NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by discussion in the Et tu, Brute? thread...

What is "good" and what is "evil"?

Can everything be attributed to moral relativism...or is it actually black and white?

As I made clear in the other thread, everything is purely a matter of perspective and relativity, defined by instincts that are hardwired into us--yes, that includes morality.

Take, for example, an extremely religious person, whom we shall call A.(the religion will be undefined.) This person believes, among other things, that homosexuality is evil, that people should not have sex outside of marriage, that homosexual sex should be punished by imprisonment or death, and so on and so forth.

Let's then take B, another extremely religious person. B, however, believes in a religion that is much fairer and nicer to others, and thus does not believe that any of what A believes is evil is actually evil. So who is correct?

The answer is neither one of them. They are both trapped in their own perspectives, created mostly from their own religious beliefs. We have a sense of morality hard-wired into us, but apart from harming another physically and/or killing them, nothing is defined through this instinct. As such, humans tend to create a vast variety of moral standards and perspectives that all work with the same instinct.

What's more, almost every definition of good and evil tends to ignore scientific facts, such as the fact that despite our sentience we are still very much creatures of instinct. While we may seek to protect our young and those closest to us(which if channeled a certain way leads to xenophobia and bigotry) we do so purely out of the instinctual desires we have. In the reality of life, something like child rape means nothing on the grand scale of keeping the species alive, nor does stealing, say, a computer.

Definitions of good and evil also ignore the fact that no two people will share the exact same perspective. Almost everyone who truly believes in good and evil tends to do so due to a religious viewpoint, and while we may bicker over whether this religion or that religion is true, it tends to cloud people's judgement, as they will belive their God or gods are condemning the "evil" ones.
Thusly, there is no good, nor evil. There are only beliefs, concepts, perspectives, and so on.

I believe there are many situations where you can say that there is a right and a wrong thing to do.

A fellow Revived Pict (yes, there are several of us - it's a long story) claims that we all have a 'universal truth' inside us which tells us the difference between right and wrong.

I argued against this once, pointing out that there are plenty of people out there whose universal-truth-o-meter doesn't seem to be working.
He told me: "No, they know what they're doing is wrong, but they hide behind their human excuses and justifications."
For someone who has been stoned since the 70s, I think he makes an okay argument. However, I have no background in philosophy so my opinion might not count for much.

Inspired by discussion in the Et tu, Brute? thread...

What is "good" and what is "evil"?

Can everything be attributed to moral relativism...or is it actually black and white?

"Good" and "evil" are mostly cultural subjectives. However, genocide, cold murder (walking up and shooting someone for no reason, for example), rape, etc... those we can safely define as evil.

Relative, it's all relative. There is however strong evidence to suggest a biological basis for our conscience, which suggests a kind of possible universal moral instinct present in most humans. You cannot simply attribute morals to purely emotivism, or to rationalism, or to instinct alone. Morals are not black and white, people act morally for a whole load of reasons.

Evil and good are relative terms of morality that are applied through the use of holy doctrine based upon one's own religious affiliation. They are too black and white for everyday practical usage because it's clouds over the shades of grey. The two terms are also too one-dimensional to explain everything and anything because they rely on something fitting into a basic cookie-cutter mould.

This is one instance where we could use better words to describe something as evil or good. As it was pointed out by Minaris, we can label violent acts like rape and genocide as evil but we can just as easily used different words. Depraved is a good word for describing the nature of those acts.

Evil and good are relative terms of morality that are applied through the use of holy doctrine based upon one's own religious affiliation. They are too black and white for everyday practical usage because it's clouds over the shades of grey. The two terms are also too one-dimensional to explain everything and anything because they rely on something fitting into a basic cookie-cutter mould.

This is one instance where we could use better words to describe something as evil or good. As it was pointed out by Minaris, we can label violent acts like rape and genocide as evil but we can just as easily used different words. Depraved is a good word for describing the nature of those acts.

Other words that apply are ruthless and cruel.

The answer is simple.

Good is allowing a chance for evil to happen.
Evil is the limiting of Good.

It takes Good Intelligent people to stop Evil.
Misinformed/Stupid/Apathetic people can be tricked into thinking Evil is Good and allowing the Evil to control them by limiting Good.

Replace Good with Freedom and you will see that the root of all evil is control of others.

Other words that apply are ruthless and cruel.

Exactly. We still know the act is evil but the alternative words make convey a stronger meaning because they aren't tied to morality, which for some is relative.

Exactly. We still know the act is evil but the alternative words make convey a stronger meaning because they aren't tied to morality, which for some is relative.

Those words are subjective as well. And they are tied to morallity, otherwise the words would be useless.

Stuff I agree with is good. Stuff I disagree with is evil. Ho good/evil something is all depends on how much i agree/disagree. It's this simple.

The problems are called right Vs. right anything is a can be the good thing to do as long as someone believes it is correct.

It's mostly a feeling,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056.html?hpid=topnews

Aside from that, it can be said to be relative; however even then it is still grounded in culture/tradition. Relativism should not be misconstrued as "anything goes".

i agree with wasted, in the enemys eyes you are considered the badguy, so i dont believe in that crap.

Evil is someone who is exceptionally bad.

welp i was watching the (horrifying) republican candidate debate on TV last night. sen mccain made the point that we (the us) are in a fight of good vs evil.

i couldnt help but wonder "who is the good?"

you cant really say that the guy who is operating under a completely different set of assumptions is EVIL. he is merely using a different moral compass than you are.

him being good or evil depends on how well he conforms to his OWN code. if he acts as any good <whatever> is supposed to act, he is GOOD. if he acts outside of that code, he is EVIL. what someone outside of that moral code thinks is irrelevant.

People who work to make the world communist, like Stalin, are good.

Reactionaries who call themselves "socialist," but are really petty bourgeoise fascists, like Emma Goldman, are evil.

bump

People who work to make the world communist, like Stalin, are good.

Reactionaries who call themselves "socialist," but are really petty bourgeoise fascists, like Emma Goldman, are evil.

Hmm. Methinks our social convictions are at odds at best.

I've reached the decision, for me at least, that questioning what is good and what is evil is an old and archaic question that cannot fit in with today's society. Maybe back in the stone age, but certainly not today.

Now it seems instead of discussions on good and evil, discussions of Law are more relevant.

Now I'll throw my shtick into the fire.

Evil and Good are absolutes. The universe is a balance of all things; for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. This is more than a physical reality; it permeates existence. Yin and yang. Light/dark, black/white, alive/dead, good/evil.

An action is is simply that: an action. It is justified by its realization, and it is neither good nor evil in the moment of its reality. Yet only in passing do we determine merit; it is the observation of an action, thus neutral, that assigns whether it is good or it is evil.

But this observational tendency is subjective, and not absolute. We do not know what is good and what is evil except by our own moral conviction; we assign actions and, it follows, individuals, as good or evil without knowing the absolute truth, but only subjective reality.

I close with the statement that perception is reality--to those in the cave, the shadows are real images, just as the fire is real, though it may create the image of the shadows--when sight is limited it becomes of a necessity the reality. We do not understand and cannot know the ultimate absolute value of good and evil, but our perception defines it accordingly, and though we do not see the fire, we at least recognize the shadows.

aw not socialist revolutions again

Inspired by discussion in the Et tu, Brute? thread...

What is "good" and what is "evil"?

Can everything be attributed to moral relativism...or is it actually black and white?

Good is the result of habitual virtuous action spawned from a good intent by a rational being.

Evil is somewhat more difficult to define, as it can be parsed into evil acts and evil rational beings. For an act to be evil, it must act to the detriment of the virtue of the person doing it, but this can happen whether the person willfully does it or not. For a person to be truly evil, they'd have to have a very clear idea what the right or virtuous action was, and consciously act oppositely. Insofar as so very, very few people actually do this, there are far more evil acts caused by misguided people than there are truly evil people committing evil acts.

Insofar as what makes a person virtuous does not differ from person to person, and insofar as moral relativism requires well-nigh logically incoherent takes on linguistic and epistemic philosophy to contenance, morality is not relative. It is gradated by circumstance, but that's not the same thing.

Inspired by discussion in the Et tu, Brute? thread...

What is "good" and what is "evil"?

Can everything be attributed to moral relativism...or is it actually black and white?

Moral relativism.

Next question.

if i had to class myself as good or evil i would say i am evil because of the fact i find killing people a fun idea

good would be doing something virtuous or at least a good deed for example if you see someone robbing a poor woman do you a) ignore it b) go after the person attempt to catch them and give the things back or in my case c) get the things back and keep them muahahahahaha

there is no good vs evil just the stuggle for power we just fall into these categories on how we gain this power

*raises hand* Moral relativist. One man's mortal sin is another man's virtue. Heck, even between different schools of thought within the same religion you find differences. Add culture, and voila, a web of different morals.

You might wish to read Kant as his philosophy of Morality is still looked to occasionally. Or Hume...depending on the answer you are searching for.

What this thread needs is a poll!

i've moved beyond them

This is insane! Moral relativism makes no sense at all.

For one thing, reason is inherently universal. So if you claim that 'Murder is wrong', then you have to be making a universal claim. If someone else comes along and says 'Murder is good', you have to say that they are wrong.

You (moral relativists) are confusing the reasons why we feel some things with the justifications for endorsing those feelings. Of course I feel that it's wrong to kill because of my biology and culture. But I now have to make an executive decision whether to endorse those feelings, and to do that I consider the reasons and justifications of that claim.

reason is inherently universal. So if you claim that 'Murder is wrong', then you have to be making a universal claim.

i think you are skipping a step or twelve in this argument

This is insane! Moral relativism makes no sense at all.

For one thing, reason is inherently universal. So if you claim that 'Murder is wrong', then you have to be making a universal claim. If someone else comes along and says 'Murder is good', you have to say that they are wrong.

You (moral relativists) are confusing the reasons why we feel some things with the justifications for endorsing those feelings. Of course I feel that it's wrong to kill because of my biology and culture. But I now have to make an executive decision whether to endorse those feelings, and to do that I consider the reasons and justifications of that claim.

but murder is wrong by the definition of murder.

the question is whether or not a particular killing is murder or, perhaps, if the concept of murder is legitimate at all.

i think you are skipping a step or twelve in this argument

Yes, alright, I was a little bit imprecise there. In fact, maybe I was a little wrong.

I am pretty convinced by Kantian ethics, even though I don't understand all of it. I'm going to try to recreate the argument for it that I read, for the sake of my own clarity as much as anything else.

For the sake of argument, let's say we can say something is good if we should do it. Then our problem comes down to finding where that 'should' can come from. But the way humans work is that we have thoughts and feelings, and then if we're conscious we make an executive decision about what to do. You should do what you decide to do, because it's yourself who is making the command. This solves where the 'should' comes from - it remains to be shown what decisions are correct, and which are mistakes.

Now, the way that you make a conscious decision is inherently rational - that is you decide what to do based on reasons. That's just the way humans work. We accept reasons and make a decision they support if they refer to things we value. If we value anything, logic shows that we must value human life, because that is the root of the value of all the other things (I am a little fuzzy about why that's true). Reason is inherently universal, so we will conclude that all human life has value, and base decisions on reasons accordingly.

Now, if you decide that murder is right, I will tell you that you have made a mistake, you haven't reflected on the reasons completely. Because reason is universal, if I think I am right in my moral decisions, I have to conclude that people who decide differently have made a mistake.

So: moral relativism is true to the extent that the moral force (the normative 'should') comes from you commanding yourself to do whatever you decide.

However, I can still say that Hitler was wrong, because he did not properly consider the value of the humanity of those he killed.

everything depends upon our choices...some things may be good for us ut not good for others..so whats good and whats evil? everythings is a consequence of the actions we take

Evil is someone who is exceptionally bad.

I agree.