(May 4, 2015 at 2:10 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: 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.

It is highly debatable whether there is such a thing as essence. Even if there is essence, following the logic of essentialism, it belongs to the essence of the virus to destroy fellow beings. Should that mean that we accept the good of the virus? The natural essence of one being can often result in the disruption, even destruction of other creatures. Any restriction of the virus would be an egregious restriction of the "virus' potential". This absurd example highlights the fact that an ethics based on essence is no better than one predicated on complete relativism. Unless, of course, one complements this essentialism with a hierarchy as Plato did. But hierarchial ontologies are deeply problematic, for reasons I shall not elaborate here.

(May 4, 2015 at 2:46 pm)AdamLOV Wrote: It is highly debatable whether there is such a thing as essence. Even if there is essence, following the logic of essentialism, it belongs to the essence of the virus to destroy fellow beings. Should that mean that we accept the good of the virus? The natural essence of one being can often result in the disruption, even destruction of other creatures. Any restriction of the virus would be an egregious restriction of the "virus' potential". This absurd example highlights the fact that an ethics based on essence is no better than one predicated on complete relativism. Unless, of course, one complements this essentialism with a hierarchy as Plato did. But hierarchial ontologies are deeply problematic, for reasons I shall not elaborate here.

The purpose of scientific inquiry is to understand the nature of the things we observe. Without essences you don't get very far.

Your example misses the point entirely. That which is good for the virus is not the same as what is good for people. So while the nature of the virus is to propagate, to the extent that they are harmful, it is in human nature to resist and conquer. It is in the lion's nature to hunt gazelles. That is good for the lion, but not so good for gazelles. It is in the nature of the gazelle to flee in a herd. There is no relativism because both are acting on the same principle, i.e. to live according to their nature. That these natures are in conflict has no bearing.

(May 4, 2015 at 3:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 4, 2015 at 2:46 pm)AdamLOV Wrote: It is highly debatable whether there is such a thing as essence. Even if there is essence, following the logic of essentialism, it belongs to the essence of the virus to destroy fellow beings. Should that mean that we accept the good of the virus? The natural essence of one being can often result in the disruption, even destruction of other creatures. Any restriction of the virus would be an egregious restriction of the "virus' potential". This absurd example highlights the fact that an ethics based on essence is no better than one predicated on complete relativism. Unless, of course, one complements this essentialism with a hierarchy as Plato did. But hierarchial ontologies are deeply problematic, for reasons I shall not elaborate here.

The purpose of scientific inquiry is to understand the nature of the things we observe. Without essences you don't get very far.

Your example misses the point entirely. That which is good for the virus is not the same as what is good for people. So while the nature of the virus is to propagate, to the extent that they are harmful, it is in human nature to resist and conquer. It is in the lion's nature to hunt gazelles. That is good for the lion, but not so good for gazelles. It is in the nature of the gazelle to flee in a herd. There is no relativism because both are acting on the same principle, i.e. to live according to their nature. That these natures are in conflict has no bearing.

I think my example hits the target exactly. If what is good for the virus is not good for me as a human, then there cannot be a greater good that connects both of us. There is simply no common ground between the good of a deadly virus and the good of a human individual. One who believes in some esoteric, hidden positive meaning, such as a Platonist/Neo-Platonist, Holist or whatever would counter that the "greater good" here would be "harmony", for example, the purported "balance" in nature. Except that balance, in negentropic systems and entropic systems alike, is the exception rather than the rule. As long as there are energy differentials among various existents, there will be imbalance in a system. Therefore, the good will be unevenly distributed in that system. In other words, there simply cannot be any overarching "good" that would transcend the individual interests of the components of the system. Actants strive to delay its own dissolution, to postpone entropy, and they routinely conduct this through negating the good and well being of other actants. Conflict, in other words, is the rule, and we cannot discern a "right" and "wrong" side in absolute terms. We can certainly have opinions on this matter, but truth seems to evade us if we look for any positive validation of it.

(May 4, 2015 at 4:30 am)dahrling Wrote: 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? ... They are mostly secular.

India is a conglomerate of at least 26 national languages and national states which, incidentally, espouse a wide variety of religions. About 80% of Indians are at least nominally Hindu, and a Hindu nationalist party is currently in power. I doubt that means they live in the 15th century, however: recent generations of Indians have established a reputation for welcoming modernity even when choosing not to disavow whatever religious traditions they came out of. Secularism does eliminate problems of sectarian conflict, but can't explain everything. Denmark really has an easier problem of governance than India does, religion aside: an ethnically and linguistically homogeneous population which, despite their secularism, all descend from the same Lutheran church, proximity and preferred access to EU markets, no armed enemies on their borders, and so on.

And wealth does matter. Wealth can be put into gold coins and accumulated indefinitely to lever credit in turn. Modern equity markets and compound interest make wealth accrual very efficient for those who have wealth, while raising walls of debt against those who don't have it. Like Monooply the board game, whoever's lucky enough to land on and buy Boardwalk first has an advantage. Europeans were just lucky enough to be the first of the world's regions to get their hegemonic plans in order at a time when technology and naval shipping would give them global reach. If Europe had dallied another thousand years, we might be learning Chinese instead.

(May 4, 2015 at 4:57 am)AdamLOV Wrote: Buddhism is an atheistic belief system, yet the economically most advanced areas of the globe are not the Buddhist ones...the notion of secularism=better quality of life/higher wealth is debatable.

Buddhism is one of the two dominant religions in Japan, along with Shinto, which hasn't kept them from understanding and adapting modern Western ideas to their own culture as well. I don't know that Buddhism is atheistic, many Buddhists accept Hindu deities and concepts of rebirth. It might be better to describe Buddhism as "on top of" other religion since instead of new gods, it introduces a different, more abstract way of viewing the nonsecular and its relationship to human life. I admit not knowing details here: But Japan is plenty advanced. That should prove your second thesis, which I agree with. Secularism and quality of life are independent in most respects. Although religious fanaticism is clearly detrimental to quality of life, moderate religion may be neutral or beneficial.

(May 4, 2015 at 3:53 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The purpose of scientific inquiry is to understand the nature of the things we observe. Without essences you don't get very far.

Since the thread has already correctly discounted pure essentialism as adequate fount for ethics, we now see why science, which does so well at questions of nature, is nearly helpless before questions of value.

(May 4, 2015 at 1:18 am)dahrling Wrote: Were religions invented as a way to keep order, then?

Some were and a lot of them may have started off with "good intentions", but once a structure is established and a leader appointed, there will always be the control freak and in the end, most (if not all) religions become controlling organizations. As soon as a religion participates in politics, it is obvious that control is the agenda rather than worship.

(May 4, 2015 at 2:28 pm)Nestor Wrote: 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.

A very good point.

To me, the aim of morality is to try and go beyond those norms, to evaluate things objectively. I don't just want to be moral compared to society, I want to be as moral as I can be. As usual this is an ideal to strive for rather than one I always achieve.

As an example, if I was born earlier when slavery was prevalent, I hope I would be against it rather than go with the flow. I similarly try and challenge things today which are generally "accepted". I often wonder how many people who say how terrible slavery is would have spoken up when it was commonplace. This is in no way an evaluation or accusation of anyone on the forum Just a general wonderment. It's easy to say/see how terrible something is when everyone generally agrees with you.

(May 4, 2015 at 7:21 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(May 4, 2015 at 1:18 am)dahrling Wrote: Were religions invented as a way to keep order, then?

Some were and a lot of them may have started off with "good intentions", but once a structure is established and a leader appointed, there will always be the control freak and in the end, most (if not all) religions become controlling organizations. As soon as a religion participates in politics, it is obvious that control is the agenda rather than worship.

The same may be said about any other social subsystem. The role of science is quite similar (to create order out of chaotic data), and the consequences of overrationalization can include a lack of transparency, noninclusive scientific practices that have deleterious social consequences. So this is issue is not in any way restricted to the area of religion.

(May 4, 2015 at 11:11 pm)robvalue Wrote: As an example, if I was born earlier when slavery was prevalent, I hope I would be against it rather than go with the flow.

And you would have been. Lots of people thought slavery was despicable. It was not a beloved institution in the USA, but it had political backing from the plantation owners who made money off it. Of course full equality was a different beast; opponents of slavery often wanted white to remain superior to black under a non-slave apartheid system.

Hi dahrling (I can't type that without thinking of Black Adder Goes Fourth),

(May 4, 2015 at 1:07 am)dahrling Wrote: Now, the question here is: are good and evil truly points of view?

Yes, they can be nothing else as ethics are subjective. From my perspective, I navigate the grey areas using definitions of the 'harm' that might result from action/inaction.

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

I'd argue that there's no such thing as 'absolutely' good or evil, once again due to the subjectivity of ethics. I don't like the terms 'good/evil' as they polarise thinking and trick people into using broad classifications which detract from deep consideration of the questions at hand. I'd ask you to consider if anyone can really be 'absolutely' evil (did Genghis Khan love his mother, for example)? So for me, you could define the terms however you like but since they don't add value to my ethical framework, I won't use them. Consequently, universal acceptance is impossible.

Quote:And is being "selfless" truly a good thing - what makes it so? It may be "good" for others, but is it good for you? And is being selfish then "evil"? Putting your own desires and necessities first? Is there a limit to it? A line?

It's a trade-off. A certain amount of selflessness is a good thing. I'd suggest that someone who acts with no selflessness at all would risk doing harm to themselves and others (for example, being unkind to others therefore being socially excluded to their detriment). To the corollary, someone who acts only with selflessness would risk doing harm to themselves (for example, not defending themselves against attack). So there's a balance which can be struck both personally and socially.

Quote:Also, take for example someone who is a Muslim and defends his/her book of teaching by saying that the evils it presents (like how a little girl was wed to Muhammad when she was only 6 years old, and how their marriage was consummated when she 9) were considered "correct" or "acceptable" at the time they happened. How does one respond to this? How can we argue against this if good and evil aren't universal truths, if they are only based on culture?

As intimated above, I argue the harm. A non-consenting child being traded, as property, to an adult for social and sexual gratification is harmful. It may have been 'accepted' at the time, by the local culture, but it was still causing harm and people would likely have known it (I wonder how many of Aisha's female relatives would have felt sorrow at the transaction?). The trade-off was that the benefits to Mohammed were a greater consideration than the harm done to Aisha. In a 21st C, UK context, we would grant (in law) the lack of consent to be the overriding consideration, given that we honour individual rights to personal autonomy and freedom of expression (it's a shameful thing, indeed, to own another). Since the transaction resulted from an ethical framework based upon patriarchal, misogynistic, bigoted slave ownership, I would say that it was unethical.

@dahrling

Quote:How can we argue against this if good and evil aren't universal truths, if they are only based on culture?

before I can try to give my answer, can you say what you mean when you use the words "Good" and "Evil"? I can't say whether it is universal if I don't know what you mean by it.