|
Post by Flix on Sept 8, 2009 8:27:02 GMT
Regardless of how you define it, nothing is the root of "all" evil, folks. Broad generalizations like that are useless at best. Not you, EK, since you didn't say 'all', and I'm not really convinced you're talking about evil (selfless=good, selfish=evil is kindergarten morality)
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Sept 8, 2009 8:38:34 GMT
Those who are lazy don't starve , in fact they eat well , live off the social service system and are doing relatively better than most working class people I know regarding food medical care and general contentment. America is not a purely capitalist society.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Sept 8, 2009 8:55:20 GMT
kitty - I disagree, evil as defined by common usage would still exist even without religion. All that religion does is give those in the religion something to point at and say "It's his fault" rather than accepting the fact that, actually we can do these things without any outside interference (e.g. genocide is evil, it doesn't matter how you look at it, or what point of view you have. It is evil, unless you consider those you are killing to be less than human, then it's simply extermination, but still evil because you are viewing other people as non-people). However you are correct in that what is perceived as being evil changes as societies moral code changes.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Sept 8, 2009 9:11:58 GMT
@ Darki - my sentence was meant as pointing out that, at least for Atheists, it isn't a good idea to use religious-based terms to describe something that can be easily called differently. That's why I wrote "evil" (harmful) - because harmful is the better, clearer choice to describe the issue, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Sept 8, 2009 10:34:51 GMT
I can understand where you're coming from, however good and evil are not really religious terms, they are concepts that that help explain the moral landscape in the same way that order and chaos can be used to explain the physical world.
There isn't another word that sums up the entirety of the word evil. Bad, wrong, incorrect, mistake, harmful, all have different meanings that don't match the deliberate, calculated acts that the word evil suggests.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 8, 2009 12:03:56 GMT
Flix - indeed. Hence my use of quote marks around the word 'evil' throughout *** As I note both here and elsewhere, 'Good' and 'Evil' are sociological constructs and beyond that have no actual meaning. They certainly are not absolutes. Often, they depend on who you ask. Were the Viking raiders 'evil'? They certainly were if you ask the many places they raided. But ask the families that they kept fed through their actions and you may get another POV entirely... How many of us consider our OWN nations and peoples inherently 'evil' because at one or other we displaced, dispossessed and committed genocide on the native peoples? (No, it wasn't just the US. Far from it!) How many people even know or care? History is written by the winners and they rarely seem to have guilty consciences at all... 'Evil' is what the other guy does... Genocide is frequent throughout history, DPR. A lot of the time, it involved one beaten, starving, people being pushed into lands belonging to others where they had to fight or die. Sometimes it would be exiles or those pushed to seek a new life because there was no space left where they were. Genocide is not always 'evil'. Sometimes it's a matter of the survival of one people over the survival of another.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Sept 8, 2009 14:38:23 GMT
How many of us consider our OWN nations and peoples inherently 'evil' because at one or other we displaced, dispossessed and committed genocide on the native peoples? (No, it wasn't just the US. Far from it!) How many people even know or care? History is written by the winners and they rarely seem to have guilty consciences at all... 'Evil' is what the other guy does... I wouldn't call an entire nation 'evil'. A nation can't be evil anyway. Certain people in it's goverment can do harmful actions. Has nothing to do with the nation itself. That is, what I like to call, the German-Paradox. German history was evil = Germans must be evil. (feel free to add any other nation you can possibly imagine..)@darki, I don't see how 'evil' is any stronger in its meaning than harmful or destructive. Evil isn't more universal or an intensification of either of those words.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Sept 8, 2009 16:26:55 GMT
I do agree that 'evil', and 'good' for that matter, can be defined outside any religion - but nonetheless both have inherent a general valuation, at least in s/he who uses it.
That however makes it subjective. It remains subjective even if a great number of people agree - a multiple subjectivity, so to speak.
Even something predominantly perceived as good will potentially harm someone - who evidently will find it less good.
So it is sort of a democratic, social convention - a generally or predominantly accepted value - but not something that can be defined as an universal absolute.
Like what are 'Human Rights'? Something univesally good? Well, for humans... - maybe. What if we find that dolphins are sentient beings with their own society, not to speak of potential extra-terrestrials, what would 'Human Rights' be worth then? They would have to be expanded, wouldn't they?
'Good' and 'Evil' are neither universal nor natural law - they are Man made concepts. They work outside religion, but only within a defined context.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Sept 8, 2009 16:51:45 GMT
@ Darki - my sentence was meant as pointing out that, at least for Atheists, it isn't a good idea to use religious-based terms to describe something that can be easily called differently. That's why I wrote "evil" (harmful) - because harmful is the better, clearer choice to describe the issue, imo. Do you also refrain from using the word "pray" such as "pray it isn't so" and such terms because they have some possible religious association.?? IMO, standing in freezing weather can be "harmful" to your health.. So I am to understand that if a man consistently and violently raped every woman he could, you would only describe it as harmful or possibly a "moral infraction"...?? Granted, evil is hard to define, but everyone knows it when they see it... I think you are grasping at anything so you will not entertain the possibllity of religion having any merit in the universe... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Sept 8, 2009 16:59:16 GMT
Granted, evil is hard to define, but everyone knows it when they see it...Not 'everyone', and only in our cultural and social context. One could say that as history is written by the winners, evil is defined by the losers...
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Sept 8, 2009 18:38:10 GMT
You just needed a catchy title so people would read another humanology theory. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 8, 2009 18:54:56 GMT
Heh. Guilty as charged, Flix! ;D I do that a lot ;D If I'd called it 'A Treatise On The Effects Of The Human Survival Instinct On Modern Civilisations' - which is what it is - would anyone have read it? ;D
***
Glance - I prefer 'Consensual Reality' for 'that which is generally agreed to be true' as you know. And yes, 'Good' and 'Evil' are always defined by the majority view.
***
Kit - 'Evil' is certainly the strongest condemnatory phrase. Tell someone that what they have done is wrong, or bad, or naughty and it holds nowhere near the weight of condemnation that telling them they are guilty of committing 'Evil' has.
***
ss - you'd be surprised. In WW2, the Germans raped and butchered their way through Russia, then the Russians raped and butchered their way through Germany. Both sides justified the atrocities they committed, each in their own way. Was it 'Evil' on both sides? Sure, from where we sit now in calm judgement. But neither side considered themselves 'Evil' at the time...
|
|
|
Post by Flix on Sept 9, 2009 2:56:35 GMT
Wha..huh? Oh sorry, I feel asleep whilst reading that title. Good choice after all.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 9, 2009 3:22:09 GMT
I thought so! ;D
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Sept 10, 2009 0:43:31 GMT
@ Darki - my sentence was meant as pointing out that, at least for Atheists, it isn't a good idea to use religious-based terms to describe something that can be easily called differently. That's why I wrote "evil" (harmful) - because harmful is the better, clearer choice to describe the issue, imo. Do you also refrain from using the word "pray" such as "pray it isn't so" and such terms because they have some possible religious association.?? IMO, standing in freezing weather can be "harmful" to your health.. So I am to understand that if a man consistently and violently raped every woman he could, you would only describe it as harmful or possibly a "moral infraction"...?? Granted, evil is hard to define, but everyone knows it when they see it... I think you are grasping at anything so you will not entertain the possibllity of religion having any merit in the universe... ;D I think that's pretty rude to say of you ss. Yes, of course I do not think anything of religion but this here is a simple opinion thing, most Atheists wouldn't think twice to use "oh god" in every second setence. With your little outburst aka "any merit of religion" it shows my point quite clearly why I do NOT use "evil". Because you ARE religious, evil has a much heavier weight for you than harmful or destructive. It doesn't for me. I would call the behaviour of that rapist you describe as harmful and destructive to those women and I don't feel any downgrading of the act through it. Evil, especially in your case, is very c;learly only 'stronger' in its meaning because you connect it with religion. I don't; so it isn't any different than destructive or harmful to me. If I would use the word 'evil' to intensify whatever I'm talking about, someone could get me with a "that's a religious term, so you actually DO see the 'merit in religion'!" and that person would be right - but I don't use it in a serious discussion, so that this won't happen. EDIT: Oh I forgot to add - I also wouldn't use the word "moral". 'Morals" are so relative, they change by everything, gender, nationality, time in history, baclkground of the person, religion... it doesn't make much sense to me to use it because it can mean everything and nothing. The female circumcions in Africa are done in the name to preserve the girl's moral - for western standards its a terrible example of female supression. When someone asks me if I have morals, I would wholeheartly say "of course, tons!" but any christian would point out that I participate in the 7 sins by the second I wake up in the morning. The turkish fellows in the town I grew up in, justified the headscarfs of their females with "preserving the morals of the girl and the men around her" - for my conception as a non-muslim that is again, female supression and a giant lack of trust. I could go on.. but I think you get the point.
|
|
|
Post by kitty on Sept 10, 2009 0:51:34 GMT
Kit - 'Evil' is certainly the strongest condemnatory phrase. Tell someone that what they have done is wrong, or bad, or naughty and it holds nowhere near the weight of condemnation that telling them they are guilty of committing 'Evil' has. Only because you grew up in a society that cares for religion and therefore made the phrase heavier than 'harmful' or 'destructive' to you. I grew up in an atheist society and can't see any stronger meaning in it. Simple perception. Again an example of relativity and therefore, for my liking to vague and easily misinterpreted and again therefore, for me not to use.
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Sept 10, 2009 0:57:13 GMT
Maybe it's a language thing, Kit? I've honestly never associated 'Evil' with religion on anything like an exclusive level. I'm far more interested in the sociological gradations that start at 'naughty' and end at 'evil'.
Can any of our other German boardies shed light on this? Would Kit's description of 'Evil' as primarily religious hold true for you?
What about everyone else? Do you see 'Evil' as either solely or primarily the province of religion?
|
|
|
Post by janggut on Sept 10, 2009 8:25:40 GMT
for me, not flushing the toilet (especially a public one) after use is especially evil. parents who would pile loads of extra curricular activities on their kids so that they don't have to deal with them for as long as they could - that's evil. for those who could've done something about somebody's plight but didn't - that is also evil.
no religious connotation there.
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Sept 10, 2009 15:09:51 GMT
Can any of our other German boardies shed light on this? Would Kit's description of 'Evil' as primarily religious hold true for you? What about everyone else? Do you see 'Evil' as either solely or primarily the province of religion? I think in either language 'evil' is just another word - the connection to religion may be multifold historically, but based on personal perception, interpretation and context. After all there is: evil smell, stag-evil (med./zool.), evil reputation, necessary evil... All not in themselves related to religion. and - evil eye or evil spell would fall more under superstition than religion. A 'basic evil' does not have to be a religious one... or 'idleness breeds evil' doesn't have to mean religious evil. (OK, that may be a mute point -my father, not a religious man, always said that 'the sum of all vices in Man is a constant' ) An example of a religious origin in German would be 'evil tidings', which in German is 'Hiobsbotschaft' (message of Hiob) - but then it would also show the English being more neutral. The German translation of 'evil' could be 'böse', 'schlecht' or 'übel' - which re-translated into English could be anything from angry, bad, malicious, nasty, vicious (Ah! Religious?) to wicked. So I think Elliot is right in that the word itself is a-religious - but Kitty also has a point in that more often than not it is used in or with a religious connotation - sometimes inconciously so. I think we can agree that Elliot is not a 'standard user' in the weighing of words - Kitty's view is closer to 'common usage' by ordinary, averagely educated people - as I said, mostly without even thinking about it. And while Kitty's attitude may appear extreme (Sorry Kitty couldn't find a better word), there is no harm in pointing out such inconscious use of language and to make people think of how what they said could be offending. Though that can be said both ways - some things that appear offending, aren't in the true sense of the words.
|
|
|
Post by ss on Sept 10, 2009 18:37:33 GMT
Do you also refrain from using the word "pray" such as "pray it isn't so" and such terms because they have some possible religious association.?? IMO, standing in freezing weather can be "harmful" to your health.. So I am to understand that if a man consistently and violently raped every woman he could, you would only describe it as harmful or possibly a "moral infraction"...?? Granted, evil is hard to define, but everyone knows it when they see it... I think you are grasping at anything so you will not entertain the possibllity of religion having any merit in the universe... ;D I think that's pretty rude to say of you ss. . Sorry Kit, It was not meant to be rude, was (I think) just my observation...which could be wrong.. I do see and use the word "evil" (english word that it is) in both a biblical sense and a non-biblical sense... There are plenty of (IMO) "evil" acts that have nothing to do with religion per se... But....I DO think I tolerate your "atheism" much better than you tolerate my "Christianity"..
|
|