Culture exists in order to provide simple narratives about how the world works — or rather how we think it works. We are inherently lazy and can get easily distracted. This is why we like to keep things simple. Why bother with shades of gray when you can have black and white right? Dualities such as "good vs evil" exist due to this lazy oversimplification about how the world actually operates.
There are many good vs evil stories. God vs Satan, Jedi vs Sith, black vs white, left ring vs right wing, you name it. Nonetheless, It all depends on the given lens we choose to examine the subject. The more we benefit from our point of view the more the opposite view sucks. It works much like the concept of terrorism. If we are unloading the bombs on the enemy we are the heroes. If they are hitting back, they are the terrorists. Makes sense right?
One of the most fascinating parallels of good vs evil is the one dealing with governments vs private organizations. Historically, state and religion have evolved in parallel with the one reinforcing the other. This is evident until today in Muslim cultures. It was also noticeable in Europe as of recently with the Byzantine empire and later on with Catholicism. It is important to understand here that the entirety of human civilization has been nourished based on these simple narratives that ultimately affect every branch of our lives.
Due to this co-evolution people have come to believe that the government acts much like a God which protects from the private evil organizations. Although this belief is unfounded, it still persists today on every level in our culture. If a piece of research comes from the government, then we assume that there are no vested interests and that its findings are sound. If it comes from a private organization we believe that they just issued their own research in order to generate profit. The government is there to "regulate the markets". People rarely ask who regulates the regulators because it takes one logical step ahead. I guess this is also why most people suck at chess.
The truth is that everyone wants to generate profits and everyone has vested interests. Everywhere. God can be considered from some as good and for others evil. Luke Skywalker, shifted from good to evil and back to being good again. Things are never inherently good or evil. We all carry qualities that define specific situations that intrinsically can affect our morality. It all depends from our point of view and how we have come to judge the end result of the situation. We sum up the outcome for our emotional convenience, not that of objective judgment.
Those who insist on the existence of good vs evil maintain a mostly dogmatic stance towards life itself. They have accepted a specific narrative from their side of the group and they are very hard to persuade otherwise. Whatever the other side is supporting becomes negative and ultimately evil.
We all like to believe that our actions are just, aiming towards the betterment of the world. Thing is, every single dictator that ever walked on the face of the earth had the exact same belief. Nobody believes that they are inherently assholes. If we do find ourselves in such a position, we somehow manage to excuse ourselves by blaming everything else around us but not us. Fuck entropy right?
This peculiar duality might have helped us in our primitive past to evolve and function efficiently. Today, the narrative has become redundant and up to a point, dangerous. We like to believe that we are special and unique beings but choose to limit our individuality into a hasty cultural generalization. By degrading each other to entities of good vs evil, we consequently restrict our uniqueness. Sooner or later others will reflect those characteristics. Sure, they might not exist but our perceptions about them are very much real.
nah. Killing and raping babies is evil. Evil exist and it's not a question of preference.
Ask a Spartan if it's evil to kill a baby.
"so if it's fine by them, then it is!" What an insane way to think.
The point he is trying to make is that Spartans don't find it evil.
Therefore it cannot be universally evil if some people are doing it.
I know. So Hitler's SS were not doing evil either.
Obviously for many people they were evil. For others (e.g SS) were actions to make the planet a better place.
post-modernism at it's best.
In Canada the Inuits might find themselves in harsh winters and sometimes resort in eating their babies in order to survive. Logic dictates that they can always have more babies but if they die then their clan will cease to exist.
This is also followed in Aboriginal cultures of Australia. If the clan grows to a number that it becomes unsustainable for their territory, they will kill their babies to maintain numbers and avoid getting into war with nearby clans (endangering their whole group).
In China people used to kill the female children in order to have male. It was culturally embraced and considered ethical since many were doing it. Ethics are a matter of democracy and hence the perception of good and evil.
There is nothing inherently evil in regards to what these people do. They just happen to rationalize it differently because their environment has set different constituents.
For example only a demented person would rape a child. There is nothing inherently evil to that person since they are sick.
yes it is evil. Killing an innocent person is evil, raping is evil. Not only demented people rape, sometimes rape is a part of the culture and it is an evil and barbaric practice. Child sacrifice is an age old practice too.
If you don't accept that there is objective evil, there is no standing for law and civilization collapse on itself. There is no up or down or any kind of point of reference and this is how evil people can justify their actions on utilitarian bases or "rational" basis.
Evil or Good is always subjective. Evil for you, not for them.
Western civilization was built on different ideas than other cultures, therefore we value and discredit different things than other cultures.
If it would collapse if our preferences towards our values would change, I don't think so. But it would be a different world, for sure.
It is evil to us, not to them. For example Aboriginals consider us evil for throwing our parents into care centers for them to die. For us is Tuesday. We just happen to rationalize it differently. They would carry the elderly on their shoulders until their last breath.
I would suggest you read the book "The World Until Yesterday" from Jared Diamond (Anthropologist). He explains a lot about these cultural differences and how people consider each other evil or good depending on their perception.
Not really. If I don't accept it, then it means that it has a subjective value and it would have to be decided by the group from which I would chose to live with. Whether I believe is evil or good would remain irrelevant since I will chose to live with the people that will judge me. Society does not need to collapse. Ultimatums don't really cut it. Also, the fact that so many cultures have so many different views about good and evil demonstrates how subjective the concepts are.
Indeed they do. Nonetheless, this has nothing to do with our subject matter.
so all you can say is: "I prefer that people don't rape and kill innocent babies...but if they do it and if they believe it's fine by them...then it is."
That kind of thinking gives you no intellectual grounding to defend anything that has value in this world. And when evil come knocking at your door, you will no other choice than passively accept what the culture or the zeitgeist gives you.
Sad!
I cannot dictate morality to another group nor I can help someone that doesn't ask for my help. It is tough. I witnessed some harsh things in my life but you learn to develop a thick skin.
I understand this. Never claimed I do.
Nop, I will fight for my survival. Totally irrelevant from one another
Your atheism force you in this position because it is true, you cannot dictate ehat is roght or wrong...no individual can. Theism gives a ground for objective moral value...but that's out of the real of possibilities for you it seems.
The definitions of of good and evil are way to subjective to begin with, which makes the argument difficult unless those words have a set definition to base an argument around. If we assume good as a positive action or positive result, then only opinion of good that matters is the actor and the recipients of the results. I think that will always be subjective. Evil I think is a poor word to use as it indicates the nature of intent, which can very from person to person with the same action. Bad is a better word I think, but cause we can assume it to be a negative result. The negative can be determined through and examination if harm is done through the action. Then the next question that comes is the circumstances surrounding the harm to see if a wrong was committed. Since doing harm can be justified, like defending yourself against an attacker, or demolishing your old home to build a new one. But then what justifies harm. You could get as many answers to that question as there are people to ask, but I think it can be worked if we can agree each life belongs to the one that experiences it. This does only work though if we accept that we are conscious, self aware and can act under our own will. If you do accept that you area self aware, its not a large step to assume other humans are self aware. Since our self is the only will that can experience the life each of us individually go through, no one can own a life other then the one they experience. I think from there you can determine whether a harm is justified or not among honest and thinking people. Which will then move into whether or not a harm, and what degree of harm, should be done even though it may be justified, which would be based on the values of the individual, which moves back to a subjective nature.
everything is subjective. e.g I can fat shame someone and through tough love they will change their ways and improve their lives. for some fat shaming is bad. In this case is good.
Is it good? What about emotional harm, possible destruction of a persons belief in their own self worth? How about a distorted perspective of body image? Sure, they my exercise, eat better, loose weight, but what if their idea of self worth is not based around their weight now? Believing if someone else believes they are over weight, their value as a person is less? You would hope that some one would be emotionally strong enough to over come such cruelty, but what is being at a healthier weight better if their ideas of self worth is damaged in such a way? Then if they were abused in such a way to cause them to loose weight, could that not then continue the cycle of abuse with that person then fat shaming others? It is the potential when one uses harm to curb another's behavior. But it really comes down to my point. Your justification to do harm to another was to change their life to how you think it would be best. But who are you to make that decision for someone else? It is their life, not yours, and by doing harm to their life, not to protect your own, but to conform their life to your will, you are in effect taking a position of ownership over that other life. I believe no one should attempt to own another, so your justification is false and the potential unintentional consequences (hoping they're unintentional) could far exceed any benefit they might gain from eating better(possibly worse) and exercising. This doesn't seem like good to me. The only justification for the harm comes from a subjective opinion, but based on incorrect or insufficient reasoning. Which makes the subjective position wrong and the value of the action bad.
When I signed up for this site, this is the kind of content I was hoping for. Not image re-posts from FB or Reddit, but this. It's so good that I'm mad you don't have a bow to put on top so we can make the world tidy and move on to other things.
This world, man...I swear that the "what" and the "why" of it is much more boggling than the "how."
thank you man. I will keep delivering.
Great article. We surely have seen the witches come out, after this past election when they wanted the people to join in their hexes and hoaxes. The problem is people want to get rid of these hexes and hoaxes that have been put in or on them via spirit cooking and/or other diabolocal rituals. Theology is great and throwing ideas around all day can be fun. However, when a qodeshiym is literally witnessing dimensions collide and darkness scatter all arguments go out the door. When a person is being set free and the qodeshiym is delivering the person out of their misery and you can feel the serpents rub against your arms and body as they exit stage left. It gets real really quick. "See, I give you the authority to trample on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and none at all shall hurt you" יהושע
lovely :)
awesome article.. Must upvote
gracias
aka False Dichotomy. :)
yeap :)
A lot of people kind of know better but kind of don't. They are ready to accept his kind of less biased thought process but they feel angry and helpless and dis-empowered and so they get sucked back into that narrative, sometimes with a different name.
Good and bad are concepts that we create. I think that's great, we should create concepts of good or bad because that's kind of why we are here, to create our own purpose and parameters. But then I think it's in everyone's best interest to define "good" in a way that is all-inclusive, without an "other" and without the strong desire to have others conform to a certain idea about what is "good", as long as no one is killing babies and stuff. The first step is to realize we are being manipulated, so thanks for the reminder.
yeap. and mostly by own selfs
Thank you for your deep thoughts! No wonder it is said that covered with good intentions road to hell!
precisely
Very awesome article. Easy on the eyes too, nice formatting.
One of my best friends and I had a very long conversation about whether anything is really inherently evil or if the entire idea is subjective. We both ended up agreeing it is subjective. I am going to share this article with her!
Thanks for getting my gears turning. :)
glad you liked it. :)
Nicely said! People should think about perspectives a lot more, rather than protecting their half-trues. Thank you for your post!
my pleasure.
Great article; I remember reading 'The Lucifer Effect' by Dr Phillip Zimbardo and having this profound realisation about the idea of 'good' and 'evil'.
There is a small few who are inherently evil, but the most rampant and dangerous evil that happens is under the guise of good... and it seems that the only true moral action or way to tell whether we are good, is what we do when we recognise we've done something bad or wrong... because messing up, making mistakes is a given... what we do with them isn't.
What's that ol' phrasing....
'The only thing necessary for the triumphant of evil is for good men [and women] to stand by and do nothing.
I just can't seem to picture how something can magically manifest into evil. Everything is all about the human interpretation. If we were living on a planet with 7+ billion cannibals then eating other humans will be normal, not evil. its all about the perception of the democracy.
I suppose that would require us understanding what the basic function of morality is... my guess is, it's a mechanism for keeping social-order [duh moment]... but if you think evolutionarily; well social-order is a more effective strategy for survival compared to being combative with others [unless it's a survival situation which is why even good people can do 'bad' under desperation].
So if we assume that the idea of morality is to create social-order, the idea that eating other people would be 'right' just wouldn't add up.
Otherwise, if there is no reason to be moral, then there is no point having a morality in the first place?
If anyone interpretation of morality makes it moral then it's self-defeating?
I of course don't assume to know the answer to this on going philosophical dilemma but these are some of my pontifications on the subject
It SEEMS to me that certain moral perspectives are more effective and beneficial to social-order than others.
I see where you're coming from though,
I imagine the small percentage of people whom are purely evil are the psychopaths [and potentially sociopaths] but more so psychopaths who generally feel pleasure at the suffering of others....
But most of the evil in the world we deal with is 'good people' excusing their 'goodness' as a justification for doing 'bad' things.
Always a pleasure to contemplate these things and be challenged on it.
Actually it does. The reason cannibalism prevailed in some cultures was because people saw that it empowered them. In times where food was scarce (humans were mostly scavengers) eating fresh meat did give them more energy. I also mentioned Inuits in the example that eat their babies in case of a harsh winter.
If the planet was really hard to live then cannibalism would be perfectly moral. Morality is almost always bound to environmental constituents.
psychopathy might be a circular condition. those who have been abused or suffered a lot, simply turn off. (form of existential pathology)
Makes sense, I suppose in that regard morality evolves, but your point earlier would need an additional statement which is... are these 7 billion cannibals living in our environment or some environment of the past?
interesting point about cannibalism as well as environmental factors contributing to what is moral.
Really cool article - we don't have enough deep thinkers on this planet. Carpe diem.
I like more the term freethinker. Deep thinkers get headaches.
Ahh good point.
ironically enough, it's the government that implicitly facilitates private evil corporations to exist in the first place. just
bribelobby politicians to squash your competition through monopolies, onerous taxes and insurmountable regulatory burdens and you're all set to "get down with your evil corporate bad self".Indeed, once can see how one can easily shape-shift into the other
Great work! Upvoted and Resteemed and I'm going to follow if I'm not already.
great!
And this is why humans are dangerous lol
humans are always dangerous.
Yup
resteem and upvote for your post....
We're all shades of gray and there's far more than fifty of them and most of that have nothing to do with being kinky!
"Mr Gray will see you now"
lol
It all comes down to the basics.
Most people believe they would do good, when time came to choose.
Now add some funding issues, housing threats, relationship dangers... and SHAZAAM... you have the conundrum of the inner demons.
I also believe this. We all try to do good and in the way things get off schedule and we end up hurting those around us.
And Still You Have That Inner Beast Inside You Roars!!!
Sometime trouble come looking...
oh, i remember this one
Ah. The devil is in the detail. This kind of oversimplification of any complex process causes totally misguided, yet confident beliefs to form. Which is why when one is trying to analyse/model systems of extreme complexity (engineering physics, markets , human psychology, weather etc), one must make it a point to consider almost all factors in question and absolutely avoid reaching premature conclusions. IMO, for certain things, the depth of understanding is much more important than the speed.
"Lazy oversimplifications" , like you mentioned, are the biggest hurdles in one's efforts to stay informed and knowledgeable. There simply is no substitute for reading the literature (for any subject) and spending long hours to process/conceptualize the information.
Nice read!
Indeed, but..
can we ever know all factors in question?
I believe truth is always limited due to this human shortcoming. One cannot simply know or be aware of all the constituents of a given situation.
True, I had even a written a post that touches on this a bit.
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@josephd/are-there-3-different-worlds-that-are-fundamentally-different
For computer programmes, such a thing is called "exhaustive testing" which is of course an impossible thing, (we test the validity of our programme with all possible inputs) but what i meant was to get closer and closer our "best" , which itself is a moving goalpost (think of an asymptotic curve). We can get to arbitrary levels of precision, but at some point, the efforts to increase in accuracy far outweighs the improvement in accuracy, then we may stop. Approximations closer to 100% probability are taken to be certain for all intents and purposes.
.
Probabilities are all we have in physics too. For some reason, the word "probability" has a stigma associated with it among the lay people, especially when used in hard sciences.
They assume something is not "real" if it's not a 100% probability. Which is not a probability at all, but a truth, or a certainty.
But probabilities are really all that we have.
A good example of this is the state where all air molecules in your room may randomly move to one half of the room, leaving the other half empty, this is extremely dangerous, and may even kill you if the molecules don't spread across the entire room within seconds. There's no physical law preventing such a thing from happening. Just that it's probability is of the magnitude 10^{-23}, which is so low that it won't happen even in a time period of our universe's current age. So we don't worry about such things, even though it's possible in theory. The uncertainty in our knowledge is as close to zero as it gets.
Though I agree in most other cases, we cannot obtain near certain probabilities, however, 95% confidences limits are usually good enough for making decisions in most real world scenarios.
Unrelated: does steemit on phone (no app, just on browser) feel laggy as hell for everyone or is it just me? I know it's not my phone because everything else works fine.
Thanks!
Wonderful article. Really enjoyed it.
What concerns me more from this kind of approach is entropy — and specifically the second law of thermodynamics. If systems become evidently more and more complex how do we decipher things such as truth with accuracy?
yes. especially on android devices.
Glad you did, thanks!
Well, second law of thermodynamics says that the probability is exponentially large for the number of micro-states a given system can take to grow with time than it is to remain constant- or decrease.
Suppose we start with a bunch of air molecules in the center of a box, and observe what they do after some time. It is exceedingly unlikely that with time, they will stay occupying the same region, or get into a tighter bunch- in a smaller region. This simply will not happen because the number of ways in which the molecules may arrange themselves randomly throughout the box are way, way more than the number of ways in which an "exotic" configuration, like the one I described, can be attained.
Coming back to your point, yes systems do get increasingly complex due to entropy, but they also become much more well behaved than before - behaviour of a bunch of air molecules at the centre or corner of a box is extremely unpredictable (unstable), they may fluctuate in any random way , due to the high degree of freedom. They fluctuate to attain "stabler" configurations, configurations which prevent such massive fluctuations.
That's a great article. I recently learned that every rabbit hole you could fall down basically led to a burrow that was good vs evil. I started trying to write about a society without money since money was the root to all evil. Except the more i wrote the more it sounded like the Illuminati and a the New World Order so i have been re evaluating things trying to see all sides of every issue and realized it is what it is.
Yeap, we often need to get into other people's shoes to understand how things work around us. We all wished to be presidents and fix the world but I don't think any one of us would be that much different. There are 7+ billion people on earth, each with their own passions, shortcomings and special histories. One simply cannot address them all. This is also why politicians look so superficial. They have to be since overgeneralization is the only way to reach as many people as possible.
(Almost) everytime I read your blog, it's like reading my own thoughts - conveyed in a pleasant and fun to read way, too.
Your posts also spark up a lot of engagement, which is something very few here seem to be able to do!
I usually get hate mail for my posts. It is nice to see that you share my concerns/thoughts.
Not all engagement is good engagement though.
Very interesting post. What about right and wrong? Would you consider that also as a delusion?
Yes, exactly the same. What is right for some is wrong for others (and vice versa).
Don't you see the contradiction? By this statement you are postulating an universal truth that there is no such a thing as universal truth. You are denying X and appealing to X at the same time and same sense. Isn't that a self-reverential absurdity that clearly shows the necessary existence of absolut truth (always true everywhere for everyone)?
All I am saying is that for some people X is truth and for others it is not.
i dare you to find a universal truth that can be accepted at any time from 7.5+ billion people that live on this planet.
So you are saying absolut truth exists but we are not able to discover it? Maybe I got you "wrong"... ;)
Do you see why I have to come back and ask wether that is absolutely true or just an illusion (produced by non-rational chemical reactions in your brain)? That is still an universal statement of truth, isn't it? It applies to everyone anytime, "right"...? ;) It applies despite what 7.5+ billion people think:
no. there is no absolute truth.
Well, if you give 10 people LSD and they see flying dragons it doesn't make the true. Truth is at the eyes of the beholder.
Again. No such thing as absolute truths. None. Wrote an article about it in the past
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@kyriacos/there-are-no-absolute-truths
Dear Friend, I really can't help but to wonder that you're not perceiving the elephant in the room...
You are denying absolut truth with absolut certainty as though it were absolut true:
Your position self-destructs under it's own weight. To deny absolut truth with absolut certainty is absurd. That's what you do, look at the negations.
This statement that there is no absolute truth** is logically speaking either 1) (absolutely) true or 2) false.
If it's (absolutely) true that there is no absolut truth, this statement is false because there is something absolutely true. The denial of absolut truth leads to absurdity because one has to appeal to absolute truth in order to deny it.
If it's (absolutely) false that there is no absolut truth, this statement is simply false absolute truth exists.
There really is no way around. Your position brought to it's logical conclusion ends in the realm of absurdity. It's a self-reverential absurdity and collapses after an internal critique. It is like a building not able to bear it's own weight. Analogically speaking it's as absurd as giving a logical argument against the existence of logic.
I'm looking forward to your response.
To become authentic, to be a true individual, we require a thirst for freedom, freedom from the unwise, from psychological traumas, from self-pity, from self-preserving fearful ideas, from primitive instinctual behavior, and from dogmatic beliefs, ideals and values that have been taught to us throughout our entire lives. Forget about morality, become consciously aware and search for the evolution, or the Involution, of your inner wisdom. Great read. Thank you.
Couldn't agree more but it is easier said than done
It's a daily work. It's a daily work, it will be never done. ;)
Looks like what you are really adressing here is the false dichotomy of "good" and "evil" in airquotes. Not what is actually good or bad for human beings qua human beings. When read from that perspective, it makes much more sense.
I tried top use as simple language as possible because this is a recurring theme that puzzles many people. Almost everything around us is divided into false dichotomies even if the world is nothing but a shades of gray. That was my pain point. The good vs evil though is central to all the other false dichotomies.
Yeah I think I get where you're coming from. See I mostly agree with you here, I'm just always concerned when someone claims absolutely that there are no absolutes, if you get my point of view. As in, "there is no right and wrong" or "there is no black and white". We always have to mind the context, of course, but human needs remain human needs. Truth remains truth, even when we are incorrect. Reality remains real, no matter our point of view or grasp of it. Etc.
Day and night, good and evil. That is all
Interesting post. Thanks for sharing.
In my opinion, the question of morality and 'Good and Evil' can be split into stages. First, we might ask, 'is there any kind of objective and omnipresent 'truth' that can dictate what is good and what is evil?' For me, that question is not possible to answer under the circumstances of our existence as finite (in time and space) beings. We can not know, with some kind of 'empirical certainty' many answers to 'big' questions. We are left with the necesity to make assumptions to further our arguments and answer these questions. I'm not arguing that we can not theorize, entertain and even believe that we know these answers, we are free to do as we please. But I do think that some humility is 'healthy' and probably even beneficial, we can just say, 'I don't know...but I still like to talk and ponder about it'. In the words of Socrates, somebody that loved to argue about everything "The only thing I know, is that I know nothing."
So... for us to continue (if we want) we have to make a necessary assumption. Or, 'Yes, there is an objective and omnipresent truth that dictates what is good and what is evil.' or, 'No, there is no such truth out there.' Under this predicament, just my opinion, if we assume 'Yes there is' the argument is closed to any further investigation and we can continue with many statements that would be considered 'true' following this assumption. I would say that it is easy and dare I say, lazy, to assume that. So let's assume the later, let's say 'No there isn't', then we have some room for further questions. Like, where does the idea of morality come from? The only answer to that would be that we made it up. (If we don't answer that, then we are back to stage one. Round and round in circles.)
So... Why and how did we make up this system of morality? For me, a rational argument would be, that it is beneficial for all members of any group of beings to agree, through consensus, on a specific set of rules to govern their lives. If that is true, then I think that it's safe to argue that we are talking about fluid systems of morality that are subjected to change and evolution that mirrors the changes and evolution of the consensus of a given group.
Somebody mentioned the Spartans, which I think is a good example to illustrate this subjectivity. The Spartan where a group of human beings that, through consensus and under the particular circumstances that existed at the time, decided that every member, for the benefit of the whole group, has to be a strong warrior. Thus any child born with a perceived defect must be killed for the benefit of the group because he or she would not be able to survive on its own and be a strong warrior that was valuable for them. I'm not arguing that it's a 'nice' thing to do, under our modern day consensus we have agreed on different sets of rules that would render such action 'barbaric' to say the least. But following the assumption that there is no ultimate 'truth' to dictate morality we have to accept that they are free to choose the rules that will govern their lives. And just the fact that the Spartan way of life does not exist anymore, proves that these systems of morality can and do change with time.
This is just my opinion again, but I feel more honest when I don't assume that I can answer the first stage of this question. And I decide that I feel more comfortable with myself to continue thinking about the question by assuming that consensus dictates the morality of a given group. And if that is the case then it is interesting to think about the forces that dictate the consensus of a group. I won't go into that now. I just want to leave it to that and just ask the question to the reader, 'what are the forces that dictate consensus in our modern societies and how will the 'blockchain' change the dynamics of those forces which are at play to reach consensus?'
I think you are an intelligent person because of the deep stuff you are bringing up.
Here is what others and myself have been pointing out to you.
If "there are no absolute truths", an assertion you take to be true, then it must be false that "there are no absolute truths". Therefore, since it is false that "there are no absolute truths", then there must exists at least one absolute truth. This contradicts your thesis that there exists no absolute truths, and goes a step further, it PROVES that there exists at least one absolute truth. Others in the commentaries have said this to you, to no effect. You're intelligent, I can't understand why you can't see this.
Your issue with absolute good and absolute evil is also surprising. Is it evil to hold that there exist absolute truths? That's been the whole point of your article. This is your thesis as I've read it:
*It is absolutely evil to hold that any absolute truths exist"
(so, you argue, we should not hold them; that's what you're trying to convince us of).
Of course, that contradicts your position, because this is an absolute evil: to hold an absolute truth as such. Do you see it? From your premises logically flows an absolute evil. Similarly we can rewrite the statement in terms of an absolute good:
*It is absolutely good to hold that no absolute truths exists"
(and because it is good to hold that, we should reject the existence of absolute truths as something absolutely good to do).
So your assertions naturally lead to contradiction: some absolute truths and falsehoods exist, and some absolute goods and evils exist.
I think you have to let go of your position of absolute relativism. The metaphysical system that I'm developing in my steemit blog (just two articles so far) show how the existence of relative, contingent realities imply the necessarily preexisting unities, that are absolute. I invite you to check them out. Cheers.
Nop. That is a false dichotomy. If there are no absolute truths even the premise of my statement can be taken with a grain if salt.
I'm sorry. I see no dichotomy. Which dichotomy?
You then write, "If there are no absolute truths even the premise of my statement can be taken with a grain if salt". That's my position! Now it looks like you're trying to support me in saying the there must exist some absolute truth so that your premise not be taken "with a grain of salt", but seriously. So I don't understand you.
You should not want your premise to be taken with a grain of salt as that undermines all that follows...
I think your premises are "There is no absolute truth", and almost repetitively, "There is no absolute falsehood". I say repetitively because each statement implies the other. For example, if there is no absolute falsehood, then it is absolutely true that there exists no absolute falsehood. So these two premises imply each other and can be almost considered repetitive.
The the other premise is "All absolute goods and absolute evils are illusory", because you hold to an absolute moral relativism. Ontologically, you are also an absolute relativist ("There exist no absolutes"). Have I misunderstood you?
Clarify if you wish. Or let it pass. That might be better.
not really. I just accept my human fallibility and inability to access all available information in order to reach truth.
I never said, there is no absolute truth, absolutely. I wouldn't know so everybody else
More or less you could say that I accept that nothing, ever can be known with absolute certainty
It seems to me that "I can know nothing with absolute certainty" is an absolute truth, that I accept. Maybe you don't use the term "absolute" as I expect.
It's hard for me to read you young people. I'm only a little over 50, but I feel that with you and many others on steemit, I'm talking past you. I am guessing that you must be a young man of less than 30. Maybe you're college age and into technology. You come from a background, with many or all in your generation, that does not immediately square with mine. No, I don't pretend to be psychic, and I might be wrong with these guesses. I misinterpreted things you said as arrogant, and I put a firm hand to you. I shall have to be more patient. This is a dangerous medium in this sense: if I had your body language by which to interpret your meaning, I probably would have gotten a different sense of you.
It's irrelevant if good and evil are social constructs or not. What is relevant is that these constructs are vital for civilization and without them civilization cannot exist. Relativism leads to a lot of people doing a lot of harmful things, especially among people with great power, as we see today (pizzagate, satanism, i.e.). Absolute morality are very important and evolutionary beneficial constructs.
Again. Unfounded claim.
Hitler was an absolutist. Same applies to every major leader that ever lived. They butchered millions.
I am not saying that relativists don't commit crimes but , come on. Be a bit intellectually honest here.