Is it really so simple?
Is it really so simple?
84 comments
-
-
Is it really so simple?
No.
-
You'd be surprised how many complex issued boil down to some barely constrained lunatic who hates you and wants you to die...
-
Found the top of the bell curve
-
XD
-
-
-
'There’s no greys, only white that’s got grubby. I’m surprised you don’t know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.’
‘It’s a lot more complicated than that—’
‘No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.'—Terry Pratchett, Carpe Jugulum
-
I'm a tool.
-
Wow that's good!
-
-
There are almost no people who see themselves as evil (except some really fucked up lunatics like serial killers). Everyone normally wants to be and do good. Where does all the evil then come from?
Sometimes people do evil things because of ignorance. They just didn't know/ thought of the consequences of their actions.
Often people do evil things for their own or their close one's advantage like corruption.
But most of the time people do really evil things because of projection. The pressure from "outside" (mainly during childhood development) to be good can be so forcefully and rigorously that people can't accept parts of their own self which they then project onto others. Thus invoking evil actions against these others to protect themselves from them, in extreme cases this can go until dehumanising others "allowing" all the great atrocities we know from human history.
-
It IS really that simple, and that's also the method you use to separate the good from the evil. Only the evil deals in absolutes.
-
Lmao I like this response. Does it mean that reality is inherently evil?
-
-
the world is rich versus poor, has been and always will be.
change my mind.
-
We outnumber the rich millions to one, and when we finally all realize that the rich are going have a really bad day.
-
The Haves and the Have Nots have always been at war. Occasionally there are agreements struck, but the Haves always come back for more.
-
-
What do you even mean? Good and evil are moral terms, and the world doesn't even have objective morality, let alone 'is' it. Making a meme where your position is in the 'right', doesn't make it true or even sensical.
-
Your comment does the same thing you're critiquing OOP for doing. What gives you the authority to claim as fact that there exists no objective morality?
Edit: tbc, I also don't believe in object morality, but what I have issue with is the apparent contradiction you've made
-
-
World oscillates, just like everything else.
-
No. While there are many opinions by no means are all really intellegent once binary. See Hanna Arendt "The banality of evil" or Friedrich Nietzsche "Beyond good and evil" (result is debatable but smart mad)
-
The more I learn, the more I realize that a lot of political leaders who do horrible do what they do for a reason, with some exceptions. This isn't an endorsement of their actions or their reasons, but Putin, Netanyahu, and (kinda) Biden/Obama/Bush all have reasons for what they do. The rare exceptions are the super corrupt ones. Boris Yeltsin, Viktor Orban, Trump, the office of US president generally, Scott Morrison, etc.
In other words it's not so much good vs. evil as corruption vs integrity.
-
I wouldn't put Netanyahu in the former camp.
-
Netanyahu is super corrupt, but in his position as leader of Israel he does things for a reason. The Israeli people have a persecution complex due to ... history, and so many want an ethnostate. On top of that Israel like America has made a lot of enemies, through their various war crimes, so the threats to Israel's national security are real.
None of this is an endorsement of Israel's past, present, or future. There are better ways to survive and they seem be going out of their way to cross lines that I wouldn't even if it'd kill me. There seems to be some "religious zionism" mixed in with their efforts to build an ethnostate that makes sure they needlessly commit every war crime in the book. Furthermore Israel's reckless actions and it's impunity have been fomenting antisemitism around the world (from the right, this isn't meant to equivocate pro-Palestine activistism with antisemitism).
-
-
-
Proof. We seek to prove that regardless of the existence of an objective morality people will only adhere/accept their own personal morality, thus making objective morality irrelevant.
We have three cases:
- Objective Morality doesn’t exist: If there is no objective morality, people can only default to their own morality.
- Objective morality exists and doesn’t align with an individual’s own moral compass: Imagine objective morality was defined by some Aztec or eldritch god and tells you it is morally imperative to torture people. If you have a sense of empathy your moral compass will not align with this and you will choose to disobey this morality. Hence, if an objective moral compass exists and does not align with one’s own morality, the individual will reject it and default to their own morality.
- Objective morality exists and does align with an individual’s own morality: Trivially this means an individual is still just following their own default morality.
In all cases the individual will only act on their own morality regardless of the existence or nonexistence of an objective morality. Hence, objective morality is irrelevant. QED.
Because the existence of objective morality has no relevance one can assume objective morality doesn’t exist which, by Occam’s razor, is already the most likely case. Your ideas of right and wrong or good and bad will never be objective in a way that would matter. It is, in my opinion, a much better idea to explain what you think the positive effect of your “moral” actions are because those cause effect relationships can be objective. “I think we should provide free basic needs to everyone because a significant portion of crimes are committed as crimes of necessity, and I would like my country to feel safer” is much more objective than “I think we should provide free basic needs to everyone because it’s the right thing to do.”
Anyone can claim their ideas are “right” or “good” without any explanation of why. I mean that’s basically the strategy of the Republican Party. “Being trans is wrong” “Anti-capitalism is evil” etc. And you saying “Anticapitalism is good” is just as empty and meaningless.
Also, fun fact the proof above works for the existence of god as well. Basically just swap out morality with god and ta-da it is morally irrelevant if god exists, you’re only going to do what you personally think is right regardless.
-
"Good" is whoever ends up winning at the end.
-
The world is ignorance/greed VS knowledge/cooperation.
-
Yes, I think greed is definitely there in the mix somewhere.
-
-
Good and bad both exist because we want to go somewhere, or we want a certain development to happen. Therefore, the development that we want to see happen is "good" while everything that stands in its way is "bad". Yes, it is that simple, assuming you have a clear picture of where you want to go.
But not everyone wants to go to the same place, or reach the same way of living, so it's more complicated.
Oh and i forgot to mention: If the world existed in perfect balance, with nobody ever wanting to change anything, neither good nor bad would exist in the world. The world would just be.
-
Good, as in "service to others" and evil as in "service to self". Evil in this sense is unstable and ego drives Entropy by its nature by the same laws as cancer. Good is harder since decisions are also subject to entropy, requiring free will as the outside energy source. That's just my perspective <3
-
Great points, I like it. Someone else pointed out that perhaps there's no objective morality, but perhaps another explanation is that there are no individuals, that's why it seems like that.
-
-
I am more and more learning about how personal interests often conflict with societal interests (as simple as it may sound). We are globally going to understand soon enough that democracy isn't worth shit as long as feedback loops that allow personal interests to creep in are "meta".
Loads of people have lots of ideas on how to run countries and communities, but ideology and doctrines are not really proven concepts.
And the other big problem is that to declare new forces within existing infrastructure (creating counter power to prevent positive feedback mechanisms), societal interest must still be powerful enough to not require a revolution to be enacted in a sensible and effective way.
A lot of countries have already in my mind gone way over that threshold, it's recognisable when actual societal interests, long term initiatives and big questions about the future are not asked anymore because the political power is working at consolidating their position and redistributing favours they owe to the soon to be oligarchy.
But you can't really allow anyone to be a defeatist because cynism is the last nail in the coffin, staying awake and fight hoping that enough will join soon enough is the only way to keep existing.
-
Yes. There is good, there is evil and if it requires many words to try and sway your opinion, that is manipulative - evil.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
84 comments
No. Life is not a Marvel movie. Instead, the world is driven by material conditions, and the continuous effect these conditions have in guiding future conditions. The capitalists overtook the fuedal lords not because they were more moral, but because of the steam engine and the expansion in industrial production. The Statesian north didn't free the slaves of the south out of any moral reason, but to gain access to more wage laborers better fit for industrial production. Socialism is overtaking capitalism because imperialism is dying, and rates of profit are falling.
There's no idealist "good vs evil." If you'd like, I wrote an intro Marxist-Leninist reading guide that might help!
I wanna live in whatever world you're talking about. It sure feels to me like fascism is overtaking capitalism.
Fascism is capitalism
The PRC is the biggest economy in the world by PPP and is beating the west in many metrics while the west is falling in those same metrics, and the PRC is socialist. Capitalism's decay compels the rise of socialism.