Good vs Evil

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Is good or evil any more than a word we apply to things we like or dislike? If there is no objective good or evil, then do these labels actually matter at all?

From where I stand, what is good to me may not be good for you. For example, if we lived in a culture where helping someone was hurting society by preventing natural selection, would Superman be evil in our eyes?

This subjectivity of the labels makes one wonder if the true "battle between good and evil" is actually a battle between good and good, depending on whose side you are on.

Finally if these are truly subjective labels, could it be said that there is neither good nor evil, in reality?

 

[Pandaemoni]

There may be an objective reality to good and evil, but it is clear that there is no objective way to prove that there is such an objective reality underlying the two concepts.

Practically speaking, then, we all argue as if good and evil were subjective terms. Some become convinced that they are not subjective (say, for example, that God defined them both and judges good and evil, with His decision being absolutely correct), but those people have no way of convincing others who do not share the same moral intuition.

 

[Skeptical]

There are three main components.

1. How does the good/evil person treat other humans?
2. How does he/she treat higher animals?
3. How does this person treat the natural environment?

If the person is kind to others, and is not cruel to animals, and cares for the environment, then he or she is good.

If the opposite, we can call that person evil.

Of course, each of those acts may be subject to interpretation. For example, if I prevent a masochist from experiencing pain, is that a good act? But this just shows that even the most obvious distinctions may be blurred.

 

[James R]

Mr Hamtastic:

How is this thread different from the other two you have started on the same topic?

Is good or evil any more than a word we apply to things we like or dislike?

Most people think so. A few philosophers have made the argument, though. It doesn't seem very plausible to me.

If there is no objective good or evil, then do these labels actually matter at all?

They certainly seem to affect attitudes and behaviour.

From where I stand, what is good to me may not be good for you. For example, if we lived in a culture where helping someone was hurting society by preventing natural selection, would Superman be evil in our eyes?

Why do you think natural selection is good?

Finally if these are truly subjective labels, could it be said that there is neither good nor evil, in reality?

More of less, but that's a very big "if".

 

[lightgigantic]

Is good or evil any more than a word we apply to things we like or dislike? If there is no objective good or evil, then do these labels actually matter at all?

From where I stand, what is good to me may not be good for you. For example, if we lived in a culture where helping someone was hurting society by preventing natural selection, would Superman be evil in our eyes?

This subjectivity of the labels makes one wonder if the true "battle between good and evil" is actually a battle between good and good, depending on whose side you are on.

Finally if these are truly subjective labels, could it be said that there is neither good nor evil, in reality?

we use terms like good and evil in relation to needs, interests and concerns of a given body/individual.

To suggest that there is no objective sense to the terms is simply to suggest that "reality" is not the consequence of the needs, interests and concerns of a given body/individual.

IOW it is to suggest that there is no god, or, alternatively, that god is a consequence of this world (as opposed to a cause of it)

 

[wynn]

we use terms like good and evil in relation to needs, interests and concerns of a given body/individual.

To suggest that there is no objective sense to the terms is simply to suggest that "reality" is not the consequence of the needs, interests and concerns of a given body/individual.

IOW it is to suggest that there is no god, or, alternatively, that god is a consequence of this world (as opposed to a cause of it)

Are the needs, interests and concerns of a given body/individual justified/valid/relevant (to God)?


Note that in the Christian-influenced culture, theist or atheist, there is the notion that whatever needs, interests and concerns a person might have, are ultimately irrelevant/unjustified, and therefore, to be done away with.

This goes in line with the understanding that God is a necessary being (ie. He cannot fail to be), but humans are not (their existence is optional, they may or may not fail to be, but they are not necessary).

 

[-ND-]

Intentions= subjective/objective(if you tell someone your intentions that makes them objective, if you do not, they are subjective)
Intentions=good/evil

The end only justifies the means if the intentions= the end

If you want to do evil and end up doing good. Not justified.
If you want to do evil and end doing evil. Justified.

(This only applies if you live on planet earth and it is assumed you know your left from your right. If you want to fantasias about killing someone being right and helping someone being wrong, why do you even bother.)

 

[Asguard]

Possibly but unlikly, when we studied ethics at Uni we went through all sorts of metaethics, ways to decide if an action is ethical but there is no objective universal way to determine the ethics of an action

 

[lightgigantic]

Possibly but unlikly, when we studied ethics at Uni we went through all sorts of metaethics, ways to decide if an action is ethical but there is no objective universal way to determine the ethics of an action

If our needs, interests and concerns don't govern or cause the substance of "reality", there exists no way for us ... whether all entities face the same constraints, as in the case of god, is a separate question however

 

[lightgigantic]

Are the needs, interests and concerns of a given body/individual justified/valid/relevant (to God)?

If no other living entity has recourse to independence, how could god not?

Note that in the Christian-influenced culture, theist or atheist, there is the notion that whatever needs, interests and concerns a person might have, are ultimately irrelevant/unjustified, and therefore, to be done away with.

If its spiritual perfection = absence of being (nullification of desire, etc) its classic impersonalism

This goes in line with the understanding that God is a necessary being (ie. He cannot fail to be), but humans are not (their existence is optional, they may or may not fail to be, but they are not necessary).

Hence the attractiveness of mayavada philosophy in such a world view - ie if youw ant to make the grade, you have to be god
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Are the needs, interests and concerns of a given body/individual justified/valid/relevant (to God)?

If no other living entity has recourse to independence, how could god not?

I'm sorry, you are being a bit too concise here for me to understand clearly.

Are you answering Yes, or No, or something else to my question?

If its spiritual perfection = absence of being (nullification of desire, etc) its classic impersonalism

Well, yes, this is precisely how I tend to think of spiritual perfection (hence the Stepford references).
I don't remember ever consciously forming this view, but I sure have it and I don't like it ...

Hence the attractiveness of mayavada philosophy in such a world view - ie if youw ant to make the grade, you have to be god

And the demonization of humans (e.g. the doctrine of total depravity) is a (over)compensation for this?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Finally if these are truly subjective labels, could it be said that there is neither good nor evil, in reality?

But they are objective to either the individual or society that perceives them as being so. That would dictate that good and bad do exist, to some extent, for everyone.

 

[Yazata]

Is good or evil any more than a word we apply to things we like or dislike?

Yes. Like and dislike are expressions of personal preference. Good and evil are more broadly social and have a prescriptive dimension. When I say that something is evil, I'm not just communicating that I don't like it, I'm saying that you shouldn't like it either.

If there is no objective good or evil

Have we established that? I (sort of) agree (and sort of don't), but we probably shouldn't just assume it. It needs some discussion.

I favor a naturalistic explanation for human moral sensibilities and think that they are probably derived from our human social instincts. That suggests the concepts of good and evil that we actually encounter in different societies will be endless cultural variations on some deeper underlying themes. Reciprocity for instance ('an eye for an eye').

then do these labels actually matter at all?

Of course they do. There needs to be some kind of regulation of social behavior when human beings are living together in groups.

This subjectivity of the labels makes one wonder if the true "battle between good and evil" is actually a battle between good and good, depending on whose side you are on.

Plato has Socrates expressing a similar idea. The idea is that rationality is such that nobody will knowingly choose the worse over the better. Everyone always chooses whatever action that they believe best fits their objectives. In this theory, ethical problems arise when people are mistaken about their own best interests, or when their actions advance their own individual interests while harming the interests of the broader community.

 

[Skeptical]

Good and evil are purely based on deeds - what someone actually does. What a person thinks is utterly irrelevent. I have thought evil and very sexual thoughts about all sorts of women in my time. I have fantasized about killing people I hate. Needless to say, my actions towards women have always been gentlemanly (even when I am trying seduction), and I have never perpetrated violence against anyone else throughout my adult life.

However, if I physically hurt someone, that is evil. If I use language to emotionally hurt someone, that is evil. It is the act that counts. Thoughts mean nothing, except to the thinker.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

A few people suggest this, but I'll point to Skeptical's example.

Evil thoughts/Good actions. My point is that if I believe that killing my enemies and having various sexual relations with women were good things, then who is right, and more importantly how is this conclusion arrived at.

Someone listed how you treat people, animals, and nature deciding if you are evil. I go back to the person who dominates people, uses nature to his own ends, and tortures higher animals for fun, if they think they are doing something "good", then how can you argue with them that they are evil?

I have to say that it appears that good and evil, being subjective, fall prey to relativism quickly. Do all arguments then boil down to "This is evil" "No, It's good"?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Oh, and James-the other topics are under different headings dealing with different subject matter. If I ask why water is wet in a water section and why is oil wet in a hydrocarbon section, am I asking the same thing, seeking the same answers?

 

[Skeptical]

I believe that good and evil are actions on a graph that ranges from very good to very evil - a continuum.

Some actions are always evil. Homicide is evil. Theft is evil. But what about killing an enemy soldier who is charging your position?

The continuum exists, but where you draw the line between good and evil is based on local culture. I have been in a culture (PNG) where some people believe that killing a member of another tribe is not wrong. I believe it is wrong. I believe that the entire culture that spawns those beliefs is wrong. But my beliefs are not shared by everyone.

So we end with some acts that are evil (homicide, theft, assault and rape), plus a borderline area where the definition of evil belongs to your local culture, and some acts that are clearly good (saving someone's life, giving food to the hungry etc).

The real problem is always that damn borderline zone.

 

[NMSquirrel]

What a person thinks is utterly irrelevent. I have thought evil and very sexual thoughts about all sorts of women in my time. I have fantasized about killing people I hate.

would you consider hate as evil? what about fostering hate? wouldn't that qualify for thinking? IOW how much does a focus on 'bad' thoughts encourage more bad thoughts? or if the emotional moderation is not there how much does the thought processes influence one to act?what about those who tell you one thing but you know they are thinking something else?

consider how much our own thoughts contribute to our state of being.

Needless to say, my actions towards women have always been gentlemanly (even when I am trying seduction),

do you know how well some women can turn that into coercion? (not trying to make any point)

If I use language to emotionally hurt someone, that is evil. .

stored for future reference..
(alright..who unplugged my memory?)

 

[Skeptical]

To squirrel

About hate. Is it an evil?
No. Hate is an emotion. Not an evil. If the hate gets turned into deeds, and those deeds hurt others, then those deeds are evil.

 

[Yazata]

Good and evil are purely based on deeds - what someone actually does. What a person thinks is utterly irrelevent.

Imagine two hypothetical cases.

Case #1, an individual who intentionally steers his car into a crowd of pedestrians, killing several of them.

Case #2, an individual who accidentally steers his car into a crowd of pedestrians, killing several of them.

I think that we can plausibly say that the first example is a clear-cut case of moral evil. The second, in which the driver suffered a sudden seizure or something, was certainly a tragic event, but probably not an evil event.

But the only difference between these two examples is that the first example was an intentional act and the second wasn't. The first driver had the intent to do harm while the second driver didn't.