Toughest Philosophical Questions

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.

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.

A little luck doesn't hurt either.

What form of economy do you prefer?

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.

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.

I believe that is called moral absolutism.

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?

Is your life not an absolute meaning to you?

And does the absolute necessity of your life to all meaning not make of moral forms an absolute to you

And since people are different and their perception of their needs is different, then forms will seem to vary, and to be subjective when they tend very much to be absolutes since we all need the same qualities to survive

[

Quote:

quote="Cyracuz"]

Quote:

Is your life not an absolute meaning to you?

No. I don't deal with absolutes.

Quote:

And does the absolute necessity of your life to all meaning not make of moral forms an absolute to you

No. I don't deal with moral forms either.

Quote:

And since people are different and their perception of their needs is different, then forms will seem to vary, and to be subjective when they tend very much to be absolutes since we all need the same qualities to survive[/quote[/quote]]

First of all; let me thank you for the news that only in my posts will you find anything about moral forms because that means I have added something to philosophical understanding.... In fact, military men in talking of the condition of armies have distinguished for many years between the physic, and the morale, with the later meaning the spiritual condition of the army... While I am certain that some one some where must have noticed the difference between the more objective forms of physical reality, and the more subjective forms regarding spiritual reality that to be honest, is only real because we treat it as though real...

Speaking of honesty, I must conclude that you are not honest, or that you simply have not given life much thought... What I call moral forms, what people build their moral behavior around; notions like Virtue, Life, Truth, Justice, God, Existence, and etc., of these subjective qualities I ask: Where do you think they come by their meaning, and why do people, and especially honest people act as though they are absolutes??? All forms represent an absolute... Table salt is absolutely table salt, and dogs are absolutely dogs, and not because in reality there is not some variation from the norm, but because forms must always be absolute and constant to be useful... Conservation, or identity is the common quality of forms, even moral forms...We may look on our moral forms as so much subjectivity, but if that were true, we would not be able to consider the subject at all...If we have a concept of lines, the concept is an absolute, and it is conserved, and the fact that it is absolute, and conserved allows us to use that constant as a means of comparing all lines with each other, saying one is shorter or longer than another, or more curved, or less so... When we compare examples of a moral forms such as justice it is against the presumption that there is a definition of justice that is absolute, and unchanging... We know we cannot define terms by examples... For example, the concept of a dog is never complete, but our minds working on the many examples of dogs distill an absolute concept by which we define the examples we find of dogs as dogs... With moral forms we have only imperfect examples out of which we can try in vain to distill a perfect analogy of the form, and the fact that we have general virtues and more specific examples of virtue only means there will be a subjective element... If we use justice as an example, then we must say there are no examples of true justice, and that all justice has truth, honor, mercy, hope, toleration, and communication as elements, and in short, examples of all the virtues may be found in any virtue, and all is alloyed in people with the most extreme vices... What makes these subjective qualities seem objective is that we need our lives, and our lives need these virtues, and these virtues are virtues because they are essential to life...In conflicts regarding justice, people will accept little justice, and far less than they actually need if they can keep their lives... Life is the sinnequanon that gives all the virtues their value... How much of each people need is impossible to determine... If they have enough, they survive... If they have a little more they are happy, and if they expect more than is their due, and some times if they ask for any they may die for their share....The want of justice kills people... The want of liberty kills people... The want of virtue kills people... It is not out of anything but dire necessity that we consider moral forms... They are to die for...

Quote:

It seems to me you have a very subjective way of understanding things. I have not be able to find anything about "moral forms" anywhere but in your posts.

Table salt is absolutely table salt

For example, the concept of a dog is never complete, but our minds working on the many examples of dogs distill an absolute concept by which we define the examples we find of dogs as dogs