Is Griffith Evil?

[SoulCrasher]

Just to clarify something, there are some absolutes when it comes to things like good and evil. Rape, for instance, is never okay and has no helpful purpose. It shouldn't ever be done. You can't say there are no absolutes without contradicting yourself. There are no absolutes = An absolute statement (There are ABSOLUTELY no absolutes), therefore, it's a contradiction.

 

[Genn21]

, wouldnt that make your post a contradiction then since its about somthing you say doesent exist .... UHOH time for the spam rhythm ( lalalala ) ,( rape rocks hardcore style, Elizebeth white got knocked up twice and loverd it like mac & cheese)

Spam Spam its bad for the board the more you use it the more dischord, so leave that spam off our topic and save yourself the disgrace or feel a steamy cumshot against your face :-X

 

[SoulCrasher]

You must have missed my point completely. I said that there ARE some absolutes, where as there have been posts saying that there are NO absolutes, and saying that is an absolute statement, therefore a contradiction. There are shades of grey as well, and just because its hard to see the black and white doesn't mean that it's not there.

 

[SomeKindOfBlue]

SoulCrasher, I agree with you. But I feel that it is wrong to label these absolutes as 'Good' or 'Evil'... though I can't really explain why. Too tired right now, I guess.

But I can not agree more that there are some things that are ALWAYS wrong... or, wait...

So, Griffith had his reasons for betraying everyone who believed in him... he must've had a reason for his rape of Caska, too... so that makes the deeds right in his mind. He can justify them, at least to himself.

...The point of this post is apparently that finding absolutes when dealing with such complex creatures as humans is nigh impossible. That's why we generally have to call the things that helps most people 'right', and the selfish acts that only furthers the desires of one person 'wrong' - as long as others have to suffer for it.

...Miura sure is good at capturing the complexity of the human nature.
*envy*

 

[Genn21]

I said that there ARE some absolutes, where as there have been posts saying that there are NO absolutes, and saying that is an absolute statement, therefore a contradiction. There are shades of grey as well,

, your points being about absolutes( i just hope it relates ot the subject of good and evil )..and griffith but later , but then you point out there are also shades of grey...kekeke WTF i only have one spam song i cry because i do not know a "hythm to hypocrites"

 

[SomeKindOfBlue]

, your points being about absolutes( i just hope it relates ot the subject of good and evil )..and griffith but later , but then you point out there are also shades of grey...kekeke WTF i only have one spam song i cry because i do not know a "hythm to hypocrites"

Ummm... Genn, what are you talking about? I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that there can be no shades of grey if there are absolutes?

If so, then why do you think that they can't coexist?

 

[SoulCrasher]

, your points being about absolutes( i just hope it relates ot the subject of good and evil )..and griffith but later , but then you point out there are also shades of grey...kekeke WTF i only have one spam song i cry because i do not know a "hythm to hypocrites"

Thank you for quoting only part of the last line, so as to take it out of context. Is it so hard to believe that there are some things that are always wrong and some that are sometimes wrong? Like killing for self-defense, their are many issues with a situation like that, such as if you could have wounded the person instead. But how can rape ever be justified?

SomeKindOfBlue, I'm glad you understand what I mean. Also, I didn't intentionally mean to label the absolutes as good and evil.
Hmm, as I was writing this, you wrote the same thing before I did.

 

[Genn21]

Sure blue theres absolutes if you like to look at things that way, but i was just dismanteling the idea of some people who want to classify certain deeds as being absolutly good or evil and can never take place in the other if there done under certain context that can be one or the other after words ( the shades of grey ).. and this brings us back to griffith is he truly evil if we look at him this way are all his deed's absolutly bad if he trys to redeem his qualitys under good measuremnts in the future for the sake of others , this is why i say absolutes r for emotional sympathetic dingdong's which only applies to human feelings and not reason, im glad your ok with the grey part tho blue ( can i call you Purple if its some type of blue its more of a womans color ^.^;; )

 

[Mizar]

Soulcrasher, you're making a classical thinking error here. There are really absolutely NO absolutes. Genn21 was trying to point out the mistake you made but I think you missed his point that you're the one contradicting yourself. How can there be real black and white if you agree that there are shades of gray? Or in other words: where exactly do you draw the line when a shade of gray becomes white or black? The answer is; you can't. Even rape is ok in the eyes of the rapist, like SomeKindofBlue mentioned. So rape can't be an absolute form of evil. Unless you believe in God and the Bible and its absolute forms of 'Good' and 'Evil', but in that case we simply disagree on what to believe.

The problem is that the statement "there are NO absolutes" is metascience/metalogic; so therefore the statement can't possibly be applied to itself to render itself false. It refers to something of which it isn't a part itself. Think about Popper's falsification principle for instance and you should know what I mean. Someone with a degree in philosophy should be able to explain this better to you, allthough if you have studied a little philosophy yourself the above should be enough to make it somewhat clear. I hope. :-\

But anyway, from my own point of view Griffith is a lowlife scumbag for what he did. And everyone who agrees that rape or killing people for your desires is not ok should share that observation.

 

[SoulCrasher]

Well, I was just studying philosophy, and the instructor was using a pyramid of examples of how some things go from absolutes at the top to less and less absolute until the bottom. He was the one who was using that line about no absolutes being a contradiction, so I'm just reflecting what I was taught. Regarding Popper, his "great and tireless efforts to expunge the word induction from scientific and philosophical discourse has utterly failed. Except for a small but noisy group of British Popperians, induction is just too firmly embedded in the way philosophers of science and even ordinary people talk and think."

http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/gardner_popper.html

"When people argue, you commonly hear things like, "How'd you like it if someone did that to you?" or "Come on, you promised!" or "Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm." When someone says something like that, they're not just disagreeing with the behavior that prompted the remark. They're appealing to some kind of standard of behavior - a standard that they expect the other person to know about, and recognize as authoritative or binding.

What's the other person's reaction? You rarely hear him say, "To hell with your standard!" Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does, there's some special excuse. So, by doing that, the person acknowledges the existence of this standard just as much as the first person.

The truth is that the world seems to operate under the assumption that there are real moral absolutes.

A lot of people deny this... but like I said, the people who deny this usually end up contradicting themselves. Here's an example: When someone says, "You have no right to tell people what is right and wrong!" or, "There is no such thing as right and wrong." What the person is basically saying is, "I'm appealing to a standard that labels you as wrong when you attempt to say there's a standard that labels something as wrong." Can you see how they're refuting themselves?"

http://www.discussanything.com/forums/archive/16/2002/07/3/10990

Know what I'm sayin?

 

[Genn21]

:) Mizar good job i was trying to keep it in context with griffith tho, glad you understand it ok, its nice some people can see that there are colors that make up the black and whites of the world evan through we cant see them ( which is ignorance to claim they dont exist through that ) you get a cookie ^^;; ,

 

[Mizar]

Well, I was just studying philosophy, and the instructor was using a pyramid of examples of how some things go from absolutes at the top to less and less absolute until the bottom. He was the one who was using that line about no absolutes being a contradiction, so I'm just reflecting what I was taught.

But even the absolutes on the top are based on subjective interpretations of humans, no? But before we're losing ourselves into a deep philosophical discussion about this I've made things much easier for us by adjusting the statement a little into this: "There are no absolute forms of good and evil."
There, no more (pseudo)contradictions. I won't discuss Popper any further here since it will only lead away from the point of our discussion, if you want to continue discussing Popper I suggest to make a new thread in the General Discussion forum or the Trash Can. I'll be glad to join in. ;D

Why is it so hard to believe there can be black and white as well as shades of grey in this world? Does the color scheme I use as an example itself not prove this? ;)

Real black and white don't exist in our world either, even the blackest objects still reflect or produce some light.

Anyhoo I'm basing my idea as an outside observer, not in the mindset of those involved of the example of rape. Are you sure rapists think rape is okay in their minds? I've worked and met with convicts and listened to many speak about rape, and I'm positive every one of them knew it was illegal, and it's illegal for a reason.

I'm not saying that all rapists think raping is ok, but there is no doubt in my mind that there are people who really think rape is ok, and there are even entire cultures where rape is not generally seen as something evil/wrong. And if we go back a little in human history we can also see that the subject of rape has been thought of a bit differently in some times and cultures. Especially in times where women were seen as inferior to men and were used more as mere sex slaves.

All I'm saying is that you can't play the 'objective judge' for all people and the rest of the universe and say that rape is an absolute form of evil. Even though I agree with you that it's a despicable act in all circumstances, but that doesn't make it absolute.

 

[Aazealh]

Real black and white don't exist in our world either, even the blackest objects still reflect or produce some light.

What about Black Holes ?

 

[Garouken]

What about Black Holes ?

No color. Color is just the brains reaction to certain frequencies of light waves. Color may very well not exist.

Anyway, Griffith isn't so much evil as he is ignorant. What he's done is by no means excuseable, but it's the fact that he doesn't care that makes him an asshole. One could say it's a defense mechanism, if he faced the things he'd done, he likely couldn't take responsibility anyway.

This really isn't an issue of absolutes, or in the middles. It's an issue of character. And no character in any story can really be neutral(especially not Berserk, for the love of god, almost every character made a living off of murder).

 

[SoulCrasher]

Well, as a devout Roman Catholic I get into this argument everytime with atheists/humanists. Reading your last argument, Mizar I assume you don't belong to any religion. It doesn't matter, enough of this philosophical brouhaha.

 

[Mizar]

What about Black Holes ?

Stephen Hawking showed us that even Black Holes aren't entirely black.

http://reason.com/0204/fe.gb.leaping.shtml

 

[SomeKindOfBlue]

So one can say that: If you look at an action (such as rape or murder) from every point of view, it can't be labelled as absolutely wrong or right.

But some actions will still be considered wrong by almost all people with normal standards of morality.

Therefore, some actions will make you a lowlife scumbag in the eyes of the many.

And YES, Garouken, Griffith doesn't care about what he's done, doesn't regret and isn't even thinking about trying to redeem himself, and THAT is what makes him such an incredible asshole.
Can anyone say unfeeling psychopath? 'Cause that's how I see him.

I like Gatts because he doesn't like what he's done, what he's becoming, and tries to fight it: For one thing, he hasn't killed Caska yet, though the beast demands it.

...and, sure, Genn. Call me purple if you want to... but I look good in blue. :-*

 

[Aazealh]

Stephen Hawking showed us that even Black Holes aren't entirely black.

http://reason.com/0204/fe.gb.leaping.shtml

Stephen Hawking showed nothing, it's an unproved theory based on pure speculation, read carefully. He made that theory 30 years ago and it's still "a signature that astronomers have searched for but so far not found." You could add to this that the radiations Hawking is talking about are not exactly something we could call light. If you go that way, Hawking also think that 'God' created the universe, does that prove it ?

Anyway, black is by definition the complete absorption of all luminous ray, while white is the total reflection of them. What's the problem with that ?

 

[Mizar]

Stephen Hawking showed nothing, it's an unproved theory based on pure speculation, read carefully.

It's not based on pure speculation, it has a solid mathematical and theoretical basis. OK, it's not empirically proven or anything, but neither is the existence of Black Holes itself.

If you go that way, Hawking also think that 'God' created the universe, does that prove it ?

Huh? That's just what he believes, he didn't research it like he researched Black Holes. And besides, I've read his books and biographies and I don't remember him ever saying he actually believed that 'God' created the universe, but he didn't deny the possibility either. (not that I care what he believes or not)

Anyway, black is by definition the complete absorption of all luminous ray, while white is the total reflection of them. What's the problem with that ?

No problem at all, I was merely stating that real black and white don't exist in the practical world. Black is by the way not only the complete absorption of light, but also the complete absence of production of it.
Anyway, it didn't have any real relevance in my argument about absolutes here, so I think it's better not to discuss this much further.

 

[Aazealh]

It's not based on pure speculation, it has a solid mathematical and theoretical basis. OK, it's not empirically proven or anything, but neither is the existence of Black Holes itself.

Well, black holes almost certainly exist, they have been observed, and it explains the formation of galaxies, while the 'evaporation' hasn't. Anyway, even if black holes were emitting radiations, black matter still wouldn't, right ?

 

[Mizar]

Well, black holes almost certainly exist, they have been observed, and it explains the formation of galaxies, while the 'evaporation' hasn't. Anyway, even if black holes were emitting radiations, black matter still wouldn't, right ?

You mean 'dark matter', right? The thing that would explain all the missing matter in the universe? Well, 'Dark matter' has nothing to do with being 'black' really, but just that we don't know what the hell that 'matter' would be. There are a few theories about it, though, one for instance is that neutrino's might actually have mass, and another is that it's because of the existence of a lot of planets and 'dim stars' (brown dwarfs) in the universe we haven't taken into account yet.

And about 'Black Holes', we really don't have any direct evidence of the existence of them, so we can't say for sure they exist. Their existence has been predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity and there's some indirect evidence by looking at their gravitational effect on nearby stars for instance, but they have never been directly observed. However, based on this 'evidence' their existence is very likely, but not certain. There is still room for scepticism. ;D

The idea of Hawking radiation is a result of applying quantum mechanics to the physics of Black Holes. It's also a mere theory, just like the theory of relativity, but both these theories have so far been able to come up with quite some accurate predictions.

But we're moving more and more off-topic, maybe there are completely 'black' objects, maybe there aren't, but fact is that all those things that look completely black to us aren't really entirely black at all. And this can be used as a metaphor for 'good' and 'evil' if you like. Or not. ;)

 

[Darok]

black holes have been used as gravity lenses.

 

[Aazealh]

You mean 'dark matter', right? [...]

Yeah, or whatever it's called in english. Since it's main feature is that it doesn't emit any light or visible radiation, thus being invisible to us, I'd call it black. A fraction of it could be made of baryonic particles (dim stars) as you said, and another may be composed of neutrinos or wimps, but that's not enough to fill the missing matter for what we know.

And about 'Black Holes', we really don't have any direct evidence of the existence of them, so we can't say for sure they exist. Their existence has been predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity and there's some indirect evidence by looking at their gravitational effect on nearby stars for instance, but they have never been directly observed. However, based on this 'evidence' their existence is very likely, but not certain. There is still room for scepticism. ;D

Man, their gravitational effect is a direct evidence, and how do you want to 'directly' observe them since they absorbe everything ? Of course there's still a room for scepticism, there's always a room for scepticism ...

It's also a mere theory, just like the theory of relativity, but both these theories have so far been able to come up with quite some accurate predictions.

I know how Hawking explains his theory, it's just that performing quantum-field-theoretic calculations in curved spacetime doesn't look very accurate to me, especially with our current knowledge.

But we're moving more and more off-topic, maybe there are completely 'black' objects, maybe there aren't

Yeah, let's get back on topic. I agree with you about the fact that real definite absolutes don't exist when speaking of Good and Evil in our world, they're subjective concepts bound to the human mind ability to judge itself and others. But, by stating there are only shades of grey and no real black or white, you just add some mitigation to the same facts, there will always be darker shades, and some lighter ones.

 

[Mizar]

Man, their gravitational effect is a direct evidence, and how do you want to 'directly' observe them since they absorbe everything ?

Of course that's not direct evidence, how does a gravitational effect directly prove that it's a Black Hole that's causing it? It could be anything, like a neutron star, a white dwarf or something we don't even know about. There are some sceptical scientists who have thought of some not completely unlikely alternatives as to what could be causing these gravitational fields.

...I know how Hawking explains his theory, it's just that performing quantum-field-theoretic calculations in curved spacetime doesn't look very accurate to me, especially with our current knowledge.

To you perhaps it doesn't, but I'm sure Stephen Hawking doesn't see the problem with these type of calculations himself. And if you think this isn't very accurate, I wonder what your thoughts are on (super)string theory.

Yeah, let's get back on topic. I agree with you about the fact that real definite absolutes don't exist when speaking of Good and Evil in our world, they're subjective concepts bound to the human mind ability to judge itself and others. But, by stating there are only shades of grey and no real black or white, you just add some mitigation to the same facts, there will always be darker shades, and some lighter ones.

You're right, the metaphor isn't good enough. Not only are there only shades of gray, the kind of shades are also different from person to person, culture to culture and time to time.
Well, are we in agreement now? ;D

 

[Genn21]

, whys it have to be grey ( all represent the proper colors HERE ) !!!! .. rallys up all the r,o,y,g,b,i,v colors and points to the evil astrophysicist mizar, we shall not take such dissrespect to our spectrum from YOU grey lover !!! since the absolutes like black and white have been dissproved and built up by wee ones such as we, greys gotta go, ( proper colors which dont really exist but our are minds representation of light wavelength's )shall be taking controll !! ( hey since colors dont really exist mizars spamming to !! ) you will bow down before our omnipresent forms found in nature OR suffer when red and green decide to take you out back and beat you till your blue

The color spectrum gone berserk !!!