Good Or Evil?

[ZaccMDL 9]

trying to do something most people would disagree with or doing what they want.

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,671]

You know, your post leaves a lot to the imagination. 

 

So what you're basically asking is; is "good" deeds that most people would agree with or want? On the other hand, is "evil" deeds that most would disagree with?

 

Well, does that convey what you're trying to ask?

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Could you be any vaguer on one of the most fundamental questions of human nature and its relation to a greater reality?

[ZaccMDL 9]

ehh was feeling lazy sorry

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,671]

Well, fine, I'll give my two cents then.

 

Good and Evil are whatever it is we make it out to be. It's different/nuanced with different cultures. Honestly, I think that "objective morality" is an oxymoron. All morality is relative. There's no escaping it.

 

Religion-based morality is morality that relates to religion.

Creed-based morality is morality that relates to that creed.

Science-based morality is morality that relates to science.

Nature-based morality is morality that relates to nature.

Public Health based morality is morality that relates to public health.

 

I can go on and on and on and on about how different belief systems of morality relate to different things.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

@,

 

With a creeping sense of dread I will nonetheless say something that I feel obligated to: I vehemently disagree. "Objective morality" is NOT an oxymoron. Those nuances are there and the world is gray, but that doesn't mean the black and white aren't there, they're just that much harder to see.

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,671]

@,

 

With a creeping sense of dread I will nonetheless say something that I feel obligated to: I vehemently disagree. "Objective morality" is NOT an oxymoron. Those nuances are there and the world is gray, but that doesn't mean the black and white aren't there, they're just that much harder to see.

What is there to dread? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's a gut reaction. Is there something you know that you're keeping from yourself or from us?

[Steel Accord 6,658]

What is there to dread? I'm going to go out on a limb and say that's a gut reaction. Is there something you know that you're keeping from yourself or from us?

 

Well mainly it was the fear that I'd be inviting another long, tiring, drawn out debate in which neither side learns anything. Forgive me for being presumptuous I've had a hard couple of days and it's starting to make me paranoid.

 

My point was that I felt my usually strong desire to voice dissension to your point if for nothing else to show the OP that moral relativism was not universally agreed upon.

[KatonRyu 1,027]

@Steel Accord, I find your post intriguing. To me, objective morality is something that cannot exist because I believe morality to be a construct created by people rather than an inherent trait, and as such, it is impossible to find something that one hundred percent of people would consider 'good' or 'evil'. If you believe in an objective morality, could you name a couple of examples that would support the existence of one?

 

I'm not questioning your beliefs here, mind, I'm genuinely interested in finding out objective 'black and white' scenarios.

[A Black Circle 1,585]

Good and Evil like to mix themselves up a lot. There is usually a "most good" option and a "most bad" option. Always go with the most good, even if everyone hates you.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

@Steel Accord, I find your post intriguing. To me, objective morality is something that cannot exist because I believe morality to be a construct created by people rather than an inherent trait, and as such, it is impossible to find something that one hundred percent of people would consider 'good' or 'evil'. If you believe in an objective morality, could you name a couple of examples that would support the existence of one?

 

I'm not questioning your beliefs here, mind, I'm genuinely interested in finding out objective 'black and white' scenarios.

 

Okay, here's one example. Let's say there are no people left. Just one guy wandering the Wasteland. No society, not even a village, maybe a family of five human beings, at best.

 

This man sees a young fox crossing the road, and with no warning, slices it's paws off, breaks it's back . . . and then leaves it alive and in torturous pain as he walks away and laughs.

 

Admittedly, disturbing but it's meant to underlie a point. Society doesn't need to deem that wrong, the only people who would say that isn't wrong are psychopaths.

[KatonRyu 1,027]

Okay, here's one example. Let's say there are no people left. Just one guy wandering the Wasteland. No society, not even a village, maybe a family of five human beings, at best.

 

This man sees a young fox crossing the road, and with no warning, slices it's paws off, breaks it's back . . . and then leaves it alive and in torturous pain as he walks away and laughs.

 

Admittedly, disturbing but it's meant to underlie a point. Society doesn't need to deem that wrong, the only people who would say that isn't wrong are psychopaths.

 

Well, for a psychopath (and clearly, the man in your example is) that act would not be evil, no more than scratching his back would be. He draws some form of pleasure from it at that moment (because he laughs), so for him, however twisted, it was the right thing to do. For me that's not really an example of an objective morality because to certain people, it really isn't wrong to do something like that, because they are incapable of perceiving it as such.

 

In all honesty, I must admit that I am one of those people who does not believe in an objective reality anymore either, for the same reason. Maybe we do not perceive everything around us, and therefore we cannot draw an objective conclusion from it. A fish in a bowl could make a model of reality explaining the movement of bodies outside its bowl that would be be perfectly valid for it, but not for us because we do not perceive the same distortions (from the bowl) as it does. This does not make them anymore 'real' than our own models for it. (That example comes from a book by Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, which does a much better job at explaining this than I do.)

[Steel Accord 6,658]

 

 

Well, for a psychopath (and clearly, the man in your example is) that act would not be evil, no more than scratching his back would be. He draws some form of pleasure from it at that moment (because he laughs), so for him, however twisted, it was the right thing to do. For me that's not really an example of an objective morality because to certain people, it really isn't wrong to do something like that, because they are incapable of perceiving it as such.

 

So perception is all that matters? If I don't "perceive" gravity, does that mean it's not there? Just because said psychopath doesn't perceive that as wrong doesn't mean it isn't! He inflicted pain on an innocent creature for extracting sadistic pleasure and not even for survival.

 

What would you define as an example of objective morality? Something you can hold or examine? 

 

 

 

In all honesty, I must admit that I am one of those people who does not believe in an objective reality anymore either, for the same reason.

 

Then why bother continuing? If you truly don't believe me what can I say to persuade you? 

 

 

 

Maybe we do not perceive everything around us, and therefore we cannot draw an objective conclusion from it. A fish in a bowl could make a model of reality explaining the movement of bodies outside its bowl that would be be perfectly valid for it, but not for us because we do not perceive the same distortions (from the bowl) as it does. This does not make them anymore 'real' than our own models for it. (That example comes from a book by Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, which does a much better job at explaining this than I do.)

 

Cannot SEE the objective conclusion doesn't mean it's not there. (And this is why I go to Hawkings for science and not ethics or philosophy.) 

[KatonRyu 1,027]

So perception is all that matters? If I don't "perceive" gravity, does that mean it's not there? Just because said psychopath doesn't perceive that as wrong doesn't mean it isn't! He inflicted pain on an innocent creature for extracting sadistic pleasure and not even for survival.

 

What would you define as an example of objective morality? Something you can hold or examine?

 

Well, for me the word 'objective' means that it holds true for everyone all the time. Objective morality, then, would be things that every human being, regardless of age, sex, or location, would find good or evil. Because there are seven billion people who each have their own personal interpretations of good and evil, I don't think it's possible to say that certain things are always good or always evil.

 

For instance, I agree with you that torturing an animal for fun is evil, but that does not mean that everyone in the world does. As a child I tortured insects for fun and saw nothing wrong with it, because they were just bugs. I still don't think twice about swatting a fly, even though I don't torture it first anymore. Is it any less evil to kill a fly than it is to kill another animal or person? If so, why?

 

A lot of people might say that killing a fly is nothing like killing a mammal or a human, but objectively, what's the difference? You still take a life, and that's an action you can't turn back.

 

Or to get back to children torturing bugs and progressing onto animals, not because of malicious intent but simply because they don't know a lot of people consider it wrong, are they evil? In short, is ignorance evil? But if one were to instill their own values into an ignorant child, does the child truly follow its own moral compass, or the one that 'society' or this case its teacher or parent, wants to see?

 

Ask these questions to different people in different places and you will get very different answers depending on how the people were raised, their religious convictions et cetera. Why would any one of their answers hold more authority over any of the others?

 

Ultimately, I think it comes down to your own judgment what is wrong and what is right, but I don't think a thing like an objective morality exists.

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,671]

In the context of ethics and philosophy, what is "right" feels right. What is "wrong" feels wrong. The point is, right and wrong are feelings. Feelings of the gut and/or heart - the intuition. Unfortunately, right and wrong are often conflated with correct and incorrect, true and false which may or may not contribute people confusing what they feel is right to what is correct (an example of correct being statements like 2 + 2 = 4. That is correct). 

 

Counter-intuitive concepts are great examples of what can feel right but turn out to be incorrect or vise-versa. Plenty of those to be had in science. 

 

Morality like virtues are all in the eyes of the beholder. An "exception that proves the rule" can only be remotely entertained in subjective matters because it provides contrast. In objective matters, on the other hand, that saying is a contradiction in terms - exceptions threaten the validity of the rule or model instead of the other way around.

[Night Mist 151]

This is a subject that I myself had mixed feelings on. I think there is some nature versus nurture going on here. 

 

You see its the people around you that in part give you direction to what is by that society's standards right and wrong. There are rules and guidelines set for people to look at and follow. So you are raised to follow this moral, sure people can chose to not follow it and that's when they're often labeled evil or bad. For example, someone robs a house they have never done this before and before this had been a respected member of the community, but they do this one thing and they're bad. 

 

However in cases like these no one really wants to look at the other side of the coin. The said thief may have fallen on desperate times and needed the money. Maybe his brother is in the hospital and needs money to pay for a life-saving surgery and this was the only way the thief could think of to get the money. In his eyes he was doing the right thing trying to save his brother. While in everyone else's eyes there were many other things he could of done and it was not justified.  

 

It's very subjective. Heck in my book I just finished reading a brother thinking to protect his twin sister and the things that would happen to her after she married a prince drove her brother to murder. He was somewhat crazy yes but he didn't think he was doing anything wrong because he loved his sister and wanted to protect her. (The prince's subjects were starving and over taxed and his men were allowed to do anything they wanted. Heck the prince had even killed his own brother's dog. However there is something broken in him he can't it seems feel love.) 

 

So tell me is it wrong to protect someone you love even if you are misguided? When you look at the situation it does seem his actions were valid. However if you look at it from someone else's what he did was evil and vile. It really is a tough question.

 

Video game example but also spoiler here.

 

In one of my favorite games Golden Sun in the first game you find out that another group that includes a friend you thought long dead are trying to light elemental lighthouses. (These basically bring something like magic back into the world. Where before that only a small group of people had this magic. )You are told that by lighting them the world would end. You set off to stop the other group at all costs. However in the second game you play as said group the first group was trying to stop. You know that if the lighthouses are not lit and this "magic" isn't returned to the world that it will slowly die, that it in fact already is slowly dying. 

Both groups are doing what they think is the right thing. Neither knows the full story of the other, group one does finally side with group two. However it doesn't change the fact that they did their best to beat and stop group two before most of the lighthouses were lit.

 

 

On the other hand as mentioned there are rules and some things do seem black and white. Killing without need like the guy with the fox does seem evil. But what is he thinking? What are his reasons for doing this what was his past? Maybe he is just insane and with no people around he doesn't care what he does and he can't get the help he needs. Perhaps his family was like this and he was raised in an environment that made him think this was okay.

 

The basic point I'm getting at is maybe some people who do things we consider "evil or bad" aren't always considered by the offender as evil or bad in their view. Perhaps they think that they are the good guys and you are the bad guy. Perhaps you're the evil one to them. 

 

Maybe I'm thinking too much into this. I'm not saying murder and what not is okay because the guy thinks it's okay. I'm just saying that there are two views to each situation and when we turn it into good and evil we really only want to view one side, the good side.  Laws and rules are there to guide people and to help keep bad things from happening. When someone breaks the law it is almost always because of three things, #1 They don't care. They may be doing it out of spite and anger is clouding their judgment. Maybe they do this because it makes them feel good about themselves ect. #2 They may have a mental problem and don't understand what they've done is considered wrong by society. #3 They were raised to where they don't have a grasp on what everyone else thinks is right and wrong. 

 

I really have given this subject more thought in the past then I realized. ._.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Night Mist

[ConcorDisparate 385]

to what is correct (an example of correct being statements like 2 + 2 = 4. That is correct).

 

Or is it ?

Are the mathematics correct considering that is only a language forged to translate the abstract concepts ruling our world into a reality we humans can understand ?

 

 

 

what is "right" feels right. What is "wrong" feels wrong.

 

For anyone interested, I don't know how it is translated in english, though Spinoza wrote some letters to Blyenbergh about the Evil.

He developps the reason why the Evil isn't an absolute concept, but a human and subjective concept.

Edited May 13, 2015 by ConcorDisparate

[Steel Accord 6,658]

@@KatonRyu,

 

Why did you ask me this question in the first place? Why did you want to know an opinion of someone who does believe morality is objective?

[KatonRyu 1,027]

@@KatonRyu,

 

Why did you ask me this question in the first place? Why did you want to know an opinion of someone who does believe morality is objective?

 

Because learning opinions of other people, that differ from my own, is a way for me to broaden my own knowledge. It's not uncommon for me to change my stance on a topic because I learn new points of view and things I had not even considered myself.

 

By asking that question I wasn't trying to persuade you to change your opinion, or hoping to be persuaded myself. It is merely an attempt to find out what someone else thinks and how that person reasons. I'm very interested in the thought processes of other people and even though I might not agree with certain opinions myself I don't think that makes them any less valid.

 

Just to be clear: I had no intention of offending you (or anyone, for that matter) by asking this. I just like to engage in conversations, or discussions, or whatever you want to call it, with people who have different opinions than I do. Not to convince them they're wrong, but to learn about different viewpoints.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

Because learning opinions of other people, that differ from my own, is a way for me to broaden my own knowledge. It's not uncommon for me to change my stance on a topic because I learn new points of view and things I had not even considered myself.

 

By asking that question I wasn't trying to persuade you to change your opinion, or hoping to be persuaded myself. It is merely an attempt to find out what someone else thinks and how that person reasons. I'm very interested in the thought processes of other people and even though I might not agree with certain opinions myself I don't think that makes them any less valid.

 

Just to be clear: I had no intention of offending you (or anyone, for that matter) by asking this. I just like to engage in conversations, or discussions, or whatever you want to call it, with people who have different opinions than I do. Not to convince them they're wrong, but to learn about different viewpoints.

 

Okay then. Well to elucidate my stance as broadly but clearly as I can.

 

First of all, I believe in a Divinity, a super human intelligence and reality beyond our own. So believing in objective morality is a small step when one believes that there is a greater order to existence beyond what humans (or any mortal species) ascribe to it. That there is something intrinsic to time, space, and matter. Existence is chaotic, life having evolved in very specific circumstances, but it's not all one big coincidence.

 

Second of all, I don't mean to say individual acts like killing, theft, sabotage, etc. are by themselves right or wrong there are countless mitigating factors to those. What I mean to properly outline is that sometimes, there is an ultimately moral and just option, amidst the complexities, challenges, and yes interpretations that make the world grey, there is a right choice. Wisdom comes from being able to see the truly moral option and taking it, even and especially, if it's hard and/or unpopular. Popularity is not morality and might doesn't make right.

 

Are there times when there really is no right answer? Of course. Is there sometimes only the lesser of two evils? Absolutely. Again, though it all goes back to my point, all of these are factors, fog preventing one from seeing the clear path. The truly wise can see beyond the fog and behold the true and just way but they are fewer than those who can't.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 13, 2015 by Steel Accord

[I used to be a stranger 7,989]

This post has been redacted by the author.

Edited May 6, 2021 by Blue

[Blaze Bronson 343]

I would do the best!

 

Vagueness ftw! 

[KatonRyu 1,027]

Okay then. Well to elucidate my stance as broadly but clearly as I can.

 

First of all, I believe in a Divinity, a super human intelligence and reality beyond our own. So believing in objective morality is a small step when one believes that there is a greater order to existence beyond what humans (or any mortal species) ascribe to it. That there is something intrinsic to time, space, and matter. Existence is chaotic, life having evolved in very specific circumstances, but it's not all one big coincidence.

 

Second of all, I don't mean to say individual acts like killing, theft, sabotage, etc. are by themselves right or wrong there are countless mitigating factors to those. What I mean to properly outline is that sometimes, there is an ultimately moral and just option, amidst the complexities, challenges, and yes interpretations that make the world grey, there is a right choice. Wisdom comes from being able to see the truly moral option and taking it, even and especially, if it's hard and/or unpopular. Popularity is not morality and might doesn't make right.

 

Are there times when there really is no right answer? Of course. Is there sometimes only the lesser of two evils? Absolutely. Again, though it all goes back to my point, all of these are factors, fog preventing one from seeing the clear path. The truly wise can see beyond the fog and behold the true and just way but they are fewer than those who can't.

 

I see. Like you, I believe that the 'right' choice is often not the easy one and that it's not always easy to even see that choice. Explained like this, I can completely understand why you believe in an objective morality.

 

Thanks for clarifying your position on this. It's given me a new context to consider things in, and in my mind that can only be a good thing.

[Steel Accord 6,658]

I see. Like you, I believe that the 'right' choice is often not the easy one and that it's not always easy to even see that choice. Explained like this, I can completely understand why you believe in an objective morality.

 

Thanks for clarifying your position on this. It's given me a new context to consider things in, and in my mind that can only be a good thing.

 

I'm sorry if I came off as dismissive before. You caught me at a bad time. My apologies.

[I used to be a stranger 7,989]

I would do the best!

 

Vagueness ftw! 

You were best, son.

 

Real best.

 

Maybe even the good.