Beliefs, Assumptions and Definitions

Voctir said: "Moral nihilism (there is no right or wrong) leads us to be unable to condemn Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and perpetrators of crimes against humanity."
and so what if we are unable to condemn them? trust me, regardless of what your answer is, it will only lead to a whole lot of other similar questions. and at the end of all the questions, it's all down to what one assumes and defines as 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil'. how do you then prove that one definition of 'right' is more right/valid than another? because most people feel it is right?

my point is thus that there is no universal, absolute definiton of the terms 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil', not that there isn't 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil' as such. a particular action/decision might be 'right' (or 'wrong', 'good', 'evil') for a particular situation, given the particular conditions, knowledge, etc. tweak the conditions, knowledge, situation, then the same action/decision might not be 'right' (or 'wrong', 'good', 'evil') anymore. it all depends on the context and the situation. and to determine whether something is indeed 'right', 'wrong', 'good', 'evil' requires that same thing to be analysed critically from many different angles.

Voctir also said, " I don't see the point of your example about the tree falling--the fact of the tree's falling exists regardless of whether there were any witnesses to it, just as the earth has existed without life (humans or otherwise, which could see) for at least a billion years."

it then bags the question (which has been debated by various people for yonks): what does it mean for something to exist? the tree falling question is actually a very old existentialist question (which until Uni, i had the same views as Voctir).

we 'know' that the world exists for at least a billion years before our arrival because we have seen evidences of that fact. so while we were not there to witness the world being in existence for the whole billion years, our present observation of those evidence gives witness to that billion years of existence. it is just like quantum physics really. until you observed the electron, the electron of a particular state (i.e. energy, velocity, position) did not exist (though a probability of it being in that state existed). but when someone looks at it, all the probabilities collapse into a single state and that particular electron of a specific state comes into existence when previously it did not exist. so if that is the nature of the world at the most fundametal level, why is it not possible to accept that as the definition of existence? that something can only be meaningfully said to exist when it is observed?

now that's all philosophical. on a more practical note, it's all about whether it matters that it exists on paper. for example, under the Singaporean Penal Code, it is a crime to carry hockey sticks in the boot of your car. but for all intents and purposes, this law might as well not exist cos few people know about it and it is now almost no longer enforced. the key words are therefore, "for all intents and purposes". similarly with what i was saying about the death penalty. if no one commits murder nor trafficks drugs, then for all intents and purposes, it might as well not be in existence.

lastly, Voctir said: "The "better world" that you're thinking of is really a synonym for "ideal world", or Utopia. Alas the greatest human tragedies in history came about because tyrants (and their followers) were under the illusion that Utopia exists and is attainable (e.g. Hitler's Third Reich--a nation of the super-race of the Aryans). We can make a better world through education and upholding certain fundamental principles respecting human dignity and rights. We just cannot make an ideal world. It doesn't exist."

there was a point in time when we thought that it was impossible for humans to fly or for us to get to the moon. a craft that could travel faster than sound doesn't exist. anyone who thought that was deluded. but there were those crazy enough to try it. and sure enough, a lot of these deluded died, bring killing quite a few innocent bystanders along the way.

but today, we have reached the moon, we have supersonic flight.

just because something does not exist now does not mean that it will never exist. just because all our efforts to create something has till now ended in failure does not mean that it is not possible.

an ideal world without suffering, murder, crimes of any sorts might seem impossible now. but humanity has pulled of many impossibilities. because some amongst us believe enough to work for it. can anyone truly prove that such a world is indeed impossible? do we know for certain that such a world is indeed impossible? or do we believe that it is impossible because of our past experiences?

if it is the latter, then i choose to believe that it is possible despite the experiences. i believe that human nature is not set in stone, that we can learn and evolve, thus creating an ideal world. not in my lifetime. not even for a few hundred generations to come. but i believe that it is possible if enough people work at it, starting from now.