Two Tribes

Fanny Cradock

Ok, a little thought experiment.

Two primitive tribes, the West tribe and the East tribe, are separated by the Impassable Mountains. Neither the West tribe nor the East tribe are aware of anything lying on the other side of the Impassable Mountains. Instead, oblivious to world that lies beyond, they stand with their backs to the mountains and focus on the plains that stretch out before them.

The West tribe is a peaceable tribe. They live in relative harmony with their surrounding neighbours, and any disputes that arise are usually solved through rational discourse and without violence. Borders are open and individuals and influences both good and bad pass freely between them. Their economy relies heavily and successfully on free trade with their neighbours, but this means that resources are sometimes spread very thinly and consequently all tribes occasionally suffer disasters. This in turn places limits on the growth of all tribes.

The East tribe is a war tribe. Through an endless series of brutal campaigns, they have savagely subjugated the local tribes, and now force them to pay tribute. They kill rape, enslave and even eat their enemies and conscript them to fight their wars. However, despite the fate of the neighbouring tribes, for the citizens of the East tribe, life is good. They are safe and happy and the tribe's power, wealth and lands are beyond compare on ether side of the Impassable mountains.

In summary: one tribe loves its neighbours, the other tribe eats its neighbours.

You the sit in your observation hut on the highest point of the Impassable Mountains and survey all that unfolds to the East and West. Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?

Black Swan

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?

From a postmodern deconstructionist perspective (Jacques Derrida in Points) good/bad categorizations are dichotomies, which tend to oversimplify the natural world so much as to distort reality. But from a practical perspective, I would imagine that most would agree that being someone's next dinner would be "bad" news?:D

lugha

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?

You will need to clarify or even define what you mean by good and bad. If you are musing over absolute v relative morality no doubt you are aware that that particular fellow is currently getting a right good seeing to over on the biggie thread.

Turtwig

This one seems too simple to be true, so by all means correct me if I misunderstood the dilemma.

The east side is evil - they murder, pillage rape etc etc. All morally wrong. Breaking Godwin's laws ,I know, but when Hitler first began his brutality regime in Germany life was good for many - shyte for others. I think we all universally agree that Hitler was a monster!

My conclusion for your above passage, is that in order for there to be comfort for some, others must suffer - such is the way of society today but we still know deep down who is good and who is bad.

chozometroid

The West tribe is good in that it is in harmony with it's neighbors, who have equal rights. They are good for everyone in that they value and appreciate life, and have learned to deal with others fairly. They are peacemakers. They are loving their neighbors as themselves. The occasional lack of resources is just part of life, and all tribes involved learn to deal with it as part of life. The entire situation on the west side can be summed up as "peace and equality." The lack of wealth and growth is a tradeoff for the fellowship and unity of all tribes. Everyone has learned to appreciate life itself and deal with problems in an efficient manner.

The East tribe is bad in that it is selfish and disregards the value of anyone who is not part of their group. They are bad for everyone, because they cause misery and destruction to all who they come in contact with. They are bad for themselves in that they only learn to satisfy their own desires, with no purpose other than temporary gratification. They have placed themselves on a higher level than others. The entire situation on the right side of the mountain can be summed up as "hunger for power." The residents are happy as far as their immediate physical needs, but their concept of life is very shallow. The rich always appear happy on the surface, but not deep inside. Also, should their situation change for the worst, they would easily fold as they are clueless about dealing with hardships.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

The West tribe is good in that it is in harmony with it's neighbors, who have equal rights. They are good for everyone in that they value and appreciate life, and have learned to deal with others fairly. They are peacemakers. They are loving their neighbors as themselves. The occasional lack of resources is just part of life, and all tribes involved learn to deal with it as part of life. The entire situation on the west side can be summed up as "peace and equality." The lack of wealth and growth is a tradeoff for the fellowship and unity of all tribes. Everyone has learned to appreciate life itself and deal with problems in an efficient manner.

The East tribe is bad in that it is selfish and disregards the value of anyone who is not part of their group. They are bad for everyone, because they cause misery and destruction to all who they come in contact with. They are bad for themselves in that they only learn to satisfy their own desires, with no purpose other than temporary gratification. They have placed themselves on a higher level than others. The entire situation on the right side of the mountain can be summed up as "hunger for power." The residents are happy as far as their immediate physical needs, but their concept of life is very shallow. The rich always appear happy on the surface, but not deep inside. Also, should their situation change for the worst, they would easily fold as they are clueless about dealing with hardships.

Summary : The West Side are the Chozo -> The East Side are the Phazon Corrupted

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

This one seems too simple to be true, so by all means correct me if I misunderstood the dilemma.

The east side is evil - they murder, pillage rape etc etc. All morally wrong. Breaking Godwin's laws ,I know, but when Hitler first began his brutality regime in Germany life was good for many - shyte for others. I think we all universally agree that Hitler was a monster!

My conclusion for your above passage, is that in order for there to be comfort for some, others must suffer - such is the way of society today but we still know deep down who is good and who is bad.

More damned Eastophobia!

JC 2K3

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Two primitive tribes, the West tribe and the East tribe, are separated by the Impassable Mountains. Neither the West tribe nor the East tribe are aware of anything lying on the other side of the Impassable Mountains. Instead, oblivious to world that lies beyond, they stand with their backs to the mountains and focus on the plains that stretch out before them.

The world is round.

Fail. :pac:


But seriously, is there some significance to the idea that they've never met? Or perhaps that one tribe has never considered alternative ideas.

In the grand scheme of things, no, neither tribe is good or bad. But I only think that because I don't believe in an almighty objective judge.

However, war and violence is too volatile to make it an advisable system.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Summary : The West Side are the Chozo -> The East Side are the Phazon Corrupted

That works for me.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ok, a little thought experiment.

Two primitive tribes, the West tribe and the East tribe, are separated by the Impassable Mountains. Neither the West tribe nor the East tribe are aware of anything lying on the other side of the Impassable Mountains. Instead, oblivious to world that lies beyond, they stand with their backs to the mountains and focus on the plains that stretch out before them.

The West tribe is a peaceable tribe. They live in relative harmony with their surrounding neighbours, and any disputes that arise are usually solved through rational discourse and without violence. Borders are open and individuals and influences both good and bad pass freely between them. Their economy relies heavily and successfully on free trade with their neighbours, but this means that resources are sometimes spread very thinly and consequently all tribes occasionally suffer disasters. This in turn places limits on the growth of all tribes.

The East tribe is a war tribe. Through an endless series of brutal campaigns, they have savagely subjugated the local tribes, and now force them to pay tribute. They kill rape, enslave and even eat their enemies and conscript them to fight their wars. However, despite the fate of the neighbouring tribes, for the citizens of the East tribe, life is good. They are safe and happy and the tribe's power, wealth and lands are beyond compare on ether side of the Impassable mountains.

In summary: one tribe loves its neighbours, the other tribe eats its neighbours.

You the sit in your observation hut on the highest point of the Impassable Mountains and survey all that unfolds to the East and West. Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?

I fear you will not get many sensible responses. Most will be adamant that there is no absolute standard to judge by, but at the same time want their subjective morality treated as if it were absolute.

The few who are consistent will either say that the East is good and the West bad or that there is no such thing as good and bad, only behaviour that suits some and not others.

Turtwig

wolfsbane wrote: »

I fear you will not get many sensible responses. .

Such a negative view of others..tut tut :P

Be positive!:)

leaba

...

J C

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

From a postmodern deconstructionist perspective (Jacques Derrida in Points) good/bad categorizations are dichotomies, which tend to oversimplify the natural world so much as to distort reality. But from a practical perspective, I would imagine that most would agree that being someone's next dinner would be "bad" news?:D

... it would certainly be very 'bad' news if you were the 'dinner' and NOT the 'diner'!!!!:eek::D
...but what about the 'morality' of it all? ...
....and, assuming s/he was sane, would the 'diner' not use some self-serving justification - like s/he was starving and 'it was him/her or me' ... or perhaps they would claim it to be some kind of time-honoured tradition, to eat their neighbours, in order to morally justify his/her outrageous behaviour!!!

....in any event, HOW do we judge 'good' or 'bad' ?...

...and HOW does somebody who believes that 'all morality is relative' justify such an absolute belief?

... we are getting into very deep metaphysics here!!!!

Morbert

The West tribe seems to be more compassionate. They'd get my vote.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

The West tribe seems to be more compassionate. They'd get my vote.

...and the Eastern tribe is more prosperous ... and their war-like behaviour presumably gets their member's votes????

...some murderers have justified killing for (self-serving) 'compassionate' reasons...

...and surely determining morality doesn't come down to a vote ... or is might right????

Morbert

J C wrote: »

...and the Eastern tribe is more prosperous????

...and some murderers have justified killing for (self-serving) 'compassionate' reasons...

Yes. Morality and Ethics are complex, with few unambiguous answers. There is no function that maps all deeds onto a moral "goodness" spectrum, and our morality is often subtly marred by self-interest.

But I would like to point out that this is true whether you believe morality comes from human ideals or God's word.

Nodin

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?

Well I'd consider the East "bad" by my standards.....They obviously aren't going to think of it that way though.

Black Swan

J C wrote: »

....in any event, HOW do we judge 'good' or 'bad' ?...

...and HOW does somebody who believes that 'all morality is relative' justify such an absolute belief?

Max Weber in Economy and Society suggests that no one is value free. That we all have biased perspectives which affect how we view the world, as well as how we interact with others, or justify our actions.

Peter Berger adds to this by suggesting that we socially construct our realities with others, or more often than not accept the construction of established social institutions (e.g., nation, religion, or the two hypothetical tribes in the OP). If our behaviour conforms, or otherwise falls somewhat within socially constructed norms, values, morals, and laws, then there is no cause of censure; rather, those that accept an over-simplistic dichotomous categorization of complex human behaviour may label you as "good" and pat you on the head (or "bad" and kick you where it hurts).

J C wrote: »

... we are getting into very deep metaphysics here!!!!

Hopelessly abstract and impractical to the point of absurdity! I blame it on having drank too much java and cannot now sleep at half past 1AM on the Pacific Coast. What's your excuse?:D

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I fear you will not get many sensible responses. Most will be adamant that there is no absolute standard to judge by, but at the same time want their subjective morality treated as if it were absolute.

You have never explained the problem with that .... ?

In my subjective opinion the East side of the mountain are absolutely bad.

Goduznt Xzst

The true evil is neither East nor West. The true evil is I alone, on top of the mountain, knowing the ways of both tribes and having the ability to know what is right and wrong yet refusing to educate or help either tribe. The evil is in the inaction of the observer not the actions of either tribe who each have defined their own understandings of what is good and what is bad.

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The true evil is neither East nor West.

What is 'True Evil'?

The true evil is I alone, on top of the mountain, knowing the ways of both tribes and having the ability to know what is right and wrong yet refusing to educate or help either tribe.

I think you missed this part of the exercise:
'Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?'

Nowhere is it mentioned that you as an observer know right from wrong or good from bad. In fact, thats why its asked if such a concept even exists.

The evil is in the inaction of the observer not the actions of either tribe who each have defined their own understandings of what is good and what is bad.

So now that we've established that the observer is merely observing, and does not know right from wrong, the question remains:

'Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?'

Turtwig

JimiTime wrote: »

What is 'True Evil'?



I think you missed this part of the exercise:
'Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?'

Nowhere is it mentioned that you as an observer know right from wrong or good from bad. In fact, thats why its asked if such a concept even exists.


So now that we've established that the observer is merely observing, and does not know right from wrong, the question remains:

'Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?'

Seriously, like the tribe in the east is far far worse than the one in the west : Why are you still asking this??
Of course the bloody concept exists, if they didn't then we wouldn't be discussing it!

Goduznt Xzst

JimiTime wrote: »

What is 'True Evil'?

The inaction of the observer... didn't I already cover this?

JimiTime wrote: »

I think you missed this part of the exercise:
'Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?'

Nowhere is it mentioned that you as an observer know right from wrong or good from bad. In fact, thats why its asked if such a concept even exists.

They are clearly neither then. If you are defining that the observer equally does not know good or bad then what is being used to draw a conclusion? Maybe the mountain observer imagines anyone who lives on the flat ground is immoral, and only the pure of mind and body live and breath the cooler air on top of the mountain. Who knows.

Just as infanticide has been known to happen in some Amazonian tribes and be viewed as morally just in that context amongst those people. The actions of either tribe in this scenario can also be viewed to adhere to their own definitions of what is good and bad within their own societies.

Soul Winner

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ok, a little thought experiment.

Two primitive tribes, the West tribe and the East tribe, are separated by the Impassable Mountains. Neither the West tribe nor the East tribe are aware of anything lying on the other side of the Impassable Mountains. Instead, oblivious to world that lies beyond, they stand with their backs to the mountains and focus on the plains that stretch out before them.

The West tribe is a peaceable tribe. They live in relative harmony with their surrounding neighbours, and any disputes that arise are usually solved through rational discourse and without violence. Borders are open and individuals and influences both good and bad pass freely between them. Their economy relies heavily and successfully on free trade with their neighbours, but this means that resources are sometimes spread very thinly and consequently all tribes occasionally suffer disasters. This in turn places limits on the growth of all tribes.

The East tribe is a war tribe. Through an endless series of brutal campaigns, they have savagely subjugated the local tribes, and now force them to pay tribute. They kill rape, enslave and even eat their enemies and conscript them to fight their wars. However, despite the fate of the neighbouring tribes, for the citizens of the East tribe, life is good. They are safe and happy and the tribe's power, wealth and lands are beyond compare on ether side of the Impassable mountains.

In summary: one tribe loves its neighbours, the other tribe eats its neighbours.

You the sit in your observation hut on the highest point of the Impassable Mountains and survey all that unfolds to the East and West. Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?

Like Wicknight my subjective moral value barometer would adjudge the east tribe as bad (evil even) and the west tribe as good (righteous even). But that says nothing as to the good or bad of either. My judgment is just a subjective judgment based on my own inner moral compass built up over time due to life's experience. In the absence of any objective moral values there is neither good nor bad in any of the tribes, just behavior that has helped them survive and thrive to the best of their ability. In a purely natural world all things are lawful without any accountability to any law giver.

But my subjective value system (if that's all it is) just happens to be based on what I believe are the objective moral values giving by a God whom I happen to believe exists, and without whom there are no objective moral values, just behaviour that benefits our survival be it good by our judgment or bad. I can guarantee you that every poster in here would rather have the west tribe as their next door neighbors than the east tribe. Why we would naturally gravitate toward choosing to live near the peaceful tribe is proof of the existence of the objective moral value compass within us all. Hands up who would love to live near the war tribe? I rest my case. :pac:

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I fear you will not get many sensible responses. Most will be adamant that there is no absolute standard to judge by, but at the same time want their subjective morality treated as if it were absolute.
You have never explained the problem with that .... ?

No problem if it is confessed as an individual preference - but there is the problem of delusion or hypocrisy when they think their morality is superior to that of others and/or want to enforce it on the others.

That, and the failure to see the materialist world-view is bankrupt if it cannot work in the real world.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

My judgment is just a subjective judgment based on my own inner moral compass built up over time due to life's experience. In the absence of any objective moral values there is neither good nor bad in any of the tribes, just behavior that has helped them survive and thrive to the best of their ability. In a purely natural world all things are lawful without any accountability to any law giver.

That doesn't make sense. How can all things be lawful if you say there is no law, either way.

This is the thing I never understood about the arguments you and Wolfsbane put forward. You say that if there is no universal standard of good or bad then everything must be considered good. But if there is no standard of good or bad then things are neither good or bad. Therefore they aren't good.

In the absence of anything they don't default to good or lawful.

postcynical

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Ok, a little thought experiment.

Two primitive tribes, the West tribe and the East tribe, are separated by the Impassable Mountains. Neither the West tribe nor the East tribe are aware of anything lying on the other side of the Impassable Mountains. Instead, oblivious to world that lies beyond, they stand with their backs to the mountains and focus on the plains that stretch out before them.

The West tribe is a peaceable tribe. They live in relative harmony with their surrounding neighbours, and any disputes that arise are usually solved through rational discourse and without violence. Borders are open and individuals and influences both good and bad pass freely between them. Their economy relies heavily and successfully on free trade with their neighbours, but this means that resources are sometimes spread very thinly and consequently all tribes occasionally suffer disasters. This in turn places limits on the growth of all tribes.

The East tribe is a war tribe. Through an endless series of brutal campaigns, they have savagely subjugated the local tribes, and now force them to pay tribute. They kill rape, enslave and even eat their enemies and conscript them to fight their wars. However, despite the fate of the neighbouring tribes, for the citizens of the East tribe, life is good. They are safe and happy and the tribe's power, wealth and lands are beyond compare on ether side of the Impassable mountains.

In summary: one tribe loves its neighbours, the other tribe eats its neighbours.

You the sit in your observation hut on the highest point of the Impassable Mountains and survey all that unfolds to the East and West. Is either tribe to be considered good or bad? Or do such concepts not exist?

My answer is the latter, the concepts don't exist. If we replaced 'tribes' with 'bacteria' or 'chemical molecules' in a similar competitive environment there would be no moral judgement to be made. At the level of analysis of your experiment, where people are reduced to population data there is no faculty for morality.

Morality is an individual's response to God's will as revealed to him/her. Collective morality is something else, which may or may not be a generalisation of this supernatural phenomenon. There is no room for morality in the situation described. (IMO)

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. How can all things be lawful if you say there is no law, either way.

This is the thing I never understood about the arguments you and Wolfsbane put forward. You say that if there is no universal standard of good or bad then everything must be considered good. But if there is no standard of good or bad then things are neither good or bad. Therefore they aren't good.

In the absence of anything they don't default to good or lawful.

Does some sort of magic take place when you read my posts? You are the one who deduced that lawful is good not me. Without any objective law then all actions no matter how we judge them cannot be unlawful, Why? Because there is no law. Why the confusion. I'm actually afraid of what you might think I'm saying this time.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Does some sort of magic take place when you read my posts? You are the one who deduced that lawful is good not me. Without any objective law then all actions no matter how we judge them cannot be unlawful, Why? Because there is no law. Why the confusion.

The "confusion" was because you said this

In a purely natural world all things are lawful without any accountability to any law giver.

How can something be lawful if there is no law?

JimiTime

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The inaction of the observer... didn't I already cover this?

No, you called something 'True Evil'. I've asked you to define what 'True Evil' is? What does 'True Evil' mean?

They are clearly neither then. If you are defining that the observer equally does not know good or bad then what is being used to draw a conclusion? Maybe the mountain observer imagines anyone who lives on the flat ground is immoral, and only the pure of mind and body live and breath the cooler air on top of the mountain. Who knows.

Just as infanticide has been known to happen in some Amazonian tribes and be viewed as morally just in that context amongst those people. The actions of either tribe in this scenario can also be viewed to adhere to their own definitions of what is good and bad within their own societies.

Fine, so they are both equally moral, as morality is defined by the cultural context. Is that what you are saying?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

The "confusion" was because you said this

In a purely natural world all things are lawful without any accountability to any law giver.

How can something be lawful if there is no law?

Ok let me re-phrase. In a purely natural world all things are lawful without any accountability to any law giver. Because with no law giver there is no law given, and with no law given there is no law, so with no law existing then no action can be construed as unlawful, which makes all actions lawful. Or probably more accurate all actions are neither lawful or unlawful because there is no law-standard by which to measure all actions. Therefore they cannot be construed as either lawful or unlawful. In a universe without God this is the way things are. Follow me now?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Or probably more accurate all actions are neither lawful or unlawful because there is no law-standard by which to measure all actions. Therefore they cannot be construed as either lawful or unlawful. In a universe without God this is the way things are. Follow me now?

Yes, but there is no requirement then on anyone to say that something is by default lawful. It isn't. By default it is nothing. And as such the only thing that matters is what we judge it to be.

JC 2K3

But there can exist pain, empathy, compassion, love, hate etc. without God.

These are inherent in most humans, as we've evolved to experience them, and thus we tend to recognise things as right or wrong.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, but there is no requirement then on anyone to say that something is by default lawful. It isn't. By default it is nothing. And as such the only thing that matters is what we judge it to be.

In a universe without God yes that is true.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

In a universe without God yes that is true.

So what is the big deal with this? Both yourself and Wolfsbane seem to think there is some major issue that if I say "that is immoral" then I'm being inconsistent or something. If good and bad only exist as subjective judgements then surely there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with me saying I believe something to be bad. It is my opinion, but we don't have anything else to go on but our opinions.

Or is that just Wolfsbane, and I'm reading too much into your position?:pac:

Soul Winner

JC 2K3 wrote: »

But there can exist pain, empathy, compassion, love, hate etc. without God.

These are inherent in most humans, as we've evolved to experience them, and thus we tend to recognise things as right or wrong.

Yes based on our own internally acquired value systems over time and through experience, but outside of that they are not really wrong, bad or immoral in a universe without objective moral values.

JC 2K3

No, not over time or through experience.

How we experience or interpret these feelings can be somewhat shaped over time and based on one's life, but ultimately, I would say that we are biologically biased towards certain morals.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

So what is the big deal with this? Both yourself and Wolfsbane seem to think there is some major issue that if I say "that is immoral" then I'm being inconsistent or something. If good and bad only exist as subjective judgements then surely there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with me saying I believe something to be bad. It is my opinion, but we don't have anything else to go on but our opinions.

Or is that just Wolfsbane, and I'm reading too much into your position?

I can't speak fo WB but I think you've read too much into my position or maybe I failed to articulate my position adequately enough. The point I was always trying to make in these moral arguments was that in a universe without God there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong, good or evil, which is why people who appeal to the fact that there is evil in the world to prove that God does not exist are just being silly. If evil exists then God must exist because if we define evil as the way things should not be, then that assumes that there is a way that things should be, and if there is a way that things should be, then who is it that sets it up that way? How is there a way that things should be if there is no God?

Soul Winner

JC 2K3 wrote: »

No, not over time or through experience.

How we experience or interpret these feelings can be somewhat shaped over time and based on one's life, but ultimately, I would say that we are biologically biased towards certain morals.

Which means the same thing at the end of the day, there is no such thing as real right or wrong. Our biological biases toward certain types of behavior is not what makes that type of behavior either right or wrong, its just conducive to our quality of life.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

In my subjective opinion the East side of the mountain are absolutely bad.

That makes no sense.

lugha

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes based on our own internally acquired value systems over time and through experience, but outside of that they are not really wrong, bad or immoral in a universe without objective moral values.

The relative morality which I concede exists only does so in relation to alternative hypothetical universes that might have come to exist if evolution had taken a different path. And yes, I can conceive that there may be some alternatives where willful murder of your fellow man might be seen as commendable, even moral. But it is erroneous to conclude that we cannot deem such a person in our actual evolved universe as wrong bad and immoral. In our realized universe, the only one we have, our evolved morality is de facto universal. People do identify wrong and evil and do so unequivocally, brooking no notion that it is just their opinion with other opinions being equally valid. And they may do so without evoking any notion of God or evolved morality. But their views are in fact rooted in this de facto universal (in reality relative) morality.

Soul Winner

lugha wrote: »

The relative morality which I concede exists only does so in relation to alternative hypothetical universes that might have come to exist if evolution had taken a different path.

I've read that about 12 times and either your saying what I think you are saying or I'm not reading it right. Is it saying what I think its saying? Did you word it right?

lugha wrote: »

And yes, I can conceive that there may be some alternatives where willful murder of your fellow man might be seen as commendable, even moral. But it is erroneous to conclude that we cannot deem such a person in our actual evolved universe as wrong bad and immoral.

I didn't say it was. In fact I would concur with such an assessment. But in the absence of objective moral values how can we decide that what we have internalized as good, bad wrong etc to be really what is bad, wrong, immoral etc??? What if an alien society who decided to visit earth who's morals where based on extracting as much of our natural resources and to kill anyone who got in their way? Who are we to say that our morals are superior to theirs? We would actually go against our own moral standard and endeavor to wipe them out in order to protect ourselves.

lugha wrote: »

In our realized universe, the only one we have, our evolved morality is de facto universal.

And why should all the denizens of our universe bow to our internalized moral values in the absence of any objective moral values?

lugha wrote: »

People do identify wrong and evil and do so unequivocally, brooking no notion that it is just their opinion with other opinions being equally valid. And they may do so without evoking any notion of God or evolved morality. But their views are in fact rooted in this de facto universal (in reality relative) morality.

Point being?

Fanny Cradock

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The true evil is neither East nor West. The true evil is I alone, on top of the mountain, knowing the ways of both tribes and having the ability to know what is right and wrong yet refusing to educate or help either tribe. The evil is in the inaction of the observer not the actions of either tribe who each have defined their own understandings of what is good and what is bad.

Like Jimi, I, too, have trouble understanding what "true evil" actually means in this context. What if after you had explained to the East tribe that the foundations that their society are built upon - the wars, the slavery, the murders, the rape - were base, vile and utterly contemptible they simply laughed at you? What if they decided to explain to you the intoxicating delights of power and eating people?

It reminds me of a story I once heard about a woman who went to deepest darkest Africa to battle against the grotesque practice of female genital mutilation (FGM). After delivering a reasoned and passionate speech to a particular group of elders on why FGM was wrong, they retorted with a reasoned and passionate 'speech' where they curtly informed her that they had lived this way for countless centuries, and FGM was an integral aspect of maintaining order in their society. They then retorted who did she think she was to tell them what was right for their culture. Before sending her packing they reminded her that they hadn't asked for her opinions and suggested that she should shove her Western values up her bottom.

I believe that the lady in question (can't recall her name) is still bravely battling against the practice of FGM. But that encounter - the obstinate refusal to see the reason of her position - was quite an awaking for her.

I suggest that before the East tribe sent you and your amusing mountain ideas packing, they slowly explain to you - for they know that only East tribe citizens, and not savages, possess deep intelligence - the necessity of subjugating others because the single most important pursuit in life is the pursuit of self-satisfactory pleasure. The problem for non-citizens is that their pleasure just so happens to be rest upon and feed off the delights of war, power, murder, rape, cannibalism etc., etc., but that has never bothered the citizens of the East tribe.

lugha

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've read that about 12 times and either your saying what I think you are saying or I'm not reading it right. Is it saying what I think its saying? Did you word it right?

Don’t know, yes and yes. See below.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But in the absence of objective moral values how can we decide that what we have internalized as good, bad wrong etc to be really what is bad, wrong, immoral etc???

We don’t have objective moral values IMO. So in short, there is no such thing as “really good” or “really bad”. So we have two choices. We can deny this and assert that we do (you) or we can accept that we don’t but behave as if we do (me).

Soul Winner wrote: »

What if an alien society who decided to visit earth who's morals where based on extracting as much of our natural resources and to kill anyone who got in their way?

That’s pretty much the notion I was trying to conjure up above. I was evoking the idea of an alternative us (by way of an alternative evolution) but nasty aliens will do splendidly. And then we would have a problem. But we don’t need an alien invasion to ponder over what we might do. We see problems like this all the time in the form of culture clash. E.g. child brides, FGM and all manner of things which are abhorrent to our Western culture. We would both asset that such things are “wrong”, but essentially in a chauvinistic way. In some circumstances you might feel you could appeal to a notion of objective morality but I would say it’s still chauvinism. We just seek to assert our values.

Soul Winner wrote: »

We would actually go against our own moral standard and endeavour to wipe them out in order to protect ourselves.

We already do this, regrettably all to regularly, when we engage in warfare. Interestingly, Christian morality is sufficiently versatile to accommodate warfare killing.

Soul Winner wrote: »

And why should all the denizens of our universe bow to our internalized moral values in the absence of any objective moral values?

As I said we have a mini version of this problem already which manifests itself as culture clash. It is not as big a problem as it might be as humans the world over have a pretty similar notion of how to treat their fellow humans. Basically, the philosophy is : be nice. If and when those dreadful aliens come with their incompatible morals, then as I said we will have a problem. But I met by bottom dollar that some of these aliens will believe in a higher power and insist that they have a moral code which is absolute . I propose that some of the folks here who assert that their own morality is absolute should meet their counterparts amongst the alien community and thrash it out between you :pac:

Soul Winner wrote: »

Point being?

Point being that for all practical purposes we do have an absolute morality.

PDN

lugha wrote: »

We already do this, regrettably all to regularly, when we engage in warfare. Interestingly, Christian morality is sufficiently versatile to accommodate warfare killing.

Indeed it is, but the Christian justification for war is still built on principles of morallity that are seen as being absolute.

Incidentally, I myself am a pacifist. But I know enough history to realise that if every professed Christian had shared my view then we would probably be living under the theocracy of something resembling a cross between the United Nations and the Taliban.

lugha

PDN wrote: »

Indeed it is, but the Christian justification for war is still built on principles of morallity that are seen as being absolute.

Incidentally, I myself am a pacifist. But I know enough history to realise that if every professed Christian had shared my view then we would probably be living under the theocracy of something resembling a cross between the United Nations and the Taliban.

I have often wondered about the moral justification (using any framework) for a soldier to take another’s life in combat. There is more than a hint of the end justifies the mean about it. The fact that many such soldiers end up traumatized suggests to me that they do sense that their moral code has been breached.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I can't speak fo WB but I think you've read too much into my position or maybe I failed to articulate my position adequately enough. The point I was always trying to make in these moral arguments was that in a universe without God there is no such thing as an objective right or wrong, good or evil, which is why people who appeal to the fact that there is evil in the world to prove that God does not exist are just being silly. If evil exists then God must exist because if we define evil as the way things should not be, then that assumes that there is a way that things should be, and if there is a way that things should be, then who is it that sets it up that way? How is there a way that things should be if there is no God?

I don't think there needs to be a God for there to be a way things ought to be, in fact God would really have nothing to do with it.

The standard is either a property of nature (in which God exists), and as such objective, or it isn't it, is a judgement of opinion. God existing or not doesn't change that.

If the standard is a property of nature then God is as bound to that standard as anyone else, in the same way that God is bound to 2+2=4, Pi being 3.14 etc etc. These are logical properties of nature, they exist as facts. They are objectively true. This truth applies to God as much as anyone else.

While people can say God created this universe God ultimately exists inside the ultimate super set of "nature", if someone says God created this super set you get into an infinite paradox of where was God before he created it. Given that God was not created he ultimately exists some where, even if that some where is defined as God himself, and that some where is the superset of all nature. It has logical properties like anything else. It is illogical to say that God can create these properties because that would require him creating himself, and he wasn't created. If universal objective moral standards exist they exist there are were not created, they just are, and as such are not decided by God, any more than God's existence is decided by God (which is again illogical, God has to exist in order to decide that he wants himself to exist).

If on the other hand good and evil is not defined by a property of nature then it requires an intelligence to make a judgement in order to say that something is evil, and that judgement exists only in the opinion of the intelligence making it.

It is evil in the opinion of X, with X being God or you or me. Given that in this example there is no universal standard to measure this judgement against it is right or wrong only in the opinion of the person making the judgement, but given that there is no universal right or wrong that is all that matters to the person.

So really "evil" does not require God, either way. If someone believes there is a universal objective standard of evil then they can measure God, or the descriptions of God, against what they believe that standard is. I have no idea how they would think they have figured out this universal moral standard, but that is at least logical to do that. It does not require that God exist only that nature has a universal standard of morality.

Equally there is actually no way to tell that God's standard, assuming he exists, is the actual universal standard, assuming it exists. God is not forced to follow this standard any more than we are. So God's could have a moral standard that is incompatible with the universal standard, and as such an evil God is an entirely logical concept

I know you guys say that if God exists then his standard is the objective standard and vice versa, but there is no logical argument I've hear so far to actually support that position, particularly not the argument that it is simply defined that way since that means nothing.

Ultimately I think a universal standard is unknowable even if we assume it does exist. The only standards we can know are ones that are published, such as God's standard and we have no ability to determine if that standard matches a universal objective standard. It could easily not match such a standard and we could not determine it. I choose the easier option to believe that there is no universal standard in the first place (ultimately it being unknowable and it not existing have the same end result for us).

So I think concepts such as "evil" exist only as judgements that people make. Someone can say that God is evil, what that means is that God is evil in their opinion. They cannot say God is evil objectively because they lack the ability to determine the universal standard even assuming it exists.

Equally with someone saying God is good. A person cannot objectively determine that God is good. Even assuming a universal standard exists we have no method of measuring it, so we cannot compare God to it.

JC 2K3

Soul Winner wrote: »

Which means the same thing at the end of the day, there is no such thing as real right or wrong. Our biological biases toward certain types of behavior is not what makes that type of behavior either right or wrong, its just conducive to our quality of life.

Depends how you define "right" and "wrong".

A collective biological bias towards certain types of behaviour would be a good definition to me.

That said, I don't believe in 100% objective right or wrong, which I suppose is what you're getting at.

Goduznt Xzst

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Like Jimi, I, too, have trouble understanding what "true evil" actually means in this context.

It assumes that the East and West Tribe are isolated and that each have their own cultures that define the boundaries of what is to be viewed as Good and Bad. The Observer on the mountain also has his own set of values.

Now, each Tribe obviously believes that their way of life is morally good. The only party with a perspective of both is the observer. The closest the observer can come to understanding good and bad objectively is weighing pleasure as good and pain as bad (however this is not exact, but for the majority it can assumed to be true). The observer, being able to see the relatively painless existence of the East, and the disproportionate sharing of extremes of pleasure to pain of the West would be able to reason that it is bad for those experiencing pain.

Knowing an alternative from observations of the East, and knowing the bad in the West, in this scenario the only person who sees bad is the observer. Neither the East nor West are aware of any bad, as they see themselves as good.

The evil is the individual who sees pain amongst other humans, knows how to stop it but doesn't. At it's lowest possible objective definition, doing good is the reduction of pain (note: it is not truly objective, but it is as close as we as humans can get). Whether or not the observer is successful in stopping the pain, or changing the tribe of the West is irrelevant.

Salvelinus

Can the other tribes first born be killed by god?

PDN

Salvelinus wrote: »

Can the other tribes first born be killed by god?

Theoretically anyone's firstborn can be killed by God - that's omnipotence for you!