[Serious] Good vs Evil

[The Grand Nudger]

How do you define good and evil?
Do you think anything is objectively good or evil? If so what?
What do you think drives people to aim for what they believe is good and away from what they believe is evil?

Since I made the thread, I’ll answer the questions. (Also, not really sure why I posted this in the religion forum, can’t remember lol)

I don’t believe in good and evil really. Not like that. I think subjectively things can be good (better than neutral) or bad (worse than neutral). Good is a word I use often. Just to mean something I like or something I think benefits myself, others, or the world. Evil is a word I never use. The concept of evil is silly to me, because it seems to imply some sort of supernatural meaning to the word bad.

The thing is I think everyone is good by their own terms. No one sets out to be bad. No one chooses to be a bad person. I think I read once that human beings tend to base their morals on what they want to do rather than basing what they want to do on their morals. So there’s a lot of justifying that goes on, with all of us. But I think everyone tries to do good based on what they believe to be good. This is likely an evolutionary trait? I’m assuming. Being “good” and doing “good” gives us a better shot at surviving and at happiness I guess.

If evil were a term for a pathological commitment to harmful things, what supernatural component would there be in some act or person displaying that commitment?  

The thing is I think everyone is good by their own terms. No one sets out to be bad. No one chooses to be a bad person. I think I read once that human beings tend to base their morals on what they want to do rather than basing what they want to do on their morals. So there’s a lot of justifying that goes on, with all of us. But I think everyone tries to do good based on what they believe to be good. This is likely an evolutionary trait? I’m assuming. Being “good” and doing “good” gives us a better shot at surviving and at happiness I guess.

This strongly implies moral objectivity, assumed or actual.  If people are compelled to act by some set of terms with an external referent, and those referents are true - then they are pursuing an objective morality.  They may not have the right set of metrics, but that's a disagreement that carries an underlying requirement of moral objectivity.  

The rationalization of immoral behaviors (by one's own standard) is a feature, not a bug.  If virtue seeking behavior had no other practical benefit to the whole (which is rare, we've centered our virtue seeking ethos around collectivism) it would still effect status, which in turn effects reproductive success.  You don't have to go with a natural explanation, though.  Nature may have given us this thing, and it may be riddled with accumulated biological baggage -  but nature only has to explain the origin of the apparatus, not it's current use by humans.

[Drich]

I see you are not familiar with positive christianity.

It was a move by the state to regulate the 'absolute standards of god.' to loosen the rules and allow the people to not only accept the final solution but to demand it.
In essence positive christianity was a break from the absolute standards of god (not based on the apstole's creed nor has any outside church influence)and a new standard based on german righteousness was superseded in the church the rest of the world knew.. When the germans stated  'Gott mit Uns' they referred to the father of positive christianity which was not the God of the bible but the chancoller himself. As According to mein kampf Religion was a tool that was to be used for a time which was to be replaced by state law and regulation.

The german people where slowly weaned off of God and the bible and set on a diet of their own self righteousness. The problem with self righteousness is there is no unity everyone is at a different level of evil and society breaks down because of it. for even if the majority are good with killing off a segment of the population, not everyone is and this sows discord into the community at large, when the opposition comes with absolute standards, it comes on a unified front.

No the 10 commandments are not absolutes unless you are one of the unsaved.

you do understand there is a difference between murder and killing right?

To murder is a sanctioned taking of human life. To take a human life in of itself finds no prohibition in the bible. as you pointed out there are clear examples of it. however where the sin comes in is not simply taking life but the unauthorized or unsanctioned taking of human life. One can not go out on his own and start taking life based on his or her own self righteousness.

The only difference of the 'Positive' Christianity is that you consider it false. While many Germans at that point in time did not. Also it's known fact that Vatican supported another dictator, Mussoulini.

maybe you didn't do ANY research before you spoke...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

"positive Christianity" was a state propaganda move created and regulated by the state in an effort to ween the german people OFF of religion all together. Its not an "I thought it is a false religion." The german state engineered it as a false religion to step down the german people's dependance on a religion and or God to define their morality. They Replace God with the chancellor. meaning rather than christianity being a religion that gives you direct access to God, according to this movement God gave the german people hitler as a personal tangible stand in. Giving hitler's will as the will of God. 

Speaking of sanctioned taking of human life... on the one hand having a divine ban on murder seems good. On the other hand, dealing with lunatics that go into homicidal mode on a flip of a switch does not    As for the sins and heresies, those concepts easily bend to the will of manipulative leaders.

unless there is an absolute standard that supersedes the authority of the leader... like the bible, which is why hitler separated the german people from the mainstream church and made his own placing his will before God's will.

---

you are speaking to a state of mind of the child. something you can not know, unless you look at history. you assume because children you know of that age are open books of blank sheets Child soldiers are like other children. Child soldiers are not atomotons blindly carrying out acts they can not understand the consenquences of... they have been trained to think and out maneuver their enemies. enemies who have been targeted since they could walk.

There is little to no difference between a child soldier and one who is of 'fighting age.' The civial war bore this out, the revolutionary war also bore this out. They fought bled and died just like their older counter parts, they faced death they faced hardship and pain, the same hardship and pain the veterans faced. Granted their jobs may have been different (drummer or fife player) but the drums where critical in fog of war communication. in essence they order the company or sometimes the battalion to fire a volley, free fire, advance bayonet charge or retreat. these 'boys' where given a monumental task of litterally pulling the trigger on hundreds of weapons just by playing the orders given. or f the messed up they could have cause the deaths of hundreds of their fellow soldiers. so to say a child soldier is like the ones you are familiar with is nuts.

Just look at some of the documentaries of the warring tribes currently in africa who employ child riflemen. some as young as 8. those kids are war harden monsters who could dispatch any of us before we knew it.

My point is evil know no age limitations. if their is consciousness evil can exist.

only the biggest fools wrapped up in their own self righteousness pretend evil can not exist. if people could just be honest with them selves they could label the men who train children to be combatants that put them in harms way or to be sacrificed as human bombs, if the self righteous could be honest they could see those men who do this sort of stuff as evil. But because the self righteous aligned themselves with evil inorder to invalidate God's righteous standards they can not identify anything evil as evil, which means they are only able to identify God's righteousness as evil.

Which is consistent with what the bible says about the last days. The evil men will change the standards of 'morality' and good will be come evil and evil will become good.

So long rambly pretentious  blather

such short sited obtuse blind pride, that does not stand on it's own, as it can not even articulate a topical objection. Rather depends on sweeping dismissals permitted by a hypocritical peer approval.

[Rhizomorph13]

Yeah, I'm not even going to try to parse what Drich is saying because that would be like un-tossing a salad. Not once in your wild rambling retort did you even once approach what I was expressing and we are all dumber for reading your words. May god have mercy on your soul.

Also, hasa diga Drich for so badly representing what I typed. Seriously go fucking fuck yourself.

That is all.

[Smaug]

"positive Christianity" was a state propaganda move created and regulated by the state in an effort to ween the german people OFF of religion all together. Its not an "I thought it is a false religion." The german state engineered it as a false religion to step down the german people's dependance on a religion and or God to define their morality. They Replace God with the chancellor. meaning rather than christianity being a religion that gives you direct access to God, according to this movement God gave the german people hitler as a personal tangible stand in. Giving hitler's will as the will of God. 

I can use Google, don't worry. I just don't make principal difference between one piece of propaganda and another. Also remember that modern-day Christianity stems from the version that Konstantine the Roman emperor engineered in order to give his power and his state new divine approval while killing off earlier christians that refused to accept this.

[AgnosAtheis]

How do you define good and evil?
Do you think anything is objectively good or evil? If so what?
What do you think drives people to aim for what they believe is good and away from what they believe is evil?

The correct balance of empathy and logic makes the best moral compass. Pretty much trying to treat others the way you wish to be treated. That said, what's good for you may not be good in the eyes of others. Everyone is their own person with their own principles and tolerance level. Even though good isn't entirely subjective and does not equal nice, highly emotional people are usually incapable of appreciating any degree of unfavourable objectivity. That's what I learn from dealing with "oversensitive" narcissists. Oversensitive here is quoted because they're only capable of looking out for themselves. Compromise can only be reached when the demand is reasonable.

There is pros and cons to everything: Good in every bad and bad in every good. What I define as good would be the act of upholding moral standard for greater good despite temptations and difficulties while remaining open to development and change. But more than the absence of mistakes, it's about how you act after committing one. How well aware are you about the implications or consequences of your action? Are you able to recognise feelings besides your own? Take accountability and admit your flaws? Feel remorse? Make amends? Change your ways if needed be? Overcome bruised ego? Rise above yourself? etc. Life is after all an endless improvement journey.

Tragically in many quarrels both parties usually feel this way. Even my statement above is abuseable in the hands of people who are completely blind to their lack of sensibility - people who are so dead sure of themselves, stubbornly refusing to acknowledge errors against the empirical evidence and meticulous argument presented before them. All they have to say back is often in the form of logical fallacies (most commonly baseless infantile insults and unwarranted invalidation while ignoring your points; intentional or not, this serves as provocative redirection). In a way.. narcissists are a lot of like obstinate gnostics. Just much much worse, that it's better to leave them alone than break yourself trying to make them understand.

Pain provides us the opportunity to grow. Most people just don't. Because humans tend to be more selfish than fair.

[Losty]

How do you define good and evil?
Do you think anything is objectively good or evil? If so what?
What do you think drives people to aim for what they believe is good and away from what they believe is evil?

Since I made the thread, I’ll answer the questions. (Also, not really sure why I posted this in the religion forum, can’t remember lol)

I don’t believe in good and evil really. Not like that. I think subjectively things can be good (better than neutral) or bad (worse than neutral). Good is a word I use often. Just to mean something I like or something I think benefits myself, others, or the world. Evil is a word I never use. The concept of evil is silly to me, because it seems to imply some sort of supernatural meaning to the word bad.

The thing is I think everyone is good by their own terms. No one sets out to be bad. No one chooses to be a bad person. I think I read once that human beings tend to base their morals on what they want to do rather than basing what they want to do on their morals. So there’s a lot of justifying that goes on, with all of us. But I think everyone tries to do good based on what they believe to be good. This is likely an evolutionary trait? I’m assuming. Being “good” and doing “good” gives us a better shot at surviving and at happiness I guess.

If evil were a term for a pathological commitment to harmful things, what supernatural component would there be in some act or person displaying that commitment?  

The thing is I think everyone is good by their own terms. No one sets out to be bad. No one chooses to be a bad person. I think I read once that human beings tend to base their morals on what they want to do rather than basing what they want to do on their morals. So there’s a lot of justifying that goes on, with all of us. But I think everyone tries to do good based on what they believe to be good. This is likely an evolutionary trait? I’m assuming. Being “good” and doing “good” gives us a better shot at surviving and at happiness I guess.

This strongly implies moral objectivity, assumed or actual.  If people are compelled to act by some set of terms with an external referent, and those referents are true - then they are pursuing an objective morality.  They may not have the right set of metrics, but that's a disagreement that carries an underlying requirement of moral objectivity.  

The rationalization of immoral behaviors (by one's own standard) is a feature, not a bug.  If virtue seeking behavior had no other practical benefit to the whole (which is rare, we've centered our virtue seeking ethos around collectivism) it would still effect status, which in turn effects reproductive success.  You don't have to go with a natural explanation, though.  Nature may have given us this thing, and it may be riddled with accumulated biological baggage -  but nature only has to explain the origin of the apparatus, not it's current use by humans.

You know I love you Rhythm, but you have to speak to me in plain English.
I don’t even have a single clue what “If evil were a term for a pathological commitment to harmful things, what supernatural component would there be in some act or person displaying that commitment?“ means. Don’t make me brain hard 😭

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm generally not much of one to use motion pictures to illustrate a point, but I recently saw 'Gone Baby Gone' for the first time.  Superficially, it's a better than average crime drama about a missing child.  That, however, is just a frame on which to hang the actual theme of moral relativism vs moral absolutes.

Quite well done.

Boru

[vulcanlogician]

Strictly speaking, by considering this statement you cannot derive that there is any objective truth about moral absolutes either.

True. The essayist's goal was was to debunk cultural relativism, and he did a damn fine job. But giving a foundation for moral objectivism was beyond the scope of his paper. I can provide a rational basis for moral objectivity. Just ask.

The only thing you can firmly say is that there are conflicting moral codes. On the other hand, relativistic hypothesis works well enaugh in explaining moral behaviour without invoking moral absolutes at all. Rejecting moral relativism on the grounds of the aforementioned arguement is like rejecting Einstein's Relativity on the grounds that he did not strictly disprove the existence of an absolute reference frame.

If you feel like having a 'moral constant' then you can reason along this line: certain set of rules of social interaction allow societies _and_ most of their members to thrive (or at least live a bearable life). Such a set of rules may be considered 'optimal' at least for a very generalized case.

I'm not a moral absolutist. To me, conditions apply to moral action. Killing or theft might be justified. Selfishness can be good. What makes a morality objective is that there are underlying principles at work in the moral theory which allow one to determine (beforehand) whether theft or some other act is morally permissible. An objective morality refers to these principles as its absolute reference frame, and determines the locality of a given deed on the moral spectrum accordingly.

Is there debate about which principles are to be used as the absolute reference frame? Yes. Just like there is debate about phenomena in biology and quantum physics. Just because there is disagreement, doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth to discover.

Moral realism is the belief that certain moral propositions can be true (nothing more, nothing less). These propositions need not be absolutitist. Conditions may apply.

[Drich]

"positive Christianity" was a state propaganda move created and regulated by the state in an effort to ween the german people OFF of religion all together. Its not an "I thought it is a false religion." The german state engineered it as a false religion to step down the german people's dependance on a religion and or God to define their morality. They Replace God with the chancellor. meaning rather than christianity being a religion that gives you direct access to God, according to this movement God gave the german people hitler as a personal tangible stand in. Giving hitler's will as the will of God. 

I can use Google, don't worry. I just don't make principal difference between one piece of propaganda and another. Also remember that modern-day Christianity stems from the version that Konstantine the Roman emperor engineered in order to give his power and his state new divine approval while killing off earlier christians that refused to accept this.

which was reformed into the R/C church which again was reformed by Martin luther in the 15th century to form the protestant church which was reformed again in the 18th century to create the reformation movement. Each reformation was an effort by the church to self correct and align itself with scripture and break fro tradition and religion that men like the popes and constantine created. Now instead of whole movements we have the churches themselves subdivide as a means to try and up hold the greatest command.

[Smaug]

I'm not a moral absolutist. To me, conditions apply to moral action. Killing or theft might be justified. Selfishness can be good. What makes a morality objective is that there are underlying principles at work in the moral theory which allow one to determine (beforehand) whether theft or some other act is morally permissible. An objective morality refers to these principles as its absolute reference frame, and determines the locality of a given deed on the moral spectrum accordingly.

Is there debate about which principles are to be used as the absolute reference frame? Yes. Just like there is debate about phenomena in biology and quantum physics. Just because there is disagreement, doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth to discover.

Moral realism is the belief that certain moral propositions can be true (nothing more, nothing less). These propositions need not be absolutitist. Conditions may apply.

Thanks for the explanation! I agree that there probably are some underlying principles that can be derived from the nature of moral behaviour in social animals and people. I'm just not sure that they can be placed on the same level of absolute as, say, such physical constancs as gravitational constant or speed of light in vacuum. I view these principles as some sort of 'optimal solutions' which are only understood with respect to certain 'objective function' (group survival). However, if we speak of the society as we know it they may be pretty universal.