-->
@Outplayz
But without a standard someone could argue that showing skin is "more evil". That is my real point. That is why saying rape is evil isn't enough we need to know what about it makes it evil.
Justification of knowledge and morality/ethics
Posts
Total:
137
-->
@Plisken
I don't know if you read how i tied forgiveness into realizing bad vs. evil, but that is how i distinguish the two. If someone stole from you, given the facts, you can likely forgive them. If they stole your wedding ring, it will be harder to forgive but you can still forgive them. If they stole an idea from you and used it to succeed leaving you to become homeless... you may never forgive them or it's really hard to... at that point i would say it's closing in on being evil. Although this was a bad example bc i think theft is mostly something bad and not evil do to the fact in the vast majority of cases you can forgive.Forgiveness is one aspect of all that must be assumed in compensation for evil.
-->
@secularmerlin
In that sense i go with the majority. Someone that finds showing skin to be more evil than rape is less than someone that thinks rape is more evil. The three i listed i would say the majority find more evil than other things. Of course i'm not basing this off any studies... i don't know if one exists, but i would bet the evils i listed have more of a fan base in defining them as evil.But without a standard someone could argue that showing skin is "more evil". That is my real point. That is why saying rape is evil isn't enough we need to know what about it makes it evil.
-->
@Outplayz
By that argument if enough people believed that abusing children was desirable then it would be "good"?
-->
@secularmerlin
If good and evil are truly "only" subjective than yes. But, there is a hint of objectivity to it. I don't think beating your kid to a bloody mess has ever been viewed as something good to a majority. Hitting for punishment however can be viewed as good... why are humans like that, i don't know at this point. Is there something objective going on? Or does the rule of not wanting it happen to you what gives it this sense of objectivity? Empathy too?By that argument if enough people believed that abusing children was desirable then it would be "good"?
-->
@Outplayz
So far you have not offered anything objective. You aren't under any obligation to of course but without some mutual standard we must recognize that it may be impossible to say that something is good or evil unless we are merely discussing our personal opinions.
-->
@Stronn
Good point, how about "premeditated"? That may not apply to self defense as there was no plan of doing harm to someone compared to a reactionary harm..
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah... i agree. I don't think there is anything objective that i can prove or illustrate even. It all seems like a consequence of something personal such as empathy. Even slavery, "imprisonment" therefore evil, was once looked at as good. If we never evolved out of it... it may still be something good. It's interesting to me that we noticed it's evil eventually and how many people died to prove it is. I can't tell you there is any objective truth to it... i don't even believe there is... but i can tell you the evils i listed are evil by majority in most cases. That's really all i care about bc my only want in society is for more people to notice those are the top three things we should be fighting against. It's a prison reform thing, the obfuscation of evil i believe is what has lead to unjust prison sentences. A drug addict needs help more than anything, not to ruin his/her life by making them a felon... which i would bet is what leads to death for most addicts. But a lot of people think drug addicts are something evil... it's correlative to the same mistake we made with slaves in my opinion in regards to how our society treats them.
-->
@Outplayz
So you agree with the majority about slavery but disagree with the majority about drug addiction and yet you feel that you are taking the moral position in both cases?
-->
@secularmerlin
Well i told you how i define evil. So i strictly go off my own definition. I am well aware people, even maybe most, don't look at good/evil like i do. If i were to make a future bet with you, i would say people will realize what they are doing to non-violent drug offenders isn't good. I don't know that... it only fits in my definition that they aren't evil people. I'm only consistent as far as my own definition of good and evil go. I've just found that most people would agree those i listed are evil... however, they most certainly don't apply it like i do. I never said people interpret it as i do in the vast majority, just that a vast majority would agree those things are evil.So you agree with the majority about slavery but disagree with the majority about drug addiction and yet you feel that you are taking the moral position in both cases?
-->
@Outplayz
I am usually disinterested in arguments ad populum but as long as you realize that you are engaged in one and not making a claim outside of that...
-->
@secularmerlin
Oh yeah... i fully acknowledge it's an ad populum argument... And since i can't poll the majority of the world to prove it, i'm just left to hopefully suspect people find the things i listed as evil. It's seems to be true and i would be willing to bet it is... but that's about all i can do.
-->
@Outplayz
I define evil as malicious imprisonment, rape and murder and all the degrees thereof. For instance, torture would be imprisonment and possibly murder. Mentally harming another would be imprisonment. Beating someone up would be imprisonment. Sexual assault would fall under rape. Etc.Lying to someone would fall under imprisonment but without malice it would just be bad not evil. Lying to someone resulting in death, rape, etc.. would fall under evil. That's how i distinguish the differences.
So let's say there are evil things. What is evil pure? Malicious imprisonment, rape and murder may be evil but they are also different and individual evil things. And for some reason despite being evil they are done. Why are there evil-doers?
-->
@secularmerlin
If you do not know what you mean by good and evil (or cannot articulate it) then how shall we have an intellectual conversation on the subject?
Would you agree with me that there are good things?
-->
@Shed12
Good and evil are subjective. I agree that there are things which I find good. I agree that given a commonly accepted standard people can discuss the concept of good. I disagree that anything is good intrinsically or inherently. If you would like to suggest a standard or accept my personal standard then we can make objective statements about morality based on this standard otherwise we are merely giving our personal opinions.
-->
@secularmerlin
I think the fact that we have a sense of goodness is enough. I'm more interested in goodness itself rather than good things, but good things is easiest to start from.
The things we find good may be different, which is fine, but I don't think the "good" is different. Like you've said, "Good and evil are subjective." Commonly accepted standards wouldn't bring us any closer to good itself.
Isn't "a commonly accepted standard" just a group of subjective whatevers?
-->
@Shed12
What makes something good?
-->
@Shed12
Isn't "a commonly accepted standard" just a group of subjective whatevers?
Yes.
-->
@secularmerlin
A thing is made good by what degree it fulfills a function. For example, for banging nails, a hammer is more good than a pencil, and for writing, a pencil is more good than a hammer.
Whether you accept that or not, do you have any thoughts on why people have different opinions about what is and isn't good?
-->
@Shed12
A thing is made good by what degree it fulfills a function. For example, for banging nails, a hammer is more good than a pencil, and for writing, a pencil is more good than a hammer
This is a description of utility not morality. I'm open to discussing either but if you are engaged in an equivocation fallacy then we may not be able to discuss either concept until we unravel the difference between the two.
-->
@secularmerlin
When it comes to things, utility may be the as far as it goes. Now that you bring that up I think people disagree on what is good because they really mean the utility of a thing and not morality. So when someone says being healthy is good and someone else disagrees there is really a disagreement about what health is good for. And when people disagree about the status of killing, the same thing is happening.
The difference between utility and morality is that utility is concerned with earthly things and morality is concerned with goodness itself. But goodness can be abstracted from things, which is why I like to start from things. Knowing what's good can inform action beyond what just knowing what's good and what it's good for.
I'd say goodness is what makes something good but I understand that is circular. You could just ask again what makes something good or what is goodness.
What do you think goodness is?
What do you think is the difference between utility and morality?
-->
@Shed12
When one is discussing utility one is usualy making objective observations about how well suited something is to accomplishing a particular task. A hammer is good for directing force. A pencil is good for making marks out of graphite.
When one is discussing morality one is usually making subjective judgements about what an intelligent thinking being ought to do or our not do. A doctor ought to save people even if he isn't getting paid to. A man ought not rape an unconscious woman even if she won't remember it.
-->
@secularmerlin
Can you explain to me what subjective and objective means here?
Concerning morality, can't objective judgments be made?
And if for some reason the judgment must be subjective to be morality, would an objective one just be something else?
When one is discussing morality one is usually
I shouldn't ignore that you said usually. There is aalso what morality is, and not just what is usually discussed, no?
-->
@Shed12
I got sorta deep with Secular so i don't want to repeat myself. If you can't find it let me know and i'll repost it. But briefly, i find pure evil to be those evils i listed with no goodness behind it. Pure malicious. For instance, if i kill someone so they don't hurt/kill my sister... i committed evil for a good reason. There is good in it. Pure evil has no good silver lining.What is evil pure?
Why are there evil-doers?
There are many reasons. Brainwashing, mental illness, poverty, etc. We are all, or i should say, mostly all shades of evil. Almost all of us can commit evil acts given the right circumstances. Some people... are more malleable in that department. What i mean is... some people you can convince Republicans are evil and you must kill them or versa. I think that has to do with low iq and other mental handicaps... possibily other factors too. The point is, it's complicated. You will be lost forever trying to figure out why people do the things they do. You know some people drink their own urine bc they think it is a youth medicine? Some girls truly fantasy a guy breaking into their home, put a gun to their head and tell them to suck it? These people exist. Why? I can't be bothered trying to figure that out... or more specifically to understand them. It's just how it is. I have a spiritual view that can explain it sorta... but nothing definitive.
-->
@Outplayz
I'll read through yours and merlin's posts
-->
@Shed12
Can you explain to me what subjective and objective means here?
There are objective facts. The temperature is a measurable objective fact. Objective facts are meaningless.
And then there are subjective values. It is cold is a subjective observation based on our opinion of what constitutes hot or cold. Subjective values give things meaning but they are not real they are made up. They are artificial constructs we use to relate to a meaningless universe.
Concerning morality, can't objective judgments be made?
That depends on what you mean by objective judgements. We can agree on the subjective standard we will base our arguments about morality on and then make objective statements about morality based on that standard. For example if we agreed for the purposes of this discussion that we will both agree that freedom is good and repression is evil and based on our agreed upon criteria killing someone would be evil because a dead person has no freedom.
Did you have such a standard you wish to adopt for the purposes of this discussion?
-->
@Shed12
Murdering a murder is committing evil to punish evil. In that it would be evil/good. It's still evil, but also good that something that is only evil got erased. Killing would still be evil. War is evil. But apply the above, one could be good and evil where one is usually only evil. For instance, if the war is to topple a ruler that is only evil... kills, imprisons, rapes, etc. Then something good is committing evil to stop that pure evil. The soldiers that fight for that pure evil would need to be evaluated individually. Why are they personally fighting for that evil? If it is so they don't get killed by said ruler then they are also committing evil for a good... to save their own lives. But they are still committing evil when they are killing another. There is also degrees of this and i think the degrees can be best described by forgiveness or thoughts of forgiveness. If one learns the solider's family would have been killed if he didn't fight... then even if he/she cannot be forgiven... a sense of understanding or a thought of forgiveness could follow. Pure evil however cannot be forgiven or it would be extremely very hard to forgive.Is any of this objective? I don't know if i could truly say that with certainty. We are the ones defining all this which would always point towards subjectivity. However, i think we would mostly always define the above mentioned evils as evil. Even someone that is evil would think it's evil if someone murdered them (well they wouldn't know), or did some form of imprisonment or rape. There could be degrees of it... maybe someone wants to be raped, in which case that would turn it good for them, but stay as evil for the one committing it. (*Edit: I just noticed this last example is tricky. The one committing it technically wouldn't be committing evil if the person wanted to be raped. It's an example of the evil/good in that case.)
This one answers your first question (basically an expansion on my brief description). Just thought i'd make it easier.
-->
@secularmerlin
There are objective facts. The temperature is a measurable objective fact. Objective facts are meaningless.And then there are subjective values. It is cold is a subjective observation based on our opinion of what constitutes hot or cold. Subjective values give things meaning but they are not real they are made up. They are artificial constructs we use to relate to a meaningless universe.
I don't understand how a supposedly meaningless universe could spawn meaningful things, nor do I understand how subjective values are any more made up or artificial than anything else that exists.
That depends on what you mean by objective judgements. We can agree on the subjective standard we will base our arguments about morality on and then make objective statements about morality based on that standard. For example if we agreed for the purposes of this discussion that we will both agree that freedom is good and repression is evil and based on our agreed upon criteria killing someone would be evil because a dead person has no freedom.
By objective judgment, I mean what you mean. Does agreement really matter?
Did you have such a standard you wish to adopt for the purposes of this discussion?
No.
-->
@Outplayz
You answered my questions.