Sd.408

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Sunday Dispatch .408


Good or evil--you cannot build your life apart from this distinction.

~Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The problem is, who defines good and evil?

Even within FYM you have some posters that will look at the same thing and some will define it as evil and others will define it as good.
 
Very good German by John Cleese, and the others too. Only mistake: In Bavaria they don't speak high German. :wink:

But apart from that I love Monty Python sketches involving Germans/Bavarians. :D
 
The problem is, who defines good and evil?

Even within FYM you have some posters that will look at the same thing and some will define it as evil and others will define it as good.

This is all based on semantics ultimately. It's arguing on how the terms are used. Good and evil has it's intentions and people can have good and evil thoughts. If someone makes a mistake despite good intentions it's different than knowningly doing evil. People can knowingly do evil since many get pleasure from doing it.

I usually give a basic test for people on a scenario like if you went jogging and some guy beat you up anal raped you and then took your money, would you feel that that a moral "wrong"/"evil" has been done to you? Yes.

I've also seen relativists try to explain their ideas in anthropology class and still say that damning Hitler is possible when you are a relativist. :huh: At that point I had to concede that what they really mean is relativism in certain situations and "good/evil" in other situations. This means we have to look at somethings being morally indifferent and others morally significant. The good to me is being able to make decisions that don't unduly interfere with other people's freedoms. At that point you need a law system and government to arbitrate between people's conflicting interests to decide on how much freedom should be allowed. Philosophers usually use arguments that include different forms of the golden rule and categorical imperitive to see things from different points of view before they define evil.
 
This is all based on semantics ultimately. It's arguing on how the terms are used. Good and evil has it's intentions and people can have good and evil thoughts. If someone makes a mistake despite good intentions it's different than knowningly doing evil. People can knowingly do evil since many get pleasure from doing it.

You should really rethink this...

So if someone honestly believes that black people are evil and should be enslaved or killed, it's just good intentions?

You honestly fall for the shit that homosexuals want to rape children therefore should have fewer rights, that's just good intentions?
 
You should really rethink this...

So if someone honestly believes that black people are evil and should be enslaved or killed, it's just good intentions?

You should read the part about conflicting interests in my last post. Eliminating thoughts of what is good and what is evil can't happen when personal interest is involved. If people are mugged like in my scenario above or if people are enslaved they will feel like a moral wrong is done. Then they will have some argument on what grounds it is wrong and should be able to explain it to people. Abolitionism was based on ethics which in itself is a discussion on "the good" or "the greater good". I honestly think that humans naturally use relativism when it's convenient for themselves but when it comes to threats like Hitler they abandon it.

Racists believed that negros were inferior in race but the evidence showed otherwise. They felt that negros were a bad influence on their children. Again you would need evidence to show that and there wasn't any. Now with science starting to understand DNA you can see that there is very little differentiation between blacks and whites.

Now I'm sure we wished slavery didn't exist in the past but until evidence and understanding was attained on the subject you couldn't expect people to know better due to ignorance. I'm sure we have beliefs today about the universe that are dead wrong but until we gather more information about the universe we will be making judgments about choices in a moral vs. immoral context based on our prior history and knowledge so we can make decisions in the present moment. Discrimination cannot completely be taken away from daily life because at it's most basic, when we go shopping we often discriminate one product from another based on what we think is good. If evidence shows later that our product is not really that good because it doesn't meet our expectations then we will have to use that information to revise our judgments. It's efficient to have some judgment just so you aren't paralyzed by relativism all the time.

You honestly fall for the shit that homosexuals want to rape children therefore should have fewer rights, that's just good intentions?

If people worry about raped children then it is good intentions even if it's a wrong assertion I made about homosexuals. Now if my facts I brought up to defend my opinion were wrong (study with mainly religious sources) then it can be disproved like Irvine did by getting me to be less lazy and look at the sources that were quoted in that study. That doesn't mean I should abandon the idea of good and evil. I'm sure Irvine has arguments that the study I brought up was evil because it wasn't accurate in its assessment and was forcing an opinion by ignoring other evidence that shows otherwise. Good evidence is the key. What I learned from my discussion with Irvine is that the preying on children aspect needs to be proven with better studies and since I haven't found any and I read other studies by actual psychologists that say children are not adversely affected by living with homosexual guardians I came to the conclusion that all preying on children whether straight or gay should be a police matter on a case by case basis because that would be more accurate. There are other studies I have to look into with the definition of marriage in Europe and I'm sure there are going to be some in Canada and if they are against the definition of marriage being a man and a woman then I should judge whether their evidence is good or not. Certainly if a generation passes and there is no discerable problem with marriage or society due to a new definition then there would be overwhelming evidence.

The reason why my mugging example is good at showing that good and evil can't be ignored is because if it happened to you it would be real to you because the evidence would be obvious. The difficulty is when the evidence is not obvious. If a study says that homosexuals like to prey on children and celebrate it in their literature and that study is cherry picked and doesn't have a wide set of sources to back up its assertion then it's up to me to make sure I pay attention to those sources before I offer an opinion.

A reason why Monty Python made fun of German philosophers is because relativism has been used by fans of Nietzsche like Hitler and has been used by Communists to narrow debates and arguments and shut people up so their ideas can go uncontested.

There's also a problem that I can't really say "everything is relative" because that statement would be an absolute creating a double negative. How can I state a truth that there is no truth? You can see how relativism can be used to stifle moral questioning.
 
All I'll say, for now, is that there's more to discourse than just dualism and relativism. A rejection of relativism does not automatically mean dividing the world into "good" and "evil."

Let's focus on identifying and solving problems, rather than coming up with counterproductive "Axes of Evil" (and, yes, "axes" is the technical plural of "axis").
 
All I'll say, for now, is that there's more to discourse than just dualism and relativism. A rejection of relativism does not automatically mean dividing the world into "good" and "evil."

Let's focus on identifying and solving problems, rather than coming up with counterproductive "Axes of Evil" (and, yes, "axes" is the technical plural of "axis").

I agree that good and evil if over simplified can be a problem, but the countries named evil by Bush were very accurate and they haven't become nice overnight because Obama is there. I really do think that Americans are now in the syndrome where they need a huge catastrophe greater than 9/11 to make them think otherwise. Also when you look at Putin you can see the machinations of evil when he pretends Russia is a democracy.

FOXNews.com - Aide to France's Sarkozy Reveals Putin Wanted to Hang Georgian President 'By the ...' - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

Also you can see his relativism when he equates Georgia with Iraq under Sadaam Hussein, and intelligence errors vs. simply wanting to control oil resources to Europe. He has evil intentions. We can't just stop and call the guy evil and we do need to "solve problems" as you say but knowing the difference between what they present to the public and what they actually think is important so you don't get tricked by being overly cooperative with their non-cooperative stance. I think Putin and Hussein have more in common than he will readily admit.

Bush's problem was his belief that Iraq and Afghanistan would change like Japan did but he obviously didn't get the difference between nationalism and tribalism. Tribalism takes longer to reform. Hence West Germany and Japan recovered faster.

The problem is the cooperation of people. When you start getting into game theory, Nash Equilibrium, Robert Axelrod's ideas of cooperation you can see the complexity and it usually has to do with self-interests competing for resources, power, whatever humans desire. From Robert Axelrod's prisoner's dilemma studies he saw tit-for-tat being a successful strategy to induce more cooperation. Reagan did an example of that when he bombed Libya.

George Bush is a neo-conservative but also he is religious. Christianity is heavily influenced by Platonic thinking and when you make assumptions of the inherent need of freedom in all individuals you are starting to make assumptions that all humans desire freedom. I don't know what the outcome of Iraq and Afghanistan will be if we actually complete reconstruction there. If his belief that humans look for freedom (not all stages of human history show that) it should be evident in what happens a few years from now and how the new govenrments are working and that will be the evidence required to judge Bush on. He's expecting Afghanistan and Iraq will be U.S. allies in the future. The proof is in the pudding. We shall see.

So if we are going to focus on solving problems a good area to study would be the history of how laws changed. How do we reform properly? Are there reforms that don't work?

There's always a push from radicals who want to do numerous changes in society and those reactionaries who want to conserve insititutions in society. If reform happens and it's not based on our knowledge of human nature there is a risk that we can fall flat on our face when the reality shows otherwise.

Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions: Chapter 1 of 5 - Uncommon Knowledge on National Review Online

The conservative economist Thomas Sowell does a good job of showing this dichotomy or dualism in politics. If Obama strays too far from what we've learned in our history it will be evident. Of course if Obama knows some reforms that he thinks conforms to human nature and applies them he will be able to take credit for that success. Idealism may have it's faults but people believed in the past that democracy couldn't work because of human nature. If people fight for it and make it work the old idea can be defeated. Americans have elected lots of Democrats and now it is their time to apply their vision and the people can judge for themselves if it's the right course. "Right course" meaning what we think is good.
 
I agree that good and evil if over simplified can be a problem, but the countries named evil by Bush were very accurate and they haven't become nice overnight because Obama is there. I really do think that Americans are now in the syndrome where they need a huge catastrophe greater than 9/11 to make them think otherwise.


What the hell does this even mean?:huh:
 
I agree that good and evil if over simplified can be a problem, but the countries named evil by Bush were very accurate and they haven't become nice overnight because Obama is there.

Well, this neatly exhibits the problem. I don't think that because a country (Iran) chooses to follow a different path to the Western system (the 'One Best Way', or so neo-liberal and neo-con writers like Francis Fukayama have been assuring us for decades now; though I'm not sure how that theory is looking with all the banking collapses) makes it evil. Granted, with North Korea you might have a point.

I take it you wouldn't call Pat Buchanan a relativist?
 
Good and evil is oversimplified, but when Bush calls entire countries evil it is very accurate. Has some nice irony to it.
 
Well, this neatly exhibits the problem. I don't think that because a country (Iran) chooses to follow a different path to the Western system (the 'One Best Way', or so neo-liberal and neo-con writers like Francis Fukayama have been assuring us for decades now; though I'm not sure how that theory is looking with all the banking collapses) makes it evil. Granted, with North Korea you might have a point.

I take it you wouldn't call Pat Buchanan a relativist?

I believe Iran's attitude towards Israel and the West is quite evil, and certainly their aid for insurgents in Iraq it would be hard to argue otherwise. I don't find dictatorships stay in their own country and usually they start threatening in order to justify their position. Many regimes like to steal wealth from other countries as opposed to earn it or trade wealth. This is why I love the Seven Samurai because it looks at that problem of how to defend wealth.

Western markets and the bubble is something that can be dealt with in many ways but certainly crashes do provide opportunities to fine tune and update regulations. There are things individuals can do as I've belaboured in the past like making a budget and sticking to it. We have enough freedom to create better lives for ourselves but if people get spoiled, (like we can see now), people may make bad choices for a while before they feel the hurt. Hurt is necessary for people to learn. The past 60 years has shown more wealth and opportunity in human history and people got complacent and took it for granted. Stock markets aren't for gambling but people got into gambling with the attitude that a downturn wouldn't happen. I think the west is decaying because self-discipline is not being taught and in fact it is being ridiculed.

This Keynesian thing is really starting to bug me. Because of Paul Krugman economists have convinced Harper in Canada to go into a deficit. I know that liberals will take advantage of it. Many times you can't rely on "experts" because they are politicized. The "economy" is not an entity. Getting individuals to keep spending when they are over leveraged is not good for the individual and individuals make up an economy. This interventionist tinkering that social engineers want to do shows they are too impatient to wait for the economy to recover (deleverage). People will feel more confident about the economy when they feel confident with their own personal finances.

Buchanan to me is a Bismarckian conservative. He's really into trade barriers. He's also obsessed with who is really American vs. not American. I convinced of his opinions from what I've seen of him so far. I think this downturn is making people want to overreact as usual.

I believe nobody is a relativist including relativists. They don't follow their beliefs all the way and eventually they have to admit something is "truthful" or not.
 
What the hell does this even mean?:huh:

I think the west is getting complacent about threats abroad and so they enter the Neville Chamberlain attitude about Ahmadinejad and Putin which displays weakness to them. Osama felt after Mogadishu that he could see that Americans would quit any battle they got into as long as the enemy could wait them out. It looks like Obama is going to continue the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan to get at the Taliban but if he changes his mind then Osama will be right.
 
Good and evil is oversimplified, but when Bush calls entire countries evil it is very accurate. Has some nice irony to it.

"Axis of Evil" as described by George W. Bush:
Iraq
Iran
North Korea
"Beyond the Axis of Evil" as described by John R. Bolton:
Cuba
Libya
Syria

Yeah you're right. It is too simplfied. I would probably add more countries like Myanmar, China, & Russia. I think their focus was more on terror and exchange of weapons than just a list of states without democracy. If Iraq turns out to be an ally then they can be put off the list.

The sense I get from liberals is that these lists are considered to be inflammatory and cause the problem in the first place. I don't really get that because I think these countries are already inflammatory towards the west and they already provoke democracies by funding terrorism and threatening neighbors. Should we call them the "axis of countries we need to hug?"
 
Last edited:
I think the west is getting complacent about threats abroad and so they enter the Neville Chamberlain attitude about Ahmadinejad and Putin which displays weakness to them. Osama felt after Mogadishu that he could see that Americans would quit any battle they got into as long as the enemy could wait them out.

But what did "and they haven't become nice overnight because Obama is there" mean? It just sounds like an ignorant statement, no one ever alluded to some overnight change, especially since Obama isn't even in office yet. Sometimes I'm just baffled by what you come up with...

You're entitled to the opinion that the West has become complacent, in fact I know there are many that agree with you, most come off as paranoid hawks.


It looks like Obama is going to continue the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan to get at the Taliban but if he changes his mind then Osama will be right.
This is another thing I don't understand about you, you admit that Obama wants to continue the war in Afghanistan, but then why even say "but if he changes his mind then Osama will be right"?
 
I think their focus was more on terror and exchange of weapons than just a list of states without democracy.
So wait... No democracy equals evil?

If Iraq turns out to be an ally then they can be put off the list.
Really? How generous of you...
The sense I get from liberals is that these lists are considered to be inflammatory and cause the problem in the first place. I don't really get that because I think these countries are already inflammatory towards the west and they already provoke democracies by funding terrorism and threatening neighbors. Should we call them the "axis of countries we need to hug?"
The fact that you actually think this way is scary...
 
But what did "and they haven't become nice overnight because Obama is there" mean? It just sounds like an ignorant statement, no one ever alluded to some overnight change, especially since Obama isn't even in office yet. Sometimes I'm just baffled by what you come up with...

You're entitled to the opinion that the West has become complacent, in fact I know there are many that agree with you, most come off as paranoid hawks.

Leaders have already talked about changing their stances with Obama like Putin/Medvedev. Of course Putin wants Obama to avoid the missile defence system in Poland. If Obama continues with it which he says then there really isn't much change coming as many Democrats expected. People on this forum and Democrats in general are hoping that these dictatorships will start liking the U.S. Obama moving to the right on foreign policy would make me relax. I don't want a thoughtless pull out in Afghanistan that would require troops to return later. Hopefully Obama will not bow to pressure from his own party.

This is another thing I don't understand about you, you admit that Obama wants to continue the war in Afghanistan, but then why even say "but if he changes his mind then Osama will be right"?

There is opposition in the Democratic party that wants an ASAP withdrawal of both Iraq and Afghanistan. If Obama ignores them then I have no problem.
 
So wait... No democracy equals evil?

To my mind yes. I don't see how totalitarianism would be good or "just another equally valid point of view."

Really? How generous of you...

Thank you :sexywink:

The fact that you actually think this way is scary...

How can a relativist call me "scary" unless you have another philosophy that differs from good vs. evil and relativism? Care to share your opinion? If good vs. evil is to be replaced then by what?
 
"Axis of Evil" as described by George W. Bush:
Iraq
Iran
North Korea
"Beyond the Axis of Evil" as described by John R. Bolton:
Cuba
Libya
Syria

Yeah you're right. It is too simplfied. I would probably add more countries like Myanmar, China, & Russia. I think their focus was more on terror and exchange of weapons than just a list of states without democracy. If Iraq turns out to be an ally then they can be put off the list.

The sense I get from liberals is that these lists are considered to be inflammatory and cause the problem in the first place. I don't really get that because I think these countries are already inflammatory towards the west and they already provoke democracies by funding terrorism and threatening neighbors. Should we call them the "axis of countries we need to hug?"

I know the countries of the "axis of evil". And I know that according to Rumsfeld, this list should be extended to contributors to the axis. Namely, Germany, France and Russia, the countries that didn't support the US in invading Iraq.

And no, liberals don't defend what those governments are doing, to other countries and their own countries. They don't say the administrations of these countries aren't wrong, or are not evil.
Liberals just tend to think that it doesn't help much if you label certain countries and then think they will welcome you as great liberator, especially if you act like your word is law.
And I rather pointed out the irony of both statements following each other so closely. I didn't intend to defend any of the leaders of those countries.

Your last sentence, by the way, doesn't help your point the least bit.
 
How can a relativist call me "scary" unless you have another philosophy that differs from good vs. evil and relativism? Care to share your opinion? If good vs. evil is to be replaced then by what?

The reason you are scary is that you fall for these ultra right paranoid generalizations about anyone who doesn't think like you.

I find the most dangerous people are those that believe in black and white, believe they know the absolutes and don't believe in nuance or gray.
 
I agree that good and evil if over simplified can be a problem, but the countries named evil by Bush were very accurate and they haven't become nice overnight because Obama is there. I really do think that Americans are now in the syndrome where they need a huge catastrophe greater than 9/11 to make them think otherwise. Also when you look at Putin you can see the machinations of evil when he pretends Russia is a democracy.

Except I would go so far as to argue that relativism vs. dualistic "good and evil" is an example of a false dichotomy. And, essentially, I'm stating it is possible to disagree entirely with Solzhenitsyn and the core theology of Manicheanism--that everything in life is reduced to good and evil--and not be a relativist.

It is my view that the traditional flaw of liberalism is not because it refuses to label things "evil"; it is because it, via postmodernism, does not judge right versus wrong, thus being morally impotent to defend itself. I think there is a substantial difference between the two, inasmuch as "good vs. evil" is a personality attack, while "right vs. wrong" is ideas-based. Ergo, it is possible for a generally "good/positive" entity to hold "wrong" ideas and still be good, whereas it is generally impossible for an "evil/negative" entity to be acknowledged as having some "good" ideas. Additionally, reducing everything to "good and evil" also opens discourse wide open to logically fallacious "appeals to authority," whereas we put added weight to what a "good" country says, even if it is patently false, and completely dismiss what an "evil" country says, even if it happens to be true. And, after all, what are we to do with "evil," except annihilate it? "Wrong," at least, is inherently open for disciplinary action, correction, and possible redemption.

In other words, the difference between "right vs. wrong" and "good vs. evil" is mainly the difference between a conventional war and the Crusades; the latter becomes more preposterous, more cumbersome, ideologically loaded, and nearly impossible to resolve pragmatically short of genocide. The former allows for responses to actual facts, events, and leaves room for changes as they are known.
 
Except I would go so far as to argue that relativism vs. dualistic "good and evil" is an example of a false dichotomy. And, essentially, I'm stating it is possible to disagree entirely with Solzhenitsyn and the core theology of Manicheanism--that everything in life is reduced to good and evil--and not be a relativist.

It is my view that the traditional flaw of liberalism is not because it refuses to label things "evil"; it is because it, via postmodernism, does not judge right versus wrong, thus being morally impotent to defend itself. I think there is a substantial difference between the two, inasmuch as "good vs. evil" is a personality attack, while "right vs. wrong" is ideas-based. Ergo, it is possible for a generally "good/positive" entity to hold "wrong" ideas and still be good, whereas it is generally impossible for an "evil/negative" entity to be acknowledged as having some "good" ideas. Additionally, reducing everything to "good and evil" also opens discourse wide open to logically fallacious "appeals to authority," whereas we put added weight to what a "good" country says, even if it is patently false, and completely dismiss what an "evil" country says, even if it happens to be true. And, after all, what are we to do with "evil," except annihilate it? "Wrong," at least, is inherently open for disciplinary action, correction, and possible redemption.

In other words, the difference between "right vs. wrong" and "good vs. evil" is mainly the difference between a conventional war and the Crusades; the latter becomes more preposterous, more cumbersome, ideologically loaded, and nearly impossible to resolve pragmatically short of genocide. The former allows for responses to actual facts, events, and leaves room for changes as they are known.

I think we are in some agreement but much of the argument is based on how the terms good and evil are used and whether there are better words with less baggage. You are describing how good and evil can be used badly. Evil is based on intention. Being wrong due to ignorance isn't necessarily evil. Good intentions vs. being right is based on facts and information we have learned. I think that beliefs of what is good and evil help the average person to tread in areas where they may not know the answer so they can use accumulated knowledge of the past to make their decisions and then if they have to adjust their theories when information comes up contradicting their theory then reflection of that theory is necessary. I'm okay with using the terms right, wrong, theory, and belief instead of good and evil as long as we can still use theories and beliefs to go into uncharted territory. Certainly dealing with weapons of mass destruction and terrorists hiding in countries that profess not to help them creates new areas for learning and being too afraid to make a mistake leads to impotence as you say. I'm fearful of the do nothing and eternal diplomacy that sends the wrong signal to tyrants.
 
The reason you are scary is that you fall for these ultra right paranoid generalizations about anyone who doesn't think like you.

Everybody generalizes on this site. I think the left on this site is just as irritated by people who don't think like them. It's to be expected in a U2 forum which has more left leaning individuals. I'm sure if I frequented a right wing dominated site I would not be called "ultra right". Laughably I would probably be called too left wing, or statist by the libertarians.

I find the most dangerous people are those that believe in black and white, believe they know the absolutes and don't believe in nuance or gray.

As long as the gray area is actually a grey area. Grey areas to me can quickly lead to relativism and can be used to ignore facts which leads to moral equivalency which is very popular. If something is a grey area and is proven to be morally indifferent I won't force the situation to be good vs. evil. There will always be disagreements because people don't agree on what the facts mean or if it really is a fact or if the fact is being interpreted right. This is due to theories and beliefs which are necessary for all left wingers and right wingers to put together patterns of the data. Humans have to narrow their scope at some point or else they will be bogged down like the German soccer team in the Monty Python sketches.
 
It's to be expected in a U2 forum which has more left leaning individuals.

Hey now, Strongbow devoted hours of text to tell us this site and U2 fans in general are not predominantly left leaning, you can't come now and tell us the opposite. :wink:
 
How do you prove something to be "morally indifferent"?

Morality has to do with self-interest with consciousness other people's self-interest. If something is indifferent to all parties then it doesn't matter. If it's not morally indifferent you can bet that people will have opinions on what is right or wrong about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom