The Root of ALL Evil

[ThePainefulTruth]

Actually a moral/legal double standard is not only the root of all evil, it's the definition of evil itself. Subverting the equal rights of all to their life, liberty, property and self-defense, at the individual level or in mass populations, establishes a double standard. To clarify, a double standard not involving those moral/legal rights, is not evil.

Only those who wish to violate the rights of others (dictators, nihilists, anarchists), sacrificing good order in the process, object to calling those rights universal and objective as the only way to rationalize their self-serving agendas.

 

[Nietzsche]

Actually a moral/legal double standard is not only the root of all evil, it's the definition of evil itself. Subverting the equal rights of all to their life, liberty, property and self-defense, at the individual level or in mass populations, establishes a double standard. To clarify, a double standard not involving those moral/legal rights, is not evil.

Only those who wish to violate the rights of others (dictators, nihilists, anarchists), sacrificing good order in the process, object to calling those rights universal and objective as the only way to rationalize their self-serving agendas.

It is entirely possible to recognize all rights as equally valid...with the caveat that unless you can enforce them, all the idealism in the world is utterly pointless dribble.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

... a moral/legal double standard is not only the root of all evil, it's the definition of evil itself.

So you're morally opposed to our legal system's existing double standard when it comes to judging children as minors instead of automatically lumping them in with adults, correct?

If a toddler discharges a firearm and kills a person, you'd automatically argue (in an effort to combat "evil itself") that we should try that toddler as an adult, correct? And then once that toddler is tried in court and convicted, it should be treated as an adult as far as sentencing and imprisonment, correct?

Subverting the equal rights of all to their life, liberty, property and self-defense, at the individual level or in mass populations, establishes a double standard.

So you would argue that depriving convicted felons of firearms is evil, correct? I mean, after they've served their time and paid their debt to society, of course.

Or would you even go so far as to say that it's "evil itself" to deprive convicted felons of their liberty in the first place? I mean clearly, it is a legal double standard, right? We have one standard for the convicted felons and another for the rest of us.

To clarify, a double standard not involving those moral/legal rights, is not evil.

So you're not opposed to different pay scales based on gender, correct? As long as a person's "life, liberty, property and self-defense" are respected, we're free to establish double standards ... and those double standards aren't to be considered "evil." Correct?

Only those who wish to violate the rights of others (dictators, nihilists, anarchists), sacrificing good order in the process, object to calling those rights universal and objective as the only way to rationalize their self-serving agendas.

What are your views on gay marriage? Is that a moral/legal double standard that infringes on an individual's liberty or not? And if you agree that marriage is a universal right, then would you also agree that those who're opposed to gay marriage are agents of "evil itself?"

 

[Riverwolf]

I get dictators, and can understand anarchists, but how do nihilists violate the rights of others?

In any case, far as I can tell, the root of all evil is the conception of evil itself.

 

[Nietzsche]

I get dictators, and can understand anarchists, but how do nihilists violate the rights of others?

I think it'd be better to say "violent nihilists". Or people who take "Nothing is true, all is permitted" to its most fun and logical extreme.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

..."Nothing is true, all is permitted"...

Is that a true statement?

 

[Nietzsche]

Is that a true statement?

Doesn't matter!

 

[Riverwolf]

I think it'd be better to say "violent nihilists". Or people who take "Nothing is true, all is permitted" to its most fun and logical extreme.

The Joker, basically.

I'd think such a philosophy would be covered under anarchy... then again, anarchy isn't inherently about rights-violations, either, just no central authority.

 

[Nietzsche]

The Joker, basically.

Basically.

I'd think such a philosophy would be covered under anarchy... then again, anarchy isn't inherently about rights-violations, either, just no central authority.

Anarchy means without leaders, not without order.

 

[Riverwolf]

Basically.

Anarchy means without leaders, not without order.

I need to reread that. ^_^

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It is entirely possible to recognize all rights as equally valid...with the caveat that unless you can enforce them, all the idealism in the world is utterly pointless dribble.

What all rights? I only listed 4.

So you're morally opposed to our legal system's existing double standard when it comes to judging children as minors instead of automatically lumping them in with adults, correct?

No. The moral code is for adults. It has gray areas for children and even animals, and most of those rights become applicable gradually and into full force at different times. The right to life for instance sometime between conception and (?). Parents have the right to make children do chores and and we can hardly argue against keeping toddlers "locked up" in a play pen instead of letting them play in the street. These gray ares are subjective and can differ in degrees between cultures, like what liberals want to do sometimes with rights for adults.

So you would argue that depriving convicted felons of firearms is evil, correct?

Hardly. When you violate the rights of another, you forfeit your own rights to property, liberty and even life. Though I will say I don't know why we couldn't release a felon's rights to a more effective way of self-defense, even though most of them can get guns illegally anyway so I've never heard any argument against it.

I mean, after they've served their time and paid their debt to society, of course.

Or would you even go so far as to say that it's "evil itself" to deprive convicted felons of their liberty in the first place? I mean clearly, it is a legal double standard, right? We have one standard for the convicted felons and another for the rest of us

See above.

So you're not opposed to different pay scales based on gender, correct?

No, not as long as the qualifications are equally applied, and there should certainly be no quotas--and I don't like the government micromanaging the private sector. I believe if the market is allowed to float, after some initial, minimal meddling things will settle out. As an extreme example of the market floating, if a black woman could play quarterback competitively at the NFL level, there would be no need to force the issue of whether to hire her and how much to pay her--but that's what's happening in other industries. If someone is qualified and able, they will be hired. Look what happened to major league baseball in the 40s at the height of Jim Crowe. Other industries will come around in order to be competitive, which is what drives a free market.

As long as a person's "life, liberty, property and self-defense" are respected, we're free to establish double standards ... and those double standards aren't to be considered "evil." Correct?

Yes. You can hate someone all you want, but if you don't act on it, you're not evil. I'd agree that would be unvirtuous, which is subjective and would therefore be fair game for social pressure, but not legislation. Thought police are not what we need.

What are your views on gay marriage? Is that a moral/legal double standard that infringes on an individual's liberty or not? And if you agree that marriage is a universal right, then would you also agree that those who're opposed to gay marriage are agents of "evil itself?"

I think it's a dumb issue, and don't think homosexuality is wrong (evil) any more so than polygamy between consenting adults. Marriage is a religious rite and given that most religions are anti-gay, especially Islam, I don't see why they want any part of it. The only legal issue is the rights for equal treatment under the law when it comes to hiring perks etc., but they shouldn't need a marriage certificate for that.

Also, just as moral grey areas are there to protect the children (not the parents), I think child adoption is best for the child with a parent of each sex. But I'm only talking priority, no prohibition. This is complex issue and probably needs it own thread.

I get dictators, and can understand anarchists, but how do nihilists violate the rights of others?

Yeah, just added that one recently. The problem is that the impetus behind the necessary morality is the nearly universal desire for good order, which requires a government to enforce it. Nihilists, if any actually exist, don't care about good order and would not support a moral code or government, though technically they wouldn't oppose it either. They'd just be obstacles on the roads so to speak, unless they stayed in their caves eating mushrooms and tree bark--and fed themselves to the bears when it was time to die.

In any case, far as I can tell, the root of all evil is the conception of evil itself.

IOW, the Devil, which you consider to be an actual force in the world like a revealed God? But the "Devil" is nothing but the temptation to attempt to rationalize a moral double-standard for your own benefit.

Is that a true statement?

No, it's a self-contradiction. Everything that exists, including that which is imagined, is Truth. Lies only exist in the minds of beings with free will and self-awareness who chose to adopt it. Animals are innocent and cannot lie.
Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. Death is the absence of life. And Lies are the absence of Truth.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yeah, just added that one recently. The problem is that the impetus behind the necessary morality is the nearly universal desire for good order, which requires a government to enforce it. Nihilists, if any actually exist, don't care about good order and would not support a moral code or government, though technically they wouldn't oppose it either. They'd just be obstacles on the roads so to speak, unless they stayed in their caves eating mushrooms and tree bark--and fed themselves to the bears when it was time to die.

I frankly question this implication that nihilism can only be this, and any other self-proclaimed nihilist philosophy is "not real nihilism".

How much do you know about the philosophy?

IOW, the Devil, which you consider to be an actual force in the world like a revealed God? But the "Devil" is nothing but the temptation to attempt to rationalize a moral double-standard for your own benefit.

I don't follow the Zoroastrian conception of the world, so no, I don't believe in two opposing Gods that represent binary morality and described as Supreme in some way. The Gods are, as it were, beyond good and evil.

I also am learning, difficult as it is, to reject the conception that certain actions have only single motivations (either selfish or selfless). That is to say, the Christian Devil is significantly more than what you assert, although your assertion is certainly a part of it in certain circumstances.

 

[Nietzsche]

What all rights? I only listed 4.

And? How does that change what I said? Freedom comes to the person who can enforce it.

Yeah, just added that one recently. The problem is that the impetus behind the necessary morality is the nearly universal desire for good order, which requires a government to enforce it. Nihilists, if any actually exist, don't care about good order and would not support a moral code or government, though technically they wouldn't oppose it either. They'd just be obstacles on the roads so to speak, unless they stayed in their caves eating mushrooms and tree bark--and fed themselves to the bears when it was time to die.

Pftahahahahaha. Ahahahaha.

Cute.

No. You're not allowed to redefine terms like that. Nihilism is the simple rejection of stated, over-arching purpose. It can result in "**** it all", but that doesn't imply rejecting all purpose. Just collective purpose. Stated purpose. For instance!

Even if there are Gods, death is death. We're all going to die. Gods will die. Even YHWH/Jehovah/Allah will succumb to the one unstoppable force. Entropy. All things are rendered moot by entropy. All your achievements, your failures, the things that were, should've, could've, and could not have been will find itself dessicated and utterly destroyed part & parcel by the inevitable, unstoppable march to the inescapable failure of all things. No heat/energy, no anything.

So you see, the only logical way to see things is nihilistically, because it accepts that it's pointless. But you go on anyway to spite it.

IOW, the Devil, which you consider to be an actual force in the world like a revealed God? But the "Devil" is nothing but the temptation to attempt to rationalize a moral double-standard for your own benefit

The Devil, and the idea of an over-reaching, all-powerful God is a fairey-tale invented by people too cowardly to accept their own weakness & failure. People who can't accept the way things are, and because they're too cowardly to change them, make up a place to go after death so they don't have to.

No, it's a self-contradiction. Everything that exists, including that which is imagined, is Truth. Lies only exist in the minds of beings with free will and self-awareness who chose to adopt it. Animals are innocent and cannot lie.
Cold is the absence of heat. Darkness is the absence of light. Death is the absence of life. And Lies are the absence of Truth.

Wait. That analogy falls flat on its *** because the natural state of things is Cold, Dark & Dead. Life, Light & Heat are the exception, not the rule.

Also. I love the "animals can't lie" thing, because that's bull****. Dogs, Octopi, all higher-order animals understand the concept of intentional deception.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

No. The moral code is for adults. It has gray areas for children and even animals, and most of those rights become applicable gradually and into full force at different times.

Oh. What a relief. For a minute there, you'd made it sound as if you were ideologically opposed to double standards.

The right to life for instance sometime between conception and (?).

If life starts at conception, does it follow that a woman's right to liberty starts sometime after conception and is temporarily nullified when she gets pregnant?

Parents have the right to make children do chores and and we can hardly argue against keeping toddlers "locked up" in a play pen instead of letting them play in the street. These gray ares are subjective and can differ in degrees between cultures, like what liberals want to do sometimes with rights for adults.

If these matters are subjective, how can they also be universal?

When you violate the rights of another, you forfeit your own rights to property, liberty and even life.

So it's actually OK to have multiple standards when it comes to the law after all, correct?

Though I will say I don't know why we couldn't release a felon's rights to a more effective way of self-defense, even though most of them can get guns illegally anyway so I've never heard any argument against it.

Getting guns illegally doesn't appear to have any direct bearing on the laws we make regarding the lawful procurement of firearms. Are you suggesting that speed limits should be repealed simply because people sometimes break them?

I think it's a dumb issue, and don't think homosexuality is wrong (evil) any more so than polygamy between consenting adults. Marriage is a religious rite and given that most religions are anti-gay, especially Islam, I don't see why they want any part of it.

Because it impacts their day-to-day life, I suppose. Because marriage is perceived to legitimize a relationship?

The only legal issue is the rights for equal treatment under the law when it comes to hiring perks etc., but they shouldn't need a marriage certificate for that.

I agree with that statement up to the point where you added "...when it comes to hiring perks, etc."

Generally speaking ... shouldn't people just receive equal treatment under the law? Period?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Basically.


Anarchy means without leaders, not without order.

Anarchy means without the rule of law. If you can show where good order is achieved without the rule of law, I'd like to see it.

 

[Riverwolf]

Anarchy means without the rule of law.

No, it means no central governing body. "An", being the negation, and "archy" being "rulership by a person or persons". Monarchy is not the rule of a single law, but of a single ruler.

There can still be an agreed-upon law, enforced and decided upon by everyone in the community, particularly at special meetings, rather than a separate body responsible for all executive actions.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I frankly question this implication that nihilism can only be this, and any other self-proclaimed nihilist philosophy is "not real nihilism".

How much do you know about the philosophy?

It's a red-herring to the thread anyway.

I don't follow the Zoroastrian conception of the world, so no, I don't believe in two opposing Gods that represent binary morality and described as Supreme in some way. The Gods are, as it were, beyond good and evil.

God(s), if they do exist, don't interact in this universe.

I also am learning, difficult as it is, to reject the conception that certain actions have only single motivations (either selfish or selfless). That is to say, the Christian Devil is significantly more than what you assert, although your assertion is certainly a part of it in certain circumstances.

All our motivations are self-centered, as they should be. I prefer a third option, enlightened self-interest.

And? How does that change what I said? Freedom comes to the person who can enforce it.

Life comes to the person who can survive. Fulfillment comes to the person who can thrive. What does that have to do with morality?

Even if there are Gods, death is death. We're all going to die. Gods will die. Even YHWH/Jehovah/Allah will succumb to the one unstoppable force. Entropy. All things are rendered moot by entropy. All your achievements, your failures, the things that were, should've, could've, and could not have been will find itself dessicated and utterly destroyed part & parcel by the inevitable, unstoppable march to the inescapable failure of all things. No heat/energy, no anything.

So you see, the only logical way to see things is nihilistically, because it accepts that it's pointless. But you go on anyway to spite it.

Entropy is of the natural universe. It doesn't account for "before", "after", "outside" or "through", or the possibility of the super-natural mystery which they leave hanging. Our knowledge is stopped cold at the Big Bang and at the Planck spacetime gaps. But I'm also sure all of that will mean nothing to someone determined to be pointlessly nothing.

The Devil, and the idea of an over-reaching, all-powerful God is a fairey-tale invented by people too cowardly to accept their own weakness & failure. People who can't accept the way things are, and because they're too cowardly to change them, make up a place to go after death so they don't have to.

The only cowardly act is to surrender to doubt, and that includes anarchists and nihilists. But this is all beside the point of this thread which you are validating for anarchists and nihilists.

Anarchy means without the rule of law. If you can show where good order is achieved without the rule of law, I'd like to see it.

No, it means no central governing body. "An", being the negation, and "archy" being "rulership by a person or persons". Monarchy is not the rule of a single law, but of a single ruler.

Take it up with the dictionary.

There can still be an agreed-upon law, enforced and decided upon by everyone in the community, particularly at special meetings, rather than a separate body responsible for all executive actions.

If it includes any legal double standards, it's worthless and immoral. Why would anyone in the community desire to be subject to the whims of the favored class? What would the gain except risk?

 

[Riverwolf]

It's a red-herring to the thread anyway.

You brought it up, and I asked for clarification. Still yet to be provided.

God(s), if they do exist, don't interact in this universe.

Speaking of red herrings... or at least non-sequitur. I have no idea what this statement has to do with what I said.

All our motivations are self-centered, as they should be. I prefer a third option, enlightened self-interest.

"Third"? As if there's only two to begin with?

Personally, I prefer pluralism. In this case, the statement that all our motivations are self-centered is overly simplistic, and not accurate to reality. Certainly not my hyper-empathic reality.

Selflessness and selfishness can exist side-by-side, without any conflict. It doesn't end with my self-interest; it goes back to the interests of the other, back to me, back to them, back to me... an infinite loop in a single instance of empathy.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You brought it up, and I asked for clarification. Still yet to be provided.

It's a minor side issue which I'd be willing to concede if we could drop it and move on.

Speaking of red herrings... or at least non-sequitur. I have no idea what this statement has to do with what I said.

You said, "I don't believe in two opposing Gods that represent binary morality and described as Supreme in some way." I'm merely pointing out that a laissez-faire God wouldn't fit with your binary morality influences.

"Third"? As if there's only two to begin with?

"Selfish" and "selfless".

Personally, I prefer pluralism. In this case, the statement that all our motivations are self-centered is overly simplistic, and not accurate to reality. Certainly not my hyper-empathic reality.

Hyper-emphatic reality?

Selflessness and selfishness can exist side-by-side, without any conflict. It doesn't end with my self-interest; it goes back to the interests of the other, back to me, back to them, back to me... an infinite loop in a single instance of empathy.

IOW, you don't care what enlightened self-interest is, or how it might fit with, or be a more refined definition of, your outlook.

 

[Riverwolf]

It's a minor side issue which I'd be willing to concede if we could drop it and move on.

Very well.

You said, "I don't believe in two opposing Gods that represent binary morality and described as Supreme in some way." I'm merely pointing out that a laissez-faire God wouldn't fit with your binary morality influences.

Hence why I've largely been discarding binary morality... though "laissez-faire God"? What are you talking about with that?

"Selfish" and "selfless".

I don't see these as inherently in opposition, and thus I've encountered very, very few places where I must choose between them.

Hyper-emphatic reality?

I have Asperger's Syndrome, and so am hyper-empathic. I basically empathize with any pain I either see in others, or project that others are feeling, in full-force (sometimes even more than person who's actually feeling it). Hand-in-hand with that empathy comes the strong desire to remove that pain from the other person, for both our sakes equally.

While this sort of thing is normal in tribe-social species like humans, people like me feel it far stronger than others.

IOW, you don't care what enlightened self-interest is, or how it might fit with, or be a more refined definition of, your outlook.

If I had meant that, I would have said that, and so no, your statement here is not what I said with OW.

You just termed "enlightened self-interest", without actually defining it. But based on your word-usage, it looks like you're still using binary morality as your baseline, even if you deviate from it. I would be interested, however, to see a concise definition of it. I can work better with one.