Before Good and Evil

[Kitsune]

I just wanted to know where some Qt3ers fall on this age-old question, surely as debated as stuff like nature vs. nurture (and somewhat related to it).

Are we all pristine and "good" when we are first born and then learn how to be bad? Or is it the other way around, not necessarily evil, but full of antisocial, destructive, selfish tendencies and then learn how to be resolve those into more positive tendencies? I should qualify, that of course, it's not all one way or the other, but predominantly, which side?

Perhaps I didn't phrase in the right way as the first question is put in more simple, possibly misleading language, but it kind of follows from my belief that I don't think anyone really thinks we are born EVIL in all the meanings of that word, so I feel like its needs better qualification.

Me, I go for the Anne Frank side, people start out good and learn bad tendencies.

-Kitsune

(PS The poll options contain the Shinto words that correspond to good and evil, though its said that Shinto doesn't organize its thinking that way, rather emphasized things that are honest and direct vs. things that are twisted and deceitful. Whatevers.)

[Stroker Ace]

Half and half please, with a slice of lemon on the side.

[Warning]

I thought this was a sequel to Beyond Good & Evil. I need to read more carefully.

On topic, Lord of the Flies always fascinated me. I'd be really interested in your take if you haven't read it. I don't have any clear thoughts on this but I'm leaning toward "full of antisocial, destructive, selfish tendencies." Especially when you often have to teach children (even very young, basically babies) not to hit other people.

[Equis]

I thought this was a sequel to Beyond Good & Evil. I need to read more carefully.


No, no, no. It's the prequel. Very fashionable these day. It says before right in the title.

But I'll go with Stroker, tendencies exists side by side.

[LesJarvis]

You forgot the "morality doesn't exist and all of our actions are arbitrary" option. Or is that what the last one is supposed to represent?

[Midnight Son]

Religious questions are meaningless.

[DeepT]

Hmm none of those choices match what I think. I believe in the opposite of LesJarvis, though.

I believe in an absolute scale of good and evil, by which all things can be measured by, even 'god' if you believe in him. It exists outside the relative morality of Man. In other words, its is completely objective and not at all subjective.

With regards to the poll, I would have to answer that people are born with the tendency towards good, but how they actually turn out is a combination of both nature and nurture.

[Glenn]

Didn't vote. I don't find newborns to be cute.

[LarryLard]

I believe in an absolute scale of good and evil, by which all things can be measured by, even 'god' if you believe in him. It exists outside the relative morality of Man. In other words, its is completely objective and not at all subjective.


What reliable instrument would you suggest to measure this objective reality with? By reliable, I mean of course that it gives the same result every time, no matter who uses it. So, for example, "our conscience" doesn't count.

Such an instrument would help settle the thorny issue that arises when two people claim that the absolute scale says different things.

[metta]

There is no right or wrong, there is only popular opinion.

[Kitsune]

On topic, Lord of the Flies always fascinated me. I'd be really interested in your take if you haven't read it.

So you'd be interested in what I think about Lord of the Flies only if I haven't read it? Huh? :P

Turns out I have, in any case. Regardless of what the author intended, I always thought you could take the story to support either view. Either the island represents mankind at its basic and when reverting to that, we're all basically gits. Or that the island shows how their previous societal interaction before the event had corrupted the kids from their innocent selves and they could no longer return to being non-gits. That one Jesus figure in the book which complicates things doesn't really factor with me.

Also, I remember reading it thinking, "Someone could just as easily write a book wherein the deserted islanders end up improving some aspect of society or themselves upon washing up on the shore, therein proving some basic humanitarian virtue." Like Swiss Family Robinson, but moreso.

I liked Swiss Family Robinson more than Lord of the Flies, which incidentally, is a book I despise along with Catcher in the Rye. I usually love the really famous classics, but those are two examples of the few I really can't stand.

-Kitsune

[Angie Gallant]

When we're born we're little animals with instinctual drives, some beneficial and some that are outdated for our society. As we grow our big brains figure out how to be even more good and more bad.

[ScurvyPig]

So you'd be interested in what I think about Lord of the Flies only if I haven't read it? Huh? :P

Turns out I have, in any case. Regardless of what the author intended, I always thought you could take the story to support either view. Either the island represents mankind at its basic and when reverting to that, we're all basically gits. Or that the island shows how their previous societal interaction before the event had corrupted the kids from their innocent selves and they could no longer return to being non-gits. That one Jesus figure in the book which complicates things doesn't really factor with me.

Also, I remember reading it thinking, "Someone could just as easily write a book wherein the deserted islanders end up improving some aspect of society or themselves upon washing up on the shore, therein proving some basic humanitarian virtue." Like Swiss Family Robinson, but moreso.

Both "Catcher in the Rye" and "Lord of the Flies" being my favorite books does this explain a fatal difference between East and West?

I liked Swiss Family Robinson more than Lord of the Flies, which incidentally, is a book I despise along with Catcher in the Rye. I usually love the really famous classics, but those are two examples of the few I really can't stand.

-Kitsune

Both "Catcher in the Rye" and "Lord of the Flies" being my favorite books does this explain a fatal difference between East and West?

[madkevin]

I'll take Angie's, which I believe is the shit bonerz option.

[Angie Gallant]

Yeah, that's what I voted.

[Robert Sharp]

This is in the wrong forum.

But I think most children are selfish and have to learn morality. I don't believe in good and evil, but I do believe in good and bad. I believe there are things that are bad regardless of society, based on human nature and empirical investigation into what our natures mean (what allows us to flourish, what keeps us from living good lives, etc.). Children don't know these things. They have to be learned, but that doesn't mean they are made up.

I guess my view is similar to Angie's.

[RobF]

I have two kids, which I love more than anything, but by nature, they care only about themselves and about satisfying their own needs - first for things like food and comfort, later for things like other kids' toys and watching more DragonTales.

As they get older, they can learn about things like love and compassions and selflessness, and seeing that kind of development makes me more proud than just about anything else in the world. But anyone who tells you kids are born that way has been spending too much time inhaling the fumes from "Precious Moments" packaging.

[DeepT]

What reliable instrument would you suggest to measure this objective reality with? By reliable, I mean of course that it gives the same result every time, no matter who uses it. So, for example, "our conscience" doesn't count.

Such an instrument would help settle the thorny issue that arises when two people claim that the absolute scale says different things.


Such a discussion is pointless. It is what I believe in. There is no science to back any of this up. Hypothetically, if such a cosmic, objective scale existed, and it existed beyond our personal realities (even meaning the personal reality of human-kind), since we do not have anything that can see beyond this, there is no such instrument as you would suggest that can be built.

Knowing about it, understanding it, and even the ability to see it are irrelevant since none of that is required for such a scale to exist. In the distant future we might be able to see it indirectly when we can rule out culture, physiology, and other such things. Perhaps someday we will find 100s, of not 1000s of alien species and cultures thought the universe that have little to nothing in common except a broad moral orientation of what is good and what is evil. I think that would be the closest we could come to confirm or deny the existence of such a universal scale of good and evil.

Personally, for me, it is more of a 2nd sight. I do not need a book, a preacher, or cultural value to tell me what is good and what is evil. I could say that my view is tainted by the American experience, which it might be. However, a lot of my values, of what I see as good vs evil, are in conflict with my cultural heritage. So the question is, where do those values come from then?

[LarryLard]

Knowing about it, understanding it, and even the ability to see it are irrelevant since none of that is required for such a scale to exist.


I would suggest that for something to be regarded as objectively existing there must be a way of perceiving it, but maybe that's just me.

Personally, for me, it is more of a 2nd sight.

If one person's says something is good, and another's says it is evil, how can we tell which is in agreement with the objective scale, and which isn't?

If we can't tell, isn't this the same as there not being an *objective* scale at all?

[Miramon]

Derailing the topic a bit.... but to stay on topic for one paragaph, let me say first that I think there is no real externalized spiritual evil in the world, but that people are born with a potential to do what for lack of any other word we might as well call evil deeds. However the younger the child, the less this potential is likely to be realized either in thought or in deed.

...

I think "maga" and "magatsuhi" and related terms are very interesting shinto concepts. But I read about them in English and may have a wrong-headed understanding of them, for which I would welcome correction. This is what I gather from my reading:

Most words with "maga" (meaning bent or twisted) have negative meanings because the shinto concept of evil is something like bending, twisting, distortion, or diversion from a virtuous or natural norm. However this is obviously not universally true, viz:

Magatama literally means "bent stone" and is ubiquitous as a symbol in many Asian cultures, being among other things the symmetric curly bits in the yin-yang (tai chi) symbol, and appearing in three-fold symmetry in the imperial mon. Magatama beads are good-luck charms and also serve as ritual items in various shinto observances, so they are not merely symbolic, but are also concrete everyday objects. In this case I assume "maga" just means literally "twisted" or "bent" and doesn't have the "deviation from virtue" connotation of a word like "magatsuhi."

Mitama, however, means "august soul" or "noble soul", a shinto concept, and the tama part is just a homophone for the tama in magatama so far as I know, and is one of many Japanese words for "spirit" or "soul". Do I have that right, or are the two tamas actually etymologically related?

Oddly enough in some anime series including Blue Seed, they use "mitama" to mean "magatama", as the blue comma thing in that series is a sort of spiritually charged magatama, but is called "mitama". So at least a few other writers thought there was a connection between the words, but it might just be a pun. There is also some confusion about this in the Megaten game series, which of course deliberately distorts normal religious concepts, and so is certainly not a reliable guide to shinto.

Then there is the question of what is the role of magatsuhi-no-kami the "evil" shinto deity/deities. From what I read, it's not entirely clear if they are really evil, or if they just have the assigned role of tempting or diverting people from virtue, sort of like the servant-of-God Jewish notion of Satan (from Job) as opposed to the entirely evil Christian notion. On the other hand there are "rectifying" kami (forget the name offhand) whose job it is to counter the actions of the magatsuhi-no-kami deities, so maybe magatsuhi-no-kami really is evil after all. Then there is the notion of omagatsuhi-no-kami, the singular great kami of magatsuhi as opposed to the 80,000 myriads of random little magatsuhi-no-kami who go around doing little bad deeds, not sure if there is any qualitative difference between them, or if this is just a conceit, and what the character and nature of the omagatsuhi-no-kami is supposed to be.

Any clarification on this stuff from people who know better than me?

[Glenn]

Does it really matter? Regardless of whether people are good, bad, or chaotic neutral at time of birth, they're clearly extremely malleable and unable to survive without a parental figure. We could try raising a few dozen babies individually in boxes without human interaction, but I'll need to find sufficient funding first.

[Rimbo]

"Good" and "Evil" are such subjective concepts, that it's impossible to answer the question. Therefore, the only proper answer to the question posed is "Mu."

[DeepT]

I would suggest that for something to be regarded as objectively existing there must be a way of perceiving it, but maybe that's just me.

If we can't tell, isn't this the same as there not being an *objective* scale at all?

No.

In the year 427A.D., we could not 'tell'...

Radio actives from non-Radio actives

Atoms from Molecules

The composition of the earth's core

That there were things smaller then the human eye could see that made us sick, and in some cases, made us well.

There there are pairs of these double helix things (DNA) composed of 4 simple acids, that are the blueprint for all life on earth.

That there was a planet called Pluto.


You could simply say there was no way to perceive those yet, and I could say there is no way to perceive this scale yet. In short, the lack of observable evidence is not proof for anything. Proof it does or does not exist.

This kind of argument is pointless, as I said, because if you want proof, there is none to be given.

[Rimbo]

I liked Swiss Family Robinson more than Lord of the Flies, which incidentally, is a book I despise along with Catcher in the Rye.

That's fascinating; I think I was the only one in my 11th grade Lit class that disliked Catcher in the Rye. (And I adored The Grapes of Wrath, which everyone else found dull.)

I remember on the test after reading the book, the teacher asked, "At what point did Holden go insane?" And I responded honestly: "He did? Seemed to me to be the same person at the end of the book as he was at the beginning." I thought it was a drag.

Seems to me that people are neither inherently good or bad. No matter who you are or who you look at, you can see good and evil if you look for it. The difference between people, I think, is the path they're on -- whether they're trying to be better, or succumbing to death -- and even that changes from moment to moment.

[Ephraim]

Does it really matter? Regardless of whether people are good, bad, or chaotic neutral at time of birth, they're clearly extremely malleable and unable to survive without a parental figure. We could try raising a few dozen babies individually in boxes without human interaction, but I'll need to find sufficient funding first.

Actually, IIRC from a social psych class I took in university, this has been tried. Some king or another in France tried this, basically had the babies completely isolated and the only human interaction they had was the bare necessities of feeding and waste removal.

They all died pretty quickly.

[Qenan]

We're born people, and people we remain.

[shift6]

Religious questions are meaningless.
Fortunately this poll was about morality and anthropology.

[DennyA]

Original sin. We're born evil and damned and doomed unless we workship the invisible creator that someone wrote a book about 2,000 years ago.

Duh.

[Flowers]

I am more interested if you wonder whether people are born sexy and grown into ugliness, or are born to a detestable slate and must to eat the right foods and shave the proper spots in order to end up sexy.

[Jackstar]

Nothing is good or bad. Only thinking makes it so.

[Dave Markell]

Down with thinking.

[Chris Nahr]

Thinking always makes my head hurt anyway.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Pain is evil, Chris.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Pain is evil, Chris.

Only if there's a god.

[Kitsune]

You're mostly quite correct about Shinto, Miramon. Let's talk!


I think "maga" and "magatsuhi" and related terms are very interesting shinto concepts. But I read about them in English and may have a wrong-headed understanding of them, for which I would welcome correction.

You're not really wrong-headed anywhere, just maybe you didn't state some things so I'm not sure I understand you fully or there are some gaps in your knowledge perhaps? First of all, magatsuhi is a god (or kami if you're uncomfortable using god to refer to something like kami, though I'm perfectly comfortable using god or spirit) at least originally. I think where its become a term is when Motoori Norinaga reinterpreted his role as evil and then the other splits started to reinterpret him and he gained more of a symbolic meaning as the debate grew on and Shinto lost a lot of ground after the war.

In any event, magatsuhi is what happened when Izanagi performed a purification of his dirtiness, and magatsuhi was born (along with other, more commonly seen as "nice" gods or goddesses). He's generally known for bringing misfortune and bad stuff to people, though as time went on, there were cases of people worshipping him in order to keep it away and thus the reinterpretation of magatsuhi as a benevolent god after people started disagreeing with Norinaga's more straightfaced application of good and evil terms to maga and makoto.

In any case, maga is an old reading of a kanji which means misfortune and awful stuff happening to you. That's how magatsuhi came about (tsuhi is just one of the old ways of saying "The God of") but the term itself is older. As you know, kanji didn't get fully realized in Japanese until well after these stories were committed to official record and the stories which concern magatsuhi and indeed the concept of maga are older than kanji. So maga itself does indeed carry that connotation all by itself in its pure hiragana form. Even in kanji form, the old reading of maga and the current (and long-standing) reading of ayamachi, the word for wrong or wrongness, are very closely related.

This is what I gather from my reading:

Most words with "maga" (meaning bent or twisted) have negative meanings because the shinto concept of evil is something like bending, twisting, distortion, or diversion from a virtuous or natural norm.

This is mostly true, however, as stated above the kanji for maga has changed into wazawai or ka and thus maga has lost most of its unfortunate meaning in everyday terms that something aku has completely triumphed over. Again, I'd be cautious of calling it evil. It's akin to attributing the concept of being "saved" as a universal belief in Christianity/Judaism-inspired religions, where obviously there's a lot of debate on exactly the how and what and indeed if of that concept. Lots of different Shinto faiths think in different ways about this fundamental issue.

To give you an example (and we'll use a game since "real" literature would only make my head hurt) in the original Growlanser the Phezarians, a race of extremely rational beings (rationality being a trait of makoto) do not realize the value of maga (in Growlanser's case, that would be doing virtuous things even though they will bring about misfortune and woe eventually). Thus, it's hard to strip it out to good and evil in this case in the same way that right or wrong is a way to say "good and evil" but the actual words are as different from good and evil as left and right are from west and east.

To make it further murky. Since ka is part of the new reading of the kanji for maga (and in a sense, always was one of its readings), you could always bore into a word like kagami. What is a mirror, something that distorts or shows the true appearance of a person? And why is kagami made up of ka and kami? We know why it's one of the three treasures...there's even thought along these lines.


However this is obviously not universally true, viz:

Magatama literally means "bent stone" and is ubiquitous as a symbol in many Asian cultures, being among other things the symmetric curly bits in the yin-yang (tai chi) symbol, and appearing in three-fold symmetry in the imperial mon. Magatama beads are good-luck charms and also serve as ritual items in various shinto observances, so they are not merely symbolic, but are also concrete everyday objects. In this case I assume "maga" just means literally "twisted" or "bent" and doesn't have the "deviation from virtue" connotation of a word like "magatsuhi."

Yep, that's it in the main. But there's another theory that magatama simply represent the soul, good or evil and as representations of the soul they are obviously nice, friendly symbols whether or not you reflect on the jewel part or the warped part. You might have forgotten that jewels are on the three sacred treasures. There are many theories as to why jewels and souls have similar etymology in Japanese, but most of them go back to the story of Amaterasu.

Mitama, however, means "august soul" or "noble soul", a shinto concept, and the tama part is just a homophone for the tama in magatama so far as I know, and is one of many Japanese words for "spirit" or "soul". Do I have that right, or are the two tamas actually etymologically related?

They can be, but there's always debate going on here. It is a homophone, but they aren't the same kanji, which brings up the same problem I mentioned above earlier.

The only thing about this that I've not quite picked up on from what you wrote is that you should know mitama orignally results from the twofold nature of the gods, that of roughness and severe misfortune (or something close to maga, but not quite, think storm rather than disfigurement, Susano rather than Magatsuhi) and blessing or healthiness (which again, is close to makoto, but think more of the "shin" type of truth than the straight and narrow type of true way of living). So mitama itself is related to the two concepts and almost certainly derived again from the Amaterasu and Susano cave and jewels and mirror story.

Oddly enough in some anime series including Blue Seed, they use "mitama" to mean "magatama", as the blue comma thing in that series is a sort of spiritually charged magatama, but is called "mitama". So at least a few other writers thought there was a connection between the words, but it might just be a pun.

No, most of the time, its not so much just a pun, but a true connection which has mean acknowledged in a lot of literature for years.

There is also some confusion about this in the Megaten game series, which of course deliberately distorts normal religious concepts, and so is certainly not a reliable guide to shinto.

Megaten does rather special things with this concept, to be sure and you wouldn't want to rely on it for Shinto, yes, but there's no real confusion I can see. For Megaten, its usage is rather straightforward. Perhaps you can tell me what you were thinking of here.

Then there is the question of what is the role of magatsuhi-no-kami the "evil" shinto deity/deities. From what I read, it's not entirely clear if they are really evil, or if they just have the assigned role of tempting or diverting people from virtue, sort of like the servant-of-God Jewish notion of Satan (from Job) as opposed to the entirely evil Christian notion.

This is just one way of thinking of them and for me, an extremely odd way. I'm not sure you can say, unless you're thinking of a specific Shinto faith, that either is the way they've come to be known. Tempting toward evil is not much of a Shinto thing in general. Diverting is perhaps better, but still not on target. Think maybe of a storm that bends trees, its a force that we are lost to, but not quite entirely controllable by our own will. Even when brought into the role of "evil" by some thinkers (and many disagree with this), they retained the naturalistic role of freeform distortion, rather than a force tempting to do bad things.

On the other hand there are "rectifying" kami (forget the name offhand) whose job it is to counter the actions of the magatsuhi-no-kami deities, so maybe magatsuhi-no-kami really is evil after all. Then there is the notion of omagatsuhi-no-kami, the singular great kami of magatsuhi as opposed to the 80,000 myriads of random little magatsuhi-no-kami who go around doing little bad deeds, not sure if there is any qualitative difference between them, or if this is just a conceit, and what the character and nature of the omagatsuhi-no-kami is supposed to be.

Any clarification on this stuff from people who know better than me?

I think what you are referring to by omagatsuhi no kami, which is, BTW, redundant is what identified as magatsuhi above, there are many ways of reading magatsuhi. The idea of magatsuhi no kami (without the o), is kind of more like the "gods that are most like the God of Maga." The rectifying kami are simply noted as the ones who have a traditional slant toward the side on the two folds of mitama I mentioned above. I like to think of it like magnetism, two forces that can attract or oppose, but you wouldn't call one magnet evil and one magnet good.

My dad was a Shinto priest (hence my name and nickname both being closely related to Shinto) and I've lived in Shinto shrines for most of my life, so it's fun to get to speak about this in English. :)

-Kitsune

[MattKeil]

This kind of argument is pointless, as I said, because if you want proof, there is none to be given.

Making your statement of belief on par with me telling you that cherry pie makes people invisible.

Why is it we're rational thinking creatures (generally) until it comes to this morality shit? Further, why can someone like DeepT say something as completely fucking ludicrous as what he just said and it's seen as uncouth to flatly state that what he said was compeletly fucking ludicrous? I believe (ooh, magic word, can't attack me without being un-PC now!) that thinking along the lines of what DeepT has professed (irrational beliefs with no possible basis in fact or evidence whatsoever yet whose very profession is somehow expected to be proof of validity) is extremely dangerous to society, and needs to be eradicated before it destroys us as a species.

And I agree with Angie on the original question.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Such a discussion is pointless. It is what I believe in. There is no science to back any of this up. Hypothetically, if such a cosmic, objective scale existed, and it existed beyond our personal realities (even meaning the personal reality of human-kind), since we do not have anything that can see beyond this, there is no such instrument as you would suggest that can be built.

Knowing about it, understanding it, and even the ability to see it are irrelevant since none of that is required for such a scale to exist. In the distant future we might be able to see it indirectly when we can rule out culture, physiology, and other such things. Perhaps someday we will find 100s, of not 1000s of alien species and cultures thought the universe that have little to nothing in common except a broad moral orientation of what is good and what is evil. I think that would be the closest we could come to confirm or deny the existence of such a universal scale of good and evil.
Why do we need aliens to figure it out, DeepT?


Personally, for me, it is more of a 2nd sight. I do not need a book, a preacher, or cultural value to tell me what is good and what is evil. I could say that my view is tainted by the American experience, which it might be. However, a lot of my values, of what I see as good vs evil, are in conflict with my cultural heritage. So the question is, where do those values come from then?
If you don't know, you don't have much business in declaring this discussion moot, do you?

[Miramon]

Thanks for the many clarifications. There are certainly many gaps in my knowledge. No doubt actually being able to read kanji would help a lot....

I suspect some of what I read was distorted by the religious viewpoints of people trying to explain Shinto from a non-Japanese point of view. In English, most of what I found is either distorted by the writer's non-Shinto religious viewpoint, or else is written in impenetrable academic anthropologese. My personal interest is not religious. The word "mythological" would perhaps be too insulting to a living religion, so let me say my interest is more based on mythic themes than anything else; but I'm also interested in the difference between transcendence and immanence; Abrahamist religions, along with Buddhism, are said to be transcendent, but Shinto is said to be immanent.

I found one translated website which seems associated with one of the charismatic sects (http://www2.plala.or.jp/wani-san/). that of Onisaburo Deguchi. I'm not quite sure if this personage represents a commonly accepted leader of a Shinto sect or not. In fact, his cognomen ("the great monster") seems oddly like that of his anti-religious contemporary Aleister Crowley ("the great beast"). Anyhow, since his is evidently a charismatic sect that was unashamed to be opposed to the official state sect (at least pre-WW-II) I wonder whether the Shinto principles described on the website are universally true throughout Shinto, or only apply to this sect.

(edit: I now see a hint of wackiness about that website I hadn't noticed before. It links to http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracame.htm a site that says along with Onisaburo that one of the lost Jewish tribes came to Japan. Maybe this is more of a cult than a sect?)

[Theodore Rex DX]

Making your statement of belief on par with me telling you that cherry pie makes people invisible.

Why is it we're rational thinking creatures (generally) until it comes to this morality shit? Further, why can someone like DeepT say something as completely fucking ludicrous as what he just said and it's seen as uncouth to flatly state that what he said was compeletly fucking ludicrous? I believe (ooh, magic word, can't attack me without being un-PC now!) that thinking along the lines of what DeepT has professed (irrational beliefs with no possible basis in fact or evidence whatsoever yet whose very profession is somehow expected to be proof of validity) is extremely dangerous to society, and needs to be eradicated before it destroys us as a species.

And I agree with Angie on the original question.

I give this post a 5 ................................ out of 5.

[ScurvyPig]

Originally Posted by DeepT
Such a discussion is pointless. It is what I believe in. There is no science to back any of this up. Hypothetically, if such a cosmic, objective scale existed, and it existed beyond our personal realities (even meaning the personal reality of human-kind), since we do not have anything that can see beyond this, there is no such instrument as you would suggest that can be built.

Knowing about it, understanding it, and even the ability to see it are irrelevant since none of that is required for such a scale to exist. In the distant future we might be able to see it indirectly when we can rule out culture, physiology, and other such things. Perhaps someday we will find 100s, of not 1000s of alien species and cultures thought the universe that have little to nothing in common except a broad moral orientation of what is good and what is evil. I think that would be the closest we could come to confirm or deny the existence of such a universal scale of good and evil.

So humans, on one stinky planet, can't come close to an universal idea of good and evil on the one planet they live on but, it is required in your view, that "100's or 1000's of alien species" on as many planets need to come to agreement. Planets that we've not discovered or, in all liklehood ever to discover, need to come to consensus. Isn't it easier and cheaper to come to a consensus of what is good and evil on our own. I would think it better for you to just show up in Tokyo with your dismaying views of relativism than wait for the 984th Concordance of Galactic Sentient Centipedes to confirm your heresy and death.

edit:Bill said so without so many words.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Originally Posted by DeepT
Such a discussion is pointless. It is what I believe in. There is no science to back any of this up. Hypothetically, if such a cosmic, objective scale existed, and it existed beyond our personal realities (even meaning the personal reality of human-kind), since we do not have anything that can see beyond this, there is no such instrument as you would suggest that can be built.

Knowing about it, understanding it, and even the ability to see it are irrelevant since none of that is required for such a scale to exist. In the distant future we might be able to see it indirectly when we can rule out culture, physiology, and other such things. Perhaps someday we will find 100s, of not 1000s of alien species and cultures thought the universe that have little to nothing in common except a broad moral orientation of what is good and what is evil. I think that would be the closest we could come to confirm or deny the existence of such a universal scale of good and evil.

So humans, on one stinky planet, can't come close to an universal idea of good and evil on the one planet they live on but, it is required in your view, that "100's or 1000's of alien species" on as many planets need to come to agreement. Planets that we've not discovered or, in all liklehood ever to discover, need to come to consensus. Isn't it easier and cheaper to come to a consensus of what is good and evil on our own. I would think it better for you to just show up in Tokyo with your dismaying views of relativism than wait for the 984th Concordance of Galactic Sentient Centipedes to confirm your heresy and death.

edit:Bill said so without so many words.

People? I thought you believed that the invisible sky wizard makes up the rules - which is a lot more plausible than aliens when you think about it. And I'm pretty sure somebody who believes in an objective standard of morality, for reasons no matter how wacky, is not a relatavist.

[K0NY]

Normally, I like to stay away from fruit that has been cooked in any way. However, if apple pie makes you invisible, then fuck it!

Good and evil are subjective interpretations of things and their behavior. Without someone to judge it, Hitler's brain tumor is neither good nor evil (but still a valuable item on Ebay). The real questions are; Was God invented by atheists or the other way around, and if so, why? Is it more evil for atheists to make a God with which to control the faithful, or for a God to make atheists he cannot control?

I'm off to have a nap!

[ScurvyPig]

People? I thought you believed that the invisible sky wizard makes up the rules - which is a lot more plausible than aliens when you think about it. And I'm pretty sure somebody who believes in an objective standard of morality, for reasons no matter how wacky, is not a relatavist.

Relativism requires observable fact or an absolute fact or even a reasonable supposition to oppose or even a normal opion to relalitvize. You can't claim to have worms eating your sperm when in fact you are a woman and then, after the doctor says "thats impossible" claim it's all relative. Which is the trap you set, amazing for such a typically stupid guy. My sky wizard is your insane lie.
I'm sure there is an answer, but I haven't gotten to the chapter yet.

I should have said "your moral relativism" but I didn't. But he should have said, as a human being on Earth, I can only accept 100-1000 provenly nonexistent beings on earth (you did say from the future, right) as moral truth, for the future.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Relativism requires observable fact or an absolute fact or even a reasonable supposition to oppose or even a normal opion to relalitvize. You can't claim to have worms eating your sperm when in fact you are a woman and then, after the doctor says "thats impossible" claim it's all relative. Which is the trap you set, amazing for such a typically stupid guy. My sky wizard is your insane lie.

You are dumb and wrong. Relativists are a funny bunch, but generally they will tell you that there is no one right or wrong - it's just relative to your point of view. Everybody has their own, not a single, objective standard.
You believe in God, which isn't any more or less reasonable than us figuring out a presumed objective moral standard from walking space mushrooms, you condescending hypocrite fuck. Believe it or don't, but don't pretend you're smart, because you're not.

[ScurvyPig]

Good and evil are subjective interpretations of things and their behavior. Without someone to judge it, Hitler's brain tumor is neither good nor evil (but still a valuable item on Ebay). The real questions are; Was God invented by atheists or the other way around, and if so, why? Is it more evil for atheists to make a God with which to control the faithful, or for a God to make atheists he cannot control?

I'm off to have a nap!

Sleep well, Sovok.

[ScurvyPig]

You are dumb and wrong. Relativists are a funny bunch, but generally they will tell you that there is no one right or wrong - it's just relative to your point of view. Everybody has their own, not a single, objective standard.
You believe in God, which isn't any more or less reasonable than us figuring out a presumed objective moral standard from walking space mushrooms, you condescending hypocrite fuck. Believe it or don't, but don't pretend you're smart, because you're not.

Amazing! I can't believe, when I can no longer argue with you without using the B word AND accept a sort of temporary retreat you call me a "condescending hypocrite fuck". You should've roared "cunt" You really are too stupid.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Okay, I'm stupid. And that would make you, what, stupid times infinity plus one? You are a wrong, unapologetic asshole. Fuck off.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Normally, I like to stay away from fruit that has been cooked in any way.
Man, are you ever in the wrong forum.