A core contention

[Eleas]

Does absolute evil exist? If so, what is the definition of absolute evil? Does good exist? How do you then define good? Are we made up of polarities and opposites, or is that just religious conditioning and we're really shades of grey?

For the purpose of a little experiment, I'd like for each of you to state your nationality when you reply to this topic. Thank you.

[Dalton]

I think good and evil are subjective. This is based mostly on cultural and religious conditioning, I suppose, but I believe good and evil are very subjective concepts and that there are no absolutes.

I base what is good and evil based on what would help people or what would hurt people.

Place of origin? Long Island, New York, USA.

[UltraViolence83]

U.S.A. ---More specifically, Northeasterm Ohio.



Neither are objective. Objective truths can be seen by anybody; good and evil are WAY to subjective for that. As many people have some qualms about killing someone in any situation, I wouldn't if it were self-defense. Even then you'd have to wonder just how many people are only restrained from commiting massacres only by anti-homocide laws. Some think that evil is good, and vice versa. It's all what your philosophy on life basically.

Then you have some people who don't think killing is evil at all!

Personally, I feel that morality is too subjective to be enforced by a majority (though without laws based on it we'd have only chaos). I mostly agree with humanist morality, but then I disagree with much of it. Pick and choose. I'm not one to find all manners of sexual promisquity to be "right" as I see many participants of it as whores.The only thing holding me back from robbing a store for cash or selling crack to 5th graders is the fact that I'm generally a nice and law-abiding guy.

[UltraViolence83]

Many things that I have considered (and done) in the past, of which will remain untold due to the possibility of it coming back to haunt me, would probably make most people here think of me as an amoral character.

[Edi]

<-- My location

This is a little tough to answer. I'm of a divided opinion:

1) I think that objective good and evil do exist, in the sense that, all other things being equal, harming people is objectively bad, it results in clearly verifiable harm. Conversely, helping someone else can quite easily result in objectively verifiable improvement for them, and can be considered good (all other things being equal).

2) Good and evil are largely subjective, in that they depend on cultural values and the systems of morality we are taught. Harming someone else tends to be seen as bad and evil, but it can be quite acceptable (e.g. self-defense, defense of others). Things must be examined on a case by case basis in a framework of guiding principles (and it ain't easy when those principles start conflicting, as they sometimes do), and to get any sort of meaningful results, the application of said principles has to be consistent.

I guess the basic concept of objective good/evil (measured by improvement/harm) exists, especially as an ideal thought construct, but its application to the real world in its basic form is far rarer than a "tainted" application where the condition of "all other things being equal" is not fulfilled, and so it becomes a(n at least partially) subjective issue.

Edi

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I think good and evil are neither wholly objective nor wholly subjective. I think there are things that people in any culture can probably agree are evil: beating a child to death for fun, or stealing crops or livestock. But the further away you get from being able to show material harm, the further you go into subjective territory. This is typically where each different culture has its own ideas (whether codified as laws or not) about what constitutes evil.

My personal definition of "good" is pretty simple, and there might be a lot of people who can agree on it: Good is simply the pleasant absence of evil.

[Knife]

Does absolute evil exist? If so, what is the definition of absolute evil? Does good exist? How do you then define good? Are we made up of polarities and opposites, or is that just religious conditioning and we're really shades of grey?

For the purpose of a little experiment, I'd like for each of you to state your nationality when you reply to this topic. Thank you.

While for the most part, both are subjective they both can be objective as well. As others noted, certain acts are evil and not subjective nor justifiable (child rape comes to mind) and certain acts for 'good' could fall into that 'objective' category as well.

Being good or evil is more of a desired result than a state of being. Everyone does shit that they know is wrong yet I would not categorize those people as evil. The intent to do 'evil' or harm in a continuing campaign through out your life would qualify (IMHO) as being evil but situations like that are rare.


BTW, American.

[Steven Snyder]

While for the most part, both are subjective they both can be objective as well. As others noted, certain acts are evil and not subjective nor justifiable (child rape comes to mind) and certain acts for 'good' could fall into that 'objective' category as well.

Well, Branch Davidians as a whole allowed David Koresh to have sex (wanted or not) with the children of the cult. They viewed it has his right as the messiah or something along those lines. It was not viewed as evil, but a holy thing.

Therefore as reprehensible as it is, it is not an Objective evil.

Even the very definition of morality can vary from person to person, making the entire concept a subjective term.

[Knife]

While for the most part, both are subjective they both can be objective as well. As others noted, certain acts are evil and not subjective nor justifiable (child rape comes to mind) and certain acts for 'good' could fall into that 'objective' category as well.

Well, Branch Davidians as a whole allowed David Koresh to have sex (wanted or not) with the children of the cult. They viewed it has his right as the messiah or something along those lines. It was not viewed as evil, but a holy thing.

Therefore as reprehensible as it is, it is not an Objective evil.

Even the very definition of morality can vary from person to person, making the entire concept a subjective term.

Subjective is 14 or 15 or even 16 year olds having sex. Subjective is the parents that let Koresh have sex with their teenage kids. Objective is men (lets face it, they are the majority of this particualr kind of shithead) that fuck 5 year olds or 6 year olds. These people are 'EVIL'. No justification, no subjective interpertation. None.

[Hotfoot]

Good and Evil are ways of making people feel better about themselves, I think.

My personal way of thinking is this:

There are selfless people, selfish people, and psychotic people.
In D&D terms, this would be "Good, Neutral, and Evil," which only is a very rough and dirty approximation.

No person can be entirely selfless, selfish, or psychotic, they are just the logical extremes to describe certain behaviors. Everyone is a little of all three, but usually with a strong leaning towards one area. Think of it as a triangle, each aspect being a point, and the population of the world are dots between them, never quite static, but rather often shifting slowly one way or another, and rarely deviating greatly.

A highly selfless person would be a teacher/social worker/rescue services worker, someone who would adopt children, train seeing eye dogs, etc.

A highly selfish person would be your standard money-grubbing politician, CEO, or what have you.

A highly psychotic person would be someone suffering from a serious mental illness, for example mass murderers or serial rapists.

When you are selfless, you gain satisfaction from thankless tasks. You do not seek glory or recognition, but rather are just satisfied in a job well done.

When you are selfish, you want attention, you want to be praised, and you are only satisfied by recognition for what you do. Your motivation for doing good things is driven by the positive reaction that comes from others.

When you are psychotic, you do things without caring about the consequences. You act on gut instinct and do things without thinking very much if at all.

A normal, healthy person can easily combine all three. Let's take Jake for example. Jake submits a story to the school's literary magazine, which decides to publish his story. People read his story and complement him on it. This was primarily selfish, as Jake wanted to have recognition and praise for his work. There were elements of selflessness (sharing a story so that others might enjoy it) and maybe even a little psychosis (he just wanted to write the story, he felt he had to or wanted to very strongly). Jake also gives blood regularly, a primarily selfless act, though he could use the fact to gain the respect of others (selfish) even if he doesn't brag about it overly much, he would still enjoy the recognition of his actions. However, Jake is quite shy. Whenever he talks to girls he is attracted to, he becomes very quiet and timid. This is primarily psychotic, as there is no real rational force driving it. Irrational urges or behaviors like this tend fit under "psychotic" (harsh, perhaps, but remember that it is just an extreme for the purposes of this example). If you augmented any aspects of Jake's personality, you could end up with a egotistical writer who is never happy unless he is being constantly worshipped and snaps at or completely disregards any negative voices, or someone who devotes his every waking moment towards helping others, or someone who simply cannot communicate with others, forcing him to withdraw into his own mind.

It's overly simplified, to be certain, but I think that it is a fairly accurate model nonetheless.

Most "good vs. evil" is just an attempt to paint another group as overly psychotic. It is easy to rally people against a psychotic threat, as it poses a danger to any rational beings. It is not so easy, however, to rally people against a rational threat which takes a different stance from yours.

[InnerBrat]

Well, I'm British, and I ticked the 'meaningless concept' box.

Essentially, in a Godless universe theer is no real reason to distinguish 'good' and 'evil' - and morality - which does exist - is culturally and personally subjective.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Does absolute evil exist? If so, what is the definition of absolute evil? Does good exist? How do you then define good? Are we made up of polarities and opposites, or is that just religious conditioning and we're really shades of grey?

For the purpose of a little experiment, I'd like for each of you to state your nationality when you reply to this topic. Thank you.

I tend to say that 'good' and 'evil' are entirely subjective. For example, three thousand years ago, it was considered 'good' to wipe out other people's tribes because they sat on land that your god or gods had given you. It was considered 'evil' to be a menustrating woman, who generally had to spend her period locked in a hut.

Nowadays, in most industrialized countries, the thought of wiping out entire cultures of people by the blade is generally thought of as an unspeakable sort of 'evil'. Whereas wiping out entire cultures of people through the introduction of Disney, Coke, and McDonalds, is considered to be good.

And really, it doesn't get any better when you look at life at a more individual level. For example, two centuries ago, it was good and acceptable for two men to settle their differences with a duel. Nowadays, two people who settle their differences by shooting it out are considered to be evil people who deserve nothing better than long prison sentences.

Location: Southwestern United States.

[Hotfoot]

Ah, yes, I forgot my location...lest you think that I do, in fact, reside in a system several millions of light years from Earth.

North-Eastern United States.

[Darth Wong]

The concept of morality itself is subjective, in the sense that morality is an idea, and has no tangible existence. Having said that, it is still possible to BASE a system of morality upon objective data.

For example, let's say you believe that it is bad to hurt people. In the most objective possible system of morality based on that premise, you would think it's immoral to stab someone to death (for example). The act of stabbing that person to death is objective; it exists and is independently verifiable. Moreover, the physical damage done to the person is obviously objective as well.

Now, take a religious person who think that it "hurts" people to see things which offend them (a common objection of homophobes to gay rights is that it will somehow "harm" society for people to be forced to witness the presence of gays in it). Same premise (that it's bad to hurt people), but in this case, it is HIGHLY subjective because the "harm" in this case is totally subjective as well. You CANNOT independently verify any tangible harm from this "crime", hence this is a case of a system of morality which trades in subjective currency.

In short, morality itself is subjective in the sense that guiding principles do not "exist". However, once you accept those guiding principles, there are objective and subjective ways to apply them. Subjective methods tend to lead to madness.

[Nova Andromeda]

--It entirely depends on how one defines good and evil. However, once one has that criteria one can assess its objectivity. The commonly accepted definition is that good=equitable and evil=inequitable.

[Loki]

--It entirely depends on how one defines good and evil. However, once one has that criteria one can assess its objectivity. The commonly accepted definition is that good=equitable and evil=inequitable.

That is the rule-utilitarian viewpoint.

Assuming the current psychological theories of developmental morality (Kohlberg and Piaget, at least. Don't know about Rosen.), "good" and "evil" are purely subjective. For example, Kohlberg's first stage characterizes and individuals morality as one that is focused on avoiding punishment, while in his last stage an individual makes decisions based on his/her personal ideals. He goes on to say that the rate and final stage of development among this tiered system is not absolute, and so if you buy into this you have no alternative but to view morality as entirely dependent upon the individual.

(Personally, I don't agree that morality follows a linear path, but having no training in psychology, who am I to question. )

[Nova Andromeda]

--It entirely depends on how one defines good and evil. However, once one has that criteria one can assess its objectivity. The commonly accepted definition is that good=equitable and evil=inequitable.

That is the rule-utilitarian viewpoint.

Assuming the current psychological theories of developmental morality (Kohlberg and Piaget, at least. Don't know about Rosen.), "good" and "evil" are purely subjective. For example, Kohlberg's first stage characterizes and individuals morality as one that is focused on avoiding punishment, while in his last stage an individual makes decisions based on his/her personal ideals. He goes on to say that the rate and final stage of development among this tiered system is not absolute, and so if you buy into this you have no alternative but to view morality as entirely dependent upon the individual.

(Personally, I don't agree that morality follows a linear path, but having no training in psychology, who am I to question. )

--Actually, it is not a viewpoint it is fact. In order to make any evaluation one needs a criteria to make said evaluation (in this case one needs to define good and evil). That is the nature of beast. Once one understands what that criteria is then its objectivity can be assessed. This is also obvious due to the fact that understanding the criteria necessarily means you have all the information needed to assess how objective the criteria is (well you need to know what objective means too I guess). One can also look up what the definitions of good and evil in the dictionary (i.e., the commonly accepted definitions). Those definitions boil down to evil=inequitable and good=equitable.
-Asking whether there is a set of criteria used to judge good and evil that can be called objective and universal is another matter. In other words: what is equitable excactly?

[Darth Wong]

Good and evil are not defined in the dictionary as equitable/inequitable. Those are merely one of many criteria which tend to enter into the concept. It is possible for something to be inequitable and yet not considered "evil".

For example, it is inequitable for person A to work hard for his money while person B does nothing and still receives money Does this mean that taxing person A to give money to person B is "evil"? Not necessarily ideal, but would you call it "evil"? What if person B is disabled and incapable of working? What if person B is a 6 year old child, hospitalized with a rare disease? It is inequitable, but few would call it evil.

Beware one-dimensional schemes of morality.

[Keevan_Colton]

Well, I'm British, and I ticked the 'meaningless concept' box.

Essentially, in a Godless universe theer is no real reason to distinguish 'good' and 'evil' - and morality - which does exist - is culturally and personally subjective.

Yep, Yep and another Yep.

And from just a bit further North....

[Frank Hipper]

Evil=the willful destruction of prosperity, health, life or well being. Good would be the opposite of that. Burying such seemingly obvious truths under an over-analytical wordgame fest is one of the reasons I can't stand philosophy.
Arizona, U.S.A.

[Nova Andromeda]

Good and evil are not defined in the dictionary as equitable/inequitable. Those are merely one of many criteria which tend to enter into the concept. It is possible for something to be inequitable and yet not considered "evil".

For example, it is inequitable for person A to work hard for his money while person B does nothing and still receives money Does this mean that taxing person A to give money to person B is "evil"? Not necessarily ideal, but would you call it "evil"? What if person B is disabled and incapable of working? What if person B is a 6 year old child, hospitalized with a rare disease? It is inequitable, but few would call it evil.

Beware one-dimensional schemes of morality.

--I based my assertion on a recollection of this definition of equitable: "1 : having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned"
which can be found at Merriam Webster. It seems resonable to say that if you deal with others fairly then that is good. If you deal with them unfairly that is bad or evil. In addition, if you are good it seems you would deal with people fairly; evil/unfair. However, this is only one common criteria. Some religions have vastly different criteria for good and evil. In addition, the other definitions I found for good seem to fit the form of "follows his/her moral code" which is definitely not general.
-The situation you bring up clearly deals with defining what is equitable/fair and what is not which I made no attempt to do. In your example, you admit taxing person A to give to person B is not ideal. However, you say it is not evil. That suggests to me that you think things have to rise to certain level of inequitability before they are considered evil. I, however, view all things that are not "ideal" as evil though some things are far more evil than others and some things are such a minor evil they hardly deserve consideration. What I would consider an ideal solution to the situation you propose is this. 1. Everyone has the option to opt into a national insurance program which would spread the cost of accidental injury, etc. over all the members. This decision can be made anytime after the person is "of age." 2. Those who do not opt in must take care of themselves. 3. People who reproduce must demonstrate they have the means to provide for their offspring (and off course must actually do so) until those offspring can take control over their own lives. 4. People who reproduce must pay into a fund that covers the costs from offspring that are born with defects, require abnormal/unforseen costs to raise, lose their parents, etc.
-Using the above method a society can care for all its "unfortunate" members without being inequitable. For instance, I believe it is unfair and therefore to some extent evil to force members of society with no offspring to subsidize those members of society with offspring. If you have children you should take on the entire burden for raising them. I also think it unfair to force someone to get insurance unless they pose a risk to others besides themselves. If you want to role the dice with the hand you you've been dealt so be it, just don't wager my chips.

P.S. -- Since it is late and I haven't had much sleep I reserve the right to
admit any errors I've made and correct them.

[Darth Wong]

The situation you bring up clearly deals with defining what is equitable/fair and what is not which I made no attempt to do. In your example, you admit taxing person A to give to person B is not ideal. However, you say it is not evil. That suggests to me that you think things have to rise to certain level of inequitability before they are considered evil. I, however, view all things that are not "ideal" as evil though some things are far more evil than others and some things are such a minor evil they hardly deserve consideration.

That kind of black/white dichotomy is extremely dangerous. Evil is malicious, harmful, etc. It is quite possible for people to be in a less than ideal position without any evil having been done to them.

What I would consider an ideal solution to the situation you propose is this. 1. Everyone has the option to opt into a national insurance program which would spread the cost of accidental injury, etc. over all the members. This decision can be made anytime after the person is "of age." 2. Those who do not opt in must take care of themselves.

And how will they pay if they have no jobs, have been laid off, etc?

3. People who reproduce must demonstrate they have the means to provide for their offspring (and off course must actually do so) until those offspring can take control over their own lives.

And how would you enforce this insane provision? Licenses required before having sex? Chemical castration until you can get a license? Forced abortions? Chastity belts? Your definition of "evil" is severely faulty, as your scheme requires draconian measures which would themselves be considered evil (perhaps horribly so) by most human beings.

4. People who reproduce must pay into a fund that covers the costs from offspring that are born with defects, require abnormal/unforseen costs to raise, lose their parents, etc.

Birth-defect insurance? A national health-care plan would take care of that, wouldn't it?

-Using the above method a society can care for all its "unfortunate" members without being inequitable.

Or it would at least be able to casually dismiss the suffering of those unable to buy into the program because it would have been "inequitable" to do it any other way

For instance, I believe it is unfair and therefore to some extent evil to force members of society with no offspring to subsidize those members of society with offspring.

Because your whole concept of one-dimensional morality is based around fairness, with no other considerations whatsoever. The fact that children and the necessary support system for their proper upbringing is ESSENTIAL to the continued well-being of a society at large seems to escape your attention; you view them only as a cost, and perhaps even a foolish and destructive choice by parents, for which they should be financially penalized rather than subsidized. In short, your ideal society discourages parenthood with every means possible: mandatory licensing, massive tax increase at the moment they become parents, which happens to be precisely the moment when their income will drop precipitously, etc. It's a good thing you have no power to implement your ideal society; it would be a nightmare that would quickly dissolve into chaos and widespread social unrest as you attempt to undermine, discourage, and penalize the most primal instinct of all living things: the need to reproduce.

If you have children you should take on the entire burden for raising them.

Gee, let me guess: you have no kids and no plans of having any in the foreseeable future.

I also think it unfair to force someone to get insurance unless they pose a risk to others besides themselves.

The whole point of insurance is that most people must buy into it, otherwise it won't work. Please speak to an actuary about the mathematics behind this if you don't understand it.

If you want to role the dice with the hand you you've been dealt so be it, just don't wager my chips.

You appear to have constructed a system of morality based exclusively on rationalizing whatever seems most convenient for your personal situation at the present time.

P.S. -- Since it is late and I haven't had much sleep I reserve the right to admit any errors I've made and correct them.

I hope so.

[kojikun]

Wholely and utterly subjective. Tho I define evil as something done without consent of those physically affected (emotional distress is ones own making, and someone else doing something because of a third parties actions is not the fault of the third party).

By that definition, nonconsensual acts, you can also pretty much define all modern laws AND rights. If you look at the American Bill of Rights pretty much everything guaranteed prevents others from forcing you to do anything, or, in the case of criminal trials, limits what you can do so that you dont force anyone else to do things.

But for a non-personal, more wide-ranging definition, which doesn't conflict with the above (because of the inherent nature of "forcing" as a requiring someone to act as the agent of force), I would say that "NON-EVIL" (often considered good) is defined in a very utilitarian way: Greatest good for the greatest number. For example, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "good", because it killed fewer people then it saved (a few hundred thousand in those two cities, as opposed to one million US soldiers, and very likely significant percentage of the entire Japanese population). But some people look at the personal level of such acts, the fact that youre killing (ie forcing death) upon many thousands of people. But in this kind of 6-of-one-Half-Dozen-of-the-Other situations, there has to be a choice made, and if you have to choose "death or more, or death of less" you choose the one that does less "Evil" because its the only choice.

Another example in this wide-ranging type scenario, that touches on Mikes opinion that killing children is bad in ALL circumstances, would be "what if a child is hellbent on killing you and has a bomb strapped to his chest?" Clearly you shoot the child in the fucking head until his brain is scattered across two or three provinces. This kid clearly intends to kill you, and is not going to do anyone any good if hes kept alive (except maybe Palestinian terrorists, who are fond of this method). As Spock once said, its cold hard mathematics.

[Darth Wong]

Another example in this wide-ranging type scenario, that touches on Mikes opinion that killing children is bad in ALL circumstances, would be "what if a child is hellbent on killing you and has a bomb strapped to his chest?" Clearly you shoot the child in the fucking head until his brain is scattered across two or three provinces. This kid clearly intends to kill you, and is not going to do anyone any good if hes kept alive (except maybe Palestinian terrorists, who are fond of this method). As Spock once said, its cold hard mathematics.

How does this disprove the claim that infanticide is bad? At best, you choose the lesser of two evils (killing in self-defense being a lesser evil than killing out of malice and hate). Doesn't change the fact that it's bad to kill kids.

[kojikun]

How does this disprove the claim that infanticide is bad? At best, you choose the lesser of two evils (killing in self-defense being a lesser evil than killing out of malice and hate). Doesn't change the fact that it's bad to kill kids.

Oh no no, infanticide is clearly wrong as its nonconsentual, but when the lesser of two evils is killing a child theres the emotional wrongness and the utilitarian "goodness" of choosing the lesser of the two. And since utilitarian methodology is what functions best, utilitarian "goodness" is simply "good". doesn't make it good to KILL, period, but it makes it good to kill ONE to prevent them killing even more.

Just to add in an extra point: the "good" coming from the lesser of two evils is an instrumental good, in that it is good because it is a means to an end which is intrinsically good (preservation of life, in this case).