The Ultimate Islam Thread

Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by millersnose, Jul 26, 2016.

  1. AJB1102

    AJB1102 Juniors

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Messages:
    1,437
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    No matter who you are, how you were raised, where you are from, what colour you are, what (if any) religion you follow.. if someone makes a deliberate effort to indiscriminately murder people en mass who're otherwise going about their business you're gonna sum it up as evil regardless of the alternative words you might use.
     
  2. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Coach

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    11,761
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    See this is patently untrue, evidenced by the fact there is a whole f**king bunch of people, let's call them ISIS, who clearly do not see it that way.

    Now, for the benefit of those that can not detach the above from some stupid idea that in stating that, I must be attempting to justify it, that is not the case, I'm quite happy to call it evil, for mine it clearly is.

    From which I reason, that if you and I see it as evil, and they do not, then evil must be subjective.
     
  3. millersnose

    millersnose Post Whore

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    64,112
    Likes Received:
    928
    In no way do I suggest you in any context support or excuse such acts bandy
    But here is where I believe you are wrong
    Many people are wrong about many things including those who believe such acts are not evil
    The members of nambla may well think there is nothing wrong with rooting little boys...they are wrong..this is not subjective they are just wrong..
    The Taliban may well not think shooting little girls going to school is evil but they are wrong..this is not subjective.. they are just wrong..it was evil
    Pol pot and his cohorts may well have believed killing capitalists was not evil but they were wrong..this is not subjective..it was evil
    Religious authorities in the Middle Ages who tortured confessions out of people they believed were witches didn't believe what they were doing was evil..but they were wrong...this is not subjective ..they were wrong it was evil

    You may well be hung up on religious connotations of the word "evil" but I point out lots of language we use has religious origins and there is nothing wrong with a straight forward interpretation of the word
     
    gUt, age.s and Snoop like this.
  4. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Coach

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    11,761
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    Again I simply see this as confirmation, and again I do not disagree that those that perpetrate such evils are wrong in thinking their actions are not evil.

    I would argue, that I do not form the position due to being "hung up" with the religious connotations of the concept, I do however freely concede that I see the alternative to my position to be creationist in nature, and therefore utterly reject it.
     
  5. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    It sounds like you are agreeing here that there is such a thing as objective evil.

    But here you reject the idea of objective evil based solely on the repercussions of holding to such an idea.

    Have I got you right?
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2017
  6. millersnose

    millersnose Post Whore

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    64,112
    Likes Received:
    928
    You are conflating " subjective" with " wrong"

    They are not synomonous

    A preference for Coca Cola over Pepsi is subjective

    The evilness of running trucks over hundreds of kiddies in resort towns is wrong and evil..this is not subjective
     
  7. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Coach

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    11,761
    Likes Received:
    1,776
    No

    And Yes.
    I'm not conflating anything, "wrong" in the way it's used is subjective, as in " I believe that to be wrong "
     
  8. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    But it's not universally wrong. It's just your belief.
     
  9. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,061
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    It strikes me as odd that we never seem to argue or discuss the need or lack of an objective foundation for 'good'. This conversation only ever seems to arise in the context for defining what is evil.

    I know Snoop thinks it's wrong-headed book but those of you looking for some non-religious foundation for objective morality could do worse than read Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape. Snoop and I disagree that there could be a science of morality but this book lays the groundwork for such a science imo.

    I think it doesn't really matter if we ever find an objective bedrock for morality. What matters is that societies act in a way that they believe there is such a bedrock and try to improve methods for finding it. The old 'it's not the destination, it's the journey'.

    (I acknowledge that from Snoop's point of view the forgoing is an utter waste of time because it's already been revealed to us in word and in the actions of Christ. He would acknowledge that from my point of view that for me to allow this view as indicative of truth demands too much other impossible and contradictory baggage.)
     
    age.s likes this.
  10. Snoop

    Snoop Coach

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    10,900
    Likes Received:
    397
    By all means read The Moral Landscape and then read all the responses to it's naivety. And there are plenty of responses to it from non-religious people if you don't want a 'biased' view point.
     
  11. age.s

    age.s Bench

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2009
    Messages:
    2,866
    Likes Received:
    407
    I think it comes down to the fact that it's much easier (though often still extremely difficult) to identify evil. There's no question (or at least there shouldn't be) that the terrorist acts we're referencing are objective examples of evil but it's difficult to even think of actions we'd all agree are objectively good. Certainly nothing that's comparable on the scale of good to the scale of evil in, say the Manchester attack. "Good" acts tend to get tangled up in a plethora of contradictions and competing outcomes. It's similar (and perhaps related) to the reality that creating things of value is a much more complicated process than destroying them.

    I actually think it matters enormously, particularly if we want to steer clear of a faith based solution. I don't mean "faith based" to mean just one of the major religions, but you're essentially asking people to have faith that an objective morality could exist in your second sentence. I don't see much difference there and what religious folk are routinely criticised for doing.
     
  12. gUt

    gUt Coach

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    13,061
    Likes Received:
    1,232
    There is a huge difference. Religions claim they have The Answer(s) and then generally ask us to work backwards to fit their premises. Moral philosophy/science/whatever admits we may never know in principle what the bedrock is but doing the work of trying to find such a thing should tend to improve the way we treat each other in practice.
     

Share This Page