Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 9/11/2004 4:17:00 PM EST
I have been thinking about this for quite some time so i will throw here to see your opinions?
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:19:24 PM EST
Islam.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:22:20 PM EST
Anything which adversely affects you or yours.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:23:25 PM EST
Anything that infringes upon the basic liberty of another person.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:27:09 PM EST
All good answers and i agre with all of you. But consider this these are your perceptions of whatt evil is other people will perceive this as good. So how can a person or a group be truly evil if one side perceives one thing but the other perceives the oposite?
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:28:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 4:28:52 PM EST by thelastgunslinger]

Originally Posted By Rand:
All good answers and i agre with all of you. But consider this these are your perceptions of whatt evil is other people will perceive this as good. So how can a person or a group be truly evil if one side perceives one thing but the other perceives the oposite?



Only matters if you believe in moral relativism. I, as a moral absolutist, can be quite certain that certain groups are evil, even if they feel that they are A-OK
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:29:25 PM EST
Simple answer, evil is whatever God says it is.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:32:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By Rand:
All good answers and i agre with all of you. But consider this these are your perceptions of whatt evil is other people will perceive this as good. So how can a person or a group be truly evil if one side perceives one thing but the other perceives the oposite?



Only matters if you believe in moral relativism. I, as a moral absolutist, can be quite certain that certain groups are evil, even if they feel that they are A-OK




Okay but what if your morals conflict with someone elses? Who is to say you are right and they are wrong?
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:35:46 PM EST
Inhumanity. Satanic practices. Necromancer.

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:37:11 PM EST
Evil is IMHNSEO a complete isolation from good. No medicine for you.

GM
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:39:03 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By Rand:
All good answers and i agre with all of you. But consider this these are your perceptions of whatt evil is other people will perceive this as good. So how can a person or a group be truly evil if one side perceives one thing but the other perceives the oposite?



Only matters if you believe in moral relativism. I, as a moral absolutist, can be quite certain that certain groups are evil, even if they feel that they are A-OK




Okay but what if your morals conflict with someone elses? Who is to say you are right and they are wrong?



Ah, I feel almost like Socrates.

Morals are a concept above our own judgment - we can't be one hundred percent sure about them. Humans can never be assuredly right about ANYTHING. For example, if I close my eyes, I believe that the world will still appear similar when I open them. However, this is merely an assumption based upon repetition - I know that it is extremely likely.

The point to that explanation was that you can be convinced, you can be right, but you will never fully 'know' anything, including basic morality.

However, the essential question boils down to what natural rights humans possess.

I am a moral absolutist and a probablist. I believe that while morals are an absolute thing, higher than any societal norms or tendencies, they; like everything, can not be fully known. It just happens that the probability of being absolutely correct regarding morals is lower than the probability that 3 + 4 = 7.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:39:49 PM EST
Ok but what defines good one mans opinion may differ from another so who is to decide who is right?
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:44:44 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rand:
Ok but what defines good one mans opinion may differ from another so who is to decide who is right?



There is no "deciding."

There is no such thing as absolute knowledge of morality.

I am right.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:50:01 PM EST
I have never thought this thought before...


...'Islam' is my answer to this question.

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:50:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By Rand:
All good answers and i agre with all of you. But consider this these are your perceptions of whatt evil is other people will perceive this as good. So how can a person or a group be truly evil if one side perceives one thing but the other perceives the oposite?



Only matters if you believe in moral relativism. I, as a moral absolutist, can be quite certain that certain groups are evil, even if they feel that they are A-OK




Okay but what if your morals conflict with someone elses? Who is to say you are right and they are wrong?



Ah, I feel almost like Socrates.

Morals are a concept above our own judgment - we can't be one hundred percent sure about them. Humans can never be assuredly right about ANYTHING. For example, if I close my eyes, I believe that the world will still appear similar when I open them. However, this is merely an assumption based upon repetition - I know that it is extremely likely.

The point to that explanation was that you can be convinced, you can be right, but you will never fully 'know' anything, including basic morality.

However, the essential question boils down to what natural rights humans possess.

I am a moral absolutist and a probablist. I believe that while morals are an absolute thing, higher than any societal norms or tendencies, they; like everything, can not be fully known. It just happens that the probability of being absolutely correct regarding morals is lower than the probability that 3 + 4 = 7.




Good my whole point of posting this was to get people to think and you are
So what are your morals? And what if one man shares one of your morals but doesnt share aother does this make him evil? to sonme people it would.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:51:30 PM EST
You rang?
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 4:56:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/11/2004 4:57:03 PM EST by DK-Prof]

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

There is no such thing as absolute knowledge of morality.

I am right.




Nice !

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:02:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By Rand:
All good answers and i agre with all of you. But consider this these are your perceptions of whatt evil is other people will perceive this as good. So how can a person or a group be truly evil if one side perceives one thing but the other perceives the oposite?



Only matters if you believe in moral relativism. I, as a moral absolutist, can be quite certain that certain groups are evil, even if they feel that they are A-OK




Okay but what if your morals conflict with someone elses? Who is to say you are right and they are wrong?



Ah, I feel almost like Socrates.

Morals are a concept above our own judgment - we can't be one hundred percent sure about them. Humans can never be assuredly right about ANYTHING. For example, if I close my eyes, I believe that the world will still appear similar when I open them. However, this is merely an assumption based upon repetition - I know that it is extremely likely.

The point to that explanation was that you can be convinced, you can be right, but you will never fully 'know' anything, including basic morality.

However, the essential question boils down to what natural rights humans possess.

I am a moral absolutist and a probablist. I believe that while morals are an absolute thing, higher than any societal norms or tendencies, they; like everything, can not be fully known. It just happens that the probability of being absolutely correct regarding morals is lower than the probability that 3 + 4 = 7.




Good my whole point of posting this was to get people to think and you are
So what are your morals? And what if one man shares one of your morals but doesnt share aother does this make him evil? to sonme people it would.



My morals:

1) Do not infringe upon the liberty of another.
2) Help others when it is reasonable.
3) If it does not unreasonably harm another person, do what is in my own best interest.

Liberty would include all rights - property, life, expression, etc. I think people should be able to do whatever they want (do drugs, for example) so long as it is something that does not infringe upon the liberty of another.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:06:06 PM EST
Black rifles are evil.

Those who buy black rifles are evil.

Choose evil.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:08:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By Rand:
All good answers and i agre with all of you. But consider this these are your perceptions of whatt evil is other people will perceive this as good. So how can a person or a group be truly evil if one side perceives one thing but the other perceives the oposite?



Only matters if you believe in moral relativism. I, as a moral absolutist, can be quite certain that certain groups are evil, even if they feel that they are A-OK




Okay but what if your morals conflict with someone elses? Who is to say you are right and they are wrong?



Ah, I feel almost like Socrates.

Morals are a concept above our own judgment - we can't be one hundred percent sure about them. Humans can never be assuredly right about ANYTHING. For example, if I close my eyes, I believe that the world will still appear similar when I open them. However, this is merely an assumption based upon repetition - I know that it is extremely likely.

The point to that explanation was that you can be convinced, you can be right, but you will never fully 'know' anything, including basic morality.

However, the essential question boils down to what natural rights humans possess.

I am a moral absolutist and a probablist. I believe that while morals are an absolute thing, higher than any societal norms or tendencies, they; like everything, can not be fully known. It just happens that the probability of being absolutely correct regarding morals is lower than the probability that 3 + 4 = 7.




Good my whole point of posting this was to get people to think and you are
So what are your morals? And what if one man shares one of your morals but doesnt share aother does this make him evil? to sonme people it would.



My morals:

1) Do not infringe upon the liberty of another.
2) Help others when it is reasonable.
3) If it does not unreasonably harm another person, do what is in my own best interest.

Liberty would include all rights - property, life, expression, etc. I think people should be able to do whatever they want (do drugs, for example) so long as it is something that does not infringe upon the liberty of another.



Whta if by doing whatever you want you unintentionally harm them?Does that make youievil?
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:08:58 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:10:38 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:13:47 PM EST
Absence of God

Sgtar15
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:13:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By Rand:
All good answers and i agre with all of you. But consider this these are your perceptions of whatt evil is other people will perceive this as good. So how can a person or a group be truly evil if one side perceives one thing but the other perceives the oposite?



Only matters if you believe in moral relativism. I, as a moral absolutist, can be quite certain that certain groups are evil, even if they feel that they are A-OK




Okay but what if your morals conflict with someone elses? Who is to say you are right and they are wrong?



Ah, I feel almost like Socrates.

Morals are a concept above our own judgment - we can't be one hundred percent sure about them. Humans can never be assuredly right about ANYTHING. For example, if I close my eyes, I believe that the world will still appear similar when I open them. However, this is merely an assumption based upon repetition - I know that it is extremely likely.

The point to that explanation was that you can be convinced, you can be right, but you will never fully 'know' anything, including basic morality.

However, the essential question boils down to what natural rights humans possess.

I am a moral absolutist and a probablist. I believe that while morals are an absolute thing, higher than any societal norms or tendencies, they; like everything, can not be fully known. It just happens that the probability of being absolutely correct regarding morals is lower than the probability that 3 + 4 = 7.




Good my whole point of posting this was to get people to think and you are
So what are your morals? And what if one man shares one of your morals but doesnt share aother does this make him evil? to sonme people it would.



My morals:

1) Do not infringe upon the liberty of another.
2) Help others when it is reasonable.
3) If it does not unreasonably harm another person, do what is in my own best interest.

Liberty would include all rights - property, life, expression, etc. I think people should be able to do whatever they want (do drugs, for example) so long as it is something that does not infringe upon the liberty of another.



Whta if by doing whatever you want you unintentionally harm them?Does that make youievil?



It depends on if it was by negligence or if it was unavoidable, and what it was that I did. Say I did drugs, and then stole someone's VCR...the theft would be immoral, not doing drugs.

I'd need an example or two to properly answer the question.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:14:10 PM EST
What is this? Ass troll night?

Is there a full moon out?

Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:16:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By thelastgunslinger:

Originally Posted By Rand:
All good answers and i agre with all of you. But consider this these are your perceptions of whatt evil is other people will perceive this as good. So how can a person or a group be truly evil if one side perceives one thing but the other perceives the oposite?



Only matters if you believe in moral relativism. I, as a moral absolutist, can be quite certain that certain groups are evil, even if they feel that they are A-OK




Okay but what if your morals conflict with someone elses? Who is to say you are right and they are wrong?



Ah, I feel almost like Socrates.

Morals are a concept above our own judgment - we can't be one hundred percent sure about them. Humans can never be assuredly right about ANYTHING. For example, if I close my eyes, I believe that the world will still appear similar when I open them. However, this is merely an assumption based upon repetition - I know that it is extremely likely.

The point to that explanation was that you can be convinced, you can be right, but you will never fully 'know' anything, including basic morality.

However, the essential question boils down to what natural rights humans possess.

I am a moral absolutist and a probablist. I believe that while morals are an absolute thing, higher than any societal norms or tendencies, they; like everything, can not be fully known. It just happens that the probability of being absolutely correct regarding morals is lower than the probability that 3 + 4 = 7.




Good my whole point of posting this was to get people to think and you are
So what are your morals? And what if one man shares one of your morals but doesnt share aother does this make him evil? to sonme people it would.



My morals:

1) Do not infringe upon the liberty of another.
2) Help others when it is reasonable.
3) If it does not unreasonably harm another person, do what is in my own best interest.

Liberty would include all rights - property, life, expression, etc. I think people should be able to do whatever they want (do drugs, for example) so long as it is something that does not infringe upon the liberty of another.



Whta if by doing whatever you want you unintentionally harm them?Does that make youievil?



It depends on if it was by negligence or if it was unavoidable, and what it was that I did. Say I did drugs, and then stole someone's VCR...the theft would be immoral, not doing drugs.

I'd need an example or two to properly answer the question.



Just in general if you unintentionally harmed someone by doing what you wanted and they thought you where evil does that make there opinion valid?
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:17:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By NAKED-GUNMAN:
What is this? Ass troll night?

Is there a full moon out?



No this is general disscussion i am discussing.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:26:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Absence of God

Sgtar15



All playing aside, that is the truth
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:32:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rand:

Originally Posted By Sniper_Wolfe:

Originally Posted By Rand:
Whta if by doing whatever you want you unintentionally harm them?Does that make youievil?



It depends on if it was by negligence or if it was unavoidable, and what it was that I did. Say I did drugs, and then stole someone's VCR...the theft would be immoral, not doing drugs.

I'd need an example or two to properly answer the question.



Just in general if you unintentionally harmed someone by doing what you wanted and they thought you where evil does that make there opinion valid?



If it is as a result of negligence, yes, it is wrong.

If not, it's not.

Either way, I would be responsible and should make restitution as best as I could.
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:38:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 5:51:35 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/11/2004 6:39:47 PM EST
Money.
Top Top