Why are so many people so bad?

[Chesterton]

Please explain the concept of "meaning" with only making references to something "external to oneself".

To "mean" is to refer to something external. That's why we have dictionaries. If you want to know what a word means you can look it up. You can't make the word "table" mean a "chair" unless you're an anarchist.

And, as asked before, please explain the concept of "true or false" in your own terms.

"True" would be in accord with fundamental reality.

 

[primarymay]

This is a serious question. Let's pretend, for the sake of this thread, that there is no spiritual realm and there was no Fall. What reason do people give for the abundance of bad people? Thieves, liars, sexual predators, murderers, etc. It's rife, and it's non-stop. In the absence of a spiritual realm, why are so many people so bad?

Because we haven't grown out of our primitive savagery, one day we will, or end up extinct.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Hitler

Bingo!

You win at Godwin's law bingo. I can't believe it took 275 posts in a morality thread. That's gotta be a record!

 

[Chesterton]

Sorry, I don't understand. Can you explain what you mean?

You seem to want to explain morality in terms of its effects rather than in terms of its pure essence. What I'm saying is that if it exists in a pure essence, I would expect it to result in order and happiness.

How were they utilitarian? They didn't approach morality at all in terms of consequences. The thing that these three had in common was that they were driven by ideology, an nothing was considered immoral as long as it was to the end of achieving that ideology.

I don't understand. What you've described is exactly utilitarian.

 

[Chesterton]

Bingo!

You win at Godwin's law bingo. I can't believe it took 275 posts in a morality thread. That's gotta be a record!

You win at being trite.

 

[Freodin]

It's not a scientific "instrument". It's more art than science.

Then don't call it an "instrument"... just answer the question. How do you find out what is "true and good" to fine-tune the art you use to find out what is "true and good"?

We have wills. Desire enters into it.

With all the evasion and excuses, I might start to think that you don't want to defend the concept of "conscience" at all.
This is the statement I initally referred to:

Everybodyknows: "If God is good how do we know and apply his standards of goodness to our lives?"
you: "I decided to rely on my conscience (which I believe is God-given) and on the teaching and examples of Christ."

And up to now, you have done your best to point out all the reasons why this conscience that you believe is God-given completely fails at knowing what is good.

I have an idea why you do that... must do that. I think, as I have said before, that the Christian moral system is purely authoritarian. It is not based on reason, examination, societial interactions, learning, experience... all you have is an authority that you copy.

Just admit it.

It means to be in accord with the "way" or the "tao" of what we are intended to be.

Ah, yes. I pointed out the flaw in such a reasoning in one of my posts to Oseas. If you include the concept of a divine creator, there can be no difference between "intention" and "actuality". That leaves only the conclusion that, whatever we are is the way we are intended to be.

You're wrong. They were completely utilitarian, in defiance of right and wrong.

They strove to shape their countries and societies in a way they thought it was "intended to be". And they did so, even when it was not useful, or even hurting their country/society. They did that in accordance with a fixed dogmatic worldview, even when it contradicted reality.
How is that utilitarian?

To "mean" is to refer to something external. That's why we have dictionaries. If you want to know what a word means you can look it up. You can't make the word "table" mean a "chair" unless you're an anarchist.

You are the last person who should refer to dictionaries to support your position. Just go back a few posts and look at you using a very personal definition of "delusion"... and someone throwing a dictionary at you.

And what's more: the "something external" that dictionaries refer to is convention. It is nothing more than "what a lot of other people mean when they use this word". It doesn't refer to a "meaning" of a word externally to human usage.

"True" would be in accord with fundamental reality.

Wow... I would agree with that!

And now tell me how a skyscraper is not "true"?

 

[Everybodyknows]

You seem to want to explain morality in terms of its effects rather than in terms of its pure essence. What I'm saying is that if it exists in a pure essence, I would expect it to result in order and happiness.

Whichever way it exists it results in order and happiness, that's kind of the point of morality.

I don't understand. What you've described is exactly utilitari

One of the foundational principles of utilitarianism is that the interests of all are considered equal. Those three dictators certainly didn't consider all interests equally.

 

[Everybodyknows]

You win at being trite.

I suppose humor doesn't exist objectively.

 

[dysert]

What percentage of the population would you label as "bad"? And, what criteria would you use to determine whether they are bad?

Sticking to the assumptions posed in the OP, I can't put a percentage on the number of bad people. As for the badness criteria, I'm kind of partial to what has been bandied about earlier, viz., that something is bad if it results in negative effects for others. But I hasten to add that that criterion has problems, too.

 

[dysert]

Things are right or wrong because they are beneficial/harmful. If you have been following the conversation you'll find that I'm arguing against an objective morality. Morality is a subjective consensus of opinion based on maximising social benefit.

You identify as a Christian yet argue against an objective morality? Is cold-blooded murder objectively wrong? How about rape?

 

[Freodin]

Is cold-blooded murder objectively wrong? How about rape?

Can we discuss this rationally? Without emotional involvement? Accusations?

I hope we can.

Let's see. The main problem I see with your questions is the term "objectively".
I have to use a dictionary definition now - if you disagree with it or want to expand on it, please say so.
Objectively: "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.", or "in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence; actually."

That is the problem here: it is impossible to discuss the topics of "murder" or "rape" - or basically any concepts dealing with human interaction, that does not include personal feelings, opinions or the human mind.
Just consider: would cold-blooded murder still be wrong if it was impossible to kill? Would it be wrong if there were no living beings to murder or be murdered?

Only then could it be "objectively" wrong... and I hope you will agree that it would be quite meaningless in these cases.

Second problem is the connotations of these terms, which already are non-objective.
A more objective term would be "killing". There are factual conditions that can - without feelings or opinions - be ascertained to find out if something that was "alive" is now "dead".
But "murder" is already defined as "killing without any 'good' reasons"... so there already is a subjective appeal to feelings or opinions involved. It is a similar case with rape.

So even as a non-Christian I can say: "Murder and rape are always wrong, when these terms can be applied."
But that doesn't make them objective.

 

[dysert]

Can we discuss this rationally? Without emotional involvement? Accusations?

Certainly

I hope we can.

Let's see. The main problem I see with your questions is the term "objectively".
I have to use a dictionary definition now - if you disagree with it or want to expand on it, please say so.
Objectively: "in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.", or "in a way that is not dependent on the mind for existence; actually."

I don't think I have a problem with that definition, but if there were no spiritual realm it just seems like nonsense. How can one say that murder is "actually" wrong if there is no irrefutable canon/standard/rule specifying what's "actually" wrong? Or is that your point? That based on the definition, we can't say what's "actually" wrong because there is no standard?

 

[Freodin]

Certainly


I don't think I have a problem with that definition, but if there were no spiritual realm it just seems like nonsense. How can one say that murder is "actually" wrong if there is no irrefutable canon/standard/rule specifying what's "actually" wrong? Or is that your point? That based on the definition, we can't say what's "actually" wrong because there is no standard?

I am not sure how I can make this clearer.

"Murder" is "actually" wrong, because we define it as such. I ask you: try to explain what "murder" is without any reference to opinion.

That is the first problem. The second problem is: you need to have a "physical realm", you need to have very specific conditions within this "physical realm" to make such a statement. Without it, the whole concept has no meaning.
And that leads to the question why a "spiritual realm" would be necessary... or what that even is.

And to answer your question: yes, there is no "objective" standard. There are NO "objective" standards... every existing standard is a conventional one.

Are you, by chance, from the USA? Then you might be aware of the fact that the USA is to only industrialized country in the world that hasn't officially adopted the metric standard. And still, it works.
Because standards are conventional. They are agreed upon. They are shared. Even if there is no "objective" standard. There is no "objective" meter or yard in a "spiritual realm". There is no objective meter or yard that does not refer to the physical realm... and there doesn't need to be one.

 

[bhsmte]

To "mean" is to refer to something external. That's why we have dictionaries. If you want to know what a word means you can look it up. You can't make the word "table" mean a "chair" unless you're an anarchist.

"True" would be in accord with fundamental reality.

What is your method to determine what 'fundamental reality' is?

 

[Chesterton]

Then don't call it an "instrument"... just answer the question. How do you find out what is "true and good" to fine-tune the art you use to find out what is "true and good"?

I don't believe I called it an instrument, you did.

That's like asking me how we think. No one knows how we think.

With all the evasion and excuses, I might start to think that you don't want to defend the concept of "conscience" at all.
This is the statement I initally referred to:

Everybodyknows: "If God is good how do we know and apply his standards of goodness to our lives?"
you: "I decided to rely on my conscience (which I believe is God-given) and on the teaching and examples of Christ."

And up to now, you have done your best to point out all the reasons why this conscience that you believe is God-given completely fails at knowing what is good.

I have an idea why you do that... must do that. I think, as I have said before, that the Christian moral system is purely authoritarian. It is not based on reason, examination, societial interactions, learning, experience... all you have is an authority that you copy.

Just admit it.

I haven't evaded anything. I had a friend who was a social worker. He told me how the very youngest children knew something wrong was being done when they were molested by an adult. On rare occassions, criminals will turn themselves in because of a guilty conscience, people have even committed suicide because of it. Conscience is innate and powerful. If you want to chalk that up to unsupported surmises about pre-historic evolutionary psychology, fine, but don't write off what I'm saying as "Christian authoritarianism". It's just what I believe, and I'm sure I'm not going to be able to prove it to you. Besides, I could just as easily accuse you of wish fulfillment.

Ah, yes. I pointed out the flaw in such a reasoning in one of my posts to Oseas. If you include the concept of a divine creator, there can be no difference between "intention" and "actuality". That leaves only the conclusion that, whatever we are is the way we are intended to be.

How does that conclusion follow?

They strove to shape their countries and societies in a way they thought it was "intended to be". And they did so, even when it was not useful, or even hurting their country/society. They did that in accordance with a fixed dogmatic worldview, even when it contradicted reality.
How is that utilitarian?

Exactly how you said - they strove to shape society as they thought it was "intended to be".

You are the last person who should refer to dictionaries to support your position. Just go back a few posts and look at you using a very personal definition of "delusion"... and someone throwing a dictionary at you.

Um, I was the one who suggested consulting a dictionary (I've been around here long enough to know you shouldn't ask a question you don't already know the answer to ). And the definition given agreed more with me than with the other guy.

And what's more: the "something external" that dictionaries refer to is convention. It is nothing more than "what a lot of other people mean when they use this word". It doesn't refer to a "meaning" of a word externally to human usage.

Yes, obviously. It was only an analogy.

Wow... I would agree with that!

And now tell me how a skyscraper is not "true"?

Silly question. What color is a mile?

 

[Chesterton]

Whichever way it exists it results in order and happiness, that's kind of the point of morality.

Okay.

One of the foundational principles of utilitarianism is that the interests of all are considered equal. Those three dictators certainly didn't consider all interests equally.

Sounds like an idealistic definition from a philosophy textbook. In real life, what's useful for some may not be good for everyone.

 

[Chesterton]

What is your method to determine what 'fundamental reality' is?

I guess at it, based on my experience and other people's experience, I determine what sounds most likely, and pray about it. What do you do?

 

[bhsmte]

I guess at it, based on my experience and other people's experience, I determine what sounds most likely, and pray about it. What do you do?

I always like to check my personal experience against as many established facts and evidence as possible.

I am a rock turner. I am aware of personal bias getting in the way (including my own), which is why i like to cross reference, with independent and objective information.

 

[Everybodyknows]

You identify as a Christian yet argue against an objective morality? Is cold-blooded murder objectively wrong? How about rape?

Just look at the world around you and history. Morality is dynamic, responsive and progressive in response to changes in society. Many of the things we find immoral today weren't considered immoral by past generations. Can you explain how you think objective morality exists and how we know it? Is there some list of things we can refer to that to see what is objectively right and wrong? I'm not saying that objective morality can't exist but if it does we don't know it. I see morality as something we discover rather than something that is innate. It's dynamic rather than static.

 

[Everybodyknows]

Okay.

So you're measuring morality by the results of order and happiness?

Sounds like an idealistic definition from a philosophy textbook.

If we're going to discuss philosophical concepts then we need to use philosophical definitions.

In real life, what's useful for some may not be good for everyone.

With utilitarianism the emphasis is on the 'good for everyone' part. I think what you are thinking of is individualism.