Philosophy of Evil

Hi, JLNobody,

Corn was also the main crop and dietary staple of the Maya of the Yucatan Peninsula, who were ancestral to the Mexicans. North American Natives probably ate it as well,

truth
Yes, Twyvel, and it was the principal staple of all of Indian Mesoamerica--and still is. By the way, most urban and many rural Mexicans will tell you that they are descendants of BOTH the conquered Indians and the conquering Spaniards. They are MESTIZOS, meaning an amalgam of the two "races" and cultures.

I'll try to keep the number of quotations down to a minimum.


"Good" according to whom?


You can't say that. According to you, "evil" is always subjective. No one (including you, rufio) can call anyone else's actions "evil."


You can't say that. According to you, "moral codes" are always subjective. No one (including you, rufio) can call anyone else's choices "morally correct."


Now, see, here's the problem, rufio. If person A says "my action is good," and person B says "A's action is not good," then we would expect that A and B have a shared understanding of both "A's action" and "goodness." Otherwise, they wouldn't be simply disagreeing, they'd be speaking about two entirely different things. If A and B are, in effect, holding positions X and ~X, we can say that they contradict each other regarding a single subject (i.e. "X"). When A and B, on the other hand, are holding positions X and ~Y (as you suggest), we can't say that they contradict each other, because they are simply not talking about the same thing. It's as if A says "my action is good" and B responds by saying "purple monkey dishwasher." They're not disagreeing because they're not even talking to each other.

Normally, there wouldn't be any problem with A and B talking past each other, except that you want them to be talking about the same thing, rufio. That's apparent, because you want to say something meaningful about the topic that they are ostensibly discussing: i.e. "good" and "not-good." Yet if A and B are discussing "good" and "something entirely different from good," you can't say anything meaningful about what either of them is saying. And certainly if the entire concept of "good" is personal to each individual, you can't have anything approaching a "theory" that would apply to more than a single person -- and that wouldn't be a "theory" at all.


If "good" does not exist objectively, how can "objectives" exist objectively?


If they're talking about the same action, then they cannot hold contradictory positions and still both be correct (per the Law of Contradiction).


Then they are talking about entirely different things.

PS, there's a language-based definition, and then there's an intuitive definition. You can know, for instance, what wood is, and looks like, and feels like, and how it is different from other materials, without knowing any languages.

Twyvel

"And since ‘good’ only refers to and defines an action that meets its objective it is considered non-moral, which is contrary to its conventional use."

NO, it's not. What makes it moral is the objective itself.

The corn thing was interesting. I did not know that. Actually, I was working with an archaeological company last summer, which discovered corn going back to 2000 BC in North America (albiet, very small corn). I'm guessing people didn't start living on it until it was large enough to be practical, though.

Joe

Can you think of an impulsive action that had the effect that was intended? I can't.

"No one (including you, rufio) can call anyone else's actions "evil"/"morally correct.""

It's not what I call them, it's what they would call them.

"If person A says "my action is good," and person B says "A's action is not good," then we would expect that A and B have a shared understanding of both "A's action" and "goodness.""

Why would you assume that? Even if that were true, why would you expect B to think from A's perspective instead of his own?

"they wouldn't be simply disagreeing, they'd be speaking about two entirely different things."

That's what I'm saying. People create moral realities for themselves that are different.

"They're not disagreeing because they're not even talking to each other."

Most people don't talk to each other very well, actually. Just take a look at this thread. However, that doesn't mean, as you are suggesting, that you can't say anything about this argument. It's all the same idea. It's just different thoughts about what that constitutes. Or, we can go back to SAT analogies. Good-A is to A as good-B is to _____. Hmmm, what could that be? They are the same part of different people. It's like, my eyes are hazel, and your eyes are blue (or whatever), so they're different, but their all eyes. A's morality is different from B's morality, but they're both moralities.

"If "good" does not exist objectively, how can "objectives" exist objectively?"

Because when objecitves exist objectively, they exist unconnected with people or moralities.

As I said before, A and B aren't being contradictory. It's like, if you took a look at the forums here and said "it's blue," and I looked at it and said, "it's not red". They're both true, we're just focusing on different things. For instance, I might focus on personal freedom as good, and Terry would focus on not harming others. So we might both look at an offensive newspaper article, and I would say, "that's free speech," and she might say "that's harming someone." That doesn't contradict what I said at all. If we didn't like each other much (which I suspect is the case), than we wouldn't bother to explain, and we'd just say "good" and "not-good". But that's what we'd mean. For all I know, Terry doesn't care about stuff like that, but it was the only example I could think of.

Once again, I'll try to keep the quotations to a minimum.


If you define "impulsive" as "lacking intention," then no, I can't think of one either. If, on the other hand, an "impulsive" action can be "intentional" (e.g. a husband who impulsively murders his wife's lover), then there are lots of impulsive actions that have their desired effects.


Here's the real nub of the problem, rufio, and I think I'll use this as my point of departure from this increasingly uninteresting thread.

Using your analogy to eye color, we can only say that there are differences if we agree on: (1) a definition of "eye"; and (2) a definition of "color." And those definitions are objective, in the sense that they apply equally to all "eyes" and all "colors." So if you were to say "my eyes are hazel" and I responded "no, your eyes are not hazel," then we could objectively determine who was right and who was wrong. On the other hand, if I can't say anything about your eye color, because both "eye" and "color" are subjective concepts, then there's really no point in discussing either your eye color or my eye color or anybody's eye color.

Now, it looks as if you want me to confine my remarks solely to my eye color. But you can't restrict a definition to a single person -- which is what you apparently want to do with your notions of "good-A" and "good-B." For if "good-A" is only applicable to A, then "good-A" is not a definition of anything. Rather, it is a meaningless concept, since it is a definition that defines only what A wants it to define, and no one is in a position to say that A is wrong, regardless of what A says: it is, consequently, as arbitrary as Humpty Dumpty's syntax.

As it is for "eye color," so it is for "good," or "morality," or "objective." If "good," for instance, is entirely subjective, then there's no point in discussing the concept of "good." There's no point in even discussing the word "good," since its definition is unique to each individual. At most, we can be curious as to why people are deluded enough to think that there is some sort of objective sense of a word that everyone uses subjectively. But that's more of a question for psychologists than philosophers.

The same can be said for "objectives" (for the sake of clarity, I'll substitute the term "goals" here). Rufio, you want to maintain that "goals" determine what is "good," such that an action which is most effective at reaching a particular "goal" is to be considered "good." But if "good" is subjective, how can "goal" be objective?

You want to insert an objective element into your position, because it's the only way that you can make a non-trivial argument. Yet there is no logical reason for maintaining that "goals" are objective while still holding that "good" is subjective. You simply haven't provided an answer, and I am thoroughly convinced that you cannot.

On the other hand, if you sincerely believe that "goals" are objectively ascertainable, then why can't we also ascertain the "best means" or "most effective means" of achieving those goals? And if the means are objectively ascertainable, then certainly it follows that "good" is objectively ascertainable too.


No more so than "eyes" or "colors" exist unconnected to people. Yet we are certainly capable of objectively ascertaining eye colors.


Certainly, if two people do not hold the same definition of a term, then they cannot be said to contradict each other when they disagree over the meaning of that term. But then that makes their argument trivial (like arguing whether an action is good or purple), while it makes the definitional problem all the more important. If we simply say that A and B don't have the same definition of "good," and that's why they disagree, then we haven't said anything that's particularly meaningful. At that level, we are truly left with two people who are talking past each other rather than to each other. If that's how we want it to stand, then there's nothing more to say. If, on the other hand, we want to say something meaningful about the notion of "good" (as, I suspect, you want to do, rufio), then we can't simply throw up our hands and say: "well, we can't agree on a definition, let's all go home."

And with that, I'm throwing up my hands and saying: "well, we can't agree on anything, I'm going home."

Perhaps I should have been more specific - I meant a benficial long-term goal (or obejective). If your goal is to get rid of your wife's lover, there are probably ways to do it that are better for you, morally, than to kill him.

"Using your analogy to eye color, we can only say that there are differences if we agree on: (1) a definition of "eye"; and (2) a definition of "color.""

And we agree on the definition of "moral code" don't we? And if, per this definition, we find that A believes X to be good, that's an objective fact, is it not? That's all I'm tryong to say here.

Fact: A believes X is good.
Fact: A has hazel eyes

I don't see the problem here. "Good" has the same like of meaning as "eye" or "color". Every person has it, and it is different for every person. Similarly, a goal can be objective.

Fact: A believes X is good.
Fact: A's goal is Y.
or even
Fact: Y is a goal.
Fact: A thinks Y is good.
Fact: B thinks Y is not-good.
In these cases, Y doesn't even have to be a goal of anyone - it's just a goal that someone could conceivably have.

We don't wear our goals around on our faces, so they're a little harder to ascertain than our eye color, just as you can't necessarily tell that eyes are used for seeing just by looking at them.

"If we simply say that A and B don't have the same definition of "good," and that's why they disagree, then we haven't said anything that's particularly meaningful."

I agree, this discussion hasn't been particularly meaningful so far. Can we move on past the definition stage yet, do you think? If you can't understand this concept, I appologize for overtaxing your mental resources. Perhaps you should go home.

rufio, I think you're going to be talking to yourself pretty soon. Ofcoarse, it's only my subjective guess.

"That which can be said can be said clearly. That which cannot we must pass over in silence."


Wittgenstein

Well, since I now know that none of you have any interest in having an actual discussion as opposed to fighting, I don't see the point of posting this at all. If flaming's what you like to do, fine, but I'm sick of it. I think perhaps I should just delete the whole thread unless someone has anything to add to it. We already have 7 pages of crap. Why add more?

7 pages of who's crap ?