Hobbes or Rousseau

[Fire_Monkey]

Hobbes believes that Humankind is naturally evil, society controls us with law.
Rousseau believes that Humankind is naturally good, society corrupts us by seperation.

[Doobz]

HOBBES, because hes a cuddawy tiger......:rolleyes:

[Fire_Monkey]

Actually, he looks like this. http://www.newgenevacenter.org/portrait/hobbes.jpg

man hes ugly, but his ideas have sure shaped yours and my life.

[Navaron]

Rousseau all the way. I'm not a pessimist.

[Airlift]

Good and evil is subjective, Hobbes and Calvin were blind men checking out the elephant.

[Doobz]

all philisophical issues aside, Calvin and Hobbes is my favorite comic strip EVER

lub to deh tiger :love:

[Jaged]

What the hell are you talking about?:confused:

[Hamma]

:confused:

[Flameseeker]

I like the one where he disfigures snowmen. Then his parents discuss how nutso he is. Lol. Rofl. Just cracks me up. He also builds a snow cannon, and makes a snowman with a hole in it right in front tof the cannon. Good ole Calvin & Hobbes.

[Doobz]

Hamma and Jaged, do you mean to tell me that you have never heard of the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes by Bill Watterson?

I order you both to your local bookstore to buy the books! NOW! :rolleyes:

seriously, i have most of the books, they are great, true classics :D

[Fire_Monkey]

...this was supposed to be a phisilophical discussion, but hell. Calvin and Hobbes is a great comic strip.

[Doobz]

Calvin and Hobbes IS philisophical :cool:

[OneManArmy]

yea I wondered how the hell we got on to a comic....


but If you read calvin and hobbes you will notice that when hobbes gets philisophical he does not follow the real hobbes way of thinking. The tiger seems to be more of an optimist. but I loved that comic too, that shit got deep some times :love: :love:

[Arshune]

I'm going with Hobbes on this one, people suck.

[Lexington_Steele]

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/calvinhobbeswarbeginning.jpg

[Incompetent]

Calvin and Hobbes has got to be one of the funniest things on earth, i have all of the books

oh and, i'd have to go with Hobbes on the good and evil issue

[Jaged]

I know what Calvin & Hobbes is. In fact it is my favorite comic strip. But, who/what is Rousseau?

[Meshuggah]

Originally posted by Jaged
I know what Calvin & Hobbes is. In fact it is my favorite comic strip. But, who/what is Rousseau?

Who cares? Go Hobbes go! :D

[Shyfted One]

I think it's obvious that Hobbes is superior :D

Tiger > man, see (http://i.keen.com/listingphotos/9307790-31040.gif)

[Confectrix]

Hello,

I might firstly say that the one sentence summations you attribute to the lenghty and at times confusing writings of these two individuals does not do them justice at all. In the interests of space however, I am quite pleased with the exactness of so short a description. In the future however, it is advisable to secure more information prior to requiring a vote of such different paths. Afterall, if one does not have a fully adjectivised description with plenty of analogies, how can one make such a deafing statement as to which of these two radically different philosophies are correct?

I add this to your discussion. Since society is made up of humanity, society and humanity are one in the same; collectivly. Hobbes says that mankind (humankind, if your into the politically correct "thing") is evil, but society controls this evil nature with laws. How can a society made up of such evil control itself and bring itself to good? Evil repulses from the good. Evil cannot come to good; it is the absence of good. (St. Augustine)

Rousseau, on the other hand dictates that it is by society we become evil. This can be more approcable since, quite honestly, not every person, good by nature, wills good. Thus, since the whole of society is made up of naturally good peoples, some people abuse this freedom (of being able to perform (good acts) and of being good) and consequetly corrupt some part of society, and in like, some part of humanity.

How do I know people are naturally good? Reason alone dictates that people are good. For example, does one need to tell a ten year old that killing is wrong? Does one need to scold a five year old on the wrongs of cruelty to animals? Does one need to frequent discussion with a seven year old on the morality of stealing?

People are instrinsicaly good. It is the freedom to do evil which corrupts the individual; if that individual so chooses to succumb to evil (so, in essence, the persons act of doing evil). This individual being a part of society assists in the debasement of society. The reverese is also true.

Of the two, I choose neither.

[OneManArmy]

even if he did confectix, people would still vote for the tiger fool!!!!! :p

[Airlift]

the short answer is that people are complex and varied beings capable of unthinkable good and evil. Whether a given human will act in the name of good or evil is a crap-shoot. It's a pointless crap-shoot anyway because any given act may be perceived as good or evil depending on your vantage point. Hmmm, maybe good and evil are human constructs grafted atop the natural world by our own subconscious?

Who likes spoons?

[Fire_Monkey]

Great, thank you very much Confectrix, this poll was designed in the foreknowledege that people would previously know who Hobbes or Rousseau are, the descriptions are merely to remind you who represented who. I can see that if someone did not knwo who they were and based their opinion off of my statements, then thier judgment could be wrong. In the interest of the readers patience, I don't believe that any of them would want to read their philosphies, and if they did, fully understand them by the information from some linked site. The Hobbes Rousseau debate has been active for ages.

Thanks a bunch man,

Fire

[Denali]

:huh: Confectrix, philosophy major?

[Confectrix]

Yes.

Your're very intuative and insightful.

I like that.

Good day sir.

[Confectrix]

Airlift:

Good and Evil are objective; not subjective. The subconscious would never create such ideals. Why? To do the good; the true good to which is evident, i.e. no stealing, lying, slandering, laziness, et cetera would mean failure. Why would our mind, our subconsious set us up for failure?

That is another debate. One I'd rather not get into, so if you just want to leave it at this, I woundn't mind.

Pax tecum,

[Denali]

Confectrix, ever read any Chalmers? What do you think about that guy?

[Bighoss]

Conf is too smart I pledge my alligence to you;)

your gonna make a lot of people that think there smart look stupid so I'm gonna stop posting

[Confectrix]

{BOHICA}Denali:

No, I have not. I'm still focusing around [though not soley] the classics of the Greek and Roman philosophy. These works are filled with many treasures. It is true when one said that "the annals of western civilization are filled with the footnotes of Aristotle and Plato."

Bighoss:

Intelligence is a funny thing. In the end of things it means nothing. Believe me. Intelligence touches everybody. The key, my friend, it to excersize it and thereby stregthen it.

One must be extremly careful not to confuse wisdom with intelligence. I would rather have wisdom any day to intelligence, or as some say "smarts."

The point I want you to take away from this, Admiral, is that in life intelligence matters not. Even wisdom matters not.

Love excels all other virtues in so much as it is the motivator of all other virtues.

I thank you for the compliment however.

[Fire_Monkey]

:lol: Welcome confectrix, I see you already have a nick, you'll fit in well. I'm in a philosophy club with my anthropology teacher, and some highschoolers. I enjoy philosophy as well. Oh, you're probably one of the most intelligent people around here. Problem are the damn conservatives.:D

Welcome

[Denali]

Good stuff Confectrix, I agree with all of your points. The only classical philosopher (mathematician) I've spent any time on is Descartes, he had his moments but overall was a pretty strange guy :( Welcome to the family, it's nice to see someone bringing some class to this forum, the mighty few of us were struggling against the heathens :D

[Airlift]

I don't think I could pass this one up for money. :D

If you don't want to get into it, we can chalk it up as a difference of opinion, but I have three questions about the objectivity of Good and Evil.

1. Is it good or evil to steal?
2. Is it good or evil to kill?
3. Is it good or evil to swindle?

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Airlift
I don't think I could pass this one up for money. :D

If you don't want to get into it, we can chalk it up as a difference of opinion, but I have three questions about the objectivity of Good and Evil.

1. Is it good or evil to steal?
2. Is it good or evil to kill?
3. Is it good or evil to swindle?
In general evil evil evil (not necessarily in that order).

[Denali]

Aww, you guys have the same avatar! How cute!! :hug:

I think you and Confectrix are making the same argument. By good and evil being objective and not subjective then stealing in any case would be evil, not sometimes, or depends who, but always evil. Same with the other two examples.

[Airlift]

No, I need more convincing that good and evil is objective and not subjective. A few more questions will do the trick, for sure...

4. Is it good or evil to kill a sniper who is terrorizing a metropolitan area?
5. Is it good or evil to steal food to feed your family?
6. Is it good or evil to negotiate the best deal you possibly can even if it is not wholly honest?

[Confectrix]

I refer to the St. Augustine for my definition of good. He can say it better than I could since it is mainly from him I derived my idea of good. Here goes:

"The highest good, than which there is no higher, is God, and consequently He is unchangeable good, hence truly eternal and truly immortal. All other good things are only from Him, not of Him. For what is of Him, is Himself. And consequently if He alone is unchangeable, all things that He has made, because He has made them out of nothing, are changeable." (Book 1, DE NATURA BONI CONTRA MANICHAEOS).

"When accordingly it is inquired, whence is evil, it must first be inquired, what is evil, which is nothing else than corruption, either of the measure, or the form, or the order, that belong to nature. Nature therefore which has been corrupted, is called evil, for assuredly when incorrupt it is good; but even when corrupt, so far as it is nature it is good, so far as it is corrupted it is evil." (Ibid.)

A little background on the work:

DE NATURA BONI CONTRA MANICHAEOS [Literally, CONCERNING THE NATURE OF GOOD, AGAINST THE MANICHAEANS)

"Written after the year 404. It is put in the Retractations immediately after the De Actis cure Felice Manichaeo, which was written about the end of the year 404. It is one of the most argumentative of the Anti-Manichaean treatises, and so one of the most abstruse and difficult. The lines of argument here pursued have already been employed in part in the earlier treatises. The most interesting portions of the contents of the treatise, and the most damaging to the Manichaeans, are the long extracts from Mani's Thesaurus, and his Fundamental Epistle.--A. H. N." - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1407.htm

*Wonders if he should have gotten into this one*

[Confectrix]

The end never justifies the means.

Machovillan principles. Interesting perspective. Read his book, "The Prince"

[Airlift]

I take it we're still talking all evil then.

Do good and evil exist beyond just man? Are animals good and evil?

[Denali]

Nature survives in a balance, just like good and evil, the yin and the yang. The fire destroys the ancient forest, but in doing so makes it possible for new trees to be born, and for a new forest to thrive in place of the old. An ancient oak is struck by lightning and crashes to the ground, but by doing so provides nutrients to the other trees in the forest, as well as a home for another animal, and food for insects. Good and Evil are balanced much the same. Perhaps the rise of animosity towards the United States and the increasing terrorist involvement and activity is due to the growing popularity and good nature of the US, while good may grow stronger, evil must also grow stronger to maintain balance...

If you believe in that sort of thing, that is :D

[Airlift]

politics + philosophy = philosotics? polisophy?

I would be curious to know if a lion that brings down dinner is evil for doing so. Or what about the hyenas that steal it from the lion?

Otherwise, are the rules just different for animals or does good and evil apply at all?

[AztecWarrior]

I vote down the middle.

Humans generally seek good and do good. However, in times of danger, they will become evil for good purposes. Husbands speed on the highways to get a mother in labor to the hospital in time. People fight and kill for food during famines. Some are more evil than others, and those who do evil just for pleasure have mental or social problems.

[Denali]

We all do both good and evil as human beings, it's in the design. I perform evil acts, by the strictest sense of the word, all of the time. I'm not even remotely proud of it, but it's true. Ever look at the bum of a really hot girl that walks by you? Ever take the lord's name in vain? Ever speed? Those would be considered evil if everything is indeed black and white.

Nature is the same way, one creature could perform what we could consider an evil act and turn around and perform a good act in a manner of seconds. Do I want to be the guy that labels everything into the 'good' and 'evil' piles? Heck, no, that's up to you guys. I just live here :D

:love:

dEn

[Airlift]

Yes, it is what we consider evil which makes evil a subjective concept.

[Denali]

BUT, is it for us to determine what is good and evil? Is it truly our place to judge our own actions?

[Airlift]

nope, but that doesn't change the subjectivity of it. I'd suggest that it actually supports my argument that good and evil are subjective.

[Doobz]

you know, Calvin and Hobbes kicks ass, dude

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Airlift
Yes, it is what we consider evil which makes evil a subjective concept.
However we do have a general consensus on what things are evil.

In most cases of murder I think all of the world would agree that it is evil.

Now murder is a word that has to cover billions of differnt types of killing scenarios. I believe that there is a conceptual murder that everyone on the planet would agree is evil. Now all other murders are compared to this conceptual murder. The closer the specific case of murder is to the conceptual case, the more that people would agree that the murder is evil.

The same goes for stealing or cheating.

So this means that there is a concrete idea of what good and evil is within each one of us. However applicating this conceptual idea to real world scenarios becomes a bit fishy. We all have different criteria of how much a specific scenario can deviate from this conceptual evil before it becomes acceptable.

The important thing is that there is a pure good and pure evil for which to begin to build a moral compass or other philosophy upon.

[Bighoss]

if you think about it our moral values mean nothing because they are simply opinions that mean nothing to others except that the majority enforces theres upon others. So murder is not wrong nor is it right. It is a perfect balance inbetween.

[Airlift]

A general concensus does not objectivity make.

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by Airlift
A general concensus does not objectivity make.

How about this very strict scenario:

What if someone (of a sound state of mind) murdered a 5 year old child (who possessed no defects) for no reason? Can't we all agree that this act was evil

I don't think I have ever met anyone that would find this action acceptable.

Now I am not saying that this scenario is the one that you compare all other murders to, in order to judge whether a murder is good or evil. I would suggest, that since there would be almost unilateral support that this behavior was unacceptable, this is very close to the conceptual idealistic evil murder. I am sure that we can come up with other murder scenarios that are would find even more supports as to being evil, and would be even closer to the idealistic evil murder.

The idealistic evil murder would not be only generally regarded as evil, but would be universally regarded as evil. Pure good and pure evil do exist.

When we are judging whether a specific action is good or evil we are comparing it to the conceptual pure good an pure evil. For this type of comparison there is not necessarily a right answer. It is up to the individual to determine how far from the idealistic good and idealistic evil a specific action was and determine if they feel it is a good action or evil action.

So a person's actions can never be truly judged by the universe or it's inhabitants as good or evil because they will never mimic exactly the pure good and the pure evil. However this does not mean that the pure good and pure evil do not exist as reference points for us to make our own personal conclusions about what is good or evil.

In short, no action is truly good or evil. It is somewhere inbetween. However, conceptually, good and evil do exist.

[Airlift]

I don't think it makes a difference how widely held a belief is, it is still a belief. I agree that murder is evil, especially the murder of a child. However, the fact that we concur about whether something is evil does not speak to the objectivity of the concept.

Is murder in the service of your country evil, or the service of God?
Is it evil to murder in the course of preventing a greater evil?

BTW, I'm not arguing against the existence of conceptual good and evil. I'm just saying that no matter how many people agree on a concept, it is still a concept and is very much ruled by perspective.

[Arshune]

An act in and of itself can be considered both good and evil at the same time. Take the thing with the bread. The act of stealing is evil, however, the purpose the theft serves can sometimes be good. You can't really apply a hard term like good or evil to most things because they're such abstract concepts.

[SandTrout]

No sane person thinks that they, as a person, are evil. They may do evil things , and admit that those actions are evil, but they will have a justification for their actions. At the most, they may consider what they have been/done to be evil, but will not contiune to do that "evil" deed.

For a con-man(or woman, damn PC) the justification is that they should only be looking after themselves. For Suiside bombers, their justification is that they are serveing god.

The concepts of good and evil only exist because humans are sentient(sp?), which allows us to look at others and compare ourselves. I'm not quite sure the difference between "objective" and "subjective", but I'm with whichever one refers to a person's point of view.

Most of us have a general consensus about what is evil because we are from a similar point of view(western civilization). However, other cultures may consider what we consider evil to be good.

The NAZIs are a fine example: They thought that the "perfection" of the human species, (and more specificly the Aryian race) was being prevented by "lesser" races, and they should thus be eraticated so that they could not polute any more. Some felt differently from the NAZIs, but they didn't fight back because they valued their lives more than those of strangers.

I have goals in my life(such as ending civilization) that my seam evil to some people, but to me that goal is good.