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

[Holoman]

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.

China seems to be flourishing better than the US. Should we adopt China's actions as morally correct? Or do you think freedom of speech is a good thing?

It just sounds like utilitarianism to me, an abhorrent theory of ethics.

 

[VirOptimus]

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


Again: determines how?

I think you are in error regarding subjective/objective. ”Objective” is meaningless without an objective agent.

Just like everyone determines things, by analyzing the case being made.

 

[gaara4158]

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.

Like I said, human flourishing is the goal of morality. People’s opinions differ in who is considered human and the degree to which the goal of flourishing is extended to other species. Everyone has their own opinion, and that’s just reality. There is no universally agreed-upon solution to these differences of opinion, and the nazis are a demonstration of this fact. You can’t simulatneously claim that we all hold to a universal standard of morality and also acknowledge that the Nazis held a very different standard that allowed them to commit what we recognize as atrocities but they viewed as a public service. I can explain why Hitler’s ideas were against human flourishing regardless of whom is considered human or sub-human, but I’d rather not as I bang my head against the wall whenever Godwin’s law is invoked. Can we talk about morality without bringing up the Nazis?

 

[gaara4158]

China seems to be flourishing better than the US. Should we adopt China's actions as morally correct? Or do you think freedom of speech is a good thing?

It just sounds like utilitarianism to me, an abhorrent theory of ethics.

In what ways is China flourishing better than the US? Not in freedom, apparently.

 

[gaara4158]

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?

The definitions of the words “human” and “flourishing.” These are subject to opinion to some degree. That’s just the way it is.

 

[gaara4158]

................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.

I’m not sure this engages my point. It’s a good example of what most people would recognize as “evil,” but my point was that anything we observe in life could be said to be the work of demons or divinity. It means nothing to make such claims because they have no explanatory power.

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.

Well, I wasn’t attempting to explain away all instances of evil in mundane terms just then, but rather pointing out that when it can be done, there’s no reason to invoke something more. I’m open to discussion of examples of evil for which mundane explanations don’t suffice. Occam’s razor isn’t about uncovering everything that’s true, it’s about avoiding making claims that aren’t necessarily true. Like the existence of supernatural moral influences. They’re useful concepts, but not as useful as technical explanations. I think they work as placeholders for when we don’t understand something, not as a higher truth beyond something we already understand.

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.

I don’t think we need to necessarily exclude the possibility of the supernatural, but like Hume, I think the time to believe something is after it has been sufficiently demonstrated, not before. Evil might be something far deeper than a mere pathology, but does it need to be?

 

[Redac]

I think you are in error regarding subjective/objective. ”Objective” is meaningless without an objective agent.

I don't think so. Objective and subjective here refer to the truth value of a given ethical statement. "Objective" means that an ethical statement's truth value is independent of the thoughts or opinions of the person making that statement. In other words, a person could say "X is moral" and be incorrect in saying so.

Of course, pure subjective morality is itself a sort of performative contradiction, but that can be addressed or left alone as needed.

Just like everyone determines things, by analyzing the case being made.

You're still not really answering the question, so let's back up a bit. Do you believe that a statement like "X is immoral" can be true?

 

[Redac]

The definitions of the words “human” and “flourishing.” These are subject to opinion to some degree. That’s just the way it is.

If it's subject to opinion, then what makes one opinion more valid than another about what constitutes "human flourishing"?

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't think so. Objective and subjective here refer to the truth value of a given ethical statement. "Objective" means that an ethical statement's truth value is independent of the thoughts or opinions of the person making that statement. In other words, a person could say "X is moral" and be incorrect in saying so.

Of course, pure subjective morality is itself a sort of performative contradiction, but that can be addressed or left alone as needed.


You're still not really answering the question, so let's back up a bit. Do you believe that a statement like "X is immoral" can be true?

Truth is not applicable to morals. That pre-suposses an natural law.

You are still wrong about subjective/objective. We can only asses things through our own intellect. We have no way of getting ”independant truth”.

 

[gaara4158]

If it's subject to opinion, then what makes one opinion more valid than another about what constitutes "human flourishing"?

Literally nothing. There’s no accounting for taste.

 

[quatona]

If it's subject to opinion, then what makes one opinion more valid than another about what constitutes "human flourishing"?

It seems to me that agreeing on an - even though vague - general value is a good starting point. Of course, we will have to do what humanity had to and has been doing all along: Get into a discourse about the way how to fill this value with meaning and how to go about pursuing it - in a very complex world.

Strikes me as more productive than whining about the lack of "objective morality", or bringing up arguments from consequences (in which the consequences pretty accurately describe reality).

 

[Redac]

Truth is not applicable to morals.

So what are morals, then? Opinions?

That pre-suposses an natural law.

It could. It could also presuppose, say, a cultural moral standard that isn't necessarily a reflection of pure material features of the universe, but against which one could compare the statement "X is moral" and determine whether it was true or false.

You are still wrong about subjective/objective. We can only asses things through our own intellect. We have no way of getting ”independant truth”.

We can only observe the physical universe around us through our senses, too, but it does not automatically follow that these things do not or could not exist independent of our observation of them.

 

[Redac]

Literally nothing. There’s no accounting for taste.

Okay. So who determines the "morality" of a given act, if we choose to use that term? Is it the subject, the person doing the act?

 

[Redac]

It seems to me that agreeing on an - even though vague - general value is a good starting point. Of course, we will have to do what humanity had to and has been doing all along: Get into a discourse about the way how to fill this value with meaning and how to go about pursuing it - in a very complex world.

Except to do this in any meaningful sense requires people to largely behave as if there is some moral standard external to their own opinions. If people actually behaved according to the way some seem to think morality works -- that it's all just one person's opinion versus another's, and neither one is really more valid than the other -- then we wouldn't get very far.

Strikes me as more productive than whining about the lack of "objective morality", or bringing up arguments from consequences (in which the consequences pretty accurately describe reality).

I'm trying to suss out how certain posters approach these issues. In what way does that constitute whining?

 

[gaara4158]

Okay. So who determines the "morality" of a given act, if we choose to use that term? Is it the subject, the person doing the act?

It’s a subject of debate. Ultimately there is no final moral arbiter.

 

[Redac]

It’s a subject of debate. Ultimately there is no final moral arbiter.

Then on what grounds would anyone ever be able to tell anyone else that they should or should not do something?

 

[gaara4158]

Then on what grounds would anyone ever be able to tell anyone else that they should or should not do something?

Grounds upon which they both agree. Just like any other argument.

 

[Redac]

Grounds upon which they both agree. Just like any other argument.

With other arguments you're generally appealing to something beyond "this is my opinion and that's you're opinion." You're appealing to logic, or you're appealing to one thing being better than something else, which can be a moral sort of thing itself. Either way, you and I are appealing to something external to our own opinions; that's the only way one of us could actually be wrong. If it's just my opinion versus your opinion, if there's disagreement, you've got nothing to use for an argument. If you like chocolate ice cream and I like strawberry ice cream, what exactly are we going to argue about?

If my opinion is "X is moral", on what basis could you convince me to think otherwise? How could you even begin to say that I could be wrong?

 

[gaara4158]

With other arguments you're generally appealing to something beyond "this is my opinion and that's you're opinion." You're appealing to logic, or you're appealing to one thing being better than something else, which can be a moral sort of thing itself. Either way, you and I are appealing to something external to our own opinions; that's the only way one of us could actually be wrong. If it's just my opinion versus your opinion, if there's disagreement, you've got nothing to use for an argument. If you like chocolate ice cream and I like strawberry ice cream, what exactly are we going to argue about?

If my opinion is "X is moral", on what basis could you convince me to think otherwise? How could you even begin to say that I could be wrong?

In any other argument, you’re appealing to the logical implications of the facts upon which both parties agree. It’s no different in the subject of morality.

 

[Redac]

In any other argument, you’re appealing to the logical implications of the facts upon which both parties agree. It’s no different in the subject of morality.

We can agree on the implications all we want; if we don't agree on whether those implications are right or wrong, where do we go from there?

For example, we might both agree that if I take something from Person A, Person A would lose something and I would gain. If I think that's okay, on what basis could you or anyone else argue that I'm wrong, or that I shouldn't do so? If it's just your opinion that I shouldn't do that, why should I care?