when hitler helped an old lady across the street (ethics)

[Siúil a Rúin]

Here is wiki for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

And you were right that he loved animals, but failed to specify that it was the *dead* ones.

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Here is wiki for you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

And you were right that he loved animals, but failed to specify that it was the *dead* ones.

Um, the bolded part is wrong. Read my previous post. And I don't need the wiki, I have read many books on him.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Um, the bolded part is wrong. Read my previous post. And I don't need the wiki, I have read many books on him.

You added that as an edit which is why I didn't read it before.

Then it would be helpful for the discussion for you to cite the books and write in more depth. You can't expect people to take exaggerated, over-simplified statements framed flippantly as the result of years of research. If you have a developed basis for your position, then share it.

Edit: and it still feels strange to me that you only added that edit after I posted the same information about the dead animals.

 

[Ivy]

I cba to google for you.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

 

[21%]

My take on ethics is that it all comes down to something as basic as "us vs them". It depends on how you define 'us'. I really believe world peace is achievable through extending your compassion to include everything, then we'll all be 'us'.

Is this Fe talk?

 

[Riva]

ethics aren't that black and white nor is the justice system (if practiced properly). However though he might have helped certain people in certain ways to the eyes of the law (which is one of the main factors that helps hamanity to remain humane) he is a criminal.

My take on ethics is that it all comes down to something as basic as "us vs them". It depends on how you define 'us'. I really believe world peace is achievable through extending your compassion to include everything, then we'll all be 'us'.Is this Fe talk?

Very good point indeed. The main reason for racism is prejudice (i hope that translated correctly) due to the feeling of us vs them. It's simple as that. So when learns about other races/cultures one would learn that though on the surface cultures have their differences, the people and their levels of consciousness aren't too different from our own. Others are people just like our own who have empathy and sympathy. So the best way to feel that others are the same as 'us' is to study about other cultures. (This is best done through media directed at adults and not to kids at school who might feel the emphasis on the differences.) I do realize this isn't what the op is addressing.

 

[21%]

Very good point indeed. The main reason for racism is prejudice (i hope that translated correctly) due to the feeling of us vs them. It's simple as that. So when learns about other races/cultures one would learn that though on the surface cultures have their differences, the people and their levels of consciousness aren't too different from our own. Others are people just like our own who have empathy and sympathy. So the best way to feel that others are the same as 'us' is to study about other cultures. (This is best done through media directed at adults and not to kids at school who might feel the emphasis on the differences.) I do realize this isn't what the op is addressing.

I have an idea that the best way to combat racism is NOT forcing everyone to be painfully PC, but to promote foreign movies and literature. I know it's probably a bit naive, but well...

 

[Riva]

I have an idea that the best way to combat racism is NOT forcing everyone to be painfully PC, but to promote foreign movies and literature. I know it's probably a bit naive, but well...

Pc? Literature sounds like a great idea. I've noticed that though i'm from south asia i'm more fond of/tolerant/accepting towards english/western culture than most other asian (mainly middle eastern) cultures which is probably due to reading books/literature of english authors. movies however will promote the movie and the cast than educating about cultures/people. Hmm.. Since we disagreed should we argue about this till the thread gets locked and one of us gets banned?

 

[entropie]

I have an idea that the best way to combat racism is NOT forcing everyone to be painfully PC, but to promote foreign movies and literature. I know it's probably a bit naive, but well...

This is not naive its the only way to learn about foreign cultures.

One thing shouldnt be forgotten: it was not Hitler alone who did all this. He had lots of people behind him who organized his madness and supported it. That would be the real problem. And that is what shocks me personally more than anything else.
Nowadays when I see group movements like people buying the Iphone, it brings a cold shiver down my neck cause its those group idealists that turn into fanatics that scare me more than anything else.

I have read the story about the dealings with his niece as well. In the dealings with her, he was a little, angry and forceful person. He seemed to be a person who wasnt very authoritarian and that pissed him off even more when people didnt do what he wanted. I dont think that his being was a singualarity in that time. There were many angry little men, who behaved like patriarchs in their families and many families were far from democratic structures.

When you boild it all down I think the greatest danger stems from small angry people who want to impose their will onto others. There may be many power-hungry people who are willing to go over corpses to reach their goals, but most of them are harmless to humanity cause they are egoistic and do stuff only for themselves. Hitler tho wanted to create the World in his image and I think those are the most dangerous people.

 

[Cellmold]

I think this is a numbers game.

On the one hand: 'Old lady'

On the other: 'Cause of genocide'

Well oldie will get him 50 points on the karma scale. But genocide loses him -350 points. Putting him at a negative of -300.

 

[21%]

Pc? Literature sounds like a great idea. I've noticed that though i'm from south asia i'm more fond of/tolerant/accepting towards english/western culture than most other asian (mainly middle eastern) cultures which is probably due to reading books/literature of english authors. movies however will promote the movie and the cast than educating about cultures/people. Hmm.. Since we disagreed should we argue about this till the thread gets locked and one of us gets banned?

Not everyone reads, and movies will reach a wider audience, especially teenage kids, who would benefit from being exposed to *hot* celebs from all races and cultures. I know promoting *hotness* isn't exactly the right way, but since everyone is apparently doing this, why not make it at least diverse hotness?

 

[21%]

One thing shouldnt be forgotten: it was not Hitler alone who did all this. He had lots of people behind him who organized his madness and supported it. That would be the real problem. And that is what shocks me personally more than anything else.
Nowadays when I see group movements like people buying the Iphone, it brings a cold shiver down my neck cause its those group idealists that turn into fanatics that scare me more than anything else.

I have read the story about the dealings with his niece as well. In the dealings with her, he was a little, angry and forceful person. He seemed to be a person who wasnt very authoritarian and that pissed him off even more when people didnt do what he wanted. I dont think that his being was a singualarity in that time. There were many angry little men, who behaved like patriarchs in their families and many families were far from democratic structures.

When you boild it all down I think the greatest danger stems from small angry people who want to impose their will onto others. There may be many power-hungry people who are willing to go over corpses to reach their goals, but most of them are harmless to humanity cause they are egoistic and do stuff only for themselves. Hitler tho wanted to create the World in his image and I think those are the most dangerous people.

I mostly agree with this. Yeah, and phone fanatics are really scary.

I think I understand why normal, sane people joined the Nazis back then. Leading up to WWII the climate in Germany was very oppressive, and oppressed, angry people are the ones that usually change the world. Hitler knew how to harness this energy and use it for his own cause.

I know this thread isn't specifically about Hitler, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Typh0n]

First is to explore a sense of Self and Other. When an individual values self at the expense of others, then this can lead to arrogance which is akin to dismissal of others. In its most extreme cases this is expressedin the dehumanization of others.

The second is to determine how Self is defined. If Self includes a partner, pet, child, country, etc, then the individual may protect those within that circle of Self even if they have fully dismissed the rights of Other.

There is no Self or all is Self. When the entire construct of Self and Other are dismantled, it can lead to a distilled result. When we look deeply enough at the Self, we begin to see cause and effects, and that based on how we are comprised, we have the capacity to be anyone. There are other philosophies that break down this sense of Self and can lead to altruism, at least in theory.

I think you might take it as a surprise then, that Hitler beleived in an eradication of the Self in favor of merging one's sense of Self with the "greater good" of the Aryan race?

I do not personally believe that suppressing the boundries between Self and non Self leads to a more ethical person. Even Bhuddists believe that Nirvana can only be attained when you die, and no naturalistic religion actually believes that Self can be merged with the cosmos in anything other than the Ecstatic state.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I think you might take it as a surprise then, that Hitler beleived in an eradication of the Self in favor of merging one's sense of Self with the "greater good" of the Aryan race?

I do not personally believe that suppressing the boundries between Self and non Self leads to a more ethical person. Even Buddhists believe that Nirvana can only be attained when you die, and no naturalistic religion actually believes that Self can be merged with the cosmos in anything other than the Ecstatic state.

The point about Hitler does not surprise me. The worst, largest scales atrocities typically involve a group mentality of Us (expanded definition of Self) vs Them (existential Other). That is not an example of the non-self, but merely an emphasis on one of the hierarchies of Self in place of our Western focus on the individual.

I don't have a conclusion that is certain about the ethical implications of the dissolution of Self. Some of our ethical leaders like Mother Theresa, Einstein, and Ghandi have referred to expanding the circle of Self to include all living things. How does this relate to the concept of the non-Self of Buddhism? It would make an interesting discussion.

I made the comment that the dissolution of Self leads to a pure state. I suspect tha is true, but I don't know if that would only be a purely ethical state or also the opposite. Perhaps it is more a accurate to say it would lead to a cohesive or consistent state.

 

[Typh0n]

The point about Hitler does not surprise me. The worst, largest scales atrocities typically involve a group mentality of Us (expanded definition of Self) vs Them (existential Other). That is not an example of the non-self, but merely an emphasis on one of the hierarchies of Self in place of our Western focus on the individual.

I don't have a conclusion that is certain about the ethical implications of the dissolution of Self. Some of our ethical leaders like Mother Theresa, Instein, and Ghandi have referred to expanding the circle of Self to include all living things. How does this relate to the concept of the non-Self of Buddhism? It would make an interesting discussion.

I made the comment that the dissolution of Self leads to a pure state. I suspect tha is true, but I don't know if that would only be a purely ethical state or also the opposite. Perhaps it is more a curate to say it would lead to a cohesive or consistent state.

But...it is impossible to retain self consciousness(I exist) without a perception of other(they exist). It would lead to a dissolution of Self and cosnciousness(as we know it) would simply cease to exist. At least I assume, I've never attained such a state nor do I desire to, but it seems logical that you cannot dilute your Ego-Self into a universal self without losing Self conssiousness.

As far as Hitler not truly dissolving his ego, thats obvious, as all of his society was based on his perosna. I think expaning the Self to include all living things is a Noble concept, but it is not all the same as Self consciousness disappearing as in Nirvana. This simply means annihilation of the Self, and of the source of that Self, which Bhuddists believe to be the universe. A notion of Self would imply non Self as well, and if we have allies, we have enemies. A Self that extends itself to all Life is sworn to oppose all that opposes life. Noble. But not to be confused with extinction of the Self(and it would surprise me Mother Teresa would beleive in extinction of the Self since Catholics do not believe that ).

 

[entropie]

You lost me somwhere between non-self and nirvana

 

[entropie]

You lost me somwhere between non-self and nirvana

 

[Society]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

generally to find the burden of proof, you need to look for the assumptions and count the number of negatives to find out who is making the positive assertion. in this case the burden of proof is on [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION] rather than [MENTION=15318]Saudade[/MENTION] - since she is making the claim that people would behave ethically consistently, while he is pointing out that there's no reason to believe that.

i can say that her assertion contradicts my own experience - most people who have done extremely disagreeable and thoughtless acts have plenty of nice acts under their belt, in fact most humans seem to have plenty of both. i've learned that the ones who don't see it seem to do so as a matter of single-perspective framing - to them, they "express their emotions while enacting their right of physical motion" while someone else is in fact getting a kick to the face.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

generally to find the burden of proof, you need to look for the assumptions and count the number of negatives to find out who is making the positive assertion. in this case the burden of proof is on [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION] rather than [MENTION=15318]Saudade[/MENTION] - since she is making the claim that people would behave ethically consistently, while he is pointing out that there's no reason to believe that.

That is not my assertion. Please let go of that assumption because that is not my position. You are projecting an absolute claim onto me.

The burden of proof is on [MENTION=15318]Saudade[/MENTION] for asserting facts. I could say that Hitler was an excellent chef, but if I do not back up that claim, the burden of proof is not on you to contradict that. Saudade was not stating a theory, (s)he was stating specific "facts". If I say that Jeffrey Dahmer loved jello shots, is the burden of proof on me or you for that claim?

i can say that her assertion contradicts my own experience - most people who have done extremely disagreeable and thoughtless acts have plenty of nice acts under their belt, in fact most humans seem to have plenty of both. i've learned that the ones who don't see it seem to do so as a matter of single-perspective framing - to them, they "express their emotions while enacting their right of physical motion" while someone else is in fact getting a kick to the face.

My assertion is NOT that people are all or nothing. It is true that individuals are not black or white, but they are also not black and white. What is happening in the assertions being made based on examples given is that people are equally good and evil. One cardboard cutout is being replaced by two equally shallow cutouts. There are degrees of cruelty that constrain a person's ability for compassion, and there are levels of compassion that constrain a person's ability for cruelty. The concept of the complete dissolution of Self is a theoretical end-point that I assert would result in complete coherency of a person's action. I have never asserted in the entire history of my posting that a human being is only compassionate or only cruel in their behavior. I have never believed that and have invested literally hundreds of thousands of hours over thirty years analyzing human beings through reading psychological theories and observations to make sense of the inconsistencies, and I am still in the process of making sense of it. Not only am I aware of it, but it is nearly one of my obsessions. It do not make quick judgments about this issue, because it is important to me to understand the underlying systems that drive behaviors.

A human being is not a completely random system, even though we are typically irrational systems. We are the result of genetics and experience, cause-and-effect. We are complex systems, but still systems that operate based on certain premises. If it is being proposed that human beings are capable of pure compassion and pure cruelty within the same mental framework, I suggest that this is an assertion that does need to demonstrate some psychological basis.

 

[Typh0n]

You lost me somwhere between non-self and nirvana

Did I? What isnt clear?