Atheism and evil

[Resha Caner]

Personally, I generally agree with the golden rule or the categorical imperative for how I treat other people.

OK. So that would apply when people are cooperating.

If you mean, 'what do you do about people who think it is okay to murder people (and act on this belief and murder people)?'

I think we should catch them and lock them up. This is not a difficult question. Fortunately, the society I am a part of has the same view, as enacted in the laws that pertain to these cases.

And you recommend force when people aren't cooperating.

Would you also attempt persuasion? IOW, you try to get others to agree to your view of moral right and wrong. I'll assume you would, but I would then ask if you see persuasion and force as two separate things, or if they are just different points on the same spectrum?

I would also ask, when you use force, if you think the one being forced might see it as a moral wrong? Is it possible they are justified in thinking that?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Would you also attempt persuasion? IOW, you try to get others to agree to your view of moral right and wrong.

Certainly. Much of my participation in Ethics/Morals/Philosophy is geared towards convincing others to agree with my views.

but I would then ask if you see persuasion and force as two separate things, or if they are just different points on the same spectrum?

I guess I see them as separate and distinct.

I would also ask, when you use force, if you think the one being forced might see it as a moral wrong?

No doubt they do. Many people think that using legal force to enforce racial discrimination laws is a moral wrong. Many people think that using legal force to enforce antidiscrimination laws is a moral wrong.

Is it possible they are justified in thinking that?

Saying justified assumes (or at least implies) that there is an objective standard to determine whether it is justified or not. It is possible that I would agree with them that a particular use of force was a moral wrong. I agree with the abolitionists that legal slavery is a moral wrong.

But others I would disagree with. I do not agree with the people in the background who think integration is a moral wrong.

 

[Resha Caner]

I guess I see them as separate and distinct.

Every time I try to formulate a reason to separate them, I find another reason not to. I'd be curious to know why you separate them.

Saying justified assumes (or at least implies) that there is an objective standard to determine whether it is justified or not.

Not necessarily. Some situations are very muddy. In those cases I often have a hard time saying a person is unjustified in their actions, even if they make a different choice than I would have.

- - -

Bottom line, it seems you would agree there is some relationship between moral right/wrong and the use of power. Is that relationship something you seek to optimize?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Every time I try to formulate a reason to separate them, I find another reason not to. I'd be curious to know why you separate them.

Persuasion (should be) a rational argument. People are not compelled to listen to an argument, as witness the many creationists who wouldn't be caught dead in the science forums here. One can only persuade someone who is willing to listen. Persuasion is intended to change beliefs.

The application of legal force is not voluntary. Legal force is intended to change (or curtail or prevent) behavior.

While force may have a 'persuasive' effect, it is not a logical argument.

"I believe cheating on taxes is wrong, because I might get caught and go to jail." is at best a fallacy of appealing to consequences.

"I don't cheat on my taxes, because I might get caught and go to jail." might be true for some people, but it never actually addresses the issue of moral wrong. This (potential) application of force has not persuaded this person, but it may have altered behavior.

 

[Resha Caner]

Persuasion is intended to change beliefs. ... Legal force is intended to change (or curtail or prevent) behavior.

Yeah, I thought about that. But persuasion also includes emotional persuasion, which can become just a form of blackmail not far from force. And I don't see a clear line in transitioning from logical to emotional persuasion. Likewise, force could be considered a form of demonstration that could be used to reinforce a logical argument. For example, skiing off the barn roof is a bad idea because the drop will break your legs.

Regardless, I was more interested in my final question: it seems you would agree there is some relationship between moral right/wrong and the use of power. Is that relationship something you seek to optimize?

 

[essentialsaltes]

it seems you would agree there is some relationship between moral right/wrong and the use of power. Is that relationship something you seek to optimize?

Optimize? What do you mean by that? It generally means to make something better, so it would be hard to object to that.

But if you mean there should be a 1-1 correspondence between moral wrongs, and cases where legal force should be applied, I'd say no. I believe adultery is a moral wrong, but I believe it should not be criminalized.

 

[Resha Caner]

But if you mean there should be a 1-1 correspondence between moral wrongs, and cases where legal force should be applied, I'd say no. I believe adultery is a moral wrong, but I believe it should not be criminalized.

I wasn't asking for any specific correspondence, but how you draw your lines. So, this is a good example to explore. You don't think adultery should be criminalized. But do you think something should be done? If so, what?

For example, would adultery be a basis for divorce? If so, should it be a factor in determining division of property, child custody, etc.?

Could it be a basis for business action? For example, would it be moral to make certain jobs contingent upon maintaining a standard, and so adultery would justify termination of employment? Could it be a basis for refusing services?

Could it be a basis for social action? Removal from membership in an organization?

Bottom line, it seems you're implying moral power should have a limit.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You don't think adultery should be criminalized. But do you think something should be done? If so, what?

I dunno. Social censure? People who know the full facts of the matter know that he done her wrong, or she done him wrong. Or everybody did everybody wrong. Or, under the circumstances, it wasn't as wrong for her to do that as you might think. Or, they had an open marriage, and it wasn't wrong at all.

For example, would adultery be a basis for divorce? If so, should it be a factor in determining division of property, child custody, etc.?

Maybe?

Could it be a basis for business action? For example, would it be moral to make certain jobs contingent upon maintaining a standard

I think it's weird to ask if it would be moral for a company to do something like that. It might be legal for them to do it, or even wise for them to do it. But I don't see it as a moral act itself.

I signed a contract at a religious school that declared that if I perpetrated 'acts of moral turpitude', I would be subject to dismissal. I can imagine if a person were publicly outed as a baked potato fetishist, it could bring ridicule on the employer that they'd prefer not to have. But that's only because the fetishist was found out in public. It seems the morality or immorality of the acts themselves are beside the point. I don't see it as a moral act for an employer to say "If you do anything weird, for Krishna's sake, don't get caught at it.'

and so adultery would justify termination of employment?

Unless it affected or potentially affected their work (like sleeping with a coworker or a subordinate), I don't see it as a fire-able offense.

Could it be a basis for refusing services?

I don't think so.

Could it be a basis for social action? Removal from membership in an organization?

It could be.

Bottom line, it seems you're implying moral power should have a limit.

I dunno. Morality is the manner of deciding that things are either right or wrong (or neutral or blameless or 'mostly wrong' or 'the best you could do given the choices at hand'). I'm not restricting that power. People can judge all they want (nobody can stop them) using their moral faculties.

I'm placing limits on legal power to enforce morality. It's immoral to be a jerk, but not a crime.

 

[True Scotsman]

The same question to you as to Eudaimonist: How do you implement that at a practical level? IOW, how do you make it more than an idea?

By not doing things to others that I would consider harmful to my own life and purpose. Not physically attacking people. Not stealing. Not damaging other peoples' property. By offering to make amends when I do so accidentally. Not playing my music loud. Not littering. It's not hard to implement the principle, mostly because I have no desire to do any of those things in the first place.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm placing limits on legal power to enforce morality. It's immoral to be a jerk, but not a crime.

... unless the law says it's a crime to be a jerk. For the conversation here it seems a distinction without a difference.

Anyway, interesting. I find it interesting that you find it acceptable for someone who has the power to stop something they consider to be immoral to choose not to use that power.

 

[Resha Caner]

By not doing things to others that I would consider harmful to my own life and purpose. Not physically attacking people. Not stealing. Not damaging other peoples' property. By offering to make amends when I do so accidentally. Not playing my music loud. Not littering. It's not hard to implement the principle, mostly because I have no desire to do any of those things in the first place.

I don't see how this differentiates objectivism from subjectivism. To be objective is to remove personal bias. What is the objective basis for the list of examples you gave?

 

[essentialsaltes]

I find it interesting that you find it acceptable for someone who has the power to stop something they consider to be immoral to choose not to use that power.

Okay.

So do you think the law (or people who have the power to stop something) should stop adulterers? Pornographers? Baked potato fetishists? Drinkers? Smokers? Pot smokers? Polyamorists? Antivaxxers? Creationists? Psychics?

 

[True Scotsman]

I don't see how this differentiates objectivism from subjectivism. To be objective is to remove personal bias. What is the objective basis for the list of examples you gave?

I think, Resha, that that is the wrong definition in this context. Objective in this context would pertain to things in the outer world (objects of consciousness) vs. personal preferences or feelings (subjects of consciousness). Things discovered by introspection are subjective while things discovered by extrospection are objective. Man's nature, being a fact of reality, is objective. That you need food to survive is an objective fact. If I take all your food away that would be objectively harmful to you. If I paint my name on your nice clean fence that is objectively harmful to you because you will have to spend some of your finite time and money to fix it. Does that make more sense?

If I imagine painting my name on your nice clean fence but don't actually do it, that would be subjective and would not harm you. I could imaging tearing down your house with a bulldozer but that does not harm you. If I go get one and do it that would then be an objective harm to you. You would have lost all the time and money that you put into it and then also your piece of mind.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I find it interesting that you find it acceptable for someone who has the power to stop something they consider to be immoral to choose not to use that power.

There isn't any requirement that government force be used to prevent an immoral act. There's no necessarily one-to-one relationship here. Just because person A does immoral act B, that does not mean that government C ought to oppose that act with forceful act D. It is possible for someone to make a bad choice, and yet not impose a moral obligation on government.

This distinguishes liberals (more or less) from other political styles. Many types of illiberal politics treat statecraft as soulcraft, and assume that government exists to use force to improve the moral character of the citizenry. In contrast to that, liberals may take the view that it is a free society that does the best job at nourishing the development of moral character, since the honest intent to be virtuous cannot be compelled. In any case, government in their view has a different purpose.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think, Resha, that that is the wrong definition in this context. Objective in this context would pertain to things in the outer world (objects of consciousness) vs. personal preferences or feelings (subjects of consciousness). Things discovered by introspection are subjective while things discovered by extrospection are objective. Man's nature, being a fact of reality, is objective. That you need food to survive is an objective fact. If I take all your food away that would be objectively harmful to you. If I paint my name on your nice clean fence that is objectively harmful to you because you will have to spend some of your finite time and money to fix it. Does that make more sense?

If I imagine painting my name on your nice clean fence but don't actually do it, that would be subjective and would not harm you. I could imaging tearing down your house with a bulldozer but that does not harm you. If I go get one and do it that would then be an objective harm to you. You would have lost all the time and money that you put into it and then also your piece of mind.

This. Well put.

 

[juvenissun]

No. There is no such thing as objective morality.



Evil is somewhat theologically charged, so I would prefer to talk about moral wrongs. Yes, my subjective moral system recognizes many moral wrongs.

Moral?
Ha!

 

[quatona]

As an atheist, do you think something can be objectively established as evil? If so, how?

No, such questions aren´t covered by atheism. I´m not sure why this needs to be pointed out a couple of times here daily.

Subjectively, do you think there is evil?

The word "evil" is not in my active vocabulary. I don´t find it useful or necessary to explain anything.
On another note, I have always understood it to be an adjective (and as such, I have at least an idea what someone means when using it) - reifiing it into a noun ("there is evil") makes it even harder to understand what you are trying to express when using it.

 

[quatona]

And you recommend force when people aren't cooperating.

Personally, I wouldn´t exactly recommend it. It´s more like there are cases where I can´t think of any better response, much to my own regret. Fortunately, I haven´t felt any need for using force in the last decades.

Would you also attempt persuasion?

Yes, of course.

IOW, you try to get others to agree to your view of moral right and wrong.

To me, every moral/ethical question is highly complex, in that it has many aspects to it - aspects that make an action recommendable, and others that make it not recommendable.
If I have arrived at a position what´s a good or bad idea to do, it´s typically the result of weighing up many aspects. Moral/ethical discussions, for me, serve the purpose of looking for aspects that I or the other person may not have figured into his considerations.

I'll assume you would, but I would then ask if you see persuasion and force as two separate things, or if they are just different points on the same spectrum?

Most definitely they are very different things, for me.

I would also ask, when you use force, if you think the one being forced might see it as a moral wrong?

Sure - he might be a moral objectivist, after all.
In any case, I find myself frustrated when even only thinking about using force.

Is it possible they are justified in thinking that?

"Jusitified"?
There is something about using force I myself have problems with. So I guess I can empathize with their disapproval.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As an atheist, do you think something can be objectively established as evil?

Yes.

If so, how?

All you need is a definition of what the words "good" and "evil" mean.

One could write books about that, though, but let's keep it simple.

I'll define "evil" as "that which causes pain and misery for sentient beings".
I'll define "good" as "that which increases well-being of sentient beings".

Give those 2 definitions, one can rationally and objectively reason if a certain action is good or evil.

Subjectively, do you think there is evil?

I don't consider "evil" to be a noun like theists tend to do. I don't see it as a "force" or something that manifests.

To me, good and evil are human evaluations of human actions.

EDIT: I anticipate you asking me the same question you asked the other "objectivists":

How do you implement that at a practical level? IOW, how do you make it more than an idea?

When it comes to lawmaking, debate and rational, reasoned discussion.

When it comes to your everyday life, the same but then without the "debate" part - since you are deciding for yourself and don't need to agree with others about it. Not everything that we would consider "immoral" is illegal. You have a constitutional right to be impolite and a jerk. Wheter you do or not is upto you.

 

[quatona]

Regardless, atheists often seem put off by what happens in the Bible, so I'm wondering if it's just a personal displeasure or if there is something more to it.

I don´t seem to understand the question. What "more" could there possibly be to it, and why do you make it sound like my displeasure isn´t something you´d want to consider?
When God is put off by what happens in the world - is it just a personal displeasure or is there something more to it?