pretentious philosophy discussion

[EJFan]

yankee: exactly: the problem of free will is necessarily a facet of the problem of evil, b/c humans can always choose to do ill.

EJ: that's why i provided that little caveat re: some good can accrue from evil. it's sort of a "silver lining" clause, as it were. :>

ed

but what about rape as role-play... or even extremely rough sex? they're not evil. suppose that part of the rape role-play was that it was unexpected or, in an extreme example, arranged by a third party and totally purpetrated on a (mostly) unexepecting "victim." suppose the victim "enjoyed" it? i know this is a very slight example but it happens.

 

[silverwhisper]

rape as role play is not evil, b/c the evil of rape is that it's perpetrated on an unwilling victim. in RP, that isn't the case.

ed

 

[Typo Fu Master]

i understand that, and in the real world i totally agree. i'm thinking from a philosophical standpoint for analysis purposes here.

allow me a bit of latitude (ok... a LOT of latitude) here. suppose a woman is raped and gets pregnant. she decides to keep the baby and gives birth. when the baby grows up he/she contributes on some INCREDIBLE scale to society... discovers an AIDS vaccine or something like that.

granted, that scenario doesn't necessarily clear the "evil" out of the rape but it tempers it by virtue of the result. if you want to look at rape as the act itself, what about people who role-play rape scenes? it's a sexual fantasy they're living out... granted it's "scripted" but it's still rape on some level, otherwise the fantasy wouldn't be realized.

It's true that good comes out of that scenario, but it's still an evil act.

I'm not trying to harp on this, and I hope I'm not coming across that way. What exactly are we discussing? The existence of god? The existence of evil?

 

[silverwhisper]

TFM: well, we began at the problem of evil as a jumping off point, which led inexorably to a definition of evil. i find it usually does that.

ed

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Ok, so we're defining evil?

I've stated my thoughts on that. Do any of you define a natural disaster as evil?

 

[EJFan]

rape as role play is not evil, b/c the evil of rape is that it's perpetrated on an unwilling victim. in RP, that isn't the case.

ed

i know that... and this is the last time i'll belabor the point i'm trying (and failing) to illustrate:

in order for RP to be successful it has to be realistic. the individuals are going through the motions and, while it may not be rape in the LEGAL sense, it still is rape or else the fantasy goes unfulfilled. in other words, you can't say "rape me" to your SO and have them shower you with rose petals, be gentle and expect to walk away fulfilled. the ACT that takes place is rape... inasmuch as it can be without the missing component of non-consent. the motions, the dialogue, the force... it's all rape.

there are also people... maybe there are only four of them, but they exist... who go around WANTING to be raped. i don't mean the cliche that's used in defending a rapist (oh... she was asking for it). i mean actual people who want to be raped... by a stranger, unexpectedly... and that's their thing. not evil.

 

[EJFan]

Ok, so we're defining evil?

I've stated my thoughts on that. Do any of you define a natural disaster as evil?

not i. natural disasters are simply the earth's way of maintaining its own balance.

 

[silverwhisper]

EJ: but if you argue that the act is evil and then compare the RP version of it to the actual act, isn't that like saying playing cops & robbers/cowboys & indians is violent, etc?

TFM: i do not, no. to me, an action or event must be borne of conscious and deliberate will to qualify for good/evil. a natural disaster is to me morally neutral.

ed

 

[Typo Fu Master]

i know that... and this is the last time i'll belabor the point i'm trying (and failing) to illustrate:

in order for RP to be successful it has to be realistic. the individuals are going through the motions and, while it may not be rape in the LEGAL sense, it still is rape or else the fantasy goes unfulfilled. in other words, you can't say "rape me" to your SO and have them shower you with rose petals, be gentle and expect to walk away fulfilled. the ACT that takes place is rape... inasmuch as it can be without the missing component of non-consent. the motions, the dialogue, the force... it's all rape.

there are also people... maybe there are only four of them, but they exist... who go around WANTING to be raped. i don't mean the cliche that's used in defending a rapist (oh... she was asking for it). i mean actual people who want to be raped... by a stranger, unexpectedly... and that's their thing. not evil.

I'd say for those four people the act would not be evil, but for anyone that doesn't consent it would be. But it sounds odd. How can you WANT to be raped? Doesn't that make it no longer rape? It sort of becomes Unexpected Rough Sex With A Stranger.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I'm off to work. It's been a very enjoyable discussion and I hope it keeps going.

 

[Quoll]

Shit it's early isn't it!
I did a quick scan of this thread, so far it seems that god is spock, some bloke got a really shitty job, something about Space Odyssey raping some guy in prison just for fun but the devil made him do it, or maybe it was that other guy Mack Avelli, I'm not too clear on that bit.





Do you people realise how long I've had my brain shut down for, seriously, you keep this sort of thing up and I'll have to start thinking again.

 

[silverwhisper]

just as long as someone else made that trek reference, i'm good.

or did i mean to type god?

ed

 

[Quoll]

just as long as someone else made that trek reference, i'm good.

or did i mean to type god?

ed

"\\ // Live Long and Prosper", or if you are a miner "Dig Long and Prospect"


Q: Is someone's upbringing and past a valid excuse for crimes committed or is it still a matter of choice?

(post and run, have a great day everyone)

 

[silverwhisper]

i've known people who have come through harrowing experiences that did not permit their history to stunt their personal growth. i'd say that it can be a mitigating factor, but does not wholly excuse bad behavior.

ed

 

[midwestyankee]

i know that... and this is the last time i'll belabor the point i'm trying (and failing) to illustrate:

in order for RP to be successful it has to be realistic. the individuals are going through the motions and, while it may not be rape in the LEGAL sense, it still is rape or else the fantasy goes unfulfilled. in other words, you can't say "rape me" to your SO and have them shower you with rose petals, be gentle and expect to walk away fulfilled. the ACT that takes place is rape... inasmuch as it can be without the missing component of non-consent. the motions, the dialogue, the force... it's all rape.

there are also people... maybe there are only four of them, but they exist... who go around WANTING to be raped. i don't mean the cliche that's used in defending a rapist (oh... she was asking for it). i mean actual people who want to be raped... by a stranger, unexpectedly... and that's their thing. not evil.

EJ, buddy, I'm going to have to forcibly disagree with you here. While it's not my fantasy and it's not the fantasy of anyone I know, I'm quite sure that when people engage in a rape-based RP, what they really are after is the act of taking/being taken by force. The very fact that it's a role-play removes the fundamental element that separates rape from sex: consent. Within a RP context you can include the elements of surprise, force, and even pain but you can not remove the consent. Thus it's impossible for a role-play event, no matter how realistic, to truly be rape.

 

[EJFan]

EJ, buddy, I'm going to have to forcibly disagree with you here. While it's not my fantasy and it's not the fantasy of anyone I know, I'm quite sure that when people engage in a rape-based RP, what they really are after is the act of taking/being taken by force. The very fact that it's a role-play removes the fundamental element that separates rape from sex: consent. Within a RP context you can include the elements of surprise, force, and even pain but you can not remove the consent. Thus it's impossible for a role-play event, no matter how realistic, to truly be rape.

two final points (since this was mentioned twice, in essence) and then i SWEAR i'll shut up...

1. if consent is truly the issue that makes rape "evil"... haven't there been instances in your past (in raising kids or seeking medical treatment for example) where consent wasn't given but the act was completed anyway? and yet that act wasn't evil?

2. if someone walked in on a rape RP, and they were totally unaware of any precept, would it not be believed to be rape by the observer? what's the difference between perception and reality at this point?

these are rhetorical questions, of course... and i PROMISE i'm done talking about this.

 

[silverwhisper]

EJ old buddy, your 2 points are, in order:

1. comparing an inherently violent act to an act performed on someone who cannot be said capable of giving informed consent, and
2. arguing perception of the act vs. the reality.

sorry big guy but neither of them work for me.

getting back to something typo fu master mentioned earlier: i define evil as deliberately causing harm to others and either being ambivalent about that harm or indeed receiving enjoyment from it.

ed

 

[Typo Fu Master]

Q: Is someone's upbringing and past a valid excuse for crimes committed or is it still a matter of choice?

I'd need to see an example of what you're referring to, but I'm inclined to say no, it's not. Even someone who was abused as a child who then grows up and commits a crime shouldn't be given any more of a break than someone who is "normal" and commits a similar crime.

There are probably exceptions, but I can't think of any, which is why I'd like to see some examples.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

two final points (since this was mentioned twice, in essence) and then i SWEAR i'll shut up...

1. if consent is truly the issue that makes rape "evil"... haven't there been instances in your past (in raising kids or seeking medical treatment for example) where consent wasn't given but the act was completed anyway? and yet that act wasn't evil? In the instance of a parent giving consent for a child to receive medical treatment, against the child's wishes, it's arguably not an evil act, since no harm is intended.

2. if someone walked in on a rape RP, and they were totally unaware of any precept, would it not be believed to be rape by the observer? what's the difference between perception and reality at this point? The observer's belief or disbelief in whatever they're seeing wouldn't affect whether the act was actually evil. I can see where the observer would believe the act is evil though.

The second example has me thinking. If someone believes something is evil, is it evil if it really isn't evil?

 

[EJFan]

please allow me to make something abundantly clear here....

i've been deeply bothered by the perception i might be giving people. please don't think for a moment that i'm condoning, advocating, defending rape in ANY way whatsoever. i think we got kind of wrapped up in discussing "evil" in the context of rape and the example may have gone a bit far.

in the real world i certainly can't look at rape as less than an abhorent act. there's no two ways about that. what i'm attempting to do is what i enjoy most... taking a different perspective, looking at things from an entirely different angle to break them down and approach those pieces from a different mindset. sometimes this leads to affirmation of what we already know... other times it can lead to a new understanding with some new interpretation (which can lead in some cases to a completely revisied opinion).

i don't want anyone to change their way of thinking... i don't want anyone to consider rape to be a good thing on ANY level. my hope is that the formula for re-examining things can be applied to other thoughts and interpretations of other things. think of it as the scene in "dead poets society" when the students are asked to view the world from the desk top rather than from their seats.

i'm sorry if i caused any confusion on this.... and i hope that's understood.

hopefully you all know by now that this was my intention but it was really bothering me. thanks for not running my nuts up the flagpole.

 

[silverwhisper]

that was always perfectly clear to me, EJ. :>

TFM: if someone believes a thing is evil, then you would have to have an objective truth by which the "evilness" of a thing can reliably be determined, right? in this instance, what constitutes the objective truth? who determines it? once so decided, can it be changed?

ed

 

[EJFan]

The second example has me thinking. If someone believes something is evil, is it evil if it really isn't evil?

which brings things full circle to whether good and/or evil exists. perception is everything in life... it creates individual realities for each person. to that extent, reality is always in constant flux... unless and until one becomes omniscient. the nearer one is to omniscience, the more fixed reality becomes.

this is at the core of why categorically defining something is a hinderance. in order to be truly enlightened, i think we have to explore a greater number of sources than we allow ourselves to. for example: a bigot can't have as valid an opinion as someone who isn't bigoted because the bigot has a fixed perception and, therefore, a failed reality that's being used to define other facets of his experience.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

please allow me to make something abundantly clear here....

i've been deeply bothered by the perception i might be giving people. please don't think for a moment that i'm condoning, advocating, defending rape in ANY way whatsoever. i think we got kind of wrapped up in discussing "evil" in the context of rape and the example may have gone a bit far.

in the real world i certainly can't look at rape as less than an abhorent act. there's no two ways about that. what i'm attempting to do is what i enjoy most... taking a different perspective, looking at things from an entirely different angle to break them down and approach those pieces from a different mindset. sometimes this leads to affirmation of what we already know... other times it can lead to a new understanding with some new interpretation (which can lead in some cases to a completely revisied opinion).

i don't want anyone to change their way of thinking... i don't want anyone to consider rape to be a good thing on ANY level. my hope is that the formula for re-examining things can be applied to other thoughts and interpretations of other things. think of it as the scene in "dead poets society" when the students are asked to view the world from the desk top rather than from their seats.

i'm sorry if i caused any confusion on this.... and i hope that's understood.

hopefully you all know by now that this was my intention but it was really bothering me. thanks for not running my nuts up the flagpole.

I never got that impression, EJ. I've just been enjoying the discussion.

TFM: if someone believes a thing is evil, then you would have to have an objective truth by which the "evilness" of a thing can reliably be determined, right? in this instance, what constitutes the objective truth? who determines it? once so decided, can it be changed?

I'm not sure what you mean. To use EJ's second example of the observer walking in on a RP rape ... in the observer's mind, rape is evil. He will believe an evil act is going on until evidence proves otherwise.

I think regardless of whether evil is perceived or not, an evil act is one in which enjoyment is derived from causing pain and/or suffering. But evil can also be misinterpreted, as in the second example above. So evil exists, as long as someone believes it exists, even if it doesn't.

 

[silverwhisper]

typo fu master quoth
i'm not sure what you mean. to use EJ's second example of the observer walking in on a RP rape ... in the observer's mind, rape is evil. he will believe an evil act is going on until evidence proves otherwise. i think regardless of whether evil is perceived or not, an evil act is one in which enjoyment is derived from causing pain and/or suffering. but evil can also be misinterpreted, as in the second example above. so evil exists, as long as someone believes it exists, even if it doesn't.

what i meant was that if joe sixpack believes [act] is evil, there must be a reason for which you or i might view that same act as not being evil. so EJ's example 2 notwithstanding, how can one say a thing is or is not evil w/out running the risk of also incorrectly considering something evil?

EJ: you're familiar, i trust, w/ the mathematical proof? we all did proofs back in geometry, and it's often people's first taste of formal logic. you know how in proofs, you begin with a "given"? when you study logic a bit, you find that at some point, deductive logic must, itself, begin with a leap of faith, a stepping-off point at which you say, "i believe [x]. i cannot prove it, but i must begin someplace." after all, you can't deduce anything if you don't start someplace.

why do i mention this? to illustrate the fact that sometimes, solid definitions and yes, sometimes even assumptions, are actually valid.

ed

 

[Typo Fu Master]

what i meant was that if joe sixpack believes [act] is evil, there must be a reason for which you or i might view that same act as not being evil. so EJ's example 2 notwithstanding, how can one say a thing is or is not evil w/out running the risk of also incorrectly considering something evil?

Supposedly, there's always a chance of error. You witness a gory murder, only to find out later it was all staged. This doesn't change the fact that, for the time you believed that you saw a murder, evil existed, even if it was only in your mind.