[Serious] The Good

[The Grand Nudger]

If it's a fact that you like pizza, or a specific kind of pizaa..that's a fact.  What's the problem?

Beiber is objectively good..though I can't tell you that I (subjectively) like a single one of his songs. What's the problem?

[Angrboda]

My only claim is that moral realism is cogent.  I'm not out pushing pamphlets or anything.  Your comments on possible worlds is an absolutist question.  I don't think that any moral statement could be held to be absolute, I agree with you there.  That doesn't imperil my realism, or any realism.

That's all.  I'm not saying that you don't know what you're talking about, just that what you're talking about is another thing.

You were taken to task for pushing a straw man in that prior thread, and you seem to be simply up to your old tricks. I'm far from impressed, nutter.

And Stanford appears to disagree with you about its cogency.

[The Grand Nudger]

Does it?  So what if it actually did?

The realist position on the good..or the bad, is simply that whatever those two things refer to is some factual x.  It could be an allegedly factual x, or an actually factual x.

Moral realism inherits all of the problems of any other form of realism.  It also inherits the strengths.

[brewer]

Because the counter of good is not always evil.

Loss of function does not always include intent. It could be thru an unavoidable accident or ones own innocent unknowing action. While this would be bad for the individual it would not be the result of evil.

I think I asked you why you say good may not involve intention, but evil usually does. 

Your answer appears to be:

Because the counter of good is not always evil.

I'm not seeing the relevance of this response yet. What is a "counter" in this case? 

Also I asked why loss of function doesn't always indicate evil. Your answer here was clearer to me:

Loss of function does not always include intent. It could be thru an unavoidable accident or ones own innocent unknowing action. While this would be bad for the individual it would not be the result of evil.

So I think you're going here on the definition of evil as involving intention. I agree that seems like a sensible definition. 

It's interesting to me that the people who disagree with you have a system and definitions that are unlike what most of us use, it seems. If I'm reading them right, good is what leads to flourishing and evil is what blocks flourishing. 

If you put aside our standard definition of evil for a moment, in order to contemplate their system, does it seem at all useful to you? For example I'm thinking that some unintentional act I commit, which nonetheless leads to other people's loss of function, would be evil despite my lack of intent. The extent to which I'm guilty, then, might be a tricky question, but wouldn't claim that the resultant loss of function wasn't evil. 

This is in line with what Yonadev was saying earlier -- that all human acts are a mixture, none is purely good.

Nope, it would be bad. In my book bad does not necessarily equal evil.

An apple can go bad, an apple (without intent) can't go evil.

[Belacqua]

I think I asked you why you say good may not involve intention, but evil usually does. 

Your answer appears to be:


I'm not seeing the relevance of this response yet. What is a "counter" in this case? 

Also I asked why loss of function doesn't always indicate evil. Your answer here was clearer to me:


So I think you're going here on the definition of evil as involving intention. I agree that seems like a sensible definition. 

It's interesting to me that the people who disagree with you have a system and definitions that are unlike what most of us use, it seems. If I'm reading them right, good is what leads to flourishing and evil is what blocks flourishing. 

If you put aside our standard definition of evil for a moment, in order to contemplate their system, does it seem at all useful to you? For example I'm thinking that some unintentional act I commit, which nonetheless leads to other people's loss of function, would be evil despite my lack of intent. The extent to which I'm guilty, then, might be a tricky question, but wouldn't claim that the resultant loss of function wasn't evil. 

This is in line with what Yonadev was saying earlier -- that all human acts are a mixture, none is purely good.

Nope, it would be bad. In my book bad does not necessarily equal evil.

An apple can go bad, an apple (without intent) can't go evil.

I understand your definition. Thank you.

[Acrobat]

If it's a fact that you like pizza, or a specific kind of pizaa..that's a fact.  What's the problem?

Beiber is objectively good..though I can't tell you that I (subjectively) like a single one of his songs. What's the problem?

Let’s give a summation of the “objectivism” of your views on morality.

What’s objective is only in relation to the “is” of a moral statement, in relationship to descriptive elements such as the harm caused by the holocaust. The reason you claim morality is objective, is because these descriptive elements can be objectively measured, such as the social impact of theft, or murdering children, etc.., just like cheesiness and thinness in my pizza example.

When it comes to “oughts”, the we ought not do what’s harmful, this isn’t grounded in reality, there’s no transcendent moral order that anchors it, reality posses no teleological or moral aims. It’s the mere relative or subjective agreed upon goals of groups of people, and society.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let’s give a summation of the “objectivism” of your views on morality.

What’s objective is only in relation to the “is” of a moral statement, in relationship to descriptive elements such as the harm caused by the holocaust.

Correct.   I suspect that the only way that any holocaust can be said to be objectively bad is based on what a holocaust -is-.  

The reason you claim morality is objective, is because these descriptive elements can be objectively measured, such as the social impact of theft, or murdering children, etc.., just like cheesiness and thinness in my pizza example.

Sure, that's all that realism is.

When it comes to “oughts”, the we ought not do what’s harmful, this isn’t grounded in reality, there’s no transcendent moral order that anchors it, reality posses no teleological or moral aims. It’s the mere relative or subjective agreed upon goals of groups of people, and society.

Realist oughts are based on realist is-es.   That's not a bug, it's a feature. The relative and the subjective are facts of a society or of a person, not facts of a matter. People can and do build moralities off of any of these things. Theres no point in complaining about that in order to turn around and build a morality out of them. God doesn't like some shit? So what, that's a subjective morality. A whole culture doesn't like some shit, maybe they don;t like the shit they think their god doesn't like.........so what, that's a relative morality.

The only thing that makes some x good, or bad, is some fact of the matter itself, x. That's all that realism is, all that realism could be, all that realism or objectivity makes any claim to. It's pretty simple, really. As simple as any other realist statement.

[WinterHold]

This is a very interesting view to me. Largely because it's so different from the ones I've studied before.

First, I admit to knowing nothing at all about the Quran, so if you have the time to show us some of the writing that leads you to your view, I'd enjoy seeing it. 

I will quote the verses from the Quran that led me to this belief; the quoted verses are raw just like they are written in the original book that Muslims  read:

1-

https://quran.com/91/7-15?translations=20

Sahih International

(7) And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it

(8) And inspired it [with discernment of] its wickedness and its righteousness,

(9) He has succeeded who purifies it,

(10) And he has failed who instills it [with corruption].

"He" refers to God. This style of reference is used across the Quran.
The wickedness in our hearts is not inspired by Satan: Satan is only a tool God uses, unlike the concept of assuming "two kingdoms one for evil and one for good"; with God leading one and Satan leading the other.

2-

https://quran.com/19/83-93?translations=20

Sahih International

(83) Do you not see that We have sent the devils upon the disbelievers, inciting them to [evil] with [constant] incitement?

(84) So be not impatient over them. We only count out to them a [limited] number.

God is the one sending devils upon disbelievers. So a disbeliever is not necessarily "good but lost". His eyes are actually closed by God intentionally from seeing the right path.

3-

https://quran.com/67/2?translations=20

Sahih International

(2) [He] who created death and life to test you [as to] which of you is best in deed - and He is the Exalted in Might, the Forgiving -
[url=https://quran.com/67/2-12?translations=20][/url]

He is the creator of death. And that makes God the creator of the misery death brings with it.

4-

https://quran.com/67/2?translations=20

Sahih International

(27) And those who disbelieved say, "Why has a sign not been sent down to him from his Lord?" Say, [O Muhammad], "Indeed, Allah leaves astray whom He wills and guides to Himself whoever turns back [to Him] -

He is the one controlling who gets guided to the right path and who is not.

----------------

These are the verses I can remember for now. There are many implicit references across the book that point to the same conclusion. Take the creation of "hell" for example.

Second, if God creates evil, I wonder about the long-term view of things. For example, some people might say that the evil is in the world to lead, in the end, to greater good. This is a view you sometime see among Christians (e.g. Milton) that the Fall from Eden was a necessary evil for bringing about the eventual fulfillment of human's potential.

Personally; I believe Islam links everything to "the will of God". In other words; we only live to do his will:

https://quran.com/67/2?translations=20

Sahih International

(56) And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.

(57) I do not want from them any provision, nor do I want them to feed Me.

(58) Indeed, it is Allah who is the [continual] Provider, the firm possessor of strength.

Despite this concept being "hard on the dignity to swallow"; we are needing food to survive, we are subject to the laws of physics, we are subject to the environment of this planet, we do live to worship God: if we cease to do it we perish.
Falling from heaven was the start point of our timed test. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree; they sinned against God but they prayed, so they were given a second chance to prove that they are loyal to him. Their second chance is this life on this planet; we live and die then wake up in judgement day to be trialed for what we did in this test.

[Belacqua]

the quoted verses are raw just like they are written in the original book that Muslims  read:

This is something I haven't thought about before. When you say the verses are "raw," it makes me wonder about the type of hermeneutics that go into reading the Quran. 
Do Muslims believe that the important meaning will be available to amateurs, or are trained guides necessary when reading? I know that teachers and interpretive texts are important in the tradition.
Among trained Christians, each verse is said to have four levels of interpretation, and (despite common American practice) it is very unlikely that just some guy off the street will hit on the truth of what's written there. 
I'm not challenging your reading -- just curious about how far I can trust myself even to read these sentences. 

(7) And [by] the soul and He who proportioned it

(8) And inspired it [with discernment of] its wickedness and its righteousness,

(9) He has succeeded who purifies it,

(10) And he has failed who instills it [with corruption].

This I like a lot. It says that we are a mixture of good and evil. And here, as we were saying before, only God is perfectly Good. But the discernment is also a part of our natural faculties, with success or failure defined as the proper application of this discernment. 

God is the one sending devils upon disbelievers. So a disbeliever is not necessarily "good but lost". His eyes are actually closed by God intentionally from seeing the right path.

Naturally this is harder for me to see the point of. 

I can imagine that people are closed to the Good for all kinds of reasons. If it's God, though, who is intentionally shutting their eyes to the Good, then they can hardly be blamed for the evil they do. 

Unless God is here inventing a short-term evil to do better good in the long run, I'm not seeing the reason for this. And I think the following two or three things you quote are along the same lines. 

Personally; I believe Islam links everything to "the will of God". In other words; we only live to do his will:

[...]

Despite this concept being "hard on the dignity to swallow"; we are needing food to survive, we are subject to the laws of physics, we are subject to the environment of this planet, we do live to worship God: if we cease to do it we perish. 
Falling from heaven was the start point of our timed test. When Adam and Eve ate from the tree; they sinned against God but they prayed, so they were given a second chance to prove that they are loyal to him. Their second chance is this life on this planet; we live and die then wake up in judgement day to be trialed for what we did in this test.

These parts I find easy to accept, though my personal reading may be too Platonic for your tradition. I'm not sure.

When I read "the will of God" or similar phrases, I just read "the way things are." The will of God is our analogous phrase to describe the principles, orderliness, and goals of the universe. To push against all of this is to do harm to ourselves. To obey it is in fact to do what is best for ourselves. 

People who talk about God like a tyrant, I think, are thinking too anthropomorphically. If God is the Good, and it is always in our best interests to do what is good for ourselves and the world, then obedience here isn't like giving up your own good for the benefit of someone else. It means discerning and aiming toward what really will make us happiest in the long run. This is clear in Dante and other Christian writers, and it's odd to me that the anti-religion people never seem to have read these things. 

----------------

Now to change the subject somewhat:

I looked up Avicenna's views on Good and Evil in the world, because I know he has a lot of Greek influence -- particularly Neoplatonism, which is a system I can plug these problems into when I think about them. 

Here is something I found on line this morning:

Metaphysical (and particularly Neoplatonic) connotations are evident also in Avicenna’s exegesis of Sura 113 in the Qur’an which relates to the problem of evil. According to Ashʿarite doctrine, God - as an omnipotent Being - has to be credited with the creation of both goodness and evil.26 In order to set his metaphysical ideas closer to such a stance, Avicenna comments on the verse ‘Say I seek refuge with the Lord of the Dawn’ (113:1) and distinguishes between a primary and a secondary intention in God’s will. Avicenna comments:


‘The daybreak shatters the darkness of privation by the light of existence (bi’l-nur al-wujud) which is the Necessary Existent and this is a necessary act in God’s ipseity, intended by a primary intention (bi’l-qaṣd al-awwal). The first emanation of existents is from Him and this is His decree (qadaʾhu) and there is no absolute evil (la sharr aslan) in it with the exception of what emanates hidden under the radiance of the first light. [...] Evils (shurur) do not occur according to a primary intention but according to a secondary one (bi’l-qasd al-than’yya)’.28

Initially, the discourse on evil is addressed with references to the emanative scheme: evil (or impurity - al-kadurat) emerges with the first emanated being and is said to be attached to its quiddity (mahiyyat) and to be generated by its ipseity (huwiyya). All causes in the emanative process are said to be led by their collisions towards evils which are necessary to themselves; this, Avicenna stresses, is nothing but God’s qadar and His creation (khalq).29 Interestingly, Avicenna uses the term creation rather than emanation in order to link his metaphysical idea on evil with the content of the successive Qurʾanic verse (113:2): ‘[I seek refuge] from the evil of created things’. With reference to this verse, the philosopher explicates that evil is placed in an aspect (nahiyya) of creation, according to a specific determination (taqdir). This is so because, Avicenna explains, such evil is generated only from the materiality (ajsam) of things which is due to divine destiny and not due to God’s decree (kanat al-ajsam min qadarhi la min qadaʾhi).30 This statement reveals a clear Neoplatonic undertone: in effect, Avicenna states that evil emerges in those beings that need to receive measure and determination (al-shurur al-lazima fi ashyaʾ dhuat al-taqdir) that is to say, those beings that possess a body (badan) and are therefore connected to matter.31

https://iis.ac.uk/academic-article/avicenna-matter-disobedience-matter-and-evil-reconciling-metaphysical-stances-and-qur-anic


This seems to me to be close to the idea of evil as privation, but not quite. The Neoplatonic idea that God emanates the world, and his essence is combined with Prime Matter, seems crucial here. As we said before, only God is good completely, so the essence imprinted into matter will naturally lack that full goodness. Then each created thing, just by dint of it lacking the entirety of goodness, will have a particular tendency toward doing bad, in its unique way. 

I have no idea how much Avicenna is taken seriously in the Muslim world today. He's useful for me because he's working with Greek concepts that are so similar to the Christians of the time.

[Angrboda]

Still waiting on your argument establishing the truth of Aristotle's conception that existence and being are intrinsically good, Belaqua. Or are you still pouting because you've been shown to be a charlatan?