Discourse 24: Monsters

[Guido Finucci]

That's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

I think you meant moral relativism.

What is wrong with moral relativism?

Also - Trollax's position isn't necessarily relativist. It could be coherently constructed from some forms of intentionalism.

Tell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.
I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

You'd be surprised how many of them are able to forgive what happened to them. Go find one of those people and ask them - they'll tell you that the Evil (capital letter preserved) wasn't perpetrated by all the camp guards. They were nasty, certainly. They were inhumane at times, granted. I still don'taccept that they deserve the capital E.

[Trollax]

There's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused.

One word.  Just ONE word.

Auschwitz.

Theory discounted.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

There's something you've all got to try some time. It's called Neckering. It's based around Necker's cube. A drawing of a cube net that can be either facing one way or the other. In idea space you turn your mind around an issue from one side, to the other. I never said you could justify and explain away the things that people do, but if you can come to the place where you can see how and why they happened, how they were justified and rationalised, you can move past them. Believe me, I have enough of my own experiences to discount this theory.
In the end you end up seeing everything you can become, what could have happened if you had reacted a second later, experienced that moment slightly differently, it could be you pulling the trigger.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

Nonsense.  That's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

Tell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.

I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

One word.

Palestine.

Rebuttal discounted.

At what point did I say that the Jews were angels?

I did not.

What I said was that the camps were Evil.  In turn, they have engendered a "never again" mentality that has bred more evil.

Evil feeds on itself, and prospers when good men (and women) do nothing.  Moral relevance is just another rationalization for doing nothing.

I never even said "give everyone a flower and pray it works out alright. I'm saying that unless we realise the humanity of other people no matter what they have done, we doom ourswelves to repeating the cycle, to continuing sunyata.

[Out of the Wasteland]

I just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

When did discordianism descend into sophistry?

The minute you disagreed with something someone said. Oh, wait, but that's just moral relativism taken to the extreme. I'm not actually getting at the "truth."
*Has a heart attack from laughing*

I didn't DISAGREE with what you said...I didn't see anything to disagree WITH.

BTW, Trollaxe, I'm enjoying a heated debate.  I will not indulge in a flame war with another Discordian, though.  I save THAT for the Freepers.  Can we agree on THAT?

[Out of the Wasteland]

That's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

I think you meant moral relativism.

What is wrong with moral relativism?

Also - Trollax's position isn't necessarily relativist. It could be coherently constructed from some forms of intentionalism.

Tell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.
I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

You'd be surprised how many of them are able to forgive what happened to them. Go find one of those people and ask them - they'll tell you that the Evil (capital letter preserved) wasn't perpetrated by all the camp guards. They were nasty, certainly. They were inhumane at times, granted. I still don'taccept that they deserve the capital E.

1.  Yeah, that's what me and those 8 goose island beers meant.  My bad.

What is wrong with moral relativism?  Just the fact that some things ARE so wrong that they cannot be justified, explained, excused, or forgiven.  Jesus forgives, Eris forgets, I take revenge.

2.  They are better than me, in that respect.  The fact that they are good enough (one could almost say foolish enough) to forgive does not change the fact that the camps were Evil.  Why not a capital E?  6,000,000 emaciated corpses doesn't merit a capital E?  WTF does, then?

[Out of the Wasteland]

There's no such thing as evil in this world. I've seen into the monster, it's not a monster. Just another human being who was mistreated, left out, abused.

One word.  Just ONE word.

Auschwitz.

Theory discounted.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

There's something you've all got to try some time. It's called Neckering. It's based around Necker's cube. A drawing of a cube net that can be either facing one way or the other. In idea space you turn your mind around an issue from one side, to the other. I never said you could justify and explain away the things that people do, but if you can come to the place where you can see how and why they happened, how they were justified and rationalised, you can move past them. Believe me, I have enough of my own experiences to discount this theory.
In the end you end up seeing everything you can become, what could have happened if you had reacted a second later, experienced that moment slightly differently, it could be you pulling the trigger.

Hard to accept yes.
I still don't believe in evil.

Nonsense.  That's moral relevance taken to an extreme.

Tell you what, Trollaxe.  Find a surviving death camp inmate, and tell them how, that on some moral level, what happened to them was not Evil.  Note the capital E.

I then suggest you duck.  Those old folks can be deceptively quick.

One word.

Palestine.

Rebuttal discounted.

At what point did I say that the Jews were angels?

I did not.

What I said was that the camps were Evil.  In turn, they have engendered a "never again" mentality that has bred more evil.

Evil feeds on itself, and prospers when good men (and women) do nothing.  Moral relevance is just another rationalization for doing nothing.

I never even said "give everyone a flower and pray it works out alright. I'm saying that unless we realise the humanity of other people no matter what they have done, we doom ourswelves to repeating the cycle, to continuing sunyata.

You might be right.  That might be your way.  MY way is to crush the Evil when it pokes its head up, given a smidgen of a chance.

In the CotSG, there are two camps...the Ivangelicals, and the Holocaustals.  You would be in the former group, I in the latter.

[Guido Finucci]

What is wrong with moral relativism?  Just the fact that some things ARE so wrong that they cannot be justified, explained, excused, or forgiven.  Jesus forgives, Eris forgets, I take revenge.

If I may paraphrase your argument slightly: moral relatvism is bad because there are objective moral standards and hence moral relativism doesn't work.

The point is that, for the moral relativist, that just isn't the case. I understand that you aren't a moral relativist but that still doesn't explain why other people shoudln't be either.

On a personal note: I'm gonna ping you for claiming that there are things so bad as that they cannot be forgiven if you mention it again.

Why not a capital E?  6,000,000 emaciated corpses doesn't merit a capital E?  WTF does, then?

It isn't a numbers game. 6 billion people could die in the defense of freedom and it not be an evil thing. 1 person could die and it be evil (the usual examples are nasty sexual crimes against children). I'm not saying that the camp guards didn't do some nasty stuff and I'm not saying that I condone what they did. All I am saying is that the existence of Nazi death camps is not a counter example to Trollax's original post.

Edit: P.S. Eris forgets?!? Which fucking goddess did you meet?

[Trollax]

I just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

When did discordianism descend into sophistry?

The minute you disagreed with something someone said. Oh, wait, but that's just moral relativism taken to the extreme. I'm not actually getting at the "truth."
*Has a heart attack from laughing*

I didn't DISAGREE with what you said...I didn't see anything to disagree WITH.

BTW, Trollaxe, I'm enjoying a heated debate.  I will not indulge in a flame war with another Discordian, though.  I save THAT for the Freepers.  Can we agree on THAT?

Sure. It's obvious you feel strongly about this. So do I. I can't exactly say with conviction that I could forgive the massacre of 6 million people based on factors more or less out of their locus of control, but I do feel it would be interesting to try.
Did those men and women who went blindly along torture themselves over what happend? You bet they did. Look at Germany today. Somewhere, someone has to jump out of the emotional and psychological conventions and say, "boo!" It happened, it wasn't alright. I still don't believe that makes it evil. Can we honestly say we will never be coerced and led into similar situations? Anything is possible, and there is some sequence of ideas, some collection of events in everyone's head that when lined up correctly will lead to the kind of things we saw in Germany and are seeing in Israel.
I am a potential mass-murderer.
I know six ways to kill a person with just my hands, that doesn't mean I'm proud of it.

[Out of the Wasteland]

What is wrong with moral relativism?  Just the fact that some things ARE so wrong that they cannot be justified, explained, excused, or forgiven.  Jesus forgives, Eris forgets, I take revenge.

If I may paraphrase your argument slightly: moral relatvism is bad because there are objective moral standards and hence moral relativism doesn't work.

The point is that, for the moral relativist, that just isn't the case. I understand that you aren't a moral relativist but that still doesn't explain why other people shoudln't be either.

On a personal note: I'm gonna ping you for claiming that there are things so bad as that they cannot be forgiven if you mention it again.

Why not a capital E?  6,000,000 emaciated corpses doesn't merit a capital E?  WTF does, then?

It isn't a numbers game. 6 billion people could die in the defense of freedom and it not be an evil thing. 1 person could die and it be evil (the usual examples are nasty sexual crimes against children). I'm not saying that the camp guards didn't do some nasty stuff and I'm not saying that I condone what they did. All I am saying is that the existence of Nazi death camps is not a counter example to Trollax's original post.

1.  When you take things far enough, yes, there ARE objective moral standards.  Not the nonsense that Ayn Rand blathered about...but there IS a limit to indulgence.  Wholesale slaughter based on race would seem to be one of them.

2.  Ping away.

3.  Correct.  Numbers may be immaterial to some degree (pedos are a good example)...but not completely.

[Out of the Wasteland]

I just want to say: Howard

I know there's evil because I've seen it.

Funnily enough, so have I. We call it different things. We deal with it in different ways.

"If you have a staff I will give you one. If you do not have a staff, I will take it from you."

When did discordianism descend into sophistry?

The minute you disagreed with something someone said. Oh, wait, but that's just moral relativism taken to the extreme. I'm not actually getting at the "truth."
*Has a heart attack from laughing*

I didn't DISAGREE with what you said...I didn't see anything to disagree WITH.

BTW, Trollaxe, I'm enjoying a heated debate.  I will not indulge in a flame war with another Discordian, though.  I save THAT for the Freepers.  Can we agree on THAT?

Sure. It's obvious you feel strongly about this. So do I. I can't exactly say with conviction that I could forgive the massacre of 6 million people based on factors more or less out of their locus of control, but I do feel it would be interesting to try.

Did those men and women who went blindly along torture themselves over what happend? You bet they did. Look at Germany today.

1.  Good.  I fell no need for a flamewar.  Not HERE, anyway.

2.  Why woul it be interesting to try?  Other than out of sheer morbidity?  Enlighten me on this one, because I am truly clueless as to your posible motivation.  FACT:  There are monsters in this world, and they need to be opposed.

3.  Not good enough.

[Guido Finucci]

1.  When you take things far enough, yes, there ARE objective moral standards.  Not the nonsense that Ayn Rand blathered about...but there IS a limit to indulgence.  Wholesale slaughter based on race would seem to be one of them.

2.  Ping away.

3.  Correct.  Numbers may be immaterial to some degree (pedos are a good example)...but not completely.

I'll borrow your numbers:

1. 'Scuse the French but bullshit there are objective moral standards. If you really think that there are, name the standard that superceeds all others in cases where moral standards conflict or explain why there isn't a single overriding objective moral good.

2. You just cross that line then. I warn you - I'll be irrational and tell my mummy.

3. Explain how numbers aren't completely irrelevant. If it helps, center your arguments on a discussion of why 6000001 deaths are worse in any real objective sense than 6000000 and estimate the cutoff point for the number of deaths below which an act doesn't qualify as Evil (TM)

[Trollax]

I used to be a moral objectivist. I believed so strongly in my own standards I was prone to breaking them when I believed that other people were in the wrong. Not saying that is going on here, but at one point I got to thinking that unless I could accept the possibility I was in error, then I would most likely keep breaking my own standards because I would get all heated up and myopic.

Here's an E-mail joke that was going around and around...

You're down in florida, on vacation. A Hurricane has just rolled in. It's category four. The storm surge is a good three meters high and the winds are over 100 knots. You're on your hotel balcony looking down at the flooded street. You hear a cry for help. There's a man floating down the flooded street towards the see. The swirling current turns his face towareds you and you recognise him. It's George W. Bush! You have a choice to make. Do you use the camera in your hand and snap the last possible photo of his life, floating away into the sea? Or do you tie the length of rope in your room to the balcony rail and try to throw it to him as he passes within five feet of your current position? Time is running out. do you win the pulitzer prize or save the most dangerous president in US history?
So... do you use black and white, or colour film?

Funny, yes. But deadly serioius for a moment. Do you save him?

[Out of the Wasteland]

1.  When you take things far enough, yes, there ARE objective moral standards.  Not the nonsense that Ayn Rand blathered about...but there IS a limit to indulgence.  Wholesale slaughter based on race would seem to be one of them.

2.  Ping away.

3.  Correct.  Numbers may be immaterial to some degree (pedos are a good example)...but not completely.

I'll borrow your numbers:

1. 'Scuse the French but bullshit there are objective moral standards. If you really think that there are, name the standard that superceeds all others in cases where moral standards conflict or explain why there isn't a single overriding objective moral good.

2. You just cross that line then. I warn you - I'll be irrational and tell my mummy.

3. Explain how numbers aren't completely irrelevant. If it helps, center your arguments on a discussion of why 6000001 deaths are worse in any real objective sense than 6000000 and estimate the cutoff point for the number of deaths below which an act doesn't qualify as Evil (TM)

1.  Mass murder of non-combatants is wrong, hands down.  There are no exceptions.

2.  Um, I was waiting for a PING!

3.  Well, let's put it this way...of the Nazis had slaughtered 12 million Jews, rather than 6 million, it wouldn't be any worse?  Of COURSE quantity matters...each murder is wrong, and it IS cumulative.

[Out of the Wasteland]

I used to be a moral objectivist. I believed so strongly in my own standards I was prone to breaking them when I believed that other people were in the wrong. Not saying that is going on here, but at one point I got to thinking that unless I could accept the possibility I was in error, then I would most likely keep breaking my own standards because I would get all heated up and myopic.

Here's an E-mail joke that was going around and around...

You're down in florida, on vacation. A Hurricane has just rolled in. It's category four. The storm surge is a good three meters high and the winds are over 100 knots. You're on your hotel balcony looking down at the flooded street. You hear a cry for help. There's a man floating down the flooded street towards the see. The swirling current turns his face towareds you and you recognise him. It's George W. Bush! You have a choice to make. Do you use the camera in your hand and snap the last possible photo of his life, floating away into the sea? Or do you tie the length of rope in your room to the balcony rail and try to throw it to him as he passes within five feet of your current position? Time is running out. do you win the pulitzer prize or save the most dangerous president in US history?
So... do you use black and white, or colour film?

Funny, yes. But deadly serioius for a moment. Do you save him?

LOL.  Actually, I throw him an anvil.

[Guido Finucci]

1.  Mass murder of non-combatants is wrong, hands down.  There are no exceptions.

2.  Um, I was waiting for a PING!

3.  Well, let's put it this way...of the Nazis had slaughtered 12 million Jews, rather than 6 million, it wouldn't be any worse?  Of COURSE quantity matters...each murder is wrong, and it IS cumulative.

1. Consider a case where th mass murder of non-combatants is nesessary to preserve the common good. I'm guessing here and this may need to be tweaked - there are four (is that enough for 'mass'?) non-combatants on a bridge. The bridge is being crossed by an armoured divison. The civilians can't get off for some reason. If the armoured division gets across the bridge (and let's say they're nazis) they'll capture the town and establish a strongpoint that could ultimtely lead to them conquering all of the Free World and enslaving all the people. You have the means to blow the bridge and prevent this until friendly reinforcements arrive but doing so will kill the non-combatants. Are you meaning to tell me that the lives of those four are worth the pain, suffering and death of millions that will result if you don't kill them? If not, what is the objective moral good that outweighs all others?

2. You draw first  

3. Is killing 200 million ants better than killing 2 people? If I kill one person, am I more moral than the killer who killed two?

[Out of the Wasteland]

[quote="Out of the Wasteland]
1.  Mass murder of non-combatants is wrong, hands down.  There are no exceptions.

2.  Um, I was waiting for a PING!

3.  Well, let's put it this way...of the Nazis had slaughtered 12 million Jews, rather than 6 million, it wouldn't be any worse?  Of COURSE quantity matters...each murder is wrong, and it IS cumulative.

1. Consider a case where th mass murder of non-combatants is nesessary to preserve the common good. I'm guessing here and this may need to be tweaked - there are four (is that enough for 'mass'?) non-combatants on a bridge. The bridge is being crossed by an armoured divison. The civilians can't get off for some reason. If the armoured division gets across the bridge (and let's say they're nazis) they'll capture the town and establish a strongpoint that could ultimtely lead to them conquering all of the Free World and enslaving all the people. You have the means to blow the bridge and prevent this until friendly reinforcements arrive but doing so will kill the non-combatants. Are you meaning to tell me that the lives of those four are worth the pain, suffering and death of millions that will result if you don't kill them? If not, what is the objective moral good that outweighs all others?

2. You draw first  

3. Is killing 200 million ants better than killing 2 people? If I kill one person, am I more moral than the killer who killed two?[/quote]

1.  That's not murder.  That's manslaughter.  BIG moral difference.

2.  PIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNG!  Gotcha!

3.  Yes.  Ants aren't people.  They have  brain about as complex as an electrical relay.