Evil

[Volnotova]

Doing something wrong does not mean the action is not wrong.

If you drive the wrong way down a one-way street, it does not mean that the street is now a two-way street.

How does this have to do anything with what I said?

Again, <snip>

"This person has a different view point, therefore he/she does not know what he/she is actually saying"

Please elaborate? I am OK with flooding my posts with links and descriptions if that is what you need in order to accept that I DO understand what I am talking about.

[Dyakovo]

Whether or not I actually believe it is immaterial to my question.

If you actually believe it I can show you why it is nonsense. If I do not know what the "arguments" are for the idea that the killing of children is morally reprehensible then

Which still has nothing to do with my question.

Has nothing to do with my question.

It does, because if there are no logical arguments that can proof something is inherently moral or immoral then what could lead people to say such things? The answer is fallacious thinking, wishful thinking, gut feelings, yuck-based ethics, etc. All byproducts of delusional minds.

No, it really doesn't. I suggest you reread my question. I'll make it easy for you...

What is inherently fallacious or ridiculous about this statement: I find the killing of children to be morally reprehensible?"
Also, how is that statement a sign of a delusional mind?

I'll give you a hint on where you are failing. In my example statement I am not making the claim that killing children is inherently immoral.

[Chumblywumbly]

Doing something wrong does not mean the action is not wrong.

If you drive the wrong way down a one-way street, it does not mean that the street is now a two-way street.

How does this have to do anything with what I said?

You said, "If something is so wrong and so immoral, then why can you do it?".

I'm showing that one can easily do a wrong thing.

"This person has a different view point, therefore he/she does not know what he/she is actually saying"

No, I'm saying you're misusing the word 'delusional'.

Someone is not mad simply because they hold a realist metaethical view.

[Volnotova]

You said, "If something is so wrong and so immoral, then why can you do it?".

I'm showing that one can easily do a wrong thing.

That was not my point, I was talking about immoral things, not about doing something you originally did not intent/plan to do.

Someone is not mad simply because they hold a realist metaethical view.

Its not a "realistic meta-ethical view" it is a delusional one. For example: killing. Why if it so immoral and inherently wrong can we do it? Because it is not immoral and inherently wrong.

We can keep claiming things are immoral because of our gut feelings, wishful thinking, appeals to emotion and popular sentiment and etc. It does not make it so.

In the end, the only thing you have to do in order to reveal to your self the fallacious nature of ethical propositions is by asking your self "Why?" until you hit a road block. The road block you will hit with every ethical proposition is not empirical research, observation and analyses but an ocean of fallacies. Whether it is Kant or Plato; it does not matter, in the end it all boils down to fallacious thinking.

You only have to do one thing to proof me wrong, present to me an ethical proposition that does not boil down to fallacies and I will be convinced, and it is such a proposition that I have been looking for since I first found out the true fallacious nature of ethics.

If the validity of certain ethical propositions is so self evident then this is an easy task, if not then you will hopefully, like me come to the conclusion how full ethical propositions are of nonsense.

I'll give you a hint on where you are failing. In my example statement I am not making the claim that killing children is inherently immoral.

Yet the claim was that you believe it is(Or at least, the example was something along those lines).

[Dyakovo]

I'll give you a hint on where you are failing. In my example statement I am not making the claim that killing children is inherently immoral.

Yet the claim was that you believe it is(Or at least, the example was something along those lines).

And? Maybe you should try asking the question that was actually asked...

[Volnotova]

Yet the claim was that you believe it is(Or at least, the example was something along those lines).

And? Maybe you should try asking the question that was actually asked...

I think you mean answering, that said...

I cannot ask for your argumentation if you do not have any, can I?

[Dyakovo]

And? Maybe you should try asking the question that was actually asked...

I think you mean answering, that said...

Yeah... That was a stupid typo on my part...

I cannot ask for your argumentation if you do not have any, can I?

You don't need to know my argumentation to answer the question I actually asked.

[Chumblywumbly]

I'm showing that one can easily do a wrong thing.

That was not my point, I was talking about immoral things, not about doing something you originally did not intent/plan to do...

I don't see how that defeats my complaint.

Your claim is that if action x is completely immoral, it would be impossible to perform action x. I simply don't see how this holds.

Why would this be the case?

Someone is not mad simply because they hold a realist metaethical view.

Its not a "realistic meta-ethical view" it is a delusional one.

Careful here: I didn't say 'realistic', I said 'realist'.

As in, a form of moral cognitivism which you apparently think one must be mad to hold.

We can keep claiming things are immoral because of our gut feelings, wishful thinking, appeals to emotion and popular sentiment and etc. It does not make it so.

In the end, the only thing you have to do in order to reveal to your self the fallacious nature of ethical propositions is by asking your self "Why?" until you hit a road block. The road block you will hit with every ethical proposition is not empirical research, observation and analyses but an ocean of fallacies. Whether it is Kant or Plato; it does not matter, in the end it all boils down to fallacious thinking.

Show this, then.

Show how, for example, any of Kant's conceptions of the categorical imperative are 'fallacious'.

[Crabulonia]

Absolutism is inherently a silly thing to believe in, think of Kant a second. According to him, all rational beings (the entirety of humanity as far as he cared) would come to the same moral conclusions. In what world does that make any sense and does it not reek of cultural imperialism?

Not really, no.

To Kant, all humans are capable of thinking rationally. Thus all humans are capable of reaching the same conclusions on morality.

Maybe I read him wrong but I got the implication that there was a 'correct' morality, and that was Kant's morality. It's the problem I have with all moral absolutists, I don't know you can be absolute with morality.

If anything this just seems to me that Kant is saying "everybody who doesn't reach the right conclusion on morality is wrong" and who made him supreme moral justice of the universe?

[Augarundus]

"Evil" is a nebulous term.

In a system of Egoist morality (an ethical code based on the presumption that I should act rationally and, therefore, I only have the moral compulsion to act for the benefit of those whom I value - including myself), "evil" is synonymous with anything that violates the ethical code of egoism.

Thus, I consider the irrational to be the epitome of evil. It, fundamentally, opposes the single means through which I am able to survive and perceive reality.

Anything that springs from the irrational is, then immoral:

Religion, which is based in faith, not reason, is irrational and immoral.
Coercion, which, by applying force, attempts to substitute brute power in lieu of reason, is irrational and immoral.
Most of all, altruism, which, based on faith, acts on the presumption that the individual must subordinate his own existence to something greater than him, is irrational and evil.

Along with a number of other non-Egoist doctrines.

I realize that this wasn't necessarily the OP's view, but I'm addressing societal opinions as he sees them.

The dead are sacrosanct, and defiling\disturbing them in any way is immoral and wrong.

The dead are dead. They have no rights; at least, no more rights than other property.

The murder or willful harming of children is deeply immoral and wrong.

Is this somehow worse than harming anyone else?

The defilement of houses of worship and holy places is immoral and wrong.

Lol, religion.

The engagement of a human in sexual intercourse with an animal is immoral and wrong.

Because you think that's "gross" or something?

The willful destruction of beauty is immoral and wrong.

Note how you're implicitly saying that the destruction of the chaotic/ugly is moral.... embrace the Dionysian, bro.

The desire to abolish government and/or civilization is wrong.

...
wtf?!

Anarchism is immoral, now?

The willful taking of the life of a human outside official context is immoral and wrong.

... M'k...

The infliction of pain on another for one's personal pleasure is immoral and wrong.

As long as it isn't coercive, how is this immoral?

The consumption of a human is immoral and wrong.

Because you think it's gross or something? As long as it's voluntary, I don't see why...?

[Crabulonia]

Just thought about that one about causing pain for pleasure;

Does not a surgeon take pleasure in curing a patient, possibly causing pain in the process? Perhaps it is even against the patient's will, say he's in a coma.

[Dyakovo]

Just thought about that one about causing pain for pleasure;

It's a good thing.
*nods*
Well, assuming the recipient of the pain consents...

[Chumblywumbly]

Maybe I read him wrong but I got the implication that there was a 'correct' morality, and that was Kant's morality. It's the problem I have with all moral absolutists, I don't know you can be absolute with morality.

If anything this just seems to me that Kant is saying "everybody who doesn't reach the right conclusion on morality is wrong" and who made him supreme moral justice of the universe?

There is no "supreme moral justice of the universe" to Kant, insofar that anyone can rationally determine right from wrong.

You're probably right in that Kant thought that his working out of what was moral was pretty spot on, but there's certainly controversy in Kant's views - his prescription on suicide is a notable one. However, Kant leaves us not just with a list of dos and don'ts, but with a moral calculator, if you will, that we can all use. There's plenty of Kantian's that disagree with Kant.

One of Kant's key motivations was coming up with a determiner of moral behaviour that wasn't reliant on culture, etc.

[Augarundus]

Just thought about that one about causing pain for pleasure;

It's a good thing.
*nods*
Well, assuming the recipient of the pain consents...

S&M is immoral because God says so.

[Dyakovo]

It's a good thing.
*nods*
Well, assuming the recipient of the pain consents...

S&M is immoral because God says so.

Good thing I don't believe in 'God' then...

[Crabulonia]

Maybe I read him wrong but I got the implication that there was a 'correct' morality, and that was Kant's morality. It's the problem I have with all moral absolutists, I don't know you can be absolute with morality.

If anything this just seems to me that Kant is saying "everybody who doesn't reach the right conclusion on morality is wrong" and who made him supreme moral justice of the universe?

There is no "supreme moral justice of the universe" to Kant, insofar that anyone can rationally determine right from wrong.

You're probably right in that Kant thought that his working out of what was moral was pretty spot on, but there's certainly controversy in Kant's views - his prescription on suicide is a notable one. However, Kant leaves us not just with a list of dos and don'ts, but with a moral calculator, if you will, that we can all use. There's plenty of Kantian's that disagree with Kant.

One of Kant's key motivations was coming up with a determiner of moral behaviour that wasn't reliant on culture, etc.

I suppose, Marxists disagree with Marx and Darwinists disagree with Darwin. All good point however, I generally find most philosophers to be a bit of the viewpoint that they are always right - which seems contrary to philosophy in general. Moral particularism is something I've been throwing around for a while, also the idea of just having the immutable law "Don't be a dick". The problem with the former is that it is almost so flexible it isn't a moral viewpoint at all and the latter that being a dick is subjective so not answering anything.

Back to the drawing board and ivory tower.

[Dukis]

Evil is ummmmmmmm...
ummmmmmmmmmm...
ummmmmmmmmmm...

Does the devil cry?

[Kashyr]

Its not a "realistic meta-ethical view" it is a delusional one. For example: killing. Why if it so immoral and inherently wrong can we do it? Because it is not immoral and inherently wrong.

So do you often go around stabbing people for no particular reason and still feel good about yourself?

We can do immoral things because the word 'immoral' does not share a definition with the word 'impossible'. However, the majority of us choose not to partake in clearly immoral things such as murder and... Well, that's about it, because they're generally accepted to be immoral.

That being said, some may view things such as pre-marital sex and lying as immoral, in which case the overwhelming majority of people are immoral on a daily basis. Personally, I would say that of all the things on OP's list only murder is inherently wrong, and even then it has less do with being immoral than just being unpleasant.

[Dyakovo]

Its not a "realistic meta-ethical view" it is a delusional one. For example: killing. Why if it so immoral and inherently wrong can we do it? Because it is not immoral and inherently wrong.

So do you often go around stabbing people for no particular reason and still feel good about yourself?

Yes
*nods*

[Augarundus]

S&M is immoral because God says so.

Good thing I don't believe in 'God' then...

God doesn't believe in you.

[Dyakovo]

Good thing I don't believe in 'God' then...

God doesn't believe in you.

I'm okay with that.

[Lord Tothe]

God doesn't believe in you.

I'm okay with that.

Obviously, you have ceased to exist now.

[Dyakovo]

I'm okay with that.

Obviously, you have ceased to exist now.

Even that isn't going to stop me from posting...
MUA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

[Metanih]

You said, "If something is so wrong and so immoral, then why can you do it?".

I'm showing that one can easily do a wrong thing.

That was not my point, I was talking about immoral things, not about doing something you originally did not intent/plan to do.

Someone is not mad simply because they hold a realist metaethical view.

Its not a "realistic meta-ethical view" it is a delusional one. For example: killing. Why if it so immoral and inherently wrong can we do it? Because it is not immoral and inherently wrong.

We can keep claiming things are immoral because of our gut feelings, wishful thinking, appeals to emotion and popular sentiment and etc. It does not make it so.

In the end, the only thing you have to do in order to reveal to your self the fallacious nature of ethical propositions is by asking your self "Why?" until you hit a road block. The road block you will hit with every ethical proposition is not empirical research, observation and analyses but an ocean of fallacies. Whether it is Kant or Plato; it does not matter, in the end it all boils down to fallacious thinking.

You only have to do one thing to proof me wrong, present to me an ethical proposition that does not boil down to fallacies and I will be convinced, and it is such a proposition that I have been looking for since I first found out the true fallacious nature of ethics.

If the validity of certain ethical propositions is so self evident then this is an easy task, if not then you will hopefully, like me come to the conclusion how full ethical propositions are of nonsense.

I'll give you a hint on where you are failing. In my example statement I am not making the claim that killing children is inherently immoral.

Yet the claim was that you believe it is(Or at least, the example was something along those lines).

Your point states that it is impossible to do immoral things. I disagree vehemently. Stealing is immoral, as with killing except in specific circumstances. Ethics is by nature fallacious, but anyone but a sociopath would agree that killing is only right in some circumstances. Therefore, in other circumstances, it is wrong, and by extension immoral.

[Chumblywumbly]

There is no "supreme moral justice of the universe" to Kant, insofar that anyone can rationally determine right from wrong.

You're probably right in that Kant thought that his working out of what was moral was pretty spot on, but there's certainly controversy in Kant's views - his prescription on suicide is a notable one. However, Kant leaves us not just with a list of dos and don'ts, but with a moral calculator, if you will, that we can all use. There's plenty of Kantian's that disagree with Kant.

One of Kant's key motivations was coming up with a determiner of moral behaviour that wasn't reliant on culture, etc.

I suppose, Marxists disagree with Marx and Darwinists disagree with Darwin. All good point however, I generally find most philosophers to be a bit of the viewpoint that they are always right - which seems contrary to philosophy in general. Moral particularism is something I've been throwing around for a while, also the idea of just having the immutable law "Don't be a dick". The problem with the former is that it is almost so flexible it isn't a moral viewpoint at all and the latter that being a dick is subjective so not answering anything.

Back to the drawing board and ivory tower.

I've read, and met, arrogant philosophers who think they're always right and humble philosophers who welcome you poking holes in their theories. I'd like to say that contemporary academic philosophy roots out the former - and in a good department with regular, rigorous debate it will happen - but unfortunately that's not always the case. As a fellow philosophy student recently said to me, it's quite possible to make a living via philosophy without being very good at it.

I'm really enamoured by moral particularism too. The work of Jonathan Dancy and Margaret Olivia Little, in particular (ho, ho, ho) has made a big impact in recent years on the way I've thought about metaethics.