Toughest Philosophical Questions

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

As you please. It was fun arguing with you.

It was not much of an orgument since neither of you determined upon a definition of Evil; and I would say that there is no true definition for it, though the nazis are a fair example of it...

1 Reply

@Fido,

I don't think "evil" is anything but a subjective opinion. Sometimes wolves eat sheep, and sometimes a naive farmer thinks the wolf is evil. We have quite a lot of people like that in Norway, people who believe we would be better off if wolves were just removed from the Norwegian fauna.

1 Reply

When you get hung up on simple words like "evil" with its inherent definition, it shows why many people do not understand what it is. To say it's subjective is nonsense.

Quote:

e·vil/ˈēvəl/
Adjective:
Profoundly immoral and malevolent.
Noun:
Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.
Synonyms:
adjective. wicked - bad - ill - vicious - malign - sinister
noun. harm - ill - mischief - wrong - disaster - wickedness

Killing millions of innocent people; men, women, and children, is not "subjective."

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

What do you think about this explanation?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

One sided 'opinion.' If subjective is only something that takes place in a person's mind, that then contradicts everything that they call objective.

Humans define everything by what we see and experience. There are some things humans "see" that are objective, but not based on more than objects. When we say, "the sun will rise tomorrow," that's an observation that is objective; there is nobody who can deny that fact. It's based on human observation and interpretation. When one human kills another, that person is certainly dead; that's objective.

Where it becomes subjective is the reason(s) why one person killed another.

Morals are subjective to a certain degree, but outright killing, stealing, hurting others without cause or reason, are objective. There are standards of morals that are universal which doesn't depend on culture, politics, religion, or ethnicity; they are objective.

With most moral issues which many claim is subjective has to do with whether the victim is yourself, a family member, or a loved one. If they are killed, raped, brutalized, stolen from, or any number of violence against them, it's objective. If those same crimes are perpetrated against others and strangers, it can be subjective.

The killing of six million Jews by the Nazis were immoral, and an objective conclusion by any universal standard of morality.

3 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I believe that is called moral absolutism.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

There are some things humans "see" that are objective

That is not conclusively proven to be true. The concept of objectivity is philosophically problematic.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

If subjective is only something that takes place in a person's mind, that then contradicts everything that they call objective.

How so? please explain.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Everything people interpret is done through their training, experience, and education - which are "learned." How then can anything be objective? What makes the brain finite in arriving to conclusions about our observations which are only biological messages?

Do you exist? Prove it.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Earlier you said:

Quote:

When you get hung up on simple words like "evil" with its inherent definition, it shows why many people do not understand what it is. To say it's subjective is nonsense.

Then:

Quote:

Everything people interpret is done through their training, experience, and education - which are "learned." How then can anything be objective?

How do you solve the apparent contradiction between these two statements?

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

You're trying to compare apples and oranges; the second opinion was a "what if" type of response to a direct question as an example. I'm sure you do not know the difference.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Do you exist? Prove it.

If I was standing in a room with a 1000 people and you were one of them and I shook everyone's hand and asked everyone if I was real a person and if I existed would you stand up and say no you do not or that I can not prove that I exist?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Oh, so if the example is "evil", your answer is the exact opposite?
I think you are floundering here...

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Do you have a complete understanding or realism and nonrealism?

Isn't your interpretation of world events based on your language, ethnicity, training, religious or nonreligious beliefs, experience, and what you "think" are real and unreal? How are your emotions affected by "real" world events vs what you see in the theater? How about sports events? Is your emotional response any different between the real and unreal? How about individual tragedies vs mass tragedies? Are your perceptions about this world accurate? How so?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I'm not floundering; your misinterpreting what I said. Show me anywhere where I said anything about "evil" being an opposite. You may cut and paste from any of my posts.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

When you get hung up on simple words like "evil" with its inherent definition, it shows why many people do not understand what it is. To say it's subjective is nonsense.

So if it's not subjective, it's objective. Those are dualistic counterparts. When we describe something in those terms, it's either one or the other.

So if you say that "evil is a subjective judgment" is nonsense, that means that you see "evil" as an absolute. That something "evil" has that quality regardless of how you look at it; it's objective.

But then you question if anything can truly be objective:

Quote:

Isn't your interpretation of world events based on your language, ethnicity, training, religious or nonreligious beliefs, experience, and what you "think" are real and unreal? How are your emotions affected by "real" world events vs what you see in the theater? How about sports events? Is your emotional response any different between the real and unreal? How about individual tragedies vs mass tragedies? Are your perceptions about this world accurate? How so?

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

No, you are again confused. It's because you do not remember what I have said on this subject.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I do not have to remember. I just have to scroll up. Bad excuse.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I do not have a complete understanding of anything. I have approximations of reality.
I share many of your beliefs or understandings and I think that some of them should be constructed into absolute concepts with the understanding that any of them could be found to be wrong in the future. The reason why I say this is because some things will need to be revised when new evidence is brought forward proving that the old concepts were not 100% correct.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

What you say is generally accepted as true; that future knowledge may change the way we see and interpret things. However, in the case of Hitler, and many other tyrants who have been responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands of humans without due process or good cause, there is no question they were/are evil. Other labels such as "subjective or objective" doesn't matter; it's universally understood that there are good and bad people in this world, and some are easy to identify as evil. That some may have other good character traits is of no value to those they have harmed or killed.

2 Replies

Toughest Philosophical Questions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know