Debate Civilization and Evil: A Debate

Civilization and Evil

So a serial child rapist/murderers actions are not 'evil'?

 

It is consensusly believed as evil. But would the murderer or the rapist always think it is evil? 'evil' and 'good' are established by human beliefs, and those beliefs are almost always different. While the majority of our current population would look upon that with disdain, imagine a barbarian colony that, say, worships a sacrificial and perhaps violent/sadistic deity. They would think those actions as 'tradition', not as 'evil', though they may not necessarily be 'good'.

 

And this is why I hate the politically correct "oh its not wrong its just different" standpoint: of course actions like serial child rape/murder are evil and wrong. Nobody benefits from it (save for some sick twisted pleasure for the perpetrator), people are extremely harmed (child is first raped, THEN murdered and THEN the family and friends have to deal with the grief).

It's essentially universal that good tends to be honourable, full of freedom and brings as much good as possible. Just because some nutbars think they're good for eating the flesh off little Suzie's face after ****ing it doesn't mean they are!

Edit: And as far as your question about that barbarian culture goes, they're an inferior culture as far as I'm concerned.

 

Ah, but in their view, it is 'good', and thus you will never have a true 'good' or 'evil'. What stated benefits equal 'good', and what established that 'harm' was evil? The society's opinion - something that one cannot really truly trust, but follow because it is the belief of the majority.

Your view on barbarian society as an inferior one would also put you at the biased part of this scale, and thus you really can't make a true argument in this. Everybody is actually biased on the scale of good and evil, and since nobody can make a true decision, there is no good and evil. Thus, the concepts, though in your minds as common sense, aren't really prevalent truths.

Yes, you, and 99% of the world may think that mutilation and such are bad, but that IS a biased opinion spawned by common sense and logic. A true neutrality would look upon such a thing the same way he would look at a heroic act - with indifference. Of course, nobody actually does that, so again, 'good' and 'evil' aren't exact truths.

 

Aside from the fact that nearly every society to come about punished murder, theft, etc?

Oh wow, common sense and logic are responsible? I guess I should ig- wait. That sounds pretty good to me!

I should hope nobody thinks that someone who, say, murders a dozen babies is equal to someone who, say, gives his life to save a dozen babies.

Edit: In the above case, the neutral person would either try to look at it through logic or without logic completely. With logic he would realise that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, and hence it would be good. Without logic, he would be an idiot so his opinion wouldn't matter anyway.

 

Might I also say that common sense and logic are also chiseled by the beliefs of society. Your beliefs are influenced by the belief of the society, thus most people would obviously be able to argue for good or evil. But, I'll state again, it is never absolute.

Neutrality without logic would be what one refers to as 'God.' If God could see good and evil, wouldn't he have slain evil? After all, he really has no obligation to keep balance - He can work to create a utopia. But he lets evil exist, and though condemned, evil is still there. He more or less ignored the acknowledgement of Lucifer, so do you call him 'stupid'?

 

Not if theres either a higher purpose to its existence or he can't, obviously.

No, given that I believe that evil is necessary in order for people to grow up. If you never experienced any strife you wouldn't get very mature at all.

Edit: and, I don't know if I'm interpreting you right, but it seems that you're proposing that logic changes with a society... no. no it doesnt.

 

Society can change an environment, and enough of an environmental change can change the logical thought of its residents. This is why a farmer does not think the same way a man living in metropolitan area does. The things they do, and the experiences that they have mold their logical thoughts to an extent.

And, if God made a utopia where there was evil, why would maturity be needed? If one can just live in luxury all day, there would be no need for maturity. An argument that I DO see for the existance of Evil is, however, progress. Not in the human mind - very rarely, at that, but in other areas, typically technology. Many of our current-day technologies are produced in wartime, after all.

 

Nnnnnnnnnno, logic does not change...

You're confusing ultimate pure logic with experience based decision making. 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4 whether you like it or not.

The very fact that God created anything implies that something about him needs fulfilling and he therefore is not perfect.

Therefore, as I earlier said in a post, since we are like the "probes" of God, we are "transmitting" the lessons to him.

Animals fight all the time. That doesn't make them evil. Technology is not evil;its application however can be.

 

Logic changes when the subjects that it delves into change. Would 2 + 2 still equal four if, say, the definition of 2 was changed to the representation of three objects, and the definition of 4 wasn't changed at all? Numbers never were constant things. The number system, if you recall, is another thing created by society, and thus isn't always constant, though it isn't about to change any time soon. However, it CAN change, and if it does change, and either of those definitions change, 2 + 2 = 4 will change. And if 2 + 2 = 4 changes, so does your example of 'logic'.

Are we the probes of God or their playtoys? If God wanted to learn lessons from us, it is apparant that we aren't doing much new aside from technology. From the beginning of the age of man, people have been killing each other from their natural instinct, and it still doesn't change here, with our own 'precious' supply of warmongers. Ultimately, human hasn't changed much by itself - technology has changed the human. If the fire wasn't discovered, if the wheel wasn't discovered, if nothing was actually invented for the adaption to the environment, I doubt we would have extended beyond glorified neanderthalism.

And, now, when did I call technology 'evil'? I said that the presence of evil, and the will to 'fight' it, no matter the different forms of evil from the viewpoints of each nation, helped, or perhaps even made, the progression of technology. Spawns of evil aren't always evil, and I have never claimed such.

 

Thats right, keep grasping at straws. It's pretty obvious to everyone what I meant. I don't care if you call them glorbanagloobs, amount x + amount y ALWAYS = amount x+y. [Edit]Of course, now I'll probably hear some claptrap about the symbols not always meaning the same thing[/Edit]

When the majority of people in first world nations are so apalled by the thought they could barely handle killing someone even if they had to? When we are no longer hunter/gatherers? When our societies have actually placed more importance on art and philosophy than industry, and people are actually allowed to say whatever they want in some areas of the world? When women in many places are considered equal to men, and racism (in the first world) is nowhere near as bad as it used to be? Oh yes, we aren't much better. A thousand pardons; I forgot that actually having a war nullifies everything.

Of course we wouldn't have. Fire was a catalyst for all of mans inventions. It allowed us to cook our meat and spend less time eating (it takes a much longer time to eat raw meat; as in several hours worth of time) and it also kept away predators, helped eliminate some chances of catching disease, and began to trigger the phenomenom of sitting around the fire telling stories. Mankind is alive because we invent things - our intelligence and tool using skills are our only advantages. If we never discovered fire, we'd all be dead.

The fact that you linked technological progress with evil, obviously. Do I need to quote it?

See? So what if technology recieves a catalystic boost during wartime?

You need to learn how to speak better. Here's the brief form of your post "Argument for evil = technological progress." [Edit] Specifically technological progress during war; but then if you were really arguing that the war was evil (not its fruits) you would have said "an argument for evil is that war continues to this day". Anything else is misleading. Of COURSE you'll see more progress during a war! You have to innovate or die, and you put as much effort into your industry as possible! [/Edit]

So is there evil or isn't there? Make up your mind.



Edit: Of course, how much can I expect from someone who doesn't believe that things made via common sense and logic are valid?

 

Who's grasping at straws now? This is only a fight of point-counterpoint. I'm pretty sure you've grasped at straws more than a few times in your debates. Yes, I admit x+y = x+y, because variables are MADE to change. Constant numbers are not. Thus is why you do not use constants in those comparisons.

Oh yes, war is appalling, but that doesn't stop us and other countries from waging war against others for greed, eh? The evolution from hunter/gatheres, those of art and philosophy, and the emergence of political freedom are all of the result of growing social conditions, and what are social conditions spurred by? The thought that something can become better. And what were the first things that people thought could become better? Their lives, or, namely, the technological advances that could make their lives better. Without the emergence of technology, we would never have developed ourselves past hunter/gatherers, and we would never have known what art and philosophy was, much less industry. Society made art, philosophy, and political freedom from the examples of few that became the belief of many. War spurred these examples, these alternate ways of thinking, because it was necessary. War created new evils, such as famine. By starvation, people have learned that it is wise to keep storage. By being defeated, people have learned experience and thinking. War is a part of the natural selection that molds the people into what they are. Art emerged at first to tell stories about battles that may or may not teach the future. Philosophy emerged to seek knowledge beyond Earth that could aid in scholarly researches, something that has resulted in a number of weapon inventions. Political equality was established because of the people leading themselves to revolutions. Women gained their suffrage by their protests, riots, and boycotts. Racism was the result of compromises to stop the bloody reign that happened because of segregation. All these are common war-time acts.

I am quite aware of that without you stating the obvious, thank you.

Just because evil helped the progression of technology makes technology evil? Evil also began the progression of virtue, honor, and many other traits that defined good, in order to keep balance. Are those traits evil as well, by your definition?

It not only receives a catalystic boost, it makes it alive. Technology was, more than anything else, advanced to keep people alive against hostile environments. Fire against the cold of early earth. Fur for a similar reason. Early spears to protect against wild animals. Moving on, shelter to protect against both battering weather and sweltering heat. More weaponry and armor in response to war. The discovery of steel and iron, and the smithing of such materials because of its need in war, and so on.

No, here's the brief form of my post. "Evil exists because it makes progression." I was talking of the existance of evil, not my original point - that evil is merely an opinionated trait, which wouldn't have made sense in your perception of the part anyway.

Thank you for re-iterating what I was implying.

There is both 'evil' and 'nonevil' in the progression of technology. As you have said, it depends on the use of the technology, but more upon how the people thinks of the use of that technology.

Hey, you bothered to debate this to more than 5 posts, so don't ask me.

 

Everyone knew what I meant, you just chose to ***** about semantics.

You don't need war for a famine. Ever hear of a drought?

Or, y'know, maybe not having food during winter months or having animals run off with excess food while you slept...

Yep, Socrates sure did love trying to figure out how to kill people...

Who said war was evil to begin with? The only evil thing in war is the conduct of people.

Under yours it seems to, in case you forgot I was quoting you.

War is not necessary for tech advance; plenty occurs during peacetime too. For example, improved printing methods.

Pick a side and stick with it. And like I said, if your point isn't made clear initially, go back and rethink how you say it.

Why is it you can imply things but if I do you have to nitpick?

 

And you chose to extend the subject. I'll admit I started that though, heh.

But war amplified famine to a point where it actually was a wide-spread thing. The Great Depression is an impressive famine, yes, but there had been many war-famines even before then.

And that's not starvation either? Sorry, I don't get your point here...

Socrates wasn't the only philosopher either, yannow. Take... oh, Da Vinci, and see what he did in the technological department.

War is an unnecessary cause of pain and suffering with no real benefit except for 'I'm better than you!' And I quote you earlier..

..Where you also called this 'evil', as you believed. Well, how's about that contradicting yourself?

And the conduct of people defines war one way or another. Without warring people, where would the war be? Guns don't shoot themselves, people shoot the guns. Politics don't screw up by themselves, wrongly veiled statements from politicians screws it up. Alliances and declarations of war do not spontaneously appear - they are given by the government or any other ruling branch of the country/tribe/whatever.

Sorry if you misunderstood, but the statement that you quoted here is my explanation of how your perception of said statement was flawed. I stated that, because I said that the evils of war lead to the progression of technology did not mean that it was evil. I also subsequently stated that the other spawns of evil would also classify as evil under your perception of the statement. I never meant to state that the spawn of evil was evil - those were words you put in my mouth. Thank you very much.

Improved printing methods were developed to increase communication amongst society, something that would also augment the people in wartime. Military communication is a very important thing in the middle of a war, and using the media to rile up the citizens and pass the news is quite efficient in getting volunteers in the army. Before, this was done using speeches or messengers. The newspapers were then invented to speed this up. No matter how subtle the reason may be, almost all technology was developed with at least a minute consideration for other uses in mind.

I've been sticking with 'evil makes progression' the entire time I was stating my counterpoints. I'm not picking between two sides just because you made yourself a second side to step from.

What exactly are you implying? I don't see any new points from you...

 

The point is: you don't need war to come up with the idea of storage.

No ****, I was just pulling out a random example.

False. There are ways to wage war that do not really cause very much pain and suffering at all. Take, for example, in the age of chivalry: you tried to capture enemy soldiers, not kill them. The enemy would then pay a ransom to get them back. Hence the phrase "worth a kings ransom".

Another example is the increasing amount of automation in combat. True, we're a long way away from having robotic tanks roam the battlefield, but we have air-borne drones and robotic bomb defusers. That's obviously a start.

Furthermore, note the fact that you ignored cost vs benefit. Theres no benefit in the rape and murder of a child, but there can be a benefit in war.

There is no contradiction because there are multiple ways to wage war that do not necessarily involve harming civilians.

Welcome to the real world. Are you proposing mind control or some such Orwellian nonsense?

Such a sparkling revelation.

Your fault for not being clear.

I fail to see how foil stamping augments people during war. Many methods were developed in peace. Hell, how is toothpaste augmented via war? My point that technology does not gain all of its growth via war stands.

You know the first newspaper we know of was actually covering the activities of the Roman Senate and not the military, right?

Yep, my Windex sure did a number on those nazis.

Readers, note the lack of numbers: by saying "almost" he can cover his *** in case I pull out inventions with no real use in warfare, yet nobody can deny that in retrospect at least one could think of a military application for a fair deal of things they're using.

In essence he's posted a fallacy because he doesn't know what was running through the minds of the inventors who created things, yet due to our retrospective position on technology it could easily look like they were thinking about how to kill people.

Please. Da Vinci was not thinking about delivering bombs when he began to draw up a flying machine.

Then does evil exist or doesn't it? If it exists, you concede that there is such a thing. If it does not exist, you concede that progress is not proof of evil.

Perhaps you should investigate an invention or two to help with eyesight.

Edit: And as far as what I was implying goes, its about the 2+2 thing. It was obviously implied that we were thinking with our meaning for the word two, yet you decided to start complaining about shifting numbers around. I don't care if you say ten, dix or scoobajoob, you still have THAT many digits (barring some unfortunate accident or birth defect).

 

But war is prevalent in its consequences that brings up storage. Weaponry as well as food for transform in moving armies, rationalization for those who don't fight because of their supplies being taken by said armies.

A random example that does not help your point, indeed.

Chivalry is quite dead. But, besides that, how is offering a ransom better than killing in cold blood? Giving up a king's ransom might as well enhance the receiver's military power for another push in a war and devestate the economical state of the victim. Ransom is not chivalrous, releasing the prisoner without asking for a price, for a good reason, is.

Also, killing was also done in that period. Mercenaries, assassins, and other such lowly positions were born from the need of such underhanded things, you know. I suppose the gangbang of Caesar was very chivalrous indeed.

Those automations were made with a very prevalent thought of violence, either incoming or delivering, in mind. Just because the people aren't shooting the guns themselves doesn't mean that they are 'chivalrous'.

War debts are hardly a benefit of a war. The American Revolution, though giving independence, caused huge war debts that America could not pay at that time. The Mexican War and the Civil War that came soon behind only enlarged those debts. The media never tells you of war debts, but they are often much more crippling than the purpose of the war to prove that you are right. (And who is left, at that.)

But there are many ways that do involve harming civilians. So far, I haven't seen a war with 0 casualties yet. And no, wars that dissipate themselves without a battle or even a victor do not count.

Now this I don't understand. I was only stating that if nobody had intended for a war in the first place, why would there be a war? All wars are began with a degree of malice, no matter how small or how short-living.

Isn't it? Either way, it only states that war doesn't automatically begin when nobody's even thinking of a war. One does not have a tea party and suddenly turn it into a free-for-all wrestling match when none of the participants or people involved intended it to do so. The table cannot control your mind and make you wrestle, no matter what you may believe.

I could also state that it was your fault that you could not interpret it, but go on, I won't go to that.

Toothpaste isn't augmented via war. However, it improves appearance for the purposes of charismatic negotiations, and there are also degrees of pain given not for brushing your teeth. Medicine was developed similarly to cure diseases and pain that struck many soldiers and supply-producing civilians too, you know.

And I never said it gained all of its growth via war. I only stated that it gained much of it from there.

And the Roman Senate wasn't a body that could perform military functions? Either way, information about an intelligence is crucial for battle these days, even if they weren't so important back in the Stone Age.

Anything can be used to kill. Do not say air, because a lack of air does kill a man.

And delivering bombs weren't the first thing a flying machine did. More like shooting automatic guns inaccurately in hopes of shooting down an adversary. The flying machine was created to grant access into the air, and I doubt it was invented just so people could make flights across a certain distance and become famous.

Either way, the only reason that I say almost is because I admit that not ALL of them are created with other thoughts in mind. Is that so wrong to claim?

As I stated oh-so-long-ago, 'evil' is an opinionated creation. You can say it exists, or you can deny its existance by denying social standing and the majority and such. It exists in the eyes of the majority, it doesn't in the eyes of a few. I also did not state that progress is a proof of evil. The simile that I used and the statements it was followed by implies that progress is a proof of war, if anything else.

Of course. That was me picking on you on the usage of constants in a changing world. And because definitions can change over time, a number cannot really be defined in the overall time stream, only by the majority at times. I only say that definition cannot change, not the fact that it is there.

 

I never said it wasn't; I said it wasn't necessarily responsible for it.

...Hold on. I was trying to show that not all philosophy helps traditional schools of thought in thinking up new weaponry, PROVIDE A PHILOSOPHER WHO DIDN'T THINK UP NEW WEAPONRY, and it doesn't help my point?

Never said it wasn't.

Nobody dies.

Of course. Normal wars do that too. What is your point?

Ransom is not chivalrous, releasing the prisoner without asking for a price, for a good reason, is.

Never said it wasn't.

Well, aside from the fact that Caesar wasn't alive during that time period...

I never said they were chivalrous; I was bringing up another example of how war could be waged with no real loss of life.

I never said they were.

And when did I ever say that war had no down side?

You do know that when early man waged war (as in EARLY EARLY EARLY man, as in cave-dwelling), when war was waged it was against the rules to kill, right? And if you did kill, you were ostracized. Oh wait, you'd probably alter your definition of war so that wouldn't count either.

Well this is a real world, where people have paranoia or require resources that are not being dispensed fairly, or even simple miscommunications happen.

Obviously. Did I ever say that war came out of nowhere?

...Yeah, we've had a lot less war in the age of toothpaste then before... marvelously effective stuff.

The two fields are vaguely related, but tartar control Crest can hardly be attributed to wars where swords landed in the gut.

The Roman Senate was not a propaganda tool. Perhaps you're confusing a rallying cry with a statement of fact.

I'm bloody well aware of the fact that air can be used to kill (albiet I was thinking of powerful jet blasts rather than lack of air).

...So I give you a wet gum wrapper. Please explain how you will kill me with that.

...The Wright brothers did that? Whoa. The first planes used in war didn't even have guns. They had the pilots pistol or a chain he would toss into the enemys propeller. The first planes used in the military were used simply to map areas.

Course not. It was invented so they could make money transporting people. Thats why the railroad barons were so damn nervous.

Funny, you said the best argument you had heard for evil was progress.

No, that was stupid nitpicking. My intent was damn well obvious, you just decided to raise an issue where none existed. Perhaps I should start to challenge every single word you use in your next post, saying that its definition could change? Don't be dense.

 

And I never said that war alone created the need for storage, did I? I stated that war created famine, but I never said that famine was the only thing that led to storate, nor that war was the only thing that created famine.

And neither did I directly quote Philosophy into the art of war. There were at least one or two transitions between, thank you very much. That tells you, more or less, that I did not imply that philosophy's sole purpose was war.

Back then, greed for gold far exceeded the caring of people. A king would unlikely go apart from a fortune's worth of ransom money for a captured general, often with the excuse that 'he failed me. I don't want him back.' Of course, there are exceptions on the more sensible of leaders.

My point is that the state of wars then aren't as different as the state of wars now as you think, as you have stated. Pain and suffering happened back then as it happens now. Ransoms ultimately cause the same amount if not more pain than losing a person.

That doesn't defy the fact that assassins and mercenaries still existed in that period.

No 'real loss of life'? Perhaps automation can be used on the technologically superior side, but it would cause a loss of life in the victim. And if two enemies adopted automation against each other, the cost of production that came with that sort of skirmish would cripple the people in homeland.

War debts, the huge part of the aftermath of wars, can offset almost every earned joy that comes with a war that is won. You stated that war can be beneficial (note 'can') But, ultimately, are the result of war debts tacked on to the purpose of the war still beneficial?

When you said that it can be beneficial. No matter how the war is waged, it will still result in the poverty and ultimately the early death of some people.

Of course. But that never meant that people weren't killed.

Of course. But to wage a war from those things do require, if not true malice, at least a thought of malice.

Just to justify the fact that war sprouts directly from the thoughts and wants of the people. Wars are evil - people don't make a war 'evil', the war is already 'evil' because the people who had started the fire were 'evil'.

I never said that toothpaste was a revolutionary discovery, only that it helped in that respect.

And wars where disease and unnecessary pain also disabled many soldiers from fighting to their fullest potential, if fighting at all.

Or was it? One could never actually know what it was. But, since it was a gathering of aristocratic representatives and they advised the 'king' of Rome, eventually becoming the leading governing body, it is quite possible in my view. After all, governing bodies have been bribed, blackmailed, and tricked for quite a while.

Take it, shove it down your throat, and use the other arm (or the same one) to grab and squeeze the throat to the point where the windpipe fractures from the irregularity in the throat.

It still doesn't defy the fact that planes were still useful for military purposes, and were also used for such.

I stated that progress was the result of an evil, not the proof that it existed - yes, war is indeed a proof of 'evil', whether you want to call it 'evil' thoughts or 'evil' intentions or 'evil' whatever.

Well, you've already begin doing that with the 'never said I didn't'. But carry on as you like.

 

You said war was responsible for the CREATION OF FAMINE which lead to storage. Stop bullshitting.

whatever.

I may be mistaken but weren't they honourbound to pay?

Yeah, a sword in the gut and permanent loss of a family member isn't any worse than paying 100 gold...

YOU IDIOT! I mention chivalry in context of an era and you start trying to apply it to completely unrelated things and ask where the chivalry was in that?! Just go away.

Yeah, the mass production seen in World War 1 and World War 2 really hurt Americas econ-... wait... it helped America.

Yes. Did Carthage ever bother Rome again?

...So we can attribute Saddams failure at negotiations due to bad oral hygiene?

You do know what 'Pax Romana' is, right?

...of course given that you think Rome had a king...

Thats using your hand to kill me, not the gum wrapper. You fail.

You can't attribute later uses of an invention to the creator! It'd be like me blaming Henry Ford for the driveby that killed Biggy, or whoever invented the butter churn for making Elvis so fat he died of a heart attack!

Nnnnnnnno, that was in response to your mutilation of my words.

 

Maybe you guys should change this to: Civilization and Evil: A Debate between Nephilim_X and Valant Rapitor . . .