is ISIS evil?

I for one don't think subjective is 'bad'... but I like to use terms in accurate ways so they are functional in communication, and for me as mentioned good/bad and right/wrong are examples of great subjective terms. t prefer to use an objective measure to assess behaviour and intention as it reduces the capacity for my emotions and bias to influence my intepretation. The word 'evil' in particular has strong associations for some, and I prefer to define it with more solid conditions to represent that intention and behaviour - rather then my reaction to it.

While I naturally don't mind how others use the term, it sort of feels almost like a category error to assert my subjective experience of someones behaviour as a measure of someone elses experience... hence why I find it more useful to assert some criteria of behaviour to define the term, and then use the nature of that type of behaviour to reflect back onto ones subjective reality - something like "there no evil thoughts, only evil actions... and thoughts of evil actions".

I might not be making much sense, its just before 7am here :blink:

I think the basic moral tenets of the major religions of the world define good or bad well enough. If we focus on what we have in common more than what we differ on.

Bareus wrote: This is a question where there are no rights or wrongs
Since it all depends on perspective, some belive them to lead a holy crusade against non-belivers and some belive them to be demons in human form

What i belive them to be is not muslims, and we should nor claim them to be representatives of islam
I personally belive that Daesh (IS) is a terrible terrorist group, that must be dealt with
As i do not belive in death as a solution to conflicts they must be dealt with in a diplomatic way first, if that is not possible then i am afraid we must sadly fight them with weapons

We can not allow hatred for them cloud our judgement, for if we allow it to, we will not only bring war upon Daesh, but on all muslims aswell

Personally I think it's inappropriate to say they are NOT Muslims. There are many types of Muslims who believe different things but they are all still Muslims. Just like there are Mormona but they are technically still Christians. I think the important thing is to keep in mind not to judge all Muslims based on the actions of the few.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Adder wrote: Yea, but my working definition is a bit more detailed then just 'suffering' alone. I agree suffering is a subjective 'experience', but forcing suffering on someone else seems quite an objective action to me - and hence suitable for interpreting behaviour.

Anything can be subjective without conditions to constrain it into having some practical meaning... and mine would be knowingly causing suffering to someone against that persons will. I think subjective terms need to be clear and functional in being used for subjective things; like good and bad for experiential subjectivity, and right and wrong for informational subjectivity. It's why I view evils opposite as not good, but compassion, which I then define as knowingly reducing suffering to someone.

I like a little bit of structure, even if I have to invent it, so I"m not so much concerned about how other cultures define the term, unless it's a better definition of course!! Hence my curiosity in how others might functionally use the term.

Unfortunately it seems that in a quest for an objective definition of evil, you've attached your own subjective views to it, that is its connection with causing suffering. And as twisted as we may think their viewpoint may be, they define that which does not fit their version of sharia law to be evil. Who is right? We can make ourselves feel better by considering ourselves good and righteous for our compassion, or we can simply accept that we choose compassion because we feel it's the good thing, and not the evil thing. This is what Watts warned about in his discussion of not letting ourselves become deluded into the idea that our enemies are evil, their actions, and how we respond to them are the very thing that allows us to feel comfort in our supposed identity as "the good guys". I will stand on the side of compassion over cruelty til my dying breath, but life is messy and complex, and in the end we're just struggling with labels when we should be concerning ourselves with dealing with what is real.

these are some things that i think are recurring themes of evil movements

evil DEMANDS victims - it does not consider solutions which do not include victimization

evil assaults the DIGNITY of its victims

evil inflicts suffering even when it is unnecessary to achieving the proclaimed outcome - it deliberately makes the choice to victimize even when the choice is not mandatory to achieving the stated goal

evil refuses to acknowledge the right of the other to demonstrate that/how/if their view or position is relevant in the discussion

evil will use logic for the purpose of inflicting suffering and assaulting dignity, and will disregard logic if it contradicts that aim

evil does not acknowledge that it may be incorrect and is not open to review of its own position

--

i have posted this before and i consider it very worthwhile if anyone is interested in the topic and hasnt seen it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM25byj81Jc&feature=youtu.be

If you are trying to end the health and longevity of life in other humans, I really dont care what you call it, how you define it, or whatever mental gymnastics you want to play,but it would be silly to let it continue.

I am reminded of writing done by Richard Francis Irvine, who is a member, and one time leader of the Dark aspect of the F.A.

The Necessity Of Anger


He who sees injustice and does not become angry is not a good man.


I had a dream one night. I was perfectly calm and clear. I saw trees being hacked down and birds being shot out of the air…

and I walked on, calm and clear.

I saw my books being burned…

and walked on, calm and clear.

I saw churches being smashed, and priests being urinated on…

and walked on, calm and clear.

I saw children in sweatshops by day and brothels by night…

and walked on, calm and clear.

I saw the people I loved being exploited…

and walked on, calm and clear.

I saw my mother being mugged, and I walked on, calm and clear.

I returned home and continued my empty meditation, calm and clear.

We get angry for a reason. It’s a sign: “I have to do something about this. I WILL do something about this. It is not satisfactory to walk on.” I woke up, cold and frightened that I had become so lost that I could no longer feel the heat of anger. There were things to be fought for, and I had convinced myself to drift and let them be. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust.”

- Richard Francis Irvine

Call it what you will subjectively, but objectively, is anyone really saying that they should be allowed to continue as they are with the beheadings, attacks etc?

Well then, definitions aside, there in itself is the common ground. So, is it semantics for semantics sake? Is there truly a difference? I dont know, and dont care, as long as we can agree that something needs to be done.

CryojenX wrote:

Adder wrote: Yea, but my working definition is a bit more detailed then just 'suffering' alone. I agree suffering is a subjective 'experience', but forcing suffering on someone else seems quite an objective action to me - and hence suitable for interpreting behaviour.

Anything can be subjective without conditions to constrain it into having some practical meaning... and mine would be knowingly causing suffering to someone against that persons will. I think subjective terms need to be clear and functional in being used for subjective things; like good and bad for experiential subjectivity, and right and wrong for informational subjectivity. It's why I view evils opposite as not good, but compassion, which I then define as knowingly reducing suffering to someone.

I like a little bit of structure, even if I have to invent it, so I"m not so much concerned about how other cultures define the term, unless it's a better definition of course!! Hence my curiosity in how others might functionally use the term.

Unfortunately it seems that in a quest for an objective definition of evil, you've attached your own subjective views to it, that is its connection with causing suffering. And as twisted as we may think their viewpoint may be, they define that which does not fit their version of sharia law to be evil. Who is right? We can make ourselves feel better by considering ourselves good and righteous for our compassion, or we can simply accept that we choose compassion because we feel it's the good thing, and not the evil thing. This is what Watts warned about in his discussion of not letting ourselves become deluded into the idea that our enemies are evil, their actions, and how we respond to them are the very thing that allows us to feel comfort in our supposed identity as "the good guys". I will stand on the side of compassion over cruelty til my dying breath, but life is messy and complex, and in the end we're just struggling with labels when we should be concerning ourselves with dealing with what is real.

I disagree. I acknowledge it might be good for them, and bad for everyone else... but given my definition of evil it does not matter whether people think its good or bad.. its just literally knowingly increasing the suffering of others against their will - and therefore evil (according my definition).

What I am doing is defining what I consider to be suffering, but that is based on the concepts of physical pain, loss of liberty and discrimination which again to me are objective measures of action, not subjective thought.

I'm just trying to be accurate about what is real, and not let labels have so little meaning that we use our dictionary as a subjective soup to express our feelings... well not all the time, sometimes its good to throw a few expletives around. Of course I could be wrong, we are just having a discussion

Khaos wrote: Well then, definitions aside, there in itself is the common ground. So, is it semantics for semantics sake? Is there truly a difference? I dont know, and dont care, as long as we can agree that something needs to be done.

Which brings us to the subject of what exactly need be done, which I believe is being discussed in another thread. Kind of seems like we've spent five or so pages chasing our tails doesn't it? :blush:

Khaos wrote: If you are trying to end the health and longevity of life in other humans, I really dont care what you call it, how you define it, or whatever mental gymnastics you want to play,but it would be silly to let it continue.

I am reminded of writing done by Richard Francis Irvine, who is a member, and one time leader of the Dark aspect of the F.A.

The Necessity Of Anger


He who sees injustice and does not become angry is not a good man.


I had a dream one night. I was perfectly calm and clear. I saw trees being hacked down and birds being shot out of the air…

and I walked on, calm and clear.

I saw my books being burned…

and walked on, calm and clear.

I saw churches being smashed, and priests being urinated on…

and walked on, calm and clear.

I saw children in sweatshops by day and brothels by night…

and walked on, calm and clear.

I saw the people I loved being exploited…

and walked on, calm and clear.

I saw my mother being mugged, and I walked on, calm and clear.

I returned home and continued my empty meditation, calm and clear.

We get angry for a reason. It’s a sign: “I have to do something about this. I WILL do something about this. It is not satisfactory to walk on.” I woke up, cold and frightened that I had become so lost that I could no longer feel the heat of anger. There were things to be fought for, and I had convinced myself to drift and let them be. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas: “He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral. Why? Because anger looks to the good of justice. And if you can live amid injustice without anger, you are immoral as well as unjust.”

- Richard Francis Irvine

Call it what you will subjectively, but objectively, is anyone really saying that they should be allowed to continue as they are with the beheadings, attacks etc?

Well then, definitions aside, there in itself is the common ground. So, is it semantics for semantics sake? Is there truly a difference? I dont know, and dont care, as long as we can agree that something needs to be done.

To all of this, my only reply, as someone who's starting the Jedi path, would be:



Isn't that what we're supposed to strive for? Even though many injustices happen, we aren't supposed to let them affect us in a way that we feel anger, since anger is halfway through the Dark Side. We can, though, fight to defend the afflicted by these evil acts, but not without trying to reason before. At least, that's my understanding. If I'm wrong, please, someone correct me.

CryojenX wrote:

Khaos wrote: Well then, definitions aside, there in itself is the common ground. So, is it semantics for semantics sake? Is there truly a difference? I dont know, and dont care, as long as we can agree that something needs to be done.

Which brings us to the subject of what exactly need be done, which I believe is being discussed in another thread. Kind of seems like we've spent five or so pages chasing our tails doesn't it? :blush:

Well, I just think, personally, in the end, if you call it evil, bad, etc, this can be argued subjectively, but to what end?

What we can agree on, is that what ISIS and the various terrorist groups are going cannot be allowed to continue.

Clearly we dont feel it is the health and longevity of life for our fellow humans.

Now, onto what should be done, well, lets look at that a bit more objectively.

Who here in this discussion actually effects a field of influence that has the ear of the people who make the decisions and policies in dealing with such people?

You could say our collective voice, and I would agree to a degree, but im being a bit more direct.

Who here could make a call, and to those that make the decisions and policies would not look to there current advisors and listen to someone from TOTJO?

No one.

That isnt to say we cant have out opinions, discuss, them, or that they may or may not be quality ones, but it is important again to me, that we do not lose focus.

Is ISIS evil?

Well, I would say yes, but that is an irrelevant quantifier.

Should ISIS be allowed to continue?

No, and I cant see many saying they should be.

How should we deal with them?

That, is out of my hands.

Hopefully, those who make such choices can find a path that is one that causes the least amount of damage with the maximum amount of effectiveness.