Btw, I claim 'objectivity' = 'intersubjectivity'.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑February 18th, 2018, 2:02 pmSo you're acknowledging that at first, defining an act as evil belongs to the subjective sphere (since it has not been established objectively). The Golden Rule, however, will not make its "evil property" objective, it will just set an intersubjective relation based on the effects of the act, not on the nature of the act itself: if an act affects me negatively, I should not apply the same effect unto others. I received flowers in St. Valentine's Day, but I hate flowers. Should I not send flowers to anyone else? If the person knew I hated flowers, the act would be judged differently than if they didn't. As we can see, the act itself becomes meaningful only in a given context, which varies under different personal or social circumstances. Even if you define social conventions as objective, they are not universal or absolute.Spectrum wrote: First we identify what acts [abstracted from empirical evidence] are defined as evil.
Then we apply the Golden Rule to establish objectivity.
There is no absolute objectivity that is totally unconditional.
The Golden Rule is intersubjective because it is inferred intersubjectively no human will want others to do evil to oneself [exceptions discounted].
Thus re the concept of evil, we start from the empirical and based on intersubjectivity we establish what is evil objectively. Then we use the Golden Rule [established intersubjectively] to establish an objective-evil-value for each type of evil act.
I claim the grounding for what is 'evil' is grounded on survival instinct. What else?Survival instinct has nothing to do with defining the "evil property" of an act as an objective quality. Actually, the words murder and rape already contain a social convention, which is based on the circumstances surrounding the act. In other words, several variables are taken into account and the acts alone of ending someone's life or having sex do not imply evil every time. In many cultures, the marriage contract implies the obligation of performing sexual acts and they are not considered rape. Punishing sin with death is also socially accepted and not considered murder. The French writer Catherine Millet described in full detail how she went on to have a promiscuous life in which she didn't mind her body being raped by strangers in streets and plazas.Spectrum wrote: It is the basic instinct of survival to avoid being murdered, rape and other evil acts [other than perverts].
Whatever other motivations we can think of are secondary.
As I had stated, any deviation from the above are perversions, e.g. suicide, suicide by murder, etc. Masochism is a perversion - see DSM-V.
It cannot be 'just happened' like natural catastrophe.Again, the word "tolerated" is used to imply that these are things that just happen to people, like epidemics or earthquakes, as if they weren't intentional human actions. But the fact is that certain acts that may be conventionally regarded as evil today, and consequently classified as unlawful, were not regarded as evil and unlawful before. The evilness compass changed.Spectrum wrote: There are degrees to what [is inherently evil] has to be tolerated in the present circumstance but need to be prevented and eliminated in the future.
Note Chattel Slavery was tolerated by most 200 years ago but at present Chattel Slavery is illegal in all Countries.
War [inherently evil] at present is tolerated but humanity is striving its best to eliminate wars and this could be possible within the next 100 years or more.
I used the term 'tolerated' with reference to events that are human related and can be changed in time.
Wars are basically driven by human instincts which as instincts are not easy to modulate.
But nevertheless, there is dramatic reduction/change in the number [not seriousness] of wars over the history of mankind to the present. As such it is possible to change one attitude to war within the human mind. What cannot be changed at present easily has to be tolerated and besides the average humanity are striving to prevent wars.
One cannot change nor control natural catastrophe like earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, etc. As such the term 'tolerated' is not appropriate.
Note I used the term 'Chattel Slavery' [not general slavery] and the legal enforcement of it. I understand, being humans, there will be many who will try to break the law or practice other forms of 'slavery'. The point there is an improvement in term of legality of chattel slavery in All nations.BTW, slavery seems to be making a comeback and the idea that humanity is striving to end wars is very much disputable.
I don't believe any normal person will view unjustified 'war' as a good thing to be promoted.
The only exception is from Islam where war against non-believers is deem to be good as a divine duty, but universally this is an evil intent.
With or without statistics, people will naturally tend towards hasty generalization.Your whole statistical approach to judging groups is guaranteed to produce hasty generalizations. And that's exactly what is shown in your preliminary examples.Spectrum wrote: We have to make a start somewhere then to improve our skills based on accurate data [with lots of caution and avoid hasty generalizations]. What is relevant here is there is a trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge in the various advance fields to increase precision but of course we need to exercise lots of care on such things.
As such there will be a need to improve the average critical thinking levels of the masses.
With this knowledge and carefully produced statistics, hasty generalization will be minimized in the future [note I mentioned trend].
I have discussed and argued the above as a thesis elsewhere, i.e.There's no factual basis for this assertion. Talk about hasty generalizations.Spectrum wrote: The USA citizens has the same evil potential like any other group of citizens, i.e. 20% of any citizens are born with evil tendencies.
1. DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil.
2. 20% of ALL human are born [unfortunately] with an active evil tendency - argued elsewhere.
3. Thus 20% of USA citizens are born with an active evil tendency.
I have never deny there is a complex set of variables influencing any human actions.You're now admitting that a good number of variables are to be taken into account for making sense of the data. The selection of variables itself and the weight one gives to any of them is greatly influenced by subjectivity. That proves that no "evil potential" can be measured as a discrete quantitative value or objective property.Spectrum wrote: Thus there is no change in the evil potential.
If all influencing factors are the same, there is no difference in the number of individuals committing murder.
The only difference is the number killed are more because Guns can easily kill many in one attack.
In terms of guns, there would a greater sense of fear [not greater potential] in the USA when compared to Britain.
The critical point is there are evil acts by humans based on empirical evidence.
It is an onus on humanity to resolve, prevent and eliminate evil acts where possible.
To resolve any problem, the most effective way is to quantify all the relevant variables involved.
Thus the critical strategy is to quantify the "evil potential" and other variables else humanity will be doomed to evil for a long time.
Why I believe such quantification is possible is because there are already attempts in doing it and with the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge we will be able to improve on the quantification over time.
Note: Axiology [wiki] - (from Greek ἀξία, axia, "value, worth"; and -λογία, -logia) is the philosophical study of value.
It is the same with knives and other things which are double-edged.That's exactly my critique of your statistical approach. You can do almost absolutely anything with statistics. Remember: there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.Spectrum wrote: You are going too wild with statistics without taking other specific factors into consideration.
Statistics is a also a double-edged tool and with wisdom from philosophy, a person will naturally used statistic wisely.
I don't believe you will ignore statistics totally but I believe you will use them with caution and wisely?
I don't believe the Crusaders justified their actions from the sayings of Jesus. The Crusaders has no choice but to go to war and went against Jesus' command of not killing one's enemies. The Crusaders had no choice and using their own freewill went to war with the hope Jesus will forgive them with mercy since there are justifications to do so.Oh, really? What's the factual basis for that assertion?Spectrum wrote: We know 20% of Christians are born with an active evil tendencies.Well, actually it stands besides other Christian maxims that run against pacifism. They made possible the Crusades, the Inquisition and the killing of indigenous populations.Spectrum wrote: But we also know Christianity has an overriding pacifist maxim. e.g. love your enemies, etc.
As for those involved in the inquisition, God and Jesus would have 'f...' them to one corner of Hell.
It is a fact, in general there is no way a Christian will invoke the words of Jesus and God to justify their killing another person. We don't here of Christian killing while shouting 'God is Great' or 'Jesus-u-Akbar'.Guns are specifically manufactured and sold for killing. And they don't just happen to appear in people's hands, so that beats your argument. But It's interesting to see how you manipulate the variables, finding arguments to include or exclude those that you find convenient, so that statistics show what you want them to show. As usual in these apparently objective studies about human behavior, it's never about the raw numbers and objective properties of human action, but how to justify hasty generalizations.Spectrum wrote: Thus even if all Christians carry guns in the USA, in general it is not likely they will go against God's commands to kill simply because they have guns, else they will go to hell [as usual there will be exceptions].
There are Christians who kill but only when driven by their own inherent evil nature.
Your above is a straw man.Humans are not Pavlov's dog. Behaviorism and its stimulus-response theory was debunked and abandoned several decades ago.Spectrum wrote: What make the difference are the stimuli that triggers the potential into actions.
There are tons of research demonstrating evil elements in media, movies, sports, computer games, videos, etc. are triggering the vulnerable evil prone [especially children and certain adults] to commit evil acts. This is why there is censorship, PG ratings or banning of certain evil laden elements in various communicating medias.