Good and Evil

[AdamLOV]

[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]

[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]

[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.