Philosophy of Evil

Drugs impair judgment. People make bad choices under the influence of drugs, alcohol, and hormones that they would not make if their minds were clear. Mental illness can also impair judgment as well as the ability to choose.



So you are saying that it is evil to try anything unless you are certain you will succeed? What if your plan was logical, but an accident prevented you from achieving your objective? What if your plans were thwarted by the actions of others, over whom you had no control?



I don't know what kind of life you lead, but I make all kinds of choices in my life that do not involve hurting or killing anyone. I am certainly not a drone, nor is anyone else I know. We never have to choose between killing and not killing people because we are mature adults who can resolve problems without recourse to violence. We have no desire to assault children, prey on the elderly, rob banks, or kick dogs. I do not consciously choose to treat people well instead of hurting them, since I simply lack any inclination to cause pain to anyone. And yes, I AM good.



I do lots of things that I don't want to do (chores, dentist appointments, work), even though I have other choices.



No. They do not consider the temptation to be a "better" choice. But as they say, the flesh is weak. The body (and mind) crave pleasures, and the intellect can be overridden.



No, not all humans make evil choices. It is even theoretically possible for someone to make all of the right choices, and they would still be human. Why does this bother YOU?



The standard is determined by consensus of rational beings.



Yet another example of your ignorance. Corn has carbohydrates, protein (especially combined with legumes), fiber, fat, and some vitamins and minerals. It is the source of corn oil, corn meal, and corn starch.



What about a pup that is 1/16 wolf, 15/16 dog? Is it a dog or not-dog? At what point did wolves become dogs? Some things are not black or white, they are somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes. How you label them depends on your perspective.



[sigh] Who decides which objective is more important, and what criteria do they use?

That is only one interpretation of QM, and there are many others. On a particle level, the act of observing can influence the outcome, but nothing larger than buckyballs seems to be influenced by the observer.



Good and evil do not exist as entities, but religions define the terms and judge people accordingly.



There are some very consistent ideas of right and wrong among human societies. Protecting your family/group is right, murder is wrong. Of course there are gray areas.



We don't know whether the same laws apply outside of our observable universe, but we really don't know whether there IS anything else. Branes are just speculation at this point and are not the only possible explanation for gravitational effects.



We do not know that logic is different in other universes, even if any such exist. Logic may well be universal.

Can you at least TRY to be consistent in your responses? Reality looks VERY different to people with synesthesia, brain injuries, mental disorders, or under the influence of drugs.





Where does personal morality come from, ie your personal definition of good/evil? IMO, it goes like this:

Society defines morality > person internalizes morality, sometimes with modifications > person determines objectives in accordance with morality > needs and desires influence actions/choices > person rationalizes conflicts between actions/choices, objectives, and morality

Altruism in insect colonies is purely genetic. Higher animals may learn from others, but probably most altruism is still instinctive. I suspect that it is mostly cultural for human beings so we do have choices, although they are influenced by religion and the mores of the society in which we were raised. Consider how many laws and religious codes encourage charity, and the way it is featured in fairy tales, often tit-for-tat: young adventurer helps those his older brothers refused to help along the way, in return they help him accomplish "impossible" tasks and win the princess.




You simply do not understand genetics. Species evolve because all individuals are NOT created equal. Yes, we have basically the same genes, but there are multiple alleles for most of them. The particular assortment of alleles each child inherits is unique, and the environmental conditions under which they are expressed determine phenotype, which determines biological fitness in any given situation.

Some people are more suited to become warriors, craftsmen, scholars, priests or conmen, not necessarily the same as their parents. Some are more likely to sacrifice their resources, time, and/or lives for others. Maybe it's the way their neurons were wired or the chemical levels in their brain. Maybe they were indoctrinated from youth to act that way. Maybe they are just good people.

Terry, the premise for a story is different from the premise for an argument. The conclusion of the argument is not its own premise. The argument itself is a premise for a story. You have heard this usage of the word, I trust?

Caring is a human emotion. A force that is anthropomorphized but not human cannot care about anything. Asking why anything would care if people are good is like asking whether Death cares when good people die.

Part my real premise (to the argument, not the story) is that a good person is not simply someone who acts good, but someone who chooses to do so. That implies that there is a choice that is not good. In your perfect world, how would you differentiate between a person who, given the choice, would do evil, and someone who, given the choice would do good? You can't, because no one is given the choice or forced to think about that dilemma.

The forces of good and evil are inside you. You're conscious, right? You have goals, right?

If good people didn't have the urge to do evil, they wouldn't have to think about their actions at all.

"Please explain how your postulated forces/entities could interact with people"

Ever felt guilty about something?

"Even if your mythical evil force existed, it would still need a universal definition of good and evil in order to determine whether an action should be punished."

What you believe to be good or evil is universally true for you - good-Terry will always be the same, and that is the standard by which you are judged. You are only evil if you choose to act against your own morals.

"I don't know where you got the idea that you were being attacked."

I posted something purely rational (in the sense of "non-actual") and hypothetical, and I get someone ranting about how I'm condoning Hitler and child abusers and so forth. I consider that an attack.

"You have no idea what my motivations are. If anyone is trying to force-feed ideas here, it is you."

I'm presenting an theory as a theory, not my subjective moral code as objective truth. That's what you were doing - telling me I was wrong simply for the purpose of hearing your morality said out loud. Or something. You're right, I have no idea what would motivate you to post something off-topic like that.

Harm is not as objective as you think. But that's another argument altogether and is once again off-topic. You didn't mention hell, but you did certainly start condemning people (Hitler, for example). That's not my purpose here.

"In other words, a priest who succeeds in molesting boys is "good" if that was his objective. A mass murderer is "good" if he achieves his objective to kill twenty people. No matter how much pain and suffering you cause to others, you are "good" if it was your objective to hurt people, and "bad" if it was NOT your objective, but was due to unforeseen circumstances."

Yes. However, I don't think that it is anyone's goal to harm others. The harming is probably just a means to acheiving a different goal, and the harming would probably not be part of it, if there were another way to acheive that goal. As we live, our choices are limited by society, making it harder and harder to achieve objectives in such a way that the means do not violate other objectives. I'm not going to speculate on the psychology of priests and mass murderers, but to give you an example, a lot of people seem to think that the priests raped little boys as a way of releasing sexual frustration, and the other choices to acheiving that goal were removed by the church. This is not illogical, unless you assume that everyone functions with your definition of morality, and your societal limitations.

What I said about Hitler, is, as far as I know, the objective truth. I did not judge, I stated a truth. Perhaps if Hitler had succeeded, he might have been good. But the path he chose was not a sucessful one. If he had succeeded, it would have been by chosing something different. If he did succeed at some point in his life, I guess he good temporarily. But if he was, he made subsequent choices after that that revoked that status.

"Hitler was an example of why the freedom to make evil choices is unethical: it denies choices to others (dead victims have no choices, slaves and abused children have little choice), and it is not fair to give evil people more choices than the innocent."

That fact that we live in a world that contains other people limits our choices necessarily, whether we are oppressed or not. Evil does not limit choices - other people's choices do. The point of having a force of evil is that some people will willingly choose against it, not that some people won't. The fact that some people won't is an unfortunate side effect.

I'll get to the rest of your posts later.

rufio, Have you ever heard of gang mentality?

Congratulations, rufio, you have now rendered the notion of "universality" meaningless. If our interest is in determining whose viewpoint is correct, then noting that both observers "think" is not establishing any "universality of things," it's merely stating an obvious and trivial fact. And, in the context of morality, noting that people universally "think" is just as obvious and trivial.


No, you said that they are meaningless: "Good" in the model is meaningless - it's merely a place to fill in a deinition of what makes good things good." I know it's difficult to keep abreast of all these inconsistencies, rufio, but at least show a little effort.


There's your teleological element again. How can you prove that "goodness" is: (1) shared by everyone; and (2) purposive?


"Universally true" in what sense? Universally true for Y?


Why?


No, I strongly disagree. Are you saying that people never act against their own interests (i.e. akratically)?


No. According to your position, no one can pass judgment on anything, or, at least, no one can pass judgment on anything that amounts to anything more than personal approval or disapproval.


Well, rufio, that is quite possibly the first thing that you've said that I can actually agree with. Clearly, you want there to be some sort of universal notion of good/evil, but it is equally clear that you haven't given this subject enough thought.


As I've mentioned before, this result violates the Law of Contradiction. A thing cannot simultaneously be X and ~X. Consequently, if A and B contradict each other but both, nevertheless, are deemed to be correct, then one of the following must be true: (1) one or the other is objectively wrong; (2) their definitions of X and ~X are identical and thus meaningless; or (3) X does not exist and both are mistaken. There is, however, another possibility.

Let's say that person A is standing next to an object that is six-feet tall, and A states "this object is six-feet tall." Person B, located a mile away, looks at the same object and states "that object is one-inch tall." Now, can both A and B be correct?

Speaking objectively, A is correct and B is incorrect, since the object is most definitely six-feet tall (B's error can be explained by the effects of perspective and distance). Yet if we say that the object that B perceives is one-inch tall, then it's possible to say that both A and B are correct: the object that A perceives is six-feet tall, the object B perceives is one-inch tall. In that case, however, A and B are clearly not talking about the same object. Rather, they are talking about two distinct objects: object A (the object as perceived by A) and object B (the object as perceived by B). And since they are not making statements about the same object, they can both be right.

In the same way, if A says his action is"good" and B says A's action is "not-good," then the only way that both can be right (as you argue, rufio) is if they are talking about different actions: action A (the action as perceived by A) and action B (the action as perceived by B). This avoids the Law of Contradiction, since we are no longer discussing a single object (which cannot simultaneously be both X and ~X), but rather two objects (which are free to be, respectively, X and ~X). This, I believe, is the result that you want to arrive at, rufio.

Unfortunately, you arrive at a dead-end. Since A and B are, in effect, talking about entirely different things, there is no possibility of coming to any conclusions about A's action. Indeed, there is no possibility of coming to any conclusions about anything. For just as A's perception of "good" is subjective, so is A's perception of "action," "objective," and even "A." If A says "my action is good," B could then respond "that was not an action, that wasn't a good thing, and you're not A." And, according to you, rufio, both A and B would be correct. Your position, then, ultimately leads to a kind of ethical solipsism, where everything is subjective, including subjectivity.

I won't address your digression on conditionals. Suffice it to say that I disagree with you.

And to piggy-back on joe's post, that's the reason why eye-witnesses to a crime sees different things, and they might disagree on what really happened. What's more interesting is to understand the dynamics of what happened in the movie "12 Angry Men." Not realistic by any means, but it gives a lesson on "perceptions."

truth
Terry, I appreciate your balanced perspective, i.e., its balance between cultural and genetic determinants (and your sophistication regarding the nature of both).

Ahhh, we were so close, and then somehow we lost it.

To continue with Terry's posts:

"Drugs impair judgment. People make bad choices under the influence of drugs, alcohol, and hormones that they would not make if their minds were clear. Mental illness can also impair judgment as well as the ability to choose."

Sounds like as good an explanation as any to me.

"So you are saying that it is evil to try anything unless you are certain you will succeed?"

Yes. At least as far as the objective is concerned. Actions that are taken without thinking them through are what is known as "impulsive". That's generally not a good thing.

"What if your plan was logical, but an accident prevented you from achieving your objective? What if your plans were thwarted by the actions of others, over whom you had no control?"

That's life.

"I don't know what kind of life you lead, but I make all kinds of choices in my life that do not involve hurting or killing anyone."

Then they're not moral choices, if your morality only applies to that one track. I am talking about moral choices.

"We have no desire to assault children, prey on the elderly, rob banks, or kick dogs."

Nor do most people. As I said, objectives themselves are never evil. Evil only exists in the means.

"I do not consciously choose to treat people well instead of hurting them, since I simply lack any inclination to cause pain to anyone."

You've never had an easier way to do something that involved hurting others? Like, I'm sure that just smacking someone if often a lot more effective at resolving problems than talking it through.

"I do lots of things that I don't want to do (chores, dentist appointments, work), even though I have other choices."

They used to tell us this in high school. "If you don't want to be here, go home!" Some people did. It was easier. We saw what happened to them, and made a better choice. When people say they do things they don't want to do, they mean that they did things they didn't want to do at the moment. If you want to achieve an objective, however, you're going to pick whatever will get you to the objective fastest. It may not agree with your impulses, but it is morally correct. So let me ask you - why do you do chores? Is your mommy going to ground you if you don't?

"No. They do not consider the temptation to be a "better" choice."

Not in the long run, no.

"It is even theoretically possible for someone to make all of the right choices, and they would still be human."

I guess you're right, and it's also theoretically possible that someone will win 1000 games of poker in a row. Possible, but not very likely. Logic is exact, but unless you know everything that is effecting the situation in reality, you're going to make choices that aren't the best out of ignorance of parts of the situation. I'm sure I'd win at nearly every poker game I ever played if I could see everyone else's cards, or at least know when not to bet. But I can't.

"The standard is determined by consensus of rational beings."

Ooooh, now thjis is a fun topic. Is it true that the universal standard is always the same? If so, than can the death of a rational being change it? I mean, since it's a consensus, and you now have one less vote. And plus, who's taking a tally? You never know, someone else's morality may win the popularity vote. Have you counted everyone in the world? In the universe? I'd say it's a biased sample.

"Corn has carbohydrates, protein (especially combined with legumes), fiber, fat, and some vitamins and minerals."

Ok, this is completely beside the point, but please show me something that proves to me that corn has protein and fiber. I don't believe you. Cake has carbs and fat in it.

"What about a pup that is 1/16 wolf, 15/16 dog? Is it a dog or not-dog? At what point did wolves become dogs?"

I guess that really depends on how you define a dog. But can you give me a way of defining dog that leaves a grey area?

"Who decides which objective is more important, and what criteria do they use?"

I'm tired of answering this question. The person with the objective does.

CI:

We discussed mob mentality already. I don't find it useful in the discussion of individuals, at all.

Joe:

"If our interest is in determining whose viewpoint is correct"

Maybe that's your interest, but it's not mine.

"then noting that both observers "think" is not establishing any "universality of things," it's merely stating an obvious and trivial fact. And, in the context of morality, noting that people universally "think" is just as obvious and trivial."

Not just that they think, but that they think certain things. Whole fields of anthropology are devoted to looking at what people think and why, and how that determines their actions.

Placeholders, again - they are meaningless as far as content goes. They are not meaningless as far as category, or function goes.

"There's your teleological element again. How can you prove that "goodness" is: (1) shared by everyone; and (2) purposive?"

You're right, I can't. I guess this model only applies to people who have a moral code. Bummer.

""Universally true" in what sense? Universally true for Y?"

Universally true in the sense that I can tell you that he thinks that and be correct. Anyone can tell anyone that, and be correct. It's a fact.

"Why [is judging objective a whole other thing]?"

Because I haven't gotten there yet. We're still working on intrapersonal morality, we haven't moved on to interpersonal morality yet.

"Are you saying that people never act against their own interests?"

I'm sure they do, but that was never their objective.

"No. According to your position, no one can pass judgment on anything, or, at least, no one can pass judgment on anything that amounts to anything more than personal approval or disapproval."

If you want to use the word "approval," go ahead. Yes, that's what I mean. Approval can still be applied subjujnctively, though.

"Clearly, you want there to be some sort of universal notion of good/evil, but it is equally clear that you haven't given this subject enough thought."

Which is why we aren't discussing it.

"As I've mentioned before, this result violates the Law of Contradiction. A thing cannot simultaneously be X and ~X."

Obviously. But something can be both X and ~Y. Don't you get that good-A is different from good-B yet?

"Let's say that person A is standing next to an object that is six-feet tall, and A states "this object is six-feet tall." Person B, located a mile away, looks at the same object and states "that object is one-inch tall." Now, can both A and B be correct?"

This is what I'm talking about with subjective perception of objective things. It's an objective fact that that object is 6 feet tall. I'm not talking about things that are objectively true. Good and evil. for all intensive purposes, are not objectively true, certainly not on the specific level. If I were to say that there was an objective good and evil, it would be a very general definition. If you're so convinced that everything is objective, answer this question - does the statue of liberty look like a man or a woman? Objectively, now.

The reason that you can't say what is objectively good, or what the statue objectively looks like is because these things don't exist objectively. Look at it this way. If there were no people at all to perceive anything, the object previously mentioned would still be 6 feet tall. But the statue of liberty would not look like anything, because there would be no one to see it. It would still exist, it would have physical, chemical, spacial properties, but it would not appear to be like anything, since on a physical, chemical, spacial level there is nothing else that is exactly like the statue of liberty. It would no more be "like" a woman or a man than a rock, or a tree. Human beings don't create reality, but they interpret and compare it. A and B are not talking about different actions - they are talking about different modifiers and using the same word to refer to them. It's like how everyone uses the word "I" all the time, but funnily enough, they're not talking about the same person that I am when I say the word "I". They may both use the word "good" but they are talking about different properties.

CI, I saw 12 Angry Men. That is a different thing entirely. Truth can be misread or misrepresented, but it is still objective, and still exists, whether we see it or not.

Too....much....quotes....make....brain....hurt....must....get....antidote.....

truth
Me too, Cav. To tell the truth I generally do not read all of the posts containing these long quotes-answers. How burdensome they are. Why don't people just read the texts of others posts and summarize in their own minds the gist of the argument and then address them? A quote now and then is fine, but it is presently carried to such an tedious extreme.

Because there are now WAY too many points to cover them all in one paragraphy, JL. I have been trying to do that in my posts, but usually it just ends up with someone accusing me of ignoring their questions.

truth
Rufio, I believe you.

A while back, someone said definitions had to be universal. Language isn't universal, or even world-covering. Definitions are commonly agreed upon meanings of words within a language.

Not true.
There are experiments currently underway that are using macroscopic objects such as bacteria to show the non-locality of all objects. The non-locality can be maintained for any object regardless of it's size provided it's not interacting with external influences. That's the hard part, removing outside influence. There is nothing stopping experiments with people or larger objects apart from the difficulty of them and the limitations of current technology for the performance of such experiments.


Exactly. They depend upon people for their definitions and are thus entirely subjective and dependent upon the position of the person doing the judging.


Indeed there are many so-called consistent ideas. However none of these points of view are any more valid than any other and can therefore claim no more correctness than any other.
If, in a particular siciety, murder is considered the norm (for whatever reason) then that is correct by them and perhaps not by you. Neither is correct, they're just different.


The initial conditions of other universes are different so the laws will be different. They may not be capable of supporting life because they only have 2 dimensions or have a higher value of the Strong Force etc... but that's not a consideration of the point. The laws are differrent in other universes regardless of the actual mechanism for their formation.


This one is dependent upon the previous one. Logic is universal in this universe but not as far as the rest of reality is concerned.

Re: truth


The only problem with that is people have an annoying tendency to say "I didn't say that! And then you have to search through jabble muck*. I prefer to just have one large quote at the beginning that can be ignored or used for reference, instead of play-by-play answers.

*poetry class tells me I have a right to make up my own words. Huzzay!

Thread stylistics would make an interesting research project. Successful style needs to take into account the length of the thread. Perhaps one function of a moderater should be to summarize the main points periodically.

"The sweet corn we know today was discovered in 1779 in an Iroquois village along the Susquehanna River in central New York, but corn did not catch on as a food until the 1840's. After 1870 horticulturists developed sweeter varieties.

Nutritionally, corn (cooked or raw) is low in fat and calories and provides almost three grams of dietary fiber as well as protein per ear. White corn is deficient in vitamin A, while yellow corn is plentiful. Both offer moderate amounts of folacin and vitamin C, with magnesium and potassium in abundant quantity. Corn, however, is notoriously deficient in lysine and tryptophan, two essential amino acids. Its molecular structure makes at least half of its niacin useless to humans. Sharecroppers in the 1930's who relied on corn for the staple in their diets found themselves the victims of pellagra, a disease that results from a niacin deficiency. Pellagra victims suffer from skin eruptions, digestive and nervous disturbances, and mental deterioration."

Taken from:
http://www.vegparadise.com/highestperch9.html

truth
The diet of the poorest Mexican peasants consists almost solely of corn tortillas and beans. I'm told that combination provides the complete set of amino acids to provide sufficient protein. Other nutrients are lacking, however, because of a shortage of fruits and vegetables for many.