by any religious motives, just sheer greed and despotism.
That's true, but there's been more wars over religion than not, and I'll bet that if you count all the casualties they'd more than make the numbers of the 2 WW's.

Also, if you include things like Witch trials etc (which would be included in my "Religion" argument, war was just one part) the numbers would rocket up even further.

[X-ray]

@ Jefferson Betamax

I also did it, with the plug I mean. It was excruciating. And I don't even have darkness as an excuse.
The only thing I've done that was worse was try to open up a tin of pineapple segments without an opener. I used a folding knife to cut a ragged slit into the tin, then I folded it back a bit. I tried to cut it some more, my hand slipped, and I drove the knuckle of my 2nd digit straight into the serated tin edge. It went into the joint along with the pineapple juice on the underside of the tin. The pain was so bad that I felt my throat close up. I sat there like a fish out of water just gasping. Wasn't nice.

That was an evil pain, born of stupidity.

[Karlos]

@Vincent

I disagree.

Some googling (and trying to pick out the most reputable sources I can find), turns up:

The estimated total number of casualties for WW1 are 10.9 million. The estimated total number of casualties for WW2 are 58.5 million.

Estimates for the total number of casualties in the Korean War 2.8 million.

Estimates for the total number of casualties in the Second Indochina War (The superset containing Vietnam) stand at 3.5 million.

There were a lot of other conflicts in the 20th century I havent even looked at that resulted in millions of deaths.

The grand total (from one estimate) us a total of 180 million (http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm#TotalEst) casualties resulting from war, government oppression etc. Other estimates are from 150 million to 200 million (I just picked a middle one).

The largest "holy war" is generally taken to be the crusades. Given they happened so long ago, gathering accurate data is tricky, so these figures cannot be taken as accurate.

If one adds up the worst known atrocities commited by both sides during the entire history of the crusades (including the massacres at Acre, Tyre, Jerusalem etc), the total number of casualties is under a million.

Of course we don't know the true extent, but even if we allow for a figure 2-3x higher than that, that leaves us with the best part of 177 million other "killed due to religious war/religious oppression" to find to prove your hypothesis.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

Karlos wrote:
The largest "holy war" is generally taken to be the crusades. Given they happened so long ago, gathering accurate data is tricky, so these figures cannot be taken as accurate.
Indeed, we can't say the crusades were the biggest wars of all time. Actually, they were one big huge failure because of utter lack of interest :roflmao:
but did you also take in account what Spain did during the Rennaisance (also taken in account the colonizing)? Or what happened in Africa (because blacks there weren't Christians, or actually, no human at all considering them)

[KennyR]

@Karlos

The reason why religious wars didn't kill as many people as the idealism wars of the 20th century was less to do with the effectiveness of religion, and more to do with the fact that there were a lot less people then.

[Karlos]

@KennyR

Mass mechanised warfare and a total lack of compassion for the common man were the largest factors in the 20th century death tolls from warfare.

I'm not saying religious nutters haven't started wars and neither am I saying that viewed in context those wars were not large.

The reason why religious wars didn't kill as many people as the idealism wars of the 20th century was less to do with the effectiveness of religion, and more to do with the fact that there were a lot less people then.

Had a dig around for the global population estimates for the times in which these wars occured. It's interesting reading.

Taking the death toll of a war as a proportion of world population during the time that war occured *still* leaves the WW1 and WW2 on top as the most lethal.

So, if one is to take the stance that religion is evil on the grounds of the wars and death it has caused, one must also accept that there are much effective forms of evil than religion in the world today :-(

[KennyR]

Karlos wrote:
Mass mechanised warfare and a total lack of compassion for the common man were the largest factors in the 20th century death tolls from warfare.

Man always had lack of compassion, but you're right about mechanised warfare. Weapons were far more efficient in the 20th century. When Philip of Spain declared in the middle ages that the whole population of the Netherlands (about 3 million people) were heretics and ordered them to be executed, his men only managed to kill 800. With the machine gun and nerve gas, who knows how many they could have done. All of them, perhaps.

[Karlos]

@Speelgoedmannetje

As you suggest, one should be careful not to underestimate the total death toll caused by religious intolerance. However, as the 20th century proved (IMHO) beyond reasonable doubt, humans will readily exterminate each other en masse on just about any pretext.

I find it odd, therefore, that religion is *always* singled out as the root of all problems by so many people.

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I find it odd, therefore, that religion is *always* singled out as the root of all problems by so many people.I can imagine that, but I always try to point out a balanced view on history.
but apart from that, religion wasn't really passive in ww1 (well, it was, in ww2, no one can deny that)
British soldiers were sent out, frightened by the idea parsons told them that the Germans were posessed by the devil.

[redrumloa]

Comunism

[T_Bone]

Karlos wrote:
An upturned 3 pin plug in a pitch dark room, situated directly in your path as you sightlessly fumble barefoot towards the light switch...

Are you part of the "Stick out pin" society too? :-D

[T_Bone]

Evil is people telling you that to be good, you have to give your stuff to them. (or alternatively, they just take it from you)

Socialism, Communism, Unions, most religions, Rape, I think that covers most of it. :-)

[X-ray]

Scientology

[Speelgoedmannetje]

@T-Bone
So you think I'm an evil person? :-(

[KennyR]

T_Bone wrote:
Evil is people telling you that to be good, you have to give your stuff to them.

Like taxation? :) Nah, not evil, just civilisation.

If it was really evil, then so is any form of government, democracy, law, justice, or family, so to be non-evil we all have to live totally alone and provide 100% for ourselves, with no shared language or culture.

Altruism is the Devil's calling card they say, but then again money is the root of all evil. We can't live without either, so we just have to accept it.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
Evil is people telling you that to be good, you have to give your stuff to them.

Like taxation? :)


Yesssssssssssss :-D

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I get more and more the idea that T-Bone isn't a republican, nor a democrat, nor a conservative, nor a greenie, but...

AN ANARCHIST

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
@T-Bone
So you think I'm an evil person? :-(

Why? You about to ask me for my stuff? :-P

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I get more and more the idea that T-Bone isn't a republican, nor a democrat, nor a conservative, nor a greenie, but...

AN ANARCHIST

Naa, I think there should be government, I just think it should be run by volunteers! :lol:

[KennyR]

There's too much of the Libertarian in you, T_Bone.

Every time I think of Libertarians I think of shining corporate cities, surrounded by rotting, violent, drug-ridden urban slums controlled by very underfunded 'minimal government'. My idea of evil, for sure. The whole Cyberpunk ethos was based upon the dark side of Libertarianism.

[Vincent]

Karlos wrote:
Taking the death toll of a war as a proportion of world population during the time that war occured *still* leaves the WW1 and WW2 on top as the most lethal.

So, if one is to take the stance that religion is evil on the grounds of the wars and death it has caused, one must also accept that there are much effective forms of evil than religion in the world today :-(
But what about all the Jews in WW2 then? That was due to religious circumstance. In my eyes, the Jews who were killed in WW1 & 2 would be counted in the religious column along with the Crusades etc.

[KennyR]

@Vincent

Nazi persecution of Jews was racial, not religious. The Catholic church did a roaring trade in converting frightened Jews in the East. The Nazis still dragged them off to the death camps, converts or not.

[Karlos]

@KennyR

Precisely. Not only Jews, but just about anybody else the Nazis felt were racially inferior were shipped off to be worked to death / slaughted in untold multitudes.

@Vincent

Even if you do class the halocaust as caused by religious intolerance and move the figures over, you are still left with 174 million from 20th century conflicts alone.

[cecilia]

EVIL: when someone promises a job, you work your a$$ off and end up with a rubber check. and NO apology!
in other words, liars, users and manipulators...the worse scum of the earth.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
There's too much of the Libertarian in you, T_Bone.

Every time I think of Libertarians I think of shining corporate cities, surrounded by rotting, violent, drug-ridden urban slums controlled by very underfunded 'minimal government'. My idea of evil, for sure. The whole Cyberpunk ethos was based upon the dark side of Libertarianism.

:lol:

Reminds me of this book by John Updike (Towards the end of time?) where the UPS became the government, collecting taxes, delivering mail, and acting as the police, after the federal government went broke after a war with china.

[iamaboringperson]

Evil is people telling you that to be good, you have to give your stuff to them. (or alternatively, they just take it from you)
Interesting. :-)


Evil is being lazy enough to let your peers to do your thinking for you.

We all have our own brain, and if you're not going to use it, you might be better off non-existant.

[bloodline]

I don't believe in "Good" and "Evil". These terms suggest that there is an absolute right and wrong when it comes to society. It is my opinion there is no right and wrong for societies, simply what the society itself deems good and bad.


@Karlos et al...

What is the difference between; Jesus and Hitler, Mohamad and Hitler, Moses and Hitler, Bush and Hitler...?

I can't see much difference, they are all people who have promised better things for the people who follow them. Therefore one could quite easily call the Second World war a religous war.

I should note that I don't see any difference between politics and religion. They are one and the same.

[X-ray]

@ Bloodline

I like the saying "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

It sounds like something out of a sermon, but I like it for its meaning.
Now an evil person is one who does things to other people, but would not want them to do the same things to him. That's Hitler.

[Dandy]

Evil is:
- If you place your girlfriend with her naked butt on a burning hot cooker plate and then wait until the milk is boiling...

- If you push your old grandfather down the stairs and then shout: "Grandpa - why are you running so fast?"

- If a thick man makes a slim woman thick and then makes himself rare...

;-)

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I get more and more the idea that T-Bone isn't a republican, nor a democrat, nor a conservative, nor a greenie, but...

AN ANARCHIST

Naa, I think there should be government, I just think it should be run by volunteers! :lol:
uuuuuuuuh... methinks Stalin was quite a volunteer :nervous:

[Wain]

There is no Good or Evil, only opinion and perspective.



That being said, I think Fred Phelps is Evil.

[T_Bone]

bloodline wrote:

What is the difference between; Jesus and Hitler, Mohamad and Hitler, Moses and Hitler, Bush and Hitler...?

I can't see much difference

Jesus didn't kill anyone.
Mohammad didn't kill anyone.
Moses didn't kill anyone.

Hitler killed millions, and willingly caused death throughout the world.

Bush? Well, I'm just hoping history forgets about him and focuses on Reagan instead. :-P

A better question would be, what similarities do you see?

[Karlos]

T_Bone wrote:

bloodline wrote:

What is the difference between; Jesus and Hitler, Mohamad and Hitler, Moses and Hitler, Bush and Hitler...?

I can't see much difference

Jesus didn't kill anyone.
Mohammad didn't kill anyone.
Moses didn't kill anyone.

Hitler killed millions, and willingly caused death throughout the world.

Bush? Well, I'm just hoping history forgets about him and focuses on Reagan instead. :-P

A better question would be, what similarities do you see?


Moses, Jesus and Muhammad have perhaps not directly killed anybody, but invariably (some of) their followers have done. The same could be said of Hitler. The difference is that Hitler and his cronies directly instigated the systematic murder of millions, whereas the aforementioned prophets have not. Instead people have abused their message to justify and instigate murder.

[T_Bone]

Wain wrote:
There is no Good or Evil, only opinion and perspective.


Of course there's good and evil, opinion and perspective themselves are only opinion and perspective.

Just because you can have an opinion or perspective on something, doesn't mean it's relative.

[Dan]

Evil is somebody hitting their dog or child.
Evil is when you see somebody doing that and you don´t speakup.

Thats the start anyway. The rest is just a slippery slope...

[Wain]

Just because you can have an opinion or perspective on something, doesn't mean it's relative.


ummm...yes it does, good and evil are subjective terms, it's all due to one's perspective and opinion. The fact that you disagree with me proves my point;
There is no objective good or evil, Good and Evil are subject to one's perception/background/and given perspective on a situation, hence it is relative.

Why would we have differing opinions and perspective on things if there were an objective morality? We wouldn't(we couldn't actually). We would agree on what was good and evil, and I can guarantee you from our many dicussions here, you and I do not agree on what is or is not evil, therefore it is relative.

[T_Bone]

Wain wrote:
Just because you can have an opinion or perspective on something, doesn't mean it's relative.


ummm...yes it does, good and evil are subjective terms, it's all due to one's perspective and opinion.

It's the perspective and opinion that are relative.

The fact that you disagree with me proves my point;

That just proves that opinion and perspective are relative.

There is no objective good or evil, Good and Evil are subject to one's perception/background/and given perspective on a situation, hence it is relative.

It's not, just your take on it is. Good and Evil are only relative to each other, they don't change just because someone percieves them and forms an opinion.

Why would we have differing opinions and perspective on things if there were an objective morality?

Why not? There's such thing as hot and cold, although we'd probably disagree on them at some point, that doesn't change the fact that there's hot and cold. measuring something and forming an opinion on it won't change the temperature, regardless how you percieve it.

We wouldn't(we couldn't actually). We would agree on what was good and evil, and I can guarantee you from our many dicussions here, you and I do not agree on what is or is not evil, therefore it is relative.

All that's relative is our perceptions and our opinions. Good and Evil are pretty much constant

[KennyR]

T_Bone wrote:
All that's relative is our perceptions and our opinions. Good and Evil are pretty much constant

To be constant they'd need to have an absolute standard, right? Do you know any single thing on the planet that can be considered evil or good by all? Any single thing?

No, because good and evil are just abstract concepts invented by human beings to satisfy some deep altruistic need for the universe to be fair and absolute. It is not. Without that absolute, it's fuzzy logic and means nothing in reality. How warm and cold are 'warm and cold'? High and low? Noisy and quiet?

Even relative scales need a point of reference. But good and evil have none. Therefore they are meaningless abstracts and useful only in a firm context.

Moral absolutists believe the Bible or Koran to be that reference. However I believe anchoring morality in such a way to be evil, so... :)

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
T_Bone wrote:
All that's relative is our perceptions and our opinions. Good and Evil are pretty much constant

To be constant they'd need to have an absolute standard, right?

Sure, but that doesn't mean anyone could necessarily define that standard. even if a linguistic definition exists.

Do you know any single thing on the planet that can be considered evil or good by all? Any single thing?

Again, that just highlights the fact that opinion or perspective aren't constant, not that good and evil arn't. You can't think of anything that's good or evil?

No, because good and evil are just abstract concepts invented by human beings to satisfy some deep altruistic need for the universe to be fair and absolute.

Just because something is abstract, doesn't mean it's not real. the concept of love and hate are completely abstract too, but they're perfectly real.

It is not. Without that absolute, it's fuzzy logic and means nothing in reality. How warm and cold are 'warm and cold'? High and low? Noisy and quiet?

Increasing and decreasing? That's pretty absolute. Good is obviously an increase in the human condition, while evil is a decrease in the human condition. Nobody disagrees with that, people just have different guesses and opinions on what would increase it and what would decrease it, it doesn't change the fact, however, that the increase is good while the decrease is evil.

Even relative scales need a point of reference. But good and evil have none.

Irrelevance to the human condition is the calibration point. Consider it "zero change"

Therefore they are meaningless abstracts and useful only in a firm context.

It's "usefullness" is only an observation anyway. Perception itself is indifferent to the human condition, not only is it abstract, it's irrelevant. Knowing the temperature is hot or cold doesn't have any bearing on what temperature it is.

Moral absolutists believe the Bible or Koran to be that reference. However I believe anchoring morality in such a way to be evil, so... :)

Religions arn't about good or evil, they're mostly about worship. I've never seen any religion that concerns itself only with the human condition.

[KennyR]

T_Bone wrote:
To be constant they'd need to have an absolute standard, right?

Sure, but that doesn't mean anyone could necessarily define that standard. even if a linguistic definition exists.

There is no real standard to define, that's why.

Again, that just highlights the fact that opinion or perspective aren't constant, not that good and evil arn't. You can't think of anything that's good or evil?

I can't think of anything that is good or evil that remains so in all situations to all people. I consider murder to be evil but I wouldn't consider it evil if I had to do it to protect my family. Theft, adultery, just about any evil defined by Western civilisation, can be relativised. True, I can't think of any constructive use of child abuse, but I'm sure child abusers have relativised it in their own minds!

Just because something is abstract, doesn't mean it's not real. the concept of love and hate are completely abstract too, but they're perfectly real.

Not as real as you would think! What are they outside the system of definitions we created for outselves? Can you measure them? Can you prove their existence? Could you explain them to an intelligent being who has never felt either? Even love and hate don't have precise boundaries. They can often be the same.

Abstracts are not measured as being real, but only how they affect reality. Maths is purely abstract, but one could not argue that two plus two equals four. But what is maths in a real sense? What is two? You need something to apply it to, and what you apply it to defines what it is. That's abstract.

You may think that's sophistry, but that's just how it is. As Maxwell would have said, "It ain't real until you can measure it." Love, hate, good, evil, none of these exist or have any bearing upon the order of the cosmos. We only think they do.

Increasing and decreasing? That's pretty absolute. Good is obviously an increase in the human condition, while evil is a decrease in the human condition. Nobody disagrees with that, people just have different guesses and opinions on what would increase it and what would decrease it, it doesn't change the fact, however, that the increase is good while the decrease is evil.

Again, you'd have to define the human condition, a VERY vague concept! To improve the human condition effectively you could, for instance, commit many crimes and take away free will. Communism, fascism, eugenics are all attempts to enrich the human condition. Yet they are considered evil. Yet, given enough time and effort, they really could improve it. Would the end justify the means? Another question that cannot be answered.

Even relative scales need a point of reference. But good and evil have none.

Irrelevance to the human condition is the calibration point. Consider it "zero change"

How can you have a zero point in a system that is in a constant state of flux? It may be that irrelevance to the human condition is the greatest good possible, who are you to say! :)

Therefore they are meaningless abstracts and useful only in a firm context.

It's "usefullness" is only an observation anyway. Perception itself is indifferent to the human condition, not only is it abstract, it's irrelevant. Knowing the temperature is hot or cold doesn't have any bearing on what temperature it is.

Exactly. So knowing something is evil or good has no bearing about actually how evil it is. The only difference with temperature is that, luckily, nature already defined it with real, measurable absolutes. We did not invent these.

Moral absolutists believe the Bible or Koran to be that reference. However I believe anchoring morality in such a way to be evil, so... :)

Religions arn't about good or evil, they're mostly about worship. I've never seen any religion that concerns itself only with the human condition.

On the contrary, I think religion is wholly about the human condition! The worship is only consequential. Boil down spirituality and you'll end with only three questions: Why are we here, who put us here, where are we going. Worship itself basically only boils down to an attempt to create order out of the chaos of reality by attempting to change it. Pray, and maybe you'll have a good harvest. Or the plains will be full of game. Or your children won't get sick. It's simply a method to try to improve the human condition. Good and evil are only concepts we stuck on later, to satisfy our needs to add that order to the universe, order which in itself does not exist outside our small jelly minds.

[X-ray]

@ Kenny:

You said "...I consider murder to be evil but I wouldn't consider it evil if I had to do it to protect my family..."

That's not murder, that's defence, which you have a right to. Murder is evil, period.

The real test for evil is this: when you do something to somebody and you wouldn't like them to do it to you, that's evil. It hinges on the fact that the individual recognises that what he is doing would be unacceptable if the roles were reversed.
Any other argument to suggest that it is relative is based on a fantasy model where society is composed of magically-created beings, each of whom has learned nothing in his life, has had no life experience, and does not know the difference between right and wrong BY HIS OWN STANDARDS.

Show me someone who hasn't formulated his own idea of what is right and wrong. It's like claiming a computer is running on a blank hard-disk.

[PMC]

It's hard to define evil per se. We can define certain acts as evil, but as people are never less than three dimensional, it's difficult to say that someone is truly an evil person. Evil can be perpetrated by groups of individuals, or be acts of neglect and extreme selfishness.

Simply, people choose to commit an act of evil for whatever reason. Stalin's purges were acts of inhuman evil fuelled by psychotic paranoia which had consumed any ounce of humanity in Stalin's being.

The Apartheid regieme in South Africa wasn't necessarily perpetrated by one individual, but was a collective email born out of social engineering, greed and neglect. Indeed, the phrase "Banality of Evil" fits because it became an accepted part of daily life in the country for over forty years.

[whabang]

The real test for evil is this: when you do something to somebody and you wouldn't like them to do it to you, that's evil. It hinges on the fact that the individual recognises that what he is doing would be unacceptable if the roles were reversed.
So me making love to my woman is an act of evil? :-P

Murder isn't always evil, BTW.

[PMC]

whabang wrote:

Murder isn't always evil, BTW.

To kill someone out of rage, malice, jealousy, vengence or envy cannot really be anything but.

Unless of course, you were referring to manslaughter or unlawful killing (as in acts of self defence, accidental death or so called "mercy killing").

[whabang]

PMC wrote:
To kill someone out of rage, malice, jealousy, vengence or envy cannot really be anything but.


Killing for those reasons are not evil, IMO. Wrong, no doubt, but not evil.

Killing, without feeling anything at all, is another matter...

[PMC]

Here's another definition of evil...

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11296

This kind of indescriminate act makes me wonder how much lower humanity can sink sometimes.

[T_Bone]

KennyR wrote:
T_Bone wrote:

Sure, but that doesn't mean anyone could necessarily define that standard. even if a linguistic definition exists.

There is no real standard to define, that's why.

Sure there is, but most of us have been conditioned to rationalise all sorts of evil behaviors and they tend to intrude on our definitions. Good and Evil themselves are constant, but we're nowhere close to capable of the foresight necessary to work out all the plusses and minusses in every situation. It's a bit like playing chess I guess. Chess is abstract, but the heuristics can be clearly defined, yet measurement of a good and bad move will likely never be attained by humans, as it's just too complicated, yet technically it's possible.

Again, that just highlights the fact that opinion or perspective aren't constant, not that good and evil arn't. You can't think of anything that's good or evil?

I can't think of anything that is good or evil that remains so in all situations to all people. I consider murder to be evil but I wouldn't consider it evil if I had to do it to protect my family. Theft, adultery, just about any evil defined by Western civilisation, can be relativised. True, I can't think of any constructive use of child abuse, but I'm sure child abusers have relativised it in their own minds!

Morals are a different beast. "Morality" is like a "style" of playing chess. It's a mental shortcut we've constructed to try to be good, without having to do the math involved. Morality is a mental shortcut we've created by watching the chess game and trying to see patterns in it's play. Sometimes we might be on to something, sometimes not. "Morality" doesn't necessarily mean "good", but is more a pattern one has observed that usually leads to good. These can differ, just as styles of chess can differ, even though the rules of chess are constant, and the heuristics are constant.

Abstracts are not measured as being real, but only how they affect reality. Maths is purely abstract, but one could not argue that two plus two equals four. But what is maths in a real sense? What is two? You need something to apply it to, and what you apply it to defines what it is. That's abstract.

You may think that's sophistry, but that's just how it is. As Maxwell would have said, "It ain't real until you can measure it." Love, hate, good, evil, none of these exist or have any bearing upon the order of the cosmos. We only think they do.

Of course they have a bearing on something in the cosmos, life! The reason we can't easily define abstracts in "life" is because we don't understand it, but it exists.

[quote]Increasing and decreasing? That's pretty absolute. Good is obviously an increase in the human condition, while evil is a decrease in the human condition. Nobody disagrees with that, people just have different guesses and opinions on what would increase it and what would decrease it, it doesn't change the fact, however, that the increase is good while the decrease is evil.

Again, you'd have to define the human condition, a VERY vague concept! To improve the human condition effectively you could, for instance, commit many crimes and take away free will. Communism, fascism, eugenics are all attempts to enrich the human condition. Yet they are considered evil. Yet, given enough time and effort, they really could improve it. Would the end justify the means? Another question that cannot be answered.

Giving up your queen would probably be a bad thing, but not necessarily. It's impossible to define absolutes in chess, unless you had almost unlimited foresight, but it's not impossible. The human condition, life, good and evil, are infinately more complicated than chess, yet are still heuristically bound and definable.

Even relative scales need a point of reference. But good and evil have none.

Irrelevance to the human condition is the calibration point. Consider it "zero change"

How can you have a zero point in a system that is in a constant state of flux? It may be that irrelevance to the human condition is the greatest good possible, who are you to say! :)

I probably couldn't, but if I could foresee the consequences of my actions, or even my chess moves, I could.

Therefore they are meaningless abstracts and useful only in a firm context.

It's "usefullness" is only an observation anyway. Perception itself is indifferent to the human condition, not only is it abstract, it's irrelevant. Knowing the temperature is hot or cold doesn't have any bearing on what temperature it is.

Exactly. So knowing something is evil or good has no bearing about actually how evil it is.

True, but it's rare that someone truely doesn't know, and isn't just rationalising their lack of knowledge, but it happens. We try not to hold people accountable for actions they are incapable of understanding the consequences of.

Moral absolutists believe the Bible or Koran to be that reference. However I believe anchoring morality in such a way to be evil, so... :)

Religions arn't about good or evil, they're mostly about worship. I've never seen any religion that concerns itself only with the human condition.

On the contrary, I think religion is wholly about the human condition! The worship is only consequential. Boil down spirituality and you'll end with only three questions: Why are we here, who put us here, where are we going. Worship itself basically only boils down to an attempt to create order out of the chaos of reality by attempting to change it. Pray, and maybe you'll have a good harvest. Or the plains will be full of game. Or your children won't get sick. It's simply a method to try to improve the human condition. Good and evil are only concepts we stuck on later, to satisfy our needs to add that order to the universe, order which in itself does not exist outside our small jelly minds.

Religion is like "morality", it's a pattern some have observed in a chess game, and it's an attempt to define a "style" of play, another shortcut to actually doing the math. We've become better capable of understanding the chess game since most religions were created, that's why we can see errors in the "styles" of play concieved hundreds of years ago.

Nested quoting with Xoops is a PITA. :-P

[T_Bone]

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I get more and more the idea that T-Bone isn't a republican, nor a democrat, nor a conservative, nor a greenie, but...

AN ANARCHIST

Naa, I think there should be government, I just think it should be run by volunteers! :lol:
uuuuuuuuh... methinks Stalin was quite a volunteer :nervous:


Yea, but he was a Federal Volunteer. Not much good comes from any federal government. It's too far removed from the people. :-)

Federal governments have a tendancy to become either Facist or Communist (maybe both?), all on their own. Federal governments arn't flexible enough.

[X-ray]

@ Whabang

You said "..So me making love to my woman is an act of evil?..."

He he

Only if you are using the tradesman's entrance and not letting her return the favour :-P

Otherwise you are immune from role reversal because hopefully you don't have a vagina. :-D

[T_Bone]

"Tradesmans entrance"???

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[whabang]

@X-ray
"Tradesman's entrance" lol

That's exactly what I'm talking aboot! :-P

[Speelgoedmannetje]

I hardly understand this all methinks

[PMC]

X-ray wrote:
@ Whabang

You said "..So me making love to my woman is an act of evil?..."

He he

Only if you are using the tradesman's entrance and not letting her return the favour :-P



:nervous:

Call me a prude if you like, but I think I'll pass on that one...

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

T_Bone wrote:

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
I get more and more the idea that T-Bone isn't a republican, nor a democrat, nor a conservative, nor a greenie, but...

AN ANARCHIST

Naa, I think there should be government, I just think it should be run by volunteers! :lol:
uuuuuuuuh... methinks Stalin was quite a volunteer :nervous:


Yea, but he was a Federal Volunteer. Not much good comes from any federal government. It's too far removed from the people. :-)

Federal governments have a tendancy to become either Facist or Communist (maybe both?), all on their own. Federal governments arn't flexible enough.okay, federal governments are way too far removed from the people. But I know that small community volunteering govs can also be *quite* dictatorial.

[MAD]

Hoya!

A dead 060...

Be funky

M A D

[Karlos]

@MAD

That's not evil, it's just tragic. Evil would be someone who wantonly kills 060's ...

[GadgetMaster]

Live electric current is evil. Especially when as a kid you stick your finger in the space where the fridge bulb should have been.

LIVE <> EVIL

See! it even spells evil backwards :lol:

[Karlos]

@gadget

When I was about 4 or 5, I grabbed an electified cattle fence with both hands having been encouraged to do so by my elder brother :lol:

I sure thought that was evil at the time, but soon saw the funny side...

[T_Bone]

Karlos wrote:
@gadget

When I was about 4 or 5, I grabbed an electified cattle fence with both hands having been encouraged to do so by my elder brother :lol:

I sure thought that was evil at the time, but soon saw the funny side...

A few months ago I glanced against one while petting a neighbors horse. It's been really offish towards me since! :lol:
I knew it was there, but I figured it was off as his horse didn't seem to shy away from it like most do when one's being used, I assumed it was off.

[X-ray]

@ T-Bone

That horse must think you are the evil emperor from Star Wars now...electricity at your fingertips ;)

[gizz72]

Greetings,

When someone take advantage of you(naive).
When someone rips you off(ie money, property...) by force.
You had deals with a partner, but you only get 20% or none when you agreed to be 50/50.
When you want it all for yourself and eliminating others by killing them.
When you decide to dominate the world! Then the universe!! (Bwahahahaha!!!!)


regards,

Gizz