-->
@Tarik
Apparently not if what you mean and say doesn’t align with the dictionary.
This does not logically follow. It isnot a valid argument.
Necessary evils
Posts
Total:
691
-->
@secularmerlin
Maybe in your “obtuse world” but in reality it’s NOTHING BUT valid/sound.
-->
@Tarik
I don’t get the distinction between a “necessary evil” and just plain evil.
Well stated. "Necessary evil" is nothing more than a cognitively dissonant prose which attempts to justify doing evil.
-->
@Tarik
I have little confidence in your ability tomake that assessment.
-->
@Athias
Necessary evil" is nothing more than a cognitively dissonant prose which attempts to justify doing evil.
I would accept that definition.
-->
@secularmerlin
I’m sure you do, doesn’t make my assessment any less valid/sound.
-->
@Tarik
Logic is as logic does
-->
@secularmerlin
Whatever that means.
-->
@Tarik
Think it over.
-->
@secularmerlin
Me thinking it over is what lead me to say what I said, how about you explain it to me mister “I don’t mind constantly having to explain myself”.
-->
@Tarik
I see little profit in that based on past experience. If you were willing to accept my definitions I might consider it.
-->
@secularmerlin
And what profit did you see by saying the quote currently in question?
-->
@secularmerlin
@Tarik
How can something necessary be evil?
And can something be unnecessarily good?
Though I suppose that one persons good can be another persons evil and vice versa....In this situation how does one apply standard definition to two separately occurring sets, of diametrical opposites.
Definition would appear to become personal and arbitrary......And though one would undoubtedly, base a judgement on self-righteousness....So also, would the other.
-->
@zedvictor4
This is actually not a bad take, well said zed.
-->
@zedvictor4
That is exactly why agreeing on terms is so important.
-->
@Tarik
This is actually not a bad take, well said zed.
Is it? I thought you didn't believe in arbitrary or subjective definitions.
-->
@Athias
I don’t get the distinction between a “necessary evil” and just plain evil.Well stated. "Necessary evil" is nothing more than a cognitively dissonant prose which attempts to justify doing evil.
Stealing a cookie because you're just greedy is NOT a "necessary evil".
Stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving MIGHT BE a "necessary evil".
Primarily the idea of "necessary evil" revolves around the concept of "the noble lie".
For example, in governance theory, just like a general in battle, "saving the lives of the soldiers under your command" is almost NEVER your primary goal.
A king will always be "stuck between a rock and a hard place" because nearly every decision they make will cause SOME to suffer and SOME to profit.
When there is no "perfect win-win" solution apparent, then one must choose from the "less wrong" of available "necessary evils".
-->
@secularmerlin
That is exactly why agreeing on terms is so important.
dictionaries can only describe popular usage.
Well the dictionary has terms that consensus agrees on, I guess that’s why there usage is so popular.
-->
@Tarik
The dictionary is more a set of loose guidelines than a rulebook. Language is adaptive and evolving.
-->
@Tarik
Well the dictionary has terms that consensus agrees on, I guess that’s why there usage is so popular.
A lexicographer polls newspaper editors and book publishers to discover and document the current popular usages of specific words.
Most individuals simply take for granted that their own personal understanding of a word is the correct version.
The truth of the matter is that "the dictionary" only covers "general usage" and does not list all task and or discipline specific lingo and or jargon.
And even beyond these technicalities, I find it imperative to nail down specific word definitions with specific speakers because each person has a somewhat different understanding of each term, based on their personal lived experience, even when both parties are speaking the same language.
-->
@3RU7AL
Stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving MIGHT BE a "necessary evil".
That's just prioritizing survival. It doesn't mitigate the nature of the action, which is wrong.
Would it still be the case if we were to change the context? Case in point: what if a man shoots up a convenience store, critically wounding its store owner, just to steal enough cash to move him and and his infant child out of a dangerous neighborhood?
What if a man lifts a loaf of bread from the same starving person who had just stolen said loaf in your reference because he himself was starving?
Primarily the idea of "necessary evil" revolves around the concept of "the noble lie".For example, in governance theory, just like a general in battle, "saving the lives of the soldiers under your command" is almost NEVER your primary goal.A king will always be "stuck between a rock and a hard place" because nearly every decision they make will cause SOME to suffer and SOME to profit.When there is no "perfect win-win" solution apparent, then one must choose from the "less wrong" of available "necessary evils".
The system of interaction is predicated on and manifests from evil. That would be like, for example, my deciding whether to kill one slave because he's bullying and threatening my other slaves. As "master," I too would have tough decisions to make especially as it concerns a group of people--their being coerced notwithstanding. Yet no one is scrutinizing my reasons or moral predication for my having slaves. The notion of "necessary evil" is no more than a platitude to justify those (evil) systems of interaction. It is a delusion which attempts to diminish the evils perpetrated on select individuals under the guise of a collective benefit. It is as cognitively dissonant as the notion of "the greater good."
-->
@3RU7AL
And even beyond these technicalities, I find it imperative to nail down specific word definitions with specific speakers because each person has a somewhat different understanding of each term, based on their personal lived experience, even when both parties are speaking the same language.
Well stated.
-->
@Athias
Stealing a loaf of bread because you're starving MIGHT BE a "necessary evil".That's just prioritizing survival. It doesn't mitigate the nature of the action, which is wrong.
Do you believe it is a "moral good" to let someone starve to death while you have more than you need?
-->
@secularmerlin
Some believe dropping the atomic bombs on Japan were a necessary evil and that the war would have gone on for years if we had not. Is allowing migrant workers to earn lower wages to keep our food prices down one. I think so.
-->
@3RU7AL
Do you believe it is a "moral good" to let someone starve to death while you have more than you need?
One can't "let" someone starve. That presumes that one has a responsibility to the nourishment of others. (I'm fairly certain you know where I can extend the logic of this rationale.) And does one's need really qualify one's claim to a possession or mitigate the theft of that possession? One's need will always be determined by him or herself, not that necessity is necessary to establish a claim.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Some believe dropping the atomic bombs on Japan were a necessary evil and that the war would have gone on for years if we had not.
The mass murder of non-combatant civilians was necessary? No, that was evil, the qualification of "necessary" notwithstanding.
Is allowing migrant workers to earn lower wages to keep our food prices down one.
Unless those workers are being coerced into work, then no, there's no evil.
-->
@Athias
Unless those workers are being coerced into work, then no, there's no evil.
Modern society is based on money which you get from a job. So if you tell people you need to work to survive then yes it is an evil.
-->
@secularmerlin
What is the opposite of tree
Really? Assuming your tree is alive, a dead tree.
Mathematics? Formulae whose elements do not equate, like most alleged syllogisms. Come on, is this a serious question? Go find your Tau to teach yin yang. The idea of opposition is so basic, it's a sidewalk trip.
-->
@Athias
Do you believe it is a "moral good" to let someone starve to death while you have more than you need?One can't "let" someone starve. That presumes that one has a responsibility to the nourishment of others. (I'm fairly certain you know where I can extend the logic of this rationale.) And does one's need really qualify one's claim to a possession or mitigate the theft of that possession? One's need will always be determined by him or herself, not that necessity is necessary to establish a claim.
Ok, I like where you're going with this.
Would you perhaps say, INACTION IS NEVER IMMORAL?
-->
@fauxlaw
What is the opposite of treeReally? Assuming your tree is alive, a dead tree.Mathematics? Formulae whose elements do not equate, like most alleged syllogisms. Come on, is this a serious question? Go find your Tau to teach yin yang. The idea of opposition is so basic, it's a sidewalk trip.
"opposites" only "exist" in abstraction.
There is no "opposite" of a dog.
There is no "opposite" of a tree.