What essentially is Good and Evil?

[Ankari]

I would use the Golden Rule as a foundation for defining Good. Which is ironic as it's really a selfish rule as you expect like treatment for your actions.

By extension you would have the Iron Rule "Those who would deny you your rights must be resisted."

As someone previously stated, preservation is a key to defining Good, but it's the preservation of self and by extension the preservation of the group that you identify yourself with. Anything that seeks to destroy you or your identified group would be considered Evil.

Most, I think, share common definitions of Good and Evil. It would be hard to truly make a groundbreaking moral code as your audience would use their own commonly shared definition of Good as a reference and find anything significantly different as outlandish at best.

 

[Mindfire]

The Biblical understanding is still stereotypical and as such is antiquated i guess I lack the words to explain fully my reasoning on what I'm trying, so I will cease trying. I guess I'm confusing people and that isn't what I wanted and frankly you guess don't deserve the headaches. Believe me, this is not the first time I did this to a forum and it, unfortunately won't be the last. I hate this, and I kick myself in the head, every time I do. Sorry man! I will continue the debate though because I think it's going well. I'm just going to figure out my own issues and leave you folks be. Thank you for your help, though. I appropriate it. thank you.

I don't think the Biblical view is stereotypical or antiquated. I think our interpretation of the Biblical view is antiquated. Many people work under the assumption that what's been said historically about the Bible = what the Bible actually says, which isn't quite true.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think the Biblical view is stereotypical or antiquated. I think our interpretation of the Biblical view is antiquated. Many people work under the assumption that what's been said historically about the Bible = what the Bible actually says, which isn't quite true.

That's true. And further, its age has no real bearing on its validity.

 

[ascanius]

Rather than risk my arguments become tautological I will simply do this.
The whole point with my argument is to demonstrate that there are in fact universal truths of evil/wrong, I haven't figured out good quite yet but I assume it to be the opposite of evil/wrong.

Rationalize: to ascribe (one's acts, opinions, etc.) to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes. 2.
to remove unreasonable elements from.
Justify: to show (an act, claim, statement, etc.) to be just or right. 2. to defend or uphold as warranted or well-grounded.

I used killing as an example. If one looks at the act of killing alone it is wrong no matter what. However if someone kills another person to defend their loved ones then it is justified, made to be just. The justification relies solely on the situation or circumstances revolving around the act. The act alone is evil/wrong but under specific circumstances is made to be just. On the other hand in the wrong circumstances, like revenge or anger, it is still wrong. So this tells us that the act alone is evil/wrong but can be justified by the circumstances around it if they are valid, thus excusing blame and guilt. What we see is the presence of a modifier, the situation, that determines if an evil/wrong act can or cannot be justified or excused as being just. Killing is not the only example, others such as rape, theft, lying which could also be seen as the theft of truth, excess in drink, food, and pleasure (hedonism) all exist.

If however one tries to argue that the situation that makes a evil/wrong act just makes the act itself right/good then why does it need to be justified? People do not justify everything they do, they may rationalize but they do not justify, or attempt to absolve themselves of self guilt or that of their peers. If someone jumps into a lake to save someone from drowning do they justify it? No they don't, they are not thinking "i was filled with extreme empathy towards the person is such a dire situation that I felt compelled to rescue him." For one, no one sees the need to have such action justified to them because it is a right/good act. However if a person stands by and watches said drowning victim drown and does nothing to help then he ends up in a situation of having to justify their actions. If the person is a poor swimmer and was afraid that he too would drown then it is justified that he did not attempt to help, but why didn't he call for help? If the persons justification was they did not feel like it then that person did not act justly. Anyone who has children has probably noticed how their guilt can come forward when they have done something wrong that the parent is not aware of in an attempt to justify it. And example would be an instance where the caregiver confronts a child about something such as stealing and the child replies that he was hungry, or that it was hers, that so and so never plays with it etc.

I know that the majority of people in our modern culture view right/worn or morality to be personal, that each individual determines what is right or wrong. I view this as inherently flawed because it means that there is no right and wrong. If personal morality is correct then how can anyone be seen as doing anything wrong? What right do we have to say what they did is wrong? This excludes any idea of wrong, much less grey area, and only leaves right. Can you honestly tell me that if personal morality is the way right and wrong works you can say a sadistic child raping murderer is right in what he did. To say that he was wrong would mean that personal morality is wrong because it would mean that there is an underlying definition of right and wrong.

Now if you say that morality is based on the survival of a group and group unity you also come into problems. Many of the things we find as evil/wrong would in fact ensure the survival of a group and it's unity. If group survival and unity is the point then Hitler was right, you cannot tell me that the German people would not have been very well of by getting rid of all those who didn't contribute, the sick, disabled. No there would have been less strain on their system with out them, yet what he did was wrong? Think about it if people did what was best for the group, killing, rape, lying and many other despicable things would actually improve group survival and unity much better that what we currently have. Hitler is one example, but eugenics, Genetic modification, Dictatorships and many others are out there. Now if one argues that it is determined by the human group as a whole the same arguments against it would still apply. Anyone remember "The Giver"? The fact that we don't view this as correct means that right and wrong lay somewhere else in our view of morality.

 

[ascanius]

I believe evil is the intentional disregard for human life, dignity and property they possess. Your statement about children is off base, sense they aren't fully aware of what such actions mean.

First I think you'll like Nietzsche. Second my argument about children is still valid, all you did was justify their actions as being just because they do not understand the difference. It does not reduce the validity of my argument because they are children, most likely I appealed to your aversion to the idea that a child is evil. But by what you said it was a logical conclusion based on my understanding of your idea of right and wrong.

As far as anarchy goes, wouldn't total loss of order restrict the weak and frail in our society to places which they deem safe. What is Anarchy anyway. Is it that total lack of laws or the lack of accountability of those who are sworn to uphold those laws. Example: If a policeman steals, is he a policeman or a thug with a badge?

I don't understand what you mean by your first sentence. Anarchy is defined as a state or society without government or law, or lack of obedience to authority, insubordination. By definition anarchy is an anything goes social state, or for lack of better words true freedom, the freedom to do whatever whenever one wishes without any moral or civil accountability what so ever. It's actually kinda scary because in all likely hood it would mean something similar to what happened in Darfur, Somalia, the Congo, basically individuals doing whatever they can to achieve their own goals and being perfectly acceptable, in the context of law and oder

I don't care about politics. If you disagree with me on this, then I'm happy for you. My statement was a side thought in the first place. Sorry to have upset you!

What I said about the US being a constitutional republic is not something that can be disagreed about, it is fact. I know it was a side thought, still like I said pet peeve, one that makes my skin crawl.

Define stupid. Is it a lack of knowledge or a lack of understanding how to use that knowledge. I've found that there are very few really stupid people on the world. I've witnessed stunningly insightful statements by those that are considered slow by others around me and I've seen the smartest people I know turn into blithering idiots when ideology is introduced in the mix.

I'm honestly surprised that you were the only one to jump at that statement, most often it is jumped upon like savage dogs. First people is plural for person thus many people. Based on the setting and connotation of our modern day time and place I think it is agreed that people means those who compose our society, aka the masses. In the case I mean as the Romans did, the mob rules there is nothing intelligent about it whatsoever. As pointed out the individual can be intelligent to an extent but I wasn't talking about the individual. Lack of knowledge is ignorance not stupidity but simply put I mean stupid.

The one thing that I can not abide are those that use their intellect to degrade, without reason those they feel less astute as they. I despise arrogance, but those who are attacked because of their intellect and smartly dispatch some snotty remark without resorting to nastiness is justified and quite humorous, to boot.

Sorry to hear about your friend, it's always bad to loos someone you love.
The fool: "The more fool, madonna, to mourn for your brother's soul, being in heaven. Take away the fool, gentlemen." The fool is clearly not a fool in Twelfth Night. Appearances can be deceiving. Don't confuse knowledge with intelligence. A doctor can appear intelligent yet still remain only knowledgeable. A tittle does not confer intelligence no matter how difficult to gain. Nor does it mean there is no power or value in knowledge. Knowledge is power and some sadly abuse that power, yet it also shows their weakness and own stupidity, that they lack of intelligence. Yet is the fool a fool when "madonna" is unaware that he makes a jest at her expense? No, she is the fool because she cannot see her own stupidity. The intelligent person insults and degrades without the other ever being aware because they understand stupidity and that of others, thus know how to play the game.

The Biblical understanding is still stereotypical and as such is antiquated i guess I lack the words to explain fully my reasoning on what I'm trying, so I will cease trying.

I really don't understand what you are getting at. The biblical understanding? what is the biblical understanding? What is your alternative? From my understanding your view of evil lies in the indifference to what it means to be human. Or to put it simply to harm another person, in any way that causes them distress or physical, emotional, or mental harm. I agree this is evil but differently than they way I think you mean. For instance what about killing someone to save yourself or your family? You end up back to the use of justifications to excuse the act from blame or guilt. I kinda get the impression that you believe in a definite evil yet don't want to say so because of the religious connotations that it has.

@justme. Don't stop trying to get others to understand you point of view, it leaves you the true fool. You'll never learn the faults and weaknesses of your arguments, nor their strengths. It took me almost five years to come up with my argument, probably could have shortened it if I read more. So far I haven't had anyone manage to give a good argument contrary to it, yet. It's like a game of chess each loss teaches you something about your weaknesses while each win will teach you your strengths. Every statement you use to support your argument is a chess piece, used wrong and you loos, used right and you win.

 

[Fnord]

We're trying to tackle a subject here on our forum that philosophers have tried to tackle since we could think about something other than finding food.

I don't think there is a "universal" concept of good and evil; for it to exist you have to believe in some supernatural force that creates and enforces it (which I don't). The "universe" doesn't care if you kill others or not, it doesn't cry when a child dies; we're just a speck in a immense place with really no bearing on the greater whole. Our morals are completely our own constructs. And even within those constructs they can vary wildly. Collectivist philosophies, for example, feel the greater society takes precedence over the preferences of the individual; Objectivists would argue the exact opposite: initiating force on the individual through a collective is the ultimate evil. People have engaged in genocide feeling they were well within their rights to "do the right thing" and rid the world of something they considered evil. There are people who think torturing other people for the possibility of saving the lives of their countrymen is good and right.

There most certainly is no "objective" standard of "good" and "evil" unless there is a singular, objective force that defines it (and even then, you can spin down a rabbit hole because what gives that entity the authority, etc, etc). But given sufficient scale, good and evil don't "exist" except within the confines of our societies, and are defined differently therein.

 

[Mindfire]

We're trying to tackle a subject here on our forum that philosophers have tried to tackle since we could think about something other than finding food.

I don't think there is a "universal" concept of good and evil; for it to exist you have to believe in some supernatural force that creates and enforces it (which I don't). The "universe" doesn't care if you kill others or not, it doesn't cry when a child dies; we're just a speck in a immense place with really no bearing on the greater whole. Our morals are completely our own constructs. And even within those constructs they can vary wildly. Collectivist philosophies, for example, feel the greater society takes precedence over the preferences of the individual; Objectivists would argue the exact opposite: initiating force on the individual through a collective is the ultimate evil. People have engaged in genocide feeling they were well within their rights to "do the right thing" and rid the world of something they considered evil. There are people who think torturing other people for the possibility of saving the lives of their countrymen is good and right.

There most certainly is no "objective" standard of "good" and "evil" unless there is a singular, objective force that defines it (and even then, you can spin down a rabbit hole because what gives that entity the authority, etc, etc). But given sufficient scale, good and evil don't "exist" except within the confines of our societies, and are defined differently therein.

Which is why I do believe in a higher power. Otherwise everything descends into a quagmire of relativism and chaos. And I hate chaos.

 

[Fnord]

But then you get into the quagmire of relativism that is "whose higher power is right?" Since no such being has made themselves explicitly apparent we instead have the morality/immorality of warfare over that question. But we're still a universe of "laws", so I wouldn't exactly call it chaos. But society and morality is "sloppy" just the same, higher power or no higher power.

 

[Mindfire]

But then you get into the quagmire of relativism that is "whose higher power is right?" Since no such being has made themselves explicitly apparent we instead have the morality/immorality of warfare over that question. But we're still a universe of "laws", so I wouldn't exactly call it chaos. But society and morality is "sloppy" just the same, higher power or no higher power.

I wouldn't call that a quagmire. I think it's possible to sort out which religions are more reasonable and likely to be true and which ones are more likely to be false. It'll take work and hard thought, but it's doable. And you might not call it chaos, but I would. Existence is an insignificant speck wandering through an endless void subject to the whim of chance and probability? That's pretty much chaotic by definition. I also find it altogether impossible to believe that evolution is the origin of life. It just seems far too improbable- or rather impossible. And if evolution is an adaptational tool and nothing more, then life must have some other source. Ergo my belief in a structured universe under the auspices of a higher power.

 

[Fnord]

I wouldn't call that a quagmire. I think it's possible to sort out which religions are more reasonable and likely to be true and which ones are more likely to be false. It'll take work and hard thought, but it's doable.

But then we're relying on reason to tease out what is "more reasonable". Every religious person feels they've done that (and for all the religions of the past several thousand years), but yet the conclusions are all very different. Then what we actually have is a combination of environmental factors that influence this behavior ("I grew up in an Arab country, and Islam is our identity, therefore I also believe in Islam") and confirmation bias ("This is how I feel about this behavior and this is how this particular deity also feels about this behavior, therefore this deity must be the correct one"). In neither instance are we any closer to solidly defining good and evil, instead we are letting "someone else" make the decision for us. But even then, if you go up that chain it's still a subjective judgment--subject to the whim of the deity in question. We've merely moved the decision up the chain of command.

And you might not call it chaos, but I would. Existence is an insignificant speck wandering through an endless void subject to the whim of chance and probability? That's pretty much chaotic by definition. I also find it altogether impossible to believe that evolution is the origin of life. It just seems far too improbable- or rather impossible. And if evolution is an adaptational tool and nothing more, then life must have some other source. Ergo my belief in a structured universe under the auspices of a higher power.

Well it's a bit more complicated than an "insignificant speck wandering through an endless void subject to the whim of chance and probability". Then we're just leaning on the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity: "I don't understand how this works, therefore it must not be true." From the outside (or I suppose for us, from the inside) it might look like chaos but there are very much causal chains both in the creation of the universe and in the concept of evolution itself. Chaos would state that everything is truly random and we know that is not true. Physical laws work in predictable and measurable ways. Evolution does as well, but it requires the accounting for a larger bank of influencing variables to make meaningful conclusions, and so on down to climatology and market economies. Just because accounting for these variables is very difficult to do (as we say in my field, the "economic calculation problem") doesn't mean there aren't causal chains involved, just that they're beyond the scope of our current limitations. But it's certainly not just "pure randomness".

And that swings us back to the original topic: human behavior is subject to incentives and evolutionary bias. We find certain activities "good" because we're evolutionary adapted to engage in cooperative and pro-social behavior. Humans don't have much for natural defenses or particularly well-developed natural hunting skills, therefore true "loners" wouldn't have much survivability. That doesn't mean we're completely integrated socially, however, and I think we're still evolving socially to changes in how humans behave and interact. Enslaving other humans we felt were somehow inferior (often due to religious differences) was considered good and proper up until just a hundred years ago (and some would argue in some parts of the world even today). Now most of us find such a behavior abhorrent. If there is some all-knowing force that decided what is good or evil, then certainly we shouldn't expect such an entity to change its mind. And so the argument goes that perhaps us humans, fallible beings that we are, simply misinterpreted that entity in the past. But then that becomes a new logical rabbit hole regarding morality that we have to delve into ("what makes us more right now than in the past?").

We should realize that human behaviors, like morality, evolve over time and are influenced by social pressures, incentives, and other environmental factors. It's really hard to make the case that they exist objectively.

 

[Steerpike]

It's really hard to make the case that they exist objectively.

The problem is, the very nature of the subject makes it impossible for each side (those advocating a purely subjective morality and those advocating an objective one) to provide a proof of their viewpoint. Even if the idea of an objective good and evil is true, how would you set out proving it?

 

[Mindfire]

But then we're relying on reason to tease out what is "more reasonable". Every religious person feels they've done that (and for all the religions of the past several thousand years), but yet the conclusions are all very different. Then what we actually have is a combination of environmental factors that influence this behavior ("I grew up in an Arab country, and Islam is our identity, therefore I also believe in Islam") and confirmation bias ("This is how I feel about this behavior and this is how this particular deity also feels about this behavior, therefore this deity must be the correct one"). In neither instance are we any closer to solidly defining good and evil, instead we are letting "someone else" make the decision for us. But even then, if you go up that chain it's still a subjective judgment--subject to the whim of the deity in question. We've merely moved the decision up the chain of command.

So you're saying that my Christianity is untenable because I come from a Christian background? That conclusion is both absurd and unfair. If you had been born an Arab in an Islamic country, you'd likely be a Muslim. Does that make your atheism untenable? The fact that people's beliefs are influenced by their background has no bearing on whether those beliefs are right or wrong, or whether a person can compare one belief system with another and come to their own conclusions. My decision to be be a Christian is not invalidated by my upbringing. And if right and wrong is based on the opinion of a higher power, that is not exactly subjective. To consider the opinion of a deity subjective is to place that deity on our level, to count him as "one of us" whose opinion can be weighed against our own. But the very definition of deity refutes that idea. If a being can and has created the universe out of nothing and it can literally will things into existence, then by it's very nature, a deity's "opinion" BECOMES fact, i.e. objective, because that being literally has the prerogative to define reality.

 

[Fnord]

So you're saying that my Christianity is untenable because I come from a Christian background? That conclusion is both absurd and unfair. If you had been born an Arab in an Islamic country, you'd likely be a Muslim. Does that make your atheism untenable? The fact that people's beliefs are influenced by their background has no bearing on whether those beliefs are right or wrong, or whether a person can compare one belief system with another and come to their own conclusions. My decision to be be a Christian is not invalidated by my upbringing. And if right and wrong is based on the opinion of a higher power, that is not exactly subjective. To consider the opinion of a deity subjective is to place that deity on our level, to count him as "one of us" whose opinion can be weighed against our own. But the very definition of deity refutes that idea. If a being can and has created the universe out of nothing and it can literally will things into existence, then by it's very nature, a deity's "opinion" BECOMES fact, i.e. objective, because that being literally has the prerogative to define reality.

My point was that no one comes out of the womb a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Hindu or what-have-you. Someone has to teach that to you. So certainly your environment (where you were born, who your parents are, etc) influences your religious background--they don't really occur spontaneously.

If you could run a controlled experiment where someone was born without any outside influence of the sort, it doesn't seem at all likely that someone would spontaneously adopt "Muslim values" or "Christian values" pertaining to "good" and "evil". Though they would certainly find out quickly the rewards of social behavior (as well as the consequences of anti-social behavior) without those specific religious factors. That's why the "Golden Rule" is pretty universal across all societies even though their religions (or lack thereof) are very different--a society that doesn't value those sorts of things wouldn't last long, nor would the individuals in such a society likely survive to procreate over several generations. We see forms of cooperation (and I dare say, morals) in lower primates as well, independent of a religious belief.

 

[gavintonks]

an interesting concept of religion is to reignite the son/sun. The sun heats the earth [not really] but you are in the middle of winter and you have lost all hope of being warm again so on the 26th December you chop down a tree and burn it, this unbinds the trapped energy and sends it back to the sun so it will be strong enough for spring.
This used to be done with people, then the king as a yearly human sacrifice, criminals tied into a bower as the green man who is an incarnation of Apollo, but all to ensure the sun/ son [Apollo] gets enough energy to shine and make things grow [this was part of the sacred rite of Dionysian] but was later changed to a sacrificial lamb[sagitarius], ox[taurus]. symbolizing the ages at the time

 

[Mindfire]

My point was that no one comes out of the womb a Muslim, or a Christian, or a Hindu or what-have-you. Someone has to teach that to you. So certainly your environment (where you were born, who your parents are, etc) influences your religious background--they don't really occur spontaneously.

If you could run a controlled experiment where someone was born without any outside influence of the sort, it doesn't seem at all likely that someone would spontaneously adopt "Muslim values" or "Christian values" pertaining to "good" and "evil". Though they would certainly find out quickly the rewards of social behavior (as well as the consequences of anti-social behavior) without those specific religious factors. That's why the "Golden Rule" is pretty universal across all societies even though their religions (or lack thereof) are very different--a society that doesn't value those sorts of things wouldn't last long, nor would the individuals in such a society likely survive to procreate over several generations. We see forms of cooperation (and I dare say, morals) in lower primates as well, independent of a religious belief.

Whether someone will spontaneously adopt beliefs in a controlled environment has no bearing on their truth or falsity. A child raised in a "controlled environment" is not likely to come up with heliocentrism or the laws of motion either. In fact, I'd say a child raised in isolation is more likely to adopt Christianity than invent the laws of motion. For the former there is at least the hope of divine revelation. For the latter there is no such recourse. Also, we can't prove whether animals have religious opinions or not, so bringing them into this discussion can do little to provide clarity.

 

[cliche]

To me the good and evil are just terms that we use so that we can categorize society. This allows us to feel safe and have a good grip on society. No one genuinely believe that they are pure evil; Hitler did not believe that he was evil.You may say that the people who won the second world war were the good guys... but when you look at what caused this war to happen and why a person like Hitler came into power then you would understand. After world war 1 Germany was forced to accept war guilt meaning that they had to pay a vast sum of money. This led to Germany's economy going down the drain where you needed a barrel full of money just to buy a single loaf of bread (I think there's a picture of some kids making a tower out of money because what they were using was worth so little). People were becoming desperate and when Hitler came along promise that he would help Germany get into better times they were given hope. Now I'm not saying that Hitler was a good person, I think he was complete and utterly insane, but it goes to show that good and evil are all about perspective.
We hire a group of people in a court to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty, but are those few people enough to decide whether his actions are right or wrong? If every person apart from himself consider him a person who has committed an unforgivable crime then surely that must be what it is... but what about from his point of view?
What I believe is that the terms good and evil are impossible to distinguish from one another except through generic terms and applied only to a fantasy character not someone in real life. Yes person A helps an old lady across the street and therefore is considered someone who is good but what do you consider person B who goes up and steals that old lady's money? What if you were to know that person B was stealing money in order to feed his family since he had just been made redundant from his job? That is when we rely on a figurative head to make those decisions for us.
This is why in my stories I try and blur the lines as much as possible when it comes to protagonists and antagonists since (to me anyway) it helps to me make them more three dimensional.
If any of this has previously been mentioned I am sorry, its late and this is one of my favorite subjects to discuss.

 

[Steerpike]

No one genuinely believe that they are pure evil; Hitler did not believe that he was evil.

If objective good and evil exist, then any individual person's belief that they are good or evil is irrelevant. In other words, if there is an objective evil, and if Hitler fell within that definition, then it would remain so whether he believed it or not. Personal belief wouldn't enter into it.

We hire a group of people in a court to decide whether someone is innocent or guilty, but are those few people enough to decide whether his actions are right or wrong?

Those people aren't deciding guilt or innocence in a vacuum. They are deciding within the context of laws passed by representatives of the society at large (though in the U.S. they are free to disregard them when finding someone innocent, but not when finding them guilty).

What I believe is that the terms good and evil are impossible to distinguish from one another except through generic terms and applied only to a fantasy character not someone in real life.

I don't agree with this. I think it is easy for most people to envision good and evil as applied to real life situations and to distinguish between the two. A complete lack of ability to do this would be sociopathic, wouldn't it? At the very least, we consider the inability to make the distinction to be insanity under the law.

 

[Queshire]

gluh... so much to through.....

@ Steerpike: Your example of the bomb versus girl risks being a false dichotomy. There are plenty of third choices to take from shooting the guy with the bomb, stalling for time until the bomb was found, shooting the girl non-lethally, or offering yourself in exchange. Further, your view that shooting the girl would be evil is merely your view, I personally disagree. You invoke "A million is a statistic," implying that the one life before you is worth more then the thousands of lives you don't know. I do not agree with that. I veiw that each of those thousands of lives is equivilant of the girl's. Yes, death is sad, any death is sad, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. In that case, lacking any other option, I would kill the girl as it would be neccesary.

Actually, I think it'd be pretty easy to disprove and objective good or evil. If good was objective, then it would be a law of the universe. Just like gravity pulls everybody to the ground, if good was objective then everybody's idea of good would be the same. This discussion alone has disproved that. Further, extending the thought experiment to real life, if good and evil was objective then each culture would have the same idea of what is good and evil. In fuedal japan, ritual suicide was used to maintian honor and would be considered a good thing, in modern day America, while not evil, I doubt it would be considered good. To disprove subjective morality,

@Justme: I think the view of the bible as stereotypical comes from the fact that just about all english speaking contries being descended from heavily christan cultures. It has prevaded our cultural identity and regardless of religous views, a person's moral stance is inevetiably influenced by it. I'd suggest looking at cultures descended from other religions like india, china, or japan or historical cultures descended from other religions such as the vikings or the aztecs. They have good and evil, but it is a different good and evil then ours. Other then that, I'd suggest actually reading the bible, mind you, I haven't done that myself, but from what I hear, the popular image of it is very different from what it actually says, it advocates things that we would consider horrendous at times.

@Ankari: I would say that both the golden rule and the iron rule are a good basis for modern morality, but they are just the start and should not be absolutes if, for nothing else, their paradoxical nature. The golden rule would restrict rights while the iron one would expand it.

@Mindfire: I agree that much of the Bible is still applicable, but the world has changed so much since its creation that much isn't applicable. I view that it should be used as a guidline to help inform the individual's opinion and not strict laws.

Individual reason and choice certianly is a big part of religious choice, but you can not discount the effect your environment has on you.

Also, I disagree about being more likely to come up with christianity then the laws of motion. While unlikely to come up with the formal laws, I think it's a lot more likely that somebody would discover "If I do this, then this happens" then spontanously recreating the teachings of the church.

@Ascanius: If we view killing as evil without consideration to who / what, then every human would be a sinner from their first bite of solid food as, even if you did not do the killing yourself, you are directly responsible for the plants and animals that die to provide your food.

People do justify all of their actions, nobody does anything without some reason, how long that takes or what it takes to reach that level varies greatly. Comparing Justification and Rationalization is simply a matter of semantics.

You did cause me to amend my view though. I still don't believe there's an objective good or evil, but I veiw that it is a macro concept decided by society and culture. On an individual level, there's only what society veiws as good or evil and what is justified. For your murderer, yes in the eyes of society, at least American society, he would be viewed as evil, but for himself he would view his actions justified.

I agree that morality isn't based off just survival of the group, that is only one part of the equation, the other is survival of the indivdual. Balancing those and what is considered to acheive that is what makes up all the various moralities of modern day.

@All: Since we've gotten to talking about religion, I guess I'll say what I believe in. Though this is more my philsophy then anything.

First off, I would not be surprised if there were beings so far beyond humanity that they could be called gods, but I think that the proof of their existence would be reason to not worship them. If such a being exists, then they would simply be a highly advanced beings. A guy with a gun can kill me with a twitch of the finger, he has a lot more power then me, but that's no reason to worship them.

Secondly, I don't believe we have any signifance in the grand scheme of things. It would take so little to make humanity as a whole go extinct, and in 200 every single human alive now will be dead. We live in a cold, uncaring universe. Some will disagree with this, that's fine, I respect their opinion so long as they respect mine.

Thirdly, I have hope. Hope in humanity. Look at what humanity has acheived in these last few centuries. We make light dance. We fly through the sky on wings of metal. We have discovered the building blocks of all of existence! We may not have been given a purpose in this universe, but we will make a purpose! We will carve our name on the face of reality itself or die trying. I believe in a day where death is a distant, sad memory, a day where we fly among the stars, a day when reality itself is our bitch to do with as we want. If god exists, I believe that humanity will kill him just because he's there.

 

[Steerpike]

@ Steerpike: Your example of the bomb versus girl risks being a false dichotomy. There are plenty of third choices to take from shooting the guy with the bomb, stalling for time until the bomb was found, shooting the girl non-lethally, or offering yourself in exchange.

You don't understand the purpose of a hypothetical. It is to create an artificial situation to crystallize a particular point of discussion. You can always change the facts of a hypothetical; that accomplishes nothing. As presented in the hypothetical itself, those are the two options. It illustrates the fact that a pure utilitarian analysis is not always the correct one.

Moving forward to your response to the hypothetical - I must admit I don't entirely believe that most people would kill the girl if that actually happened to them, even if they say they would under the hypothetical. You would have to be a low-quality individual, if not also to some extent evil, to do it. It is easy to be cavalier about it in a discussion forum, of course.

Your attempt to disprove objective good and evil is not convincing. Unlike a law of gravity, whether good or evil is objective or subjective is not testable. Even testable scientific theories and hypotheses are not universally accepted. The idea that an untestable hypothesis would have to be universally-accepted to be deemed true doesn't make sense.

Those are my thoughts on it.

 

[cliche]

I don't agree with this. I think it is easy for most people to envision good and evil as applied to real life situations and to distinguish between the two. A complete lack of ability to do this would be sociopathic, wouldn't it? At the very least, we consider the inability to make the distinction to be insanity under the law.

What is your definition of good and evil? If someone has a motive to commit an act that is evil then that person himself does not consider himself to be evil. It's all about which point of view you look at.

Those people aren't deciding guilt or innocence in a vacuum. They are deciding within the context of laws passed by representatives of the society at large (though in the U.S. they are free to disregard them when finding someone innocent, but not when finding them guilty).

Laws are made by people who believe that they know what is purely right and purely wrong (despite trying at times to take a neutral approach).

If objective good and evil exist, then any individual person's belief that they are good or evil is irrelevant. In other words, if there is an objective evil, and if Hitler fell within that definition, then it would remain so whether he believed it or not. Personal belief wouldn't enter into it.

Then you would need to set certain criteria for what makes someone fit into one of these objectives... which would get very complicated (though I admit that to an extent it could would work). You would need to look into things like background, medical records as well as what type of person he is and what drove him to an act of let say crime. But then you would need to be able to define what makes someone good as well. Let say killing was completely out of the question and anyone that killed someone else for any reason what-so-ever that would leave the entire country defenseless against other nations not willing to follow this law. Then lets make this more neutral, killing is only acceptable under certain circumstances. Yes you said that a point of view would not come into this but then how will they be judged? If not judged then the character (or person) will have to either be referred to as unknown or neutral.