"evil"

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What makes you say that it's impossible to grasp?

You seemed to be able to grasp honesty. What's interesting about honesty is that most everyone is able to grasp the concept as "right", only an extremely small percentage actually adhere to it. This should give you some insight into how far man has managed to advance. Is it any wonder that man understan ...[text shortened]... efully he'll come to grasp it all. Until then, we'll remain little better than barbarians.

There's a large difference between knowing something is actually right and doing it. That goes it honesty. Many times not being honest actually is the best thing to do in the perspective of the individual. Surely it's not in the best interest of society, but it is in the best individual interest.

But we're diverging on discussion, which was on whether there is an actual absolute morale, which I disagree it exists.

There might exist an absolute "local" morale: a set of morale that best serves the interests of a local society. But that same morale could not be applied to other society.
I believe we're diverging into two different subjects, without answering each other's questions.
You talk about an absolute morale (whether we can reach it or not) for a given society. Yes, I believe there is one.
But I'm talking about that absolute morale being applied to all societies, in all times, in all situations. In that aspect I think morale is not absolut.e

Originally posted by serigado
There's a large difference between knowing something is actually right and doing it. That goes it honesty. Many times not being honest actually is the best thing to do in the perspective of the individual. Surely it's not in the best interest of society, but it is in the best individual interest.

But we're diverging on discussion, which was on whether t cieties, in all times, in all situations. In that aspect I think morale is not absolut.e

I thought that you have already agreed that honesty would be part of an absolute morality. You also didn't seem to disagree with compassion and justice. Did I misinterpret your responses?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I thought that you have already agreed that honest would be part of an absolute morality. You also didn't seem to disagree with compassion and justice. Did I misinterpret your responses?

Yes, I believe there exists a "local" absolute morality that can be common to all general moralities I can think of.
That doesn't make all moralities absolute. Even less it makes evidence of a single absolute morality.
I think honesty, justice, and some other things are common parts of all moralities. But they're so general it doesn't really make a point in the argument of a morale being absolute in all circumstances.

Originally posted by serigado
Yes, I believe there exists a "local" absolute morality that can be common to all general moralities I can think of.
That doesn't make all moralities absolute. Even less it makes evidence of a single absolute morality.
I think honesty, justice, and some other things are common parts of all moralities. But they're so general it doesn't really make a point in the argument of a morale being absolute in all circumstances.

I'm having a little trouble with your wording here.

What do you mean by "local"?

Also "Even less it makes evidence of a single absolute morality"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I'm having a little trouble with your wording here.

What do you mean by "local"?

Also "Even less it makes evidence of a single absolute morality"?

With local I mean: there are many aspects of morality. With local i'm refering to one subset of morality, and not morality as a whole.

So if, this subset does exist (and we agree there exists - honesty, justice), it doesn't make necessarly that all of the morality also follows the same pattern.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
does evil exist? what is good and evil? are we not just animals with no more of a significant existence of every other animal? if so, is there any significance to morals at all?

Is evil simply something we think or feel isn't what we like, what we
think is bad and we can measure it in degrees or is it just plain and
simply evil and that is all it is? We can measure temp and see degree,
but I call my son my child, there is not degree to that, which is evil
like? Can what we think are evil choices that are just not as bad as
other bad or evil choices, simply be the beginning of the end if we
think it is simply 'not so bad', till we find we are in to deep and cannot
get out if it is a life style choice? If that is the case our degree of evil
when applied to a life style choice shouldn't apply, it would not be that
some things are not so bad, they are just simply the beginning of the
send; making the journey of evil just that, a path of that may seem
not so bad, but it all really is!?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Is evil simply something we think or feel isn't what we like, what we
think is bad and we can measure it in degrees or is it just plain and
simply evil and that is all it is? We can measure temp and see degree,
but I call my son my child, there is not degree to that, which is evil
like? Can what we think are evil choices that are just not as bad as
oth ...[text shortened]... ourney of evil just that, a path of that may seem
not so bad, but it all really is!?
Kelly

You really have to start writing more slowly and paying attention to grammar. I'm not native english so I have some difficulty reading your posts.

Originally posted by serigado
You really have to start writing more slowly and paying attention to grammar. I'm not native english so I have some difficulty reading your posts.

Yea, your right poorly written, will come back to it.
Kelly

Originally posted by serigado
With local I mean: there are many aspects of morality. With local i'm refering to one subset of morality, and not morality as a whole.

So if, this subset does exist (and we agree there exists - honesty, justice), it doesn't make necessarly that all of the morality also follows the same pattern.

It seems logical to me that there exists a right way of being that brings peace, harmony, contentment, etc. for all.

Just as I gather that it seems logical to you that there's a right way of thinking of the physical world that explains how it works.

I don't think that there's anyway for me to "prove" it. Just as there's no way for you to "prove" that there's an absolute truth that explains the physical world.

All either of us can do is present what is known and ask the doubters to follow it to its logical conclusion.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Is evil simply something we think or feel isn't what we like, what we
think is bad and we can measure it in degrees or is it just plain and
simply evil and that is all it is? We can measure temp and see degree,
but I call my son my child, there is not degree to that, which is evil
like? Can what we think are evil choices that are just not as bad as
oth ...[text shortened]... ourney of evil just that, a path of that may seem
not so bad, but it all really is!?
Kelly

🙂

I like this post. It's approaching word salad.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
It seems logical to me that there exists a right way of being that brings peace, harmony, contentment, etc. for all.

Just as I gather that it seems logical to you that there's a right way of thinking of the physical world that explains how it works.

I don't think that there's anyway for me to "prove" it. Just as there's no way for you to "prove" th ...[text shortened]... o is present what is known and ask the doubters to follow it to its logical conclusion.

I think there are several ways of explaining the world, giving the same results.

The same can go for the best away to achieve harmony. There can be several ways to achieve what everyone wants...

Originally posted by serigado
I think there are several ways of explaining the world, giving the same results.

The same can go for the best away to achieve harmony. There can be several ways to achieve what everyone wants...

There may be "several ways of explaining the world, giving the same results", however only one would be correct.

It's not just about "achieving harmony", but about achieving a harmony that can be sustained.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There may be "several ways of explaining the world, giving the same results", however only one would be correct.

It's not just about "achieving harmony", but about achieving a harmony that can be sustained.

Well, I disagree. I think there are several correct ways of explaining the world. But this is different then saying there's only one truth. We're getting into tiny details, by my fault.

Our divergence is in morale. I think morale is dependent of society, and I'm willing to concede that there is a best morale for each society.
You are talking about a perfect and true morale exists. But is it applicable to all societies? I didn't get it yet...

Originally posted by serigado
Well, I disagree. I think there are several correct ways of explaining the world. But this is different then saying there's only one truth. We're getting into tiny details, by my fault.

Our divergence is in morale. I think morale is dependent of society, and I'm willing to concede that there is a best morale for each society.
You are talking about a perfect and true morale exists. But is it applicable to all societies? I didn't get it yet...

Take it to its logical conclusion. One morality, one society.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Take it to its logical conclusion. One morality, one society.

Good 🙂 we're getting somewhere.
But societies change because people change. Do you think that perfect morale as to be adapted with time?