Yes...another Good and Evil thread

[JoyJuice]

Human experience changes, so in the absence of an absolute authority, there is no good and evil, only a temporary perception of good and evil. An illusion if you will

Yes, that is true, human experience changes. My point is "absolute" authority is not required to to determine good and evil.

In fact, with the evolution of man and our experienced gain through the history of humanity/ It is better in fact that it does evolve.

Take the Bible for instance since this is a Christian forum. Clearly we have evolved from those "absolute authorative laws" and moreover it's clear that even those that adhere to the Bible ignore some of those absolute laws in light of those "illusion" laws of our evolving society.

 

[MachZer0]

Yes, that is true, human experience changes. My point is "absolute" authority is not required to to determine good and evil.

I'm sorry, but in the absence of absolute authority, there is no good and evil, there are only things that society encourages and discourages with different degrees of severity. The reason is that those things that society encourages and discourages are in flux. You can't say that something was evil in one generation and good in the next. If it was evil then, it is evil now.

 

[jayem]

In the absence of an absolute authority, there is no basis to determine good and evil.

That's fine and dandy in a theoretical sense, but it poses problems in reality.

In the first place, we don't know that there is any absolute authority. In the entire history of human knowledge, the only things we can confidently say are absolute are simple physical constants, such as the speed of light in a vacuum, or the mass of a proton at rest. For such complex phenomena like moral actions, the existence of an absolute authority is sheer speculation.

I say this because I've never seen anything I would consider a true, absolute moral authority. I've seen collections of rules, laws, and commandments that are claimed to be absolute. But what happens when the rules conflict with one another? Human affairs can be so convoluted, that following one or another commandment may lead to a worse outcome than disobeying them. If we sometimes have to use our own judgement and finesse the rules, then they really can't be called "absolute." I've never known any kind of moral system--one which gives specific directives--that is true and valid in every conceivable circumstance (which is the correct definition of "absolute.")


(And I'll just mention the Euthypro dilemma, which arises whenever we claim the existence of an absolute moral authority.)

 

[quatona]

I'm sorry, but in the absence of absolute authority, there is no good and evil, there are only things that society encourages and discourages with different degrees of severity.

That´s what I and others actually mean when saying "good and evil".
It´s like when I say that something tastes good. The fact that it doesn´t taste good to others, and the fact that things that are by a majority perceived as tasting good today were despised in former times doesn´t pose a problem for the statement I intend to make when saying "It tastes good".

 

[MachZer0]

That's fine and dandy in a theoretical sense, but it poses problems in reality.

Failing to recognize the absolute authority doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It only means that you have a greater likelihood of participating in evil

 

[MachZer0]

That´s what I and others actually mean when saying "good and evil".
It´s like when I say that something tastes good. The fact that it doesn´t taste good to others, and the fact that things that are by a majority perceived as tasting good today were despised in former times doesn´t pose a problem for the statement I intend to make when saying "It tastes good".

Good point. In the absence of an absolute authority as to what tastes good and bad, there can be no real basis for determining what does taste good or bad.

 

[Emmy]

Dear JoyJuice. God made us in His image, God also gave us His 10 Commandments, of do`s and DON`T do s. He also gave us free will to make use of them, or to ignore them. Jesus shortened all 10 Commandments into 2, and those 2 commandments, contain all 10, which God gave us. They are straightforward and easy to understand. Love God with all your being, and love each other, as you love YOURSELVES. God is Worthy, He is Love, Compassion and Grace, He deserves all the love we are capable of. To love others, as we love ourselves, means exactly that, Never DO, or Say anything to anybody, which we would not have anybody do, or say to us. We must treat everybody we meet, or know, with love, kindness, courtesy and considerration, and Never abuse, malign or ill-treat anybody. Anything which is not related or akin to pure benevolence, will be Evil, will be selfish, will be unloving and uncaring. We all know the difference between Good and Evil. I say this humbly and lovingly, and send greetings. Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[elman]

That´s what I and others actually mean when saying "good and evil".
It´s like when I say that something tastes good. The fact that it doesn´t taste good to others, and the fact that things that are by a majority perceived as tasting good today were despised in former times doesn´t pose a problem for the statement I intend to make when saying "It tastes good".

Comparing the taste of food to the universal in all times understanding that somethings are not loving and not good is an inadequate comparing. That some things are subjective does not prove all things are subjective. I agree morality is not determined by majority vote, but near unanomity on something in all humans ought to court for something and not be summarily dismissed as meaningless.

 

[quatona]

Comparing the taste of food to the universal in all times understanding that somethings are not loving and not good is an inadequate comparing.

I think it is spot on.

That some things are subjective does not prove all things are subjective.

That´s why I gave this example just for an illustration and not for a proof.
However, we do know that our valuations are subjective, and you have conceded as much. Now I would expect some sort of substantiation for the idea that some of our subjective valuations are objective.

I agree morality is not determined by majority vote, but near unanomity on something in all humans ought to court for something and not be summarily dismissed as meaningless.

I counts a lot, and I have said so earlier. I wonder what makes you think I could regard it meaningless. It counts for what it is: A broad agreement, and since that´s as good as it can get, it is extremely meaningful to me. Yet, that doesn´t make it objective.

 

[quatona]

Good point. In the absence of an absolute authority as to what tastes good and bad, there can be no real basis for determining what does taste good or bad.

Well, sure there can and there is. My real basis for determining what tastes good and bad is my taste.

 

[MachZer0]

Well, sure there can and there is. My real basis for determining what tastes good and bad is my taste.

Yes, and that only applies to your tasrte. In the current discussion, you can only determine what is evil and good, for you. that means you have no right to tell anyone that anything they do is evil. That includes anything and everything.

 

[quatona]

Yes, and that only applies to your tasrte. In the current discussion, you can only determine what is evil and good, for you.

That´s all I am doing.
I don´t see, however, how the idea or claim that my valuations are objective would change anything about this fact.

that means you have no right to tell anyone that anything they do is evil. That includes anything and everything.

Sure I have no right to do this, and what´s even better: I don´t have any inclination to do it, in the first place.
Then again I do not really see how your assumption that there is an objective good and evil would give you the right to tell anyone that anything they do is evil. Two prerequisites are missing:
1. You would have to show that there is such an objective good and evil.
2. You would have to show that this objective good and evil is congruent with your idea of good and evil.

Until that happens, I see no reason to regard your opinion as to what is good and evil any less subjective than mine (irregardlessly of whether you claim it is objective).

 

[MachZer0]

That´s all I am doing.
I don´t see, however, how the idea or claim that my valuations are objective would change anything about this fact.

Sure I have no right to do this, and what´s even better: I don´t have any inclination to do it, in the first place.
Then again I do not really see how your assumption that there is an objective good and evil would give you the right to tell anyone that anything they do is evil. Two prerequisites are missing:
1. You would have to show that there is such an objective good and evil.
2. You would have to show that this objective good and evil is congruent with your idea of good and evil.

Until that happens, I see no reason to regard your opinion as to what is good and evil any less subjective than mine (irregardlessly of whether you claim it is objective).

That's my whole point. In the absence of an absolute authority, there can be no basis for determining good and evil

 

[quatona]

That's my whole point. In the absence of an absolute authority, there can be no basis for determining good and evil

This is only true if you define "good and evil" as being "that which is decreed as good and evil by an absolute authority", and in that case your conclusion is forced by your definition.

 

[jayem]

Failing to recognize the absolute authority doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It only means that you have a greater likelihood of participating in evil

That's not really an answer. You're just asserting that an absolute moral authority exists, and your argument seems to be only prudential . Just because you feel it's prudent to have such authority, doesn't prove that it really does exist. Can you give an evidential argument? I would really like to hear an explanation of exactly what this authority is, and the reasons you think it is absolute.

 

[MachZer0]

That's not really an answer. You're just asserting that an absolute moral authority exists, and your argument seems to be only prudential . Just because you feel it's prudent to have such authority, doesn't prove that it really does exist. Can you give an evidential argument? I would really like to hear an explanation of exactly what this authority is, and the reasons you think it is absolute.

You may want to review my posts since I have not made such an assertion

 

[JoyJuice]

I'm sorry, but in the absence of absolute authority, there is no good and evil, there are only things that society encourages and discourages with different degrees of severity. The reason is that those things that society encourages and discourages are in flux. You can't say that something was evil in one generation and good in the next. If it was evil then, it is evil now.

Your assessment about societal changes is correct. Through our human experience as a society, for the benefit of said society, becomes the authority and good and evil in withc eact are appropiately incouraged or discouraged. The problem with the idea of "absolute authority" is that there really is no absolute authority. So in reality it does indeed need to flux and change as we become more enlighten as society evolves. Btw, where can one find this absolutely authority and it's criterian for good and evil?

 

[JoyJuice]

Failing to recognize the absolute authority doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It only means that you have a greater likelihood of participating in evil

Where does it exist and how does it define what is good and what is evil?

 

[quatona]

Failing to recognize the absolute authority doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Likewise, assuming that such exists doesn´t mean it exists. That´s the very point: Unless we know that this authority exists and unless we know its decrees concerning good and evil the assumption of an absolute authority doesn´t mean much progress. People disagreeing in their subjective ideas as to what is good and evil and people disagreeing in their subjective ideas about what their alleged "absolute authorities" decree as being "good and evil" doesn´t seem to make much difference (except that the latter excludes any rational approach to ethics altogether and a priori).

It only means that you have a greater likelihood of participating in evil

How does that follow? Are we assuming that the "good and evil" as decreed by this absolute authority is so arbitrary, counter-intuitive and contradictory to our understanding of good and evil that knowing it requires the recognition of said absolute authority?
And how does the assumption that it exists result in better knowledge of what its opinion on good and evil are?

Lastly, why would I care much about such arbitrarily determined "good and evil", anyways? As said before, if this "absolute authority" would define atrocities against my fellow humans as good, I would still stick to my notions that such atrocities are not good.

If I haven´t missed anything, you still haven´t told us what you actually mean when saying "absolute", and you either haven´t explained what you mean when saying "authority" (as far as I can tell from your arguments so far, it is just another word for "power/might").

 

[MachZer0]

Your assessment about societal changes is correct. Through our human experience as a society, for the benefit of said society, becomes the authority and good and evil in withc eact are appropiately incouraged or discouraged. The problem with the idea of "absolute authority" is that there really is no absolute authority. So in reality it does indeed need to flux and change as we become more enlighten as society evolves. Btw, where can one find this absolutely authority and it's criterian for good and evil?

So from your perspective you are froeced to admit that there truly is no good and there truly is no evil. There is indeed moral equivalence between Mother Teresa and Osama bin Laden