[Serious] Good vs Evil

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the difference between natural evil and moral evil.  Natural evil is commonly described as the shitty things that happen which are not attributable to some moral agent.

Wolves are not moral agents.  It doesn't follow that good and evil depend on the observer in the case that there is natural evil.

As a side note, the argument from natural evil can only be leveraged, rationally, by a person who understands the difference between the two and implicitly assumes that a gods moral agency transforms natural evil into moral evil.

[onlinebiker]

The reason you can make the distinction whether it' s natural or moral is the same as whether it' s good or evil.

We make it up.

The universe doesn't .make such distinctions.

It' s totally dependent on an observer.

[The Grand Nudger]

We make up every category and every word to describe it for any distinction under the sun.  This does not demonstrate that the categories or their contents depend on people.

Every rose in the world would still be a rose if men weren't there to name them.

The thing we call natural evil is different from the thing we call moral evil. For specificity's sake, we use two terms to refer to those disparate categories of x. Just as you might use "cat" or "dog" instead of "animal" if you wanted me to feed one or the other. Unless roses, cats, and dogs are equally "totally dependent on the observer" we're going to have to figure out why moral x's are the special case. What is it that makes us cognitivists and realists when it comes to the first three, but not the other?

[onlinebiker]

We make up every category and every word to describe it for any distinction under the sun.  This does not demonstrate that the categories or their contents depend on people.

Every rose in the world would still be a rose if men weren't there to name them.

The thing we call natural evil is different from the thing we call moral evil.  For specificity's sake, we use two terms to refer to those disparate categories of x.  Just as you might use "cat" or "dog" instead of "animal" if you wanted me to feed one or the other.  Unless roses, cats, and dogs are equally "totally dependent on the observer" we're going to have to figure out why moral x's are the special case.  What is it that makes us cognitivists and realists when it comes to the first three, but not the other?

False equivalency.

Roses, dogs and cats are quantifiable physical things.

Good, evil, moral and natural are simply concepts - ideas - and totally dependent on an observer who can understand the concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

We make up every category and every word to describe it for any distinction under the sun.  This does not demonstrate that the categories or their contents depend on people.

Every rose in the world would still be a rose if men weren't there to name them.

The thing we call natural evil is different from the thing we call moral evil.  For specificity's sake, we use two terms to refer to those disparate categories of x.  Just as you might use "cat" or "dog" instead of "animal" if you wanted me to feed one or the other.  Unless roses, cats, and dogs are equally "totally dependent on the observer" we're going to have to figure out why moral x's are the special case.  What is it that makes us cognitivists and realists when it comes to the first three, but not the other?

False equivalency.

Roses, dogs and cats are quantifiable physical things.

Natural realism contends that moral x's are, likewise.  That's all moral realism or objectivism is. The notion that there can be things about an object, which are true, to which moral statements are reducible and properly refer.

Good, evil, moral and natural are simply concepts - ideas - and totally dependent on an observer who can understand the concept.

Apprehension depends on an observer.  If you're discussing apprehension, you'd be commenting on descriptive moral subjectivity, which moral realists also accept to be self evident...but doesn't support the claims you've made about good and evil or their dependencies. Even if we were not here to apprehend them, earthquakes, a "natural evil" would still happen. If we were the only creatures that this planet ever produced which posessed a moral agency, then there would be no moral evil....until some creature with moral agency from some other planet showed up and did The Bad Things™, ofc, lol. In this way, moral evil depends on a moral agent - but not any particular moral agent, and not in the manner relevant to the positions of moral subjectivity or relativity( as opposed to their descriptive variants, above).

[SlowCalculations]

Honestly? I haven't decided i'd say i haven't taken the topic very seriously to really dive into it because iv'e had other things on my mind but i do remember i used to answer this with 100% yes there is good there is evil...now as i'm typing my brain says "There is ignorance" and there is good. i'm not entirely sure that even makes sense it's 3 am and i'm also not really putting together enough thought on the matter to make this connect. But i think the word "Ignorance" has a lot to do with evil.

[Acrobat]

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?

I don't think we can define good or evil in a way that would capture all of which is good or evil. We do a better a job recognizing what is good or evil, than we do in articulating it, or expressing it an adequate language. 

And yes there are things that are objectively good or evil.

My go to example: It's objectively wrong to torture innocent babies just for fun. The wrongness here is as real as the yellow of my wife's dress, or 1+1 =3.

---

We make up every category and every word to describe it for any distinction under the sun.  This does not demonstrate that the categories or their contents depend on people.

Every rose in the world would still be a rose if men weren't there to name them.

The thing we call natural evil is different from the thing we call moral evil.  For specificity's sake, we use two terms to refer to those disparate categories of x.  Just as you might use "cat" or "dog" instead of "animal" if you wanted me to feed one or the other.  Unless roses, cats, and dogs are equally "totally dependent on the observer" we're going to have to figure out why moral x's are the special case.  What is it that makes us cognitivists and realists when it comes to the first three, but not the other?

False equivalency.

Roses, dogs and cats are quantifiable physical things.

Good, evil, moral and natural are simply concepts - ideas - and totally dependent on an observer who can understand the concept.

"Roses, dogs and cats are quantifiable physical things."

Quantifiable things are totally dependent on an observer who can quantify them, who can understand these concepts. Any argument you use to deny objective morality, can be repurposed and used just as consistently to deny objective truth all together.

The universe doesn't .make such distinctions.

It' s totally dependent on an observer.

That could be said of truth as well, the universe doesn't make distinctions on what's true or false, that totally dependent on the observer.

Good and evil are recognized by human minds, just like roses dogs and cats are, but they don't merely exist in our minds, any more than any other true we recognize. In fact we recognize moral truths not as subjective internal states, but as transcendent and external to us. 

When I tell my children it's wrong to steal, I'm not telling them it's wrong because I simply don't like it, but rather an objective truth, independent of my personal feelings.

[Drich]

Drich has become the Brian37 of morality.  He uses a stray word or phrase as a pretext for launching off into a rant about his obsessions instead of actually having a discussion.

I thought my position was very clear.

Morality is a shite standard that means little to nothing as each subsequent generation simply lowers the bar.

In essence morality is the compromise or the level of types of sin the current generation is wanting to live with.

The goal is righteousness/perfection.

We can never reach perfection. So the gracious and merciful God provides us another way not dependant on morality/right and wrong at all but on love and forgiveness.

How ever the self righteous demands to maintain that they are 'moral enough' to be considered righteous and do not need God.

When again morality is not even a consideration/anything God looks at. which is why morality is a self form of righteousness./self righteous behavior.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that an accurate summary of the state of moral improvement?  Over all of time, or some specific scale?

[Drich]

Is that an accurate summary of the state of moral improvement?  Over all of time, or some specific scale?

there are no moral improvements. again it is the sin you as apart of pop culture want to live with sport. how hard is that to get? a level meaning one generation says it is ok to hate gays and love jesus, and another says it is ok to love gays and hate jesus. both are sin, it is simply a matter of choice as to which sin is preferable to the current pop culture.