Thursday, February 22, 2007

No Absolutes?

I just came across a statement that said:
Good and evil do not exist (as absolutes, but can exist in a different context and for different reasons as Nietzsche).
(From a Wikipedia article about the book series "Conversations with God" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversations_with_God, a series that I preliminarily judge to be "evil", without knowing much about the books.)

I confess to being mostly ignorant about Nietzsche (except that I would've preferred him to spell his name like "Neatshee"), and I certainly do not subscribe to the notion that there are no absolutes.

But this concept struck me up-side the head.

Think about killing another human. It's clearly Evil to kill another human when it's "murder". But it's Good to kill another human in order to prevent that human from murdering innocents.

Same action: different contexts, different reasons, different valuations.

Hmmm. What are the implications of this concept?

3 comments:

T. said...

interesting concept. Old testament application - do not Kill - 10 commandments. Punishment for several offenses - stoning aka killing, but because of the sin his blood is on his own head and not that of the executioners.

No absolutes though is a VERY slippery slope - Neitzche fell down it so totally that he said there was no God because he would be an absolute. -Tracy

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chyntt said...

Anonymous wrote:

In response to the original post I would have to say that you don't know [expletive deleted] about what Nietzsche was talking about, there can't be absolute right and wrong because that leads to racism, bigotry, and concentration camps.

Who decides what is good and evil and how do we know that what they say is right. Hitler thought he was right and people followed him, the south thought slavery was right, so don't give me that crap about no absolutes especially with killing because how is killing the killers justice, it just as much murder as any other premeditated killing in cold-blood, especially when it's for revenge.

The second comment is at fault as well, no absolutes is not a slippery slope but to explain that in here would take forever. Nor do I expect someone like you to ever understand the concept.

The reason he thought there was no God was because he thought God was a creation of our own mind, and if God did exist why does his character change with every person that you meet. Also how is the concept of God not the manifestation of the human conscience.

Be careful when you slander Nietzsche that you know what you're talking about otherwise you look like a fool.


(Re-posted with the language cleaned up.)

First, why all the hostility?

Second, I admitted that I knew little about Nietsche.

Third, I didn't say that about Nietsche; I merely reported on a saying I had come across on the 'net.

Fourth, your writing is unclear, and I'm unsure just what all you're saying.

Fifth, when I can suss what you're saying, your logic is at times faulty. For example, you say that Hitler thought he was right and people followed him and the south thought slavery was right, therefore I should not "give you crap "about no absolutes. What? How does my "giving you crap" about no absolutes have anything, anything at all, to do with whether someone thinks they're right about something or not? That's like saying incandescent light bulbs generate more heat than flourescents so you should not complain about your electric bill. (Yeah, the logic didn't follow, did it?)

Another example: in my original post, I never said anything about killing murderers for revenge; I said it was good to shoot the bad guy before he mows down a bunch of innocents. This indicates to me that you're arguing against a bogey-man in your own head that you project onto others who say anything remotely likely to trigger your bogey-man paranoia.

Sixth, accusing someone you disagree with as being "someone like you" is indicative of reactionary thinking rather than rational thinking, which again indicates you're fighting an internal bogey-man.

Finally, once again, I repeat my first point in response to your last paragraph: I never "slandered" Nietsche; I only reported what someone else said about him. You really should pay attention to what's being said and respond to that rather than to what you've "heard" your bogey-man say.