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

What essentially is Good and Evil?

Queshire

Auror
Have you ever taken a logic class? A False Dichotomy is a logical fallacy implying that there's only two options when that is not the case. I did not change the hypothetical in any way, I took the information you presented and showed that those are by far not the only two options.

Further your hypothetical situation in no way crystalizes the point you were trying to make, it was a weak argument at best.

True, the answer to a hypothetical situation doesn't reflect what would happen in a similar real life situation, there are simply too many variables to take into account, but if there's no point in the hypothetical, then why'd you bring it up in the first place?

It is testable, I tested it in my last post o_O

Look, I'll do it again;

If good is objective, then everybody's concept of good would be the same. Are they the same? No, no they are not. True, they are similar, not same, but similar, but that is explained as a result of evolution, instinct, and culture. Therefore good is not objective.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
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).

This leads down another path, I think. I'm just pointing out that if good and evil are objective, than your argument than a given person doesn't consider himself evil wouldn't matter. If it is objective, he's evil whether he thinks he is or not.

What the ramifications of that are, and how someone would be judged, is another matter. In the judicial system, of course, most of the factors you are talking about do come into play. Motive, extenuating circumstances, and so on. But, wrapping this back into the point I was going for, there is no way to demonstrate whether good and evil is subjective or objective. Anyone who says they can do so is trying to fool you (or is at least fooling themselves). It may be that it is subjective, but it may also be that it is objective, and the arguments about a person's own view of themselves, or about circumstances surrounding their act, wouldn't change the reality of whether it is objective or subjective.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Have you ever taken a logic class? A False Dichotomy is a logical fallacy implying that there's only two options when that is not the case. I did not change the hypothetical in any way, I took the information you presented and showed that those are by far not the only two options.

Again, you do not understand the purpose of a hypothetical. Because it has already been explained to you once, I don't see much profit in doing so again. You either don't get it or don't wish to.

Your supposed "test" of objective good and evil is laughable, Queshire. I don't know what could have led you to believe that the objective existence of something, where the objective nature is untestable, would lead everyone to agree on the subject. You're either joking or you've failed to apply a minimum degree of intellect to the problem.
 

Queshire

Auror
The purpose of a hypothetical situation is to think through some situation and try to imagine the outcome without having to have the situation actually happen. Thinking through your hypothetical situation, I have imagined a number of solutions that are possible from the information given and result in nobody dying. Even limiting myself to the two options presented I disagree that killing the girl would be more evil, in fact the utilitarian approach strikes me as the lesser of two evils in that case. Thus it is a weak argument and a logical fallacy.

Well...... considering everybody agrees on other objective things, water is wet, the sun rises in the east, etc, then if good and evil was objective as well, wouldn't everybody agree on it as well?

I find no fault in my thought experiment, maybe there's something I'm missing, and if there is, I'll accept that, but if the only thing you have to offer is insults, then I will not accept that.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Well...... considering everybody agrees on other objective things, water is wet, the sun rises in the east, etc, then if good and evil was objective as well, wouldn't everybody agree on it as well?

All of that is testable. Again, the other is not testable. There is no reason to expect that people will agree on something that is objectively true if there is no way to test it. For example, at one point in the history of humanity, not everyone agreed that the earth revolves around the sun. The fact that it does so is objectively true. By your argument everyone should have agreed upon it. Of course, they didn't, because there was no proof of it at the time (e.g. a test that established it). Human history is rife with people believing things that are objectively false. I have a hard time believing you are presenting this as a serious argument.

A hypothetical creates an artificial situation. In the one I created, there were two options. That was part of the hypothetical. You can create a hypothetical with more options if you like, but it isn't the same one I employed. People tend to change the hypothetical when they're reluctant to give the answer that the hypothetical as-stated would elicit.

The fact that you would answer a hypothetical one way versus another does not create a "logical fallacy." You like to use that phrase. I do not think you understand it.

Killing the girl is the much more evil option of the two presented. Your disagreement with that conclusion has no bearing on that fact. It merely demonstrates that you haven't considered the hypothetical closely enough.
 

Queshire

Auror
How is it not testable?

The logical fallacy was refering to the false dichotomy.

How is it more evil? One life cut short, one person that will never more know joy, hope, or sorrow, one grieving family, versus a thousand lives cut short, a thousand people that will never more know joy, hope, or sorrow, a thousand grieving families?

It is a common trope that A million is a statistic A Million is a Statistic - Television Tropes & Idioms but that is simply horrible, that's not just a thousand people, that's a thousand individuals. If anything, YOU haven't considered the hypothetical closely enough.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
How is it not testable?

How, exactly, would you propose to test it? It's about as testable as the existence of god, which is to say 'not very.' If you can formulate a test for it, you could sure solve a philosophical point that has been at issue for some time.

It is more evil because in the instance where you do not shoot the girl you bear no moral responsibility. You did not place her in that predicament. You did not place the other innocent people in their predicament. The moral culpability for everything that has happened rests solely with the bomber. In the event that you shoot her, the moral culpability for her death now rests with you.

Your link has not relevance to the discussion, so I'm not sure what your purpose is in providing it.
 

Queshire

Auror
Well, besides the test I ALREADY DID, I'd propose gathering a large amount of people and providing them with a hypothetical situation, ironically, your false dichotomy would be a good one. If the answers given don't show a clear prefrence for one or another, then Morality could not be objective. If it was truly an universal, objective force, then the prefrence would be clear if the people polled where from all cultures, all species, or even from different worlds.

Yes, the bomber is the ultimate villian, but the choice, and the consequences, are still yours to bear. It doesn't matter whether or not you were the one that actually pulled the trigger, it was your choice that sent them to their death. HELL! By your logic Hitler's bloody innocent because he didn't kill the jews himself, just ordered it.

I posted that link because I thought you were arguing that killing the girl was worse because you would see her, probably know her as well, while because the thousands are just faceless masses it'd be better to let them die. It does loose revelance since that wasn't your arguement.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Inigo Montoya (speaking off camera to Queshire: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You're going in circles, Queshire. And your arguments are getting more and more ludicrous by the minute. Of course, there is an old adage in debate that you can tell when someone has lost the argument because they drag out Hitler. And your Hitler example is worse than most because it doesn't even make sense. Of course someone who orders killing by others is culpable. You need to stop and think a minute instead of just posting the first thing that comes to mind. You're starting to flail a bit, and I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you.

Do you actually believe that the moral culpability is the same between Hitler and someone who "refuses" to kill an innocent person? You can retract that silly analogy if you like, I'll pretend I didn't see it. I'll even edit this post to remove all traces of it, just to show what a nice guy I am.

Sheesh.

Next.
 

Queshire

Auror
Attacking me does not disprove my claims. That too is a logical fallacy, in particular Ad Hominem. And yes, having taken and got a very good grade in a college logic class, plus just recently refreshing my memory for my argument and exposistion class, I know what Logical Fallacy means, do you?

Just what part of my reasoning is circular? Repeating my previous test? Using the idea that an objective morality would mean that everybody would agree on what is good and what is evil? You have never refuted that. You just claimed that it was untestable. Having come up with two potential tests myself, without going into the potentially thousands of tests that people specifically studying just this issue have most likely come up with, it should be clear that it is quite testable.

I agree that both Hitler and the Nazis as a negative are overused in most arguments, but that does not invalidate my point. You are responsible for your choices whether or not you actually pull the trigger. You might consider it to be refusing to kill an innocent person, I see it as letting thousands of innocent people die.

I suggest instead of putting all that effort into insulting me and fake chivalry you work on strengthing your arguments.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Queshire, you haven't made a good counter argument yet. You seem to think that repeating the same poor arguments adds weight to them. It does not. I've already given examples of objective truths that not everyone has agreed on at any given time. One single example would disprove your proposition that if something is objectively true everyone would agree on it.

Why don't you get back on the bench, and we'll call you in when we need you.
 

Queshire

Auror
Oh? So you've provided examples of objective truths that not everybody agrees on have you? ^^ Care to point those out for me again?
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Ah...so you're not reading, you're just trying to move on to your next post. Just go back a few messages. Human history is rife with examples of truths that were not universally accepted at any given time.

Looking right now at two issues in the news, we can take evolution and anthropogenic global warming. Both of these are either objectively true or false. Either humans evolved or they didn't; either humanity is causing the climate to warm or it is not. But while the truth of the matter is objective in both cases, in neither case is either side of these arguments universally accepted.
 

Queshire

Auror
Ah, I see where the misunderstanding was. No, no, no. I never meant to imply that everybody would agree that good and evil are objective if they were objective forces. Simply I meant that if they were objective forces then, whether or not everybody agreed they were objective, people would be influenced by those objective forces in a similar way. This influence would be reflected by a prefrence for one course of action over another in a hypothetical situation, which is what my tests are designed to look for.
 

ascanius

Inkling
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.

LOL. Did you read what I posted. There are universal laws, killing, rape, lying, betrayal to name a few. There is no culture where this are considered good. And to top it off I can Promise you ANY EXAMPLE YOU COME UP WITH I can refute with the ideas I have posted. Everyone's view of evil/wrong are the same where people disagree are the justifications used.

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.

LOL "While unlikely to come up with formal laws..........Then spontaneously recreating the teaching of the church" Am I the only one who sees the problem? It has to work both ways not loaded to support you. Also in this case how can morality be examined if never allowed to be discovered through interaction. Would "if I do this, then this happens" be possible if the person was deprived of witnessing the interactions that would lead to an understanding of motion? No, they wouldn't, the same way morality wouldn't be known if someone was never allowed to experience situations where morality is applicable.

@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.

Hehe. I find it interesting that you say sinner, I am not concerned with any religious aspect of the argument only the argument itself. But yes your right, and can you tell me that wasteful killing is favored? Nope you cannot. This is a case where the killing is justified, you need to eat.

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.

NO they DON'T. Do people justify getting up in the morning, no they just get up. Do they justify taking out the trash? no it needs to be done they do it. Do they justify helping an old lady cross the street? nope they don't. Nor do they justify, eating, sleeping, going to work, paying the bills, walking the dog, saving someone, telling the truth, reading a book, bettering themselves, working out, walking to school, walking, hanging out with friends in their spare time, studying, playing an instrument. Do you want more?

Semantics: Linguistics. a.the study of meaning. b. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form. 3. the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc. While I see how you can think it is semantics there is a difference, just look in any dictionary.
I don't respect your argument that it is semantics, it's absurd. Words have a definite meaning and societies ignorance to those meanings are irrelevant especially when used to further a goal. For instance the term gender prior to the 70's (I think it was the seventies) was a grammatical term used to distinguish the "gender" or sex denotation of a word, particularly for languages that are gender specific. Now it is used interchangeably with sex, though it incorrect. This was purposefully done and could be considered semantics because gender and sex are essentially the same thing even when used correctly. But changing the meaning of a word to further a goal is wrong. Seeing that you need a simpler definition of Rationalize how about this. Rationalize is an attempt to find reason in something, to make comfortable to reason, to make something fit within a specific world view, to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes. Such as the way you rationalize (or make comfortable to your reason) my arguments to be incorrect because you do not like the implications. Or one might rationalize (find a reason to) going to the store. Or one might rationalize (find a reason, or make comfortable to reason/thought/world view find an explanation for) what they did . Or one might rationalize winning the lottery to always picking their children's birthdays. To justify something is an attempt to make it right or just, to excuse from blame, shame, guilt.

An attempt to refute an argument through use of semantics is nothing but a childish attempt of attacking the layout of the argument. It has no purpose save to obscure the actual argument and it leaves you nothing but a dilettante. Something you have been doing, that whole dichotomy thing, please. If you are going to argue attack the logic, the argument itself, not words that you are unsure of the meaning, or setup of the argument because you do not like how it is worded or structured. You bring up a logic class fine, in philosophy the difference between rationalization and justification were brought up and examined. Surely you are not callow enough to miss the meaning of the argument, I don't think you are.

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.

If he views it as justified then he knows it is wrong but able to be excused from blame. how is this different from what I said? If your going to say that each society determines right and wrong then explain why there are universal truths that cross all societies? Rape for one is wrong in ANY society/culture, so is betrayal.

@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.

I'm not talking about religion.
@JUSTME I now understand what your whole problem is with the Idea of good and evil and it's connotations. Let me know if I'm wrong but it is the EMMEDATE association to religion that you have a problem with.

Well, besides the test I ALREADY DID, I'd propose gathering a large amount of people and providing them with a hypothetical situation, ironically, your false dichotomy would be a good one. If the answers given don't show a clear prefrence for one or another, then Morality could not be objective. If it was truly an universal, objective force, then the prefrence would be clear if the people polled where from all cultures, all species, or even from different worlds.

LOL. Of the answeres others give, I think before anyone entrusts anything of importance that those being asked questions should have the ability to comprehend the arguments being presented. "If the answers given don't show a clear preference for one or another, then Morality could not be objective." with PREFERENCE, being the key word, what they feel, or prefer, yes very well thought out plan. Such as do you have a preference for coke or diet coke, a red shirt or blue. It's like asking do they like Newtons laws or Relativity, is your preference a flat earth or sphere? See how easy it is to attack a word in an attempt to refute an argument? Though in this case it does have a logical point to refute what you said so doesn't quite fit. There is a reason why the exact meanings of the words have to be considered in an argument and not connotations or social standards of words, it's needed to be precise about what is meant in regards to the argument.

Yes, the bomber is the ultimate villian, but the choice, and the consequences, are still yours to bear. It doesn't matter whether or not you were the one that actually pulled the trigger, it was your choice that sent them to their death. HELL! By your logic Hitler's bloody innocent because he didn't kill the jews himself, just ordered it.

No he did kill them himself because he ORDERED it, he is just as guilty because he used his power in that way.
Steerpike is right in this one. As Steerpike said "The moral culpability for everything that has happened rests solely with the bomber. In the event that you shoot her, the moral culpability for her death now rests with you."
What makes one life less valuable than a thousand, that life has just as much meaning to her as those thousands of others. Not to mention it is really easy to say something when not in the situation, much harder when faced with that decision. I think for the person faced with this dilemma no matter what they choose they are justified or blameless. Sure the family/s of those involved would be furious but they are influenced by having lost those they love. This is a situation where all options are evil/wrong and there is no right answer.

I'm surprised only one person had anything to say about what I posted? I was hoping more would respond and poke holes in my argument that I hadn't seen.
 

Queshire

Auror
I think it would be good to take a break for a moment, and rexamine the base arguments.

I am arguing that it is possible to test the objectivity or subjectivity of good and evil. If objective a poll of people from various cultures around the world will show a clear prefrence for one course of action over another.

Thinking further on the subject, I have come to believe that there is an objective element to morality, however that objectivity is not a result of some universal cosmic force of goodness. It results from the animal instincts left over from evolution, and as such beings evolved from other species would have a different set of objective beliefs. As a result of instincts, this objective part of morality can not be considered good or evil. I still maintain that good or evil is decided by a society's cultural conciouss, and doesn't apply to one's own actions. One's own actions are goverened by what is justified, however what it takes to justify something and how long it takes depends on numerous factors, from empathy, the view of good and evil in the society you live in, your objective instincts, hell, even how much sleep you get.

I am also arguing that it can not be said that not shooting an innocent girl but in the process dooming thousands is inheirantly less evil then shooting the girl to save those thousands. In either case, your choice determines who lives and who dies, regardless of who pulls the trigger, and you must take responsiblity for that choice. I still think that in most stories the hero would go with a third option though, there's no reason those should be the only two choices.
 

Queshire

Auror
ugh.... why'd you have to post that long thing while I was typing -_-...

Firstly, Those are human laws, not universal ones. Frankly the universe doesn't care whether you kill, lie, rape, or betray.

As for good examples of each, well for killing there's killing for food, you admitted that as well, lying there's lies like Santa Clause is real or lying to spare someone's feelings, betrayal there could be betraying your country to end a century long war that was causing the death of millions, not an example from real life, but hey, this is a writing forum. Rape is a harder one, while never considered good, it was considered acceptable to rape the women of countries you were at war with, or some situation where it would be neccesary to save a life. Yes, you can argue that only justifies it, but that just goes along with my argument that on a personal level actions are guided by justifications, which in turn are shaped by a number of factors.

Secondly... yeah, ok, not my best work there. Still, I find it more likely to come up with a set of rules based off observable, repeating events without influence then it is to independently develop a certain religion. That particular part isn't about whether morality would be developed or not, but whether a specific type of morality, or more specifcally religion would be developed.

Well..................... For wasteful killing being favored.... Well, there's any form of hunting for sport. Big game hunters killing lions, and tigers, and bears (oh my!) and stuffing them. While lessened now days, that is still acceptable. Further there's the pioneers killing large number of buffalo on their way west, and even modern day Japanese fishers catching sharks, slicing off their fins for shark fin soup then tossing the finless shark back in the water, causing it to drown as it can't move to filter water over its gills. Oh, and gladiators, can't foget about them.

Justifications:
Waking up: Needing to get something acomplished, hungry, needing to pee.
Taking out the trash: Looks ugly, stinks, need more room for more trash
Old Lady crossing the street: Improving their reputation, empathy, a bid to increase good karma, desire for a merit badge.
Eating: Hungry, don't want to die.
Sleeping: Tired, don't want to die.
Going to work: Need money to not die
Paying Bills: Need service bills pay for to not die.
Walking the dog: Relaxation, dog will get fat if not done.

And so on, people justify every act they do, they may put little thought into it to the point that it's subconcious, but they still justify it.

The only meaning words have is what we humans give them. Language is a human invention. If you replace every time I used Justification with Rationalization my arguments will be exactly the same.

From wikipedia; "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option."

He presented an argument that was either you shoot the girl and she dies, or the bomb explodes and thousands die, when there were numerous possible third options. It is a textbook example of a false dichotomy, which is the particular term I learned for that fallacy, and I'm not afraid to point that out.

HE doesn't veiw himself as wrong, he views himself as justified, it is others that veiw him as evil.

Fine, fine, another instance of semantics, replace that word with trend and the argument is still exactly the same.

What makes a thousand lives less valuable then one life? Take that girl's one life. Now add another life just like it. Do this again, and again, and again, until you get to a thousand. Those aren't just a thousand people they are a thousand individuals, each equal to the girl. Steerpike claimed that killing the girl is worse as you would be pulling the trigger, while it wouldn't be your fault if the bomb exploded killing thousands. My personal choice would be to save as many people as possible, but I would acknowledge that I would be as responsible for that girl's death as I would be for the thousands of deaths resulting from the bomb going off.
 

Caged Maiden

Staff
Article Team
I dunno. I really don't want to enter this, but I just want to add that people do all sorts of things without thinking AT ALL. Some of them will try to backpedal once they've caused offense to another, but most will not be able to justify WHY they've acted how they have.

An example? No thanks, because they're not going over so well in this thread. But suffice to say that I do not believe people justify their actions as a rule, and can cite MANY examples from my life where I acted on compulsion, indifference, or apathy, sometimes to the detriment of other people. I don't think I am necessarily evil (read disclaimer below) but then, there are people who would consider some of my decisions more than simply immoral.

Disclaimer: I probably suffer from some sort of personality disorder and have been known to display antisocial behavior.
 

Queshire

Auror
you know what, screw this, I know what I believe and that's enough I see no more point arguing with you guys =_=
 

gavintonks

Maester
Kronos or time was meant to be the creator of the universe, and was chaos personified. He had 2 twins born of the mother creation fed by the milk of the cosmos through the milky was as any children would be. The twins each took a role the first one born have first choice, he epitomized his father as chaos and destruction and his brother became creation and birth. One is creative destruction and created all the evils and the other was creative constructions and creates all that is good.
Destruction sees creation as an abomination of the natural order of things and seeks to unbind it all the time creating energy and chaos.There fore the creation and destructive forces create motion and release energy which keeps things ongoing, however the thought of creation was made and implemented, therefore we are in atrophy being unbound from our existence, there fore we can tell the future because it is our past. We are loosing energy until our creation is unbound
 
Top