is ISIS evil?

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not convinced we could, though. Morality is almost completely subjective.

I disagree, the core tenant of morality is something along the lines of "do no harm." Everything else stems from that.
I understand your point that instances of cruelty could be spun off as collateral damage, something the West has historically been bad at (even to the point of the CIA instigating many terrorist cells linked to IS).
No one can claim morality if their actions go against that. IS might not have evil in it's name, but character is shown through actions. And IS has made no attempt (as far as I know) to deny or mitigate their atrocities

I disagree, the core tenant of morality is something along the lines of "do no harm."

Uh, well, not for everyone apparently...

It wasnt high on the list of the guy who just slaughtered 50 people.

Khaos wrote: Uh, well, not for everyone apparently...
It wasnt high on the list of the guy who just slaughtered 50 people.

Exactly, that's the difference between my understanding of Islam and his. I think his actions were immoral

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not convinced we could, though. Morality is almost completely subjective.

ok well then as an experiment, try to imagine a scenario where a five year old child is sexually assaulted and tortured to death in front of his or her family, in such a way that it can be understood as an act of goodness

pretend that youre a writer and your masterpiece depends on justifying this act - not just explaining it, but actually making it into a good and righteous thing to do

If we're playing pretend, ok then.

Let's say that this child was a member of a primary culture where part of their yearly fertility ritual requires the sacrifice of a particularly valuable member of the tribe. In this case, an innocent child. He (she?) is subjected to a ritualized sex act as a reenactment of the local mythology, followed by dismemberment and burial in the fields in front of the entire village. They all believe that this sacrifice will assure a harvest that will feed them for the coming year.

Now, I'm playing pretend here of course, but in that case, what seems to us a barbarous act to us is actually a necessary and righteous ritual to them.

Miss_Leah wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not convinced we could, though. Morality is almost completely subjective.

ok well then as an experiment, try to imagine a scenario where a five year old child is sexually assaulted and tortured to death in front of his or her family, in such a way that it can be understood as an act of goodness

pretend that youre a writer and your masterpiece depends on justifying this act - not just explaining it, but actually making it into a good and righteous thing to do

If we're playing pretend, ok then.

Let's say that this child was a member of a primary culture where part of their yearly fertility ritual requires the sacrifice of a particularly valuable member of the tribe. In this case, an innocent child. He (she?) is subjected to a ritualized sex act as a reenactment of the local mythology, followed by dismemberment and burial in the fields in front of the entire village. They all believe that this sacrifice will assure a harvest that will feed them for the coming year.

Now, I'm playing pretend here of course, but in that case, what seems to us a barbarous act to us is actually a necessary and righteous ritual to them.

excellent, i figured thats where youd go with it

what makes this act "good"?
why is it "good" when its done this way, but it would be "evil" if it were done another way?

you yourself just made it "good", now please explain why it is so

I think evil should mean something objective, something other then just another word for bad. Why even have another word for bad, if its a polarity then can you really justify a stronger version of the pole!? It doesn't seem to make sense. If it is outside the pole it ceases to be on the scale at all and must be something else.... probably.

I think if we wanted to find a useful meaning for evil which was close to how we use the bad, then we just need to find a universal attribute to the experience of having a subjective view. If we look at the human condition and its basis for good and bad, generally speaking it comes down to pleasure equal good and pain equals bad.

Historically, before science, bad luck, disease and pain were blamed on supernatural things, hence why evil is in many cultures associated with being in dis-ease, or cursed and death itself. I don't think its useful to use that anymore, and so instead think evil is best partnered with compassion as objective measures of awareness, intention and action. It is as universal measure of the subjective experience as I think is possible for us humans (and other animals).

So I don't consider that view as subjective morality, but rather something like 'universal biological morality'.

In which case the ISIL, by its actions and stated intentions, is keen to embrace the creation of suffering in people to achieve its ends and therefore evil, IMO.

But since I'm using the term as having some objective attributes, there can be measures of evil. The key to minimize subjective bias on the use of the term is that its the measure of the awareness of suffering, the intention to increase or decrease it, and the action to effect that change. The outcome being either a measure towards compassion or evil.

I can even link those things to the Temple's Tenets;
Focus -> Awareness (of suffering)
Knowledge -> Intention (defining position of actor)
Wisdom -> Action (impact of intention)

To try and Jedify it a bit.... :side:

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not convinced we could, though. Morality is almost completely subjective.

ok well then as an experiment, try to imagine a scenario where a five year old child is sexually assaulted and tortured to death in front of his or her family, in such a way that it can be understood as an act of goodness

pretend that youre a writer and your masterpiece depends on justifying this act - not just explaining it, but actually making it into a good and righteous thing to do

If we're playing pretend, ok then.

Let's say that this child was a member of a primary culture where part of their yearly fertility ritual requires the sacrifice of a particularly valuable member of the tribe. In this case, an innocent child. He (she?) is subjected to a ritualized sex act as a reenactment of the local mythology, followed by dismemberment and burial in the fields in front of the entire village. They all believe that this sacrifice will assure a harvest that will feed them for the coming year.

Now, I'm playing pretend here of course, but in that case, what seems to us a barbarous act to us is actually a necessary and righteous ritual to them.

excellent, i figured thats where youd go with it

now, what makes this act "good"?
why is it "good" when its done this way but it would be "evil" if it were done another way?

you yourself just made it "good", now please explain why it is so

Well, the act is regarded by one group as "good" because it brings the favour of the powers that be to give them sustenance and the security of survival. Whereas someone from another culture would see it as rape, torture and murder of a child. It's the same act, with two very different moral outcomes.

The difference is how it's perceived by the person who is hearing about it/seeing it, etc. That's what I mean by morally subjective. Using the example that Brenna posted, we see ISIS/ISIL/Da'esh as evil for the cruel acts that they perform to terrorize us and the non-believers among them. They see us as the evil Empire out to get them and squash their ancient traditions with our modern godless ways.

Obviously, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here and taking things to extremes.

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Warning: Spoiler!

Miss_Leah wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote:

Miss_Leah wrote: I'm not convinced we could, though. Morality is almost completely subjective.

ok well then as an experiment, try to imagine a scenario where a five year old child is sexually assaulted and tortured to death in front of his or her family, in such a way that it can be understood as an act of goodness

pretend that youre a writer and your masterpiece depends on justifying this act - not just explaining it, but actually making it into a good and righteous thing to do

If we're playing pretend, ok then.

Let's say that this child was a member of a primary culture where part of their yearly fertility ritual requires the sacrifice of a particularly valuable member of the tribe. In this case, an innocent child. He (she?) is subjected to a ritualized sex act as a reenactment of the local mythology, followed by dismemberment and burial in the fields in front of the entire village. They all believe that this sacrifice will assure a harvest that will feed them for the coming year.

Now, I'm playing pretend here of course, but in that case, what seems to us a barbarous act to us is actually a necessary and righteous ritual to them.

excellent, i figured thats where youd go with it

what makes this act "good"?
why is it "good" when its done this way, but it would be "evil" if it were done another way?

you yourself just made it "good", now please explain why it is so

Not to take over for Miss_Leah, but I think what makes it "good" to those people is that they believe it is. There's really not much of a better explanation than that. To them, those acts just secured them a fruitful harvest. If they didn't do it they might all die of starvation. To them it was the lesser of two evils, kill one child or let everyone die.

To us it's evil because we know that killing that child in that way has ZERO bearing on the harvest.

Goken wrote: To us it's evil because we know that killing that child in that way has ZERO bearing on the harvest.

So it's evil, no?
I understand the point Miss Leia makes, but philosophy only works when you start somewhere in reality.

Rex wrote:

Goken wrote: To us it's evil because we know that killing that child in that way has ZERO bearing on the harvest.

So it's evil, no?
I understand the point Miss Leia makes, but philosophy only works when you start somewhere in reality.

The point I'm trying to make is that merely labeling them as evil won't help.

They believe that they're righteous and we're evil, which is how they justify doing horrific things to fellow human beings.

And as such, we believe that we're righteous and they're evil, which is how we justify invading their country with soldiers, dropping bombs on them, and persecuting people of the same religion in our own and other "non-evil" countries.

By continuing the dichotomy of good/evil, we're continuing to justify violence on both sides.