Black and White

[Soul Saver]

Ever seen the world in black and white? One thing is good, another is evil.
One may make absolute differentiations between things, and believe them until they are faced with a paradox. Religion, ideologies, law, science, may all put things into absolute perspective. You can determine all nazis to be evil people, and you can determine all Final Fantasy fans to be good. Yet you are faced with a paradox when you come across a final fantasy-loving nazi. You have to either change your view or bend the rules one way or another...

The law, however, is absolute and objective, unless it is tampered with by direct human influence. Someone either breaks the law, or they don't. It is up to the human judge and jury to decide guilt and punishment. The law is open to misinterpretation, but when interpreted objectively, it is absolute... you get the idea. You can't logically say that something is not a crime, when it clearly is.

We don't know if the universe is objective yet. The purpose of science is to objectively find out the absolute laws that govern everything.

You can be objective if you are specific. "What I apparently percieved with my senses was ......"

"The law clearly states, in accordance with .... that X is a crime, and the evidence suggests that suspect Y has committed it .... ."


I'm not really sure what I was thinking when I started this topic, but I wouldn't want this to go to waste.

 

[Donald Trump]

No, I've never seen the world in terms of absolutes. I may not like Hitler, but he wasn't imo completely evil, as I don't believe that to exist. I even feel a little sorry for him, he was in love with his niece and then she killed herself. His father beat him etc.
He did some really evil stuff, but I don't see him as completely evil.
If we saw things as absolutes, we could have no compromises.
I can clearly tell the difference between things, but I can feel ambivalent towards things.

 

[MaternusMaleficus]

I've never seen things as black and white or good and evil. (Despite my username =P)

The problem I see with such terms is that they're all very subjective. Their definitions change person to person, making the terms practically meaningless. What's good in one person's views is evil in another's, and vice versa, making both "good" and "evil" practically meaningless.

Let's take Majic Dirt's example of Hitler. (Disclaimer: I do NOT at all approve of anything Hitler did.)

Hitler is viewed by most people to be evil. He killed thousands of people in unthinkable ways. But do you think Hitler would have done what he did if he thought it was evil?

No.

He thought he was doing the good, right, just thing to do. He thought he was a saviour of arians. In turn, the Jewish thought they were doing what was good by following their religion.

Two very different views, but both parties involved believed they were the "good" in the matter.

And that is why I don't really deem anything as "good" or "evil". I prefer the terms "harmful" and "beneficial", and I use them as related to my views and thoughts.

 

[Onusha]

The problem I see with such terms is that they're all very subjective.

If there was no objective truth, law would be made illegitimate because the actions legislated as punishable are actually subjective and not evil by any objective standard.

However, there is also a scale to how evil or how good something is.

He thought he was doing the good, right, just thing to do. He thought he was a saviour of arians. In turn, the Jewish thought they were doing what was good by following their religion.

Two very different views, but both parties involved believed they were the "good" in the matter.

If a thief steals your money to buy some new upgrade for his car, does he believe he is doing "good"? Well, I don't think he'd really stop to think about it but he does believe he is benefiting from the action itself, but does it make it right? According to your morality, what he did is subjective and if it is truly subjective he cannot be punished because who is the state to legislate objective morality, yeah?

I do think in terms of good or evil, but if you were to put these things as "absolutes" it would mean murder was as evil was pickpocketing, or donating a dollar to the beggar on the street was as good as decreasing inflation and unemployment, for example.

 

[Oerba Yun Fang]

Logically, certains things can be described as absolute, though certainly not morals. Morals can't logically be objective.

 

[MaternusMaleficus]

If there was no objective truth, law would be made illegitimate because the actions legislated as punishable are actually subjective and not evil by any objective standard.

You got at something I was trying to hit on with my post in an underlying way - law is nothing to me. Not that I break laws (Not many at least, but I'm not going to go into that.) But in my view most laws are, well....rubbish. Most of them.

Here, let's take your theif. Most people who would do something like that aren't very smart. (I'm not saying all theives are stupid, just petty ones like our example theif.) People who aren't very smart generally don't think or care too much about people that they aren't close to. So, in his mind, he knows what he's doing is evil, but he believes it to be serving the greater good (his car). Therefore, in his mind, he's doing good. And who's to say my opinion of good trumps his? (Plus, I shouldn't have been stupid enough to get stolen from in the first place.) And no, he shouldn't be punished by the state. He was good enough to get away with it, he ought to be able to keep it.

Thanks for bringing up the point though - I love talking about stuff like this.

 

[FF7Guru]

"Good" and "Evil" are terms that are used loosely. Too loosely. Hitler, for example. He probably did things that he knew were evil (Killing people, for one), but those actions served his good. Thus, he assumed that those actions would be cancelled out in terms of evil. Therefore, we cannot say that people are good or evil, only actions. We can also say that goals are good or evil if we can prove it. However, we cannot say that Hitler had an evil goal, as we cannot prove it. We can't even prove that his goal was World/Europe domination, we can only assume that. However, goals can be influenced by others. Therefore, a man that steals money to feed his family is performing an evil action toward a good goal, and a man that gets a job to fuel his drug problem is performing a is performing a good action (making money circulate, etc.) towards an evil goal. So Good and Evil situations are subjective, but in their situations are sometimes objective. End of my contribution.

 

[Donald Trump]

"Good" and "Evil" are terms that are used loosely. Too loosely. Hitler, for example. He probably did things that he knew were evil (Killing people, for one), but those actions served his good. Thus, he assumed that those actions would be cancelled out in terms of evil. Therefore, we cannot say that people are good or evil, only actions. We can also say that goals are good or evil if we can prove it. However, we cannot say that Hitler had an evil goal, as we cannot prove it. We can't even prove that his goal was World/Europe domination, we can only assume that. However, goals can be influenced by others. Therefore, a man that steals money to feed his family is performing an evil action toward a good goal, and a man that gets a job to fuel his drug problem is performing a is performing a good action (making money circulate, etc.) towards an evil goal. So Good and Evil situations are subjective, but in their situations are sometimes objective. End of my contribution.

I'm sorry, but do you know anything about Hitler?
Of course he wanted to conquer Europe, a third Reich to last a thousand years, etc.
He didn't kill those all those people because he had to, he did it because he wanted to. Jews and slavs were untermensch, which means subhuman. He didn't kill them to achieve his goal, he killed them because he was a bigot.
Also that is a very Romantic view of addicts and thieves. They don't get jobs or steal to feed their families they steal because they want stuff, eg because they want your ipod, or they steal to pay for their addiction which is funding crime.
I agree that good and evil are subjective terms though.

So, in his mind, he knows what he's doing is evil, but he believes it to be serving the greater good (his car). Therefore, in his mind, he's doing good. And who's to say my opinion of good trumps his? (Plus, I shouldn't have been stupid enough to get stolen from in the first place.)

Right, you are walking down the street and all of a sudden three big guys jump out of a car and rape you. In their minds they are doing good and it is stupid of you to be raped. Ergo we let these rapists go free and rape other people.

 

[MaternusMaleficus]

Right, you are walking down the street and all of a sudden three big guys jump out of a car and rape you. In their minds they are doing good and it is stupid of you to be raped. Ergo we let these rapists go free and rape other people.

Getting a little touchy, aren't we? You didn't have to say it so roughly. Makes it sound like you're being mean to me, and that's not "good". =P


And no, I'd take care of it myself. And yes, they would probably be thinking about serving their idea of "good".
In the case of a child, parents would take care of it themselves.

 

[Onusha]

You got at something I was trying to hit on with my post in an underlying way - law is nothing to me. Not that I break laws (Not many at least, but I'm not going to go into that.) But in my view most laws are, well....rubbish. Most of them.

Laws legislated against victimless crimes are rubbish. Laws against crimes that contain a victim are just.

Here, let's take your theif. Most people who would do something like that aren't very smart. (I'm not saying all theives are stupid, just petty ones like our example theif.) People who aren't very smart generally don't think or care too much about people that they aren't close to. So, in his mind, he knows what he's doing is evil, but he believes it to be serving the greater good (his car). Therefore, in his mind, he's doing good. And who's to say my opinion of good trumps his?

People with a conscience. People should be able to keep what they labour for, a thief doesn't produce anything, thus doesn't deserve anything of value, rather he deserves punishment for for taking away the product of someone else's labour, for his anti-production.

(Plus, I shouldn't have been stupid enough to get stolen from in the first place.) And no, he shouldn't be punished by the state. He was good enough to get away with it, he ought to be able to keep it.

Yeah, if a pedophile rapes a child he should be able to keep doing so if he's intelligent enough to get away with it. Seriously, what the shit are you smoking?

And no, I'd take care of it myself. And yes, they would probably be thinking about serving their idea of "good".

Social-Darwinism in action. Remember kids, bullying in schools produces strong individuals.

In the case of a child, parents would take care of it themselves.

What about when a parent beats their child?

 

[MaternusMaleficus]

My gosh, I love this place. People around here have something other than air in their heads, and are able to come up with good arguments and go about making those arguements intelligently.

If you don't mind, Katsky, I'm going to go about answering these partially out of order.

Laws legislated against victimless crimes are rubbish. Laws against crimes that contain a victim are just.

Laws against crimes that contain a victim are just? Well, maybe. But what about that crime's punishment? Who's to say without the slightest doubt what the punishment for having broke that law ought to be? One group of people may say the punishment for the crime is too harsh, another group of people may think it's not harsh enough. And of course, those peoples' opinions on it would be influnced by their undefinable ideas of "good" and "evil".

People with a conscience. People should be able to keep what they labour for, a thief doesn't produce anything, thus doesn't deserve anything of value, rather he deserves punishment for for taking away the product of someone else's labour, for his anti-production.

I still say that the person stolen from should've been able to do something to protect their belongings or money. (By the way - No, I have never and would never steal anything.) Maybe in the case of common people you're right about this one. But, are ALL cases of stealing wrong in your opinion? (You make it sound so.) What about a Robin Hood sort of situation? That would of course be going against the law, and there would be a victim. Hope you don't mind me picking your brain on that one, I'm very interested in your answer.

Social-Darwinism in action. Remember kids, bullying in schools produces strong individuals.

I never said that, and I don't agree with it, which makes me think either I'm not being clear enough about my line of thought, or you're just not getting what I'm saying. I don't agree with physical violence unless that violence was was started by someone else and the original target of the violence is the one finishing things. In which case, of course, I don't think anyone should start physical violence.

Yeah, if a pedophile rapes a child he should be able to keep doing so if he's intelligent enough to get away with it. Seriously, what the shit are you smoking?

You're taking the example I used for theivery and putting it with something else, making this one invalid. I covered the rape one:

In the case of a child, parents would take care of it themselves.

See?
And as for the shit I'm smoking, Camel Wides. Nothing but nicotine. (Unless someone laced my smokes. =P)

What about when a parent beats their child?

Ah, you've pulled out a pocket ace. I do think that in cases like this, there should be institutions who that would take care of that. If a parent beats a child, they obviously don't want the child, and therefore that child should be taken away. Not a matter of law really, but a matter of the child's mental condition.

 

[Onusha]

Laws against crimes that contain a victim are just? Well, maybe. But what about that crime's punishment? Who's to say without the slightest doubt what the punishment for having broke that law ought to be? One group of people may say the punishment for the crime is too harsh, another group of people may think it's not harsh enough. And of course, those peoples' opinions on it would be influnced by their undefinable ideas of "good" and "evil".

So, because people have a different opinion on things we should completely throw the issue out the window? People might have a different opinion on the standard of punishment but most if not all people believe certain things should be punished.

I still say that the person stolen from should've been able to do something to protect their belongings or money. (By the way - No, I have never and would never steal anything.) Maybe in the case of common people you're right about this one. But, are ALL cases of stealing wrong in your opinion? (You make it sound so.) What about a Robin Hood sort of situation?

Robin Hood was a good man, he stole from people who had an absurd amount of money which they achieved through unethical means and gave it to people who were struggling. I never said stealing was wrong in all cases, in fact I support the stealing of a portion of people's wages to fund various public projects (taxes). In fact, it is a modern day legislation to steal a large amount from people with a lot of money to fund public interests over the small amount stolen from people with less money.

I never said that, and I don't agree with it

No, you said people should deal with their own problems without those "laws" and that pesky "law enforcement" in the way.

I don't agree with physical violence unless that violence was was started by someone else and the original target of the violence is the one finishing things. In which case, of course, I don't think anyone should start physical violence.

But it happens. And that's what laws are for.

Ah, you've pulled out a pocket ace. I do think that in cases like this, there should be institutions who that would take care of that. If a parent beats a child, they obviously don't want the child, and therefore that child should be taken away. Not a matter of law really, but a matter of the child's mental condition.

No, it is a matter of law to protect that child.

Oh, and as for the PM you sent me, the internet is not serious business, don't take it that way.

 

[Soul Saver]

The thing about laws is, that they set down an objective set of rules which must be obeyed, or one will be a criminal should they be found guilty. They say what people legally can and cannot do. If people do not obey, they must be punished.
Legislation exists so that societies do not have to go through a endless philosophical debate every time someone commits what is considered by some an undesirable act, and to prevent undesirable acts and incidents happening in the first place, and so on. What would it be like if there was a massive argument about right and wrong on top of investigation and trial? ... oops, a fair trial is something enshrined in the constitutions of most, if not all, first world nations. Laws both protect and restrict.
Of course, everyone should know the purpose of law.

I think what Maternus getting at was that if victims do not protect their things in the first place, then it's their fault.
Well, I agree that people should take due care with their things, and not leave their possessions vulnerable to theft by the most petty, unskilled thief.
You can't lock everything up in a coded biometric safe, in a tungsten vault underneath the sea, protected by loyal armed guards, but surely it is not too much to protect things relative to their value?
Thieves will always evolve new methods to bypass security, but basic security is bound to lower the chances. That risk is constantly there, it's just a matter of probability, in a sense.
Are people supposed to lock down everything and bury their heads in the ground because there is a small risk of being stabbed to death? It is the criminal, after all, who commits the crime. If we blamed the offended, and not the offender, society would collapse.
Besides, I don't think that many insurers will pay out if people do not take appropriate security measures in the first place.

 

[Donald Trump]

I think what Maternus getting at was that if victims do not protect their things in the first place, then it's their fault.
Well, I agree that people should take due care with their things, and not leave their possessions vulnerable to theft by the most petty, unskilled thief.
You can't lock everything up in a coded biometric safe, in a tungsten vault underneath the sea, protected by loyal armed guards, but surely it is not too much to protect things relative to their value?
Thieves will always evolve new methods to bypass security, but basic security is bound to lower the chances. That risk is constantly there, it's just a matter of probability, in a sense.
Are people supposed to lock down everything and bury their heads in the ground because there is a small risk of being stabbed to death? It is the criminal, after all, who commits the crime. If we blamed the offended, and not the offender, society would collapse.
Besides, I don't think that many insurers will pay out if people do not take appropriate security measures in the first place.

That's the point I was trying to make.
We can't blame the victim. I specifically used rape as an example. Because in Middle Eastern countries, women are gang raped for "walking in public without an escort."
Not only do the rapists not get punished, but the victim does.
IMO that is a fucked up legal system.

If someone just leaves their stuff lying around and it gets stolen then it's their fault. It's natural selection in a way.
But just because they deserved to have their stuff stolen doesn't mean that the theif was right to do so.

 

[extreme__assassin]

This is a very sereous matter and i agree fully that its a fucked up system
the way that they practically Just let the rapist go free is enough to make my blood boil.