What essentially is Good and Evil?

[Fnord]

It would be a false dichotomy if the situation actually existed (because in the real world there are more than two options for such a scenario). A hypothetical situation is supposed to be set up with limitations so that only a given number of choices can be made in order to get at the crux of an idea or argument. Saying "Well, we could do this and this and this instead" defeats the entire purpose of the exercise.

It would be like using the Prisoner's Dilemma to illustrate the possible outcomes of two people's choices in isolation and saying "well that's a false dichotomy because I'd try to tap a morse code message to the other prisoner through the wall in order to collude." That's not how it works.

Sorry, that was bothering me.

 

[Aidan of the tavern]

As an irrelevent anecdote I was at an Open University tutorial last night and we were looking at the works of Plato, and the conversations he wrote down between Socrates and random people. Thousands of years ago Socrates made people descend into confusion and frustration by trying to get them to define things like courage and virtue, and we were none the wiser last night.

I'm just making random comments now, but I believe that these perceptions of good/evil etc, are about how we as individuals view the world, so it is up to us to find an answer that satisfies us personally. A friendly debate with Steerpike helped me to work things out in a way that was good enough for me, at least for the time being, but while it is a personal thing I doubt if there is a universal answer. Opinions will vary somewhat on any subject, morality included, so it seems to me that the best we can do is to live life by our creed of what is good. I suddenly feel the need to quote a remarkable person:

"you must be the change you wish to see in the world."

 

[Devor]

In the Catholic Church, there's a framework for discussion morality issues which most people, even most Catholics, aren't aware of. But it's similar framework used by the legal system in establishing precedent and common law.

I don't mention it because I want this to be about religion or anything else. But I think the discussion is lacking a good framework for understanding the question.

But to take a piece of it, let's define "murder."

The willful killing of an innocent human life.

According to the Church and its framework, any action which matches the definition of the above statement is always wrong. But you can pick at the definition to create situations which might or might not be wrong, for which the arguments exist and must be weighed to make a judgement. Let's take a look.

1) Willful. If I am being coerced by the threat of a thousand people dying, then killing the innocent girl is not willful. I don't want to do it. I'm being coerced. Consequently, the morality of the action is an open question.

2) Innocent. The person was convicted in a court of law, is a warrior on the battlefield, or has otherwise done horrible things to deserve the punishment. Maybe there's a better way to deal with this person, and maybe I don't have the authority to declare his guilt. But if the person somehow deserves it, the morality of the action becomes an open question which must be weighed and judged and debated to find a clear result. It's no longer on the same scale.

3) Human. The person for whatever reason can't be seen as a person. Well, that's bull, but you can try and see it that way.

Lastly, sometimes there are people who do something even though they know it's wrong. If they know killing is evil, they aren't trying to justify it.

So, here's the assumption, and the question. Murder is evil, but only if it matches the above definition. First) Can anyone find a case where a large group of society saw "Murder" as acceptable without trying to undermine one of the three elements of its definition? Second) Does your example mean the definition needs to be refined (for instance, the assumptions and definition can be tweaked easily to account for euphenasia, and the definition of "innocent" can be expanded to mean "non-threatening"), or does it actually prove that no evil act can be universally defined?

I want to make clear, though, I'm not trying to prove anything in particular, although I'm sure it's obvious what I believe. I just thought posting a possible framework would help the discussion.

 

[Steerpike]

It would be a false dichotomy if the situation actually existed (because in the real world there are more than two options for such a scenario). A hypothetical situation is supposed to be set up with limitations so that only a given number of choices can be made in order to get at the crux of an idea or argument. Saying "Well, we could do this and this and this instead" defeats the entire purpose of the exercise.

It would be like using the Prisoner's Dilemma to illustrate the possible outcomes of two people's choices in isolation and saying "well that's a false dichotomy because I'd try to tap a morse code message to the other prisoner through the wall in order to collude." That's not how it works.

Sorry, that was bothering me.

Thank you.

 

[Steerpike]

Opinions will vary somewhat on any subject, morality included, so it seems to me that the best we can do is to live life by our creed of what is good. I suddenly feel the need to quote a remarkable person:

Yes, I think ultimately when it comes down to determining our own actions, this is all we can really do. Our various conceptions of what is right and good may come from different sources, but I find that in many aspects they are similar across peoples and cultures, and if everyone tried to follow this advice we would be better off.

 

[Steerpike]

1) Willful. If I am being coerced by the threat of a thousand people dying, then killing the innocent girl is not willful. I don't want to do it. I'm being coerced. Consequently, the morality of the action is an open question.

I like what you've said in this post, Devor, and I also like your definition and framework. I disagree with this interpretation with respect to my hypothetical, though. I would still characterize shooting the girl as willful. Some definitions of murder use the word "deliberate" instead, and I think you'd probably agree that if that word is applied it would qualify. I do not think there is a moral justification for taking the girl's life, personally, and if that very unlikely hypothetical were ever to arise, I question how many people could actually do it. Not many, I suspect. I think most would feel the innate wrongness of it.

I suppose one situation that arguably fits your definition of murder, but is not generally considered to be murder by societies, is during warfare. Think of the bombing of Dresden, for example. Or Hiroshima. The bombings were willful, undoubtedly some innocents were killed, and the dead were human.

 

[Devor]

I've seen deliberate used as well, Steerpike. "Willful" has additional connotations inside Church's theology, however, which "deliberate" tends to lack. It essentially means this is what I want, rather than this is what I choose. It would include collateral damage, for instance, because even though you choose to act in a way that results in their deaths, those deaths weren't what you wanted. Your actual target was something else.

In the case of the little girl, even though you might choose to kill her, what you actually want is to prevent the extreme number of deaths. Thus it isn't "willful," even if it is "deliberate," and becomes, by this standard anyways, a moral question because it no longer matches the defined evil action.

I happen to agree that killing the little girl would usually be wrong, but I don't rule out the possibility that some specific scenario might exist which would somehow change that (What if she were asking you to?). Regardless, I would not place killing the girl on par with murder if there was an overwhelming element of coercion.

Enemy combatants are usually considered to not be "innocent" when the definition is elaborated on. Still, even accounting for enemy combatants and collateral damage, I think your point about warfare is still largely valid. I am certain that people on a large scale sometimes accept evil actions such as murder as a "necessity" of warfare.

 

[Queshire]

It doesn't matter if it's a hypothetical situation or not, most problems dealth with using logic are hypothetical to begin with, that doesn't stop it from being a logical fallacy. I stayed within the scenario described, I did not change anything, and I still imagined third choices that were not mentioned.

 

[Steerpike]

It doesn't matter if it's a hypothetical situation or not, most problems dealth with using logic are hypothetical to begin with, that doesn't stop it from being a logical fallacy. I stayed within the scenario described, I did not change anything, and I still imagined third choices that were not mentioned.

*shakes head*

You really don't understand the difference do you? I don't know what to tell you, other than you simply do not understand the logical fallacy or how a hypothetical works. There's no way around that. You can continue to make the same points repeatedly, but you are simply wrong. Sorry.

Moving on to people who actually think about what others are saying...

 

[Steerpike]

It would include collateral damage, for instance, because even though you choose to act in a way that results in their deaths, those deaths weren't what you wanted. Your actual target was something else.

Yes, I think that is true in most cases regarding collateral damage. The intention is to bomb a military target, but it is done with knowledge of civilian deaths (or a substantial likelihood of such deaths). I don't know about Dresden, but I know that with Hiroshima, although there were military targets there it was also considered that a big blow to the civilian population might weaken the will of the Japanese. So it seems there was at least some intent to kill civilians. At least, among some people.

I happen to agree that killing the little girl would usually be wrong, but I don't rule out the possibility that some specific scenario might exist which would somehow change that (What if she were asking you to?). Regardless, I would not place killing the girl on par with murder if there was an overwhelming element of coercion.

Yes, I think you can add elements to the hypothetical, tweak it, so that it comes out differently, or at least heads in that direction. I left it in pretty stark terms to present that particular case. If the girl is asking you to, now you've got a very interesting situation. What about if someone is asking you to when there are now other lives at stake?

Enemy combatants are usually considered to not be "innocent" when the definition is elaborated on. Still, even accounting for enemy combatants and collateral damage, I think your point about warfare is still largely valid. I am certain that people on a large scale sometimes accept evil actions such as murder as a "necessity" of warfare.[/QUOTE]

 

[Queshire]

How am I misunderstanding it? You give a hypothetical situation, you offer two choices and act like those are the only two choices when in reality there's plenty of third choices. That is the text book example of a false dichotomy. Further, the purpose of a hypothetical situation is to imagine a possible situation and think through the results of that hypothetical. Your purpose in using that hypothetical is to prove a certain point, but as far as I can see, it utterly fails to prove that point.

 

[Steerpike]

How am I misunderstanding it? You give a hypothetical situation, you offer two choices and act like those are the only two choices when in reality there's plenty of third choices. That is the text book example of a false dichotomy. Further, the purpose of a hypothetical situation is to imagine a possible situation and think through the results of that hypothetical. Your purpose in using that hypothetical is to prove a certain point, but as far as I can see, it utterly fails to prove that point.

See Fnord's post, above. He stated the reasons why perfectly. They've been presented to you numerous times, in fact. You're wrong. I have no faith at this point that you're honest enough to admit it, so I'll leave off here. Feel free to have the last word.

 

[Queshire]

-Your situation is a text book example of a false dichotomy.

-It doesn't matter whether it's hypothetical or not. Logical fallacies often apply to hypothetical situations.

-Considering you're more likely to think logically in regards to a hypothetical situation then a real life one, logical fallacies become more important.

-Pointing out a logical fallacy does not defeat the point of a hypothetical situation, the point is to imagine the results of a certain situation.

-It does defeat your point in using that hypothetical situation, namely that shooting the girl is more evil, but not the hypothetical situation by itself.

-Further, since it's easily debatable that shooting the girl would be less evil then letting all those people die, your hypothetical situation defeats itself.

Unless you can refute these points, then you're the one wrong.

 

[cliche]

Looking back at what I have said I have to admit that the last part 'good and evil impossible to distinguish between' is completely wrong and I apologize. I do still believe that in certain circumstances an act can be argued being both good and evil but I do agree that at times there are things that do point out to a genuinely evil action.

 

[Steerpike]

Looking back at what I have said I have to admit that the last part 'good and evil impossible to distinguish between' is completely wrong and I apologize. I do still believe that in certain circumstances an act can be argued being both good and evil but I do agree that at times there are things that do point out to a genuinely evil action.

The concepts are interesting to play with in writing. Or to turn on their heads.

Have you ever read Villains by Necessity, by Eve Forward? She does some playing around with ideas of good and evil in society in that book: Amazon.com: Villains by Necessity (9780812522280): Eve Forward: Books

 

[Devor]

-Your situation is a text book example of a false dichotomy.

A false dichotomy is when an argument is presented as being between two positions, when a third position exists.

Steerpike's hypothetical is a question of two possible actions, not of two possible positions. If there is a false dichotomy, it would not be that there's only two outcomes, but that there's only two ways to view the outcomes - good or evil. A third possible position might be that neither are "good," but that one is necessary. However, the limits of a hypothetical situation do not themselves represent a false dichotomy. Rather, the point of the hypothetical is to evaluate a given position against extreme situations to determine the validity of a position.

Admittedly, you're right, hypotheticals present extreme and absolute situations which are not usually relevant, unless you were to discuss extreme and absolute topics like the reality of "good" and "evil." Oh wait.

-Further, since it's easily debatable that shooting the girl would be less evil then letting all those people die, your hypothetical situation defeats itself.

It is an easy position to take, and many people take it when presented with such hypotheticals. A similar example discussed in my ethics class in college was the prospect of going back in time to kill Hitler, as a baby.

The thing is, what's being presented is in many ways a choice between the "rational" position, utilitarian survival of the most people, and an "emotional" one, the gut says it's wrong. In college, I said "Kill Hitler, no doubt." Today I have two children, and I can't bring myself to say it. Please don't be offended, but you may have a greater appreciation of the ethical dilemmas of the question when you're similarly older.

 

[Aidan of the tavern]

I suppose one situation that arguably fits your definition of murder, but is not generally considered to be murder by societies, is during warfare. Think of the bombing of Dresden, for example. Or Hiroshima. The bombings were willful, undoubtedly some innocents were killed, and the dead were human.

I'm a bit late in response in terms of how quick this debate is going, but you raise an interesting point on warfare Steerpike. At the Hay-on-Wye literary festival in Wales last year I was lucky to be at an interview with Victor Greg, who is 90+ and had been in Dresden when the bombs fell, as a prisoner. His description of the incendiary fires sucking up civilians really showed me why innocents should never be brought into the warfare. I do not believe in the right to kill as such, but I do think that if you go into a battlefield with the intention of killing people there's no reason why you shouldn't be killed in the process. I'm not saying that people who take to the battlefield should all be killed, but it seems to me that if they head out with the intention of killing then it figuritively represents them signing a piece of paper saying "I aknowledge that in attempting to kill these people I'm giving them the right to kill me"

 

[Queshire]

Now you're just arguing the definition of false dichotomy.

The fact remains that with in the hypothetical situation as described, without changing anything, there are numerous third options that somebody could take besides the two presented, and in a majority of stories where such an event would take place, the hero would most likely CHOOSE one of those third options. I hope with all of us being writers we can agree on that, yes?

If you don't want to call it a false dichotomy due to a technicality that's fine, but I think it's clear that, as the hypothetical situation is specifically outlined, it's not neccesary to choose one over the other.

I agree that neither choice is ideal, a third option would, again, be best. What I'm trying to get across is that you can't say that not shooting the girl and letting those thousands of people die is automatically the best option like steerpike suggests. There is as much value acting rationally as there is acting emotionally. I personally side with rationally, that is my opinion, I am a very logically minded person, but I maintain that neither side is automatically better then the other.

 

[Steerpike]

I'm a bit late in response in terms of how quick this debate is going, but you raise an interesting point on warfare Steerpike. At the Hay-on-Wye literary festival in Wales last year I was lucky to be at an interview with Victor Greg, who is 90+ and had been in Dresden when the bombs fell, as a prisoner. His description of the incendiary fires sucking up civilians really showed me why innocents should never be brought into the warfare. I do not believe in the right to kill as such, but I do think that if you go into a battlefield with the intention of killing people there's no reason why you shouldn't be killed in the process. I'm not saying that people who take to the battlefield should all be killed, but it seems to me that if they head out with the intention of killing then it figuritively represents them signing a piece of paper saying "I aknowledge that in attempting to kill these people I'm giving them the right to kill me"

Yes, I think that is true. It at least puts the soldiers are a certain moral footing with respect to one another. Unfortunately, it seems that war is often won by beating the will from the civilian population. Trained soldiers, mercenaries, and the like may continue to fight for some time, but if the population of a country loses any desire to support the a war, it is harder to proceed for long.

I'm sure Dresden must have been horrific. How many people were killed? Thirty thousand? The majority must have been innocent civilians.

 

[Devor]

Yes, I think you can add elements to the hypothetical, tweak it, so that it comes out differently, or at least heads in that direction. I left it in pretty stark terms to present that particular case. If the girl is asking you to, now you've got a very interesting situation. What about if someone is asking you to when there are now other lives at stake?

I think there are people with a certain level of responsibility and authority - if the girl is asking you to, or if the President was on the phone giving you orders, or if you were a soldier or a police officer specifically responsible for protecting these people - or all three - I think the balance of right and wrong starts to even out.

I cannot, however, envision a situation wherein shooting an innocent girl becomes the required moral choice, primarily because you are responsible for your own actions, and not for the actions of the mad bomber's.