Kusuriya no Hitorigoto - Vol. 8 Ch. 37 - Balsam and Wood Sorrel (Part 1)

[starch12313]

Every time I see people talking about morality, and ethics it never fails to amuse me. Simply for the fact that someone down the line will either claim, or allude to objectivity. Likewise someone will hide behind some wall that spells out subjectivity. Now granted ill give people some wiggle room since the topic between realism, and relativism is hotly debated.

Now to keep it simple, or at least simple for everyone else to understand. Ill like to introduce my best friend LOGICAL, and CONTEXT. If you didnt catch my drift, im alluding to the fact that making such a claim like "killing someone is objectively evil" is asinine. So do I believe that morals can be objective? Fuck no, but im not on the relativism train either. Or at least on the train that most people are on. Im gonna quote a good comment that someone said about the faults of objectivity, and subjectivity.

This question is just posing the same stupid objective-subjective dichotomy that seems to have infected internet discourse; wherein 'objectively true' means true and 'subjectively true' means that anyone can disagree with any judgment and all reasonable standards of evaluation disappear into a postmodern void.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the categories we use to determine the worth of a video game, movie, or piece of art are partly unique to us as individuals, but also to a large extent culturally determined. We are not free to interpret these things in any way we please. By the same token, the communication of your critical opinions to other people will only be effective if you assume that they share (or at least can understand) your criteria.

Objectivity is irrelevant here. The total agreement of all 7-8 billion humans as to the total worthlessness of some painting would not be evidence for the objective truth of that judgment.

Meanwhile, subjectivity does not imply that truth is just a matter of opinion. If enough people share are willing to accept broadly the same criteria for media criticism, then the truth becomes a matter of debate and expertise. If enough people refuse to share such criteria, then the truth becomes a matter of politics (see The Last Jedi).

So where do I stand in this argument? Not sure lol, but I follow what I quoted. Whether its relative or realism who the fuck cares. Now my impression to this comment section is............... Is that you all are shit at debating lol, well arguing would be a better term. I was expecting the whole Nazi argument to be alot better, simply for the fact that if delved into, can be easily argued to not be "objectively" evil. Other than that I kinda got the gist that someone was using "big words" just to look smart, I mean their argument as a whole never supported the usage of such words but thats neither here or there.

 

[Binary10011]

@Lampsforsale
I see the confusion - I'll try to be clearer next time.

 

[Nylodale]

What the hell happened here?

 

[Doggo4life]

the feels bro

 

[starch12313]

@Rgal

Today has been rather boorish, and you seem to be the most amusing one so lets have some fun shall we?
Lets start off with a question.

1: Do you think objective evil exist?

Edit: Seems a bit to simple, no? Ill add another question.

2: Do you think a societies view of evil evolves? Doesnt have to be a society, but we'll just use that for now. Likewise (you may love this one lol). Is something not evil if thr society does not view it as evil?

Your answer will determine if this conversation continues.

 

[Rgal]

@starch12313
Cool bait. You do realise neither of your questions is relevant, right? The original thesis I disagreed with was "you cannot be called evil if society you are part doesn't think you are evil", which is false regardless of whether objective evil exists or not. After all, if evil is objective, then one can be objectively evil while society thinks otherwise; on the other hand, if evil is subjective, then one can be called evil by anyone who disagrees with opinion of "society" on the matter.

 

[Kuntatooooo]

@broken25
Okay thanks for the explanation. Damn that hurts tho

 

[starch12313]

Ahhh you wound me lol. Excuse my previous statement as it was not meant to be bait, after all I genuinely find you to be the most amusing among this bunch of people. Granted I did expect some better arguments, but I mean its rather my fault for expecting people to be able to debate on mangadex lol. Also I mean I kinda asked that question. So oh boy you're starting off on the wrong foot here already.

you cannot be called evil if society you are part doesn't think you are evil

Is something not evil if thr society does not view it as evil?

Similar, no?

which is false regardless of whether objective evil exists or not. After all, if evil is objective, then one can be objectively evil while society thinks otherwise; on the other hand, if evil is subjective, then one can be called evil by anyone who disagrees with opinion of "society" on the matter.

So slavery isnt evil? Cmon now lol, you dont need me to tell you that your argument doesn't make sense. Clearly you're smart enough to type it, now I must assume you're smart enough to understand it. Now im done with all these jabs at you so ill answer lol.

1: If something is objectively evil then where does one go to understand what is, and isnt evil? Likewise how would you quantify such a thing? So sure if society goes against something that is established credibly as 100% evil that would be true, you just need to find out how to firstly quantify such a thing. Until than its rather moot.

2: So subjectivity claims that anything and everything is evil, no? Surely though you act in ways that are reasonable, and actively do no harm to others? You act in this way, because of the fact that you arent evil. I mean I would hope so. So clearly internally you have already established whats evil or not. Therefore the validity of someone's opinions about the way you act should hold little to no meaning. Quite frankly you trap yourself in this box with the argument that you present. After all the beauty of a functioning society is that it evolves over time. So what society deems as evil may change if enough "opinions" are able to influence laws.

Problem with using objective, and subjectively in the way that you choose to do so.

This question is just posing the same stupid objective-subjective dichotomy that seems to have infected internet discourse; wherein 'objectively true' means true and 'subjectively true' means that anyone can disagree with any judgment and all reasonable standards of evaluation disappear into a postmodern void.

Meanwhile, in the real world, the categories we use to determine the worth of a video game, movie, or piece of art are partly unique to us as individuals, but also to a large extent culturally determined. We are not free to interpret these things in any way we please. By the same token, the communication of your critical opinions to other people will only be effective if you assume that they share (or at least can understand) your criteria.

Objectivity is irrelevant here. The total agreement of all 7-8 billion humans as to the total worthlessness of some painting would not be evidence for the objective truth of that judgment.

Meanwhile, subjectivity does not imply that truth is just a matter of opinion. If enough people share are willing to accept broadly the same criteria for media criticism, then the truth becomes a matter of debate and expertise. If enough people refuse to share such criteria, then the truth becomes a matter of politics (see The Last Jedi).

Quite frankly im rather disappointed as I was hoping for a response that would have prompted the gears to start rolling. Instead it speaks of someone that just opened a wiki page on philosophy 101. Anyways ill continue with the questions.

1: Do you think slave owners were evil? Better yet do you think their actions at the TIME were evil?

2: Similar above, but do you think Nazis were evil? Do you think Adolf Hitler was evil?

3: What is your criteria on what you consider to be evil?

4: What gives you the right to impose your societal views on previous civilizations. Given this what gives your opinions validity?

 

[Monky]

Wow what a chapter

 

[Rgal]

@starch12313

Similar, no?

No.

So slavery isnt evil? Cmon now lol, you dont need me to tell you that your argument doesn't make sense. Clearly you're smart enough to type it, now I must assume you're smart enough to understand it. Now im done with all these jabs at you so ill answer lol.

Not what I said. But then, you already knew that, didn't you?

1: If something is objectively evil then where does one go to understand what is, and isnt evil? Likewise how would you quantify such a thing? So sure if society goes against something that is established credibly as 100% evil that would be true, you just need to find out how to firstly quantify such a thing. Until than its rather moot.

"If something is objectively evil, then how can evil be subjective?" is not the insightful question you are trying to pretend it is.

2: So subjectivity claims that anything and everything is evil, no?

No. But you are going to proceed with the rest of your argument as if I answered differently, aren't you? Oh how smart of you to take reign of the conversation this way.

Quite frankly im rather disappointed as I was hoping for a response that would have prompted the gears to start rolling. Instead it speaks of someone that just opened a wiki page on philosophy 101. Anyways ill continue with the questions.

Actually, how about you answer some questions for a change? Here's one from me: do you really think your sophistry isn't transparently obvious?

 

[starch12313]

No.

Would very much love an explanation as to how it isnt.

Not what I said. But then, you already knew that, didn't you?

You didnt have to did you? After all it is subjective? Cmon now lol.

"If something is objectively evil, then how can evil be subjective?" is not the insightful question you are trying to pretend it is.

You took that as insightful? lol well that explains alot. I simply presented the seemingly harsh reality that you cannot claim something as objective without quantifying it.

No. But you are going to proceed with the rest of your argument as if I answered differently, aren't you? Oh how smart of you to take reign of the conversation this way.

lol oh boy. I mean its not as if you said the quoted thing below.

if evil is subjective, then one can be called evil by anyone who disagrees with opinion of "society" on the matter.

Cmon man you arent doing so hot here lol.

Actually, how about you answer some questions for a change? Here's one from me: do you really think your sophistry isn't transparently obvious?

Lol whether it be transparent or not is irrelevant. Im simply here to have some fun. Now that I answered yours its common courtesy to answer mines.

Now im hoping you can amuse me some more with your "insightful" arguments, because from not only this, but from the comment section as a whole you seem to have poor experience in debating.

For a score I give this one a 2/10. I would give it a one, but you had a little bit more snark in this one so I bumped it to a 2. Granted they weren't that good.

 

[Broken25]

@rgal

Do yourself a favor and ignore the troll.

 

[OG_Calculus]

HOLY GOD. Did not expect that.
@DiabloLNK

Oh so the author just casually stabs us right in the heart like this and twists the knife a few rotations

Exacly how it felt.

 

[N2O]

Aw 😐
...awwwwwwwwwwww😢

 

[Tatsumaikyoku]

@Rgal Like the other guy said, don't stoop to the guy's trolling level and just ignore him. I mean, just by the way he speaks, using really pompous language is a red flag for a troll who's seen too much anime/manga/shows and thinks it's cool. It's borderline Chuuni behaviour.

 

[starch12313]

@Tatsumaikyoku @Broken25

Trolling? Yes if you want to take it as such, but is that solely my intention though? I will give you kudos, as this pompous flamboyant attitude is simply to rile him up. Now you may ask, why am I acting as such? Its rather simple, because the only thing worse than a troll, is a troll that is correct. That is of course if you wanna argue against such an assertion? If you do I would happily give you the court.

Can you blame me though? I had to have a little fun with someone that was clearly emitting a sense of superiority over the rest. After all this sense of a superiority was only a thing against people that seemingly had little to no knowledge in debating. Likewise a lack of knowledge in such subjects (morality). So I mean I kinda had to lol. I mean the little discourse between us although rather boorish on his part, gave me enough evidence that he did not have the mental capacity for such a discussion, and that his personal feelings clouded his decisions. Evident by the fact that he clearly disagreed under no basis, and also contradicted himself early on. So did I have fun? Lol you betcha I did.

Now you may call it petty, and to a degree I would agree. As I stated before though im simply here to have some fun. Whether you like me or not is irrelevant. Im simply here to beat down on how asinine some people can be lol.

 

[axelTHEGREAT]

Adorable one ehhh mao mao ([√°¥°])√

 

[Rgal]

@Broken25 @Tatsumaikyoku
In all fairness, I'm not above some pomposity myself. But both of you are right, these rhetorics won't go anywhere.

 

[Frangar]

I wonder if there's another teen f*ck~ng manga in which there are rivers of philosophical and ethical and logical debate for a single f*ck~ng chapter.
I'm glad so much people are enjoying this work at this depths.

 

[Keir]

WASN'T HE SUPPOSED TO BE A BAD GUY??! I thought he was just a bastard who left his kid. 😭