Philosophy of Evil

rufio, But you're trying to win the case on the universality of good. When you use an example like chocolate, it only shows how it isn't universal. Wink

0 Replies

rufio

I didn't say it wasn't objective, I said it wasn't absolute as you claim your definitions are, demonstrated in the statement:

Quote:

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

Your definitions do not apply to everyone in all situations, period.

You wrote:

Quote:

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

actions not objectives.

I.e. its's a good action if it fullfils the objective regardless of what the objective is.(according to you )

"good" and "evil" are not the only critria when considering actions.

Reducing all human actions and behaviors to "good" and "evil" is asimplistic reductionism.

0 Replies

rufio

I cannot say more except that what you write here is not "philosophy". When you write "the work of evil is to produce good people" (or words to that effect) you are doing little more than preaching. (See the Hindu gunas* for example for much more colorful account of cosmic forces). You seem to be totally unaware that words like "choice" "action" and "goal" are laymans terms whose meaning or applicability are the legitimate targets for scrutiny in a philosophical debate.

There IS a potentially interesting philosophical avenue to pursue with respect to "goal achievement" and "order" but again you don't seem to be aware of it.

*RE-EDITED WITH THIS QUOTE AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE THEOLOGY YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO AVOID.
<<The concept of retributive justice that follows karma is a deterrent to immoral life and a strong incentive for a person to live an ethical and decent life. This surely helps in social harmony and brings about societal stability. The concepts of karma, gunas, parama-atman and jiva-atman in Sanatana Dharma are unique and extraordinary>>

0 Replies

good
Cav. your caveat about assuming everyone likes chocalate reminds me of G.B.Shaw's admonition against doing unto others what you would have them do unto you. He warns us that the other's taste may be different. This kind of realistic thinking--situational thinking--might apply to all categorical imperatives.

0 Replies

The actions are termed good and evil only on condition that they are associated with a similarly termed objective. How exactly does this not apply to everyone? Come up with one example of someone that this does not apply to. That' all you have to do to prove me wrong - why can't you do it?

I am not preaching anything. If you think the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, please state how.

0 Replies

truth
I'm finding Rufio's thought a bit confusing. Maybe it's too profound; I don't know. For one thing is he (Rufio, are you) using the term "objective" to mean two distinct things, i.e., "objective" as in non-subjective, and "objective" as in a purpose or goal?

0 Replies

She, actually. But that's all cool.

In the one instance, "objective" is an adjective, and in the other it is a noun, yes. I actually hadn't thought of that. As far as I know, the words are unrelated.

0 Replies

JLN

My accusation of "not philosophy" should have been tempered with to word "traditional" but rufio had already excluded "religion" from her discussion.

rufio

Your statement

<<The actions are termed good and evil only on condition that they are associated with a similarly termed objective>>

is a significant shift in your original position in accordance with my point 3. above.

0 Replies

Rufio

If my objective is to get into my car and I trip and fall, the action was unsuccessful as it did not fullfil the goal. But it certianly isn't "evil", it isn't even a bad action, it's just a failed attempt to reach the objective.

Deal with this one specific point. How can you justify a trip or fall as "evil" ?

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

You wrote:

Quote:

The actions are termed good and evil only on condition that they are associated with a similarly termed objective. How exactly does this not apply to everyone? Come up with one example of someone that this does not apply to. That' all you have to do to prove me wrong - why can't you do it?

It doesn't apply to all situations, nor does it cover all human actions or behaviour.

It does not apply to accidents, unintented acts or spontaneous behaviour. They are actions without intented or preconceived objectives.

An accident can be deemed bad as in bad for someones health and emotional state but it is not associated with any objective or goal.

There's also the freudian slip, and unintended utterance, an action with no objective, neither good or evil.

And beside that you are starting to shift your position. Before you were saying;

"An action is good if it fulfills the objective regardless of what the objective is." (paraphrase)

Now you're saying,

" The actions are termed good and evil only on condition that they are associated with a similarly termed objective.

So objectives (goals) are now considered good and evil, etc.

0 Replies

Bear, I agree with you. Unquestioningly. :wink:

Heliotrope, animals are true to their nature and are not usually considered to be evil, even when they commit an act that would be judged as evil if done by a human being (such as killing infants).

So acting according to your nature is not inherently evil. Neither is suppressing natural urges in order to be perceived as good. IMO, evil is when a person deliberately causes unnecessary pain and suffering to other beings.

Evil is independent of laws and morality. History abounds with evil acts that had the blessing of the law, the church, and the majority. Sometimes great good eventually results from evil actions, but the intent and immediate results may be sufficient to categorize them as evil.

0 Replies

rufio, your basic premise was that evil is necessary in order for people to be able to make choices to prove that they are "good."

Not surprisingly, no one agreed with you. You seem to be the only one here who thinks that there has to be a purpose for evil to exist. You have not given us any reason why the universe (or the alleged forces of good/evil) would care whether people are "good" or not, or why you consider it ethical for people to be endowed with evil urges and unlimited opportunity to indulge in them at the cost of untold pain and suffering on the part of their victims.

Instad of presenting your case rationally, you insulted many of the people in this forum:

rufio wrote:

I'm wondering if you guys can ever get over your reactionary impulses to talk about things like adults or if the whole premise of discussion is lost from the start.

I made this thread to discuss a philosophy. If you don't have anything to add except your personal pet peeves, kindly leave.

If you expected to see something you did not, it is because you did not come into the thread with an open mind.

But you're making assumptions here that are irrelevant.

I simply put an idea out for others to comment on, and already people are accusing me of "assuming" and "preaching". What the hell is wrong with you people?

I have defined what I meant by it in a way that everyone could associate with it, no matter what their personal little greivances and pet peeves.

Your first post was you bitching about what you thought that evil, subjectively, was. I don't care. I really don't. If you would stop being so self-absorbed and actually read my post, you might actually be able to add somethign to the thread. Unlike you, I am not condemning evil people to hell.

If you had actually read my post, you would know that I gave examples of evil, but the gist was an objective definition of evil: harm to others. I never even mentioned hell, nor did I condemn anyone.

Your childish responses to various people (and you really should learn to used the quote function) indicate that you are too self-absorbed to realize that we disagree with you because your ideas are illogical, not because we cannot understand your convoluted writing.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Even if you are mentally ill, or cultutally bound, or on drugs, you still have the ability to choose. You only lose the ability to tell if you are choosing well.

Not true. People on drugs KNOW that they are making bad choices, but cannot resist their addiction. People with obsessive/compulsive disorders cannot control their impulses, and congenital defect, injury, or disease affecting the prefrontal cortex may produce amoral behavior.

rufio wrote:

Terry: "In any case, good people make bad choices for a lot of reasons."

Then by definition, they are not good people. By many standards of religious morality, most people are good people, because they have positive intentions. This does not make them good people in the end. Perhaps if you would stop comparing evil to Hitler and good to God, you could understand what I'm trying to say.

I never said that God was good, nor that Hitler was evil according to your definition of the term. If you condemn anyone who makes even one bad choice in their life, then there are no good people. The point is that people make less-than-optimum choices for a lot of reasons, and that a world where people had no evil urges to harm others would be a nicer place to live yet would still provide sufficient choices for humanity.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

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?

Yes, a cross between a dog and a wolf.

rufio wrote:

"My subjective veiw of what real-life things are good and which aren't has very little to do with this. This is a general definition based on the fact that whatever people consider to be good they are going to make their objective. If you think that helping people at the expense of yourself is a good, moral thing to do, than that will be your objective - if you thought that it was good and moral to do something else, than that would be your objective. Whatever action best accomplishes whatever objective you chose would be a good action, and whatever didn't would be an evil action. Universally."

Not necessarily. Some people know that their objectives are immoral, illegal, unethical, or even evil, and their actions to achieve them may be expedient but are certainly not "good." People give in to the temptation to do what they know perfectly well is "wrong" for many reasons. That does not make them evil, just human.

People may truly believe that helping others is good and moral, but fail to make it their primary objective. They may choose not to devote any time and resources to others, even though they think that they "ought" to do so.

Re persons A, B, and C: they all believe their actions are justified, but that doesn't automatically make them moral, ethical, legal, or good. Suppose person C chooses to lock A up without legal representation or cut off B's hand.

Moral is right according to a social or religious code. Legal is right according to the government. Ethical is right according to a universal standard. Good is subjective.

0 Replies

Portal Star wrote:

I probably wouldn't think cake was food unless I was in a social group which routinely made and ate cake.

Yes, many cultures consume things which others find abhorrent such as pork, beef, insects, dog, alcohol, squid, etc. Tomatoes were once thought to be poisonous. Some Europeans consider corn to be animal fodder.

rufio wrote:

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.

No, we would not instinctively abhor it unless it was bitter or very sour. We might be better off if we did abhor cake. Choosing foods that are sweet, salty, and fatty is a survival trait when these nutrients are scarce in the environment. It can lead to obesity, diabetes, and coronary disease when they are abundant.

Most infants show a preference for sweet food. But the desire of children (and adults) for sweet snacks is reinforced by social conditioning, such as advertising and being told you only get dessert if you eat your veggies.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

The actions are termed good and evil only on condition that they are associated with a similarly termed objective. How exactly does this not apply to everyone? Come up with one example of someone that this does not apply to. That' all you have to do to prove me wrong - why can't you do it?

If your objective is survival but you start a forest fire that kills several firefighters, was building that campfire good or evil?

The obvious question is: Who determines whether the objective is good or evil?

Is waging war on a small Middle Eastern country a good objective?

Is building a dam that will wipe out several villages, archeological sites and endangered species a good objective?

Is sending people to Mars a good objective?

Is it moral to sell guns and alcohol to natives if your objective is to become rich?

Is it OK to exterminate your neighbors and take their land and property for the good of your own tribe?

Do you think that the end justifies any means? Is it OK to drop bombs on civilians to win a war? Cut off body parts to deter crime? Beat children to enforce obedience? Suspend civil rights to reduce terrorism? Ban birth control to ensure a supply of future church members and extend it to the use of condoms to prevent disease?

Suppose the objective is to raise money for a charitable organization, but the money is stolen, diverted from famine relief, or obtained by smuggling drugs.

Sorry, I guess that was more than one example. Laughing

0 Replies

truth
So if an action is "good" if it achieves its goal, we are talking about PRAGMATIC goodness, not NORMATIVE goodness. PG is what works, NG is what is in conformity with moral ideals.
Terry's points are very important?

0 Replies

JLN< I think pragmatic goodness and normative goodness still leaves us confused, because most things are not universal. Watcha think?

0 Replies

truth
C.I., by pragmatic goodness I mean only doing "what works" in order to succeed at something (has to do with situationally prescribed actions). Normative goodness, on the other hand, has to do with universal moral principles, with what one "should do" and applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times. These are fictions, of course. I believe only in situational ethics which MAY be influenced by the "frozen ethics" of a moral code, but is not bound to it when it does not serve the reality of a given situation. This is well illustrated in the film, The Cider House Rules.

0 Replies

I don't believe that good or evil are conscious entities of any kind. I think that they are nothing more than terms that can be applied to someone's personality. Although the judgement varies from culture to culture, I think that in general, evil is a term that describes people who habitually choose to benefit themselves even when others are harmed, and who generally display a lack of empathy. Good is the opposite. There may be qualifications to this and special cases, but I think that's what good and evil are.

0 Replies

Philosophy of Evil

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know