Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Is there an objective difference between good and evil?

Page 2 of 3 [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Apr 2009, 8:16 pm

solinoure wrote:
Good and evil, they are a running theme through out Literature, Politics, Philosophy, and Religion. I would say that most people can draw an intuitive distinction. But is there an objective criteria, a litmus test, that could tell you if a given action or person is good or evil? Can anyone give me an objective difference between them? Or does it all grind down to the subjectivities of intention and interpretation?


The judgement is made with regard to a set of rules. There is no preferred set of rules in nature akin to physical law. The only restraint is the rules for good/evil when followed should not lead to the extinction of our species.

ruveyn



solinoure
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

05 Apr 2009, 8:20 pm

Dussel wrote:
So the question is not "Is it evil or good", but "Is it reasonable or not?".


Actually, "Is it evil or good", is the question. If you have any doubt - just reread the thread subject line. :P hee hee hee

Anyway, "Is it reasonable or not?", suffers from the same ambiguity as one can make perfectly resonable arguements for any side of anypoint by judicious choice of premises.


_________________
The river tells no lies - but, the dishonest man, standing near, will hear them. - Oma
I am not responsible for what I say - you are! I am only responsible for the words I speak. - me


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Apr 2009, 8:23 pm

Any particular action can be beneficial to some and disastrous to others. To characterize that action as either good or evil is a useless way to view it.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

05 Apr 2009, 8:26 pm

solinoure wrote:
Dussel wrote:
So the question is not "Is it evil or good", but "Is it reasonable or not?".


Actually, "Is it evil or good", is the question. If you have any doubt - just reread the thread subject line. :P hee hee hee


"Good" and "evil" are metaphysical/religious concepts - and so of no use for a rational thinking.

solinoure wrote:
Anyway, "Is it reasonable or not?", suffers from the same ambiguity as one can make perfectly resonable arguements for any side of anypoint by judicious choice of premises.


Not to this extent, because you can define objective goals and how to archive those.



solinoure
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

05 Apr 2009, 8:30 pm

Sand wrote:
To characterize that action as either good or evil is a useless way to view it.


Unless there is an objective distinction between the two.

If there is no objective diference, then one must conclude that good and evil are objectively the same.

If they are objectively the same and the only distinction is subjective then saying good versus evil is essencialy the same as saying us versus them. And thus the concepts of good and evil are tools of social manipulation.

hmm...?


_________________
The river tells no lies - but, the dishonest man, standing near, will hear them. - Oma
I am not responsible for what I say - you are! I am only responsible for the words I speak. - me


solinoure
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

05 Apr 2009, 8:38 pm

Dussel wrote:
Not to this extent, because you can define objective goals and how to archive those.


Really, Dussel, what does project management have to do with objectively distinguishing good from evil (or reasonable from unreasonable for that mater) other that the trivial association of creating a project (like this thread) to make the determination?


_________________
The river tells no lies - but, the dishonest man, standing near, will hear them. - Oma
I am not responsible for what I say - you are! I am only responsible for the words I speak. - me


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Apr 2009, 8:39 pm

solinoure wrote:
Sand wrote:
To characterize that action as either good or evil is a useless way to view it.


Unless there is an objective distinction between the two.

If there is no objective diference, then one must conclude that good and evil are objectively the same.

If they are objectively the same and the only distinction is subjective then saying good versus evil is essencialy the same as saying us versus them. And thus the concepts of good and evil are tools of social manipulation.

hmm...?


From any particular point of view an individual or a society can decide an action is beneficial or detrimental. That same action may be different from the point of view of a different individual or society. Good and evil cannot be the same from any particular point of view. Unfortunately most actions contain elements that are both beneficial and detrimental and the decision to undertake them must weigh which outcome is desired. Good and evil are absolutes like perfection and purity and all that other religious nonsense.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Apr 2009, 9:01 pm

solinoure wrote:
AG I don't think you are helping this very much and I have yet so see any completely objective distinction between good and evil proposed by you.

I appreciate and I am gratefull for your contributions, but too tell me that some people can make objective distinctions using criteria from a document that is otherwise arbitarily choosen I like building a versy solid building on a very weak foundation - it is ultimately useless. Likewise, to tell me that some ethisists attacked this problem in the past without at least outlining thier arguments is equaly useless.

So lets move from arguments from authority and get some possible criteria rolling. I'd propose some - but everyone I can think of, I can also discount.

Solinoure, the choice of a document is irrelevant to what you are asking, just so long as the document is chosen in good faith on it's accuracy. Can this be done? Sure, just do a lot of research on apologetics, and you will see human attempts to do this.

As for ethicists, honestly, there are multiple ones and they all disagree. So, I am not outlining their positions for that reason.

I am not advancing arguments from authority, I am pointing to possible authorities who can make arguments, because I do not make positive arguments involving what is ethical and what isn't. I mean, this might not be what your project desires, but I don't think that anyone here will be able to create much for ethics. On this forum you have reductionists, agnostics, and Christians, the first 2 will grant nothing, and the last group will point you to their scriptures at least in part. So, I am being as helpful as seems rational.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

05 Apr 2009, 9:09 pm

solinoure wrote:
Dussel wrote:
Not to this extent, because you can define objective goals and how to archive those.


Really, Dussel, what does project management have to do with objectively distinguishing good from evil (or reasonable from unreasonable for that mater) other that the trivial association of creating a project (like this thread) to make the determination?


Everything - See the acting in the world as "project management". To run everything smoothly; that's enough.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Apr 2009, 9:10 pm

Dussel wrote:
When we try to understand our interest properly, I am certain that a reasonable society would be the logic consequence. So the question is not "Is it evil or good", but "Is it reasonable or not?".

There is no "reasonable", as utility is subjective. I mean, you cannot prevent such actions like hiring a lady to whip you and curse you while you ejaculate, or killing yourself under the criterion of "reasonable" without placing in some arbitrary metaphysical restrictions.

ruveyn wrote:
The judgement is made with regard to a set of rules. There is no preferred set of rules in nature akin to physical law. The only restraint is the rules for good/evil when followed should not lead to the extinction of our species.

ruveyn

I don't see a reason why we mustn't extinct our species. What if nobody wants to ever deal with kids? Nobody across the planet? Why are they obligated to have children? How is a mass suicide different? How about a massive war? I mean, the line is nice, but it is arbitrary just the same.

Dussel wrote:
Not to this extent, because you can define objective goals and how to archive those.

And of course there is no reason why these goals couldn't just be subjective and attempt to achieve subjective goals. In fact, the real goals that people adhere to are subjective, and looking at objective goals is just pointless, as they are only guesses as to achieving the subjective. Not only that, but any objective goal you pick will be arbitrary, but the question of right and wrong still is one that emerges. It is only a metaphysical doctrine that makes a real difference between clearing down a forest and killing all of the Jews in a camp, as nature does not care about how molecules are arranged.

This isn't to say to anyone that ethical nihilism or skepticism is wrong, but it isn't so easy to get past this as some think.



solinoure
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 211
Location: Toontown, Texas

05 Apr 2009, 9:53 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Solinoure, the choice of a document is irrelevant to what you are asking, just so long as the document is chosen in good faith on it's accuracy. Can this be done? Sure, just do a lot of research on apologetics, and you will see human attempts to do this.

I think we will have to agree to disagree - and with that I am done taking with you on this aspect of the subject. While I appreciate what you have had to say - is really fails to address what I have asked for, which is objective criteria for determining an objective difference between good and evil. Virtually everything you have said has missed this point - informative but periferal.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
As for ethicists, honestly, there are multiple ones and they all disagree. So, I am not outlining their positions for that reason.

So - more information for informations sake... how aspie of you... ;)

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
On this forum you have reductionists, agnostics, and Christians, the first 2 will grant nothing, and the last group will point you to their scriptures at least in part. So, I am being as helpful as seems rational.

So - in which category do you fall?


_________________
The river tells no lies - but, the dishonest man, standing near, will hear them. - Oma
I am not responsible for what I say - you are! I am only responsible for the words I speak. - me


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Apr 2009, 9:57 pm

solinoure wrote:
So - in which category do you fall?

In the category of people that refuses to reveal the category they put themselves into.



Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

05 Apr 2009, 10:46 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Dussel wrote:
When we try to understand our interest properly, I am certain that a reasonable society would be the logic consequence. So the question is not "Is it evil or good", but "Is it reasonable or not?".

There is no "reasonable", as utility is subjective. I mean, you cannot prevent such actions like hiring a lady to whip you and curse you while you ejaculate, or killing yourself under the criterion of "reasonable" without placing in some arbitrary metaphysical restrictions.


Why I should prevent such an action?

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Dussel wrote:
Not to this extent, because you can define objective goals and how to archive those.

And of course there is no reason why these goals couldn't just be subjective and attempt to achieve subjective goals. In fact, the real goals that people adhere to are subjective, and looking at objective goals is just pointless, as they are only guesses as to achieving the subjective. Not only that, but any objective goal you pick will be arbitrary, but the question of right and wrong still is one that emerges. It is only a metaphysical doctrine that makes a real difference between clearing down a forest and killing all of the Jews in a camp, as nature does not care about how molecules are arranged.


Why we should do genocide or killing each other - besides some instincts, there is an other reason: When I favour such behaviour, I wouldn't be save for my own. I have a strong interest in a predictable and well ordered society.



richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
Xfractor Card #351

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

05 Apr 2009, 11:32 pm

i've heard you cant see the light without the dark and you wont know its dark without the light. seems like you cant have one without the other


_________________
Winds of clarity. a universal understanding come and go, I've seen though the Darkness to understand the bounty of Light


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Apr 2009, 11:42 pm

Dussel wrote:
Why I should prevent such an action?

There's no reason to do anything. Everything can be justified.

Quote:
Why we should do genocide or killing each other - besides some instincts, there is an other reason: When I favour such behaviour, I wouldn't be save for my own. I have a strong interest in a predictable and well ordered society.

Well, sure you could be. It depends on the cultural basis, if you fit into the cultural group that is discriminating, you have no reason not to. And in these problems, the actors are often safe. I never said you didn't, but that does not mean that a genocide couldn't be predictable and well-ordered if it fell into the traditional cultural norms for such things. If it makes you feel better, we can include slavery as practiced in the South, as that worked in a simple manner: are you black or are you not? If you weren't black, you wouldn't become a slave.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Apr 2009, 2:26 am

The matter of good and evil never arise in a natural context. There is no such thing in the physical laws of the universe. There are only modalities that persist over time and those which do not.

ruveyn