U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-03-2016, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
Where do you get the 20% from and how do you define evil?
20% is a very conservation estimate based on the following;

First we are not dealing with theological or ontological evil.

What we are dealing with is secular evil in the moral perspective.

The opposite of good [morally] is evil.
I define secular 'evil' as human acts and thoughts that are net-negative to the well being of the individual therefrom to the group and humanity.

Evil acts come in a range from low [1] to high [100].
Low degrees [1-10] of evils are like cheating, lying, bribing, petty thefts, and the likes.
High [90-100] evils are like mass murders, genocides, mass rapes, child rape, and the likes.
You can fit in the others [500++ evil elements] for the 20->80 range.

I don't have exact numbers but based on your own estimation what percentage of humans are likely to commit low degree evils like lying, cheating, bribing, greed, selfishness?
My guess is at least 80% of humans are likely to commit the above low degree evils.
Thus 80% of human are prone to evil, albeit low degree evil.

Therefore my 20% of human are prone to evil, i.e. has tendencies to commit evil of some degrees is very conservative to cover the more serious degrees of evil, like killing, injuring, oppression, beheading and a smaller degree to mass rapes and genocide.

One can reinforced the above estimation based on the principles of the Bell Curve. I don't mean getting the exact figure of 20% but reassure one that a 20% estimation has high margin of error.

Agree?

Note my argument on
DNA wise, All humans are POTENTIALLY evil.
Btw, being POTENTIALLY is different from having the tendency [itchiness, impulse] to commit evil.
ALL Human Beings are Potentially Beastly and Evil

Last edited by Continuum; 04-03-2016 at 01:43 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2016, 11:07 AM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 6,086,833 times
Reputation: 4527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
20% is a very conservation estimate based on the following;

First we are not dealing with theological or ontological evil.

What we are dealing with is secular evil in the moral perspective.

The opposite of good [morally] is evil.
I define secular 'evil' as human acts and thoughts that are net-negative to the well being of the individual therefrom to the group and humanity.

Evil acts come in a range from low [1] to high [100].
Low degrees [1-10] of evils are like cheating, lying, bribing, petty thefts, and the likes.
High [90-100] evils are like mass murders, genocides, mass rapes, child rape, and the likes.
You can fit in the others [500++ evil elements] for the 20->80 range.

I don't have exact numbers but based on your own estimation what percentage of humans are likely to commit low degree evils like lying, cheating, bribing, greed, selfishness?
My guess is at least 80% of humans are likely to commit the above low degree evils.
Thus 80% of human are prone to evil, albeit low degree evil.
I guess 'evil' then is a fluid definition. Most people would think a theft is a higher form of harm than lying. When I hear that word 'evil', it connotates extreme harm, especially of a physical nature, perpetuated for the purpose of subjugation. A theft is bad, but I would not classify it as 'evil'. What Nixon did was bad, what Stalin did was evil.

Quote:
Therefore my 20% of human are prone to evil, i.e. has tendencies to commit evil of some degrees is very conservative to cover the more serious degrees of evil, like killing, injuring, oppression, beheading and a smaller degree to mass rapes and genocide.

One can reinforced the above estimation based on the principles of the Bell Curve. I don't mean getting the exact figure of 20% but reassure one that a 20% estimation has high margin of error.

Agree?

Note my argument on
DNA wise, All humans are POTENTIALLY evil.
Btw, being POTENTIALLY is different from having the tendency [itchiness, impulse] to commit evil.
ALL Human Beings are Potentially Beastly and Evil
Your imitating what the homosexual community did at one time; attempting to perpetuate a statistic that does not exist, without any scientific backup. The homosexual community used to religiously say 10% of people were homosexual, and when science was applied to surveys, it was found that the number was much smaller. For lesbians it was ~1% and for male homosexuals ~3%. I'm going by recall but this was from a national census survey that was answered anonymously, so if anything, one would expect higher numbers, not drastic lower ones. That 10% number is no longer quoted, as it was debunked.

I suspect you are speculating with your number, and you first have to have broad agreement of what 'evil' is, and then provide studies that would indicate that number.

I have a very strong feeling it is not even close to what you quote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 10:06 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
I guess 'evil' then is a fluid definition. Most people would think a theft is a higher form of harm than lying. When I hear that word 'evil', it connotates extreme harm, especially of a physical nature, perpetuated for the purpose of subjugation. A theft is bad, but I would not classify it as 'evil'. What Nixon did was bad, what Stalin did was evil.
I am very aware conventionally 'evil' is equated with something extremely bad. Normally I would not classify theft as evil as well.

One of my project is 'Striving for Perpetual Peace' which entails covering evil.
Instead to having to repeat ugly, bad, very bad, abominable, evil, most evil in my thesis, I have to find a common word to avoid repeating every sort of situation of badness or evilness.

This is how I find 'evil' to be the most appropriate term and it has the highest impact to get people's attention.

To ensure I used the term 'evil' I defined it within secular evil and morality.
Do you have a problem with my definition?
If there is no problem and there is consensus then my use of the term 'evil' is qualified and conditioned upon my definition and our consensus only.
Then I incorporate the concept of intensity, i.e. degrees into % of evil which I had described.

I would welcome your criticisms to the above.


Quote:
Your imitating what the homosexual community did at one time; attempting to perpetuate a statistic that does not exist, without any scientific backup. The homosexual community used to religiously say 10% of people were homosexual, and when science was applied to surveys, it was found that the number was much smaller. For lesbians it was ~1% and for male homosexuals ~3%. I'm going by recall but this was from a national census survey that was answered anonymously, so if anything, one would expect higher numbers, not drastic lower ones. That 10% number is no longer quoted, as it was debunked.

I suspect you are speculating with your number, and you first have to have broad agreement of what 'evil' is, and then provide studies that would indicate that number.

I have a very strong feeling it is not even close to what you quote.
Your homo % is a straw man.
The above sort of percentile have been used by many people for various reasons.
What is critical is the actual evidence, if not then the logic and inferences used should be well justified and sound.

I have used reasonable inference, abduction, induction to justify my conservative estimation of 20% of all humans have evil [as defined] tendencies.

Do you agree based on general perception and own experience,
-80% [if not 60-80] of people are likely to lie?
-60% of people are like to cheat in some form?

Therefore my inference 20% of all humans have evil [as defined] tendencies is very conservative with a high margin of error.

I suspect you are speculating with your number,
Don't use straw man argument.
Show me where is my inference is wrong logically and rationally?

Example;
1. If I know the average height of humans is say 5 foot 6 inches, then I estimate 20% of humans are below 5 feet, then my estimation is likely to be 90% correct. This is the sort of conservation estimate I used for my 20%.

2. Over 70% of Muslims Support Sharia Law, 90% Support Execution of Apostates.
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.c...f-apostates-2/
The above % express intentions to support the barbaric Sharia Law.
In many of the PEW polls the % of Muslims supporting 'evil' elements within Islam exceed 50% and goes up to 80%.
The above high % will give you a clue my 20% of Muslims having evil tendencies is very conservative and likely to be true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 10:57 PM
 
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 6,086,833 times
Reputation: 4527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I am very aware conventionally 'evil' is equated with something extremely bad. Normally I would not classify theft as evil as well.

One of my project is 'Striving for Perpetual Peace' which entails covering evil.
Instead to having to repeat ugly, bad, very bad, abominable, evil, most evil in my thesis, I have to find a common word to avoid repeating every sort of situation of badness or evilness.
This is how I find 'evil' to be the most appropriate term and it has the highest impact to get people's attention.

To ensure I used the term 'evil' I defined it within secular evil and morality.
Do you have a problem with my definition?
If there is no problem and there is consensus then my use of the term 'evil' is qualified and conditioned upon my definition and our consensus only.
Then I incorporate the concept of intensity, i.e. degrees into % of evil which I had described.

I would welcome your criticisms to the above.
Your project appears to address a Kantian utopia, one which has many legs on a stool, as oppose to a simplistic model you are discussing. In fact, by attempting to simplify a term which has a broad conceptual definition, you are in fact doing a disservice in communicating the premise. In fact, some of what may fall under your definition may in fact need to be used for a greater good. The best example is a lie. Suppose that if what you told a person or group was the truth, and they acted on that truth, and if you knew they would likely act, that truth caused them harm or great harm. Would the greater good have been to tell a lie instead, saving the other person or group from harm?

Of course it is an ethical/moral dilemma but in that kind of circumstance, one would be hard pressed to call the lie evil under your definition.


Quote:
Your homo % is a straw man.
The above sort of percentile have been used by many people for various reasons.
What is critical is the actual evidence, if not then the logic and inferences used should be well justified and sound.
Not a straw man at all. The oft quoted 10% was from an arguably faulty Kinsey study done back in the 1940's, where the study designers felt they could not get a true random sample. The national census in question was not only broad, it had millions as their sample size.

Quote:
I have used reasonable inference, abduction, induction to justify my conservative estimation of 20% of all humans have evil [as defined] tendencies.
Inference based on what? What population cohort? What geographic, socio-economic and cultural aspects, as well as any other demographic entities are you looking at? If my life experience is in the south side of Chicago my perspectives will be much, much different than Sun City in Arizona. You have no way of measuring your confirmation biases based on your precepts.

Quote:
Do you agree based on general perception and own experience,
-80% [if not 60-80] of people are likely to lie?
-60% of people are like to cheat in some form?
I have no way of measuring that. I believe some studies have been done on lying, and if I recall there is a high percentage of people that lie at least some time, which is no surprise. Could be the intention to deceive, could be they are covering their butt, or, as I suggested above, could be to ensure the greater good.

I would not suspect that cheating would be as high as you propose, but I have no way of backing that up; either do you.

Quote:
Therefore my inference 20% of all humans have evil [as defined] tendencies is very conservative with a high margin of error.
Do you know anything about statistics? Do you know what a confidence level is? Do you know how sample sizes are determined? Do you know what standard deviation is? Do you know what chi squared is? Do you know what a null hypothesis is? Do you know how those might relate to your "conservative with a high margin of error", which is a dichotomy in wording in itself?

Quote:
I suspect you are speculating with your number,
Don't use straw man argument.
Show me where is my inference is wrong logically and rationally?

Example;
1. If I know the average height of humans is say 5 foot 6 inches, then I estimate 20% of humans are below 5 feet, then my estimation is likely to be 90% correct. This is the sort of conservation estimate I used for my 20%.
Your demonstrating you don't have any idea of how to validize a statistical statement.

Quote:
2. Over 70% of Muslims Support Sharia Law, 90% Support Execution of Apostates.
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.c...f-apostates-2/
The above % express intentions to support the barbaric Sharia Law.
In many of the PEW polls the % of Muslims supporting 'evil' elements within Islam exceed 50% and goes up to 80%.
The above high % will give you a clue my 20% of Muslims having evil tendencies is very conservative and likely to be true.
Did you even read the link you provided? Nowhere does it say that 70% of Muslims worldwide support Sharia law, nor does it say anywhere that 90% of Muslims worldwide support killing apostates. In addition, any statistics that are quoted in that opinion blog are not cited, so are worthless. Why reference something that is so obviously skewed.

BTW, the opinion blog you linked does discuss the 70% and 90%, but I'll wait for you to read it and tell us what it refers to. Your confirmation bias is certainly showing.

Last edited by cupper3; 04-03-2016 at 11:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 11:28 PM
 
Location: Logan Township, Minnesota
15,511 posts, read 13,276,969 times
Reputation: 7407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
I am very aware conventionally 'evil' is equated with something extremely bad. Normally I would not classify theft as evil as well.

One of my project is 'Striving for Perpetual Peace' which entails covering evil.
Instead to having to repeat ugly, bad, very bad, abominable, evil, most evil in my thesis, I have to find a common word to avoid repeating every sort of situation of badness or evilness.

This is how I find 'evil' to be the most appropriate term and it has the highest impact to get people's attention.

To ensure I used the term 'evil' I defined it within secular evil and morality.
Do you have a problem with my definition?
If there is no problem and there is consensus then my use of the term 'evil' is qualified and conditioned upon my definition and our consensus only.
Then I incorporate the concept of intensity, i.e. degrees into % of evil which I had described.

I would welcome your criticisms to the above.



Your homo % is a straw man.
The above sort of percentile have been used by many people for various reasons.
What is critical is the actual evidence, if not then the logic and inferences used should be well justified and sound.

I have used reasonable inference, abduction, induction to justify my conservative estimation of 20% of all humans have evil [as defined] tendencies.

Do you agree based on general perception and own experience,
-80% [if not 60-80] of people are likely to lie?
-60% of people are like to cheat in some form?

Therefore my inference 20% of all humans have evil [as defined] tendencies is very conservative with a high margin of error.

I suspect you are speculating with your number,
Don't use straw man argument.
Show me where is my inference is wrong logically and rationally?

Example;
1. If I know the average height of humans is say 5 foot 6 inches, then I estimate 20% of humans are below 5 feet, then my estimation is likely to be 90% correct. This is the sort of conservation estimate I used for my 20%.

2. Over 70% of Muslims Support Sharia Law, 90% Support Execution of Apostates.
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.c...f-apostates-2/
The above % express intentions to support the barbaric Sharia Law.
In many of the PEW polls the % of Muslims supporting 'evil' elements within Islam exceed 50% and goes up to 80%.
The above high % will give you a clue my 20% of Muslims having evil tendencies is very conservative and likely to be true.

2. Over 70% of Muslims Support Sharia Law, 90% Support Execution of Apostates.
https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.c...f-apostates-2/
The above % express intentions to support the barbaric Sharia Law.
In many of the PEW polls the % of Muslims supporting 'evil' elements within Islam exceed 50% and goes up to 80%.
The above high % will give you a clue my 20% of Muslims having evil tendencies is very conservative and likely to be true.


This is a good example of why it is important to know how a survey is worded. If a survey were to ask "Do you want Sharia Law?" Nearly 100% if not 100% of Muslims would answer yes. But if you asked "Do you support xxx(naming a specific you believe is Sharia)" You will get a very wide range of answers. For many of us Sharia has nothing to do with punishments. You will find that most Muslims see no need for Sharia criminal laws as it is virtually impossible to prove guilt of a criminal act in an actual Sharia court. But many of us do want recognition of Civil, religious and family laws that do not violate any of the criminal laws of the nation we live in.

As for if a Muslim believes in capital punishment for apostasy, you will have to define what you mean by apostasy. For many of us Apostasy does not mean simply leaving Islam, it means becoming a militant and physically aggressive enemy of Islam. Proof of it would require proof of the apostate committing murder, Treason against the nation or other crimes that call for capital punishment in most nations.

There is no Nation that uses Sharia Criminal law as it is impossible to implement. A few nations call their Criminal laws Sharia but none of them are using the requirements to establish guilt. Saudi for example uses the maximum punishment allowed for a Hadud crime, but they do not follow the criteria for establishing guilt under Sharia. Physical punishment is applicable only for the Hadud crimes and guilt of them is virtually impossible to prove. Actually if the accused persists in denying their guilt, proof is not possible as the admission of guilt is one of the criteria to establish guilt.
__________________
When posting as a MOD my posts will be in red

No advertising, no copyrighted material, no personal attacks


MODERATOR OF: Buddhism: Judaism: Paganism:

When in doubt read the TOS MOD LIST FAQ's
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2016, 12:12 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by cupper3 View Post
Your project appears to address a Kantian utopia, one which has many legs on a stool, as oppose to a simplistic model you are discussing. In fact, by attempting to simplify a term which has a broad conceptual definition, you are in fact doing a disservice in communicating the premise.
Yes my project is influenced by Kant's 'Towards Perpetual Peace'.
My forte is philosophy, Western and Eastern. I studied Kant for almost 3 years on a full time basis [just before I set it aside temp to concentrate on the Quran and Islam], so I am VERY familiar with Kant's idea.
Being Kantian based, my model is not a simplistic one as you thought so.

It is argued an absolute standard [utopian] is a more efficient driver of human progress than an arbitrary one based on best estimates.
For example it is difficult to get a 100% pass mark for any subjective papers. If the highest mark in a class is normally 90% and when one set their standard of achievement at 90% then one is likely to achieve less than 90%.
But if one set one standard at 100% or even 200% even generally one know this is an utopian standard, then one is likely to score 90-98% but never 100%.

It is from my project 'Striving for Perpetual Peace' that I came across one of the current greatest stumbling block amongst all evils, i.e. evils and violence committed by Muslims. This is how I diverted my attention to study Islam and Muslims in greater depth.

Quote:
In fact, some of what may fall under your definition may in fact need to be used for a greater good. The best example is a lie. Suppose that if what you told a person or group was the truth, and they acted on that truth, and if you knew they would likely act, that truth caused them harm or great harm. Would the greater good have been to tell a lie instead, saving the other person or group from harm?

Of course it is an ethical/moral dilemma but in that kind of circumstance, one would be hard pressed to call the lie evil under your definition.
My definition exclude such evil.
Note I defined evil as '... net-negative to the individual, group and humanity' because I am very aware of
certain act which apparently evil can be net-positive.
So I have your point covered and thus your point is moot.


Quote:
Not a straw man at all. The oft quoted 10% was from an arguably faulty Kinsey study done back in the 1940's, where the study designers felt they could not get a true random sample. The national census in question was not only broad, it had millions as their sample size.
I stated it is a straw man because it is not applicable to my case at all.

Quote:
Inference based on what? What population cohort? What geographic, socio-economic and cultural aspects, as well as any other demographic entities are you looking at? If my life experience is in the south side of Chicago my perspectives will be much, much different than Sun City in Arizona. You have no way of measuring your confirmation biases based on your precepts.
I mentioned I don't have actual and sufficient empirical evidence and numbers.

My inference is based on the understanding of human nature and based on my own observations and reading a wide extensive reports from various fields of knowledge and on a world wide basis.
In addition I have been working on the hypothesis;
DNA All humans has the potential [dormant in the mind] to be evil.
This is undeniable. See the link I posted earlier. Agree?

I know 80% of people are very likely to commit low degree evil [as defined].
Therefore my hypothesis '20% of all humans has the tendency [active] to commit evil [as defined].
My hypothesis is thus very sound and the only way to confirm is to get the actual numbers.

Quote:
I have no way of measuring that. I believe some studies have been done on lying, and if I recall there is a high percentage of people that lie at least some time, which is no surprise. Could be the intention to deceive, could be they are covering their butt, or, as I suggested above, could be to ensure the greater good.
The point is I would not have estimated the above % without haven't read extensively and exposed to the information re the point.
Note 'the greater good' factor is moot as I had explained above.
Therefore you have to accept the fact, there is a high % of people [say 60-80%] who lie at least some time.
Since a lie is a low degree evil,
therefore 60-80% of people have the evil [as defined] tendencies.
The above logic is very sound and there is nothing wrong with it.

From the above I had propose
20% of human have evil [as defined] tendencies.
With a reduction from 60-80% to 20% my proposition is still logical and sound and most of all, conservative, with a high margin for error.


Quote:
I would not suspect that cheating would be as high as you propose, but I have no way of backing that up; either do you.
I was merely estimating.
If you do not agree, we can reduce it to 40%, i.e. cheating of various degrees.

[/quote]Do you know anything about statistics? Do you know what a confidence level is? Do you know how sample sizes are determined? Do you know what standard deviation is? Do you know what chi squared is? Do you know what a null hypothesis is? Do you know how those might relate to your "conservative with a high margin of error", which is a dichotomy in wording in itself?[/quote]I have taken a paper in statistics. I am not using statistics to arrive at a precise percentage in this case.
What I was saying is we can use the basis principles of the Bell Curve and based on the understanding of human heights around the world, we can estimate. It you are familiar with human heights around the world, you will agree my estimate cannot be far off.

Quote:
Did you even read the link you provided? Nowhere does it say that 70% of Muslims worldwide support Sharia law, nor does it say anywhere that 90% of Muslims worldwide support killing apostates. In addition, any statistics that are quoted in that opinion blog are not cited, so are worthless. Why reference something that is so obviously skewed.

BTW, the opinion blog you linked does discuss the 70% and 90%, but I'll wait for you to read it and tell us what it refers to. Your confirmation bias is certainly showing.
That was a quickie reference.
If you don't agree, then forget it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 09:05 PM
Status: "Stand with Hong Kong" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Laguna Niguel, Orange County CA
9,809 posts, read 7,701,113 times
Reputation: 7809
Quote:
Originally Posted by modernist1 View Post
And there's the rub, will the true Muslims please speak up. It's pretty clear that all these schisms are a huge part of the problem. The Shia are't real Muslims, Wahhabism isn't real Islam, so-called IS aren't real Muslims ... the problem is that all claim to be so.
Where is a good Takfiri when you need one, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 09:08 PM
Status: "Stand with Hong Kong" (set 24 days ago)
 
Location: Laguna Niguel, Orange County CA
9,809 posts, read 7,701,113 times
Reputation: 7809
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum View Post
Yes my project is influenced by Kant's 'Towards Perpetual Peace'.
My forte is philosophy, Western and Eastern. I studied Kant for almost 3 years on a full time basis [just before I set it aside temp to concentrate on the Quran and Islam], so I am VERY familiar with Kant's idea.
Being Kantian based, my model is not a simplistic one as you thought so.
Kantian logic is the basis of modern progressive thought in the US, and, most significantly in non-believing Europe. It is also the reason why Europe would take refugees from whom it will derive little to no benefit, but whose very presence (and the presence of their progeny) will eventually destroy Europe. Kantian ideals focus on altruism, the most destructive force in our age.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 11:41 PM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC View Post
Kantian logic is the basis of modern progressive thought in the US, and, most significantly in non-believing Europe. It is also the reason why Europe would take refugees from whom it will derive little to no benefit, but whose very presence (and the presence of their progeny) will eventually destroy Europe. Kantian ideals focus on altruism, the most destructive force in our age.
Have you read Kant's philosophies, i.e. the whole range of it?
From your assertion above, I am certain you have not read Kant extensively and fully and that is why you are expressing your views on Kant from an ignorant basis.

Note I stated "Islam itself" is a stumbling block to 'Perpetual Peace" in line with the Kantian Perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Continuum
It is from my project 'Striving for Perpetual Peace' that I came across one of the current greatest stumbling block amongst all evils, i.e. evils and violence committed by Muslims. This is how I diverted my attention to study Islam and Muslims in greater depth.
Therefore how can the taking of refugees into Europe and elsewhere be in line with Kantian 'Towards a Perpetual Peace" when the Problem of Evil from Islam is not dealt with comprehensively.

Give a reference from Kant's book [not secondary references] where he stated and promoted altruism unconditionally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-07-2016, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Not-a-Theist
3,440 posts, read 1,582,067 times
Reputation: 461
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC View Post
Kantian logic is the basis of modern progressive thought in the US, and, most significantly in non-believing Europe. It is also the reason why Europe would take refugees from whom it will derive little to no benefit, but whose very presence (and the presence of their progeny) will eventually destroy Europe. Kantian ideals focus on altruism, the most destructive force in our age.
From a quick search.
Here is a statement from one who know a bit about Kant.

"But Kantís conception of morality was not altruistic at root."
see page 6.
http://myweb.clemson.edu/~campber/kantmordev.pdf

Therefore Kantian ideals do no focus on altruism.

Warning:
However the above authors, Campbell and Christopher failed critically to understand the central core of Kant's morality within the Kantian Moral and Ethical System.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Islam
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top