That is, the will of the majority of the people can be advanced by the enslavement and even murder of a minority. That is not a hypothetical construct. It is the very history of the US. — Hanover

Yep. And that's the scary part.

Freddy is talking about the religious, or priestly, valuation of "good and evil" – to move "beyond" the other-worldly back to this-worldly, naturalistic good and bad (i.e. virtuous and vicious cycles/habits). — 180 Proof

Much obliged for the short & sweet explanation mon ami.

I include as evil self harm, not just that harm to others, including subjecting yourself to degradation or humiliation. " — Hanover

I do not. You regard the severely depressed as morally similar to sadists and abusers?

All I've got is this old bit of scripture:
Ye shall know them by their fruits.
— Matthew 7:16 — 180 Proof

I agree. I think it's reasonable to know a good person by their deeds and not just what they say. Actions speaker louder than words. Hypocrites use words to signal virtue they don't actually themselves embrace pretending to be something they're not. Good people say and do in harmony. They practice what they preach.

Its a simple thing but an important one.

This is more related to our lack of authentic documentation from earlier than about 6000 years ago.
— universeness — Hanover

Slavery existed in the US only 150 years ago, it still exists in parts of the world today, and woman are considered chattel in parts of the world today. I'm not referencing unknown, ancient civilizations. — Hanover

You misdirect from my point. My quote above was in response to this quote below from you. So it was a response to your inaccurate words about when egalitarianism began, and had nothing to do with the issue of human slavery.

Unfortunately egalitarianism is s fairly modern invention — Hanover

The fact that slavery and misogyny still exist in our world today, should simply enhance your determination to help eradicate both, whenever and wherever it is identified. Do you agree?

The American South did not create slavery because they were stupid. — Hanover

Of course they were stupid! They caused a bloody civil war due to their stupid economic model and their pursuit of profit and power for a racist, sycophantic few who leached off of the backs and sweat of enslaved people who they considered inferiors. That's why the South was utterly defeated. It was really stupid and moronic to bring such devastation onto themselves instead of getting rid of slavery themselves and sharing the resources of the South with all 'Americans.' Of course, the first issue for Americans is their genocide of the native tribes.

In any event, you miss the point terribly. The point was that the role of the majority is irrelevant in determining morality. — Hanover

No Its not, that's just naive. Morality is a human invention (or at least an invention of sentience). I think that the majority of humans NOW accept that rape is morally wrong. That morality is created BASED ON that OPINION of the majority. It then has the force needed to become an objective truth BUT only an objective truth within human civilisation. The role of the majority is essential in determining HUMAN morality.

don't employ scapegoating in any shape or form,
— universeness
Again, you miss the point terribly. You argued that Hitler was an example of a minority will over-ruling majority will, resulting in an evil that wouldn't have existed had he more concerned himself with Germany's will and not his own. — Hanover

No, I suggested that Hitler was a result of being able to fool some of the people all of the time but he over-stretched (as most tyrants do) and Germany was utterly smashed because the people of Germany were duped into following him. The majority of the people on the planet at the time were not duped by Hitler, Mussolini, Hirohito etc so they lost the inevitable world war. Whenever evil grows too big for its boots, it gets smashed. That's why Gandhi pointed out that tyrants and empires of evil, always eventually fall, every time, every example, has indeed eventually fallen.

(1) you're factually incorrect to assert that Hitler was subjugating the majority because the subjugated (Jews among many others) were a minority, not a majority, and (2) a democracy can be tyrannical. — Hanover

Hitler called the Aryan race the superior, chosen race. Anyone who was not Aryan was inferior and surplus to requirements so what are you typing about? If you add the Jews, to the gypsies, the slavs, the catholics, etc, etc all the non-aryans then you have a vast majority! yes?

By definition, a democracy cannot be tyrannical unless the lunatics have taken over the asylum and only those people are involved in voting in the 'democracy' you describe.
The 'democracy'' you describe reminds me of the 'democracy' as defined and favoured by creatures such as Trump and Putin.
But that is simply an abuse of the word.
All past tyrannies were run by a nefarious few, who had their power and position 'rubber stamped,' by a duped, terrified populous.
Such is no different from the Russians claiming they have a democratic mandate to annex regions of the Ukraine. The numbers involved DO matter. If the part of the Russian diaspora living in Glasgow all voted to become part of Russia. Could Putin make a valid claim on Glasgow?

I agree. I think it's reasonable to know a good person by their deeds and not just what they say. Actions speaker louder than words. Hypocrites use words to signal virtue they don't actually themselves embrace pretending to be something they're not. Good people say and do in harmony. They practice what they preach.

Its a simple thing but an important one. — Benj96

:clap: Anyone given authority MUST accept all scrutiny of WHAT THEY DO! No matter what labels/badges they wear on their jacket including socialist/humanist/honest/decent/good/trustworthy person.
What they say, no matter what bells, whistles, promises, vows and special effects they employ should be taken with no more than a pinch of trust. Totalitarianism, autocracy, plutocracy, aristocracy, cults of celebrity or religion gaining significant power and influence etc must become as impossible as we can make it by installing very powerful, permanent checks and balances.
Any person or group must be relatively easy to kick out of power at any time the majority they represent want them gone.

That is, the will of the majority of the people can be advanced by the enslavement and even murder of a minority. That is not a hypothetical construct. It is the very history of the US. — Hanover

Your generalisation here is your claim that 'the will of the majority involved,' was in fact obtained and acted upon. I maintain that this is a bad assumption, and it is in fact more likely that these horrors were performed based on the wealth, influence and power base of a very small group of dynastic families/leaders.
The mostly uneducated, religiously duped populous involved, merely followed like sheep or were simply never consulted.

Of course they were stupid! They caused a bloody civil war due to their stupid economic model and their pursuit of profit and power for a racist, sycophantic few who leached off of the backs and sweat of enslaved people who they considered inferiors. That's why the South was utterly defeated. It was really stupid and moronic to bring such devastation onto themselves instead of getting rid of slavery themselves and sharing the resources of the South with all 'Americans.' Of course, the first issue for Americans is their genocide of the native tribes. — universeness

It was certainly immoral and wrong, but trying to preserve an economic system that resulted in great wealth doesn't point to a lack of intelligence. While it would be delightful to join in your world view that justice always prevails and it was for that reason the South lost, I think more mundane causes can be given for their loss. Specifically, the South was agrarian, lacked resources, had a smaller population, and experienced little to no immigration. They were also outmaneuvered politically so that larger numbers of states remained loyal to the union than the confederacy.

The point being that slavery had existed hundreds of years in America at the time of the Civil War, and it wasn't that it just finally exploded from being unjust. I wish that were the case. It would mean that we need only sit back and wait for those unjust nations in existence today to finally become enlightened.

No Its not, that's just naive. Morality is a human invention (or at least an invention of sentience). I think that the majority of humans NOW accept that rape is morally wrong. That morality is created BASED ON that OPINION of the majority. It then has the force needed to become an objective truth BUT only an objective truth within human civilisation. The role of the majority is essential in determining HUMAN morality. — universeness

And such is subjectivism. It means rape was moral when the population said it was. If morality is an opinion, then it is fluid. Should rape fall into favor, it will be moral, as you are relying upon the majority to tell you good from bad.

. Whenever evil grows too big for its boots, it gets smashed. — universeness

Again, whether you intend for this or not, you are arguing a theistic view, where nations rise and fall on the basis of their aligning themselves with good or evil. It ignores entirely the ebb and flow of good and evil within nations, ignoring the fact that a seemingly good Germany became evil, focusing only on the fact that an evil Germany fell. Why can't we argue that when a nation becomes too good it too gets too big for its britches and then it must become evil? We can tell the tale of how good fell to evil as much as evil fell to good.

If you want to understand the rise and fall of Nazi Germany, there are plenty of good historical treatises that can explain the social changes, political changes, and the details of each battles fought. The point being, the answer to such historical questions lies within the historical events, not just some statement that we win when God is on our side and we lose when he's not.

If you add the Jews, to the gypsies, the slavs, the catholics, etc, etc all the non-aryans then you have a vast majority! yes? — universeness

I don't know if the oppressed outnumbered the oppressors or not, but it's screamingly irrelevant. Had there been one more Nazi than the sum total of the oppressed, then the Nazis would still have been wrong. Had there been a single man mistreated, scapegoated for the crimes of others, with only a single person objecting on his behalf, that person would have been right and the rest wrong.

By definition, a democracy cannot be tyrannical unless the lunatics have taken over the asylum and only those people are involved in voting in the 'democracy' you describe. — universeness

Maybe read some de Tocqueville:

https://edsitement.neh.gov/curricula/alexis-de-tocqueville-tyranny-majority

Take some time to work through your position. It's just not making sense. You are arguing that it is logically impossible for the empirical reality of a tyrannical democracy to exist. That is, you are suggesting it is impossible that the majority of people would vote to oppress a smaller number of people, as if to suggest all laws, as long as there is a 51% consensus must be just by definition. This
argument is defeated by actual history.

I do not. You regard the severely depressed as morally similar to sadists and abusers? — hypericin

I don't know if it's a moral similarity because there certainly appears to be something more sinister in harming others than in harming yourself. Not all moral violations are of the same magnitude.

I do think it's worthwhile however to make the point that if we hold humanity in high esteem, we can't overlook the lack of self-respect we offer ourselves as morally irrelevant.

It was certainly immoral and wrong, but trying to preserve an economic system that resulted in great wealth doesn't point to a lack of intelligence. — Hanover

Yes it does. Intelligent people see 'the big picture,' they think about more than themselves and their family, they also consider the wider community, their nation and the planet they live on. Their economic system only benefited the few and an immoral and wrong few as you yourself describe such attitudes.
How can intelligent people consider other people inferior due to the colour of their skin or their tradition or their culture or the fact that they are less technically advanced than you. That's not a demonstration of intellect, that's a demonstration that you cannot think beyond your 'law of the jungle,' beginnings. If you see native peoples in the way the Southern Confederacy saw their slaves, then they should have gone back to the jungle they came from and continued to behave as the animals behaved.
The pursuit of personal great wealth is imbalanced and evil imo.

I think more mundane causes can be given for their loss. — Hanover

Yeah, their economic slave system made them technically stagnant and mainly backwards.
Another major difference was that the South had no navy to speak of, so the union blockades of Southern ports were eventually very decisive.

I wish that were the case. It would mean that we need only sit back and wait for those unjust nations in existence today to finally become enlightened. — Hanover

That is exactly what is happening but not because of those who are sitting back but because of those who are actively changing things for the better.

And such is subjectivism. It means rape was moral when the population said it was. If morality is an opinion, then it is fluid. Should rape fall into favor, it will be moral, as you are relying upon the majority to tell you good from bad. — Hanover

No, because no SIGNIFICANT HUMAN CIVILISATION has ever in history said rape was moral. Which civilisation declared all rape as moral? What evidence do you have? Are you talking about some rule of kings or nobles that was only their exclusive right? or a rule of conquest such as 'to the victor, the spoils?' These have always been 'jungle rules,' perpetrated on others as acts of violence or power, they have never been set as a moral law which any significant human civilisation has used as a fundamental base for their society. You are sensationalising and trying to suggest that such extreme behaviours could become the accepted norm.

Again, whether you intend for this or not, you are arguing a theistic view, where nations rise and fall on the basis of their aligning themselves with good or evil. — Hanover

Where did I mention gods or supernatural BS? People make nations, people can treat others as they would want themselves treated or they can act like the animals in the jungles we came from. There is no theistic garbage in the points I am making, there are only my viewpoints on human interrelationships and the fact that I am convinced we can build a far better human civilisation than we have now. Clan sized groups of humans to nation sized groups of humans is not what we should focus on. We need to focus on how we can all work together so that we push forward to a day when the human race can finally shed all of the bad habits that still hold us back. All the bad habits and bad behaviours we experienced from our days in the wilds during our Darwinian evolution.

I don't know if the oppressed outnumbered the oppressors or not, but it's screamingly irrelevant. Had there been one more Nazi than the sum total of the oppressed, then the Nazis would still have been wrong. Had there been a single man mistreated, scapegoated for the crimes of others, with only a single person objecting on his behalf, that person would have been right and the rest wrong. — Hanover

Your point here again merely states the obvious and the much more important point is that the human race continues to progress and is in its totality, more moral and does in its totality behave better towards each other in general, in comparison with our ancestors.

Maybe read some de Tocqueville: — Hanover

I don't always look for backup or counter opinions from long dead philosophers, I prefer to listen to those alive now. Without, of course, ignoring the mistakes of the past often highlighted by such as the person you refer to.

Take some time to work through your position. It's just not making sense. You are arguing that it is logically impossible for the empirical reality of a tyrannical democracy to exist. That is, you are suggesting it is impossible that the majority of people would vote to oppress a smaller number of people, as if to suggest all laws, as long as there is a 51% consensus must be just by definition. This
argument is defeated by actual history. — Hanover

All I can say is 'right back at you!' So, give a real example from history that supports your claim.
Was there a referendum of the British people taken before the thugs in their royalty or military decided to go to war with the French, for example? Were all the people in Clan Campbell above the age of 16, male and female, democratically consulted before their clan chief and his top thugs/gangsters decided to fight those from Clan Macdonald?
Was there a referendum before America joined WW 2. Was that what took them so long? :halo: (No offense intended).

Yes it does. Intelligent people see 'the big picture,' they think about more than themselves and their family, they also consider the wider community, their nation and the planet they live on. — universeness

You're describing an ideal morality, not "intelligence." You can be an evil genius.

How can intelligent people consider other people inferior due to the colour of their skin or their tradition or their culture or the fact that they are less technically advanced than you. — universeness

Because they are immoral.

Yeah, their economic slave system made them technically stagnant and mainly backwards.
Another major difference was that the South had no navy to speak of, so the union blockades of Southern ports were eventually very decisive. — universeness

Why are you now offering additional reasons for the South's loss of the war when you previously argued it was due their having adopted an evil system?

No, because no SIGNIFICANT HUMAN CIVILISATION has ever in history said rape was moral. — universeness

See: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&context=nlj, particularly page 7 and footnote 20. Rape of black women was legal during times of slavery.

Marital rape was legal in every state in the US until 1970. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States

What the Bible says about rape: https://www.openbible.info/topics/rape

See also the English law of Coverture, where a woman had no legal rights of her own, but was the legal property of her husband: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture

Where did I mention gods or supernatural BS? — universeness

You didn't. You presented a justice prevails because it is just argument which is essentially the same thing. It argues that as long as we fight for righteousness we will prevail.

Your point here again merely states the obvious and the much more important point is that the human race continues to progress and is in its totality, more moral and does in its totality behave better towards each other in general, in comparison with our ancestors. — universeness

If my point is obvious, then why do you argue otherwise? I have submitted that the majority will is irrelevant when deciphering morality.

I don't always look for backup or counter opinions from long dead philosophers, I prefer to listen to those alive now and without, of course, ignoring the mistakes of the past often highlighted by such as the person you refer to. — universeness

Super.

All I can say is 'right back at you!' So, give a real example from history that supports your claim.
Was there a referendum of the British people taken before the thugs in their royaly or military decided to go to war with the French, for example? Where all the people in Clan Campbell above the age of 16, male and female, democratically consulted before their clan chief and his top thugs/gangsters decided to fight those from Clan Macdonald?
Was there a referendum before America joined WW 2. Was that what took them so long? :halo: (No offense intended). — universeness

How does this contradict the idea that a democracy can be tyrannical?

You're describing an ideal morality, not "intelligence." You can be an evil genius. — Hanover

No, I just have a higher opinion of the potential of the average human being than you do. I am not someone who assigns too much importance to ancient concepts such as platonic forms or Aristotelian ideals. I do accept that humans can always improve the systems they live by but there is no such 'final destination,' as an ideal morality. It's like trying to reach an ideal accuracy for pi or the speed of light in a vacuum. 3.14159265 will provide better solutions to certain problems compared to 3 or 3.1 or 3.14 and it will be ever so. An evil genius is just a measure of evil, nothing more. Genius is impressive but it is also relative and fallible.

Because they are immoral. — Hanover

Ok, I am fine if you prefer to go with your 'immoral,' label rather than my stupid, moronic and evil labels.
The response will hopefully be the same, we will both continue to be compelled to oppose and combat such attitudes.

Why are you now offering additional reasons for the South's loss of the war when you previously argued it was due their having adopted an evil system? — Hanover

The reason the Southern confederacy lost their war was myriad and the fact they had adopted an evil system was one of the main reasons the war started and was one of the main reasons they lost.
You should read the memoirs of Ulyssess S. Grant. I just finished it a few weeks ago.

See: https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1418&context=nlj, particularly page 7 and footnote 20. Rape of black women was legal during times of slavery. — Hanover

I never claimed unjust laws have never existed. You misunderstand and misrepresent the spirit of the word democracy imo. The word is about consent and rape does not involve consent and therefore there is no such concept as democratic rape. You yourself gave the argument that exemplified a situation such as a single non-nazi standing amongst a hundred or a thousand nazi's. You typed that that single non-nazi would be the one who was still morally correct, in your subjective, democratic opinion. I agree and I further project this onto the claim that there cannot be such an entity as a tyrannical democracy as the two words contradict each other. Your counter argument is that a group can democratically vote yes to the rape, pillage and conquering of another group and you are trying to sensationalise this by labelling it a 'democratic tyranny.' By trying to do this you 'soil' the word democracy unfairly and unjustly. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE CONSENT OF THE WOMAN during rape so such an act CAN NEVER BE DEMOCRATIC! The same applies to the other examples of skewed and atrocious authority tolerance towards continued jungle like behaviour from historical or current groups of men, you cited.
The vast majority of biblical edicts/guidelines are just embarrassing or else we should be still burning witches. Any group that still advocates or actually performs such acts would be considered evil, yes?

You didn't. You presented a justice prevails because it is just argument which is essentially the same thing. It argues that as long as we fight for righteousness we will prevail. — Hanover

You are making some bizarre interpretive jumps. I type something like 'when evil gets too big for its boots it gets smashed,' and you jump to some 'righteous religion on a crusade against evil,' BS.
My typings are about how humans react to evil empires such as the Greeks/Macedonians under Alexander the great savage, Rome, France under Napoleon, Great savage Britain, Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin etc, etc. THEY FALL, exactly as Gandhi stated.
Yes, as long as we fight for a global society where all humans can take their basic needs for granted and have equal status under the law, we will prevail, without any reference to, or need for, appeals for support or sanction from non-existent supernaturals.

If my point is obvious, then why do you argue otherwise? I have submitted that the majority will is irrelevant when deciphering morality. — Hanover

Because it's not true! The majority will is not, in any way, irrelevant, it is very relevant to identify, support and embed morality. 'Rape is immoral,' is correct, objectively as you suggest, even in the case of 1 victim (in one of your favoured unlikely scenarios) in a city of men who have all democratically voted for rape to be legal within their city state limits. It is all the other people from outside that city state who will smash it up, physically or politically and change that law! Even if it takes 10,000 years to achieve it. THATS WHAT HUMANS DO. That is their legacy and their compelling potential.

How does this contradict the idea that a democracy can be tyrannical? — Hanover

I think I have been crystal clear on my opinion that the concept of tyrannical democracy is contradictory and makes no sense within REAL human civilisations that have and do exist. You can peddle the idea of democracy running within gangster style authorities which may operate or exist within human civilisations, but you are just misusing the word democracy, when you try to apply it to gangster groups of moronic humans who cannot exist beyond their jungle beginnings.

democracy can be tyrannical — Hanover

Indeed it can be! :cool:

Indeed it can! — Agent Smith

I'm sorry to get a bit panto on you but 'OH NO IT CAN'T!' or to respond more in kind, 'OH INDEED IT CANNOT.'
Gangsters can all agree democratically to act as gangsters act but if they are being tyrannical to others then they have no consent from those they are being tyrannical towards, so they are not acting DEMOCRATICALLY! You cannot employ democracy within your own group and then abandon it when dealing with another group who is not threatening you! Such behaviour IS CONTRADICTORY.

I don't want to upset your apple cart mon ami.

I don't want to upset your apple cart mon ami. — Agent Smith

Why not? You might convince me I am wrong, but you need to be in it to win it!

Why not? You might convince me I am wrong, but you need to be in it to win it! — universeness

I have reorganized something in my brain; you're feelin' the effects.

What? You need to be less cryptic.

What? You need to be less cryptic. — universeness

:lol:

I have reorganized something in my brain; you're feelin' the effects. — Agent Smith

Telepathy?

I don't know if it's a moral similarity because there certainly appears to be something more sinister in harming others than in harming yourself. Not all moral violations are of the same magnitude.

I do think it's worthwhile however to make the point that if we hold humanity in high esteem, we can't overlook the lack of self-respect we offer ourselves as morally irrelevant. — Hanover

I think if two individuals (self and other) are equivalent, and owed the same rights and protections then it is not more sinister to harm another than yourself. That denies you equal treatment and what sort of message does that send to others as to how you should be treated.

The third option of course is to treat others well and hope/expect them to treat you similarly. In that ways both parties are moral. And the threat of harm is only potential and not acted out/committed.

But you are right about if we hold humanity in high self esteem then we ought to consider why we lack self respect. It is not morally irrelevant. If choice exists.. Which I believe it does.. Then there's always a better option when faced with two things... With a moral dilemma. Instead of it being "I hate him, he dies" or "he hates me, I die". The third and better option is "we both live, laugh and love".

democracy can be tyrannical — Hanover

Indeed it can and indeed it is... Because democracy like all other human institutions is a hierarchy of power. We elect people into power and influence over us believing they have our best interests at heart. Or that they will do right by us.

Bad tyrannies are malevolent dictatorships governed by a selfish person that doesn't hold themselves responsible/accountable for their actions.

Good tyrannies are democratic benevolent hierarchies where the wisest and most measured of us are elected to a position of power/authority but they meet that with a equal sense of responsibility and accountability for the whole, they use their power to be subservient to all that put them in that position.

Just in case Mr Smith! Is all ok?

'To deliberately inflict and prolong, willfully ignore or derive pleasure from suffering' is my quick & dirty idea of evil. — 180 Proof

Your definition, as I see it, exemplifies anti-empathy.

Telepathy? — universeness

No, not telepathy.

Just in case Mr Smith! Is all ok? — universeness

Yep, life couldn't be better for someone like me.

---

Evil is not something that needs a definition, oui mes amies?

Psychopathy in h. sapiens and, more broadly, opportunistic predation in nature.

Do you consider yourself evil?

Do you consider yourself evil? — universeness

A good question. What do you think? I've written many posts on this forum on a wide variety of topics, enough data to form a reasonable opinion on my moral character. So ... ?

Depends on what you have done/caused to happen to others in your life Mr Smith, not what you have posted on TPF.