• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Good and Evil.

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Morals are based on societal standards, not some ingrained instinct. How can you argue true morality while societal bias inhabits everything the both of us debate?

The argument is that there's a thread, or a code, or a "Natural Law," which weaves through all societies across all of history - that what we see in any given group of people at any given point in time is a deviation from the thread, like the error from the trend line, uniquely caused by the circumstances of that group.

What you see as a societal bias, others like myself see as . . . well, bias, an effort to justify the particular failings of that group as acceptable under the Natural Law.
 

FatCat

Maester
Who argues Natural Law when in true peril, though. Donner's Pass, love (haha), and war all try the Natural law of good and evil, and yet these 'errors from the trend line' are a trend in and of themselves.
 
Although I don't entirely agree with Mindfire's argument, it's not what I'm afraid of in arguments like these. Rather, what I'm afraid of is "slavering beast theory", applied to the larger issue of evil rather than the subissue of rape. The following is a quote from an article on the feminist site Pervocracy (I've previously been told not to link the site directly, since it has NSFW content):

In the Slavering Beast Theory, there are two kinds of men. Two species, nearly. (I've seen people go so far as to claim that Slavering Beasts are the result of evolution, which might make them literally a subspecies.) There are ordinary guys and there are Slavering Beasts. And they are very, very easy to tell apart. They act different, even look different, to the point where any adult should be able to distinguish them in any casual social setting . . .

•They are brutal. If they want to hurt you, they will physically beat you and leave marks.
•They are isolated. Nobody's son, father, best friend, favorite teacher, or golf buddy is a Slavering Beast.
•They are consistent. They are cruel to everyone, and have no history of positive relationships.
•They are inarticulate and bad liars. They never have a convincing alibi or a genuinely sympathetic personal story.
•They are useless. They never have any impressive life accomplishments or any exceptionally good qualities.
•I am not one. I'm here talking to you, right? So obviously I'm not a Slavering Beast.

If a person does not meet these criteria, they are not a Slavering Beast. Which means that they would never commit violence. Maybe if they were pushed to their absolute limit for a very good reason, but they would never be predatory. That's a Beast thing . . .

More than anything, it gives people a way to say "I'm not a Slavering Beast, so none of this applies to me." Learning about gaining consent or recognizing abuse is pointless--Slavering Beasts will always be violent for no reason and ordinary guys never will.

I see this as the same phenomenon that gives rise to racism--"these people are like beasts, and we ought to exterminate them" --and related to sexism--"these people are like children, and we need to control them." That's why I stand so staunchly in favor of shades of gray.

P.S. Personally, I don't actually care who's good and who's evil. I believe that some people make the world better and some people make it worse, and I concede that some of the latter people may not be possible to redirect towards making the world better, but I don't think making the world worse needs to overlap with being evil, any more than making it better needs to overlap with being good. I'm only concerned with the promotion of a society that's both free and safe, and with the reform (or, if absolutely necessary, removal) of those who make it unsafe on the one hand or curtail safe freedoms on the other.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
It doesn't have to be "either" natural law or some kind of "positive" law or subjective force at work. I think it is a combination of the two, though I suppose the things that strike me as 'evil' rather than merely illegal tend to be in the realm of natural law.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Rather, what I'm afraid of is "slavering beast theory", applied to the larger issue of evil rather than the subissue of rape.

I've been around the block with ethics debates, and I've never heard anybody advocate a slavering beast mentality. I think it's a strawman designed to scare people away from listening to other perspectives.
 

Jabrosky

Banned
I agree with Steerpike that humans by and large tend more towards good than evil, at least in the sense that most abide by one set of social codes or another. The one thing I will say about human nature is that, far from being inherently selfish as Mindfire claims, human beings are highly social primates who depend on others of our own kind much more than the rest of the animal kingdom. Our very intelligence, or cognitive plasticity as I prefer to think of it, requires learning and nurturing from other humans in order to grow properly. If you want to look at truly selfish species, look at those solitary creatures who have all their "knowledge" for survival encoded in their instincts. They don't need others' input the way humans do.

Back to topic, but while we've all heard of "gritty" fantasy in which the good guys aren't so good, I for one would like to write something that departs from the black/white stereotype in the opposite direction; that is, the bad guys aren't totally evil. They may behave in ways we would consider evil, but their actions stem from sentiments we can relate to. In my scenario, the story ends not with the antagonists dying but with their value system or psychology changed for the better by the protagonists. Admittedly this would differ a lot from your traditional sword-and-sorcery story, but not every story needs a violent or vindictive resolution.
 

Mindfire

Istar
Being social and being selfish are not mutually exclusive traits. But I would say the social inclinations of humanity are marred or fallen versions of their original states. Selfishness creeps into every relationship sooner or later. If humans were naturally good, no social codes of any kind would be needed, because people would just follow the instinctual, unwritten law of goodness.
 
I've been around the block with ethics debates, and I've never heard anybody advocate a slavering beast mentality.

Actually, that's an interesting point--the people I've heard advocating a slavering beast mentality have never done so in a formal debate. (In fact, I've never seen anyone who advocated a slavering beast mentality participate in a formal debate on any subject. They're usually the sorts of people who deal with any moral or cultural issue by shouting at it until it goes away.)
 

Shockley

Maester
I disagree vehemently. Your definitions of "being" and "doing" must be different from mine. Here, with being, I am speaking of whether the innate nature of man is to do good. If man is good by instinct. Is this the case? I cannot believe it is. I disagree somewhat with your Aristotelian view, but even if it is true, if evil is caused only by ignorance, that alone is enough to prove man is not good by nature. For if he was, by nature, good, he would require no education in order to do good. But that is not the case. Without any education or conditioning to the contrary, man will always follow his selfish impulses, even to the detriment of others, which will lead him to engage in evil acts. Man is, by nature, evil, and any good he does comes only by education or reformation.

The idea, again, is based on the idea of evil as the absence of good - you can have unintelligent good responses, just as you can have unintelligent evil responses. The idea is not that this doesn't happen, but that once a man is educated and made intelligent in the ways of morality he becomes, fundamentally, incapable of the evil response while the good response becomes instinctive. But before that intelligence happens, a man is capable of good and evil responses in equal portion.

Or, shortly - You can be good without education (though you would not understand why you were doing good and thus, in a sense, was 'acting good' without 'being good) and you can be evil without education, but when you have the proper education you can not do evil.

EDIT: Also, to "be good" and "act evil" is a contradiction. A being that is naturally, intrinsically good cannot do evil so long as that nature remains intact. To do evil is to mar that good nature and reduce it to an evil one, which then requires reformation. However, it is possible to "be evil" but "act good"- for a time. Eventually the pretense will fall away.

All of this is relative to 'for a time.' The point is that, if someone is 'acting good' in the long run, then there is only a small distinction between that and actually 'being good.'

A better way to explain this is through Aristotle's discussion on bravery - bravery is not something that comes natural to every man. If a man is not brave (a coward), then the best way forward is for him to act brave - put himself in dangerous situations, confrontations, etc. and fight against his cowardly nature. In time, even though he is a coward, his 'acting brave' will eventually make him indistinguishable from someone who is naturally brave.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Or, shortly - You can be good without education (though you would not understand why you were doing good and thus, in a sense, was 'acting good' without 'being good) and you can be evil without education, but when you have the proper education you can not do evil.

A lot of people respond to that argument and forget that it's properly paired with another concept - namely, that there's something in a person in addition to the Intellect which can separate good and evil, let's call it the "gut," so that the education you're describing may or may not be a literal explanation. That is, a person can both act good and be good without having a rational framework to support the decision. Someone could also have a rational educational framework for doing good, and still do evil.


Man is, by nature, evil, and any good he does comes only by education or reformation.

We could have a wholly different kind of religious debate sometime.
 

Mindfire

Istar
The idea, again, is based on the idea of evil as the absence of good - you can have unintelligent good responses, just as you can have unintelligent evil responses. The idea is not that this doesn't happen, but that once a man is educated and made intelligent in the ways of morality he becomes, fundamentally, incapable of the evil response while the good response becomes instinctive. But before that intelligence happens, a man is capable of good and evil responses in equal portion.

Or, shortly - You can be good without education (though you would not understand why you were doing good and thus, in a sense, was 'acting good' without 'being good) and you can be evil without education, but when you have the proper education you can not do evil.

I don't agree with your conclusions. This would seem to imply that every problem can be solved with education. That if you tell a man the difference between good and evil he then magically becomes incapable of making the evil choice. Not only does that seem odd to me, it violates the principle of free will. Anyone, no matter their education, has the opportunity to choose good or evil. Telling them what the good choice is does not make them incapable of making the evil one. At best it makes them less likely to choose the evil one. But then, what do you do when you meet someone who knows the difference between good and evil, but simply doesn't care? Someone who has no interest in changing? Such people are probably rare, but they exist.

Now part of your idea I think I can agree with, and Lewis supported it in his Abolition of Man: the purpose of good education is to train a man's tastes and inclinations so that he will want to do good. It doesn't make him magically incapable of evil, but it trains him not to pursue it. But again, this training is necessary because man is not good by instinct. Left without this training to reform his nature, he will not pursue good instinctively. He will pursue whatever suits him.


All of this is relative to 'for a time.' The point is that, if someone is 'acting good' in the long run, then there is only a small distinction between that and actually 'being good.'

A better way to explain this is through Aristotle's discussion on bravery - bravery is not something that comes natural to every man. If a man is not brave (a coward), then the best way forward is for him to act brave - put himself in dangerous situations, confrontations, etc. and fight against his cowardly nature. In time, even though he is a coward, his 'acting brave' will eventually make him indistinguishable from someone who is naturally brave.

Practice makes perfect, yes. BUT, if the actions are only a pretense, if they do not "sink in" so to speak and affect the person's heart, then eventually the mask will fall off. To use your example, a man who places himself in fearful situations will in time overcome his fear and will be indistinguishable from a man who is brave by instinct. HOWEVER, a cowardly man who merely blusters and brags about being brave without ever truly seeking to master his fears and reform his nature will shrivel in the face of danger.
 
How can good and evil not be subjective?

I wouldn't go as far as call it subjective - we don't really get to decide, as individuals, what is good and what is evil.

Rather, humanity collectively defines what good an evil is, so it's a matter of human standards. And the more unified we become as a species, the more unified is our definition of good and evil.

Good and evil may be very well be subjective between different species, but until we meet some other alien society with a radically different idea of what good and evil is, that doesn't really matter to us in a practical sense.

Morals are based on societal standards, not some ingrained instinct. How can you argue true morality while societal bias inhabits everything the both of us debate?

I would say that morals are based on societal standards, that are in turn based on things like empathy, understanding and social harmony. It's not something we created from scratch and pure reasoning, rather we codified some types of behavior that turned out to have a positive and negative influence on our society, respectively.

Being social and being selfish are not mutually exclusive traits. But I would say the social inclinations of humanity are marred or fallen versions of their original states. Selfishness creeps into every relationship sooner or later. If humans were naturally good, no social codes of any kind would be needed, because people would just follow the instinctual, unwritten law of goodness.

I'd just like to mention something: I often see people use the word "selfishness" wrong in debates about ethics and morals.

Selfishness does not mean: "Doing something for your own gain and benefit." Selfishness means: "Doing something for your own gain and benefit at the expense of other people." Likewise, selflessness is to benefit others at your own own expense.

This leaves us with quite a considerable middle ground: Selfishness is not the absence of selflessness or vice versa. You can absolutely do things that benefit others for personal gain without being selfish.

I'm bringing this up because I have seen people twist the the words to the point where one can argue that "doing something nice to others because it makes you feel good inside is selfish", and then it's only a matter of time before you end up with: "It is impossible to do anything without being selfish," and at that point the word kinda stops having any real meaning.
 

Shockley

Maester
I don't agree with your conclusions. This would seem to imply that every problem can be solved with education. That if you tell a man the difference between good and evil he then magically becomes incapable of making the evil choice.

Educating is the term Aristotle used (and Plato, as well), but education is not quite accurate as the term. It's not 1 +1 = 2 and now you're good, but more a concerted campaign to teach the community at large the destructiveness of evil. Not just saying 'be good because good is the best' but a campaign where evil was very viscerally put down, and everyone understood that. A carrot and stick (or whip and sugarplum, which is my preferred term). Educating the good and educating the evil.

Not only does that seem odd to me, it violates the principle of free will. Anyone, no matter their education, has the opportunity to choose good or evil. Telling them what the good choice is does not make them incapable of making the evil one.

I (and quite a few other people who turn their mind to this subject) am not entirely convinced that free will is a real thing, and that we have an illusion of choice as opposed to the reality of choice. While at any given point you could kill someone or give them a piece of cake, your decision is really determined by all of the things that have happened in your life prior to that point.

At best it makes them less likely to choose the evil one. But then, what do you do when you meet someone who knows the difference between good and evil, but simply doesn't care? Someone who has no interest in changing? Such people are probably rare, but they exist.

We call those people sociopaths/psychopaths, and we either put them away for a long time or put them in charge.

Now part of your idea I think I can agree with, and Lewis supported it in his Abolition of Man: the purpose of good education is to train a man's tastes and inclinations so that he will want to do good. It doesn't make him magically incapable of evil, but it trains him not to pursue it. But again, this training is necessary because man is not good by instinct. Left without this training to reform his nature, he will not pursue good instinctively. He will pursue whatever suits him.

I have to disagree with Lewis on what man is naturally, but that's an easy objection because I am a logical positivist and he isn't. But as you've said, that's another part of the debate for another day (though one I am more than willing to have).
 
Remember, prior to the Holocaust, there was a strong belief that some national cultures were more or less "advanced" than others, and Germany was considered to have one of the most "advanced" cultures in the world. Stripping away people's sense of moral propriety is surprisingly easy if you put the right conditions in place.
 

Jabrosky

Banned
Being social and being selfish are not mutually exclusive traits. But I would say the social inclinations of humanity are marred or fallen versions of their original states. Selfishness creeps into every relationship sooner or later. If humans were naturally good, no social codes of any kind would be needed, because people would just follow the instinctual, unwritten law of goodness.
I don't advocate that there exists one "unwritten law" of goodness. Social groupings vary on what they consider acceptable behavior within their confines. What they share in common is the idea that people within them have to abide by certain conventions for the group as a whole to function. Even racial supremacists, gangsters, and pirates have their own codes of honor among themselves, albeit very different from "conventional" morality.

Whatever particular social codes they follow, I would argue that the vast majority of human beings do feel the desire to affiliate with their conspecifics. Even the people we commonly regard as selfish may actually want to associate with certain others. Take "greedy" businessmen for example; they want to make as much money as possible not because they inherently like green sheets of paper but because in capitalist society money and the things you can buy with it symbolize socially imparted prestige. Of course you might argue that these social urges come from education rather than instinct, but then that only reinforces my point that humans as a species depend on mutual cooperation to survive.

Maybe if we left a newborn baby alone in a remote wilderness, that baby might not develop any social desires whatsoever. The hyenas would eat him in no time. That is because human infants do not have all the necessary survival behaviors instinctually encoded into them; they need to learn those from their elders. That is an inevitable consequence of the cognitive plasticity inherent to Homo sapiens, the very cognitive plasticity that has allowed us to adapt to many different environments, develop many different cultures, and invent the most varied repertoire of tools of any animal that has ever evolved.

Are humans born good? Perhaps not, if we identify "good" with a specific philosophy or set of social conventions. However, there can be no dispute that social interdependence is critical to our development both as individuals and as a species.
 

Zireael

Troubadour
Morals are based on societal standards, not some ingrained instinct. How can you argue true morality while societal bias inhabits everything the both of us debate?

Good point. How do we avoid societal bias when writing fantasy works? This societal bias is the reason people periodically claim that "D&D is evil" or "D&D promotes evil"...

I wouldn't go as far as call it subjective - we don't really get to decide, as individuals, what is good and what is evil.

Rather, humanity collectively defines what good an evil is, so it's a matter of human standards. And the more unified we become as a species, the more unified is our definition of good and evil.

Good and evil may be very well be subjective between different species, but until we meet some other alien society with a radically different idea of what good and evil is, that doesn't really matter to us in a practical sense.

Yes, I agree that a group creates the definition for good and evil. They are more of societal ideas than individuals' ideas. However, a society is made of individuals, isn't it?
 

Mari

Scribe
I think there are folks who are nuts and evil. There are those that unable to see beyond anything but their own needs.

And I think there are very few who are truly good people. Most aren't. Most of us are more self-serving than we would ever admit. Take the Dali Lama, most thinks he is wise and good. If so than why was country improved by having the Chinese take it over. Tibet under his rule was far from Shangri-la. Tibet Is No Shangri-La, and the Dalai Lama Is Not What You Think - By Christina Larson | Foreign Policy

And Mother Teresa was no saint.

Evil is important to life and any story. It forces us to grow. It forces change. Sometimes it isn't pretty. Humans are not always up for change.
 

Nihal

Vala
Good vs Evil, oooh, those are sweet and murky waters.

I believe that we are "Evil" for the same reason we are "Good". Rewards. It's sad and sounds wrong, but is somehow natural. We need those rewards, I don't know why, but we need it.

I believe in treating people in the way I would like to be treated. If some kind of action would hurt me I avoid at all costs doing it to other people. I dislike hurting people and dislike being hurt. The way they're going to pay back is my reward. That's right, this is a selfish behaviour!

I like to make people laugh too, I like to make people I like happy. It's not even because they're going to be happy with me, just because they're going to be happy and I like to see them that way. It makes me happy. It's, basically, selfish too.

Things that hurt people in some way are regarded as evil, this usually the line between the two. People who feel cheated in some way, who feel that they're not getting what they deserve sometimes are going to do things that hurt other people to achieve their objectives. They may be aware or not they're hurting those people, but if they are and if they don't care they're regarded as plain evil. (The ability to emphathize with other beings is often decisive when judging if someone is being good or evil.)

They only know it's their reward, their right, deep inside they're not wrong at all. It's not their fault. Or, maybe, they feel the need the reward somehow. They want it, really want it.

However the reward can be so twisted to our eyes (like having fun with the pain of other people/animals) that they become monsters to normal people eyes.

You can twist it the other way around. If being honourable, being true to your original beliefs is your reward you may end being intolerant and hard, you may kill people for it. And it can be regarded as good or evil.

The pure good or pure evil characters are those that are so far from the initial line that we just can't understand them. We're unable to feel what they feel, their way of thinking sounds alien to us. They're so far from the line that it's otherwordly, and even if we sympathize a bit it's just too weird.
 
Top