How do you know what is evil when evil is none existent?

[chimpkin]

I don't think it's a mystery that morality is subjective.

Somewhat. Ehrm, mostly.
Does tend to include what social science calls "prosocial behaviors" for a lot of people, and a lack of "antisocial behaviors":

People feel guilty when they do not reciprocate and they may feel angry when someone else does not reciprocate. Either reciprocity or altruism may motivate many important prosocial behaviors, including sharing.[4]

Prosocial behavior is more likely to occur if the cost of helping is low (i.e. minimal time, or minimal effort), if helping would actually benefit the individual providing the help in some way, and if the rewards of providing the help are large. If it is in an individual’s interest to help, they will most likely do so, especially if the cost of not providing the help is great.[15]

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

From this page...the negative opposite:
http://www.healthofchildren.com/A/Antisocial-Behavior.html

Antisocial behaviors are disruptive acts characterized by covert and overt hostility and intentional aggression toward others.

So it is perhaps not just necessary to violate norms, but to be actually disruptive and hostile, I suppose?

Asocial seems to be used almost as a synonym with antisocial; however, the precise definition of asocial is avoidance, not harm:

Definition of ASOCIAL
: not social: as a : rejecting or lacking the capacity for social interaction

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asocial

(Always best to go for definitions around here. Flamewars ensue because people say the same things differently, then think they disagree and start shouting. It's like me and the wife, I swear...)

 

[steampunk]

@Steampunk

I think both darwin points and survival value are inadequate scales for a scientific study of morality. I think the ability to be happy [or to have an emotionally rich experience] is what should be the scale. But it will not be an absolute scale.

Are you saying personal happiness is moral? As long as it make you as an individual happy it's moral? But what if the same action when another person does this makes them unhappy? Is this not making preference morality?

What if the same action that makes one happy has a direct cause of making another unhappy? Who's point of view of morality do we choose?

Wouldn't collective happiness be better way to consider morality? Shouldn't we also pay attention to the degree of harm it causes the greater good? Is it really morality when personal happiness from actions that affect no others?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Wouldn't collective happiness be better way to consider morality? Shouldn't we also pay attention to the degree of harm it causes the greater good? Is it really morality when personal happiness from actions that affect no others?

You answered your own question. Yes, we are talking of group morality here. And actions that don't effect anyone else are personal choices and can be moral [if the individual chooses].

 

[wellwisher]

Morality is about optimizing the group. One way to look at this is to consider a team sport, like baseball. Morality in the team sense would be what is best for the team. When the team is optimized and running on all cylinders, all the members benefit. A good team can win championships which makes everyone higher.

If instead, we put the individuals ahead of the group, individual choices even with none evil, can still impact the team. For example, say everyone wanted to play the position of pitcher. That, in itself, is a harmless individual choice. But that choice will impact the team. The team suffers and all the players become less in the process of this harmless personal gain.

Historically, you had the king and queen and the royals who could make individual choices, with the masses forced to play for the team with much stricter codes. The team had enough members to be strong and adsorb a few prima dona. Some prima dona could even do individual evil (Ivan the terrible) and still the team could adsorb this hot dogging. But in modern world, where all have more of an option to be prima dona, the team gets worse and morality starts to break down.

 

[steampunk]

You answered your own question. Yes, we are talking of group morality here. And actions that don't effect anyone else are personal choices and can be moral [if the individual chooses].

You are talking about subjective morality, where a person makes choices that have no bearing on others and those choices can be called moral. We also use the term moral when people are harmed, when it does affect others.

Compare that loose definition to a tighter one: crime. When it comes to crime, the scientific sense of the law requires evidence of harm or serious threat of harm for a crime to exist. All other acts are legal. Why are they legal? No one is affected. What a waste of time for the government to care about things that don't matter!

Do you see how ambiguous morality is used? It's can represent things that do not hurt people, as well as things that do hurt people. With such a broad definition and no agreed upon stipulation, it is no wonder confusion reigns in it's discussion.

I really object to Obama's use of it of late. He asserted morality was a superior way to run a country. He lost a lot of points with me for the statement. I'm not a fan of opinion based policy, I'm technocratic, I want the best that nature's laws allow.