Philosophy of Evil

rufio wrote:

Good actions are defined as acheiving a pre-determined objective. Bad actions are defined as not acheiving that objective.

You've confused good/bad with efficacious/inefficacious.

In general, rufio, you've not only engaged in faulty logic and careless reasoning, you've been rather ungracious about accepting any criticisms -- and most of the criticisms offered here have been pretty astute. I fully anticipate, therefore, that you'll respond to my points with the same churlishness you've displayed toward them, but I'll try anyway.

"Good" and "evil" must have some moral component: otherwise, they are meaningless. There must be some difference, for instance, between the sentence "she's a good person" and "she's a good tuba player." Yet under your reasoning, rufio, where an action is either good or bad depending upon its efficaciousness, the two statements are roughly equivalent: they say practically the same thing. That, I humbly submit, is complete nonsense.

"Good" and "evil" cannot be defined as equivalent to "efficacious" and "inefficacious" for a variety of reasons:

1. Defining "good" as any property (e.g. "happiness is the good") runs the risk of falling into a naturalistic fallacy. In other words, if efficaciousness is the good, then we can still ask: is efficaciousness good? And there can be no answer to that question, since it involves either a circular argument or an open/incomplete definition.

2. As has been noted several times, and as you seem to admit, rufio, any definition of "good/evil" that relies on or is the equivalent of "efficacious/inefficacious" is inherently subjective: if an action fulfills my goals, then it is good for me. Yet any subjective notion of morality must ultimately rest upon an objective criterion -- typically some notion of respect for other's choices. So, for instance, if you say that your actions are good because they help you attain your objectives, you are asking me to agree with your objective standard for defining "goodness." In other words, "good/evil" are objective for the purposes of definition, even if identifying any particular act's as "good/evil" is subjective. Objectivity, therefore, does not fall out of the equation: it merely moves up one step higher. And once you inject objective criteria into your scheme, you must justify it logically. But not only have you never done this, you don't even realize you have to do it.

3. Your definition still involves question begging. In particular, your argument that there are only good and evil choices is a classic example of the fallacy of the excluded middle. Moreover, by limiting the choice to good and evil you presuppose the natures of good and evil. So either you've defined good and evil in such a way that they are comprehensive and mutually exclusive -- in which case you've begged the question about the nature of good and evil -- or else you've divided the world into good and evil before you defined the terms -- in which case you've begged the question about the entire existence of good and evil. In effect, you are starting with the concept of good and evil and defining it backwards. Logically, you can't do that. And that's why you're having so much trouble convincing everyone of your position: you've never been able to defend your definitions because you assume that which you attempt to prove.

0 Replies

Clearly put, Joe. (for those with eyes to see !)

0 Replies

PS- the only reason you know that something is made of wood is that you have a definition for what wood is and how something that is made out of wood appears. Since everyone has their own defiinition of good and evil, it's quite possible that they will be able to label their actions as good or evil.

And for genetics -
a. I didn't mention personality and I didn't mention mutations, so I' don't know where this came from.

b. Life influence is not biology, it's environment. Unless you're talking about radiation or something, I don't think environment can change your biology.

c. This is more of life influence. If you were taken away from your parents when you were born and raised by someone completely different, you would adopt their morality, even though you weren't biologically related.

Twyvel, one of the nice things about this forum is that we have a written record of everything we say. Go back and find the post where you think I said something different than I am now, and I will try to see how you probably misinterpreted it.

If mistakes have good consequences, than they were obviously helpful and not harmful to some objective or other. It doesn't mean they were helpful to every objective. I might argue that mistakes don't even apply here, as they aren't always choices.

All actions are independant of objectives - they only help or harm the objectives. Accidents still help and harm objectives, they just aren't always choices.

What does agnosticism have to do with anything?

"An unintentional choice is an oxymoron."

Precisely.

"You've confused good/bad with efficacious/inefficacious."

That's exactly what I mean, but on a moral level, something that is effecacious to a moral goal is considered good, and vice versa.

A person observing someone and his actions can make the distincition about whether or not the objective, and therefore its efficacious acheivement, is good. To the person who has the objective, the objective is always good.

Of course this is all subjective. Haven't you been paying attention?

I am not using any criteria to determine good or evil and I have not specified any objectives. You would inject your own in order to bring the model down to a more specific level, but until then, they can remain undefined variables.

That good and evil are different is a premise not a conclusion.

The reason I am having trouble here is that no one feels the need to read my posts before they go off on their own little witch-hunts.

0 Replies

Are witches evil and do they achieve their objectives ? Evil or Very Mad

(No reply required !)

0 Replies

truth
Very interesting qualification, Tywvel. British anthropologists who have spent decades studying intra-tribal feuding (mostly but not exclusively in Africa), note two ways in which strangers might be a force for peace: (!) when more distantly related lineages (more distantly related than the distance between the feuding lineages) attack one of the two feuding groups, the two feuding groups will temporarily forget their hostility and join together (i.e., make peace) in order to join forces against the "stranger" lineage. Once that fight is finished, the original feuding groups give up their temporary alliance and continue their feud. (2) Sometimes members of more distant lineages of a tribe will be recruited to serve as peace-facilitators/mediators in helping feuding lineages to come to an agreement in order to avoid or prevent further bloodshed. Stranger-referees are favored because--since they are unrelated or more distantly related to members of feuding lineages--they are considered more disinterested and objective in their actions. How's that for a bit of exotica?

0 Replies

"PS- the only reason you know that something is made of wood is that you have a definition for what wood is and how something that is made out of wood appears. Since everyone has their own defiinition of good and evil, it's quite possible that they will be able to label their actions as good or evil. "

now you're talking about semantics. As for the wood, it would have certain physical properties which could be tested and confirmed, regardless of speech. It has a cetain smell, a feel, taste, look, sound when it is knocked, etc. Beyond our own senses we can observe with precision instruments and do testing. The cellular structure could be examined, and related to other substances, and would be similar to the kind of tree it came from. I'd like to see someone observe physical qualities of good and evil.

"The reason I am having trouble here is that no one feels the need to read my posts before they go off on their own little witch-hunts."
You have many posts where you say one thing, but your language insinuates another. Be clear in your language, and you won't be mis-read. For example, if there is not some bieng controlling evil, it would not be a "force," because the word force implies materiality or somthing controlling it.

------------
"a. I didn't mention personality and I didn't mention mutations, so I' don't know where this came from."

"We might have different brands of the same gene, but we all have that gene, exempting abnormalities. "

genetic abnormality = mutation.
Personality influences what choices you make, and good and evil concepts are about the choices you make (in Judeo-Christian tradition.)

"b. Life influence is not biology, it's environment. Unless you're talking about radiation or something, I don't think environment can change your biology."

Like I said, take a class. Organisms do not live in a vaccum. Biology includes the study of the ecosystem and impact of organisms on other organisms. Environment is a factor. It also includes evolution (adaptation to enviroment). It is centered around genes, because the goal of a living thing is to continue life, usually by passing on it's genes. How the genes get from one point to the next (the organisms life) is also biology, when you're describing using scientific methods.
To get into this good/evil thing, you're trying to apply sociology/psycology, which encompasses some concepts from biolgy (although there is a lot of variation of how well they do this, sociology is a soft science) through evolutionary psycology, for example. They might study concepts of good and evil in anthropology too, I'm not sure.

"c. This is more of life influence. If you were taken away from your parents when you were born and raised by someone completely different, you would adopt their morality, even though you weren't biologically related."

Prove it, provide me with some thought examples or contradictory evidence. For example, If you take twins and raise them in two different homes, they will adopt the culture of the home in which they are raised. Culture isn't inherited genetically. However, many traits are genetic and you can have a genetic predisposition towards certain actions. There is both influence of genetics and culture on the personality and choices an individual makes. You are talking about notions of good and evil (which not all societies have, and which vary from society to society) elaborate human value system is related to culture. But when you're talking about the individual choices an individual makes, their genes make them predisposed to certain things (i.e. a physique good for baseball, ADD, a certain amount of intelligence), and this has influence on the choices they make. Genetics and culture work together in forming an individual.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

the only reason you know that something is made of wood is that you have a definition for what wood is and how something that is made out of wood appears. Since everyone has their own defiinition of good and evil, it's quite possible that they will be able to label their actions as good or evil.

The definition of "wood" is: objective; shared by everyone; and if there is disagreement over whether something is wood or not, it is possible to determine if one or both sides are wrong. On the other hand, rufio, your definition of "good" is: subjective; not necessarily shared by anyone; and, if there is disagreement over whether some action is "good" or not, it is impossible to determine if one or both sides are wrong. On that basis, your "definition" is no definition at all.

rufio wrote:

"You've confused good/bad with efficacious/inefficacious."

That's exactly what I mean, but on a moral level, something that is effecacious to a moral goal is considered good, and vice versa.

Clearly, that's not what you've been saying all along. But even if you now concede that "good" actions are only those that are efficacious to a "moral goal" (as opposed to any efficacious action), then you're making a circular argument. "Morality" is meaningless absent a notion of "good" and "bad": in other words, there is no such thing as a "moral goal" if there is no such thing as a "good" action. "Morality" defines what is good and bad: you can't say that good actions are efficacious to moral goals because "moral goals" must be defined by what is good -- and according to you, rufio, those are then defined by their objectives. It's a transparently circular argument.

rufio wrote:

A person observing someone and his actions can make the distincition about whether or not the objective, and therefore its efficacious acheivement, is good. To the person who has the objective, the objective is always good.

This is complete and utter nonsense. If I observe you pushing a stranger as a car approaches, I can't necessarily make the distinction whether your objective is to push him into the path of the car or to push him out of the way. And even you push the stranger and he is not hit by the car, I still cannot determine if your objective was fulfilled or thwarted. Only you can. As such, under your theory, I cannot determine if that action was good or bad.

As for your statement that "to the person who has the objective, the objective is always good," this, once again, simply confuses "good" and "efficacious." For my reasons why you cannot equate the two terms, see my previous post.

rufio wrote:

Of course this is all subjective. Haven't you been paying attention?

Haven't you been paying attention? Practically everyone here has, in one way or another, told you that you cannot have a meaningful notion of "good" based on equating it with "efficaciousness." What's preventing you from understanding that?

rufio wrote:

I am not using any criteria to determine good or evil and I have not specified any objectives. You would inject your own in order to bring the model down to a more specific level, but until then, they can remain undefined variables.

No they can't. "Good" and "evil" cannot remain undefined variables in any system of morality. It's like having a system of geometry with "line," "point," and "circle" as undefined variables.

rufio wrote:

That good and evil are different is a premise not a conclusion.

Then you're begging the question.

rufio wrote:

The reason I am having trouble here is that no one feels the need to read my posts before they go off on their own little witch-hunts.

Look, rufio, if you want to write your story with the anthropomorphized "evil" sitting on someone's shoulder urging him to "do good," then do it. Nobody here is going to object to that. But you came to a philosophy board asking a philosophical question, not a writer's-and-writing board asking a literary question. Why are you surprised when we criticize your deficient logic and empty philosophy?

Furthermore, don't complain that we haven't read your posts. We've all read your posts, and we've offered far more advice than, frankly, you deserved to receive, given your petulant, snotty attitude. Face it: you don't know what you're talking about. Write your story, get it published, sell the movie rights, make millions of dollars -- just don't delude yourself into thinking that you're engaging in philosophy while you're doing it, ok?

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

Quote:

Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 11:07 pm Post subject:
The objective is not right or wrong - the objective merely determines whether the actions were right or not.

"Objectives" are not right or wrong.

Then rufio wrote:

Quote:

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

Now "objectuves" are right or wrong,....or....good or evil.

rufio wrote:

Quote:

Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2003 6:01 pm Post subject:
Whatever action best accomplishes whatever objective you chose would be a good action, and whatever didn't would be an evil action. Universally.

"Universal", applies to ALL actions, i.e. Spelling errors are evil.

(All actions that fail to reach the objectives they were intended to reach are evil.)

Then rufio wrote:

Quote:

Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2003 9:42 pm Post subject:
Twyvel, I meant this to be used for choices that people consider moral,...

Now All actions that fail to reach the objectives they were intended to reach are NOT evil.)
Therefore "Universal" does not apply to actions, i.e. Spelling errors are not evil, as they are not morally based.

joefromchicago is correct when s/he says:

In general, rufio, you've not only engaged in faulty logic and careless reasoning, you've been rather ungracious about accepting any criticisms -- and most of the criticisms offered here have been pretty astute. I fully anticipate, therefore, that you'll respond to my points with the same churlishness you've displayed toward them, but I'll try anyway.

Some of the confusion rests with you rufio.

0 Replies

I will make a correction: An unintended result is not evil, it is the "action" that produced it that is evil, that is according to rufio. And although rufio initially used the word "Universal" to mean ALL actions that produce unintended results were evil, rufio appears to now be saying only actions that produce unintended results that are related to moral issues are evil.

JLNobody, thanks for following and picking up on that line of thought. Sounds like they have their own UN, (on and off) Or maybe that's idealistic, Smile

In terms of what is considered "local" or "family", cosmologists might consider the planet earth to be local, and it's inhabitants, "family".

0 Replies

PS:

Yes, I am talking about semantics. The reason what I am saying works is because you can define good and evil however you like.

I say what I mean. If you choose to take other meanings out of it, than fine, but if I didn't say it, I didn't mean it.

I meant abnormality in terms of people who for whatever reason are missing a chromosome or a gene that everyone else has. Don't you think that makes more sense with the rest of my post?

I didn't know biology classes had been transplanted to the sociology department as well. This is news to me.

"Culture isn't inherited genetically."

Congratulations on answering your own question.

Joe:

I did not mention wood for its universality. I mentioned it because you know what it is. A spanish-speaking person would say that the table is made of madera. Similarly, one person might qualify action A as "good" and another might say it is "evil". That doesn't mean they think that the action was different or had trouble perceiving it - it just means that they have different definitions of good and evil.

Why is that clearly not what I've been saying all along? When did I say otherwise? You lose me in this next part, but my argument is certainly not circular. It goes like this: Person defines personal morality > personal morality defines objectives > objectives define what actions/choices are good ones. Understand yet?

I never said outside observers can necessarily determine what someone else's objective is, I said that they can determine whether the objective lives up to their personal moral standards. In order to do this naturally, they already have to be aware of what the objective was. Knowing does not involve guesswork.

I don't have a meaningful notion of good. I have a functional notion of good. Good is a placeholder for whatever you think is good.

It's not a system of personal morality, it's a model that can be applied to morality. You can't define good and evil and expect that to work.

I am not interested in proving that good and evil are different. They are. We are accepting that as part of a definition. We are moving on.

I came here looking for ideas or alternate points of veiw, not writing help. I'm not surprised at the criticism, just the lack of it. No one on this thread has understood a word I've said so far. I would love to work out any flaws that might be in the idea, but if I can't get the basics through your heads, I can't ask you to consider anything beyond that. Maybe I'm just not writing it clearly enough, or maybe you're willfully misinterpreting me because you have nothing better to do. I don't know.

Twyvel:

"The objective is not right or wrong - the objective merely determines whether the actions were right or not."

When I said the first I was talking to fresco and refering to universal right and wrong, and I haven't used the words that way since. Sorry to confuse you.

An objective was defined very early on in this thread as something that you consider moral. I suppose this could be applied to things that aren't moral, but you might not want to use good and evil to describe them.

0 Replies

rufio, When you're the only one having problems with interpretation, and you blame everybody else around you, doesn't that seem strange to you?

0 Replies

truth
Yes, Twyvel, what is considered "local" is very RELATIVE. In the case of the tribal situation (in this case that of the Nuer of East Africa) the indigenous model is one that both THEY, the Nuer, and the ANTHROPOLOGISTS agreed upon (more or less). But in most cases of "us" (local) versus "them" (strangers), the identifications of insiders and outsiders are made indigenously not by "objective" outsiders--like cosmologists. Laughing

0 Replies

Yes but the cosmologists are indigenous, i.e. earthlings.

But like you say it's all relative. Every outsider is an insider somewhere. Every stranger is familar somewhere to someone.

0 Replies

truth

Yes, but....

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

I did not mention wood for its universality. I mentioned it because you know what it is.

No, you mentioned it because:

rufio wrote:

the only reason you know that something is made of wood is that you have a definition for what wood is and how something that is made out of wood appears

In other words, because the definition was universal. Your equivocation here is hardly convincing.

rufio wrote:

Similarly, one person might qualify action A as "good" and another might say it is "evil". That doesn't mean they think that the action was different or had trouble perceiving it - it just means that they have different definitions of good and evil.

If "good" and "evil" are opposites, and if person A says something is good while person B says the same thing is evil, then they both can't be right. If they are, then "good" and "evil" are either empty concepts and both persons are making meaningless statements or else "good" and "evil" are, in fact, identical.

rufio wrote:

Why is that clearly not what I've been saying all along? When did I say otherwise?

It may very well be that you've been consistent all along (although I think twyvel quite clearly showed that you haven't been consistent), but if you've been consistent you've been consistently wrong.

rufio wrote:

You lose me in this next part, but my argument is certainly not circular.

I was refering to some fairly basic logical concepts. If I lost you, then you have no business making philosophical arguments.

rufio wrote:

It goes like this: Person defines personal morality > personal morality defines objectives > objectives define what actions/choices are good ones. Understand yet?

Yes, I understand. The circularity of your argument is apparent for all (except you) to see.

Look, rufio, I'll go over this very slowly. "Personal morality" means nothing if it doesn't mean the distinction between "good" and "bad" (if, on the other hand, you assert that "morality" means something other than determining good and bad, then say so). As such, your argument goes like this: a person defines what is "good" > the definition of "good" defines objectives > objectives define what actions are good. In other words, the definition of "good" defines what is "good." That's a circularity that resolves itself, as do most circular arguments, in a trivial tautology.

rufio wrote:

I never said outside observers can necessarily determine what someone else's objective is, I said that they can determine whether the objective lives up to their personal moral standards.

Here's what you said:

rufio wrote:

A person observing someone and his actions can make the distincition about whether or not the objective, and therefore its efficacious acheivement, is good.

Once again, you're contradicting yourself.

rufio wrote:

In order to do this naturally, they already have to be aware of what the objective was. Knowing does not involve guesswork.

You've reached the point, rufio, where you're confusing even yourself. Time to call it quits.

rufio wrote:

I don't have a meaningful notion of good. I have a functional notion of good. Good is a placeholder for whatever you think is good.

With all due respect, that's idiotic. If "good" is simply a placeholder, then it's equivalent to any other placeholder. You might as well say "cake" or "purple." And if that's the case, then why would you even care what "good" might be?

rufio wrote:

It's not a system of personal morality, it's a model that can be applied to morality. You can't define good and evil and expect that to work.

No, that's the only way that a system of morality can work. Otherwise, all you have is whim and caprice.

rufio wrote:

I am not interested in proving that good and evil are different. They are. We are accepting that as part of a definition. We are moving on.

You start by begging the question and then you want to move on. Well, of course you do, rufio: your argument is based on a logically indefensible foundation, you need to move as far away from it as possible.

rufio wrote:

Maybe I'm just not writing it clearly enough, or maybe you're willfully misinterpreting me because you have nothing better to do. I don't know.

You contradict yourself, you have no idea what you're talking about, you resort to insulting the intelligence of those who are clearly more intelligent than you, and you wonder if you're doing something wrong?

0 Replies

JLN and twyvel

The issue of "set boundaries" was apparant from the start. The point being that the self (small s) is defined/reflected with respect to its transient relationships with alternative membership groups. Hence "moral conflicts" only perhaps to be resolved by a transcendent non-temporal Self.

Then the significant question is this Self with its qualities of global compassion involved in "action" at all ?...."logically" no...but we have left "logic" down there...and I now spot the influence of a discussion of "the trinity" from another thread where maybe "the Son" (selves) is the material manifestation of the Father (Self)...hmmm.

0 Replies

CI, what do you think I am having problems interpreting?

JL - haha, I'd like to find an anthropologist to study the tribal relations between earth and the rest of the universe. Now, that would be an interesting job.

Joe:

I mentioned wood because everyone has a definition for it, not because everyone has the same definition for it.

Both person A and person B are both right, because as you yourself have pointed out many times before, good and evil are subjective concepts, which exist in one way to one person, and a different way to another. Something cannot simply "be good" it must "be good to" or "be good for" someone or something. There are as many definitions as there are people.

"if you've been consistent you've been consistently wrong."

Is that the best unfounded insult you can come up with?

I understand what "circular" means. I was lost in your quagmire of a description of what you thought my argument was.

You're getting yourself wrapped up in semantics again. Basically, it goes like this: Let us define the quality X to be represented by the word "good". Finding that objectives A, B, and C are modified by the quality X, we can consider them "good" as well. Finding that actions D, E, and F are in line with objectives A, B, and C, respectively, we can consider them "good" as well. In simpler terms:

P = Q = R
therefore P = R

There is nothing faulty about this logic.

I fail to see how this is a contradiction. I simply rephrased something that I'd already said in different words. You seem to think that the observer in question is observing a person and trying to guess their objectives - what I meant by an observer was someone who observed the objectives themselves and didn't have to guess.

I'm using "good" for the sake of ease. It's the same reason that Hume decided to call his Matters of Face "Matters of Fact" and not "Purple Cakes". He could have called them Purple Cakes, but why would he have wanted to? Good in this case can't be just anything. It's a placeholder for a specific type of thing - mainly, a moral code.

"No, that's the only way that a system of morality can work. Otherwise, all you have is whim and caprice."

Wrong... all you have is theory. Which is about as far as this has progressed so far.

Let's have another trip into logic, shall we?

1. Show P -> Q
2. P (???????)

What's this called? Oh, yeah, Assumption, Conditional Derivation. Remember? If you are showing a conditional, assuming the antecendant is not begging the question. If that doesn't make sense to you, you need to go back to school until it does.

0 Replies

Right before I dislocate my jaw yawning again ( :wink: Fresco) I'm going to give you some definitions and facts.

1. There is no objective reality. Everything is linked in a quantum mechanical fashion and relies upon the observer for it's existence. This is not some kind of weird philosophy is it a deep physical reality and was as much a surprise to the investigating physicists as it was to me.

2. There is no such thing as good or evil. Both of these rely, for their definitions, on the viewpoint of the person doing the defining.

3. There is no such thing as right or wrong. Both of these rely, for their definitions, on the viewpoint of the person doing the defining.

4. There is no such thing as universality. The bubble of reality that we create when we look around the universe (presently about 15 billion light years across) is not all that there is. There is a great deal more to the universe that what we see or than what we can interact with. There are also a miryad of other 'branes' upon which dimensional information is impressed to create other entire universes, none of which we can see. Yet.
We have no way to interact with them and thus the precepts and physical laws are different in them which gives rise to other viewpoints which are ALL equally valid no matter what they say. Thus no universal truth or one single corect viewpoint, therefore no universality.

5. Logic can only be shown to be valid when you use, as the fundamental axioms, the physical laws in the reality you happen to be in. Logic is different in other universes. Thus no universal logic either.

Rufio, the sooner you discard the tenets that you seem to be clinging to in some vain attempt to find a foundation for your life in the universe, the better.
Then you can start looking around you with the confidence of acceptance and understanding and not the systematic labelling you want to see things with.
You are having problems interpreting things because you are interpreting them !!
Don't. Look at them as they are and discard the labels you're putting on them.

Open your mind.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

I mentioned wood because everyone has a definition for it, not because everyone has the same definition for it.

If everyone doesn't have the same definition of "wood," then there is either no definition or else there's no such thing as "wood." Take your pick.

Look at it this way: person A and person B regard the same object. Person A says it is wood, person B says it is not. If the world is divided into comprehensive and mutually exclusive categories "wood" and "not-wood" (as you've divided the world into "good" and "evil," rufio), then it is impossible that both A and B are correct (that's Leibniz's Law of Contradiction). And if person A says "my definition of wood includes that object," and person B says the same thing, then either one or the other is objectively wrong, or the definitions of "wood" and "not-wood" are identical and thus meaningless, or else there is no such thing as "wood" and both A and B are wrong.

rufio wrote:

Both person A and person B are both right, because as you yourself have pointed out many times before, good and evil are subjective concepts, which exist in one way to one person, and a different way to another.

Wrong. I said your position establishes that good and evil are subjective concepts. I, on the contrary, believe that good and evil must be objective, or at least have an objective element.

rufio wrote:

Something cannot simply "be good" it must "be good to" or "be good for" someone or something. There are as many definitions as there are people.

Then they aren't "definitions." They are, at best, rationalizations or self-defenses.

rufio wrote:

I understand what "circular" means. I was lost in your quagmire of a description of what you thought my argument was.

The quagmire, I assure you, was entirely your creation.

rufio wrote:

Basically, it goes like this: Let us define the quality X to be represented by the word "good". Finding that objectives A, B, and C are modified by the quality X, we can consider them "good" as well.

If quality X defines "good," (e.g. "efficaciousness is the good") then "good" means something: i.e. it is not simply a placeholder word, as you previously held.

On the other hand, if quality X doesn't define "good" but is merely described by it, then you still don't have a definition of "good." In that case, "good" is as meaningless in this context as "cake" or "purple."

rufio wrote:

Finding that actions D, E, and F are in line with objectives A, B, and C, respectively, we can consider them "good" as well. In simpler terms:

P = Q = R
therefore P = R

There is nothing faulty about this logic.

Not only is it faulty, it's not even logic.

In order to set up the transitive, you need to establish an identity between P, Q, and R. Now, you stated that "actions D, E, and F are in line with objectives A, B, and C." "In line with" does not, as far as I know, mean the same thing as "identical to." At most, it means that they share some sort of teleological or causal relationship. Thus, your attempt at showing that P = R is faulty: there is no shared middle term Q when P = Q but Q "is in line with" R.

rufio wrote:

You seem to think that the observer in question is observing a person and trying to guess their objectives - what I meant by an observer was someone who observed the objectives themselves and didn't have to guess.

How can someone observe objectives if those objectives are intentions? If I see you push a pedestrian into the path of an oncoming car, how do I know that your objective was to save that person (and were unsuccessful in your objective) rather than harm him (and succeeded in doing so)? I observe only the act and the result: I don't understand how, on the other hand, I can see the objective.

rufio wrote:

I'm using "good" for the sake of ease. It's the same reason that Hume decided to call his Matters of Face "Matters of Fact" and not "Purple Cakes". He could have called them Purple Cakes, but why would he have wanted to?

Hume didn't attempt to create an ontological system based on a question-begging definition of "facts." You, on the other hand, are attempting to create a moral system based on a question-begging definition of "good." BIG difference.

rufio wrote:

Good in this case can't be just anything. It's a placeholder for a specific type of thing - mainly, a moral code.

Of course "good" can be anything -- if it's a meaningless placeholder (as you seem to suggest) why can't it be anything?

And explain how "good" can be a placeholder for a "moral code" if that code doesn't, itself, contain a definition of "good"?

rufio wrote:

Wrong... all you have is theory. Which is about as far as this has progressed so far.

No, you're not even close to it.

rufio wrote:

Let's have another trip into logic, shall we?

1. Show P -> Q
2. P (???????)

What's this called? Oh, yeah, Assumption, Conditional Derivation. Remember? If you are showing a conditional, assuming the antecendant is not begging the question. If that doesn't make sense to you, you need to go back to school until it does.

Please identify anything that you've stated so far that falls into that syllogistic form. I haven't seen you make a single conditional statement -- plenty of circular ones, but no conditionals.

Philosophy of Evil

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know