Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You mean the cultures of the pagan Norse? Again,
> who knows? Nobody was recording cultural
> attitudes until Christians showed up ... .
>
>

The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes and guidelines for living.

The Icelandic films When the Raven Flies (1984) and In the Shadow of the Raven (1987) are valuable, and portray pagan perspectives. But mainly tell stories of revenge. On the whole the Vikings lived ordinary ordered lives, taking care of their communities.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > As far as Ulf being evil, here's an interesting
> > point: do you think that Ulf or his ilk, the
> old
> > troll, e.g., would see themselves as evil?
>
> They are both mad, so who knows?

Not exactly.

Ulf starts the story as a simple unrestrained opportunist, just like the kind you find in the homeless encampments in the bigger west coast cities, the main difference being that the homeless are gradually working themselves into believing that they can get away with anything, whereas Ulf already thinks that.

He transitions to madness as a result of acquiring the hoard, and we can infer the the previous "troll" probably went thru the same process.

Before acquiring the treasure, I think that there's a better chance that they thought of themselves as clever or successful, rather than evil. Afterward, they no longer seemed to think much.

>
> If Ulf were a real person, I would leave God to
> judge his soul. But since he is only a character
> in a book, why hesitate to say that he is
> obviously a villain? I'm sure that is David
> Drake's opinion, and I for one agree with him.

He's the villain of the story, no doubt. But the question I posed was from his own perspective: does he consider his own actions to be evil, or even wrong? And I'm not sure about that--he gives no evidence of an internal struggle justifying his actions.

>
> > Would
> > the culture from which they both sprung view
> Ulf's
> > actions as immoral or evil?
>
> You mean the cultures of the pagan Norse? Again,
> who knows? Nobody was recording cultural
> attitudes until Christians showed up and began
> writing stuff down.

What the Christian observers who witnessed their incursions wrote indicates that they felt little human kinship with their victims and viewed them as prey. Since they came in groups, one might infer that significant sections of their society felt similarly, and contrariwise, if the societies from which they came thought these actions evil or wrong, then the raiders would have little local following.

I'd say that the simplest working assumption is that the Nordic pagan cultures of the time viewed violent opportunism *against foreign societies* as no worse than whaling or trapping.

>
> This is the eternal question that torments moral
> subjectivists. But I believe in objective
> morality, and his actions are evil regardless of
> what his culture thinks.

The point is, do cultures share a common morality? To me it looks like there's some sharing on main issues (murder, wife-theft, etc.) but the cultures differ widely on where the borders of incest, child exploitation for labor, etc., slavery, but the largest variance is over *who* these moral precepts apply to. If it's "wrong" to take another tribemember's wife, is it also wrong to take an outsider's wife?

And that, right there, the extension of moral protection beyond the family/tribe/clan/nation, is itself perhaps the biggest difference in applications of moral principals. We now have individuals in western liberal democracies who think that not only do moral protections apply to all humans on earth, but to non-humans as well, and hence they'd view others who don't agree as immoral--possibly evil.

>
> If you want me to guess, my guess is this. Yes, I
> do think the pagan Norse would, by and large, have
> considered Ulf to be evil.

I could see this, and the largest internal signal is that Ulf is a loner--not a part of a group of like-minded raiders.

> History sees the
> Norsemen through the eyes of those who were
> victims of their ravages and piracy.

Similar to the way mid-20th C Germany is recorded, historically.

> But I don't
> think it is entirely fair to judge an entire
> culture by the standards of a handful of
> adventuring pirates. And my guess is, that when
> these adventuring pirates came home to their
> communities, they did not by and large boast to
> their wives and children about how many women they
> had raped and how many babies they had
> slaughtered. Because that sort of thing does not
> tend to go over well with most people.

Most modern people, yes.

> Good and
> evil are at war in all communities and in all ages
> of the world.

But the exact boundries of what is "good" or "evil" change according to time and place. This makes it relative, and not absolute.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > You mean the cultures of the pagan Norse?
> Again,
> > who knows? Nobody was recording cultural
> > attitudes until Christians showed up ... .
> >
> >
>
> The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes and
> guidelines for living.
>
> The Icelandic films When the Raven Flies (1984)
> and In the Shadow of the Raven (1987) are
> valuable, and portray pagan perspectives. But
> mainly tell stories of revenge. On the whole the
> Vikings lived ordinary ordered lives, taking care
> of their communities.

Yes, I would expect this *within their communities*--otherwise, no order = no long-term cultural survival. Whether this concern for order applied to others seems less certain.

The current ideas of the brotherhood of Man is fairly recent, I think. Extending full moral/ethical protections, unilaterally and proactively, to outsiders was not the norm, from what I've read.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
> Ulf starts the story as a simple unrestrained
> opportunist, just like the kind you find in the
> homeless encampments in the bigger west coast
> cities, the main difference being that the
> homeless are gradually working themselves into
> believing that they can get away with anything,
> whereas Ulf already thinks that.

Why are we talking about homeless people? I'm sure some of them are terrible sinners, but I would guess that the vast majority of them do not chop random women up with axes just for yuks. And those that do are quickly removed from society.

> Before acquiring the treasure, I think that
> there's a better chance that they thought of
> themselves as clever or successful, rather than
> evil.

If criminals were their own judges, they 99% of them would adjudge themselves innocent.

> He's the villain of the story, no doubt. But the
> question I posed was from his own perspective:
> does he consider his own actions to be evil, or
> even wrong?

Who cares? As I said, if criminals were their own judges, they would adjudge themselves innocent 99% of the time.

> What the Christian observers who witnessed their
> incursions wrote indicates that they felt little
> human kinship with their victims and viewed them
> as prey.

Same with criminal gangs today.

> Since they came in groups, one might
> infer that significant sections of their society
> felt similarly, ....

I suppose you could make similar arguments about criminal gangs today.

> and contrariwise, if the societies
> from which they came thought these actions evil or
> wrong, then the raiders would have little local
> following.

Depends on where they raided. If they raided far from home, and victimized people of different languages, they might have been relatively unconcerned about the reports that might reach their communities.

> I'd say that the simplest working assumption is
> that the Nordic pagan cultures of the time viewed
> violent opportunism *against foreign societies* as
> no worse than whaling or trapping.

Yet, the evidenced suggests, that when Beowulf got home from adventuring abroad, he did not boast of the number of women he had raped and the number of babies he had cut in half. Rather he boasted of being a benefactor to the foreign kingdom he encountered. Which story was closer to the truth is more than I can say.

> The point is, do cultures share a common morality?

Atheists used to argue that they did. They called it the "Natural Law".

> To me it looks like there's some sharing on main
> issues (murder, wife-theft, etc.) ....

Ulf chops random women to death with his axe just for yuks. That's what we are talking about.

> ... but the cultures
> differ widely on where the borders of incest,
> child exploitation for labor, etc., slavery, ....

We're talking about Ulf. I did not call him evil because he married his first cousin or gave a 12 year old some chores.

> ... but
> the largest variance is over *who* these moral
> precepts apply to. If it's "wrong" to take another
> tribemember's wife, is it also wrong to take an
> outsider's wife?

The question is whether it is wrong to chop her in half just for yuks.

> And that, right there, the extension of moral
> protection beyond the family/tribe/clan/nation, is
> itself perhaps the biggest difference in
> applications of moral principals.

Even if you believe different standards should be applied to your Jewish neighbors as opposed to those rotten Samaritans, there is room to believe that you should not chop Samaritan women up with axes just for yuks.

> We now have
> individuals in western liberal democracies who
> think that not only do moral protections apply to
> all humans on earth, ....

Jesus taught this 2000 years ago. That's what his parable about the Samaritan is about. The idea is much older than "Western Liberal Democracies".

But his point was not "don't chop foreign women in half just for yuks". Nobody asked him that question.

> ... but to non-humans as well,
> and hence they'd view others who don't agree as
> immoral--possibly evil.

No-one actually believes in equal rights for mice and cockroaches. There is no coherent moral system here. It is just another argument for moral nihilism.

> Similar to the way mid-20th C Germany is recorded,
> historically.

I don't believe that mid-20th century Germans were devoid of morality. Some of them were moral nihilists to be sure, but that is hardly confined to Germany.


> > But I don't
> > think it is entirely fair to judge an entire
> > culture by the standards of a handful of
> > adventuring pirates. And my guess is, that
> when
> > these adventuring pirates came home to their
> > communities, they did not by and large boast to
> > their wives and children about how many women
> they
> > had raped and how many babies they had
> > slaughtered. Because that sort of thing does
> not
> > tend to go over well with most people.
>
> Most modern people, yes.

If posters on the internet are any indication, many modern people are perfectly okay with everything Ulf does, because they are moral nihilists. But we were not talking about modern people. We were talking about ancient pagans.

> > Good and
> > evil are at war in all communities and in all ages
> > of the world.
>
> But the exact boundries of what is "good" or
> "evil" change according to time and place. This
> makes it relative, and not absolute.

If God does not exist, then all things are permissible, as long as the cops, or the twitter mob, or President Xi do not catch you. But if God does exist, then right and wrong will not change according to the opinions of specific individuals, or of specific cultures. Nor will it vary based on the opinion of the cops, or the twitter mob, or President Xi.

I did not come here to preach religion. But do I have to get a nihilistic lecture every time I use the word "evil"? Can't we just agree to disagree?



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 9 Feb 22 | 04:49PM by Platypus.

Knygatin Wrote:
> The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes and
> guidelines for living.

What do they say about chopping women in half just for yuks?

> The Icelandic films When the Raven Flies (1984)
> and In the Shadow of the Raven (1987) are
> valuable, and portray pagan perspectives.

There was never a pure, untrammeled pagan Icelandic culture. When the Old Norse settled Iceland in the 9th century, they found Christian holy men already there, as if waiting for them.

The idea that a movie made 12 centuries later can somehow accurately represent ancient pagans is dubious to the extreme.

> On the whole the
> Vikings lived ordinary ordered lives, taking care
> of their communities.

Well, I wasn't there. But so I imagine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 9 Feb 22 | 05:14PM by Platypus.

Platypus, you seem to think I'm making an apology for behaviors that neither of us find acceptable. I don't see it that way. I see myself as exploring how it is acts you and I view as atrocious take place, and fairly routinely, as history records. Any description of the Hun or Mongol invasions or Europe, Japanese invasion of China in WWII, makes Ulf seem like the veriest tyro. And this happens *still* in places like Africa, the Balkans, the middle east.

So me, I try to figure out the motivation for it and it falls into two main directions: all those who have done these acts are evil, in a sort of absolutist spiritual sense--entire nations, even; or the acts they're committing seem to them as fair and permissible in the context in which they commit them.

I see no demonstrable basis for the former--it requires an external authority that has set out immutable standards, and this would be a deity; in any event, it's a centraized authority that never amends the moral backbone. You seem to accept this on faith and I don't. And "natural law" is simply substituting the word "Nature" for "God".

This is an extremely unsatisfactory explanation for me.

I can see the elements of these behaviors in myself and in others. With the aid of my early parental training, I formed ethical habits that permit me to survive/succeed without resorting to any of this, and I'm happy about that fact.

But there are lots and lots of others who don't feel so constrained, nor do they view themselves as evil or even very wrong. Their biggest transgression is that they got caught, as they see it.

So what to do? I look for them and keep well away from them, and the actual societal answer (for our nominally lawful society) is to separate these individuals, however many there are, from the rest of society. They could be incarcerated, euthanzied, or permanently isolated to live among others like themselves.

All it takes is the will to do so, and adequate power--power being the ultimate wildcard in human society.

But on no account can they coexist with lawful society without obeying the negotiated laws. If they are tolerated, the lawful society will break down to the lowest common denominator that ensures individual survival.

And here's the central irony: the instant that the social misfits that I described have sufficient power and will, it is *their* code (or non-code) that will be the norm, and we'll be marginalized. Sort of a kill-or-be killed, eat-or-be-eaten.

In sense, Howard was right about all this.

And that's what I meant by explaining Ulf.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus, you seem to think I'm making an apology
> for behaviors that neither of us find acceptable.

I only think you are a moral nihilist, which is pretty clear at this point. So was H.P. Lovecraft, an author I admire. I don't want to pass judgment on either of you. I don't even particularly want to argue about this issue. But every time I mention a moral concept, like "evil", you seem to feel compelled to weigh in.

> So me, I try to figure out the motivation for it
> and it falls into two main directions: all those
> who have done these acts are evil, in a sort of
> absolutist spiritual sense--entire nations, even;
> or the acts they're committing seem to them as
> fair and permissible in the context in which they
> commit them.

I see 3 ideas here.

One, is that you are conflating the idea that sin exists, with the idea that all sinners are "evil, in a sort of absolute spiritual sense". I hope it is obvious that this hugely distorts the Christian position.

Second, is the idea that entire nations are evil in "a sort of absolutist spiritual sense". I can make no sense of this at all. My religion does not teach that nations have immortal souls, only that people do.

Thirdly, is the sense that you are bothered by the problem of how one man can judge another man's soul, when that other man may have been raised in the wrong kind of culture and taught the wrong kind of things, perhaps through no fault of his own. This bothers you of course, because you do not believe in God. It does not bother the Christian one bit, because he DOES believe in God, believes that it is God's job, and God's job alone, to judge men's souls; and in fact that he as a Christian is forbidden to try to do this.

> I see no demonstrable basis for the former--it
> requires an external authority that has set out
> immutable standards, and this would be a deity; in
> any event, it's a centraized authority that never
> amends the moral backbone. You seem to accept this
> on faith and I don't.

Yes. And to the extent that we were discussing the attitudes of ancient pagans, I believe they are more likely to be on my side than yours. They believed that kings, princes and entire cultures were subject to the will of the gods, and that kings and princes and entire cultures might be punished by the gods for their transgressions. They did not think that morality was man-made, or that there was no higher authority than the king, the culture, the personal superego, or any other human entity.

> And "natural law" is simply
> substituting the word "Nature" for "God".

Feel free to have that argument with a fellow atheist who is NOT a moral nihilist. It's really not my fight.

> I can see the elements of these behaviors in
> myself and in others. With the aid of my early
> parental training, I formed ethical habits that
> permit me to survive/succeed without resorting to
> any of this, and I'm happy about that fact.

Well then, you have what I would call a "moral sense". You have a theory ("early parental training") explaining how this moral sense came to be. HP Lovecraft would have called his moral sense "aesthetic". But regardless of how your moral sense came to be, you have a philosophy that tells you that any moral perceptions you have are pure delusion, with no basis whatsoever in any external reality. Nonetheless, you say you can and do follow your moral sense. And, in a meaningless world (as you suppose it to be), why not? And perhaps in doing so, you are a better person than many a devout Christian. That is not for me to judge.

> But there are lots and lots of others who don't
> feel so constrained, nor do they view themselves
> as evil or even very wrong. Their biggest
> transgression is that they got caught, as they see
> it.

So now you raise the thorny problem of how to judge the souls of men who may, through no fault of their own, have been born or raised with a deficient or inaccurate moral sense. But I've already told you the Christian answer. We DON'T judge his soul. We leave it to God to do that. The God that you don't believe exists.

So my suggestion to you is that we not have these debates every time I mention a moral concept. I have answers to all your questions. They are just not answers that you can accept because you reject the concept of God (or gods, or karma). We will only go round and round in circles.

> So what to do? I look for them and keep well away
> from them, and the actual societal answer (for our
> nominally lawful society) is to separate these
> individuals, however many there are, from the rest
> of society. They could be incarcerated,
> euthanzied, or permanently isolated to live among
> others like themselves.

In an ancient or medieval world, prison was rarely a practical nor a humane solution. Exile, execution, or perhaps a good thrashing, were the only methods available. But when a man was executed for a crime, the idea was rarely to pass judgment on his soul, which the Christian religion forbids. Rather, the formula was often to have a ritual where God was asked to have mercy on the soul of the executed man. Criminal justice was a necessary but regrettable duty performed for the protection of the community.

> All it takes is the will to do so, and adequate
> power--power being the ultimate wildcard in human
> society.

Pagans did not believe that (human) power was the ultimate wildcard in human society.

> And here's the central irony: the instant that the
> social misfits that I described have sufficient
> power and will, it is *their* code (or non-code)
> that will be the norm, and we'll be marginalized.
> Sort of a kill-or-be killed, eat-or-be-eaten.
>
> In sense, Howard was right about all this.

Not sure what you are saying here. Howard's work is somewhat amoral, from a purely Christian perspective, but I don't think he was a moral nihilist. I would say that overall, the evidence is very much against this idea.



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 9 Feb 22 | 10:54PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> > The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes and
> > guidelines for living.
>
> What do they say about chopping women in half just
> for yuks?
>
>

What proof do you have for such a rash comment about Vikings? Portraying them as evil madmen. You are either making a very bad joke, or else this is the most ignorant comment I have heard from you yet. (There is on the other hand lots of historic evidence for the Christian church torturing and killing people in Europe, and elsewhere, after this religion was forced onto Europeans.) Brutality is not something particular to Vikings, it can be seen among all cultures, among all animals, under certain conditions, when under pressure.

You have NOT READ The Edda?! But you don't mind reading and watching and filling your brain with all kinds of other literary pulp trash. :/

People today (such as yourself and the "professor") prefer the HOLLYWOOD narrative, and the Jewish-Christian historiography about Europe, and about white men in particular. And don't want to take part of any information that may challenge it. They even identify with Jewish-Christian culture more than they do with their own white European heritage. They have been taught to hate and condemn themselves as a people, and to willingly mix away and erase themselves through mass immigration. They are more concerned about the situation for Jews in Malmö than they are for the Swedish people. They don't even care that white Europeans are pushed back from their living space, and white girls are raped en masse in Europe today. IT IS A DISGRACE!!! TRAITORS!!!

Wow.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> > > The Poetic Edda (and Prose Edda) holds codes
> > > and guidelines for living.
> >
> > What do they say about chopping women in half
> > just for yuks?
>
> What proof do you have for such a rash comment
> about Vikings?

What rash comment about Vikings? I made no rash comments about Vikings. I merely asked how the Edda relates to the topic of conversation.

> Portraying them as evil madmen.

I never did any such thing. My position is that we don't know much about their culture in pure, untrammeled pagan times, but that my guess is that they probably would have disapproved of Ulf's behavior. My guess would be that the typical pagan perspective was probably closer to the Christian perspective than it is to the post-modern moral nihilist perspective.

> You
> are either making a very bad joke, or else this is
> the most ignorant comment I have heard from you
> yet.

And you are not following the conversation.

> You have NOT READ The Edda?!

I've read parts of it. At some point, I'd like to be able to say I read the whole thing. But why are you in personal attack mode? You don't even understand the conversation you are injecting yourself into. And I only asked you a simple question about how the Edda relates to the topic of conversation. A conversation which you are apparently not following.

> But you don't mind
> reading and watching and filling your brain with
> all kinds of other literary pulp trash. :/

What next? Will you insult me for reading CAS in a CAS forum?

> People today (such as yourself and the
> "professor") prefer the HOLLYWOOD narrative,

Dude. You're the one who just recommended I learn about vikings by watching a movie.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 10 Feb 22 | 08:48AM by Platypus.

Obviously we are all still involved in the controversy that arose in Heaven. God exists. Darwinism is a joke. Next subject.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obviously we are all still involved in the
> controversy that arose in Heaven. God exists.
> Darwinism is a joke. Next subject.

I never mentioned Darwinism, nor said that it was a joke, nor even believe that it is a joke. I did not come here to discuss religion at all, except maybe in a historical sense. These issues keep coming up because I am not a moral nihilist, for which I make no apology. People don't like it when I use the word "evil", even as applies to a fictional character who chops women in half for no reason. They keep telling me there is no such thing as good and evil because God does not exist. And I keep answering that I believe in God, so let's agree to disagree on this, okay? And now Knygatin is once again screaming at me about the Jewish-Christian menace.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Feb 22 | 10:54AM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Platypus, you seem to think I'm making an
> apology
> > for behaviors that neither of us find
> acceptable.
>
> I only think you are a moral nihilist, which is
> pretty clear at this point.

Yes, but simply because it is the most economical explanation. I have no irons in the fire WRT to whether religions or valid or not for those who practice them.

It's just simply that I find no satisfaction in theological explanations, nothing more than that, Platypus.

> So was H.P.
> Lovecraft, an author I admire. I don't want to
> pass judgment on either of you. I don't even
> particularly want to argue about this issue. But
> every time I mention a moral concept, like "evil",
> you seem to feel compelled to weigh in.

Yes, the questions of ethics, morality, good/evil interest me, but more from a pragmatic standpoint that a moral one.

>
> > So me, I try to figure out the motivation for
> it
> > and it falls into two main directions: all
> those
> > who have done these acts are evil, in a sort of
> > absolutist spiritual sense--entire nations,
> even;
> > or the acts they're committing seem to them as
> > fair and permissible in the context in which
> they
> > commit them.
>
> I see 3 ideas here.
>
> One, is that you are conflating the idea that sin
> exists, with the idea that all sinners are "evil,
> in a sort of absolute spiritual sense".

This is why I like to engage on these topics.

I, personally, do not recognize sin. The individual either conforms, or not, to the agreed upon social code currently in lawful force.

So while I have no respect/regard for homosexuals (or very little), I don't view their actions as sinful, or even restricted, at this point in history.


>I hope it
> is obvious that this hugely distorts the Christian
> position.

Which one? Do all the various sects and denominations even agree on that? What about predestination in Calvinism? All those who are not saved at birth seem to be damned beyond redemption.

>
> Second, is the idea that entire nations are evil
> in "a sort of absolutist spiritual sense". I can
> make no sense of this at all. My religion does
> not teach that nations have immortal souls, only
> that people do.

OK.

Then at times huge pluralities of various nations were either evil or misled on the individual level, is this how you see it?

I think functionally this is not a lot different from how I see it, except that the plurality opposed the principals of me and people like me. Not ethics, a question of force--either sufficient to for compliance to their aims, or sufficient to repel their goals.

>
> Thirdly, is the sense that you are bothered by the
> problem of how one man can judge another man's
> soul, when that other man may have been raised in
> the wrong kind of culture and taught the wrong
> kind of things, perhaps through no fault of his
> own.

OK, let me clear it up.

First, I see no soul.

Second, I don't care about the underlying reasons for why miscreants deviate from behaviors that I--and probably you--find unacceptable and are also illegal. Their "reasons" sound to me like excuses, and I'll have none of that from strangers--unproven individuals.


> This bothers you of course, because you do
> not believe in God.

No, as I explained above.

What bothers me is the possibility that those whom I find reprehensible and unbound by social of legal norms will ascend to the majority either through sheer numbers, lack of public will power to simply enforce existing laws effectively, or a combination of the two.

For the first time in my life, since 6-8 years ago, I see this not only as a possibility, but an increasing possibility.

> It does not bother the
> Christian one bit, because he DOES believe in God,
> believes that it is God's job, and God's job
> alone, to judge men's souls; and in fact that he
> as a Christian is forbidden to try to do this.

OK.

As you can see, I have no trouble sitting in judgement because a) I don't see a God taking care of this; and b) I'm not concerned with souls or afterlife, but only what happens in the present and future in common society.

>
> > I see no demonstrable basis for the former--it
> > requires an external authority that has set out
> > immutable standards, and this would be a deity;
> in
> > any event, it's a centraized authority that
> never
> > amends the moral backbone. You seem to accept
> this
> > on faith and I don't.
>
> Yes. And to the extent that we were discussing
> the attitudes of ancient pagans, I believe they
> are more likely to be on my side than yours.

Maybe so.

> They
> believed that kings, princes and entire cultures
> were subject to the will of the gods, and that
> kings and princes and entire cultures might be
> punished by the gods for their transgressions.
> They did not think that morality was man-made, or
> that there was no higher authority than the king,
> the culture, the personal superego, or any other
> human entity.

Sounds fine to me. I'm not a pagan, after all.

Here's how I see what some may view as the struggle between good and evil. I can frame it in Freudian terminology most easily but this doesn't mean that I ascribe to his precepts.

Any rational individual has something like what Freud call the id, the ego, and the super-ego. The balance of these accounts for how the individual expresses him/herself in society.

Simply put, an infant is governed by id, while an ascetic is governed by super-ego. It takes tremendous will to be an ascetic, and none at all to be a screaming 2 year old.

For rational, social adults, one must wage war against the id part, using the super-ego to create an outward-facing ego for the rest of society to see. I work hard to make sure that I keep my id in check--I use the lofty precepts contained in my super-ego, and they are basically modeling the way my parents interfaced with the world. This could have been enhance by any positive religious training, but in my case wasn't. Hence, it's unneeded at this point.

I don't and haven't needed a reason beyond simply doing what I think is the "right" thing in any given situation. Some might need or want this, and some form of authority could supply this additional resolve. I don't much care *how* a person wins his own war against his animal nature--his id--only that he does so on a consistent basis.

The bad thing for me is that on encountering a person with insufficient control of his id, if I cannot avoid this person, I find that if I must deal with them at length, I have to adopt their behaviors simply to maintain parity, at least. And it's these times that I'm a supporter of organized religion. because I think they help great those who otherwise come up short in terms of self-restraint.

I don't think you need this external reason to believe, Platypus: I feel sure that you'd take care of your id in any event.

>
> > And "natural law" is simply
> > substituting the word "Nature" for "God".
>
> Feel free to have that argument with a fellow
> atheist who is NOT a moral nihilist. It's really
> not my fight.
>
> > I can see the elements of these behaviors in
> > myself and in others. With the aid of my early
> > parental training, I formed ethical habits that
> > permit me to survive/succeed without resorting
> to
> > any of this, and I'm happy about that fact.
>
> Well then, you have what I would call a "moral
> sense". You have a theory ("early parental
> training") explaining how this moral sense came to
> be.

Yes. I am not amoral.

> HP Lovecraft would have called his moral
> sense "aesthetic". But regardless of how your
> moral sense came to be, you have a philosophy that
> tells you that any moral perceptions you have are
> pure delusion, with no basis whatsoever in any
> external reality.

Yes.

> Nonetheless, you say you can
> and do follow your moral sense. And, in a
> meaningless world (as you suppose it to be), why
> not? And perhaps in doing so, you are a better
> person than many a devout Christian. That is not
> for me to judge.

I don't even think it's necessary, unless I begin to transgress.
>
> > But there are lots and lots of others who don't
> > feel so constrained, nor do they view
> themselves
> > as evil or even very wrong. Their biggest
> > transgression is that they got caught, as they
> see
> > it.
>
> So now you raise the thorny problem of how to
> judge the souls of men who may, through no fault
> of their own, have been born or raised with a
> deficient or inaccurate moral sense.

As I said before, another person's "reasons" sound a lot like "excuses". I don't care about any possible shortcomings in one's past so far as how they affect current behavior. I *do* care about how closely they hew to acceptable behavior in general society.

> But I've
> already told you the Christian answer. We DON'T
> judge his soul. We leave it to God to do that.
> The God that you don't believe exists.

Yes, OK.

>
> So my suggestion to you is that we not have these
> debates every time I mention a moral concept. I
> have answers to all your questions. They are just
> not answers that you can accept because you reject
> the concept of God (or gods, or karma). We will
> only go round and round in circles.

Yes, this is fine. Makes sense.

>
> > So what to do? I look for them and keep well
> away
> > from them, and the actual societal answer (for
> our
> > nominally lawful society) is to separate these
> > individuals, however many there are, from the
> rest
> > of society. They could be incarcerated,
> > euthanzied, or permanently isolated to live
> among
> > others like themselves.
>
> In an ancient or medieval world, prison was rarely
> a practical nor a humane solution.

Mostly, prisons were a place to restrain one until final punishment was administered.

You couldn't very well sentence a criminal to death the day after tomorrow, and expect him to present himself at that time.

> Exile,
> execution, or perhaps a good thrashing, were the
> only methods available.

Transportation was good.


> But when a man was
> executed for a crime, the idea was rarely to pass
> judgment on his soul, which the Christian religion
> forbids. Rather, the formula was often to have a
> ritual where God was asked to have mercy on the
> soul of the executed man. Criminal justice was a
> necessary but regrettable duty performed for the
> protection of the community.

Yes. The primary function of public punishment was to deter those who morally straddle the fence, and also to clearly connect certain prohibited behaviors with public demonstrations of disapproval.


>
> > All it takes is the will to do so, and adequate
> > power--power being the ultimate wildcard in
> human
> > society.
>
> Pagans did not believe that (human) power was the
> ultimate wildcard in human society.

Fine, but you're not talking to a pagan.

>
> > And here's the central irony: the instant that
> the
> > social misfits that I described have sufficient
> > power and will, it is *their* code (or
> non-code)
> > that will be the norm, and we'll be
> marginalized.
> > Sort of a kill-or-be killed, eat-or-be-eaten.
> >
> > In sense, Howard was right about all this.
>
> Not sure what you are saying here. Howard's work
> is somewhat amoral, from a purely Christian
> perspective, but I don't think he was a moral
> nihilist. I would say that overall, the evidence
> is very much against this idea.

I think he saw the same thing as I do, but preferred to combat it rather than to finesse it, as I do. This desire to combat wrong-doing (by one's own standards) creates a tension because the combat, itself, may be contrary to acceptable social behavior.

I mean, in my gut, I'd *like* to directly combat wrong-doers, but I need to find other, less emotionally fulfilling, but functionally satisfactory methods.

I guess this is responsible post-modernism, Platypus... :^(

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10 Feb 22 | 11:55AM by Sawfish.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kipling Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obviously we are all still involved in the
> > controversy that arose in Heaven. God exists.
> > Darwinism is a joke. Next subject.
>
> I never mentioned Darwinism, nor said that it was
> a joke, nor even believe that it is a joke. I did
> not come here to discuss religion at all, except
> maybe in a historical sense. These issues keep
> coming up because I am not a moral nihilist, for
> which I make no apology. People don't like it
> when I use the word "evil", even as applies to a
> fictional character who chops women in half for no
> reason. They keep telling me there is no such
> thing as good and evil because God does not exist.
> And I keep answering that I believe in God, so
> let's agree to disagree on this, okay? And now
> Knygatin is once again screaming at me about the
> Jewish-Christian menace.

Platypus, if you had said anything about Darwin I would have quoted you first. Darwin is a joke. Watson and Crick's DNA discovery was in 1953. So there is the whole field of molecular biology, in recent times, and the fossil records as they have accumulated. These both indicate that the time needed for theorized macro-changes in animal bodies (as opposed to small changes over time, not disputed) is simply not available. Impossible.
The "controversy in Heaven" was the fall of Satan, and as I said, we are all involved in it and always have been.

jkh

Kipling Wrote:
> Platypus, if you had said anything about Darwin I
> would have quoted you first. Darwin is a joke.
> Watson and Crick's DNA discovery was in 1953. So
> there is the whole field of molecular biology, in
> recent times, and the fossil records as they have
> accumulated. These both indicate that the time
> needed for theorized macro-changes in animal
> bodies (as opposed to small changes over time, not
> disputed) is simply not available. Impossible.
> The "controversy in Heaven" was the fall of
> Satan, and as I said, we are all involved in it
> and always have been.

Fair enough. I was unsure as to what you were driving at.