Morality, Good vs Evil, and its existence

[Jack Dirt 81]

OK, I'm going to go ahead and admit something. I don't believe in morality and I don't think it has an existence.

 

I think that there are "Right and Wrong" Choices in the sense that you shouldn't do that if you were told not to, but not "Right and Wrong" Choices morally. I also don't think that "Good vs Evil" exist. because of everyone's different opinions and view points on life.

 

So basically, I don't believe in Morality or Good vs Evil and I don't think it has an existence. I know this makes me sound like a heartless bastard, but I do have feelings. I just don't believe in Morality and Good vs Evil anymore. Let me know that you think down below.

Edited November 12, 2014 by BeatStick

[Blue Moon 6,341]

But what factors do you use to determine whether something is wrong just because you were "told not to?" if you don't believe in morality? Based on what you said, you think it would be the right thing to not do something you were told not to do, but that is a form of morality on its own.

 

Personally, I think morality does exist, but it is subjective. One person may think something to be to the right thing to do, while another may think the opposite. However, I do agree that good and evil do not exist in the real world, as no one is absolutely good or evil. Something someone does that is considered "evil" is not considered a wrong act to commit by the person doing the act, therefore; having a moral system that is set in stone that everyone agrees with is impossible.

[Jack Dirt 81]

But what factors do you use to determine whether something is wrong just because you were "told not to?" if you don't believe in morality? Based on what you said, you think it would be the right thing to not do something you were told not to do, but that is a form of morality on its own.

 

Personally, I think morality does exist, but it is subjective. One person may think something to be to the right thing to do, while another may think the opposite. However, I do agree that good and evil do not exist in the real world, as no one is absolutely good or evil. Something someone does that is considered "evil" is not considered a wrong act to commit by the person doing the act, therefore; having a moral system that is set in stone that everyone agrees with is impossible.

Like I said, I think that morality doesn't exist. Even though you made a point on its subjective-ness and "How can you say that it right/wrong if you don't have morals?", I meant right/wrong in the sense of "It wouldn't be a good idea to do it"

[Invincible 2,091]

Incidentally, if you ask my opinion, i believe that Good and Evil are human constructs. You can define them however you want, various groups of people often have conflicting feelings about this. Group A can claim it's alright to sacrifice babies, while group B thinks it's an act of evil. Point of views. Morality as a derivative of Good and Evil is basically the same thing; you apply the principles of good and evil to see what sort of moral values certain actions have.

 

What i think, however, is that the principles of Good and Evil are products of evolution / social development and etc. Acts which are considered beneficial to humanity as a whole then gain higher value when judged against social norms (negative values can be applied to acts of "Evil"). Example: Murder is a big NO, because the continuation of life is something which our society depends upon. Charity and kindness towards others is a big YES, however, as you help those less fortunate to elevate their condition. It's somewhat more complex than those primitive examples but still.

[Lunatic Cake 1,618]

You cannot generalize "Good" and "Evil" basically because it depends on each individual whether an action is "Good" or "Evil". Many tried to generalize "Good" and "Evil", especially Religions tend to do that. But even without religions people use "Morality" to determine "Good" and "Evil" in order to create a system within society to ensure that less chaos is granted and to control it's path.

 

Morality itself is something every human being has, without it, our ability to think rationally would suffer if we didn't have any. There are reasons why we're having morals, they help us live our lives, we make decisions based on our morals and it helps us interact with others.

[IcyHaze 594]

Good and Evil doesn't exist. Right and Wrong does - and it should be obvious by your experiences in life what each is.

[ARagY 1,152]

No such "Good" or "Evil" or even Right and Wrong depending on how you use it, Right usually meaning Good and Wrong usually meaning Evil. If you mean incorrect or faulty as wrong then well, yes. That exists. It's wrong for me to say I was an eye-witness when the Titanic sank.

 

This reminds me of those alignment chart thingies

 

If I were on there I think I'd be chaotic neutral or lawful neutral

[Malinter 3,064]

Morality is something that humanity as created to establish some order out of chaos. Also "Good" and "Evil" are subjective terms that depend who you are and to whom your referring to. For example, Killing animals for food. To some that is good because they can eat the meat to live. To others it is evil because that animal was also a life.

 

Its also like how if one person takes a life, he is a murderer, but if someone kills the murderer they are considered a hero. Both have committed the same act but those around them view both differently and label one evil and one good as a result.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Shire Pony Malinter

[nx9100 1,013]

There is a movie quote that I feel needs to be tossed in here:

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

So, I have to agree with @, because everything is by perspective.  While Evil is something that is fun for stories, movies, games, etc (and something I personally LOVE to RP as,  ),  in real life, it is simply a matter of point of view.

I know this will get me in trouble, but take Hitler for example.  Yes, he did many bad things (some were due to simple insanity), but he had a goal in mind.  He saw a world of chaos, and sought to bring stability to it (he just used the wrong methods).  Up to the middle-end of WWII, Germany was the most technologically advanced nation in the world.  He just jumped waaayyyy off the deep end....

 

To sum it up, read my favorite quote in my sig...

Edited November 12, 2014 by nx9100

[WindyParadise 59]

It would really depend on your beliefs and if there is life elsewhere in the galaxy that has similar ethics/moralities. 

 

 If yes to beliefs then you already know your own answer. If yes to other life having morals then I'd say it's more of a thing for sentient creatures.

Otherwise Morals are just 'human constructs' but that doesn't mean we should learn from them.  

 

Think of Humanity as a bunch of children playing a game. We might invent rules for the game, but if it makes it more fair and fun for everybody. Would anyone really complain?

 

Note: I'm a bit tired so if this doesn't make sense then it's my fault. 

[Yellow Diamond 7,565]

Short answer: Do good and evil exist? Yes. Do morality and ethics exist? Yes, albeit with a need for distinctions.

 

Right and wrong are derivative terms; that is to say that they do not affect the morality of an action, as they are phrases of interpretation. If you follow deontological ethics (as I am inclined to), then there are intrinsically ethical and unethical actions. But even ethics isn't entirely interchangeable with morality, as you might have an ethical system couched in utilitarianism or functionalism. Morality, however, is inherently deontological; it appeals to a higher system or authority. In turn, it won't matter if you label an action "right" or "wrong"; the label does not have sway over the intrinsic moral nature of the action or state.

 

The way to bypass a moral system typically rests with casuistry. In this case I could potentially justify an abhorrent or immoral act by applying sets of standards to a particular circumstance. I absolve myself of guilt by effectively saying "once is once" -- as if the precedent did not matter. This is an especially dangerous mode of operation, one that can cut the floor out from underneath an understanding of morality.

 

At some functional level, ethics must exist; otherwise it would be hard for a social group to operate with any sense of confidence. Bear in mind, too, that not all of humanity operates under a single system: lying in some cultures is seen as honorable if done in the defense of family, but lying in a Western society is very often seen as dishonorable. So we must resist the temptation to generalize ethics on the basis of our circumstances.

 

Now how morality follows is another question. And an adherence to morality often flows from a belief in the divine. You could try and go about things the way that Immanuel Kant did and sort of back into a moral system. (For the sake of clarity, Kant held that practical reason shows us God must exist in order for there to be any sense of a just world.) The problem for someone like me (i.e., a Roman Catholic) is that Kant, logical though he was, was working backwards. We may use our reasoning and tools to comprehend morality, but morality -- or Christian morality -- has to begin with God. It can't begin in our works; any work we do is bearing witness to God's salvific action.

 

Of course, if you don't believe in God, then the above paragraph probably won't matter very much in determining definitions of moral and immoral. I admit I'm effectively speaking another language here. In general, however, I think we can still apply the maxim of "by their fruits you will know them": What factors are motivating people, and what will those motivations lead them to do? I feel fairly confident in determining that someone who tells a country that their racial and cultural liberation will be achieved through gassing people with Zyklon B doesn't fall under a shade of gray. Just because you can understand the cause of an action does not alter the depravity of the act

 

Conversely, when someone performs a selfless act of kindness or generosity, they're directing themselves beyond the norm for reasons which cannot regularly be measured. You don't need to be a Christian or even have a belief in God to fulfill this capability. In this way morality and ethics may nevertheless express themselves.

 

In sum, if I'm saying anything it's that reality doesn't change because we disagree on its definition(s). Relativists won't love me for that statement, but I'm not exactly playing for that crowd, either.

[Hashi 323]

Personally I'm a nihilist therefore I believe that morality, good and evil are all social constructs and are therefore totally meaningless. As is life, and humanity, and stuff.

*shrug*

[CT-1138 3,182]

Man should not ruled nor governed by sacred morals, but rather something far more real that deepens itself into every thing that morals are based upon: the conscience. The conscience is something medically and scientifically measurable: you steal a cookie, and you feel guilty for it. It is something even measured within animals other than human beings. It is what connects the sense of naturalness of certain acts to what becomes acceptable behavior within a species.

[IvoryDreamer 102]

I would agree with the evolution definition. We as a species want to survive. So there are the good things that increase our chances of survival, and bad things that are hazardous to our health.

 

Good things: food, play, relationships, etc. All these things are beneficial to our survival. 

 

Bad things: poison, being eaten, getting injured, etc. These things are not beneficial to our survival

 

I would say that right and wrong exist, but as a evolutionary creation for social animals like humans, and ponies.

Edited November 17, 2014 by IvoryDreamer