Philosophy of Evil

So you must finally admit that "good" is a perception that is not easily defined as a universal truth.

But I have biological urge to eat cake. Don't you? It's good stuff. Sugar has lots of nutritional value. I don't look at something and say, I have a biological urge to eat that, and because of that, I can conclude that it's good for me. Do you?

Seriously, though, it appears that something other than biological want controls your actions. That's what I'm talking about.

CI, a good action will always be whatever causes a person's objective to come about. That is universal.

And "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

What makes an action good, though, is not.

Correction: What makes an action good has all the possibilities that can be imagined, but some may even say it is bad. Those who say it's good today, may say it's bad tomorrow.

But the general reason that it's good, in relation to one's morality, is the same.

But one's morality does not make it a universal truth. It's only true for that one person at that point in time. One never knows if that same person will ever view that same action or belief as good in the future.

Not that specific one, though. But the same thing will make future actions good or bad.

Portal reinforces the essential point that "morality" and its "good-evil" dimension are social rather than psychological concepts. Of course we "observe ourself" and evaluate our own actions using these categories but that activity is still "social" between self A "the actor" and self B "the observer".

Now it could be argued (and I usually do ) that ALL reality is a matter of social consensus but some concepts help illustrate this better than others. Such is the case for "good/evil".

Rufio's "pursuit of the universal" is of course not specific to good/evil but is merely an example of the fact that social function of language IS to categorize "everything significant" within social consensus boundaries. This is what "communication" is about. So whereas we generally agree on the boundaries of say a concept like "dog"*, this is not the case for "good", but this does not detract from the social utility of having such a concept otherwise it would not have arisen in the first place.

Thus the philosophical significance of the dimension good/evil is perhaps about its "social utility"versus "divine origins". However the significance of the general observation of universal categorization can only be determined by comparison with alternative modes of observation such as Zen, but since such exploration transcends normal language usage the results are experiential and ineffable with concepts like "self" and "action" themselves becoming merged or re-evaluated.

(*for rufio every animal is a "dog" or "not a dog" !)

Whether an action accomplishes a certain goal or not is not social, it is factual. The role of society is to alter the objective - nothing more.

Yes, every animal either is a dog or it isn't. Can you think of any animal that does not fall into one of those two categories?

I'm really not sure what you were trying to say there - the sentences are really awkward.

rufio

I can hear Heliotrope yawning again.

1. The dog analogy was to show that your argument is a tautology and therefore philosophically vacuous.

2. We could debate the status of the word "fact" for ever. I don't intend to here but if you refer to an earlier thread of mine on social reality you might get my take on the matter. Suffice to say your view of "facts" assumes an "objective reality" which begs the question regarding the consensus about the subjective nature of "good and evil."

3. "Goal attainment" has nothing to do with "good" and "evil" unless you are prepared to label the goals as such. In the unlikely event that you are hinting at the familiar connotation of "good" as "order" versus "evil" as "lack of order or chaos" then say so.

I apologize if you find my posts difficult to understand, but you are not going to get very far in philosophy unless you are prepared for the problems of language examining itself.

This sounds questionable to me, fresco. Would you mind elaborating upon your view?

rufio - take that thought all the way - thought is part of biological functioning. Also, I was over simplifying - positive and negative reinforcements do not always have to be social, and thought processes are part of biology. Thinking helps humans to avoid making mistakes, to help them get food and survive. I would consider me thinking the cake would kill me as part of biology. I probably wouldn't think cake was food unless I was in a social group which routinely made and ate cake.
What I was trying to explain with the social theory example is that people tend to hold and understand moraltiy through their social groups - first the primary group of family - other social groups could be your military company, your classmates, even your city or country.
People in, lets be controversial - say, Iraq - hold different moral values than do people in America. And Americans, historically, have held different moral values than they do now (remember slavery and women not being able to vote?) If these things were accepted by society, they were generally accepted by the individuals in society. Society shapes the individuals notion of morality and holds them legally accountable for that morality.

This isn't saying that an individual isn't capable of having their own thoughts, or being an exception to this thing, or of establishing their own moral code - but doing so is usually based upon unique life events they and not all of their society would have experienced.

I think you mistake in thinking of good and evil as forces unto themselves. Good and evil is a concept in human minds, and nothing more. Humans are animals (look down - you are made out of muscle, cells, bones, like other animals, you think more than most other animals, except possibly dolphins, but other animals think- so thinking does not make you a non-animal.) Other social animals have moral issues with each other as well. For example, a crocodile will come to the rescue of any baby crocidile in danger, dolphins sometimes gang rape, monkeys take extended care of their young - teaching them, dogs hold total loyalty to the dominant members and hierarchial system of their pack (compare to human deference to powerful leaders - although natural human packs have about 150 members), many animals can learn tricks through positive and negative reinforcement (good!/ Bad!).

Hi Portal Star

It may not be courteous to hijack this thread so I would refer you to my earlier thread entitled "Is reality a social construction". If you care to comment there I will certainly be happy to reply in detail.

Regards fresco.

I am not simply saying that good is the opposite of evil. I purposefully said that that was not what I was saying if you would care to read the first post again. I actually listed it among the things that I made very clear I was not talking about. The purpose here was not to talk about good and evil, but about choice. I purposefully made a definition of both good and evil such that it would apply to everyone.

Without an objective reality on some level, there is no langauge, no philosophy, no logic. If you really think there's no objectivity anywhere, why are you here? Or, I guess it's just my mistake, it's all relative. To me it appears as though you posted on this thread, but in reality, you haven't. Or have you? It's just your word against mine, I guess. Well, that is, if your word is actually even here.

The goals correspond to whatever the person believes is the right thing to do. Haven't we already been over this?

PS - are you saying that were we not socially conditioned to like cake, we would instinctively abhor it? I really doubt that. I have actually been thinking about that a lot recently, and not so recently. Last year I had a reading in one class that claimed (without evidence) that all people everywhere were naturally inclined to like sugary things. That same day, my prof in another class proclaimed (also without evidence) that eating habits, in particular the habits of children to desire sugary things, were completely socially conditioned. Every single class I take is a sociology class, no matter what field it's in. Everyone's got theories and no one's got facts.

But seriously, here are some facts-
- sugar is a nutrient that your body needs
- chocolate contains endorphins. I know we didn't specify chocolate, but, let's say that the cake is chocolate, just for fun.

Wouldn't you then be naturally inclined to eat the cake?

As for morality, it doesn't matter how you understand it so long as you pick a goal that you consider to be moral. If you lived in Iraq, your goals would probably be much different than if you were in America. But your actions would stay the same relative to your goals.

An interesting note to add to your list of animal behavior - certain types of monkey also murder their young, if they are the offspring of their mate and another (male) monkey besides themself (themselves??).

rufio, You are assuming that everybody likes chocolate. Not true!

rufio wrote:

I purposefully made a definition of both good and evil such that it would apply to everyone.

But they don't , they're not absolute.

And describing all actions that fail to reach the objectives they were intended to reach as "evil" is redicules.

rufio's quote, "As for morality, it doesn't matter how you understand it so long as you pick a goal that you consider to be moral. If you lived in Iraq, your goals would probably be much different than if you were in America. But your actions would stay the same relative to your goals." Heck, rufio, we have enough differences in morality right here in the good ole US of A, and we're talking extreme difference.

It's all so simple. Anything that agrees with me unquestioningly is good. Anything that doesn't is evil. At the end of the day I think most people feel that way. Simplistic of course, but I'm a simple Bear. :wink:

I never said that everyone liked chocolate. I said that there was biological incentive to like chocolate. There is a biological incentive to eat insects, too.

What's not objective, twyvel, if the definition of what is considered a good objective is left open?