[Revolution]

Originally Posted by Cojofl

"There is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself."

Herman Melville

You can't base your argument on platitudes.

[FoxTrot9R]

Originally Posted by Cojofl

"There is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself."

Herman Melville

Oh yeah well how about this

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Edmund Burke

Oh thats definately proves evil exists. Zing-------

[FoxTrot9R]

Originally Posted by Revolution

You can't base your argument on platitudes.

Lol ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ but it makes my arguement why cant I ?????????

[Revolution]

Originally Posted by FoxTrot9R

Lol ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ but it makes my arguement why cant I ?????????

Ok, you can have special dispensation.
But seriously, too many people do that. There's no analysis behind something that can fit on a bumper sticker, ya know?

[mkess101]

Originally Posted by PornoSatan

It's precisely which side of this culture you're on. Looking from the outside in you're going to think it's wrong, because it's not parallel to your social morals. That part is easy to understand. Now, try a bit harder to understand it from the other cultures perspective. If the proper age for sex for country A is 18 and for country B its 14, who's wrong? If you say B, it's because you're looking at it from A's perspective. Perhaps from B's perspective, 18 might seem late. There's a near infinite number of comparisons that clash morals than just that. It's all about perspective, and the ability to understand/accept depends upon which region by sheer accident you grew up in.

Absolutely. But my argument is that there must be some absolute line of morality. 14? How about 6? How about a 3 year old? Plenty of regions disagree on specifically where (since I started out using the pedophelia example, I'll just continue on with it) the line should be drawn, but a line must be drawn somewhere. 18 vs. 14 is one thing, but how far beyond that until you've become an abomination? There must be a line somewhere. Society will always debate where the line will be, but arguing against the existence of a solid right/wrong (or "good" or "evil") line seems less than human to me.

I guess my argument would be that certain societies may differ on the specifics of morality, (and some of the difference may and do seem huge) but there must at least be a baseline minimum. People can argue where it comes from (god, a unique human internal moral compass, whatever) but I refuse to believe it does not exist.

[Sanin]

Originally Posted by mkess101

Absolutely. But my argument is that there must be some absolute line of morality. 14? How about 6? How about a 3 year old? Plenty of regions disagree on specifically where (since I started out using the pedophelia example, I'll just continue on with it) the line should be drawn, but a line must be drawn somewhere. 18 vs. 14 is one thing, but how far beyond that until you've become an abomination? There must be a line somewhere. Society will always debate where the line will be, but arguing against the existence of a solid right/wrong (or "good" or "evil") line seems less than human to me.

I guess my argument would be that certain societies may differ on the specifics of morality, (and some of the difference may and do seem huge) but there must at least be a baseline minimum. People can argue where it comes from (god, a unique human internal moral compass, whatever) but I refuse to believe it does not exist.

Going back to the post about the professor arguing you can't prove that the chair exists, the fact you believe it does should be enough for you.
If you want to draw the line though, why not just make it at anything which goes against nature. For example, it may be morally wrong to have sex with a minor; but it is evil, no matter the society, to have sex with one that has yet to hit puberty. Another example would be murder in any case other than survival. Even with that argument though you have to account for societies which allowed pedophilia. Were they inherently evil societies? Evil is too relative to be anything other than a construct of the human mind.

[David Koresh]

Evil ain't nothing but a word.

[chrstrm]

Originally Posted by PornoSatan

Good nor evil exist in their accepted definitions when used in context, where one is the antonym of the other. It isn't a "does one exist?" type of thing. Neither exist. People shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose. They're just superstitious equivalents to those who may or may not act altruistic.

Good - People who do unselfish acts at their own expense, defined by their culture.
Evil - People who only keep to themselves, who do things not generally accepted by their culture. (Salem Witch Trials attributed antisocialism to "evil")

As mentioned earlier, neither exist. Almost everything defined as evil can be found to be acceptable in another culture or scenario. (Kill 1 person and you're a murderer, kill 100 and you get a medal.)


Almost

i would think that despite the situational nature of good and evil, that they both exist. but i guess this is another question, namely, what does it mean for something to exist.

another thought, wouldn't a capitalistic society find selfish acts to be good?

[godking]

Originally Posted by mkess101

Absolutely. But my argument is that there must be some absolute line of morality. 14? How about 6? How about a 3 year old? Plenty of regions disagree on specifically where (since I started out using the pedophelia example, I'll just continue on with it) the line should be drawn, but a line must be drawn somewhere. 18 vs. 14 is one thing, but how far beyond that until you've become an abomination? There must be a line somewhere. Society will always debate where the line will be, but arguing against the existence of a solid right/wrong (or "good" or "evil") line seems less than human to me.

I guess my argument would be that certain societies may differ on the specifics of morality, (and some of the difference may and do seem huge) but there must at least be a baseline minimum. People can argue where it comes from (god, a unique human internal moral compass, whatever) but I refuse to believe it does not exist.

What is your position on Abortion ? do you consider it murder ?

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Evil is not just a word, it has an intrinsic content.

We can not deny the I, our own consciousness.