Gay Marriage thread...

<p>“How did you know which was right and wrong? I assume you do know, as you assume those around you know. </p>

<p>Imagine a world where you assumed that those around you did not know the difference between right and wrong. If you can, you are not picturing the actual world we live in.”</p>

<p>Exactly right! You could not function in this world if you could not assume that those around you knew the difference between right and wrong. Since you do assume it, you must accept that right and wrong exist objectively and therefore at a fundamental level.</p>

<p>If you could not make such an assumption it would be impossible for you to accomplish anything at all, since you would have to assume that everyone would be as likely to do the wrong thing as the right thing at every given moment and task.</p>

<p>"from one Canadian to another, thanks; that is exactly what I was addressing:"</p>

<p>what, another one? haha, congratulations on your dartmouth acceptance. </p>

<p>Is evil real or a cultural invention? Excuse my delayed response, but i sorta missed these last few responses. </p>

<p>Fountain, I agree with you say...to an extent. Right and wrong are absolute and determined by nature, evil is not; thus it is an abstract idea. Abstractness implies an openness to outside manipulation and forces including cultural and societal ones. Evil is simply a varying degree of wrongness. Also, i caught the gist of what you were saying, and apparently you believe evil cam exist purely. While that would be nice, reality is not so black and white. If a teenager purposely trips a toddler, it is wrong, but definitely not evil. If a terrorist bombed a building full of children, that would be evil.</p>

<p>Gluttony, megalomania, gold, glory, nationalism, greed are what perpetuate imperialism; thus imperialism is wrong in many aspects and the underlying forces are wrong in themselves. Inevitably, one might wonder: why was it that imperialism existed so wholesomely for so many centuries in china, india, britain, germany and so many other countries with no one questining its rational? The truth is: what was morally and ethically right was less important than the desperate desire to win turbulent power struggles and the need for territorial expansion and rapid colonization. It resulted in cruel oppression, racism, and massive murders of peoples of all ethnities, but was not conisdered evil. So yes, great news for hitler, and stalin. Whether we like to admit it or not, society compels the level of wrongnesss that is evil, and we unquestioningly accept it. Somehow, in historical days, the need for power pacified what is "today" known as "evil'. </p>

<p>Another example is slavery, that "peculiar institution". What is more evil than employing fellow human beings to be our cows and sheeps, all the while treating them worse than we treat our dogs. Yet, this was not considered evil. If it was, then the fact that it was a "norm" in british, dutch, and southern usa, silenced anyone who thought so. The industrial revolution, a revolutionary age where new innnovations were invented to improve the quality of everyday life and to provide impetus to the economy had a dark side to it: child labor, economical needs before children's needs.</p>

<p>In contemporary days, war is a prime example of cultural, religious, and societal influences in determining what is evil. War, no matter its motives, is murderings of countless sons, fathers, daughters and mothers. The constitution(or whatever it is in the united states that states murder is morally wrong) states that anyone who committes murder is to be harshly punished. Therefore, the mere idea of war contradicts the judicial system in the united states. However, it is not considered evil by a large majority in society; not even wrong. Why? Because that large majority of society accepts war.</p>

<p>Centuries, even decades ago, war happened on a daily basis. No one questioned the immorality of it. In many african and developing nations it still does, but in developed nations, war has virtually ceased, and instead peace efforts and establishments are enforced. This is not because of evil becoming more prominent in people's minds, but because our society's paradigm has shifted. In fact, the very idea of imperialism angers and shames many today. If Hitler was alive, he'd most likely be jailed like the few neo-nazis that live today. Fortunately for him, he lived after world war I destroyed germany's economy and when german nationalists, in other words, all germans, were itching to blame someone, namely the jews. So yes, great news for hitler, stalin, and mao. Although it won't happen as spontaneously as you, fountain hypothetically said it would, what we concede as being evil is very much influenced by the direction that the forces of society, culture, religions and such flow.</p>

<p>To say something is wrong is a logical or legal judgment. To say something is evil is a transcendent judgment. </p>

<p>We do not prosecute people for engaging in evil activities but rather for wrong activities defined by law. Although, the term evil may have been bandied about at Nuremburg, it was not a prosecutable offense. On the other hand, common people termed the atrocities, which were determined to be illegal in the foundling terms of international law, as evil, absolutely.</p>

<p>As to slavery, the type of slavery practiced in the 18th and 19th centuries, is easily distinguished from the slavery of medieval and ancient times. You, I believe, are right to say that slavery was not considered ‘evil’ throughout history, even by many of those who either participated in it or facilitated it [however, even the Prophet Mohammad said that it was the duty of a Muslim to buy a slave and free him, if it was financially feasible to do so].</p>

<p>On the other hand, the form of slavery practiced in the 18th and 19th centuries (the type always referred to in this context), was evil to its core as it was established on the premise that the slave was not even a human being based on his/her race as it was then defined. This was a new adventure in slavery. Prior to this time, a slave was rationally considered to be a human being but for a time a slave. </p>

<p>Jefferson, a slave owner, knew what he did was evil, so did Washington etc. It was based on the evil and illogical assumption that the slave was inherently a slave because of their inferior status to actual ‘human beings’. I don’t believe anyone actually bought this argument but rather used it duplicitously to justify their perceived needs; certainly many of the American founders did not buy it as their own actions and statements testify in the voices of slave-owners like Washington and Jefferson.</p>

<p>I think, like pornography, the common person knows evil when they see it. Moreover, I believe evil is determined by a cause, not by an effect. This is my response to your issue with the morality of war. War is always the effect of a cause, if the cause is evil, so will be the war. We logically judge the cause of actions as evil. A volcano erupting is not an evil act, even if the destruction is horrifying; the same with Tsunamis, as we have recently witnessed. </p>

<p>The World Trade Center was another matter entirely. Had a wayward pilot flown into the World Trade Center, no one would have thought of evil. If 15 hateful terrorist intentionally fly their plane into an occupied building it is evil to the core. </p>

<p>People all over this continent know-it-when-they-see-it, and they are rarely wrong; on the other hand, as Descartes felt, there is no theory too outrageous for an intellectual to believe.</p>

<p>"To say something is wrong is a logical or legal judgment. To say something is evil is a transcendent judgment. </p>

<p>We do not prosecute people for engaging in evil activities but rather for wrong activities defined by law. Although, the term evil may have been bandied about at Nuremburg, it was not a prosecutable offense. On the other hand, common people termed the atrocities, which were determined to be illegal in the foundling terms of international law, as evil, absolutely."</p>

<p>I agree, but my point was that the determining factors of such prosecutable offenses are not whether or not it is absolutely evil, rather society's immediate need of it, whether or not the act is evil, eg. persecution of jews during hitler's reign, need for scapegoats.</p>

<p>"Moreover, I believe evil is determined by a cause, not by an effect. This is my response to your issue with the morality of war. War is always the effect of a cause, if the cause is evil, so will be the war. We logically judge the cause of actions as evil."</p>

<p>I agree, but this doesn't make war any less evil, just a child of an influential evil. I think we should work to eliminate evil causes of war starting with the terrorists. :D</p>

<p>well said...and reasonable: how Canadian of You;)</p>