I’ve never understood how smart and introspective people end up coming to this conclusion. Seems really common among liberals and is probably an error correcting mechanism, given we are often too confident in our beliefs (like turd lately).
Assume for a second we are in a fictional world where I enjoy picking random people at will and skinning them alive. Do you really think the reaction of the community I’m doing this in will differ based on culture, like manners may? If not, and even though this is an absurd example, it should force you to acknowledge there are fundamental truths about desirable and undesirable behaviors. I don’t know how you are defining good and evil, but most people would agree that fictional person is evil. I personally define good and evil based on the impact to sentient beings and their experience. The worst evil is an act that promotes the most suffering. The best good is something that promotes the state of mind turd is looking to achieve. And then there is a lot of in-between. And this can be measured
Only reason I’m replying is this is an area I like to think a lot about and you seem like a reasonable person to disagree with.
thanks rawraw, enjoyed reading your input. I think most people would agree skinning people is evil, and in virtually all societies the killing of another “person” is considered taboo. That said look at how a “person” is defined. In some islamic societies (ISIS) people can kill non-muslims with virtually no recourse. Back in the day in the states there was not any particularly harsh (if any) punishment for killing your slaves. That aside, lets concede the point that murder is inherently evil. Where does the line for other evil activities get drawn? Some societies have incredibly harsh punishments for crimes (based on our world view) but based on theirs its what they have always done and is culturally acceptable.
I agree your framework is nice “The worst evil is an act that promotes the most suffering. The best good is something that promotes the state of mind turd is looking to achieve. And then there is a lot of in-between.” but again I think any framework that views everything as black & white is destined for failure. The US dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki certainly promoted a massive amount of suffering for those civilians & would meet the criteria for being evil, but many experts say a long drawn out invasion of Japan would have likely been more costly so its not so cut & dry. In the end a lot of things in life can come down to a cost benefit analysis it seems. Having a nice cut & dry Good vs Evil worldview would make things simpler, but it never really works out that way as people & civilizations are typically both good & evil
Two fundamental points I think are worth addressing.
On the killing topic. In my use of the words, things can be evil regardless of the punishments for them. This conversation deals with morality and it seems dangerous to assume legal (using this for short hand as accepted by a culture) determines morality. I think we can make moral judgments regardless of if it’s legal or illegal. If we agree on this, then it’s just a debate on how to measure suffering caused by actions and how to determine punishment for various actions. There is plenty of debate in there for how to measure or think about issues while still conceding that morality is grounded in reality and not merely subjective.
on the black and white, don’t confuse my lack of relativism with assuming I believe in only one set of goods. While this is probably typically true, I believe you can have alternative methods which equally promote the flourishing of sentient beings. And these alternate approaches could even be mutually exclusive. But that doesn’t mean I can’t suggest that some are better than others. Sam Harris has influenced me greatly on this point. He refers to this issue as moral peaks and valleys. If you haven’t seen his TED talk on this, I think it’s a good way to demonstrate how measurable good and evil doesn’t mean there is only one right way
^^ in my example about punishments I meant that the actual punishments would be considered evil. So while a person may have committed an evil act, we would consider the punishment itself evil (i.e. chopping off hands, blinding etc)
I do agree that legal does not equal moral, if I came off as trying to suggest that it was certainly not my intent.
You had me in agreement until you hit the ending portion which I believe is a strong overreach based on our current understanding of things. While some may believe that, its hardly a fact. Morality in society changes over time, human change over time, everything changes over time. I still reject the notion that there are some universal rules of morality as there are rules with the laws of gravity.
After looking up Sam Harris, I’ll def check out his Ted talks. Thanks for your thoughts, very interesting!
Ah my bad, I misunderstood you. In regards to punishment being evil, this is an interesting aspect I hadn’t considered before. But I think it just means that the context of actions matter. The punishment is moral because it’s enforcing the system that promotes flourishing. This is different than the same action but done in a way which reduces flourishing of the group.
I think there is two separate issues in your second paragraph. There is a difference of knowledge versus the principles. I agree our ability to measure these things will be much better in the future than now and that may allow us to realize something is evil that we take for granted (I think animal farming could be such a situation). But that’s still separate from the fact there is a morality that can be known. So it seems you really disagree with our knowledge versus morality being relative. That’s a different topic, and we’d probably agree on many things there. I just don’t think it’s a good idea to suggest there is no morality just because our knowledge is incomplete. We’d never make this claim in any other aspect of science.
Fair enough, I wont go so far as to say there is no universal morality. I will say that anyone claiming to know it at this time, is likely trying to sell something. Thanks for the discussion, I have enjoyed reading your point of view. Started listening to Sam Harris’ TED talk, hes a bright guy.
Im with you on the farming of animals being something we may consider evil in the future. That is a solid point about our ability to better realize something is evil.
I’ll be curious your thoughts after familiarizing yourself with Sam. His podcast is also interesting and is long form discussions on philosophy, psychology, religion, and more recently artificial intelligence.
You’ll probably like his most recent Ted talk too. He presented the case for why we should care about the risk of AI. He’s been on panels lately where he is the only non tech guy
Morality? It is clearly a human construct . Is it evil for one bacterium to kill another? Was the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs evil?
Whether having people understand this could be harmful to survival is a separate question. There are evolutionary biologists who believe it is a natural phenomenon, part of natural selection. They believe it is a set of social practices that lead to survival and reproduction. So, even animals may have a type of morality in this construct.
questions of morality apply to human action dipshit. everything else is just reality that humans are subject to. christ it’s like you all somehow made it to adulthood without having to exercise one brain cell. fucking generational retardation is what we’re witnessing. the lost generation? more like the non-generation, just a giant bucket of retarded flesh.
“I would love to meet you some day, it would be great to have a catch. I know I can’t throw as fast as you but I think you would be impressed with my speed. I love your hair. You run fast. Did you have a good relationship with your father? Me neither. These are all things we can talk about and more. I know you have not been getting my letters because I know you would write back if you did, and I hope you write back this time and we get to be good friends. I am sure our relationship would be a real ‘home run.’”
Absolutes are often necessary when you get to the heart of something. A yes or no is required. If not you’re only lukewarm or ‘flexible’ on an issue, in it of itself means nothing. However, not choosing in a matter often means the choice will be made for you.
There are many grey areas but if you look closely it is but a checkerboard of black and white.
^I like this guy. where did he come from? lots of subtle truth here. i will say you can skate on not choosing for a long time as long as you know when such and such choice needs to be made. that optionality can be extremely valuable. not declaring right away has many benefits.
. Is it evil for one bacterium to kill another? Was the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs evil?