real life wrote:I appreciate you taking the time to answer.
Once again, i am never convinced that your perfunctory courtesy is genuine, and at all events, it is not necessary.
Quote:You give examples of rape, cannibalism, pedophilia, terrorism, etc being practiced by various societies at various times under various justifications.
I don't disagree with you at all about that.
You don't agree that it has happened, or you don't agree that the excuses advanced justify the acts? You need to express yourself more clearly. All that i have pointed out is that these things have happened, and in some, but not all cases, i have provided the justifications which were used by those who perpetrated the acts--i have not at any time said that such acts were justified, so if you don't agree with me, the only things about which you can disagree is that the events took place, or that the individuals involved advanced the justifications which i have described in some cases. You cannot disagree with me that the acts were justified, for the simple, the good and sufficient reason that i haven't said the acts were justified.
Quote:My question is: just because the society at large may have approved the practice, or even found it in their self-interest to engage in such behavior, does that mean that the behavior was not evil?
No, the acts were not, in and of themselves evil. The people who perpetrate such acts were not, in and of themselves, evil. The acts might be reasonably be described as inhumane, given the definition of humane--but even that is going to be a subjective judgment. Describing the perpetrators as sociopathic or psychopathic might be more justified--but even with psychological terms, you still tread the minefield of subjectivity.
The behavior might be what you deplore, and what i deplore, and it might not be consonant with good social order--but evil is a subjective concept, and does not describe anything which exists in reality.
Quote:I think you might agree that it was evil, regardless of how the society itself justified it, or was even 'benefited' by it.
You certainly didn't do much thinking to come up with that, and apparently have never--on all the many occasions over several years now upon which i have canvassed this topic--paid sufficient attention to understand that i consistently state that no such thing as evil exists. I have not at any point claimed that such actions were justified, or that anyone necessarily benefited from them (although it is often true that an individual, or a handful of individuals, benefit from social chaos, murder, rape, terrorism--and usually those individuals are in positions of trust and responsibility in one or more societies and governments).
Quote:Increased societal stability for the oppressors didn't make evil behavior good (or 'not evil'), did it?
That's correct--statements about what is good, or bad, or evil, are all subjective statements. You don't display coherent thought, though, because if you can arrive at such a simple and obvious conclusion, you ought never to have the statement which preceded this question.
It is worth noting, as well, that "societal stability" is not necessarily the goal of those who promote terror--and in fact, the destabilization of society is often the goal of those who promote terror.
Quote:The rapists, murderers etc would likely argue that it was in their own self interest and to their benefit that they did NOT follow the 'do unto others' rule that you seem to claim is 'common sense'.
This is only true in those situations in which the people committing criminal acts are fairly well assured of getting away with their crimes--the situation in Bosnia, in which a rogue nation, Serbia, provided the wherewithal to destabilize Bosnia-Herzegovina, was one in which many of those committing criminal acts had a good prospect of getting away with those crimes. That was even more likely as time passed and the Serbs could see both that the rest of Europe would not intervene, and that the Croatians, their only credible opponent in the Balkan peninsula, was as eager as they to dismember Bosnia to their own benefit.
In a society which is otherwise stable, a rapist or a murderer can be reasonable described as criminal (transgressing against society) and very likely can be reasonably be described as sociopathic or psychopathic based upon their actions which society adjudges to be criminal, the evidence being the laws which prohibit such acts. Ultimately, if society is efficient in the enforcement of the social contract through police agency, either the criminal will have to abandon their crime of choice, or they will fall afoul of police agency. So, it remains common sense to "do unto others," so long as one is a part of a coherent and relatively efficient society. My comment about "do unto others" was made in the context of, and at the end of, a paragraph in which i discussed good social order and enlightened self-interest. I was not referring to "do unto others" as some absolute guide to behavior which exists eternally independent of the social contract, but rather as a guide for the individual living within and willingly subject to a social contract.
I have addressed here the actions of individuals within otherwise stable societies, after taking notice that the same standards do not apply in the chaos of social collapse. That you many have intended to refer to the actions of groups does not signify, in that i will address that after your next bit of silliness which you attempt to pass off as a logical conclusion.
Quote:So if it benefited them to do these things, giving them the advantage over their enemies, increasing their stability as a society and their ability to thrive and survive in the rough and tumble of the world, were those things still evil?
Here, you revert to the issue of group actions (you probably meant that in your previous paragraph, but you did not make that clear). First of all, it is necessary to dispense with the strawmen you have so feverishly been attempting to prop up. I have not at any time stated that rape and murder, and acts of state terror, are conducive to social stability, nor that they contribute to the ability of a society to thrive and survive. You are peddling that bit of nonsense, in a rather witless attempt to suggest that i had meant that, and to provide yourself a basis upon which to assert that there is such a thing as evil, and that i am ignoring that.
The Serbs and their clients the Bosnian Serbs, did not intend that rape and murder be enshrined within the society which they intended to create. Within Serbia at that time, murder and rape were still criminal acts, subject to severe punishment (unless, of course, it were an example of the government of Milosevic eliminating his enemies, in extra-judicial, and illegal acts). Had their program succeeded, and the Bosnia Muslims had been exterminated, driven out or subsumed through the process of the rape camps, and the Bosnian Serbs had emerged victorious to re-united Bosnia-Herzegovina with Serbia and Montenegro in the truncated Yugoslavia, rape and murder would have been illegal.
When the Mongols raped and murdered and terrorized their way across more than half of the Eurasian land mass, they only slaughtered and raped among those who did not immediately surrender. Those tribes and nations which became client states, and participated in the slaughter and conquest, were free from the depredations. Those tribes and states which submitted to becoming tributary were free from the depredations. It was in the case of tribes, cities or nations which resisted that all the crushing weight of Mongol terror descended upon them, provided they were unable to defend themselves from the Mongols. The Mamluks (basically, Egypt) successfully defied the Mongols in arms--and therefore, they were not subjected to those depredations. The Tatars (a Turkic-speaking people of central Asia) became clients of the Mongols, and participated in their conquests--their local laws were respected, insofar as they did not conflict with Mongol practice. Many, many other nations resisted the Mongols in arms, were defeated, and were destroyed.
In short, you are attempting to say that rape, mass murder, terror, etc., are beneficial to those who perpetrate such crimes. I have not said so, so whomever you are arguing against (if anyone), it is not me. I simply cataloged the justifications which have been sometimes made for such actions.
Quote:In short, does might make right? I don't think that you would agree that it does, but that is where your arguement for moral subjectivism leads, is it not?
I no more believe in right or wrong as moral absolutes than i do good and bad, or good and evil. You obviously have not (or, more likely, will not) understand what i've said from the outset--which is that good and evil are subjective concepts, and i will add to that right and wrong.
So you are frantically trying now to prop up your silly strawman. I've not said that "might makes right," nor have i justified any of the actions which you are so eager that i deplore as "evil." I know of no such concept as "moral subjectivism," nor have i ever argued for such a silly concept. Morality is itself a set of subjective judgments--so don't try to foist your sanctimonious judgments off on to me--your judgments are not any less (nor any more) subjective than anyone else's.
I don't argue for "moral relativism"--i simply point that moral statements cannot be show to derive from absolute truths, and that therefore, one chooses subjectively to adhere to and promote a code of behavior--or one does not, and is subject to being labeled sociopathic or psychopathic. One need not subcribe to any imaginary friend superstition to believe in good social order, and apply a standard of "do unto others"--which is my point, and which is
à propos of a discussion of whether or not the world were better off without religion. I don't assert that the world is better off without religion, although the frequency with which religion has lent itself to the terroristic ambitions of venal men makes the track record of organized religion look awfully sordid. I simply point out that religion is not necessary to good social order.
Quote:If rape , murder of one's enemies, etc leads to good social order in the estimation of the victors, that doesn't mean that they haven't done evil, does it?
No, they haven't done evil because evil does not exist. I have at no time said or even suggested that rape and murder lead to good social order.
Quote:A final note, I can understand why you might think my style is 'blunt' or 'crudely applied' . If you met me in person you would quickly realize that I am not an eloquent person, and tend to say what I think without a lot of glitz. This can sometimes be a great fault, but no personal disrespect is meant toward you or others.
I was not referring to style in general, but your attempts at irony. This is another sad and failed attempt at irony. I don't for a moment believe that you consider that saying what you think "without glitz" is a fault, and i suspect that you consider it a badge of honor.
Quote:Hope you are having a great night.
Fortunately, i was spared your effort at weaving strawmen until the morning.
