4 ms·

Evil is relative. I would take no such oath. Ever.

downshun 7y ago
http://braungardt.trialectics.com/theology-index/christianity/natural-law-lewis/ http://braungardt.trialectics.com/theology-index/christianit...
DagAgren 7y ago
If you can not argue from your own moral principles why your acts are good, or why another act is evil, you need to work on building your moral compass.
- irishsultan 7y ago
  If you are doing things that are not good according to your own moral principle you also need to work on building your moral compass. So I'm unsure why this is relevant.
  - DagAgren 7y ago
    Well, exactly, and you should hopefully not be doing that, so, what's the problem with taking an oath?
    - irishsultan 7y ago
      But why is an oath needed or useful? Someone who has a good moral compass doesn't need it, someone who hasn't isn't particularly likely to feel bound by it.
      - DagAgren 7y ago
        It is better to make these things explicit rather than implicit. Saying something out loud, formally, helps make things more tangible.
- eru 7y ago
  That's a useless bar. Most of the vilest people in history thought their own acts 'good'.
  - DagAgren 7y ago
    There's a difference between thinking you are good, and being able to argue the case.
    - eru 7y ago
      Yes. And the difference is a small minimum amount of intelligence. Anyone can argue anything. See eg lawyers for the classic example.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
> Evil is relative. Sincere question: Can you explain what you mean by that?
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  Not the parent poster but how about meat consumption? A number of people think eating meat is evil and it's undeniable that animals are harmed in the process of producing meat for food. Is eating meat an absolute evil (people should universally agree that it's evil) or a relative one (it's permitted for people hold differing opinions on whether it is evil)?
  - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    Thanks. It seems like small details of phrasing have a lot of significance on this topic. For example: > Is eating meat an absolute evil (people should universally agree that it's evil) or a relative one (it's permitted for people hold differing opinions on whether it is evil)? That seems to suggest a two-tier system of ethics. At one level, and act is considered conditionally evil depending on the viewpoint of the person committing the act. But implicitly there seems to be another level at play: the universal applicability of good/evil being relative to each individual's belief system. Gah... I really regret not taking some philosophy courses in college. I'm sure this issue has been covered ad nauseum for at least 3000 years.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > "Gah... I really regret not taking some philosophy courses in college. I'm sure this issue has been covered ad nauseum for at least 3000 years." It's 2020; there's a website for everything. Try going to https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html and scroll a couple of paragraphs down to the "An alternative division of meta-ethical views is between:" and dive into the links there.
- TedDoesntTalk 7y ago
  Simply that each of us define evil differently. What is evil to one may not be evil to another. I'm not talking about extremes like murder, but for example capitalism or communism. Or writing code for the department of defense.

http://braungardt.trialectics.com/theology-index/christianity/natural-law-lewis/ http://braungardt.trialectics.com/theology-index/christianit...

DagAgren 7y ago

If you can not argue from your own moral principles why your acts are good, or why another act is evil, you need to work on building your moral compass.

irishsultan 7y ago
If you are doing things that are not good according to your own moral principle you also need to work on building your moral compass. So I'm unsure why this is relevant.
- DagAgren 7y ago
  Well, exactly, and you should hopefully not be doing that, so, what's the problem with taking an oath?
  - irishsultan 7y ago
    But why is an oath needed or useful? Someone who has a good moral compass doesn't need it, someone who hasn't isn't particularly likely to feel bound by it.
    - DagAgren 7y ago
      It is better to make these things explicit rather than implicit. Saying something out loud, formally, helps make things more tangible.
eru 7y ago
That's a useless bar. Most of the vilest people in history thought their own acts 'good'.
- DagAgren 7y ago
  There's a difference between thinking you are good, and being able to argue the case.
  - eru 7y ago
    Yes. And the difference is a small minimum amount of intelligence. Anyone can argue anything. See eg lawyers for the classic example.

DoofusOfDeath 7y ago

> Evil is relative. Sincere question: Can you explain what you mean by that?

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
Not the parent poster but how about meat consumption? A number of people think eating meat is evil and it's undeniable that animals are harmed in the process of producing meat for food. Is eating meat an absolute evil (people should universally agree that it's evil) or a relative one (it's permitted for people hold differing opinions on whether it is evil)?
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  Thanks. It seems like small details of phrasing have a lot of significance on this topic. For example: > Is eating meat an absolute evil (people should universally agree that it's evil) or a relative one (it's permitted for people hold differing opinions on whether it is evil)? That seems to suggest a two-tier system of ethics. At one level, and act is considered conditionally evil depending on the viewpoint of the person committing the act. But implicitly there seems to be another level at play: the universal applicability of good/evil being relative to each individual's belief system. Gah... I really regret not taking some philosophy courses in college. I'm sure this issue has been covered ad nauseum for at least 3000 years.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > "Gah... I really regret not taking some philosophy courses in college. I'm sure this issue has been covered ad nauseum for at least 3000 years." It's 2020; there's a website for everything. Try going to https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_ethics.html and scroll a couple of paragraphs down to the "An alternative division of meta-ethical views is between:" and dive into the links there.
TedDoesntTalk 7y ago
Simply that each of us define evil differently. What is evil to one may not be evil to another. I'm not talking about extremes like murder, but for example capitalism or communism. Or writing code for the department of defense.