Quote:And what's the criteria for necessity?

In order to hear the dog make the noises I like so much, it is necessary for me to skin it.

*shrug* Evil, like good, is positional and temporal. Fallible and imperfect moral agents (in this case, human beings) are unlikely to see all the ramifications of a particular act.

As to your specific objection, I'm unconvinced that any need for personal enjoyment is sufficient to over ride a particularly heinous act. Admittedly, I can not be sure that your pleasure doesn't outweigh the suffering of the dog, but so what? If that were the criteria used, we would never punish rapists, thrill-killers or paedophiles.

That being said, I agree that there is no hard and fast yardstick regarding necessity. There is a thought experiment which addresses this directly:

Alien beings arrive at the Earth and contact you, personally. They are able to convince you that they have a treatment which will end cancer, AIDS, and all birth defects. Clearly, this treatment will drastically reduce suffering among your fellow humans, and will, on balance, make the world a better, happier place. The kicker is that they won't release the details of this treatment until you torture a 5 year old child to death on world-wide television broadcast. What do you do?

My definition above is meant to be a working one, not a metaphysical certitude.

Boru

(October 14, 2013 at 5:30 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Perhaps you could give us your definition...

My concept of evil is the extreme or profound measurement of bad if that makes sense. Almost incomprehensible.

The problem with the claim that birth defects are the result of something the mother did - is that the religion teaches you that is NOT TRUE as well

Both in Isaiah and Ezekiel - we are told that the son is NOT responsible for the sins of the father and the father is not responsible for the sins of the son

Personal responsibility is what is taught - so why are people born with birth defects - because it is something that happens naturally in a world where gods and demons are MYTHS and LEGENDS.

(October 14, 2013 at 7:23 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: *shrug* Evil, like good, is positional and temporal.

I think the word you are looking for is "contextual".

(October 14, 2013 at 7:23 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: As to your specific objection, I'm unconvinced that any need for personal enjoyment is sufficient to over ride a particularly heinous act. Admittedly, I can not be sure that your pleasure doesn't outweigh the suffering of the dog, but so what? If that were the criteria used, we would never punish rapists, thrill-killers or paedophiles.

The point I was making was that while the cliche "evil is causing unnecessary harm" gets thrown about a lot, it falls woefully short as a definition and measure of morality. We do not use that principle to evaluate whether or not an act is evil. We do not go about comparing the relative value of pleasure of the perpetrator to the victim's suffering and we do not punish the perpetrator if the suffering outweighs the pleasure.

Even if the rapist or pedophile can show that their victims actually enjoyed the crime - that would not detract from the gravity of the crime. The fact that you judged the act as "heinous" does not depend on how much the victim has suffered. The real criteria here is whether the victim's agency has been violated or compromised. That is the how we determine if an evil act has been committed and that is why statements like "she enjoyed it" and "he is better off dead" do not constitute as a defense even if they were provable.

(October 14, 2013 at 7:23 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That being said, I agree that there is no hard and fast yardstick regarding necessity. There is a thought experiment which addresses this directly:

Alien beings arrive at the Earth and contact you, personally. They are able to convince you that they have a treatment which will end cancer, AIDS, and all birth defects. Clearly, this treatment will drastically reduce suffering among your fellow humans, and will, on balance, make the world a better, happier place. The kicker is that they won't release the details of this treatment until you torture a 5 year old child to death on world-wide television broadcast. What do you do?

My definition above is meant to be a working one, not a metaphysical certitude.

Boru

Actually, this is a good example to show why your definition is not actually a working one.

According to your criteria, killing and torturing the 5-year old would be a necessity - given the enormous benefit at stake. It would be a good act and refusing to do so may be regarded as evil.

On the other hand, if we view evil as "intentional compromise of an agency", then, no matter what the benefit, you do not have the right to torture and kill that 5-year old. So, no matter what the aliens have promised you in return, that act would remain an evil one.

genkaus Wrote:On the other hand, if we view evil as "intentional compromise of an agency", then, no matter what the benefit, you do not have the right to torture and kill that 5-year old. So, no matter what the aliens have promised you in return, that act would remain an evil one.

This is a Kantian view of morality. Basically, an agent has to be seen as the end and not a means to an end, like the 5-year-old in Boru's example. I'd say Kant's moral imperative seems to work for just about any situation, and explains very neatly why we instinctively see something as bad, yet we can't quite put our finger on why that is.

(October 15, 2013 at 6:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: This is a Kantian view of morality. Basically, an agent has to be seen as the end and not a means to an end, like the 5-year-old in Boru's example. I'd say Kant's moral imperative seems to work for just about any situation, and explains very neatly why we instinctively see something as bad, yet we can't quite put our finger on why that is.

Is it Kantian? I wouldn't be too certain of that.

From what I understand, Kantian Categorical Imperative is supposed to be unconditional and universal, whereas my view holds no such lofty position. Though not stated explicitly, my view of evil is dependent upon certain conditions being met and certain premises being applicable, which makes it contextual. Also, I'm not sure about how Kant's Categorical Imperative relates to instinctive indications of immorality, but I know that in many ways, my own goes against it.

(October 15, 2013 at 7:08 am)genkaus Wrote:

(October 15, 2013 at 6:56 am)FallentoReason Wrote: This is a Kantian view of morality. Basically, an agent has to be seen as the end and not a means to an end, like the 5-year-old in Boru's example. I'd say Kant's moral imperative seems to work for just about any situation, and explains very neatly why we instinctively see something as bad, yet we can't quite put our finger on why that is.

Is it Kantian? I wouldn't be too certain of that.

From what I understand, Kantian Categorical Imperative is supposed to be unconditional and universal, whereas my view holds no such lofty position. Though not stated explicitly, my view of evil is dependent upon certain conditions being met and certain premises being applicable, which makes it contextual. Also, I'm not sure about how Kant's Categorical Imperative relates to instinctive indications of immorality, but I know that in many ways, my own goes against it.

Kant had two C.I's which, on paper, sound very different, but according to him were describing the same thing. On that note, it's said that reading his original work is the most tedious thing ever, and thus, many people have taken on the job to reiterate his original work. Anyways, my previous post + the one you've mentioned here make up both of his famous C.I's.

Are you saying your instinct goes against the Universal Imperative?

(October 15, 2013 at 9:09 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Kant had two C.I's which, on paper, sound very different, but according to him were describing the same thing. On that note, it's said that reading his original work is the most tedious thing ever, and thus, many people have taken on the job to reiterate his original work. Anyways, my previous post + the one you've mentioned here make up both of his famous C.I's.

Are you saying your instinct goes against the Universal Imperative?

I'm saying that quite a few of my moral tenets go against the instincts. Like I said, I don't fully get the idea of Kantian imperatives but as far as I understand them, they do not match up with my moral arguments. As for whether my instincts go against the Universal Imperative, I cannot say.

(October 14, 2013 at 5:46 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: I'll have a lash at it.

Evil is unnecessary harm inflicted on another feeling being. If you have to bash a man's face in to stop him from beating a child, it isn't evil. If you skin a dog because you like the noises he makes, it is.

Boru

OK, I swatted a fly unnecessarily last night. Guess I'm evil. Judging by the meat and pest control aisles in the local store, I'm guessing most people are evil by this definition.

(October 15, 2013 at 11:40 am)genkaus Wrote:

(October 15, 2013 at 9:09 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Kant had two C.I's which, on paper, sound very different, but according to him were describing the same thing. On that note, it's said that reading his original work is the most tedious thing ever, and thus, many people have taken on the job to reiterate his original work. Anyways, my previous post + the one you've mentioned here make up both of his famous C.I's.

Are you saying your instinct goes against the Universal Imperative?

I'm saying that quite a few of my moral tenets go against the instincts. Like I said, I don't fully get the idea of Kantian imperatives but as far as I understand them, they do not match up with my moral arguments. As for whether my instincts go against the Universal Imperative, I cannot say.

So going back to Boru's aliens + 5 y.o. example, you *would* torture the 5 y.o? Answering "yes" would be going against Kant's reasoning.