On the topic of Good and Evil
I’m wondering if you want to revisit #10; or could you state whether you consider the Democrat Party to be evil – requiring intent and cognition?-Mike Devx Full Text here
Slavery is evil. In so far as the Democrat party can be said to be evil, they are evil for perpetrating slavery. True ethics, however, isn’t a matter of declaring something so and thus it is. Ethics is about choice. Evil is only one potential choice people can select. There are others. And the standard to judge what is or is not an evil choice is very simple.
If slavery was the only economic model available to you, and one had no means to change it for the better, and even when one tried, all that happened was failure and tragedy, then slavery would have to be maintained or some equivalent miserable status quo. But when an opportunity presents itself for a better state of affairs, one that protects the interests of more people rather than less, the human agent has an ethical duty to choose, support, or side with that new opportunity. To do otherwise, to select the easier path, the status quo of misery, or selfish interests, is evil. Because you were given a choice and you chose to go on the path that served entropy rather than the best interests of the human species. How many billions of lives will your decision have affected now and in the future. And in another 10,000 years, how many trillions of additional lives will your decision to destroy rather than create, have affected. That is the metaphysical state of evil, the consequences of it, and it is also the ethical state of an evil choice. It is not the difference over, as the Left tries to claim, a chocolate Louisiana and a vanilla one. It is as fundamental as life and death, light and darkness, creation and destruction, matter and anti-matter.
Most liberals I know are convinced they are right.
Most everybody is convinced they are right. The most violent, sadistic, serial killers and sociopaths believe that what they were doing was right, as they saw it. Fake liberals are no different in this than we are, really. There is no special title of nobility the Left can steal to make themselves morally superior. There is no absolute standard of superiority against the standard of the human condition, which cannot be abrogated by any title of nobility, intention, or deed. Unless they think themselves omnipotent godlings, they cannot reshape reality with a wish.
The only people who have doubts are those with an insufficient ability to self-deceive. Their self-awareness is too high, their sensitivity to the emotions of others is too great. They feel too much because they care too much to pretend to even themselves that it can be otherwise. How many Democrats do you know with such a quality. That haven’t defected to our side already, that is.
So is there actual intent to perform evil? And cognition of it?
Evil is not something affected by people’s neuroses. It is what it is. It, like a state of matter, exists in one particular space-time. You can change it, but it requires more than simply wishes. And for the Democrats, it requires far more than just self-deception, narcissism, and anger to make their choices the right choices.
Aristotle once said that the only way to be virtuous is to behave in a way consistent with the various virtues. Thus if one wishes to be honest, be honest. If one wishes to be courageous, practice courage. If one wishes to have integrity and compassion, practice doing things that are the result of integrity and compassion. Simply sitting around thinking about having these traits is what leads to self-deception and the tragedy of arrogance. On the other hand, one can seek virtue while believing that acting full of vice will accomplish what is virtuous. That’s impossible. One cannot accomplish the Good by doing the Evil, nor is it feasible vice a versa.
Evil and Good are defined in post-modern models as being solely about what is good for the Self. Thus what is good is whatever the burglar thinks is worth money, and whatever is bad is when the burglar can’t get his hands on money. This mentality infects much of the Democrat party, and it doesn’t matter if they are in leadership roles or are cogs at the bottom.
Their focus on “social goals” and their utter disregard for their own people allowed them to murder millions of their own.
They are only examples. People use them partially because they believe that if they have a hate-evil receptacle to hold all the manifestations of harm and corruption (Pandora’s Box) that it then becomes somebody else’s responsibility to handle such. Thus it is Pandora’s fault that humanity’s sins were unleashed, rather than the fault of the idiots that kept it in the box instead of destroying it or counter-acting it. Thus people speak about Hitler when they need to claim that their hands are free and only somebody, like Bush, can be evil.
It isn’t so, of course. Only fools and those well practiced in self-deception would believe so. When I use the example of Hitler, I am not speaking of preventing people from becoming that kind of individual. That’s impossible, short of killing them. I am speaking of not trusting in a leader that is evil. I am speaking of watching the evil within yourself because you are responsible for the harm you do when you give your power to another to use as they please. When the Left speaks about Hitler, they use it as a shield to direct all negative attributes to us and keep all positive attributes to themselves. That’s unrealistic, unwise, and of no good to those most in need.
So does it even matter whether they view themselves as evil or not, as in “requiring intent and cognition”?
It does matter, but not in the fashion you mean. Intent and cognition are objective traits as well as subjective ones. If I gave the Dem useful idiots the choice of siding with evil or siding with us, and they choose evil, they have done evil. It doesn’t matter what they claim as their justification. Either they choose the method that helps the most people and sacrifices the least, or they choose the path that helps themselves the most while sacrificing the most of others. That is an objective context. Something I can feel much as I can see and feel the mass graves of thousands. It exists in the world outside of my inner perception.
They cannot say that they intended to choose the ‘just side’, because their actions belie their claims. Their intent is to choose the path that benefits them the most, while covering it up with self-deception or outright lies.
And for those that erroneously believe the Democrat way is the best way, then they have not been offered the choice. They have not seen reality for what it is. But that’s okay, children are also naive and ignorant. But a child is only a child because they lack power to protect themselves. Once you have enough power to extinguish the lives of others, you are no longer a child. You have just become a danger to common safety, if you have the naivete and ignorance of a child, but the power of an adult.
This is very simple to resolve. Find all these Democrats that claim to believe in things like equality, truth, and justice and TEST them. In this reality, not in their mental fantasies. Test their actions and behavior. And that will judge whether they are or are not, because by their actions you shall know them. Give them the choice that they have refused to be aware of.
It seems to me that the winning argument for us is to focus on the worth and dignity of every human being, as a natural right – and for the vast majority of Americans, these natural rights are from God.
God does not exist for the Left. Killing off God was one of the first things the Communists had to do. It may seem that you have won the argument because they seemingly agree with you about ‘natural rights’ but their definition of such is not the same as yours, because they don’t have a God providing the backing for their currency. And there’s no objective standard to prove the existence of God, so there is no ‘winning argument’. The winning argument is a bullet destroying the brain, not theological arguments about religion. Because of free will
Without God as the common ground, it is pointless to argue about what did or did not come from God. Thus it is pointless to argue about whether humanity should or should not abrogate what God gave us. Human beings believe in what they see, feel, and hear. There are only two ways to convince people. Make up illusions for them to sense or make them face reality.
Ethics is all about facing reality and making the right decisions regardless of the different combinations of events or interests. An argument is just words. It is not violene or force. It is not using an overwhelming reality to prevent the resistance of an individual. It is simply words. People believe only if they agree to believe. If they don’t agree, there is no winning argument. The only thing left is force.
In conclusion, the point is that if ‘winning’ is just based upon the Left agreeing with us, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place. The issue is that they don’t agree, and the harm they are doing is such that we cannot simply ignore them. If words were enough to convince them, it would have already. The only thing left is force. This can take many forms, such as verbal or physical violence. Or it can take the form of simple reality and the consequences there of. Reality has a force all on its own.
the rights of many people will be sacrificed, inevitably, to achieve the social goal.
The rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few. And you’re not going to convince a predominant portion of the Left using only words.
That’s so far from what it’s always meant to be American that I can’t see how we’ve arrived at this point.
I can. That is one primary reason I know why words won’t convince the Left of anything except that they can win.
All the above would be true even if these social-goal programs *worked*.
If these things worked, meaning they were the best option available to protect the interests of the many, then human nature itself would have changed. Thus ethics would have changed because metaphysics, what is real and not real, would have changed on planet earth.
Thus all of the above would not be true if the social programs of the Left worked as advertised. Good and Evil is based, primarily, on what is or is not true. There is no compromise on this issue. It is why ethics can sometimes be situational but often times is not. Change the situation and you change what would have been good into evil or vice a versa. The system of ethics, then, is there to create a standard to judge right or wrong in a universal situation. Society easily determines what is right or wrong for each local incident. The law can do it as well.
For example, take self-defense. It isn’t self-defense if you are fighting, meaning if you were offered an opportunity to avoid the conflict but chose to stay or argue. Thus killing the other person in a fight over what music the jukebox should be playing would be wrong, because you would have chosen to stay to risk your life and to kill him, for some triviality like that, when you could have left. But let’s change the variables around a bit. What if you were given a choice to leave or fight, but if you left, you had to leave all your valuables? What if you were given a choice to leave or fight, but if you left, you would have had to leave the women to be returned tomorrow a ‘little worse for wear’? What if you were given no choice at all. What if your choice is between staying and watching those you care about be tortured and killed, or leaving them to be tortured and killed. What choice will you have then.
This is the most that can be called ‘situational ethics’. The same kind of choice, with different metaphysics and consequences. Again, change the context or basic underlying foundation of reality, and you change what would have been a good decision to leave the bar over a fight about jukebox music, to a bad one, to an evil one, and so forth.
I know the general public isn’t taught any of this. And I know why. And it’s one reason why you can’t convince the Left that they are wrong. They were taught otherwise. For them to reject their upbringing would require character traits that are not common in the human species. I’m not interested in convincing them that they are wrong. I am interested in offering them a choice between Good and Evil. And if they choose to do the wrong thing and choose evil, the consequences of their own actions become assured. Before then, I wasn’t certain of where they were. Their words claimed goodness and may have been true or it may have been an Obama lie. To determine the truth, I test them. And if they fail the test, the consequences will have become predictable and certain.Explore posts in the same categories: Philosophy