If Kerry were back we would have been informed that there was an overlooked psycho-sexual component imposed by right-wing fundamentalist frauds.

There seems to be a lot of that going around.

Bot

You mean like Jimmy Swaggart and James Baker?

Just checking.

Yeah, he was a stupid one trick pony with nothing to add.:rolleyes:

Sorry, but that is a pretty weak rationale, and it hardly justifies how the countless atrocities that occur on this planet are merely shrugged off by many religious types as "well, it's just part of god's plan". :rolleyes:

I ain't buyin' it.

Mike

Who is "more evil?"

Person A, who causes untold suffering on others?

Or Person B, who having the power to stop the evil caused by person A (and thus avoid the resulting suffering) does nothing to stop it?

I wish someone could explain this seeming paradox, or conundrum (or whatever) without resorting to: "...well, we are not smart enough to understand the answer..." OR "...there is a plan and you just have to wait for it to fully unfold..."

I am not trying to be argumentative here (and I can certainly be that at times).

This is a serious question because I am truly seeking to be enlightened.

There is a lot that hangs on the balance here...

A very subjective question, to be sure.

My opinion is that the person who is causing the suffering is the "evil" one.

But the person who stands by and does nothing certainly does not get a "free pass"....

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call your theoretical person B "evil", but certainly irresponsible and callous.

Mike

The way I see it is that everyone's job is to keep their side of the street clean. You keep your side clean, I'll keep my side clean, etc. It is not my job to clean your side of the street if you fail to do so. That is simply beyond the bounds of my personal responsibility.

I cannot disagree more with you.

We are all responsible for what happens on both sides of the street.

Whatever evil happens on one side of the street will, sooner or later (usually sooner) spill over to your side.

I am not talking about meddlesome,pointless social activism. We have had too much of that already. I am talking about not sitting idly by with arms firmly planted across our collective chests while things fall aprt at the seams.

If a girl was being raped or an old man being stabbed would you just do nothing because it happened on the other side of the street.

And just in case, my question had bigger implications about the nature of good vs. evil and God vs. Satan. Perhaps I was being too obtuse.

Mike, don't you think that both are evil.

If you have the power to stop an evil deed, and do nothing to stop it, are you not just as evil...perhaps even more.

Isn't that what we learned (supposedly) in Nuremberg?

Too many people lack PERSONABLE responsibility that lends itself to others!

I could not agree more Benz LGB. We are all as individuals responsible for ourselves as individuals, and as individuals participating in a structured society, responsible, or obligated to contribute to that society... by taking responsibility BEYOND our own individual selves. We share this world with every other breathing living organism aboard it. Dont forget that.

If you wish to assume responsibility for the whole world, the only real solution is to rise up and rule the whole world. My personal ambitions fall significantly short of this goal.

[QUOTE=BENZ-LGB...that hangs on the balance...[/QUOTE]
The notion of evil is based on a 'moral' standard that seeks to judge what is undesireable... what is to be avoided.

I don't know if you could describe the failure to follow the plan as part of the plan or not. I am sure that some will say it is just so.

Ron, this is not another installment of Pinky and the Brain.

We all share responsibility. We do not have to conquer the world, and the people in it, in order to be responsible for it.

This has taken a different turn from where I wanted to go (as it is often the case). My question was aimed more at the nature of a God who, having the power to stop evil, nevertheless chooses not to (at least for the time being, as the argument goes).

Still your take on the questionis a valid one.

The older I get, however, the more powerfully I am convinced that I am responsible for the good and the evil that goes on around me. I am convinced that we are responsible for spreading good as well as stopping (or lessening) evil.

Listening to Bill Bryson helped pushed the epiphany along...Mon dieu!!!

I realize that this may fly on the face of my libertarian aspirations...but a foolish consistency....:eek:

Who's plan? Morality is subjective -- there is no morality in nature...

Oh yes, THE PLAN.

No one has bothered to explain THE PLAN to me in a way that my meager intellect can grasp.

Accordingly, I am assuming that there is no PLAN other than do good and avoid evil.

Hippie:hippy:

I agree with Part A of your post...

I disagree with the rest, however.

Morality is not subjective. Moral relativism is bankrupt.

We are cognitive beings, accordingly we understand morality and its evil twin, amorality.

This is no South Park...

...here when Kenny dies, he stays dead. So we have to carefully weigh the consequences of our actions (or inactions)

Actually, I think you would. Who are you or I to tell the people or government of Nichtgoodenstan that their country is full of nichtgoodniks? They have their own government, which includes their own laws and methods of enforcing those laws. They wish to live as free of foreign influence as we do. How will you get them to adhere to your personal standards of morality without installing your own vehicle to enforce that morality?

Hey, no need to get personally offensive...I may have to smack you over the head with an old Birkenstock sandal....:D :eek: :D

I think that even before there were hippies there were people who thought like this....

Protection of another is not necessarily an issue of moral or right or wrong distinction. I have seen many different families of wild creatures defend their family or group or herd or flock or whatever you’ll call it from predators. By protecting another the survival of the group is insured. While morality revolves around right and wrong, perhaps protection of another member of our group is not within the bounds of what we call morality?

In fact, we created morality and its evil twin. We did so for the benefit and survival of human society. These morals do not exist beyond the bounds of that society.

So, had Hitler not attempted to invade Europe, it would have been OK for him to gas Jews, gypsies, Catholics, gays, et al. as long as the majority of the good German people were okey dokey with the Final Solution?

Interesting concept.

The thing about the plan is you know it when you see it... it then becomes acceptable to you to the degree that you find it valid and it has nothing to do with anyone or anything elses's plan except to the degree that you find them/it following it. It's the moralists plan and you are the moralist.

Coincidentally I'm wearing Birks right now. It's good to be self employed.:)

A simple "oh I guess you were right" would have sufficed rather than ducking the question.
Do you condone Moslem extremists invading the U.S. with all the best intentions, to save us from the horrors of our immorality, or is it just that your morality is better than theirs?

I don't think I have ducked your question.

I posed a legitimate question to you and you ignored it.

Are you then OK with Hitler gassing Jews, Catholics, gays, gypsies, etc., as long as he did it withing the borders of the Fatherland?

I don't think that Muslim terrorism has anything to do with saving our collective souls from our misdeeds, real or imagined.

It has more to do with them wanting us to pay for our support of Israel--whom they see as the Great Satan (or whatever).

They imposing their morality on us may be a byproduct of their conquest (if they "win") of our culture.

I don't think, however, that they are interested in imposing their morality on us. I think that extermination is more in line with their ultimate goal.

But what do I know????

So you are a capitalist...I thought so.

You are not answeringmine, which is a corollary of your question:

Are you OK with Hitler doing what he did as long as he did not invade any other country and as long as the Germans were OK with the Final Solution?

Because if you assume that we have no right to tell your imaginary country what to do (as implied in your question) then by extension, we had no right to tell Hitler what to do or not to do (as long as he stayed w/in his country's borders).

Just wondering.

Kumar: What kind of a hippie are you?
Hippie Student: What kind of hippie am I? Man, I'm a business hippie, I understand the concept of supply and demand.

:bowrofl:

It's also called consciousness.

Why force people to make a false choice?
Both people are evil. The originator as well as the enabler both fail to do their duty to stop evil.

Why is that so tough?

It IS good to be self-employed.

It is NOT good to wear "Birks", however. :eek: :pukeface:

Personal fashion foul! Ten yard penalty!

;) :P

Mike

I think I agree with this because in the first instance, it requires planning and expending energy to accomplish while in the second, none is required. For example, if we were to put a cost for the energy expended, in each instance, the one who causes evil is more expensive than the one who allows evil to pass him by.

Neither of those characters display virtue, a sense of honor. For virtue to be revealed requires expenditure of energy for the good. It is pro-active, it requires effort, etc. Thus, a couch potato accrues not honor by avoiding expenditure of energy, but he may lose honor by NOT expending energy to prevent evil.

I wish Kerry were here to evaluate that thesis.

Bot

Good point of argument. I'm not sure how to respond in a convincing and consistent way.

How about this? Good is defined by the degree to which individual liberty is enhanced and protected. Therefore, Muslims (Christians, Druids, Pagans, Buddhists,...) that seek to impose their particular religion on me are immoral because of that imposition.

Bot

I hope he returns. While he may have taken offense to the last exchange I seem to remember him disappearing last summer too. Might just be on the water somewhere.

I'm convinced. :)

Mike

I think that just line of reason would meet disagreement with religious types who would argue that service to god (whatever name you call him or her) is the ultimate good and individual desires (such as liberty) must be secondary.

Ugh, that argument. I had not thought of that. It has no satisfactory resolution for both the religionist or the non-religionist. A religionist would rightly argue that I am putting my own perception of freedom ahead of God's will for my life. To a believer, that would lead to eternal damnation--the opposite of freedom to them.

How about this: God's gift to Man is free will. For another human being to impose his will on my own, without my permission, is likewise an imposition on God's intent for me as Man to make my own decisions. Therefore, a religionist who uses the name of God to impose his particular interpretation of God's will on me is usurping God's prerogative.

Surely that is the greater sin.

Bot

Bullseye. And it's still a bullseye if you paint that canvas with broader strokes, such as 'cultures that seek to impose their particular mores and lifestyle on me are immoral because of that imposition'.

Or.....

'I think that just line of reason would meet disagreement with patriotic types who would argue that service to country is the ultimate good and individual desires (such as liberty) must be secondary.'

What next, a spirited and lively debate on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I don't believe in free will. We are our biology...our biology is us.

Wasn't it Thomas Hobbes who said that life was short, nasty and brutish??? Although he was probably alluding to something else altogether, his point is still well-taken.

Nature is red in tooth and claw.

B

Really Bot? Do you really want to go with that line: "...that good is defined by the degree to which individual liberty is enhanced and protected."

Where do you draw the line between the point where your individual liberty is enhanced and mine is protected? Is that something akin to: "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose starts?"

If a Jehovah's Witness comes to my door on a Saturday morning to preach his brand of the Gospels (thereby enhancing his individual liberty) do I get to kick his ass off my front porch (thereby protecting my individual liberty)?

When I sue my neighbor for dumping chemicals on a nearby stream (because the SOB is too cheap or too lazy to go to the local hazardous waste disposal site) , thus preventing him from spreading his poisonous garbage am I:

A. being meddlesome
B. imposing my own views on environmental responsibility
C. being a little dictator
D. being socially responsible

Or, should I just look the other way and pretend he is doing nothing, just as long as the stream does not cross my land and as long as he is on his side of the street and I am on mine?

Philosophy and religion and esoteric discussions about good and evil are all fine and dandy, until we are called upon to take action.

Then we all better pray to whatever god we hold dear that we have the right moral fabric to make the right decision instead of wasting time dwaddling around counting dancing angels doing the macarena on the head of a pin.

:dj:

Yes.

That's where you freedom of expression impinges on my freedom from coercion.

This is why I believe dope should be outside of the domain of gov regulation. The dope has no volition, the people who use it do. If the misuse it (fist->nose) then punish the act, not the drugs. The drugs didn't do it, the person did. Etc.

B

Nature is full of mean snakes eating little baby birds, hyenas ruthlessly attacking a helpless herd. Freezing, drowning, burning, ugly death. When humans get involved, these acts are considered preventable and indeed undesirable. We have been endowed (cursed?) with the ability to detect and label concepts that don't exist outside the human realm. The ideas of laws and "rights", and property are inventions designed to protect the weak, otherwise they would perish just like those animals. As individuals we seek to intellectually and politically expand our spheres of influence to the greatest degree possible. But the work has barely begun. We are just slightly removed from the animal kingdom, with a long way to go before we achieve enlightenment. The glimmers of 'Good' in a world of cruel nature beckon us to move forward.

That is an excellent analogy. Whether you realize it or not, you are right on target:

All individual rights and liberties should be completely unrestricted, UNLESS and/or UNTIL they intrude upon the rights of others.

Mike

In a way, you are right...

I have total faith in "'Social Darwinism"... some people are quite simply too f***ing dumb to survive, and their demise causes me litttle grief.... We like to think we are so highly "evolved", but we are NOT exempt from the "survival of the fittest" rules of life on this planet.

However.... Unlike the other members of the animal kingdom on this planet, we possess the mental ability to discern the difference between "survival of the fittest", vs. pointless cruelty and violence....

There is a BIG difference, and I have NO patience with those who attempt to downplay or justify such cruelty and injustice as "god's plan".

Mike

Orale pues!

Translation (loose): Right on bro!

Indeed. The cruelty seen in nature has a purpose. Wanton violence and exploitation for sport and entertainment is unique to humans, and not a new development. A program I watched recently told of throngs of people at the Roman Colosseum addicted to witnessing bloody encounters between men and hungry lions. So maybe we made some progress since then. Or maybe we are not very good at suppressing some unspeakable urges that exist in all of us. It reminds me of when they were replaying 9/11 on TV regurlarly. I bet more than a few people thought the towers crumbling looked "really cool", in spite of knowing the multiple horrors they represented. Maybe someday that blood-lust gene can be eradicated.