Eryan posted on 16/2/2002 at 20:13Quote:
The discussion in this thread is simply GREAT!
I must resist an urge to write now ALL comments which came to my mind after I have
read the last posts - after all, this is Saturday evening!
I will only focus on the question whether people having children are
more or less selfish than people that do not have them.
I do not have children - and I feel that this makes me LESS egocentric. I always feel sorry
when I hear someone tell with pride something like "Now at last I know what is the sense
of my existence - it's simply to do all I can to make my children happy"! And what about
the children of OTHER parents? In the xtremes cases such parents are no better than
religious fanatics. Oh no - they do not ask anything for themselves, they only serve God
(their children). It is simply an extended egoism!
(Attention - I am speaking here about religious fanatics in the strict sense of the word, and not
about fervent believers in God!).
Imagine now a situation when you must choose between the death of your own
dear child - and the death of 1000 other children. A most tragic dilemma!. I can understand
both people which will decide to save their own child - and those which will decide to save
all other children. But in any of these two cases the person in question should feel that the
situation is tragic indeed, and I'd expect him/her to suffer, feel shattered and have guilty
feelings.
But when I asked that question to some women I know - for some of them
the answer was absolutely simple and obviouss: they would do all to save their
own child, and to the hell with all others!!! That made me feel really really sad.
Swampfaye posted on 17/2/2002 at 02:32Quote:
This is why men don't have babies... so they can make those decisions. I don't know how I would react in a situation like that, my mind would logically tell me "the needs of the many..." but I am a mother to this child. I can't say I'd let my child die any more than Sam could leave Frodo behind, even when he thought him dead (remember the quest still needed to be filled, but Sam abandoned the quest to go back for Frodo).
But... talking about religious fundamentals, that is the concept behind God letting Jesus die, so I know all Christians understand the idea.
Rosie posted on 17/2/2002 at 02:33Quote:
well, what i said was really a general comment, and you can't expect it to be true in every case. And i did not mean to imply spending 7 hours in labour will turn anyone into a saint.
There will always be selfish, obsessive and crazy people. Perhaps those neurotic mothers would've turned out to be even worse had they not been mothers- so maturing is always a matter of degrees.
And the thing about saving ur child over 1000 others? maybe they'll actually make the right choice when it actually boils down to making the decision. and that kinda thing takes guts and nobility- not everyone is capable of that.
Swampfaye posted on 17/2/2002 at 14:40Quote:
You said it right Rosie... It reminds me of a Quote from "Friendly Persuasion" where the Quakers are being asked if they can sit aside and let the civil war go on without their intervention (being pacifists for religious reasons) if the rebs come to destroy their property. Father said: "I don't think anyone of us can say with certainty what we would do in that situation. But if it comes I hope I can be an instrument of the Lord."
That's what I would like to say about it too... [Edited on 17/2/2002 by swampfaye]
Eryan posted on 17/2/2002 at 15:13Quote:yes
and I also agree with you Rosie that neurotic mothers would probably be as neurotic (or
worse) if they weren't mothers...
PlasticSquirrel posted on 18/2/2002 at 14:55Quote:Yep, they're women ain't they? Bound to be neurotic then.
Eryan posted on 18/2/2002 at 18:01Quote:Yes - and it's why then run in Bikinis in forests...
Ungoliant posted on 18/2/2002 at 21:21Quote:
Eryan's example...I admire those who honestly admit that they have no idea what they would do should the situation ever arise...and the 'instrument of God' reasoning is noble, but then I'm also a tad suspicious about that argument since a person could easily d*mn the thousands to save a few and justify his/her action by saying "they did what they did because it was God's will." No more guilt!
Swampfaye posted on 18/2/2002 at 23:53Quote:
They could do the same if the *didn't* believe in God... "since I know my kid will be raised correctly, I can sacrifice these others without guilt"
Don't let the word God intimidate you into being prejudiced against believers.
Rosie posted on 19/2/2002 at 10:20Quote:
i find it rather sad that nowdays organised religion has become so decadent- well i guess it has been for awhile- and that most 'intellectuals' and 'scientists' claim to be aetheists. Has God really suffered his death in the 20th century?
most people seeem so cynical and disillusioned now about religion, god and humanity in general. it's all about being politically correct and accepting other cultures -not that there's anything wrong with it- which reminds me, i'm so sick of Mr. ******** (better not mention his name just in case he happens to drop by) and his BS!! bloody hell, where was I?
do you think Shakespear was an aetheist?
Plastic Squirrel posted on 19/2/2002 at 12:28Quote:
Shakespeare was not an atheist, being an atheist back in Lizzy the first's time would save you a fortune in hats, if you know what I mean.
And the Instrument of God thing, wasn't that David Koresh's excuse?
Swampfaye posted on 19/2/2002 at 13:15Quote:
It was also Osama Bin Ladins excuse, but it's Palestines excuse and Israels excuse... but what's China's excuse? I can find examples of cruielty in the name of "government" (secularism) as many times as you can find one of religion. You are looking at it the wrong way: "If you go about looking for the bad in people, expecting to find it, you surely will" (Abraham Lincoln). I'm not bad, I don't think, and I certainlyh haven't tried to force religion down anyone's throat here... I'm sure there's lots more "good" poeple who are believers in your life than there are bad ones, but you seem to be focusing on the worst of the worst. The best examples of instruments of God, of believers *and* non believers (because I do believe that God can in fact work through those who don't believe in him) of just plain good people who believe in different things... are the people around me, and if you can't say the same, maybe you are surrounding yourself with the wrong people and your view isn't nearly as open as you thought it was...[Edited on 19/2/2002 by swampfaye]
Plastic Squirrel posted on 20/2/2002 at 10:16Quote:I have been accused of being a bad person many times, most of them justified. But it never had anything to do with religion, I accept the blame for all I have done.
The people I surround myself with are basically good people, none of them religious though, as I have only ever met one religious type that I respected. He was a marvellous guy and he really helped me out when I needed it a few years ago, but he never tried to force his beliefs on me, which is why I respect the guy.
My view is perfectly open, I take people for who they are, not what they believe, or what they've done with their lives. It's just that I can never see why people have this intense need to believe in something that has no evidence of existing at all. And perhaps there is some higher power that created everything, I don't think so myself, I reckon creation was just a mistake or something. But even if it weren't, then why go around singing bloody stupid songs to the poor guy and doing all that "Oh worshipful god-type thing, you are so wonderful and we are worthless sh*t" stuff.
Like I say, it's just a personal opinion, and people is people is people, and if they're good then they're good, and if they're bad, then there's usually something good in there somewhere, you just have to find it.
Eryan posted on 20/2/2002 at 10:54Quote:
Great Plastic! Really great!
Eryan posted on 20/2/2002 at 19:21Quote:
I was in a hurry but now I think I'll explain more clearly why I like so much Plastic's post. I would never describe myself as an atheist, and never as a "militant atheist", as he did once. I'm an agnostic, and that term is not used here to be an euphemism for being an atheist. I simply do not know whether God exists. I have no idea at all! But I believe very firmly in Good and Evil. And I do not need to believe in God to yearn to Good and to desire it.
I agree with Plastic that there are no completely evil people. Yes, "bad" people usually have something good in them. Even Hannibals Lecters.
But the inverse is also true. In my opinion the worst tragedy of mankind is that so much of evil is comitted by basically good, decent people. Let us have a honest look at ourselves!. We are not so bad, after all... but do we really do our most to make our world a better one, more harmonious, less unjust, l?
There is a great book of a Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov "Master and Marguerita" devoted, among others, to that very question. It shows a society of basically good people, funny, almost Hobbit-like, living their small lives in Moscow in the times of Staline. They are very human: and yet there is so much evil; some of them are able, for instance, to denounce their neighbours to police and get them sent to death in goulags just to be able to enlarge their flat. This is not written directly, but as a very delicate allusion... because of censorship, very strict at that time. The picture of that society is both extremely funny and extremely grim.
Yes... much evil is committed by basically good people.
Well... but we are completely off-topic from some time I'm afraid! [Edited on 20/2/2002 by Eryan]
Ungoliant posted on 20/2/2002 at 22:04Quote:
Agree with Plastic & Eryan. I believe in God, but I also believe that he gave us free will. So I believe that we ought to take responsibility for our own actions, that's all.
Take the current Chinese government. Sure, they repress their own people by banning certain groups and practices (all governments do, to an extent), but at least they don't hide behind God for any of their actions - at the end of the day you know it's them doing it. Compare that to say, the Talibans. All the cruelty and horror unleashed upon the Afgans during their rule was 'in the name of God'. Even the good guys - Bush & Blair claimed to have God 'on our side' and then went ahead and bombed many innocent civilians. At least the Israeli and Palentinian governments are more honest about it - it's just a land issue at the end of the day - although it didn't start out that way.
Not much difference you say? Well, maybe not in the number of lives lost, but I resent governments that use God's name as a seal of approval for all of their actions, especially the ones that involve taking away another life since I remember God saying specifically, "Thou shall not kill." If governments feel the need to go to war - fine. Just don't drag God into it.
Grondmaster posted on 20/2/2002 at 23:52Quote:Hear! Hear!
Jehanne posted on 21/2/2002 at 02:11Quote:
We do go off on some odd and interesting tangents around here.
I agree with much of what you all have said, except Eryan's comment (no offense meant, Eryan) that there are no wholly evil people.
I really don't agree with that. And I don't mean Republicans or Communists or any essentially frivolous answer. I mean people like Josef Mengele. I don't care if he liked butterflies or was nice to his mother or could make a good streudel. That man was evil. There was no core of good within him. And he certainly wasn't alone.
And it's not like there aren't modern examples- Milosevic is unredeemable, and he apparently has no idea that he's not the victim here.
I believe in free will. I agree that it's possible to have a strong moral system independent of religious belief. I agree that God is too often used as a mask for human evils. I agree that "basically good" people can do terrible acts out of their misguided, overly zealous or uniformed beliefs.
But I cannot believe that everyone is basically good. Even misguided free will cannot account for the architects of the Nazi atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the genocide of the Tutsi people in Rawanda and other similar bloodbaths.
These people were and are evil. And it frightens me, as an American, a Jew, a mother of future children and a citizen of the world, to think that their like can still come to power in this "enlightened" day and age.
Eryan posted on 21/2/2002 at 02:37Quote:Hello Jehanne,
I think that you did not understand well my point about people not being wholly evil.
Here I am quoting once what I said:
Quote:
I agree with Plastic that there are no completely evil people. Yes, "bad" people usually have something good in them. Even Hannibals Lecters.
This does NOT imply Hannibals Lecters (and Mengele, and Milosevic, and all other people responsable for all these moderm atrocities) are good, nor that we should treat them in the same fashion as "good" people, or let them rule the world, or even let them enjoy freedom.
I am as scared of them as anybody. Yet I still find it tragic that they are what they are. I'm thinking about them not only in terms of their being a menace - but also in terms of brain pathology. Do you know that the majority of them suffers from severe mental disorders? Just a week ago I read an article on it... a terryfying one!
I agree that we should say clearly that such "human monsters" are evil. But we should not be content to brand them. We should seek to understand why people became like this! Why they do not feel any pity for their victims, any ordinary human compassion!
Yet one thing: they often become monsters because they de-humanize their victims. So I think that we should not behave in their Orc way and de-humanize even these human monsters. Even if they choose to be evil from their own free will, we should try to understand why.
Yes [Edited on 21/2/2002 by Eryan]
Jehanne posted on 21/2/2002 at 04:14Quote:I think I'm still not understanding your position, Eryan (please don't be insulted by that). Surely, if you say a person isn't completely evil, they have some good in them by default? At least if you're thinking in terms of a dichotomy of good and evil, which is what has been used most often here.
So I don't quibble with your assertion that
Quote:
This does NOT imply Hannibals Lecters (and Mengele, and Milosevic, and all other people responsible for all these modern atrocities) are good
That's not what I said you said. Of course they aren't good. Even if they aren't wholly evil (as I understand your philosophy), that wouldn't tip the scales to "good." But I don't really agree that they have some grain of goodness in them still. I believe that their actions would have crushed it, if indeed it ever existed.
I'm not sure any truly sane and healthy person can understand people like that, and I fear that the price of trying to gain such understanding would be killingly high. And if their actions stemmed from mental illness or a similar cause, well, studying it may be useful for the future but it won't help these murderers of the past regain their humanity. They branded themselves. It isn't my lack of understanding of Mengele's brain pathology (which I freely admit to having) that put him on his dark path; it was his own lack of basic humanity. And I don't consider myself Orc-like for considering him less than human. I do so not because of who or what he was, but because of what he did.
In my philosophy, the mass of humanity is basically good, or at least equally good and evil with the capacity (molded by society, education, free will, etc.) to choose between them. So "people", as a broad category, aren't wholly evil, I agree. But I still don't agree that there are no completely evil individuals within that broad category. They may be mercifully infrequent, but I believe they do exist.
We don't have to agree on this, you know. A plurality of opinions is what makes life interesting.
[Edited on 21/2/2002 by Jehanne]
Jehanne posted on 21/2/2002 at 04:24Quote:
Anyway, should we maybe move this deep philosophy to a pub? It doesn't have much to do with Eowyn anymore...
PlasticSquirrel posted on 21/2/2002 at 10:59Quote:
Yeah, but it's getting good now!
A lot of horrifically evil people really truly believed that what they were doing was for the good. Case in point, Aleister Crowley, who thought that with his philosophy of "Do what thou wilt" he could change the world for the better (Okay, there was also the stuff with the goats and stuff, he was not a nice man) but he did think he was doing good.
Amazingly enough, so did Hitler (who was later found to be suffering from Syphilis, which rotted his brain). I have never actualy found a single good word to say about the man, except that he was a political genius, which is hardly a compliment.
Swampfaye posted on 21/2/2002 at 12:44Quote:
In my heart of hearts I don't think Hitler thought what he was doing was "right" or even "justified". He didn't even treat all Christians well, he persecuted Catholics and didn't limit his prejudice to Jews. Thousands of Gypsies were imprisioned and tortured as well.
But I am still with Jehanne on this. People are basically good. We all start out good. It is our choice to do good or evil and I think it is in our nature to be "compelled" to do good (though, and I admit it, it isn't always easy, i.e Sam and Frodo walking into Mordor). If we chose to do evil, I think we are acting against our own nature, and like Gollum that choice to do evil becomes easier and easier until it is simply so hard *not* to choose evil, we have become corrupted...
PlasticSquirrel posted on 21/2/2002 at 19:49Quote:
Have you read "Mein Kampf"? The guy believed all that stuff, really and truly, totally nuts I'm afraid. Really thought he was doing the right thing for the whole world, as if all those people were pigeons, or rats or something.
It's a lot like Douglas Adams parallel of the Masters of Krikkit, who believed in Sports, family values, wholesome songs, and the complete and utter obliteration of all other species.
Huan posted on 21/2/2002 at 22:24Quote:
Are we on a tangent or what!
Can't really reply to all comments. So just stick to Plastics last one and Jehanne's one also and wholly agree with them.
Most of the evil done in this century was done by people with a highly defined and refined sense of what is supposed to be Good. In fact many of those "evildoers" were elected representatives of their communities.
Eryan you cannot honestly think and blow off genocide and political horror and murder and terrroism because they have a "mental illness?". Next thing somemone will say Mengele will tell us he had a bad childhood.
Soon somebody will say there are good genes and evil genes ! Guess who's ugly philosophy comes screaming back with a revenge as eugenism and racism finds a new pseudo scientific forum upon which to spread its ignorance !
We are free to act. Just most forget to take responsability for what they do.
Swampy read some history on WWII and especially 33 to 39 and you'll see Adolf definitely felt what he was doing was right and justified. (read Chistopher Browning and Daniel Goldhagen for info)
Are people basically good? I'm not sure that means anything any more. Paul Celan wondered if writing poetry meant anything after 1945. The question is still the most valid philosophicla question of our time.
Most people live within a defined conservative moral structure which offers coded references of good and evil which are rarely transgressed. I don't think people are inately good or evil - I don't think we are inately anything except talking mammals - in 21st century . Most people just act to keep the status quo and keep their emotional/political and moral environment stable. Infact categories of good and evil are what we use to try to assimilate Dachau, Birkenhau, etc - the problem is there are no words - there is just the horror and the ultimate realization that this is a visceral and inate part of humanity. The Final Solution was not performed by monsters - it was performed by men, women, institutions, engineers, teachers, doctors, nburdes, priests, cab drivers.... who went home at night, had dinner, complained about the weather, read stories to their kids before going to bed, went to Chuirch on Sunday and went back to "work" on Monday.
The horror of it all is that it would be easy to deal with a few Hannibal the Cannibal. But how can you deal with your neighbour? and what if it was you? and as my favorite postAuthorID said "Se questo e un uomo?" (I could never translate this phrase correctly.)
To get back to what Jehanne was saying - who cares if somebody is supposed to have a grain of good in them - it's what they do that defines them .
then the whole question becomes difficult? In the hierarchy of evil if Mengele is guilty, what about his assitant? Isn't this the question that tortured Primo Levi at the end of his life.
Grondy lets take this to a Tavern.
Eryan posted on 21/2/2002 at 22:48Quote:
Hello everybody
I simply cannot write down a honest serious post on this topic because the question is so
complex that it would take me hours to write and I'm tired today after a busy day.
Anyway, this discussion is really most stimulating (to say the least).
Good night everybody (or good morning, depending where you are!)
Grondy says, "Your wish is my command--sometimes. And I apologize if I didn't get all the pertinent bits, I'm falling asleep as I'm doing this move." [Edited on 22/2/2002 by Grondmaster]
