Yeah, but where's that particular piece of information coming from...and can we put Genghis in the context of his time and culture?

I got it from The God Delusion.

As for time and culture, does that make any difference? If people were less moral in the past they were less moral in the past.

I'm saying morality probably had different values - much as we've already argued elsewhere.

Anyway, my point is that there are bound to have been people just as evil as Hitler, it's just that he managed to succeed in doing his evil and with weapons that allowed him to do so to a huge extent.

(February 12, 2011 at 8:21 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: Genghis Khan apparently gained his greatest pleasure from seeing his victims' 'near and dear bathed in tears'. If that's true I'd say that's pretty evil.

How is that more evil than enslaving the near and dear of his victims as most ancient conquerors do? Or for that matter any purposed psychological measures undertaken by many forces in history to increase the terror of forceful conquest so as to encourage capitulation without conflict?

Neither genghis khan nor most of the other ancient conquerors set out to exterminate whole races who did not present any armed resistance simply out of ideology. I would say that sets hitler apart from genghis khan.

Quote:How is that more evil than enslaving the near and dear of his victims as most ancient conquerors do? Or for that matter any purposed psychological measures undertaken by many forces in history to increase the terror of forceful conquest so as to encourage capitulation without conflict?

It depends whether you see evil as severe 'evil' sadism or as 'evil' actions carried out.

Clearly, evil is a concept that has altered dramatically from age to age and place to place. That doesn't mean that one is committed to moral relativism in a normative sense i.e. saying that what other cultures did is just different, not wrong. I can acknowledge the fact that my values are probably largely contingent upon my culture, upbringing, etc. and yet coherently maintain that my values are better than those of others. If I didn't do so, they wouldn't be my values.

Does evil exis? I would say yes.
It is to do with intent, in my opinion, If some one commits a hienous act while sane and without any form of coercion then the act is evil.
There would be many shades of grey to this but thats the line in the sand I have drawn.

I didn't realize that I could spark such a discussion and/or debate with such a simple question. It was just a philisophical question I had been wondering for a while. Anyways, thanks to you all again, interesting responses I must say.

(February 12, 2011 at 8:34 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: I got it from The God Delusion.

As for time and culture, does that make any difference? If people were less moral in the past they were less moral in the past.

Is there such a thing as objective evil? NO. I'm unaware of any external or transcendental moral authority which is able to define such a thing.


A moral relativist,I see context as crucial. Morality is based on pragmatism and changes in accordance with place and the times. So far I have yet to discover even one absolute,universal moral imperative.Referring to a person or people as moral or immoral out of context is meaningless.


EG Few rational people today support say stoning for adultery,chopping off the right hand of a thief,or killing a disobedient child. These laws are all found in the Torah and/or the Qur'an and/or Hadith.

Such laws date to Hammurabi and were considered moral and just up to about 2 hundred years ago in many countries. EG the English were still hanging 12 year old children for theft at the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Rules of warfare covering the rank and file are modern inventions.The Geneva convention was only first drafted in1864,and not signed by all nations.