Good and Bad

[peat moss]

I like Zed's comment it explains in a nutshell .

[ilw]

Where, pray tell, do you think you get this perspective from.

the place babies come from either there or belgium

[bornwithnoname]

If good and evil are in the eye of the beholder then from Hilter's perspective he wasn't wrong?

[Snee]

If good and evil are in the eye of the beholder then from Hilter's perspective he wasn't wrong?

Hitler was a psychopath.

I think it's pretty safe to say that from his perspective anything that he was ok with was right.

EDit: as far as he was concerned, I mean.

[bornwithnoname]

If good and evil are in the eye of the beholder then from Hilter's perspective he wasn't wrong?

Hitler was a psychopath.

I think it's pretty safe to say that from his perspective anything that he was ok with was right.

EDit: as far as he was concerned, I mean.

The fact that he was a nut job is irrelavent to the question.

[Snee]

Do you even understand the question you put forth?

As far as he was concerned he wasn't wrong, and that had much to do with what he was.

[JPaul]

Hitler was a psychopath.

I think it's pretty safe to say that from his perspective anything that he was ok with was right.

EDit: as far as he was concerned, I mean.

The fact that he was a nut job is irrelavent to the question.

No it isn't.

In fact it is fundamental to the question, part of the question must be whether good and bad are subjective or objective.

[Snee]

Not terribly clever, but it sort of treats the subject.

[JPaul]

Not terribly clever, but it sort of treats the subject.

Got as far as

"Different people who advocate the idea that there is some kind of objective morality do not seam to have the same meaning of the term."

then lost the will to ... oh never mind.

[Snee]

Not terribly clever, but it sort of treats the subject.

Got as far as

"Different people who advocate the idea that there is some kind of objective morality do not seam to have the same meaning of the term."

then lost the will to ... oh never mind.

Yeah

Lots of reasoning about moral relativism does that to me, poor grammar and spelling or not. (And to top it off that particular author should at least mention the divine command theory, and such, but he doesn't.)

As far as I'm concerned relative morality is seriously fucking nasty business.
It's the best excuse I've ever heard to turn a blind eye to what's wrong. All in the name of liberal thinking, or somesuch.

I'd rather subscribe to utilitarism than that, so "for the greater good" and "the majority rules", and all that.


Morality, IMO, should be democratic in a way that ignores borders.
There should be an objective morality, one that's determined democratically.
Not an absolute one tho', 'cos we change and we learn.

Hitler thought he was right, 'cos he was mental, but he wasn't right