• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US military mulls attacking Somali pirates' land bases; pirates vow revenge

No, because there is no absolute morality that everyone subscribes to defining good and evil. People all have their own personal perceptions and opinions of what is good and what is evil.

For instance, considering that these pirates are humans and not animals do you think that they perceive what they are doing as evil?
I'm sure they do, but they don't care. They want money, like bank robbers.
 
I'm sure they do, but they don't care. They want money, like bank robbers.

How could you possibly be sure? Their motivation is money and to them money is good and they are willing to get it at whatever cost. That doesn't make them evil.
 
It's a nice dodge, but you still define "evil" down to meaninglessness.

Good and evil become meaningless when you try to assign those attributes to a person instead of their actions.

Every post you've directed at me.

Please point out exactly where I "judged" you. I don't even think I've assigned judgment to your posts, let alone your person.

By your own statement above, how can you know this?

And what is an "act of evil"?

That's a good question. I would say it is any violation of the golden rule, but there are all kinds of theories on this.
 
Part of it yes. We have the capability of making these things, animals do not. Civilization exists because we have the ability to make it. Human isn't defined, however, through civilization. People can live outside "civilization", they're still human.

"Civilization" is not only physical, but a measure of the way in which we choose to live, i.e., accept cognitively that we should not always act by instinct if it brings harm to others. Much of the progress of which you speak is only possible because of those choices.

So, if you disregard that, if you act according to base instincts and leave the rules of civilization behind, then you become animalistic.

Obviously, you're still physically and genetically human. If anyone thought I was saying otherwise, well, that's just stupid.
 
"Civilization" is not only physical, but a measure of the way in which we choose to live, i.e., accept cognitively that we should not always act by instinct if it brings harm to others. Much of the progress of which you speak is only possible because of those choices.

So, if you disregard that, if you act according to base instincts and leave the rules of civilization behind, then you become animalistic.

Obviously, you're still physically and genetically human. If anyone thought I was saying otherwise, well, that's just stupid.

Social construct and morality is another aspect of human creation. A lot of the construction was in such a way as to maximize human's innate ability to think and create, the level of our advancement is possible in part because of that; it's true. People can reject that and leave that and live according to rules opposed to what society has dictated. But they are still in all senses of the word human.
 
"Civilization" is not only physical, but a measure of the way in which we choose to live, i.e., accept cognitively that we should not always act by instinct if it brings harm to others. Much of the progress of which you speak is only possible because of those choices.

So, if you disregard that, if you act according to base instincts and leave the rules of civilization behind, then you become animalistic.

Obviously, you're still physically and genetically human. If anyone thought I was saying otherwise, well, that's just stupid.

I would say civility is an outward manifestation of humanity, as is civilization, but it is not what makes us human.
 
Good and evil become meaningless when you try to assign those attributes to a person instead of their actions.

OK, first of all, I don't agree -- a person who knowingly, remorselessly, repeatedly engages in acts of evil can fairly be described as an evil person.

That said, what I said was:

I can understand the motivation of all kinds of crime, even heinous ones. That makes them no less evil.

As in, the crimes are evil.

Please point out exactly where I "judged" you. I don't even think I've assigned judgment to your posts, let alone your person.

Right from the very first post when you scolded me about how calling them animals "gets us nowhere." What other conclusion can one draw than that you judged my post, my conduct, as wrong?
 
How could you possibly be sure? Their motivation is money and to them money is good and they are willing to get it at whatever cost. That doesn't make them evil.
My response is subjective, so you can't dispute it.
 
Social construct and morality is another aspect of human creation. A lot of the construction was in such a way as to maximize human's innate ability to think and create, the level of our advancement is possible in part because of that; it's true. People can reject that and leave that and live according to rules opposed to what society has dictated. But they are still in all senses of the word human.

You're splitting hairs; I largely said that.

Then let's go about the question in another way -- the accusation that you're "dehumanizing" someone is saying that you're devaluing that person.

Where does the special human value come in? In what sense is a human more valuable than other animals? Why is it so heinous to call a human an animal? (Because, of course, there's no question that humans are animals.)
 
How could you possibly be sure? Their motivation is money and to them money is good and they are willing to get it at whatever cost. That doesn't make them evil.

Then there is no evil.
 
OK, first of all, I don't agree -- a person who knowingly, remorselessly, repeatedly engages in acts of evil can fairly be described as an evil person.

Perhaps, but you'd have to be infinitely familiar with those people to understand their knowledge and their level of remorse. You must also take circumstances into account and put yourself in that persons shoes. For instance, Captain Tibbets dropped a bomb that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese and he'll go to his deathbed claiming what he did was right.

Edit: he actually did.

Capt. Tibbets said:
Tibbets expressed no regret regarding the decision to drop the bomb. In a 1975 interview he said: "I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it, and have it work as perfectly as it did... I sleep clearly every night."[5] In March 2005, he stated, "If you give me the same circumstances,I'd do it again."

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Tibbets[/ame]

As in, the crimes are evil.

I agree.

Right from the very first post when you scolded me about how calling them animals "gets us nowhere." What other conclusion can one draw than that you judged my post, my conduct, as wrong?

It doesn't get us anywhere. Dehumanization is responsible for the worst atrocities of all time.
 
Last edited:
How could you possibly be sure? Their motivation is money and to them money is good and they are willing to get it at whatever cost. That doesn't make them evil.

And they want the money to fund their Jihad. And by your standard a man that murders for money is somehow less evil than a man who murders out of anger.
 
You're splitting hairs; I largely said that.

Then let's go about the question in another way -- the accusation that you're "dehumanizing" someone is saying that you're devaluing that person.

Where does the special human value come in? In what sense is a human more valuable than other animals? Why is it so heinous to call a human an animal? (Because, of course, there's no question that humans are animals.)

Humans are a form of animal, but a form never before seen on this planet. A vastly superior form at that. In the brief time we've been on this planet, we've completely colonized the planet, radically reshaped it (not in the physical shape of the planet, but environmentally and such), escaped its gravity, and even scratched at the surface of understanding the base of the universe itself. Our intellect separates us from the herd and allows us to dominate the rest. While many species have varying degrees of intelligence, no species comes close to the level of intelligence and extelligence innately possessed by humans. We are the superior species till a better one comes along.

I've always likened humans to the mage class of RPGs. Not strong, not fast, not nimble. Nature neglected all other attributes which are found in other animals and focuses almost exclusively on intelligence. One on one against most other animals, the human is screwed. We're rather fragile when compared to much of the rest of the animal kingdom. But we can think and we can create, and because of that we can dominate. We may not win at arm wrestling a bear, but we sure as hell can invent the gun to kill the bear before it gets to that stage.
 
It doesn't get us anywhere. Dehumanization is responsible for the worst atrocities of all time.

What do you mean by worst atrocities? Using your moral relativism these atrocities were perfectly justifiable. Put yourself in the place of a Hitler, he believed that the Jew was destroying Germany, and he felt that the only way to protect his kin and kith was to exterminate world Jewry, after all who are you to judge his motivations and his actions? Good and evil after all is subjective. :doh Dehuminization maybe responsible for the worst atrocities of all time but moral relativism is what is used to justify them.
 
Last edited:
And they want the money to fund their Jihad. And by your standard a man that murders for money is somehow less evil than a man who murders out of anger.

Actually no. By my standard neither one is evil because evil doesn't exist.
 
See how easy liberalism is, anything can mean anything you want.

See how easy partisan hackery is? All you have to do is assign the term "liberal" to something that you don't like.
 
Perhaps, but you'd have to be infinitely familiar with those people to understand their knowledge and their level of remorse.

I would not have to be for it to be so.

You must also take circumstances into account and put yourself in that persons shoes. For instance, Captain Tibbets dropped a bomb that killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese and he'll go to his deathbed claiming what he did was right.

And that's not "knowingly, remorselessly, repeatedly engaging in acts of evil," is it?

It doesn't get us anywhere.

And there's the judgment.

Dehumanization is responsible for the worst atrocities of all time.

Yes, it is, and I have repeatedly said so within the confines of this message board.

But piracy itself is an atrocity, and has been recognized as such for thousands of years. Likening people who engage in it unto acting like animals is in NO WAY the same as claiming innocent people are literally not people, as was the case with slavery, with Jews (even today), with all sorts of other things.

Calling someone who preys savagely on innocents an "animal" as a metaphor is NOT a slippery slope.
 
What do you mean by worst atrocities? Using your moral relativism these atrocities were perfectly justifiable. Put yourself in the place of a Hitler, he believed that the Jew was destroying Germany, and he felt that the only way to protect his kin and kith was to exterminate world Jewry, after all who are you to judge his motivations and his actions? Good and evil after all is subjective. :doh Dehuminization maybe responsible for the worst atrocities of all time but moral relativism is what is used to justify them.

I'm not a moral relativist. Hitler's actions were evil; so were Tibbets'. I make a distinction between good/evil and justifiable/unjustifiable. The actions of Hitler were not justifiable, Tibbets' were.
 
Exactly. No absolute evil anyway. There is only opinion.

Then there is no right, either. And there's no point to any of this, no point to politics; no policy is any better than any other. No form of government and no act of government is any better than any other. There is no better or worse, there is only difference. People living free; people being herded into gas chambers -- it's all the same.
 
Humans are a form of animal, but a form never before seen on this planet. A vastly superior form at that. In the brief time we've been on this planet, we've completely colonized the planet, radically reshaped it (not in the physical shape of the planet, but environmentally and such), escaped its gravity, and even scratched at the surface of understanding the base of the universe itself. Our intellect separates us from the herd and allows us to dominate the rest. While many species have varying degrees of intelligence, no species comes close to the level of intelligence and extelligence innately possessed by humans. We are the superior species till a better one comes along.

I've always likened humans to the mage class of RPGs. Not strong, not fast, not nimble. Nature neglected all other attributes which are found in other animals and focuses almost exclusively on intelligence. One on one against most other animals, the human is screwed. We're rather fragile when compared to much of the rest of the animal kingdom. But we can think and we can create, and because of that we can dominate. We may not win at arm wrestling a bear, but we sure as hell can invent the gun to kill the bear before it gets to that stage.

So we're more clever. We can do math. Why does that make us more valuable?

Some would argue that all we've done makes us a plague unto the Earth.
 
Then there is no right, either. And there's no point to any of this, no point to politics; no policy is any better than any other. No form of government and no act of government is any better than any other. There is no better or worse, there is only difference. People living free; people being herded into gas chambers -- it's all the same.

It's always fun to use hyperbole in lieu of actually discussing the topic, isn't it?
 
It's always fun to use hyperbole in lieu of actually discussing the topic, isn't it?

Oh, now you're all worried about the letter of the topic. :roll:

Your argument in the topic is that there's no evil. I'm demonstrating exactly why your argument fails. If there's no evil, then there's no right. You very likely will not acknowledge that there is no right. Therefore, there is a right. And if there IS a right, then there's a wrong. You cannot have one without the other. A grand wrong is an evil.
 
Back
Top Bottom