Good and Evil

[AdamLOV]

Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, huh?  Twenty points.

I completely agree that the main point for the creation of religion was for order.  Other reasons range from people wanting to believe in an afterlife to people coming up with supernatural explanations to the unknown.  In terms of the Vikings, they would still have died in battle like regular people.  However, I do not think they would have sought death and war so eagerly if they didn't see dying as glorious and honorable (since they believed in Valhalla).

I agree with your opinion on what keeps atheists from doing whatever they want.  That isn't to say that none do, since everyone is capable of doing what they want, no matter their religion.  But yes, most people don't do things that they view as bad, which is mainly due to law and what is accepted in society.

Ethics can be changed, sure.  Though it would take quite some time for them to be changed on a large scale.  Take for instance, the fact that we live in a world where, in most places, it is wrong to kill.  Sure, there could come a time where it is socially acceptable to kill (though unlikely).  But that change would take a very long time to take affect in everyone's minds.

Right, but how would that change come about? For example, in the case of WWII and the Holocaust - death was seen as an acceptable "solution" for Jews. As a result, millions died. Of course, using our conscience we know this is wrong. It doesn't have to be explained. You just have to realize that there is no real logic behind it. It was just hate. I don't think there is ever truly any logic behind killing, except in the case of self-defense. But otherwise I personally cannot see any other time death can be considered to be fair or good. 

I think good and evil are only judgements that humans make about things. Nothing and no one is intrinsically good or evil. We decide what we think is good and evil on an individual basis.

As humans we seem to have a general trend to label certain things evil such as random acts of murder, and as civilisation develops rape, assault and theft too. These seem to be pretty universal. 

But I'm sure there have been many people who most would consider evil who genuinely thought they were being "good", or at least justified.

May I offer some examples? When the Catholic church tortured heretics. When Muslims stone people for "sinning". When Jews used to stone them for the same reason. When the people overthrew the French government during the French revolution and killed the nobility. They all thought they were doing the right thing. But they weren't. Why? I think it always comes down to violence. And what is violence?

"Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or , threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation" 


I believe all evil roots from violence and ignorance. With education I believe we can, for the most part, eradicate it. Of course, there are always those who are gravely mentally ill and who need medical help to overcome their desire for violence. But for most of the population, all it takes is education. We have evidence of this. Countries that invest heavily in education, and that tend to be secular, are the ones with the highest human development levels. The least violence. The longest and happiness lives. 

Good is about kindness and alleviating suffering. Evil is about harmful sadism, cruelty and causing needless suffering.

Very different. Can't really torture someone to death and admit you are doing it for purely sadistic reasons and then redefine that to mean good. If that's a point of view you must be too illiterate to read the dictionary definitions. The words good and evil actually have meanings that in the real world relate to the values and well being of people.

I agree, which is why I stopped believing in god. I could not believe in a god who claims to be good but who is violent. If he is love, and if he is good, than how can he hate? How can he be violent? It is just complete antagony.


If you are very sick you may not understand what you're doing (same thing if you're far too ignorant). Today we still have "honor killings" in Muslim countries. They believe they're doing the right thing. But we know they're not because their god doesn't exist. They have faith in him, even though it isn't logical. And in many Christian countries we have other types of violence. But the most secular countries tend to be where violence is lowest. But how can we convince people there is no god? We can't. Just like we can't convince them unicorns don't live on the moon. How do we know they don't? Because we know unicorns are manmade myths. There is no religion based on unicorns. There could have been. Anyone can make something up and tell it as though it is true.  When people realize their religion is based on mythology with no real logic behind it, then they will finally wake up. Because religion is based on faith. And faith is a belief held with no proof. We may not yet be able to completely disprove their beliefs, but we might be able to shake up the foundations of their creed so that they can analyze what they hold sacred and reach their own conclusions using their conscience.

The list of issues with the above would be too long to highlight here. The W.H.O.'s definition of violence is far too anthropocentric, and seems to exclude the near-genocidal violence homo sapiens has committed and is continuing to commit against other life forms (otherwise known as "defaunation"). Religious societies do not make claims that lack evidence. Rather, their criteria for what constitutes valid evidence are different from that of a laboratory. Very well, but who decides which evidence is valid? In the case of a religion, it is religious specialists. In the case of science, scientific specialists. In the case of politics, the politicians, etc, etc. If someone close to me professes their love for me, it is I who has the right to decide. It would seem there is no final arbiter of truth. That is, everything depends on which kind of evidence one accepts, i.e. which group and subgroup of specialists we revere. In itself, the fact that wealthy countries tend to be the most secular on average will not make me any wealthier automatically. The same applies to violence: the fact that, along with everything else, wealthy secular countries outsource violence to Third World regions of the globe that, incidentally, happen to be religious, says more about global injustice than the merits (or demerits) of religion in relatiob to violence, although your inclusion of secular political religion in the category of religiously-motivated violence is welcome.

[Edwardo Piet]

If morality pertains to the values and well being of people, then should it not pertain to every other living being as well?

Yes it should for the same reasons.

In fact, one could make the case that formerly living things also enjoy the right to, at minimum, be left alone . For example, one could argue that the organic beings who decomposition formed fossil fuels have the right not to be burned by combustion motors.

No because dead things have no conciousness or feelings.

Another point: sadism and torture have been sources of enjoyment for a small but significant minority of people since time immemorial. Therefore to be restricted from causing pain and suffering is, for such deviant people, a source of pain and suffering How could one solve such a conundrum?

No because the disatisfaction of unsatisfied sadists is outweighed by the suffering of those they torture and by the extreme agitation of those who disapprove of it

[dahrling]

Right, but how would that change come about? For example, in the case of WWII and the Holocaust - death was seen as an acceptable "solution" for Jews. As a result, millions died. Of course, using our conscience we know this is wrong. It doesn't have to be explained. You just have to realize that there is no real logic behind it. It was just hate. I don't think there is ever truly any logic behind killing, except in the case of self-defense. But otherwise I personally cannot see any other time death can be considered to be fair or good. 



May I offer some examples? When the Catholic church tortured heretics. When Muslims stone people for "sinning". When Jews used to stone them for the same reason. When the people overthrew the French government during the French revolution and killed the nobility. They all thought they were doing the right thing. But they weren't. Why? I think it always comes down to violence. And what is violence?

"Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as "the intentional use of physical force or , threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation" 


I believe all evil roots from violence and ignorance. With education I believe we can, for the most part, eradicate it. Of course, there are always those who are gravely mentally ill and who need medical help to overcome their desire for violence. But for most of the population, all it takes is education. We have evidence of this. Countries that invest heavily in education, and that tend to be secular, are the ones with the highest human development levels. The least violence. The longest and happiness lives. 





I agree, which is why I stopped believing in god. I could not believe in a god who claims to be good but who is violent. If he is love, and if he is good, than how can he hate? How can he be violent? It is just complete antagony.


If you are very sick you may not understand what you're doing (same thing if you're far too ignorant). Today we still have "honor killings" in Muslim countries. They believe they're doing the right thing. But we know they're not because their god doesn't exist. They have faith in him, even though it isn't logical. And in many Christian countries we have other types of violence. But the most secular countries tend to be where violence is lowest. But how can we convince people there is no god? We can't. Just like we can't convince them unicorns don't live on the moon. How do we know they don't? Because we know unicorns are manmade myths. There is no religion based on unicorns. There could have been. Anyone can make something up and tell it as though it is true.  When people realize their religion is based on mythology with no real logic behind it, then they will finally wake up. Because religion is based on faith. And faith is a belief held with no proof. We may not yet be able to completely disprove their beliefs, but we might be able to shake up the foundations of their creed so that they can analyze what they hold sacred and reach their own conclusions using their conscience.

The list of issues with the above would be too long to highlight here. The W.H.O.'s definition of violence is far too anthropocentric, and seems to exclude the near-genocidal violence homo sapiens has committed and is continuing to commit against other life forms (otherwise known as "defaunation"). Religious societies do not make claims that lack evidence. Rather, their criteria for what constitutes valid evidence are different from that of a laboratory. Very well, but who decides which evidence is valid? In the case of a religion, it is religious specialists. In the case of science, scientific specialists. In the case of politics, the politicians, etc, etc. If someone close to me professes their love for me, it is I who has the right to decide. It would seem there is no final arbiter of truth. That is, everything depends on which kind of evidence one accepts, i.e. which group and subgroup of specialists we revere. In itself, the fact that wealthy countries tend to be the most secular on average will not make me any wealthier automatically. The same applies to violence: the fact that, along with everything else, wealthy secular countries outsource violence to Third World regions of the globe that, incidentally, happen to be religious, says more about global injustice than the merits (or demerits) of religion in relatiob to violence, although your inclusion of secular political religion in the category of religiously-motivated violence is welcome.

So if someone professes their love for you, but hurt you, e.g parents who correct their children by using some type of violence, whose is the  right to judge whether or not this is love? Can a parent hurt their child on the basis that child may not see them as being abusive? Every person who has been physiologically abused believes that their abuser holds their best interest at heart at the time. Otherwise they could simply walk away. But they can't. 

It isn't a question of making you or I wealthier, it isn't about wealth. India is wealthier than most countries in the world. But Denmark, a much smaller country, has a better quality of living. Why? Their secular set of beliefs allow them to. The Indians still believe in things like castes. The Danish don't. They are mostly secular. You can say that wealthy countries wage war on poorer regions of the world, but that isn't exclusive to them in anyway. Look at ISIS. They're waging war against those same wealthy countries, but not for their wealth, but for their power and their world view.

[robvalue]

Dahrling: Sure I agree, violence is never something I would associate with good except for when absolutely necessary such as self defence. That's an example of when a generally evil act could become a good one, it's down to context. This could even stretch so far as to having to go to war to defend yourself. I hate war, but I can see it having justifications.

Regarding things that are no longer living, I don't personally see the problem there. If we are fairly sure something has no sentience, then it cannot suffer. Of course our actions may upset beings that are sentient, for example stamping on a corpse of someone from their family. But you could make a case for leaving them in peace, sure.

I think good and evil are pretty obvious to most well balanced people who haven't been indoctrinated into a certain narrow way of thinking. Even then, the internal moral compass can sometimes win out. People tend to agree, at least on the severe ends of things. And violence is generally seen to be evil, of course.

I just don't feel comfortable in saying that something is definitively good or evil because without someone to judge, it's arbitrary. But of course, there's always someone to judge, including the person doing the acts. I'm my own harshest critic when it comes to morality. What can be said however is whether the being performing an act believes what they are doing is good or evil.

[AdamLOV]

The list of issues with the above would be too long to highlight here. The W.H.O.'s definition of violence is far too anthropocentric, and seems to exclude the near-genocidal violence homo sapiens has committed and is continuing to commit against other life forms (otherwise known as "defaunation"). Religious societies do not make claims that lack evidence. Rather, their criteria for what constitutes valid evidence are different from that of a laboratory. Very well, but who decides which evidence is valid? In the case of a religion, it is religious specialists. In the case of science, scientific specialists. In the case of politics, the politicians, etc, etc. If someone close to me professes their love for me, it is I who has the right to decide. It would seem there is no final arbiter of truth. That is, everything depends on which kind of evidence one accepts, i.e. which group and subgroup of specialists we revere. In itself, the fact that wealthy countries tend to be the most secular on average will not make me any wealthier automatically. The same applies to violence: the fact that, along with everything else, wealthy secular countries outsource violence to Third World regions of the globe that, incidentally, happen to be religious, says more about global injustice than the merits (or demerits) of religion in relatiob to violence, although your inclusion of secular political religion in the category of religiously-motivated violence is welcome.

So if someone professes their love for you, but hurt you, e.g parents who correct their children by using some type of violence, whose is the  right to judge whether or not this is love? Can a parent hurt their child on the basis that child may not see them as being abusive? Every person who has been physiologically abused believes that their abuser holds their best interest at heart at the time. Otherwise they could simply walk away. But they can't. 

It isn't a question of making you or I wealthier, it isn't about wealth. India is wealthier than most countries in the world. But Denmark, a much smaller country, has a better quality of living. Why? Their secular set of beliefs allow them to. The Indians still believe in things like castes. The Danish don't. They are mostly secular. You can say that wealthy countries wage war on poorer regions of the world, but that isn't exclusive to them in anyway. Look at ISIS. They're waging war against those same wealthy countries, but not for their wealth, but for their power and their world view.

Your line of thought, which would suggest that the well being of countries is dependent on their belief systems, is a rather Weberian one. There is nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but the role of belief systems in well being is debatable. Buddhism is an atheistic belief system, yet the economically most advanced areas of the globe are not the Buddhist ones. The United States is, for the most part, still a religious nation, yet it is one of the centers of the capitalist world system. At best, the notion of secularism=better quality of life/higher wealth is debatable.

On a side-note, ISIS, according to some media reports, is run by former officers of Saddam Hussein. This presens us with an interesting "chicken-or-egg" conundrum, because the Hussein regime was a purportedly secular one. Yet some have claimed that it was a Sunni sectarian government disguised as a secular socialist system. My question would be, via this example, how can one decide which society and/or political system is truly "secular"? It would seem that there are many purportedly secular societies that are not secular at all. And even the reverse may be true: Islamic State might be a front operation of Iraqi ex-intelligence officers/smugglers whose outlook is decidedly secular, even atheist. The reason I went into such great detail (I am not a specialist in Middle East affairs, I just happened to come across an interesting article) is to highlight the difficulties of categorization. What is secular? What is religious? That question is hard to answer.

[robvalue]

I find this idea very difficult when it comes to other countries. They have norms which I consider cruel, unfair and barbaric. I can't help but wish they were more like my country. But then from their point of view, they won't see it that way. They'll think they are doing things right, and something is wrong with my country, I suppose.

We can debate it, but who gets to say who is right? It seems pretty clear I'm right of course! But then, I would say that. If they don't agree on the same principles is as, it's not a straightforward comparison.

[Pyrrho]

...

Is there anyway to define good and evil in an universal sense - a definition that everyone, from every culture, can agree on?

...

First of all, that is an impossible standard; there is no way you are going to define those terms such that everyone will agree.  Not everyone even agrees that the earth is not flat (do a search for the "flat earth society").  So universal agreement is out of the question.


There is also a distinction to be made between cultural values and ethics, though not everyone agrees on that idea (as, indeed, not everyone agrees on anything).


I think Hume got it right:



The end of all moral speculations is to teach us our duty; and, by proper representations of the deformity of vice and beauty of virtue, beget correspondent habits, and engage us to avoid the one, and embrace the other. But is this ever to be expected from inferences and conclusions of the understanding, which of themselves have no hold of the affections or set in motion the active powers of men? They discover truths: but where the truths which they discover are indifferent, and beget no desire or aversion, they can have no influence on conduct and behaviour. What is honourable, what is fair, what is becoming, what is noble, what is generous, takes possession of the heart, and animates us to embrace and maintain it. What is intelligible, what is evident, what is probable, what is true, procures only the cool assent of the understanding; and gratifying a speculative curiosity, puts an end to our researches.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_335


Extinguish all the warm feelings and prepossessions in favour of virtue, and all disgust or aversion to vice: render men totally indifferent towards these distinctions; and morality is no longer a practical study, nor has any tendency to regulate our lives and actions.


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_336


... Personal Merit consists altogether in the possession of mental qualities, useful or agreeable to the person himself or to others. 

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_558


And as every quality which is useful or agreeable to ourselves or others is, in common life, allowed to be a part of personal merit; so no other will ever be received, where men judge of things by their natural, unprejudiced reason, without the delusive glosses of superstition and false religion. Celibacy, fasting, penance, mortification, self-denial, humility, silence, solitude, and the whole train of monkish virtues; for what reason are they everywhere rejected by men of sense, but because they serve to no manner of purpose; neither advance a man’s fortune in the world, nor render him a more valuable member of society; neither qualify him for the entertainment of company, nor increase his power of self-enjoyment? We observe, on the contrary, that they cross all these desirable ends; stupify the understanding and harden the heart, obscure the fancy and sour the temper. We justly, therefore, transfer them to the opposite column, and place them in the catalogue of vices; nor has any superstition force sufficient among men of the world, to pervert entirely these natural sentiments. A gloomy, hair-brained enthusiast, after his death, may have a place in the calendar; but will scarcely ever be admitted, when alive, into intimacy and society, except by those who are as delirious and dismal as himself.


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_560



When a man denominates another his enemy, his rival, his antagonist, his adversary,he is understood to speak the language of self-love, and to express sentiments, peculiar to himself, and arising from his particular circumstances and situation. But when he bestows on any man the epithets of vicious or odious or depraved, he then speaks another language, and expresses sentiments, in which he expects all his audience are to concur with him. He must here, therefore, depart from his private and particular situation, and must choose a point of view, common to him with others; he must move some universal principle of the human frame, and touch a string to which all mankind have an accord and symphony. If he mean, therefore, to express that this man possesses qualities, whose tendency is pernicious to society, he has chosen this common point of view, and has touched the principle of humanity, in which every man, in some degree, concurs. While the human heart is compounded of the same elements as at present, it will never be wholly indifferent to public good, [273]nor entirely unaffected with the tendency of characters and manners. And though this affection of humanity may not generally be esteemed so strong as vanity or ambition, yet, being common to all men, it can alone be the foundation of morals, or of any general system of blame or praise. One man’s ambition is not another’s ambition, nor will the same event or object satisfy both; but the humanity of one man is the humanity of every one, and the same object touches this passion in all human creatures.


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_563


But though reason, when fully assisted and improved, be sufficient to instruct us in the pernicious or useful tendency of qualities and actions; it is not alone sufficient to produce any moral blame or approbation. Utility is only a tendency to a certain end; and were the end totally indifferent to us, we should feel the same indifference towards the means. It is requisite a sentiment should here display itself, in order to give a preference to the useful above the pernicious tendencies. This sentiment can be no other than a feeling for the happiness of mankind, and a resentment of their misery; since these are the different ends which virtue and vice have a tendency to promote. Here therefore reason instructs us in the several tendencies of actions, and humanity makes a distinction in favour of those which are useful and beneficial.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_585


The hypothesis which we embrace is plain. It maintains that morality is determined by sentiment. It defines virtue to be whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation; and vice the contrary. We then proceed to examine a plain matter of fact, to wit, what actions have this influence. We consider all the circumstances in which these actions agree, and thence endeavour to extract some general observations with regard to these sentiments.


http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341#Hume_0222_592



___________________________________

So, morality is based on sentiment (feeling).  But it is not every sentiment; it is taking a broad view, without reference to one's personal situation.  Hence the difference between describing something as a personal preference, and something that is good.  The second can be distinguished by thinking about things without reference to oneself.  Whether a man is cheated by a merchant in China, is likely to have little reference to or little affect on me personally.  Yet I still have feelings about this, just as most people do.  It is those kinds of sentiments that are moral sentiments, and the source of morality.

[Neo-Scholastic]

For any kind of knowledge to be objective, moral or otherwise, it must have as its foundation something discernable to the intellect based on universally applicable experience. For a little philosophical background on what I’m about to say, knowledge comes from understanding the universal forms of things of which all particular instances partake. For example, anyone can see that a spanakopita, an A-frame house, and the ‘yield’ traffic sign are all instances of triangles. The form of triangle is objective and universally applicable to a various particular triangles. The same is no less true for living things; they have essential natures that make them the type of thing that they are. Eagles are different from rhinos and humans are different from kangaroos.

For living things it is generally easy to determine the things that are good or bad for it based on the extent to which they conform to their universal form. The lack or deficiency of any essential attribute is bad for the organism. The natural essence of being an eagle includes, the ability to fly, having acute vision and the desire to catch fish.

In addition to their animal nature, human beings have as part of their ideal nature the ability to reason and the capacity for love. Just as anyone can see that a one-winged, blind eagle that only wants to eat grass is less than ideal, it is obvious that a comatose person or someone that likes to see others suffer is less representative of human nature. In the former case, a comatose person is functionally deficient because he or she lacks the freedom to act rationally. In the latter case, the sadist has desires contrary to what is natural for humans. This can be extended to cover not just the individual. Because Man is a social animal it is best for people to live in a harmonious culture in which people have the liberty to reason freely and act freely out of love.

My position is that what is good for humans is to act in accordance with their nature, that is, by applying reason in the service of love and that this is what they should do. Now before someone accuses me of falling into the is-ought, I consider this an existential choice. Either 1) striving for the fulfillment of one’s potential or 2) stifling and thwarting one’s potential.

So while moral codes are adapted to circumstances, for the good of both individuals and society as a whole, they are based on the natural imperative to live in accordance with what is best and proper for the full expression of human potential.

[Mudhammam]

Almost everything that matters in life is a matter of perspective. Think about health and wealth. A poor person in the U.S. would be considered rich in some countries. Likewise, a healthy person may actually be sick depending on different criteria used to determine fitness. Or take "brilliance." A genius of 4,000 years ago probably didn't know things that a middle school student does today, and our best current knowledge might appear simple and naive to observers 4,000 years from now. The same goes for good and evil. Everyone measures these by their own conceptions of happiness, pleasure, virtue, etc. To be objective doesn't mean that everyone must be in full agreement about the particulars of each case, it just means that given a standard of well-being that everyone naturally cares for, as rational, sentient beings, there is a spectrum of various physical and mental states that can be weighed against it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I find this idea very difficult when it comes to other countries. They have norms which I consider cruel, unfair and barbaric. I can't help but wish they were more like my country. But then from their point of view, they won't see it that way. They'll think they are doing things right, and something is wrong with my country, I suppose.

We can debate it, but who gets to say who is right? It seems pretty clear I'm right of course! But then, I would say that. If they don't agree on the same principles is as, it's not a straightforward comparison.

I have no problem with the idea that some cultures and governments are just plain better and more moral than others. But that is only because I believe that human beings have natural rights simply by virtue of being human. This, as opposed to those who believe that rights are limited to what the government allows people to have.