Opinion of Catharism

[Mopsus]

Dualist sect of Christianity widespread in the south of France in the 12th Century. It held that the physical world was created and controlled by Satan and that the human soul was trapped in an eternal cycle of death and rebirth, unless one could learn to deny all physical temptations; such was the mission of the perfecti class of Cathars (there was another class, the credentes, who believed in the tenets of the faith, but would not take the oath to live by them until the verge of death).

Catharism is notable for preaching the total equality of men and women, as well as its strong preference for pacifism; the perfecti were vegans, and the religion opposed violence in all its forms, including capital punishment (all radical positions for the time). It almost sounds too good to be true, which is probably why the faith was violently exterminated after just a couple hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My opinion of them is mixed.  I applaud their egalitarianism, but I find their Dualism deplorable.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've known about it for a while, and always found it very fascinating.

[Mopsus]

My opinion of them is mixed.  I applaud their egalitarianism, but I find their Dualism deplorable.

What is it about dualism that you find unpalatable?

[H. Ross Peron]

Heretics. Shouldn't have been persecuted obviously.

[Zioneer]

I've known about it for a while, and always found it very fascinating.

This, plus as a member of a technically heretical sect myself (Mormonism, of course), I am a fan of most medieval heresies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My opinion of them is mixed.  I applaud their egalitarianism, but I find their Dualism deplorable.

What is it about dualism that you find unpalatable?

To begin with I have no need for there to be a Devil to explain how evil can exist when there is an omnipotent omnibenevolent God.  But if one must have a Devil, to ascribe to him the creation of the physical universe and that evil is a direct result of our physical existence is to me a cowardly attempt to avoid responsibility for one's own actions and thoughts.

[afleitch]

My opinion of them is mixed.  I applaud their egalitarianism, but I find their Dualism deplorable.

What is it about dualism that you find unpalatable?

To begin with I have no need for there to be a Devil to explain how evil can exist when there is an omnipotent omnibenevolent God.  But if one must have a Devil, to ascribe to him the creation of the physical universe and that evil is a direct result of our physical existence is to me a cowardly attempt to avoid responsibility for one's own actions and thoughts.

I would argue the same about the need for a god.

[Mopsus]

My opinion of them is mixed.  I applaud their egalitarianism, but I find their Dualism deplorable.

What is it about dualism that you find unpalatable?

To begin with I have no need for there to be a Devil to explain how evil can exist when there is an omnipotent omnibenevolent God.  But if one must have a Devil, to ascribe to him the creation of the physical universe and that evil is a direct result of our physical existence is to me a cowardly attempt to avoid responsibility for one's own actions and thoughts.

I actually think that it's a reasonable inference from human nature. The free will argument for the existence of evil has never been particularly compelling to me; the fact that man could choose to act evilly does not explain why acting evilly is appealing to him in the first place. That a universe in which men are every day tempted to act malevolently was created by a malevolent being seems to me to be a perfectly logical position to take.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My opinion of them is mixed.  I applaud their egalitarianism, but I find their Dualism deplorable.

What is it about dualism that you find unpalatable?

To begin with I have no need for there to be a Devil to explain how evil can exist when there is an omnipotent omnibenevolent God.  But if one must have a Devil, to ascribe to him the creation of the physical universe and that evil is a direct result of our physical existence is to me a cowardly attempt to avoid responsibility for one's own actions and thoughts.

I actually think that it's a reasonable inference from human nature. The free will argument for the existence of evil has never been particularly compelling to me; the fact that man could choose to act evilly does not explain why acting evilly is appealing to him in the first place. That a universe in which men are every day tempted to act malevolently was created by a malevolent being seems to me to be a perfectly logical position to take.

Free will is perfectly sufficient to explain the presence of evil except for the cartoonish "I will do these despicable acts precisely because they are evil!" variety which I see no evidence anyone has ever chosen to do. (There are certainly those who place so little value on the well-being of others that they will routinely engage in acts that almost everyone would call evil, but even they do so because they perceive that such acts benefit themselves.) We undertake actions because of the value we place upon the expected results.  However, men lack perfect knowledge of what will result or even perfect agreement on the the results.  Furthermore if one roughly defines "good" as a multivariate function of individual happiness levels, well, no two people are going to agree on that function.  As a general rule we ascribe the greatest value to our own well being, the next greatest to family members, then friends, then members of our social group, and so forth. But unless two people have exact agreement on what to consider "good" then inevitably there will be actions which we consider to be good that others perceive as evil and vice-versa.

Now as a general rule, those belief systems that encourage their adherents to act in a manner that avoid that sort of situation, do so by encouraging a wide encompassing definition of "good" such that we place the exact same value on the well-being of every person. (I.e., that "good" is a commutative function.)  That still leaves the question of how to judge what is "good" in the generic sense, and while the golden rule is a good first approximation, it can only be an approximation since as I stated earlier, we have imperfect and inconsistent knowledge of what the results of our actions will be and thus even for two people who both consistently apply the golden rule it is possible that on occasion they will  engage in actions that the other perceives as evil.

Now if we were omniscient, then it would be possible to develop a ultimate sense of "good" that any other omniscient being (if there were such a being) would agree was "good". It follows that if we were omnibenevolent, we would always act so as to do the most good and others would agree with our choices.

I will agree with afleitch than one does not need a creator God to define what is good.  However it does take an omniscient being to infallibly perceive what is good defined as maximizing universal well-being.

[Mopsus]

My opinion of them is mixed.  I applaud their egalitarianism, but I find their Dualism deplorable.

What is it about dualism that you find unpalatable?

To begin with I have no need for there to be a Devil to explain how evil can exist when there is an omnipotent omnibenevolent God.  But if one must have a Devil, to ascribe to him the creation of the physical universe and that evil is a direct result of our physical existence is to me a cowardly attempt to avoid responsibility for one's own actions and thoughts.

I actually think that it's a reasonable inference from human nature. The free will argument for the existence of evil has never been particularly compelling to me; the fact that man could choose to act evilly does not explain why acting evilly is appealing to him in the first place. That a universe in which men are every day tempted to act malevolently was created by a malevolent being seems to me to be a perfectly logical position to take.

Now as a general rule, those belief systems that encourage their adherents to act in a manner that avoid that sort of situation, do so by encouraging a wide encompassing definition of "good" such that we place the exact same value on the well-being of every person. (I.e., that "good" is a commutative function.)  That still leaves the question of how to judge what is "good" in the generic sense, and while the golden rule is a good first approximation, it can only be an approximation since as I stated earlier, we have imperfect and inconsistent knowledge of what the results of our actions will be and thus even for two people who both consistently apply the golden rule it is possible that on occasion they will  engage in actions that the other perceives as evil.

But it is indisputable that there are times when people don't at all take into consideration the effect of their actions on others. Those actions tend to be motivated by what might be called man's "baser instincts" - i.e., lust, greed, wrath, envy, etc. The point that I'm trying to make is that a benevolent god could have created a universe in which the instinct to serve others (or to serve some higher notion of righteousness) overrides those instincts just listed (or, more radically, a benevolent god could have created a universe in which those instincts don't even exist). If that is incompatible with the standard conception of free will, then I admit that I don't have a positive opinion of free will.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will concede that even in my world, people will disagree on what is the best good. Still, at least it could be said that each individual action is taken with the interest of others in mind, which could not at all be said of this world.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If you are going to bring in the seven deadly sins, let me point out that they all result from excessive levels of desirable traits.  If God were to place limits on our ability to express those desirable traits so they never reached the level of sin, ey would be interfering with free will, plus there is no absolute level at which a person would invariably cross the line from good to evil.  As a perhaps overly simple example, a starving man given access to much food has a much greater need to consume than one who has been able to eat regularly.  Hence a level of consumption that would be gluttony for the one with access to regular meals would not be gluttony for a starving man.

[Mopsus]

Perhaps those weren't the best examples that I could have used, and your point about the starving man is well taken (although I contest the idea that the seven deadly sins are all the product of too much of a good thing; what is the proper amount of wrath or envy, for example?). Here's an example that is more illustrative, and has occurred many times throughout history: An army captures a village that was loyal to the enemy. The conquering army decides to go on a spree of destruction, raping and murdering the village's inhabitants. Where does the impulse to do that come from? The soldiers obviously didn't believe that it would be in their victims' best interest to rape and murder them, and if they believed that they were fighting for the greater good, they would have only punished the villagers whom they found to have collaborated with the enemy. The impulse to do what they did must come from some dark, carnal side to man; it is the position of the dualists that only a malevolent creator would create man with such a side, and it is my position that nothing of value would be lost if such a side were removed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Wrath: Is not anger a goad to action?  Do we not at times need that swift self-kick in butt to get us to do things?  It is when anger is embraced beyond its needful uses that it becomes the sin of wrath.

Envy: Is it not proper for us to compare ourselves to others and see where we might do better? That impulse becomes a sin when we develop a hate for those who possess things or qualities that we ourselves do not have, such as when Cain became envious of the favor shown Abel.

As for your example of the rampaging troops devastating a village, you find their actions odious because you ascribe a high value on individualism. As you stated in your example, the village sided with the enemy.  Why should not the whole village suffer punishment, assuming that punishment was good to begin with?  As since the village is part of the enemy, is not punishing the village a part of punishing the enemy? Might not extreme measures be required at times?  I share your general belief in individualism, yet individualism is not a necessary part of morality.  Indeed, if we judged things solely at the level of the individual and each individual did only what pleased them with no regard for the happiness or unhappiness of others, we would have a most immoral society, if indeed one can have a society based on hyperindividualism.

So, while I myself do not find the actions of the army in your example to be good, I can fairly easily see where the members of that army could convince themselves that they were acting for the greater good.

[Mopsus]

Wrath: Is not anger a goad to action?  Do we not at times need that swift self-kick in butt to get us to do things?  It is when anger is embraced beyond its needful uses that it becomes the sin of wrath.

I don't know what kind of action you're referring to here. I would argue that compassion for the victims of injustice is a far superior motivator to act than blind hatred at the perpetrators of injustice.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It might occasionally do us good to compare ourselves to others, but I think that as a general rule we should set personal goals based upon our own desire and abilities.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let's assume that the actions of the soldiers were based upon a desire to punish their enemies (and that they weren't just using that as an excuse to commit atrocities, as might very well be the case). What makes their actions wrong is that they weren't done in the interest of justice, but in the interest of vengeance. Personally, I distinguish a desire for justice from a desire for vengeance by what motivates them: justice is motivated by desire to see rehabilitation for both the victim and the perpetrator, whereas vengeance is motivated by a feeling of being offended, and a desire to see that offense "righted". This might just be my personal opinion, and it is indeed based upon the high value that I place on individualism, but it's my opinion because I think that it works the best for all involved.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Personally, I distinguish a desire for justice from a desire for vengeance by what motivates them: justice is motivated by desire to see rehabilitation for both the victim and the perpetrator, whereas vengeance is motivated by a feeling of being offended, and a desire to see that offense "righted". This might just be my personal opinion, and it is indeed based upon the high value that I place on individualism, but it's my opinion because I think that it works the best for all involved.

But what if rehabilitation is impossible or at the very least impracticable?  Why do you assume that justice and vengeance are incompatible?  But back to my original point. All I said was that no one does things for the purpose of doing what they consider to be evil. Not that people don't engage in actions that under a standard of universal respect and tolerance for all people would absolutely be considered evil. Not am I arguing that such a standard is not the one we should be striving for.

[Mopsus]

But what if rehabilitation is impossible or at the very least impracticable?

If a criminal proves himself unable to exist peacefully in society, it would unfortunately be necessary to keep him segregated from that society. But rehabilitation should be the ideal - for both the criminal and the victim.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

Because the motivations for justice and vengeance come from different places, as I said in an earlier post. This difference manifests itself most clearly in capital punishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then we agree. Our original disagreement centered on whether or not the inclination towards - not just the possibility of - such evil actions would exist in a universe created by a truly benevolent god. And judging by the preceding discussion, I doubt that we're about to come to an agreement.

[Zioneer]

We've gotten a bit off-topic from Catharism itself, haven't we?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We've gotten a bit off-topic from Catharism itself, haven't we?

Yes and no, as we were discussing one particular aspect of Cathar belief.

[Mopsus]

We've gotten a bit off-topic from Catharism itself, haven't we?

Well, if it weren't for True Federalist's and my discussion, this thread would only have five posts in it anyway