Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The media here in the UK adopt this view that people are evil (as opposed to their actions being evil in the sense of causing deliberate, calculated harm) and it bugs me...
The recent case of two young brothers (aged 10 and 11) being charged with attempted murder of two other children, is a case in point:
I think Palzang's view that we will all have done nasty things in previous lives, we will all do them in future lives (I paraphrase), is very important in understanding this.
KoB: I can understand where you're coming from. I would have held the same view at one point. I am interested to see where you stand on the childrens' issue if you're still reading this thread...
You're twisting things around here KoB. I'm saying a person is capable of both actions, nobody is only one thing or the other. You were the one who said people are evil. I'm the one saying that people commit evil - and good - acts. so essentially, here, you're agreeing with me..... And don't start telling me what kind of thinking i'm thinking....... remember your manners, young man. You're young enough to be my youngest child......
I'll clarify. I think most people whom I'd consider especially evil (like Mao, Stalin, etc.) were of course capable of doing good things on occasion. They may well have treated some people well, but I consider someone evil when the majority of their actions are...well evil.
Actually, I have. I lived next door to a Jewish lady (Her name was Helga Zeinweiss, so she is far from nameless) who survived the holocaust, and she is of the same opinion as I.
She is certainly more forgiving than I could ever be. Fortunately, Germany has been atoning for its sins since the end of World War II by being open with its history. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for most of the victims of Communism in the USSR, China, and Southeast Asia. Those were the nameless victims I was mostly referring to.
I'd rather pay a ransom any day than have the murder of somebody on my hands. I don't give twoo hoots about money. But I do give more thsn a few for a human being.
And what would you tell the captain who was rescued by the Navy? Oh sorry, we can easily kill your captors, but we need to scrounge up enough money to pay them, and then hopefully they'll be nice enough to let you go. When you engage in kidnapping and ransom, forgive me if I don't shed any tears when you get riddled with holes.
To me, evil is a word that certain individuals or groups use to describe certain things that they don't like, things that harm, repulse, scare or shock them. I know, for example, that there are plenty of things I'd consider evil, e.g., child abuse, Dick Cheney, the Final Solution, Yo Gabba Gabba, etc. The problem is, the things that are labeled by certain individuals or groups as evil are often seen to be good or, at the very least, necessary by others.
The way I see it, outside of what various religious doctrines claim, there doesn't seem to be a purely objective basis for judging what's evil; although, there does appear to be a general consensus of what constitutes evil that's influenced, at least in some way, by a variety of cultural, historical, political, religious and social circumstances of the time. I guess that makes me a moral relativist of sorts, and I'd like to point out a couple of things that I'd like you to think about.
The first thing I'd like you to think about is the fact you seem to deny the legitimacy of the foundation for Judeo-Christian morality, the word of God, while at the same time accepting their absolutist view of morality. One question that's raised is, What's the basis for such absolutist views? What makes one's views of right and wrong more valid than, say, bin Laden's, the Dalai Lama's, Hitler's, the Pope's, Somali pirates', Stalin's, etc.? Religious doctrines? General consensus? (Personally, since religious doctrines often conflict and consensus often changes, it's hard for me to accept either as the basis for absolutist views.)
Then there's the question of circumstance and motive. You state that murder is not a good thing, that it's bad. You also state that Hitler is bad for killing millions of people. Yet you also seem to approve of the Navy SEALs' use of deadly force to free the American captain being held hostage. To me, there's an apparent contradiction here, i.e., the action of killing being inherently bad and yet its 'badness' being contingent upon things like circumstance and motive.
In other words, if killing is inherently a bad thing to do, then any form of killing is bad (which, coincidentally, is the Theravadin view since the act of killing not only deprives another being of life, but is always accompanied by unwholesome mental states as well). But here we have a case where the killing of 3 people to rescue 1 is considered good. That being the case, the question becomes, What's the objective criteria for determining whether killing is good or bad if there's a distinction?
If, for the sake of argument, one were to accept that the motivation of the Navy SEALs to save the life of the American hostage is what made their act of killing good opposed to bad, then the same argument could be applied to anyone who does a "bad" action out of a similar motivation. One could argue, for example, that the Somalian fishermen-turned-pirates' actions were justified — considering that after the Somalian government collapsed in 1991 foreign ships began dumping nuclear waste and heavy metals off of Somalia's coast, which sickened and killed hundreds of people, not to mention the rampant overfishing of their coastal waters — because they're trying to survive and protect themselves from foreign exploitation.
The point isn't that the Somalian pirates are good, but that the argument of who's good and bad isn't always as clearly defined when viewed from both sides. I mean, isn't the fact that toxic waste is being dumped off of Somalia's coast, which has washed on shore and killed hundreds of people, bad? Isn't the fact that nothing's been done about it bad? Isn't the fact that there's illegal overfishing off of Somalia's coast, thereby depriving local fishermen and their families food, bad? If so, why are the Somalian fishermen bad for hijacking foreign ships for ransom? Because stealing is bad? If so, is holding goods or hostages for ransom more morally reprehensible than taking a human life?
For me, it's easy to identify with one side and say, This side is the right side. (At first I was happy that the Navy was confronting the pirates.) But it's a little bit harder for me to take no side at all and then say, This side is right and that side is wrong. (After I learned more about the plight of Somalia and its people, I wasn't so happy.) All sides start to look a little right and wrong to me. That's why I've discovered that I'm more of a moral relativist; even though I do think that the Buddhist doctrine of karma makes an excellent guideline for judging what's skillful and unskillful. I can't say that it's absolute, but I've found it more compatible with the grey areas.
You don't have to shed any tears for the 3 Somalians who were killed by US snipers, but it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge their circumstances too. If the snipers aren't all bad for doing their job and shooting 3 people in order to save 1, then how can the Somalians be all bad for trying to survive and protect themselves from foreign exploitation? That doesn't mean they're "good," or that what they're doing is any more acceptable from a moral standpoint, but I do think it shows that moral issues are rarely black or white.
Jason
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited April 2009
Wow.
Just wow.
Eloquently and logically put.
Great post.
With your permission, I'm gonna keep it.
The way I see it, outside of what various religious doctrines claim, there doesn't seem to be a purely objective basis for judging what's evil; although, there does appear to be a general consensus of what constitutes evil that's influenced, at least in some way, by a variety of cultural, historical, political, religious and social circumstances of the time. I guess that makes me a moral relativist of sorts, and I'd like to point out a couple of things that I'd like you to think about.
So what are we left with then? Moral relativity? Isn't the notion that there are no absolutes an absolute notion in itself? Sure people have different ideas on what is evil, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is such a thing as evil.
The first thing I'd like you to think about is the fact you seem to deny the legitimacy of the foundation for Judeo-Christian morality, the word of God, while at the same time accepting their absolutist view of morality. One question that's raised is, What's the basis for such absolutist views? What makes one's views of right and wrong more valid than, say, bin Laden's, the Dalai Lama's, Hitler's, the Pope's, Somali pirates', Stalin's, etc.? Religious doctrines? General consensus? (Personally, since religious doctrines often conflict and consensus often changes, it's hard for me to accept either as the basis for absolutist views.)
I'm not Jewish or Christian. I have no religion. But I try to live my life in accordance with Judeo-Christian values. I believe they provide the best foundation for a decent civilization.
Then there's the question of circumstance and motive. You state that murder is not a good thing, that it's bad. You also state that Hitler is bad for killing millions of people. Yet you also seem to approve of the Navy SEALs' use of deadly force to free the American captain being held hostage. To me, there's an apparent contradiction here, i.e., the action of killing being inherently bad and yet its badness being contingent upon things like circumstance and motive.
I believe there is such a thing as moral killing. Self-defense or to take the life of someone who is holding people hostage. Those are examples of legitimate and moral killing.
In other words, if killing is inherently a bad thing to do, then any form of killing is bad (which, coincidentally, is the Theravadin view since the act of killing not only deprives another being of life, but is always accompanied by unwholesome mental states as well). But here we have a case where the killing of 3 people to rescue 1 is considered good. That being the case, the question becomes, What's the objective criteria for determining whether killing is good or bad if there's a distinction?
Again, I differentiate between murder and moral killing. The truth is that an innocent man is alive and well today and 3 thieves/kidnappers are dead. I consider that a good thing.
If so, why are the Somalian fishermen bad for hijacking foreign ships for ransom? Because stealing is bad? If so, is holding goods or hostages for ransom more morally reprehensible than taking a human life?
Because these pirates aren't merely stealing, they are taking away the rights of innocent people. Taking their lives is done to save innocent lives.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
So what are we left with then? Moral relativity? Isn't the notion that there are no absolutes an absolute notion in itself? Sure people have different ideas on what is evil, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is such a thing as evil.
Similarly, it doesn't negate that there is such a thing as Good, and that all are capable of both.....to varying degrees.
What are we left with?
Ever heard of the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path?
I'm not Jewish or Christian. I have no religion. But I try to live my life in accordance with Judeo-Christian values. I believe they provide the best foundation for a decent civilization.
No you don't. if you did, you'd abide by the laws in both cases that 'thou shalt not kill' and that murder is punishable by law.
You're picking and choosing the bits that suit you....
I believe there is such a thing as moral killing. Self-defense or to take the life of someone who is holding people hostage. Those are examples of legitimate and moral killing.
Self -defence is one thing. Killing is quite another.
Given that this is a Buddhist forum, show me anywhere where the Buddha states that Moral killing is skilful and allowable.....
Again, I differentiate between murder and moral killing. The truth is that an innocent man is alive and well today and 3 thieves/kidnappers are dead. I consider that a good thing.
Given Elohim's graphic detailing of why these somalian 'pirates' are propelled to act as they do,. what do you consider the actions of those who dump toxic waste to be? And what of those who over-fish depriving them of food? Do thery not deserve to be punished? They are indirectly or otherwise, responsible for death and possible starvation....
How, for example, does a mugger who robs you of your life savings and render you incapable of working by paralysing you, different to the greedy banker who walks off with your savings and pension, and creates redundancies?
Because these pirates aren't merely stealing, they are taking away the rights of innocent people. Taking their lives is done to save innocent lives.
And how would you give them their rights back? Why do you callously assume that simply because you judge them to be 'evil' and 'wrong', this is also adequate reason to deprive them of food, livelihoods and health?
Aren't these basic rights, according to Judeo-Christian values?
........................... Sure people have different ideas on what is evil, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is such a thing as evil. ................
This is the heart of your argument, isn't it, KoB? You start from an opinion or belief that there is an 'absolute' which you categorise as "evil". Do you understand that this is a position with which we can take issue?
You use selective parts of Jusdeo-Christian ethical texts plus a bit of Enlightenment philosophy and posit an 'evil' which is somehow the opposite of those values. From there, you fail to take the next step which is to notice that your definition of 'evil' is both geographically local, historically recent and culturally contextualised.
I can quite understand the attraction of such an absolutist view but it pretends to relieving you of individual and communal responsibility by abdicating ethical decisions to an extenal code. In fact, of course, it fails when push comes to shove.
From having read you here over many months, I am convinced that you are better than this. There are no easy answers, nor any absolute moral 'laws', only guidelines which help us, from day to day, in our relations with each other and the world at large. Each of us is 'condemned to freedom' and to its consequences.
This is the heart of your argument, isn't it, KoB? You start from an opinion or belief that there is an 'absolute' which you categorise as "evil". Do you understand that this is a position with which we can take issue?
You use selective parts of Jusdeo-Christian ethical texts plus a bit of Enlightenment philosophy and posit an 'evil' which is somehow the opposite of those values. From there, you fail to take the next step which is to notice that your definition of 'evil' is both geographically local, historically recent and culturally contextualised.
I can quite understand the attraction of such an absolutist view but it pretends to relieving you of individual and communal responsibility by abdicating ethical decisions to an extenal code. In fact, of course, it fails when push comes to shove.
From having read you here over many months, I am convinced that you are better than this. There are no easy answers, nor any absolute moral 'laws', only guidelines which help us, from day to day, in our relations with each other and the world at large. Each of us is 'condemned to freedom' and to its consequences.
What must we slay to live in happiness?
What must we slay if we would weep no more? Is there any single thing of which,
You'd approve the killing, Gotama?
By slaying wrath you'll live in happiness
Slaying wrath, you'll no more need to weep.
Kill the poisoned root of anger, Brahman,
Which with sweetness leads to fevered rage.
Killing this the Noble Ones commend:
Slaying this, you'll no more need to weep.
This is the heart of your argument, isn't it, KoB? You start from an opinion or belief that there is an 'absolute' which you categorise as "evil". Do you understand that this is a position with which we can take issue?
You use selective parts of Jusdeo-Christian ethical texts plus a bit of Enlightenment philosophy and posit an 'evil' which is somehow the opposite of those values. From there, you fail to take the next step which is to notice that your definition of 'evil' is both geographically local, historically recent and culturally contextualised.
I can quite understand the attraction of such an absolutist view but it pretends to relieving you of individual and communal responsibility by abdicating ethical decisions to an extenal code. In fact, of course, it fails when push comes to shove.
From having read you here over many months, I am convinced that you are better than this. There are no easy answers, nor any absolute moral 'laws', only guidelines which help us, from day to day, in our relations with each other and the world at large. Each of us is 'condemned to freedom' and to its consequences.
Yes, another beautifully expressed post. Hear, hear!
Comments
The recent case of two young brothers (aged 10 and 11) being charged with attempted murder of two other children, is a case in point:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Young_brothers_charged_with_boys_attempted_murder&in_article_id=613179&in_page_id=34
Not even teenagers and already 'marked' for life.
I think Palzang's view that we will all have done nasty things in previous lives, we will all do them in future lives (I paraphrase), is very important in understanding this.
KoB: I can understand where you're coming from. I would have held the same view at one point. I am interested to see where you stand on the childrens' issue if you're still reading this thread...
I'll clarify. I think most people whom I'd consider especially evil (like Mao, Stalin, etc.) were of course capable of doing good things on occasion. They may well have treated some people well, but I consider someone evil when the majority of their actions are...well evil.
She is certainly more forgiving than I could ever be. Fortunately, Germany has been atoning for its sins since the end of World War II by being open with its history. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for most of the victims of Communism in the USSR, China, and Southeast Asia. Those were the nameless victims I was mostly referring to.
And what would you tell the captain who was rescued by the Navy? Oh sorry, we can easily kill your captors, but we need to scrounge up enough money to pay them, and then hopefully they'll be nice enough to let you go. When you engage in kidnapping and ransom, forgive me if I don't shed any tears when you get riddled with holes.
To me, evil is a word that certain individuals or groups use to describe certain things that they don't like, things that harm, repulse, scare or shock them. I know, for example, that there are plenty of things I'd consider evil, e.g., child abuse, Dick Cheney, the Final Solution, Yo Gabba Gabba, etc. The problem is, the things that are labeled by certain individuals or groups as evil are often seen to be good or, at the very least, necessary by others.
The way I see it, outside of what various religious doctrines claim, there doesn't seem to be a purely objective basis for judging what's evil; although, there does appear to be a general consensus of what constitutes evil that's influenced, at least in some way, by a variety of cultural, historical, political, religious and social circumstances of the time. I guess that makes me a moral relativist of sorts, and I'd like to point out a couple of things that I'd like you to think about.
The first thing I'd like you to think about is the fact you seem to deny the legitimacy of the foundation for Judeo-Christian morality, the word of God, while at the same time accepting their absolutist view of morality. One question that's raised is, What's the basis for such absolutist views? What makes one's views of right and wrong more valid than, say, bin Laden's, the Dalai Lama's, Hitler's, the Pope's, Somali pirates', Stalin's, etc.? Religious doctrines? General consensus? (Personally, since religious doctrines often conflict and consensus often changes, it's hard for me to accept either as the basis for absolutist views.)
Then there's the question of circumstance and motive. You state that murder is not a good thing, that it's bad. You also state that Hitler is bad for killing millions of people. Yet you also seem to approve of the Navy SEALs' use of deadly force to free the American captain being held hostage. To me, there's an apparent contradiction here, i.e., the action of killing being inherently bad and yet its 'badness' being contingent upon things like circumstance and motive.
In other words, if killing is inherently a bad thing to do, then any form of killing is bad (which, coincidentally, is the Theravadin view since the act of killing not only deprives another being of life, but is always accompanied by unwholesome mental states as well). But here we have a case where the killing of 3 people to rescue 1 is considered good. That being the case, the question becomes, What's the objective criteria for determining whether killing is good or bad if there's a distinction?
If, for the sake of argument, one were to accept that the motivation of the Navy SEALs to save the life of the American hostage is what made their act of killing good opposed to bad, then the same argument could be applied to anyone who does a "bad" action out of a similar motivation. One could argue, for example, that the Somalian fishermen-turned-pirates' actions were justified — considering that after the Somalian government collapsed in 1991 foreign ships began dumping nuclear waste and heavy metals off of Somalia's coast, which sickened and killed hundreds of people, not to mention the rampant overfishing of their coastal waters — because they're trying to survive and protect themselves from foreign exploitation.
The point isn't that the Somalian pirates are good, but that the argument of who's good and bad isn't always as clearly defined when viewed from both sides. I mean, isn't the fact that toxic waste is being dumped off of Somalia's coast, which has washed on shore and killed hundreds of people, bad? Isn't the fact that nothing's been done about it bad? Isn't the fact that there's illegal overfishing off of Somalia's coast, thereby depriving local fishermen and their families food, bad? If so, why are the Somalian fishermen bad for hijacking foreign ships for ransom? Because stealing is bad? If so, is holding goods or hostages for ransom more morally reprehensible than taking a human life?
For me, it's easy to identify with one side and say, This side is the right side. (At first I was happy that the Navy was confronting the pirates.) But it's a little bit harder for me to take no side at all and then say, This side is right and that side is wrong. (After I learned more about the plight of Somalia and its people, I wasn't so happy.) All sides start to look a little right and wrong to me. That's why I've discovered that I'm more of a moral relativist; even though I do think that the Buddhist doctrine of karma makes an excellent guideline for judging what's skillful and unskillful. I can't say that it's absolute, but I've found it more compatible with the grey areas.
You don't have to shed any tears for the 3 Somalians who were killed by US snipers, but it wouldn't hurt to acknowledge their circumstances too. If the snipers aren't all bad for doing their job and shooting 3 people in order to save 1, then how can the Somalians be all bad for trying to survive and protect themselves from foreign exploitation? That doesn't mean they're "good," or that what they're doing is any more acceptable from a moral standpoint, but I do think it shows that moral issues are rarely black or white.
Jason
Just wow.
Eloquently and logically put.
Great post.
With your permission, I'm gonna keep it.
Wow.
I mean, holy crap, Jason!
I'd sticky this thread just for that post alone.
It's probably one of the best things I've ever read.
Jason, you continue to shock and educate me.
That post was just f*&^ing amazing.
Thank you.
So what are we left with then? Moral relativity? Isn't the notion that there are no absolutes an absolute notion in itself? Sure people have different ideas on what is evil, but that doesn't negate the fact that there is such a thing as evil.
I'm not Jewish or Christian. I have no religion. But I try to live my life in accordance with Judeo-Christian values. I believe they provide the best foundation for a decent civilization.
I believe there is such a thing as moral killing. Self-defense or to take the life of someone who is holding people hostage. Those are examples of legitimate and moral killing.
Again, I differentiate between murder and moral killing. The truth is that an innocent man is alive and well today and 3 thieves/kidnappers are dead. I consider that a good thing.
Because these pirates aren't merely stealing, they are taking away the rights of innocent people. Taking their lives is done to save innocent lives.
What are we left with?
Ever heard of the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path?
No you don't. if you did, you'd abide by the laws in both cases that 'thou shalt not kill' and that murder is punishable by law.
You're picking and choosing the bits that suit you....
Self -defence is one thing. Killing is quite another.
Given that this is a Buddhist forum, show me anywhere where the Buddha states that Moral killing is skilful and allowable.....
Given Elohim's graphic detailing of why these somalian 'pirates' are propelled to act as they do,. what do you consider the actions of those who dump toxic waste to be? And what of those who over-fish depriving them of food? Do thery not deserve to be punished? They are indirectly or otherwise, responsible for death and possible starvation....
How, for example, does a mugger who robs you of your life savings and render you incapable of working by paralysing you, different to the greedy banker who walks off with your savings and pension, and creates redundancies?
And how would you give them their rights back? Why do you callously assume that simply because you judge them to be 'evil' and 'wrong', this is also adequate reason to deprive them of food, livelihoods and health?
Aren't these basic rights, according to Judeo-Christian values?
This is the heart of your argument, isn't it, KoB? You start from an opinion or belief that there is an 'absolute' which you categorise as "evil". Do you understand that this is a position with which we can take issue?
You use selective parts of Jusdeo-Christian ethical texts plus a bit of Enlightenment philosophy and posit an 'evil' which is somehow the opposite of those values. From there, you fail to take the next step which is to notice that your definition of 'evil' is both geographically local, historically recent and culturally contextualised.
I can quite understand the attraction of such an absolutist view but it pretends to relieving you of individual and communal responsibility by abdicating ethical decisions to an extenal code. In fact, of course, it fails when push comes to shove.
From having read you here over many months, I am convinced that you are better than this. There are no easy answers, nor any absolute moral 'laws', only guidelines which help us, from day to day, in our relations with each other and the world at large. Each of us is 'condemned to freedom' and to its consequences.
Well said, Simon.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn07/sn07.001.wlsh.html
Namaste