What people think about it has everything to do with it because definitions are what the people make of it. And the average definition of evil or wicked is to be morally wrong, and morals are subjective by definition.
The only way for there to be objective evil that you describe, you would have to make up a whole new word with a definition that doesn’t mention morals, but in that case it wouldn’t be “evil” anymore.
So you’re arguing that my definition of the word evil, as defined here:
And here:
And in that case, you want to define good and evil using the moral values of the society you live in, which I claim are not good nor evil, rather simply attempts to derive good and evil from the confusion that is life. Thus, I claim that your definition of good and evil is incorrect and only applies to a single society at a single time, and thus cannot be used in the context of this debate.
TL;DR I’m right and you’re wrong jk please don’t kill me. No but an actual summary is that our definitions of good and evil are different so we can’t really argue over it until we settle on an accurate definition.
exactly its point of vie-
Still based on the experiences and ideals of an omniscient being, which is baseless if nobody else happens to agree. They can only make a near-objective definition due to their omnipotence, but because that’s still based solely on that it doesn’t really make it objective
No that’s not really true because if a person was truly omniscient they would know exactly what good and evil are (which kinda defeats the purpose of the question).
But my point is that they can only come to that conclusion based on their experiences as an omnipotent being, rather than it being truly objective. And in any case, omnipotence does not equal objectiveness.
the quote died again
Just asking why are you basing it as if there was some omniscient being? I am just really curious on that sort of belief.
debate without insults go brr
im extremely surprised
Yes, exactly. This is what I originally wanted to discuss
Ey I’m back.
Omniscience does equal objectivity. A being that knows everything in all of existence… let’s analyze that.
A being.
That knows.
Everything.
Such a being cannot be subjective, simply because there is no doubt. It’s hard to wrap one’s mind around, but that’s how it is.
I don’t I’m just saying that if there was such a being then they would know what good and evil objectively are and how good and how evil each thing that exists is.
And again, good and evil have objective values that can be measured. It is simply impossible for us to measure it.
I’m just going to say that your entire point, as of late, has been based on a theoretical you know to never happen, whereas most other people are simply stating the reality of it. That because no being capable of understanding concepts of good and evil is purely objective, the concepts themselves cannot be either, especially when considering they are constructs created by such biased and unobjective creatures.
Your entire argument is that good and evil are subjective constructs that cannot be measured and are thus not objective.
It is my burden to prove that it is possible to objectively measure good and evil.
Thus, I proved it, showing that an omniscient being is capable of objectively measuring good and evil.
Thus, by corollary, good and evil are objective.
You cannot claim that they are pure constructs, as I have already shown that it is possible to measure good and evil, and thus they cannot be purely subjective creations.
Well can you give me an objective measure? From the omnipotent being you seem to be basing it off of, please.
You can’t prove something based entirely on theoreticals, which entirely depends upon what a non-existent omnipotent being would. You only can say it would do that because of your bias, not factual evidence.
You never give an example of this that isn’t based on your own biases because such an omnipotent being doesn’t exist to tell you.
Want me to prove it again?
We start by giving something a value. Anything a value.
We state the principle that if something exists, it has innate value.
Thus, by corollary, if something removes the existence of something else, it loses value.
A second corollary is if something prevents the removal of the existence of something else, it gains value.
Thus, we can show that everything has a certain given value within a set environment (i.e. the universe).
Thus, we can measure the given value of something like, say, a human.
If the value is positive, it is good. If it is negative, it is evil.
The only thing the omniscient being is needed for is setting the initial values.
Not really a proven law, so much as a theoretical principle. Again, that value is also determined by personal bias.
The universe didn’t do any of that, though, so, again, you’re relying wholly on theoreticals versus proven facts
ooh we getting some big brains in here
Not really, I try to keep my arguments simple and digestible (if you can dis/prove something in the simplest and fewest terms necessary then you’re golden)
i mean yea that’s how it works
Now if you state nothing has value, then this entire argument is pointless. Thus, in order for there to be an argument at all, the statement if something exists, it has innate value, must be true.
Not necessarily.
I can state the fact that 1 + 1 = 2, which isn’t at all false, but the universe never sat down and said 1 + 1= 2 either.
In the same way, I can say that 1 atom has a value of 1. This is just a reference point, something used for comparison. Thus, drawing from that, we might say that since a rock is 2 * 10^25 atoms, a rock has the value of 2 * 10^25. If an atom has a value of 1, then, if it were carbon-12, for example, which has a mass of 12 daltons, so an electron of carbon-12 is worth just about 0.000548579909/12, as an electron has a mass of 0.000548579909 daltons. So on and so forth, until we reach a larger scale.
Wait I can’t do math revised my calcs.
Then why is the defendant’s burden of proof not to show that the conditions which caused them to commit crime won’t resurge regardless of their sanity? Why wouldn’t someone who murdered another person out of an inexorable desire for revenge be pardoned if they can show that they could never possess the same feelings towards anyone else? Why do we give less harsh punishments to those who weren’t of sound mind instead of basing it on their likelihood of recidivism or the ability of our punishment to deter others in similar cases?
I have but I’ll repeat it. Adding any extra detail which could differentiate outcomes will allow you to increase the number of independent and distinct items in your list of possibilities and vice versa with removing those details. I’ve already demonstrated how this can be done. Let’s go over yet another example:
If the prisoner “doing bad” means committing crime then it isn’t an essential detail anyway but by adding it or removing it you can manipulate the number of negative or positive outcomes. We can add another detail; whether the prisoner goes on to commit felonies or misdemeanors or both. Even those can be divided further into more specific possibilities. Did the prisoner do something that they could be pardoned for or not? If the number of details which could differentiate possible futures is infinite then so is the number of possibilities you can make. It is true that there are only two possibilities: either the attempt will succeed or it will not succeed. It is also true that there is only one possibility, that the aforementioned tautology will be true. Is the possibility that one in two possibilities will occur one or two possibilities? It’s only a difference of phrasing
That isn’t what you did
I only brought up contemporary hunter gatherer societies to show how unwilling many of the native americans might’ve been to make all the changes necessary to improve themselves enough to compensate for not letting us use their land instead. Because of us taking their land, there are more people in the world who enjoy a high standard of living. Regardless, my point was only that the people who decry our expansion center their arguments on the lying, theft and coercion involved with the understanding that these will be seen as bad without needing to show a cost-benefit analysis of the consequences of those actions.