rufio wrote:You find me a dictionary definition that matches what I'm describing and I'll use that word instead.
"counterproductive decisions"
Ok, so we'll call them "counterproductive" and not evil. Bit of a PCism, if I do say so myself.
Do you have any other problems with this you'd like to address?
Lol. But we're good on the rest?
Not really, but I'm on my way out the door.
Well guys I really didn't think I was that cryptic!
Look - Rufio starts from the everyday concept that there is an "objective reality" (philosophical naive realism) out there, which actors observe, evaluate, choose to act on and then re-evaluate. But philosophers (and psychologists ) point to the possibility that "the world" including "the actors" and even "sense data" are cognitive constructions. None of this matters for everday existence, but as soon as claims for theoretical universals are made like "evil is a natural force working in harmony with good" we are moved to try to interpret such a statement in accordance with our views on reality. So the main criticism of Rufio's position is that on the one hand she appears to transcend everyday "objective reality" with her advocation of "subjective good and evil" yet at the same time she wishes to retain "objectivity" by assuming we all "instinctively know what "good and evil" are. To persist in the face of such inconsistency is not "philosophy", it is "dogmatism", and rejection of "philosophical work" within which she might re-evaluate her ideas is "arrogance".
Now whether or not Rufio sees such comments as a "personal attack" or "advice" is irrelevent, but perhaps she should think twice about why the general consensus in this forum is that she is failing to communicate.
Fresco, i can go along with all of this with one very important caveat . . . it is a universal truth, not to be denied, that a well-made meatloaf sammich is the finest lunch a man can have . . .
Fresco, that we know our own moral codes I would expect wouldn't need to be said. I am not saying that everyone instinctively knows everyone else's moral code, just that they can be known, which is all that is required for it to be objective knowledge. I didn't mention instinct anywhere, so I don't know where you got that from.
Setanta, I know it's a pretty obvious concept - we haven't gotten to the real point of this yet.
You're we is inappropriate. I've already given up on your rant, so i'm in no discussion with you.
I'm still monitoring this thread and I have come to a conclusion regarding the whole "good and evil' concept.
Good = me
Evil = Rufio
I will explain this in greater detail later. Right now I have to answer the door -- I believe my pizza has arrived.
Re: Philosophy of Evil - non-flaming thread
Against my better judgment I'm going to participate, albeit briefly, in this thread. I'm only doing this, rufio, because you seem like someone who genuinely wants to have an intellectual discussion, and you appear open (at least superficially) to hearing opposing views. So I'll say my piece, and then I'll quietly bow out.
In general, fresco's comments are right on target, and I wouldn't add anything to them if I thought I'd merely be repeating either those remarks or the remarks I previously made on the other thread. There are some fundamental points, however, that I think should be raised before getting into a more theoretical discussion.
As far as I can understand it, rufio, you posit that without "evil" there would be no "good" person -- i.e. without a "choice" between good and evil, there would be no choosing, and thus no reason to call a person "good" who has no choice in the matter. On the other hand, you say that "good" actions can "exist independently of evil ones."
Now, if you're simply saying that there would be no notion of "good" without a contrary notion of "evil," then I don't think you're saying anything particularly original or significant. Likewise, if you're saying that a lack of choice is incompatible with a standard notion of morality, you're merely saying something that has been repeated for centuries in connection with the debate on free will.
I believe, however, that you're trying to say something more, but this is where you get muddled. You start by saying that there are two actions: one good (A) and one bad (B). A person has a choice between the two actions, and chooses according to the situation and on the basis of which is justified by a "better reason."
And this is, I think, the origin of the first of your profound errors. You have hemmed, hawed, and generally prevaricated about the nature of "good," but the definition tends to be something like: "good is what is most effective to achieve an actor's objective." Now, if this is an objective criterion, such that "good" is equated with "efficaciousness," then you run into the problem of committing the Naturalistic Fallacy. If, on the other hand, this is a subjective criterion, such that everyone has a different definition of "efficaciousness," then you're left with no definition of "good" that is applicable to more than one person, which means you are left with no definition at all.
You've tried to get around this by saying that action A and action B mean different things to different people: i.e. that since "good" is defined by each individual, actor Y's "good" ("good-Y") is unique to Y, just as actor X's "good" ("good-X") is unique to X. In effect, then, actions A and B are good or evil only insofar as they are efficacious or inefficacious to actor Y and Y's objectives: they will not have the same meanings for X or for any other person. But that doesn't solve the problem. If Y is the only person who can judge "good-Y," then there's no point in talking about "good" or "evil," because you, like any other observer of Y, are in no position to judge Y's actions.
On a more fundamental level, however, I think you want "good" and "evil" to be, at once, contradictory and compatible. At times you talk as if "good" and "evil" are comprehensive and mutually exclusive, such that "evil" is the same as "not-good," and vice versa (and thus they constitute true contradictories). Viewed in this way, an action must be either "good" or "evil," but it cannot be both.
Yet you also want "good" and "evil" to be different in kind, such that an action can be both "good" and "evil." As I've explained -- at length -- if "good" and "evil" are contradictories, an action cannot be both simultaneously. On the other hand, if "good" and "evil" are not contradictory, then you have to explain why these two categories are relevant to each other; there is no need to explain their relationship to each other if they are contradictories, but if they're not "two sides of the same coin," you have to explain what it is about "good" and "evil" that make them relevant choices, presumably to the exclusion of other choices.
Of course, once you start explaining the relevance of the relationship between "good" and "evil," you start making objective statements, and you've pretty much rejected such objectivity. So you're once again led into a subjective dead-end, and there's not much to talk about once you arrive at that destination because there's nothing there.
As for your "evil entity," perhaps the less said the better. You posit: "So in the event that there was no evil, and entity would rise to fill this vacuum." You're "evil entity," then, is based solely on this hypothetical: if no evil existed, there would be this entity. But positing the non-existence of "evil" requires some objective notion of "evil" (unless this evil imp is unique to each person, just as you want "good" and "evil" to be unique to each individual). So you're back to the same problem identified above: how can you say anything about anyone else's "evil entity" if you're only capable of judging what is "evil" for you?
Having said that, I'll depart. If you can gain something from this, rufio, I'll be pleased. If you want to engage in a sincere discussion of this issue, I might be persuaded to participate. If, in contrast, you only want people to agree with you, I'm afraid I can be of no further assistance.
"Now, if you're simply saying that there would be no notion of "good" without a contrary notion of "evil,""
Actually, I'm not. There would continue to be good actions, that is, actions the fulfil objectives. There would just be no good people. I think you understand this, you're just being difficult, as you have been through the whole last thread. I really doubt you had anything to say there at all.
What do you mean by "Naturalistic Fallacy"? I've never said anything about "efficaciousness" being subjective, and I won't. Seems to me that I'm not the one inventing subjective concepts here. It's an objective fact whether or not an action acheives an objective. There's no subjective interpretation there. "Good" is different for each person, but the same with relation to their objectives.
Anyone can judge actions - I'm not sure where you got that they can't. But actions have to be judged in relation to objectives, and typically people use their own objectives to this effect. People can only judge each other's actions if they first know each other's objectives.
Good and evil, insofar as they are relating to the same objective, are are naturally contradictory. Once again, I don't know where you get that they aren't. It is possible, however, for an action to be good in relation to one objective, and evil in relation to another. But that is because the objectives are different.
Good and evil are objective in that they can be known and universal in that they relate in the same way to objectives. Their individual values are subjective.
Perhaps I shouldn't have specified an entity - what I meant there was that there cannot be an absence of evil, or evil choices, because of the nature of human beings. Evil here in the general objective sense.
My goal here was to present an idea. I like the idea of combining philosophy and fiction, and wanted to write something about free will. I thought it would be fun to guess how to make abstract ideas into characters, the way that peopl like to give Death some sort of a personality every once in a while. This is why I specified an "entity". I wanted to see what other people thought of the idea of doing that, but since none of you seem capable of getting past the introductory paragraph, perhaps I shouldn't bother. If anyone still doesn't understand, I'll stick around to explain, but I don't think there's any point in going further, with your attitudes.
rufio, we understand perfectly, which is why we write it off as a lost cause. It's not that everyone is not "capable" of "getting past" your thesis. It's that they disagree and to put it diplomatically there are many good reasons for that.
You are making an "emperor's new clothes" argument, that nobody is falling for it is because they are shaking their heads at the naked emperor.
Then why do they argue as if they have a point to prove? That was really what started this whole problem.
They don't. Joe for example was just trying to help and made it clear that if you took it as an argument he'd leave you to your opinion.
This is all your doing. You made a thesis that is non-sensical on almost every level. You dismiss any disagreement with it. When people point out some of the many, and fatal fallacies you subscribe to you use some of the most convoluted wiggling I have seen to dismiss that as well.
And then to top it all off you toss out an "emperor's new clothes" appeal. You say that everyone lacks the capability to get past your thesis, it's not that it's fatally flawed according to you.
Nobody is trying to "prove" anything to you. They recognize fultility and if they ever forget you make sure to reinforce it.
Your thesis is fatally flawed, many have pointed out why. You can either put clothes on or tell everyone that only smart people can see your getup. My advice is to try clothes because you won't be able to pull off the alternative.
I am confused here. First everyone says that there is no point in talking about this because it's obviously true, and then they procede to argue over what my words mean. Then they say that it is obviously wrong and yet do not disagree with it. When someone comes back with something they expect me to respond to, let me know. Until then, have fun listening to yourselves talk.
I don't recall anyone saying it was true. Anywho, you've managed to drive me off too.
