“Evil” is a stupid concept and doesn’t exist.

[Redac]

You use your intellect.

That's not an answer.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Actually, twins and siblings and relatives and even fellow believers trained right by grace and in truth may observably act and think the same, regardless of physical appearance or makeup or atoms or breakfast cereal.

As for 'intellect' , though, man's intellect fails to discern morality properly - the flesh is useless in trying to learn and to know what is true and what is right. It leads men deeper into darkness.

would identical twins with identical amount of atoms and in same order act and think the same ?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Because we all prefer that those others do the same for us.

I read a post, IIRC, about game theory and utilitarianism. "Everyone happy" is a good first move in a moral game, but if people defect and act antisocially, and continually defect, then its not a good move. The better option, IMO, is to split into groups. That's why we have shunning, that's why we have jails, that's why we have friends and enemies, that's why we have social groups - in groups and out groups etc. Utilitarianism, if that's the way you're going (I never read the full post), for those reasons, is bonkers (no personal smear intended).

 

[VirOptimus]

That's not an answer.

Yes it is if you are a rational person.

 

[gaara4158]

I'm always glad to know that I can find some moral agreement with those who are non-Christians. However, I'm not sure that differentiating between physical existence and a social construct eliminates the possibility that moral influence from a Divine force could, on some level, still be "bleeding through" into humanities' collective ethical psyche or intuitions.

Sure, but that could be said about any observation. Eliminating the possibility of divine influence is, as far as I can tell, impossible. It would be neat to find a way to disprove it, but I’m more interested in why people think it *is* true.

 

[gaara4158]

That's not an answer.

I can give you one. Everyone has their own personal standard of right and wrong, but generally morality is evaluated on a basis of whether the action in question is helpful or detrimental to human flourishing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure, but that could be said about any observation. Eliminating the possibility of divine influence is, as far as I can tell, impossible. It would be neat to find a way to disprove it, but I’m more interested in why people think it *is* true.

That's interesting; I look for the inverse of this-------that I advocate for pondering over the possibility that a divine influence is present among or within the human moral/social constitution, and that it would be "neat" to find a way to demonstrate it, particularly since I fully realize that there are people around me who think a divine moral influence *is* a silly idea or just plain non-existent.

Moroever, I'm also particularly interested in pondering over the possibility of that there is a "demonic" influence, or influences of diverse kinds, that may be present among the masses of humanity and which contribute to a people's various ethical and moral failures......................something that we might designate as "Truly Evil." I think this is important because to be able to assert a Truly Evil influence at work among humanity might also be, ironically, to imply that humanity is essentially good at its core but is enticed toward acting in complicity with immoral mischief.

 

[gaara4158]

That's interesting; I look for the inverse of this-------that I advocate for pondering over the possibility that a divine influence is present among or within the human moral/social constitution, and that it would be "neat" to find a way to demonstrate it, particularly since I fully realize that there are people around me who think a divine moral influence *is* a silly idea or just plain non-existent.

Moroever, I'm also particularly interested in pondering over the possibility of that there is a "demonic" influence, or influences of diverse kinds, that may be present among the masses of humanity and which contribute to a people's various ethical and moral failures......................something that we might designate as "Truly Evil." I think this is important because to be able to assert a Truly Evil influence at work among humanity might also be, ironically, to imply that humanity is essentially good at its core, but enticed toward moral mischief.

I think we’re in agreement about what would be interesting to find out regarding the existence of divine or demonic influences, but again, I think it’s an unfalsifiable, undemonstrable claim. I try not to make absolute statements, but I can’t think of a single observation in life that couldn’t be attributed to some unseen supernatural force, be it divine or demonic. Meanwhile, we have perfectly serviceable mundane explanations for the “good” and “evil” we see in the world, so attributing it to something more seems to be a violation of occam’s razor.

I think it can be useful to view good and evil as supernatural influences on people, if only as a way to convey the strong reliability of some people’s behavioral patterns. That’s probably played a huge role in the concepts’ pervasiveness throughout human history. I just find it more useful to examine the exact nature and causes of things we consider “evil” like sociopathy and sadism. The better we understand these things, the better can prevent or combat them, and writing them off as supernaturally determined doesn’t help us in this way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think we’re in agreement about what would be interesting to find out regarding the existence of divine or demonic influences, but again, I think it’s an unfalsifiable, undemonstrable claim. I try not to make absolute statements, but I can’t think of a single observation in life that couldn’t be attributed to some unseen supernatural force, be it divine or demonic.

................I can think of an example. It's called 'organized crime,' whether it's at the level of some obscure elitist type money moguls (ala "the Mafia") or down to the level of persons in less obscure gangs (like MS-13), or even just the local hoodlum gangs down on the corner, four or five streets over. Let's not kid ourselves that these forces can't be easily singled out and identified; they can. And I think we can agree that they are "evil" and that the nature of their organization has a large inter-social component that feeds into itself and goes beyond just the power of singular cult personalities that may lead them from within. We might even think of the Nazis as a form of 'organized crime' that is obviously evil in and of itself and has some kind of 'wild psyche' within it that drives it. And it is this kind of sociological but 'spiritualized' construct that I am referring to.

Meanwhile, we have perfectly serviceable mundane explanations for the “good” and “evil” we see in the world, so attributing it to something more seems to be a violation of occam’s razor.

Simply saying that some explanation is serviceable isn't to have shown that either 1) that Occam's Razor has actually been applied to it, and 2) that Occam's Razor actually benefits in accurately analyzing and disentangling the full nature of the apparent presence of "good" and "evil" within some entity under our moral scrutiny.

I think it can be useful to view good and evil as supernatural influences on people, if only as a way to convey the strong reliability of some people’s behavioral patterns.

In that, we agree at least, even if on some more mediate philosophical level.

That’s probably played a huge role in the concepts’ pervasiveness throughout human history. I just find it more useful to examine the exact nature and causes of things we consider “evil” like sociopathy and sadism. The better we understand these things, the better can prevent or combat them, and writing them off as supernaturally determined doesn’t help us in this way.

Personally, I wouldn't want to assume that "evil" is only a manifestation of sociopathy/psychopathy; it can also manifest itself among those persons whom the rest of us think are otherwise average-----"reasonable"-----persons. So, let's not reduce the essence of "evil" down to something that is only to be found among the criminally insane. Otherwise, as a person who sees the benefit of both psychological and sociological analyses, as far as they can take us, which isn't always as far as we might like, I'm in agreement with you that we should want to understand the fuller nature of "evil" (and the "good") as we find it in various social spaces so we can combat these things. However, hermeneutically considered, I don't think that excluding the possibility of the supernatural is a completely reasonable thing to do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think we’re in agreement about what would be interesting to find out regarding the existence of divine or demonic influences, but again, I think it’s an unfalsifiable, undemonstrable claim. I try not to make absolute statements, but I can’t think of a single observation in life that couldn’t be attributed to some unseen supernatural force, be it divine or demonic. Meanwhile, we have perfectly serviceable mundane explanations for the “good” and “evil” we see in the world, so attributing it to something more seems to be a violation of occam’s razor.

I think it can be useful to view good and evil as supernatural influences on people, if only as a way to convey the strong reliability of some people’s behavioral patterns. That’s probably played a huge role in the concepts’ pervasiveness throughout human history. I just find it more useful to examine the exact nature and causes of things we consider “evil” like sociopathy and sadism. The better we understand these things, the better can prevent or combat them, and writing them off as supernaturally determined doesn’t help us in this way.

P.S. I found this summary of Philip Zimbardo's book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, of interest.

 

[quatona]

I´m not sure I am willing to classify products of the human mind as "non-existing".

 

[Redac]

Yes it is if you are a rational person.

Every person who has ever evaluated any ethical statement in any way has used their intellect to one end or another. Answering my question with "lol use ur brain" is giving a non-answer. If you're not actually interested in engaging, then just say so and I'll stop wasting my time.

 

[Redac]

I can give you one. Everyone has their own personal standard of right and wrong, but generally morality is evaluated on a basis of whether the action in question is helpful or detrimental to human flourishing.

These two things seem at odds with one another. To clarify, though, when you say everyone has their own personal standard of right or wrong, is that the standard by which one's actions are judged moral or immoral? Or is it by whether it's helpful to human flourishing?

 

[gaara4158]

These two things seem at odds with one another. To clarify, though, when you say everyone has their own personal standard of right or wrong, is that the standard by which one's actions are judged moral or immoral? Or is it by whether it's helpful to human flourishing?

Generally the two are synonymous. Morality refers to human flourishing.

 

[Abraxos]

Generally the two are synonymous. Morality refers to human flourishing.

It's a slippery slope when stated "there is no unforeseeable universal standard," yet we all inherently hold to it, compared to subjective or relative notions of what is right and wrong according to our own experiences or what the strong man says.

For example, what if Jews were considered subhuman by Nazi Germany and were considered a problem, and Jews ended up being scorned, isolated and systematically eliminated? Nazi Germany's moral values evoked social approval for "human flourishing", so their atrocities made them right according to your logic.

 

[VirOptimus]

Every person who has ever evaluated any ethical statement in any way has used their intellect to one end or another. Answering my question with "lol use ur brain" is giving a non-answer. If you're not actually interested in engaging, then just say so and I'll stop wasting my time.

But there isnt any other answer, everyone will evaluate with their own minds and intellect. As I reject dogma there can not be any other answer.

 

[Redac]

Generally the two are synonymous. Morality refers to human flourishing.

But what is the standard of morality? How would one determine the morality or immorality of something? Who or what is the authority, if any?

 

[Redac]

But there isnt any other answer, everyone will evaluate with their own minds and intellect. As I reject dogma there can not be any other answer.

As above, yeah, everyone evaluates moral statements. But how does one evaluate the truth value of a given moral statement? How does one determine that X is immoral or Y is moral? Pure subjectivity?

 

[VirOptimus]

As above, yeah, everyone evaluates moral statements. But how does one evaluate the truth value of a given moral statement? How does one determine that X is immoral or Y is moral? Pure subjectivity?

Subjective and objective is a fslse dichotomy as that presupposes an objective agent, i.e. god(s).

One determines by the argument.

 

[Redac]

Subjective and objective is a fslse dichotomy as that presupposes an objective agent, i.e. god(s).

Well, no, it supposes some standard might exist independent of one's personal opinion. This doesn't necessitate God.

One determines by the argument.

Again: determines how?