Atheism and evil

[Ken-1122]

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

Subjectively, do you think there is evil?

Evil and other human behaviors are subjective.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Take that to its logical conclusion. If good and evil are subjective then anything goes.

How did you make that leap? How do you conclude that good and evil means anything goes?

Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

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

Subjectively, do you think there is evil?

Evil is commonly understood to be the result of intentionally harmful or violent acts. In that regard, it's always objective.

The harm that has been caused is not up to subjective opinion. If you killed five people, that harm has been done regardless of your personal opinion on the matter.

 

[talquin]

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

Subjectively, do you think there is evil?

This is irrelevant to atheism. Atheism only pertains to one thing - whether or not a god exists.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evil is commonly understood to be the result of intentionally harmful or violent acts. In that regard, it's always objective.

This is a good point. ^


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[True Scotsman]

How did you make that leap? How do you conclude that good and evil means anything goes?

Ken

Leap? How am I making a leap? I'm simply applying the concept of subjectivity to good and evil. Do you understand what "subjective" means? It means that something obtains by the will or action of some consciousness. Therefore if a consciousness wants murder to be moral then it is. If for instance some authority( a consciousness that decides what is good or evil) orders you to murder your son as a sacrifice you are morally justified in doing it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Leap? How am I making a leap? I'm simply applying the concept of subjectivity to good and evil.

Incorrectly I might add

Do you understand what "subjective" means?

Yes! It means "what is believed"

It means that something obtains by the will or action of some consciousness. Therefore if a consciousness wants murder to be moral then it is.

No! It doesn't mean it is moral, it means the consciousness believes murder is moral.

If for instance some authority( a consciousness that decides what is good or evil) orders you to murder your son as a sacrifice you are morally justified in doing it.

No, it means that authority considers you morally justified in murdering your son.
Do you know what "objective" means? It means something based upon fact; something that can be demonstrated as true. Can you demonstrate that murder is wrong? If not then you must conclude that murder is subjective not objective.



Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Evil is commonly understood to be the result of intentionally harmful or violent acts. In that regard, it's always objective.

The harm that has been caused is not up to subjective opinion. If you killed five people, that harm has been done regardless of your personal opinion on the matter.

If you kill 5 people who were in the process of murdering a thousand innocent people, the harmful or violent act you committed against those five people would not be considered evil. Evil is up to subjective opinion.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

As I've said, I don't think we, as finite humans, have the ability to prove something objectively true. With that, I think you have some circular reasoning going on in your statements here.

Humans can prove some things as objectively true; math, measurements, time, anything that can be demonstrated or based upon fact is objectively true.

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

If you kill 5 people who were in the process of murdering a thousand innocent people, the harmful or violent act you committed against those five people would not be considered evil. Evil is up to subjective opinion.

Does that principle scale? i.e. if one killed 5000 to save 1,000,000 innocents is it still OK? And how low can the ratio go? If one killed 5000 to save 100 innocents is it OK?

 

[Chany]

Does that principle scale? i.e. if one killed 5000 to save 1,000,000 innocents is it still OK? And how low can the ratio go? If one killed 5000 to save 100 innocents is it OK?

This all depends upon the circumstances and the actual consequences of such an act.

 

[Ken-1122]

Does that principle scale? i.e. if one killed 5000 to save 1,000,000 innocents is it still OK? And how low can the ratio go? If one killed 5000 to save 100 innocents is it OK?

No it does not scale. Evil is determined on a case by case basis; and what one person calls evil; another person may not. That's why evil is subjective; because the actions cannot be demonstrated as evil, they are simply believed to be evil.

Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evil is determined on a case by case basis; and what one person calls evil; another person may not.

But can people be mistaken or not about what they judge to be evil?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

But can people be mistaken or not about what they judge to be evil?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'd argue they can certainly be wrong about moral judgments.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'd argue they can certainly be wrong about moral judgments.

Okay, then your "subjectivity" seems to be more of an epistemological issue than an objection to the idea that there is an objective human good.

That seems to be the cause of some potential misunderstandings. When some people speak of an objective good, they don't mean to imply universal obviousness of that good. In principle, no one might know that good, and yet there would still be objective right and wrong -- it simply happens to be undiscovered.

I tend to find the epistemological issue not as interesting as the question of whether there is or isn't a human good. It's like saying that the idea that the Earth is round is "subjective" because a few flat-earthers might exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Okay, then your "subjectivity" seems to be more of an epistemological issue than an objection to the idea that there is an objective human good.

That seems to be the cause of some potential misunderstandings. When some people speak of an objective good, they don't mean to imply universal obviousness of that good. In principle, no one might know that good, and yet there would still be objective right and wrong -- it simply happens to be undiscovered.

I tend to find the epistemological issue not as interesting as the question of whether there is or isn't a human good. It's like saying that the idea that the Earth is round is "subjective" because a few flat-earthers might exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I tend to find it interesting that the epistemological or methodological issue seems to be inseparably tied to the question of "moral facts", in that moral epistemology/methodology always requires the establishing of meta-moral standards/values/etc.
There is a reason why there are at least three different basic approaches, none of which can be shown or demonstrated to be correct.

It seems to me that comparing "objective morality" to objective physical facts in the way you did here means shooting your own foot. The is-ought gap (i.e. the fact that at any given point in the moral epistemology we inevitably use or hear appeals to standards, values, goals - which would require to be shown to be "facts" themselves, but usually at best lead to more appeals to more basic standards, values etc.) is a significant difference. Now, there may be ideas how to bridge that gap (I have yet to see a convincing one, though) - but ignoring this most fundamental difference or handwaving it away doesn´t do justice to the problem.

But I am always open to learn how "this is good" could possibly be demonstrable in the same way as "this is flat". Now, I´m not gonna rub it in or something, but at this point you always let me hanging.

 

[Ken-1122]

But can people be mistaken or not about what they judge to be evil?

I believe they can be mistaken

Okay, then your "subjectivity" seems to be more of an epistemological issue than an objection to the idea that there is an objective human good.
eudaimonia,

Mark

No! It is an objection to the idea that there is an objective human good. In order for it to be objective, you must be able to demonstrate it as so.
The rules of what is good or bad are not agreed upon like math, measurements, or temperature; they are judged on a case by case basis; and what is considered good by some may be considered bad by others.
Math, temperature, distance; these can all be demonstrated. How do you demonstrate good?


Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

No! It is an objection to the idea that there is an objective human good. In order for it to be objective, you must be able to demonstrate it as so.

It's clear that we have a problem of communication.

I don't use the word "objective" in precisely that way in this context. I mean that what is objective pertains to something real, not merely in the mind. Demonstration would be helpful, but isn't required for something to be real. Before it is demonstrated, it is just as real.

How do you demonstrate good?

By demonstrating what leads to biological and psychological well-being as a human individual. The human good is what nourishes and sustains human life. Since rationality is an essential aspect of our nature, much of this has to do with what helps us to understand reality in conceptual terms (i.e. rationally) and to act on that understanding.

The key is understanding how values are a species of fact, and how human nature gives rise to values. Values are fully real in that life is a real activity, and values are an aspect of that self-generated, self-sustaining activity that is life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Resha Caner]

No! It is an objection to the idea that there is an objective human good. In order for it to be objective, you must be able to demonstrate it as so.
The rules of what is good or bad are not agreed upon like math, measurements, or temperature; they are judged on a case by case basis; and what is considered good by some may be considered bad by others.
Math, temperature, distance; these can all be demonstrated. How do you demonstrate good?

I would hope, though, that it is not determined in a wholly arbitrary manner. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.

I do find it interesting that you might be willing to sacrifice 1 innocent for the sake of 5000 who are doing something you consider evil ... depending on what that evil is of course.

 

[niye]

I would hope, though, that it is not determined in a wholly arbitrary manner. Otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.

I do find it interesting that you might be willing to sacrifice 1 innocent for the sake of 5000 who are doing something you consider evil ... depending on what that evil is of course.

That ethics/morality are not universal, unchangeable, does not mean that these things are "arbitrary." Humans are social animals. Societies, cultures, create their own dictates on what is right and wrong, what may be punished, what is rude. Societies change over time, and their rules change along with them.

This is true of religions as well: Most Christian nations deemed unbelievers, usurers, gays guilty. Secular law shared the religious sensibility, and punished the guilty. That changed fairly recently--in the 18th century for unbelievers, the 20th for gays, 17th for usurers.

Your question, sacrificing one innocent, etc., is interesting, as you're Christian, and, theologically, there are no "innocents" in Christianity. All humans, from the moment of birth, are subject to original sin, and potential sinners.

Assuming existence of innocents, and to answer the question, it's not particularly outre:

1. Was the UK justified in bombing Germany in WWII?
2. Is US justified in using smart bombs?
3. Is Israel justified in bombing Gaza?
4. Are various nations justified in denying people political asylum?
5. Are we justified in having a justice system when we know that innocents are occasionally found guilty?

etc.