3 ms·

You picked a bunch of partisan issues then claimed your side is "right" and the other side is "wrong". I'm not even commenting on what's right or wrong, I'm jus

You picked a bunch of partisan issues then claimed your side is "right" and the other side is "wrong". I'm not even commenting on what's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's subjective.

homarp 8y ago
Thank you, I think I understand your point about subjectivity now. I have another question, if you can: can you comment on what is right and what is wrong in absolute, if anything is ?
- malvosenior 8y ago
  I think you can be correct or incorrect about facts (such as the earth being round) but that human society is too complex and there are too many individual and conflicting desires to say that there's a one dimensional scale of good->bad that you can judge it on. Take that remote island tribe that recently murdered a Christian missionary. Was it good or bad that he went there? Was it good or bad that they killed him? Is it good or bad that anthropologists are trying to keep them isolated? Is it good or bad that they want to stay isolated? I don't think those questions can be answered. Society is an emergent behavior built up from individual wants, desires and compromises. There's stability and instability at a macro level but I don't think there's good or bad. There's just different. It strikes me that a lot of modern political thought has embraced pieces of post-modernism but at some level has almost reverted to fundamentalism. "Good" vs. "evil" doesn't sound like the options we should be discussing in a post-religious society.
  - homarp 8y ago
    >[list of good or bad question about what happened in North Sentinel Island ] > I don't think those questions can be answered I don't understand why not. More exactly, if we decide that there is nothing "right" or "wrong", just "dimensions and scales and we can't decide without offensing someone", isn't that a bleak state of mind (and of society) ? >"Good" vs. "evil" doesn't sound like the options we should be discussing in a post-religious society. So only religion can define "good" and "evil" ? Not society as a whole ? or the law - would you agree that the law is just a slowly written process to write down the current state of mind of a society ? What about "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" ? Also just an opinion ? or it's a "religious"-like text and therefore we can talk about "right" and wrong ?
    - malvosenior 8y ago
      > I don't understand why not. More exactly, if we decide that there is nothing "right" or "wrong", just "dimensions and scales and we can't decide without offensing someone", isn't that a bleak state of mind (and of society) ? Not at all! You can have your own personal moral code that you live by. It's also not about not "offending someone". It's just acknowledging that people have different perspectives and that even if you believe 100% in something, there's someone out there that won't agree with you and their lived experiences will justify that position for them. > So only religion can define "good" and "evil" ? I'd say yes as those are religious concepts. You can have non-religious empathy that compels you to not "hurt" other people but I wouldn't say there's an objective "good" or "evil". > What about "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" ? Also just an opinion ? or it's a "religious"-like text and therefore we can talk about "right" and wrong ? I would say this is a religious like text. It just so happens that many people agree with it. Back to logical facts though, if one posits that there is no higher power then it's definitely a fact that society has been built up from individuals imperfectly communicating over time and not some objective truth.

You picked a bunch of partisan issues then claimed your side is "right" and the other side is "wrong". I'm not even commenting on what's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's subjective.

homarp 8y ago

Thank you, I think I understand your point about subjectivity now. I have another question, if you can: can you comment on what is right and what is wrong in absolute, if anything is ?

malvosenior 8y ago
I think you can be correct or incorrect about facts (such as the earth being round) but that human society is too complex and there are too many individual and conflicting desires to say that there's a one dimensional scale of good->bad that you can judge it on. Take that remote island tribe that recently murdered a Christian missionary. Was it good or bad that he went there? Was it good or bad that they killed him? Is it good or bad that anthropologists are trying to keep them isolated? Is it good or bad that they want to stay isolated? I don't think those questions can be answered. Society is an emergent behavior built up from individual wants, desires and compromises. There's stability and instability at a macro level but I don't think there's good or bad. There's just different. It strikes me that a lot of modern political thought has embraced pieces of post-modernism but at some level has almost reverted to fundamentalism. "Good" vs. "evil" doesn't sound like the options we should be discussing in a post-religious society.
- homarp 8y ago
  >[list of good or bad question about what happened in North Sentinel Island ] > I don't think those questions can be answered I don't understand why not. More exactly, if we decide that there is nothing "right" or "wrong", just "dimensions and scales and we can't decide without offensing someone", isn't that a bleak state of mind (and of society) ? >"Good" vs. "evil" doesn't sound like the options we should be discussing in a post-religious society. So only religion can define "good" and "evil" ? Not society as a whole ? or the law - would you agree that the law is just a slowly written process to write down the current state of mind of a society ? What about "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" ? Also just an opinion ? or it's a "religious"-like text and therefore we can talk about "right" and wrong ?
  - malvosenior 8y ago
    > I don't understand why not. More exactly, if we decide that there is nothing "right" or "wrong", just "dimensions and scales and we can't decide without offensing someone", isn't that a bleak state of mind (and of society) ? Not at all! You can have your own personal moral code that you live by. It's also not about not "offending someone". It's just acknowledging that people have different perspectives and that even if you believe 100% in something, there's someone out there that won't agree with you and their lived experiences will justify that position for them. > So only religion can define "good" and "evil" ? I'd say yes as those are religious concepts. You can have non-religious empathy that compels you to not "hurt" other people but I wouldn't say there's an objective "good" or "evil". > What about "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" ? Also just an opinion ? or it's a "religious"-like text and therefore we can talk about "right" and wrong ? I would say this is a religious like text. It just so happens that many people agree with it. Back to logical facts though, if one posits that there is no higher power then it's definitely a fact that society has been built up from individuals imperfectly communicating over time and not some objective truth.