Money is the root of all evil
and then we watched the building [the already emptied wtc 7 with not a soul inside] collapse. [without killing many firefighters]
The love of money is the root of evil*
Root is the better analogy. Because you can love money without being evil. But when there is evil. money is most likely the root cause.
No, power is the root of evil
not at all.
i grew up in a country where people -at the unconscious level- hold money to way less importance than people in the anglosphere. there's still evil, a lot of it. it's just not about money.
but it's true that insane love for money most people in the anglosphere are raised to have can be pretty horrible.
much better put. still not 100%. there's evil that isn't about power. but far more accurate.
Money is simply a tool
You can use it to uplift your immediate family and descendants to a comfortable living, or buy hookers, drugs and material goods.
I do both, within reason of course. I follow the pareto distribution, 20% allocated to degeneracy and 80% towards useful endeavours.
I believe God will find this reasonable.
and there's also power that isn't evil* (anymore than an average person you'd consider "not evil")
to believe otherwise is just cynical.
just like there are people with love for money who aren't evil.
Yes but the only way to get power is to first get money.
That's why I didn't say 'all evil'.
I think that figuring out the root of all evil is a question for a theologian, not Yas Forums
There is no such thing as objective evil. Every action we consider 'evil' was seen as 'good' by the person who took that action. 'Evil' is a subjective interpretation of deterministic phenomena
naive.
look at academics. way different means to achieve power (but their politics is not any less malevolent than the world of money)
Yeah but what their told to teach and the people who hire them have the real power and money. They are just puppets for the higher ups.
nah.
for starters, a lot of people realize they did something horrible and punish themselves (suicide or having to escape into drugs)
>Every action we consider 'evil' was seen as 'good' by the person who took that action
I've found that's not the case. There's people out there that will do sick things, fully aware that it's wrong. Maybe you could argue they consider it "good" because they derive pleasure from it, but I don't know if that counts.
>Money is the root of all evil
Poorfag cope: the mantra
Every action taken by a human is seen as 'good' in some sense, at least in that moment, otherwise they wouldn't take that action. One man's hero is another man's terrorist, etc. Evil is relative, not absolute
That didn't work out for the rich people during the communist revolutions.
>Evil is relative, not absolute
that's just an opinion. human knowledge is far too small to prove or disprove.
>Every action taken by a human is seen as 'good' in some sense, at least in that moment, otherwise they wouldn't take that action.
that's just plain wrong.
people are capable of forcing themselves to do many-many different things, even many actions they consider evil
The coveting of that which you haven't earned, wishing to deprive others of it for your own greedy fulfillment, is the root of all evil.
>that's just an opinion. human knowledge is far too small to prove or disprove.
give me an example of absolute evil
>that's just plain wrong.
It's not. How could a human take an action they don't see fit to take? How would that even be possible?
>even many actions they consider evil
If I puta gun to someone's head and force them to do something awful, they may see the action itself as 'evil', or me as 'evil', but they see life as 'good' and the action preserves their life, therefore it's 'good'
Everything we do is seen as the right thing to do, otherwise we simply wouldn't do it
It's "good" to some people because the action of the "hero" directly benefits them, not necessarily because the hero is following any moral principles. Evil is directly measurable by the amount suffering and death your actions cause. People ignoring the negative results just have their heads in the sand and are blinded by hero worship.
>give me an example of absolute evil
if i could give you an example i could disprove your opinion.
for example, if there was some kind of purpose the universe exists for, then actions that make the universe less likely to fulfill its purpose were absolute evil.
now you prove there can't be a meaning to the universe.
When there is no money available of course you won't love it. Your people take that attitude out of necessity, not out of wanting.
This.
>When there is no money available of course you won't love it. Your people take that attitude out of necessity, not out of wanting.
that's just a plain retarded opinion. money is always available. kids who aren't forced to work early, kids who aren't charged rent by their parents will have a different valuation for money deep down inside.
>Evil is directly measurable by the amount suffering and death your actions cause
If I'm not the one suffering, why would I consider it evil? Unless I value empathy and compassion, but those are subjective morals mapped onto an amoral universe
Meaning is a human word, a human construct, therefore it's temporal and transient, not absolute
>Meaning is a human word, a human construct, therefore it's temporal and transient, not absolute
if you keep making up arguments you cannot prove in order to prove another, you'll quickly get to circular reasoning.
no u
the word itself is a human construct. what the word means may be universal. like the way we describe the tiny part of fundamental laws of the universe we are currently aware of are by human constructs, but there meaning is universal.
If morals are subjective, how do you know the universe is amoral?
I guess it depends on your definition of 'meaning'. If an apple falls from a tree, is it's 'meaning' or 'purpose' for it to hit the ground? Do chaotic events have meaning? Is determinism meaningful? Is the universe chaotic or deterministic? Here we get into dude weed territory
moral
adj. Of or concerned with the judgment of right or wrong of human action and character.
what we perceive as human today could just be projections of things much more fundamental/universal
If there's an object under my desk that I know about, but cannot detect with any of my senses, does it still exist? I can't see it or smell it or taste it or hear it, and I'm not touching it, but of coarse it still exists, even tho I cannot sense it. Likewise, if there were another object that I DIDN'T know about, would it still exist in reality? Yes, it would. So existence itself is not dependent upon human perception, yet we would fain to label something 'meaningful'... meaning for whom? How can something have meaning in-and-of itself? I'm fucking stoned idk wtf im even saying honestly
>I believe God will find this reasonable.
He found collecting the foreskins of your enemies reasonable so probably
At least quote it right
1 Timothy
6:7 For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out.
6:8 And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.
6:9 But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.
6:10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.
You haven't answered my question. How do you know the universe is amoral?
millions of isolated worlds in the universe could be developing independent "intelligent" "life" (even in non-biological sense) forms.
its ultimately likely that all of them with sufficient level of knowledge would have developed a way to express what we mean when we say "gravity".
would all of them also have developed ways to express what we mean when we say "moral", with the only exception that they apply it to their own kind rather than humans?
would all of them also have developed ways to express what we mean by "meaning"? "purpose"?
if so, you'd still say the meaning of those words are just human constructs?
Because moral is an english word and its definition pertains to humans. If an earthquake kills a bunch of people, is the earthquake 'immoral' or 'evil'? It is, but only ""in relation"" to the humans, not in any absolute sense. The deterministic/chaotic movements of the universe have no intention behind them, so how can they have morality?
Each being has it's own concept of good and evil, as pertains to itself. For example, Jewish world domination is bad if you aren't a Jew, but it's very good if you are a Jew, etc. Maybe there's a conception of Good that is cross-cultural or even cross-species, but it would still be only in relation to Life, not absolute
Money is power. But time is also money. So evil is a derivative of power amplified by money accumulated on a timescale. Which can be represented with a formula:
E=P^m*t
to abide by the rules of good and evil based on nothing but them being perceived as good and evil through history or human society is tethering yourself needlessly to the perception and approval of others. Living through a moral construct such as that will never grant you true freedom.
Why would it be moral? Thus far there has been 0 proof that the universe is either. It just is. The meaning you give it or events happening in it that are happening due to randomness(read chaos theorem) is up to you. It is however not the "absolute truth".
Getting towards the absolute truth of anything is not a possibility for humanity currently, the technology just isn't there and it might not ever be. The very behaviour of light particles itself might be proof that it is impossible, or would require a technology so advanced it would be like fucking magic to measure every particle in a system perfectly to predict the future and thus conclude whether or not the universe is X or Y.
That's not false, however, in Capitalism, most of the power comes from money accumulation.
>only in relation to Life, not absolute
I may be wrong on this, it's possible Life is absoulte
not sure why i'm stopping the debate i have an epic argument in mind but don't feel like i should go further with this right here right now fuck
>Money is simply a tool
Nope. Money is a social relationship.
>There is no such thing as objective evil
Yes there is. You could split hairs on what exactly is evil for an eternity, but if you rape a little kid or torture animals and those weaker than you.. it's just evil. Demonic influence is very real and there is deep-seeded evil going on all around us.
I need God more than anything else. My head tells me to do horrific things so far away from who I really am. By the grace of God, there is some comfort and peace.
Maybe its just empathy with your future self
And there is no god
>there is no god
Pray tell, how do you solve the issue of causality in a material universe if there is no God?
>inb4 claims ignorance
>inb4 it's irrelevant
You're making extrapolations based on limited, local observations. If the universe is deterministic, then it can't be chaotic and vice versa. If the actions of the universe has no intention, then whatever phenomena that occurs within it should have no intentions of any kind either. That includes all life, including humans. We are part of the universe as much as the universe is a part of us. It doesn't make sense to separate humans from the universe when we're directly spawned from it. If the universe is amoral, then everything within it should be uniform, right down to the views of human beings. The fact that humans can even come up with the concept of subjectivity means the attitude of the universe isn't neutral.
>it's just evil
Not to the person doing the raping and torturing, it's not. Personally, I hold those things to be evil, but that is my subjective interpretation of those events, I can't rightly say that evil is 'objective', because clearly it's not, given that those actions were taken by a human who obviously doesn't hold the same subjective moral convictions as me
>Maybe its just empathy with your future self
based
except it isn't. That is your concept of evil.
Some chinese for example torture animals because they believe it enhances the flavour of the meat. They don't see it as "evil".
Headhunters of old didn't see eating humans as "evil".
Raping a kid wasn't "evil" in ancient muslim culture at least, maybe others aswell, how often were child marriages conducted?
What you see and accept as evil is simply a consequence of your nurture and perhaps even a part nature who knows.
Your "head" "telling" you to do things is either you subconsciously wanting to do those things, or your mind coming up with all kinds of things but only the things you think you find horrific or should find horrific trigger a response of needing god to stay away from these things. If you were to abandon "god" and just think for yourself: if you were to give in to these things, whatever they are, they would likely come with unwanted consequences no? And as such you should be able to conclude, regardless of what these "horrific things" are that purely based on the consequences you shouldn't go through with them. Now after this you might come across a situation in which a "horrific thing" comes up you can do with theoretically 0 consequences. Then you consider why it came up? Do you actually want to do it? Is it just a consequence of you being tired and your brain spinning out of control? Even in this situation you might not want to do it purely based on your perception of yourself: would you want you to do it? Apparently you describe this is a "horrific thing" and as such your conclusion should be: no.
Needing to rely on "god" or external factors for comfort and peace are by definition wrong and will eventually prove fallible when this "god" abandons you, you who should have decided by yourself what morality is without losing track of your perception of yourself.
no dumbfucks.
greed is the root of all evil
if not greed for money then it would be greed for whatever is of value to another person
fucking so tired of 2 dimension fuckwit logic Marxist retards please die
Euphoric post, fellow redditor
>double digit iq confirmed
No Jews are
What exactly does the rejection of an "all knowing being" based on old books and stories dating back to the Akkadians, redacted a trillion times by old men in power have to do with plebbitors?
Imagine having to rely on meme pictures because you can't pick apart someones argumentation. IQ lower than your shoesize. Theology is just an old way to keep a society coherent and semi-stable to account for individuals such as yourself that are incapable of reasoning enough to conclude what acceptable and unacceptable behaviour would be and what consequences this behaviour could have.
You can pull up current scientific theories on causality and particle behaviour and try to learn about it yourself, though I do foresee some issues in comprehending the material in your case. Keep in mind that most of these are theories and as such, as the word theory and not truth should tell you; it's a theory, not an absolute truth, because we cannot prove anything as absolute truth with our current technology.
Gold? yellow, glittering, precious gold? No, gods,
I am no idle votarist: roots, you clear heavens!
Thus much of this will make black white, foul fair,
Wrong right, base noble, old young, coward valiant.
Ha, you gods! why this? what this, you gods? Why, this
Will lug your priests and servants from your sides,
Pluck stout men's pillows from below their heads:
This yellow slave
Will knit and break religions, bless the accursed,
Make the hoar leprosy adored, place thieves
And give them title, knee and approbation
With senators on the bench: this is it
That makes the wappen'd widow wed again;
She, whom the spital-house and ulcerous sores
Would cast the gorge at, this embalms and spices
To the April day again. Come, damned earth,
Thou common whore of mankind, that put'st odds
Among the route of nations, I will make thee
Do thy right nature.
etc.
>cannot prove anything as absolute truth with our current technology
HOLY SHIT GET HELP YOU IDIOT HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH
Fucking hell the absolute state of brainlet redditors holy shit
I could show to you a perfect example of a true principle and I bet you would reject it out of hand. Do you even believe there is such a thing as objective truth? Holy shit.
Money is a medium of exchange.
Try it summerfag, show me.
reductionism
Here you go, bucko, get ready to clean your penis
>Something that is true cannot be false.
Is the above principle true? If so, then I have just demonstrated that there is objective truth.
If you claim that it is not, then surely you have to realize that such a statement defeats itself; if what you said is true, then you have just demonstrated that there is in fact truth.
Good luck trying to get what you need without a medium of exchange. You'll need to find someone who has exactly what you need, and wants exactly what you have. Money is necessary for a functional economy.
yes money is necessary and has its good sides but its not that simple