[Serious] Good vs Evil

[vulcanlogician]

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.

But there aren't really absolutes in science either. Experimental science gives us the best evidence. Theoretical science gives us the best explanation or model. Neither experimental nor theoretical science furnishes us with absolutes. Just like your statements concerning moral theory, science can be said to provide "optimal solutions."

Newton's theory of gravity is so good an explanation of the natural world, it is still taught today in Physics 101 classes... even though Einstein proved it "wrong." But Newton wasn't wrong was he? Well, technically, yes. But it is more accurate to say he was imprecise. Einstein, then, was more precise.

But "precise" in regards to what? In regards to which theory describes nature more accurately.

This can seem a rather arbitrary measure. After all, some people might not care about describing nature accurately. (Creationists, for example.) But this doesn't make science subjective, does it? No. One theory is objectively better than another. Same goes with ethical thinking. The same goes with moral deeds.

I reject the thesis that says "morality is based on group survival." Even if you and another individual were the last two beings in existence, and you were both going to die (let's say from a bomb or something), there are things that you could do to this person in the meantime that would matter as far as ethics is concerned. You could provide this person comfort during this time period, or you could tie this person up and subject them to horrible torture until the bomb exploded. Both of these activities have an ethical dimension, but neither relates to "group survival" since you both are sure to die.

The scientist asks (rather arbitrarily) "How can I best describe nature?" And in pursuit of the answer to this question, he finds objective truths. The ethicist asks (rather arbitrarily) "How can I act for the good of living beings?" And in pursuit of this question, he also finds objective truths. Neither science nor ethics is easy. They are both very complicated.

Just like there are people who want to oversimplify science by citing Genesis, there are people who want to oversimplify ethics by citing imaginary stone tablets. This makes neither science nor ethics "a matter of opinion" or subjective in any way. There is a real and true solution out there. You just have to want to discover it, and be willing to do the necessary work.

Nothing "forces" people to recognize objective morals... but (let me mention the creationists again) nothing "forces" people to acknowledge scientific fact. None of this matters. If everyone on the planet was a flat earther, the world would still be spherical.

[Smaug]

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.

I reject the thesis that says "morality is based on group survival." Even if you and another individual were the last two beings in existence, and you were both going to die (let's say from a bomb or something), there are things that you could do to this person in the meantime that would matter as far as ethics is concerned. You could provide this person comfort during this time period, or you could tie this person up and subject them to horrible torture until the bomb exploded. Both of these activities have an ethical dimension, but neither relates to "group survival" since you both are sure to die.

To me this explanation is problematic. Even if all the humans disappear, you're still a product of social evolution and the society you lived in. So your istincts and more importantly your life experience which you aquired throughout your social life are still with you. This includes thought patterns that get so embedded in the brain that you have a raw conclusion to the situation before you do the reasoning. So having all your experience on board and assuming you're not a psychopath of some kind there's no good reason for you to even think seriously of killing the other man.

There are great many examples that show that moral behaviour is formed by the society and lifetime experience. For example a kid may kill an animal not out of cruelty or for fun but just out of interest. For him this is no bigger deal than to dissasemble a toy. But after this very kid comprehends the concepts of pain and suffering in a right way he may change his view. Of course such type of behaviour is generally prevented early on by parenting. Also there do appear to be some empathy 'hard-coded' into the brain due to social evolution but it is very limited.

Why I stress 'survival'. Certain types of behaviour are results of an organism pursuing some goal. In Nature the only global goal known to science is survival (and procreation which is part of it), if I haven't missed something out of course. Life as a whole strives to survive, species struggle for survival and on the lowest end are the individual organisms. This global goal breaks apart into smaller goals each of them generating certain types of behaviour. With simplier loner ogranisms this stays relatively primitive. Hunt, eat, evade predators, find a mate etc.

With social life it becomes seriously more complex. But the main goal is still there. Social life itself is a way to better achieve this main goal for a species or a group. Very genegally speaking, moral behaviour is a way to cut down on needless competition inside a collective for better chances of survival for most of its members. Let's consider one of the more profound examples - self-sacrifice. For a loner animal which is healthy enaugh self-sacrifice is completely meaningless unless it is to defend its young. But for a social species this may make sense even so far that some have drones that do not procreate at all. Humans have a highly developed brain and live in vast societies with complex pattens of competition and partnership so it's of no surprise that they have complex moral codes. It's good to note that like many natural systems these codes have more and less important components. Certain 'commandments' are more important than the other to keep the society from falling apart. Some moral rules may even look 'unreasonable' in terms of survival, at least on the first glance. Whether some of them are 'bugs' caused by the sheer complexity of the system or 'features' that may save human species from extinction and lift it to some other level of existence all this came to be as a result of finding a survival strategy which is a property of life itself.

Putting mating aside, for a crocodile a decision to attack only depends upon whether it's worth the energy and what harm it can result in. For a lion it's a'ok to rip open and eat a gazelle while it's still alive or to kill another lion's cubs but it's not always ok to be hostile to another lion in the same pride. Male lions can also form partnership. Some species of animals can become attached to a member of another species. For a primitive homo sapiens it was ok to exterminate another tribe without second thought and even to consume flesh of his own kind while his own peers deserved empathy. A contemporaty man have moral codes that discourage not only brutality and cruelty towards his own kind but also to many other kinds of life. And in terms of organism people from the two latter examples are basically the same. An important difference is that the less man had to think about immediate survival and his fears the more time he had to analyze the world around, his actions and their consequences. It would not be even possible if not for a proper state of society. And morality is not only dependant upon social structure, it is the result of assuming social way of survival.

Speaking of the main 'commandments', i. e. against killing & stealing, my current view that they are among the most clear examples. If these are not followed consistently enaugh the whole point of social life dissapears because the society inevitably falls and even the most basic survival benifits of social life are lost. Same goes for the less strict taboos. Backstabbing and lying are generally discouraged because they erode the society. A collective where such people go unpunished gradually gets unbearable to be in. The other members of such collective are forced to either adopt the same behaviour or to become suspicious of everyone. So not only the people become unhappy and worrysome but the collective as a whole is no longer successful in pursuing whatever goal it had and gradually falls apart.

To sum it up. Striving for survival (and procreation) which is property of Life itself is the very reason moral behavior exists at all (or any type of behaviour). This explanation may not look aesthetically appealing. But it does the job of explaining the way of life fairly good without invoking redundant entities. At least up to date. At least to me.

[Mister Agenda]

Culture and situations play heavily into determining good and evil, as does intent. I can imagine a situation where hitting a newborn baby without any special protection as hard as you can with a club is the least-bad choice you can make in your situation. I can't imagine a situation where doing it because it 'feels like fun' is not evil in anyone's book who isn't evil themselves. 'I believe the almighty Lord ordained that I club this baby' is something I can understand, though if I had a pistol I would not hesitate to shoot the fanatic to stop them, I could understand why they felt that they had to do it, and I would think that it was something they didn't want to do but were doing because of the situation they believed they were in (even if they only believed it because of indoctrination), but I can believe that they didn't see themselves as evil they were confused about what was good and what was evil. I could see them realizing that it was a horrific crime and repenting and never in a place where they would do it again. They could never make up for it, but they could legitimately seek redemption. 'I'm a previously functional adult and had this bat and there was this baby, and I wanted to see what would happen' is criminally insane and objectively evil, and that person should never be trusted in public again, unless we come up with a cure for murderous psychopathy.

All of which is by way of saying that I think that although much of morality is cultural and relative and situational; there comes a point where an action is evil, and if it isn't evil by your standards, your standards are wrong.

[Smaug]

Culture and situations play heavily into determining good and evil, as does intent. I can imagine a situation where hitting a newborn baby without any special protection as hard as you can with a club is the least-bad choice you can make in your situation. I can't imagine a situation where doing it because it 'feels like fun' is not evil in anyone's book who isn't evil themselves. 'I believe the almighty Lord ordained that I club this baby' is something I can understand, though if I had a pistol I would not hesitate to shoot the fanatic to stop them, I could understand why they felt that they had to do it, and I would think that it was something they didn't want to do but were doing because of the situation they believed they were in (even if they only believed it because of indoctrination), but I can believe that they didn't see themselves as evil they were confused about what was good and what was evil. I could see them realizing that it was a horrific crime and repenting and never in a place where they would do it again. They could never make up for it, but they could legitimately seek redemption. 'I'm a previously functional adult and had this bat and there was this baby, and I wanted to see what would happen' is criminally insane and objectively evil, and that person should never be trusted in public again, unless we come up with a cure for murderous psychopathy.

All of which is by way of saying that I think that although much of morality is cultural and relative and situational; there comes a point where an action is evil, and if it isn't evil by your standards, your standards are wrong.

Even though good and evil are relative there are extremal points on this scale. The scary thing is that a fanatic that clubs babies may be completely genuine about his intentions. Although this may be the case where instincts kick in to leave chance for repenting. It may be so that humans have instinctive reactions against infanticide of their own kind but I don't know for sure.

[Brian37]

If I had to define good and evil in terms of good people or bad people I'd say
good = a degree of empathy that spurs selflessness
evil = a degree of selfishness that comes from a lack of empathy

and if you want me to factor in my religious perspective, since this thread is in that forum:

natural evil= The axiomatic degree to which people act against God's will
natural good= The axiomatic characteristic of God's empathetic and compassionate nature towards positive outcomes for the most people

moral good = the ethical correctness of God's revealed will
moral evil = sin (going against God's will)

No need for a god, to explain anything. Humans were around long before any written religion of any kind, and just like today, humans were being both cruel and compassionate then, as we are now.

The idea of "God/gods" in antiquity WORLDWIDE, stem from our species age of kings, and those local rulers confusing their success as being divinely handed down to those rulers from above.

The claims of antiquity have nothing to do with our modern understanding of human biology, sociology, psychiatry or psychology.

[Smaug]

What really disturbs me is Religion's constant claims for morality. Not only that moral behaviour existed before modern man but also to me morality is something humans earned at a very high price. Saying that God handed down moral principles is an insult against the memory of all those who fought, suffered and lost their lives so our society could become a better place.

[vulcanlogician]

There are great many examples that show that moral behaviour is formed by the society and lifetime experience.

True. But this merely shows how a moral sense usually develops. It says nothing about whether moral ideas may be correct or not.

Let me ask you: Do you think science is objective? What about math? You don't have to answer "yes." There are theories which say that math and science do not produce truth statements... they are (ultimately) useful fictions. And there is more to these theories than just raw skepticism. Mathematical fictionalists make some pretty strong arguments against mathematical statements having any real truth value. It is an issue worth exploring, but (on the face of it), it appears that math and science ARE capable of producing truth statements (ie. it is true that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa... it is true that that --in Euclidean space-- the square of a triangle's hypotenuse is equal to the square of the sum of the other two angles.)

In short, despite arguments to the contrary, I am working with the assumption that math and science qualify as "objective"... that is NOT fictional and NOT a matter of opinion. If you agree with me here, then I can proceed with my arguments. If you do not agree that math and science are objective, then I see no way I can show you that morality is.

With this in mind, let's examine your premise: "Moral behaviour is formed by the society and lifetime experience." As I said before, I agree with you here. There is no disputing this. But let's wind the clock back a couple thousand years and examine theories of nature of different people. The Greeks thought that thunder and lightning were caused by Zeus. The Hebrews might have thought that it was Yahweh expressing anger.

With these two facts in mind, one could formulate the following premise: "The theory of the origin of thunder and lightning is formed by one's encompassing society." While this IS true, it has no bearing on the fact that there is a more correct objective theory of the cause of thunder and lightning out there to be discovered. Over the centuries, we have worked out the water cycle and electromagnetism and thus have produced an objectively more accurate theory of the cause of thunder and lightning.

Why I stress 'survival'. Certain types of behaviour are results of an organism pursuing some goal. In Nature the only global goal known to science is survival (and procreation which is part of it), if I haven't missed something out of course. Life as a whole strives to survive, species struggle for survival and on the lowest end are the individual organisms. This global goal breaks apart into smaller goals each of them generating certain types of behaviour. With simplier loner ogranisms this stays relatively primitive. Hunt, eat, evade predators, find a mate etc.

I wanted to respond to the rest of what you wrote, but I'm short on time. So let me address the point of the instinctual origins of morality, and if you want to continue discussing the sociological dimension, we can.

Again, I'm going to invoke the objectivity of math and science. Like morality, a primitive form of math and science existed in early hominids/homo sapiens. The ability to distinguish poisonous berries from edible ones, the foresight to horde food and prepare for winter, the tracking of celestial bodies across the sky and naming them after gods etc-- these could be viewed as rudimentary attempts to understand nature (the "nub" of science, if you will.) Such inclinations are rooted in survival and instinct and ARE the product of millions of years of evolution. Modern science is nothing more than a more systematic --and less error prone-- version of this same primal inclination to understand facts about our surroundings.

So the argument could be made that, just like morality, science is the product of evolution. So what? Does that mean that there isn't a correct way and an incorrect way to do science? Does this mean that scientific facts are really just opinions?

The same could be said for math. The ability to do simple math helped our survival. We built on this ability to distinguish quantities and made geometry and algebra... So math is also is the product of evolution.

Millions of years ago, our ancestors used rudimentary logic to aid them in hunting/gathering. It might have went something like this:

1) I saw the rabbit run toward the bush. But then I lost sight of it.
2) As I approached the bush, I heard a rustling from the bush.
3) THEREFORE, the rabbit probably ran into the bush.

This IS logic. And evolution has given us the ability to use it. The thing is there is an objectively right way to use logic. Our innate abilities of reason are often fallacious. So (with the help of the ancient Greeks) we began to figure out the objectively correct way to use logic.

What I propose is this: our moral inclinations ARE the product of evolution. But these inclinations can be in error sometimes. Therefore, as rational beings, we ought to search for the objectively right way to determine moral truths... which is the same thing we have done with science, math, and logic.

[Smaug]

There are great many examples that show that moral behaviour is formed by the society and lifetime experience.

True. But this merely shows how a moral sense usually develops. It says nothing about whether moral ideas may be correct or not.

Let me ask you: Do you think science is objective? What about math? You don't have to answer "yes." There are theories which say that math and science do not produce truth statements... they are (ultimately) useful fictions. And there is more to these theories than just raw skepticism. Mathematical fictionalists make some pretty strong arguments against mathematical statements having any real truth value. It is an issue worth exploring, but (on the face of it), it appears that math and science ARE capable of producing truth statements (ie. it is true that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa... it is true that that --in Euclidean space-- the square of a triangle's hypotenuse is equal to the square of the other two angles.)

In short, despite arguments to the contrary, I am working with the assumption that math and science qualify as "objective"... that is NOT fictional and NOT a matter of opinion. If you agree with me here, then I can proceed with my arguments. If you do not agree that math and science are objective, then I see no way I can show you that morality is.

With this in mind, let's examine your premise: "Moral behaviour is formed by the society and lifetime experience." As I said before, I agree with you here. There is no disputing this. But let's wind the clock back a couple thousand years and examine theories of nature of different people. The Greeks thought that thunder and lightning were caused by Zeus. The Hebrews might have thought that it was Yahweh expressing anger.

With these two facts in mind, one could formulate the following premise: "The theory of the origin of thunder and lightning is formed by one's encompassing society." While this IS true, it has no bearing on the fact that there is a more correct objective theory of the cause of thunder and lightning out there to be discovered. Over the centuries, we have worked out the water cycle and electromagnetism and thus have produced an objectively more accurate theory of the cause of thunder and lightning.

Why I stress 'survival'. Certain types of behaviour are results of an organism pursuing some goal. In Nature the only global goal known to science is survival (and procreation which is part of it), if I haven't missed something out of course. Life as a whole strives to survive, species struggle for survival and on the lowest end are the individual organisms. This global goal breaks apart into smaller goals each of them generating certain types of behaviour. With simplier loner ogranisms this stays relatively primitive. Hunt, eat, evade predators, find a mate etc.

I wanted to respond to the rest of what you wrote, but I'm short on time. So let me address the point of the instinctual origins of morality, and if you want to continue discussing the sociological dimension, we can.

Again, I'm going to invoke the objectivity of math and science. Like morality, a primitive form of math and science existed in early hominids/homo sapiens. The ability to distinguish poisonous berries from edible ones, the foresight to horde food and prepare for winter, the tracking of celestial bodies across the sky and naming them after gods etc-- these could be viewed as rudimentary attempts to understand nature (the "nub" of science, if you will.) Such inclinations are rooted in survival and instinct and ARE the product of millions of years of evolution. Modern science is nothing more than a more systematic --and less error prone-- version of this same primal inclination to understand facts about our surroundings.

So the argument could be made that, just like morality, science is the product of evolution. So what? Does that mean that there isn't a correct way and an incorrect way to do science? Does this mean that scientific facts are really just opinions?

The same could be said for math. The ability to do simple math helped our survival. We built on this ability to distinguish quantities and made geometry and algebra... So math is also is the product of evolution.

Millions of years ago, our ancestors used rudimentary logic to aid them in hunting/gathering. It might have went something like this:

1) I saw the rabbit run toward the bush. But then I lost sight of it.
2) As I approached the bush, I heard a rustling from the bush.
3) THEREFORE, the rabbit probably ran into the bush.

This IS logic. And evolution has given us the ability to use it. The thing is there is an objectively right way to use logic. Our innate abilities of reason are often fallacious. So (with the help of the ancient Greeks) we began to figure out the objectively correct way to use logic.

What I propose is this: our moral inclinations ARE the product of evolution. But these inclinations can be in error sometimes. Therefore, as rational beings, we ought to search for the objectively right way to determine moral truths... which is the same thing we have done with science, math, and logic.

Again, thanks for clearing out your opinion. Now I can say that I fully agree. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant under relativism. I view this term in a more 'physical' way, such as dependapce upon initial values or upon choice of coordinate system. Maybe philosophers put something different into it.

In fact my main point was that moral behaviour as any other type of behaviour has certain underlying objective goals (survival being the most general of them). But different types of societies have somewhat different ways of pursuing their goals. I guess it can be assumed that there is some kind of optimum. Although saying that there is a single optimum in such a complex problem is extremely far-fetched. In this interpretation it can be said that such an optimum is objective since it is a property of an objective process of life. Although it may not be stationary, actually.

For many thousands of years the search for such optimums was almost blind. Hence all the gruesome extremities we have. But since the birth of philosophy the search gradually became more systematic and logical.

Speaking of science, if we're talking about human constructs it's the best we have in terms of objectiveness.

[Alan V]

What really disturbs me is Religion's constant claims for morality. 

It's similar to claims of knowledge in other fields as well, from cosmology to psychology to history to biology.  Some think their ideas trump everything, even if they just made something up the moment before.  

That's what the holy spirit can do for people, I guess.  

[The Grand Nudger]

It's that constant claiming that, for the most part, calcifies peoples opinions about good and evil and their nature as subjective, relative, or objective - much more so than any facts of the given positions.  

Descriptive moral relativism, for example, is more of a comment on cultural anthropology than metaethics - and it was derived, in the modern form, explicitly from cultural anthropology.  Since we find ourselves discussing anthropology, though, consider the constant claims of the religious in that light.  Perhaps they make those repeated claims because their conclusion is accurate, even if the underlying moral reasoning is not.  We do that all the time.  Get the right answer for the wrong reasons, or have the right answer handed to us in ignorance of any valid underlying justification.  

The OT prohibitions on polyblend cloth and shellfish, for example.  This comes to us from the phillistine and canaanite occupations of the northern coast and interior lowlands as narrated by a pastoralist in southern judah.  They're not about underwear and shrimp, at all, they're about cultural contamination and the fear that the consequences of this will be disastrous.  The judahite authors of the OT are obsessed with god punishing transgressions against the establishd order, and they contextualize the increasingly urban and coastal populations living an openly multicultural lifestyle due to recent mass migrations and the post sea peoples collapse of the traditional powerbase.  Linen was made by The Other Guys.  The Other Guys ate waterbug.  They're saying "don't wear the invaders clothes or support his economy and excess, or A Bad Thing(*tm) will happen.

There's an attempt at consequentialist objectivity hiding underneath fanciful stories of gods laws for man, though anyone from the time of this particular bits inception wouldn't have needed any explanation to this effect.  They already knew.  It only became opaque after centuries of time and transportation had eradicated a massive chunk of the popular cultural memory.  Never forget that the people who composed old magic book only deigned to do so after the diaspora and as they were returning and reclaiming territory.  The Bad Thing™ was only bad if you shared a certain political viewpoint on the correct demographics and governance of isreal and judah.  The negative consequences alluded to (barring the divine as a non issue - more a way to emphasize than anything) do not materialize outside of that group.  In the end, the Bad Thing™ -did- happen, but not quite for the reasons assumed.

Building momentum from the lowlands between and beneath the pastoralists freeholds, culminating in the creation and maintenance of an extensive agricultural empire very much of it's own time in an otherwise productively barren landscape - the wealth and success of the kingdom of israel made it a target for foreign adversaries, who utterly destroyed it, fulfilling the "prophecies" of contemporary judahite commentators.  The israelites had strayed from what was taken to be the traditional path, the conservative effort to continue doing what's been working.  God brought the hammer down.  Or so it was contextualized, a very common way for pre-modern societies to summarize disaster .  The recitation of a litany of offenses we might recognize as moral offense (though we may not agree with the moral basis) amounting to a morass or miasma that then makes tragedy inevitable.