RE: does evil exist in its own right?
October 2, 2012 at 4:36 pm
(This post was last modified: October 2, 2012 at 4:39 pm by Something completely different.)
(October 2, 2012 at 4:13 pm)Doubting_Thomas Wrote: Whilst i agree with your main point, I would refine it into more relativist terms - it's not whether society views it as immoral, it's whether the individual making the observation does. In some places they still stone people to death - I think that's evil quite aside from what anyone else does.
It is a happy coincidence that most people do have a similar scale for what is bad and evil.
well i think i disagree (please understand that english is not my mothertounge and therefor misunderstanding will occure)
there is a big difference between what a sociaty sees as moral and what motivates a criminal to commit a crime.
a sociaty can have views and inforce laws wich more civilised people would see as inmoral.
stonings still occure in a lot of parts of the muslim world although seen by us as evil because, as i assume, the bigger part of the general public there is in support of such actions.
recently as islamist rebes seized parts of northern mali, i read in reports that in some places, the islamists were driven out by the comunitie after they had tried to inforce the sharia and the comunitie wich had previously lived in a secular state rejected such.
after the second word war the german generation of that war is oftern refered to as "the generation of guilt" by some germans, since they saw and accepted national socialism and it`s crimes and maybe even supported it.
a individual who commits crimes out of political reasons might believe he is doing the right thing for sociaty - like anders brevik - but our civilised sociaty rejects his crimes.
a individual who commits a crime out of self interest (like theft) is aware of the fact that he`s commiting a crime and does not believe it to be a moraly correct thing.
a individual who commits a crime out of agressive impulse (puts his baby in a microwave because he cant stand the screams) will after the impulse become aware of the fact that his doings were inmoral.
you will hardly see a guilty criminal who is aware of the fact that he`s guilty defend his crime as "moraly correct", he will eighter denie or ask for forgiveness.
did you read the bühler studies?
bühler was a behaviorist and psychologist who asked himself the same question.
he made a experiment in wich he gave children all over the world from different social classes and different faiths and ethnicities a test in wich some had the chance to cheat and others didn`t.
the result: if they cheated or not - didn`t depend on their backgrounds or upbringings but only on the chances they had to cheat.
crimes commited by individuals depend alot on the chances that individual has to commit his crime and (most importently) get away with it.
aswell as social factors such as poverty.
(October 2, 2012 at 4:21 pm)JohnDG Wrote: ahhh dont read names all the time(I respect your opinions though). But why do you believe your moral standard's are superior? Nobody has the right to claim superiority in anything. You would stand trial and take responsibility for your actions in their country just as well.
why is a secular republic`s set of moral values superior.
we dont see it as a fundermantaly unchangeable law to stone women to death for adultery............... do i have to explain the details
(October 2, 2012 at 4:21 pm)JohnDG Wrote: The last country to claim it's superiority in my knowledge was nazi gemerany.
BREAKING NEWS!!!! nazi germany has seized to exist 68 years ago!
