Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Crito · 01-01-2002, 07:36 PM

...can there be evil?

If a god does exist, and this god punishes and rewards humans for their sins or piety, then we can say that good and evil exist. But if a judging god does not exist, does it then follow that the notion of good and evil is subjective? I suppose there could be universal constants called "The Good" and "The Bad"; but who's to say that we know--or would ever know--what actions fit into which categories? Further, even if we know which actions are objectively good and which actions are bad, why should we act in accordance to the good (if we are not judged)? This is probably an answer: I do not rape, murder, steal, etc., because I do not wish to be raped, murdered, robbed, etc. It's also painful to watch others suffer; eg., you are disturbed by the sorrow your friend has after his parents died. And so actions that cause you pain--either directly or indirectly--you call bad.

But what if you cannot sensate pain? That is, what if evil is subjective and you cannot be pained? Couldn't we then say that such a person is morally destitute? And, thus, if we were all this way, we would lack a notion of good and evil.

So let's assume that morality is subjective, and let's assume that we cannot be either physically or emotionally pained (is this even possible?). Do you think, then, that we would still act the least bit good?

-Crito~ the Agnostic

ChurchOfBruce · 01-01-2002, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crito:
...can there be evil?

If a god does exist, and this god punishes and rewards humans for their sins or piety, then we can say that good and evil exist. But if a judging god does not exist, does it then follow that the notion of good and evil is subjective? I suppose there could be universal constants called "The Good" and "The Bad"; but who's to say that we know--or would ever know--what actions fit into which categories? Further, even if we know which actions are objectively good and which actions are bad, why should we act in accordance to the good (if we are not judged)? This is probably an answer: I do not rape, murder, steal, etc., because I do not wish to be raped, murdered, robbed, etc. It's also painful to watch others suffer; eg., you are disturbed by the sorrow your friend has after his parents died. And so actions that cause you pain--either directly or indirectly--you call bad.

But what if you cannot sensate pain? That is, what if evil is subjective and you cannot be pained? Couldn't we then say that such a person is morally destitute? And, thus, if we were all this way, we would lack a notion of good and evil.

So let's assume that morality is subjective, and let's assume that we cannot be either physically or emotionally pained (is this even possible?). Do you think, then, that we would still act the least bit good?

-Crito~ the Agnostic

Actually, if no humans could be physically or emotionally pained, would we even *need* any kind of morality? Well, a code against murder, maybe, unless we're all immortal too

However, I do think morality *is* subjective, and here's a couple examples. No, I do not murder, but I would murder in self-defense, or (and actually this is the stronger one) in defense of my family. I do not steal, but if my children were going hungry, I *would* steal food to feed them.

--Frank

excreationist · 01-01-2002, 09:27 PM

Crito:

Quote:

...So let's assume that morality is subjective, and let's assume that we cannot be either physically or emotionally pained (is this even possible?). Do you think, then, that we would still act the least bit good?

Well in many kinds of morality, it is good to minimize suffering and maximize the pleasure of others.
If it is impossible for anyone to suffer emotionally or physically then I don't see why any act could be considered evil. Unless God says so of course, like when someone gathered sticks on the Sabbath (<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=numbers+15:32-36&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=en glish" target="_blank">Numbers 15:32-36</a>) or when some people worshipped a golden calf (<a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=EXOD+32&language=english&version=NIV &showfn=off&showxref=off" target="_blank">Exodus 32</a>).
And people usually feel good when they experience social connectedness. So people would seek some unity and harmony with others to experience this pleasure, even though no-one can feel any pain.

Laurentius · 01-01-2002, 09:34 PM

AVE

Let’s define pain as physical and/or emotional suffering.
And let’s define “bad” as something inducing pain and “good” as something not doing so.
In that case, hypothetically speaking, ChurchOfBruce is right:

Quote:

if no humans could be physically or emotionally pained, would we even *need* any kind of morality? Well, a code against murder, maybe, unless we're all immortal too.

However, let’s say I feel no pain, but I am still endowed with reason and curiosity. And out of curiosity I am busy searching around. Wouldn’t be at least annoying if others, out of curiosity or whatever, were to shove me around, or rip my limbs off, or steal stuff from me?

And wouldn’t I logically come to the idea that a code of acceptable and unacceptable actions should be introduced?
I think I would. I think that we all would. And this is what partly happens in our world too.

[ January 01, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

incommendatus · 01-01-2002, 11:50 PM

When human life is the standard, the Good is anything beneficial to human life. Anything detrimental is the Bad or Evil.

Laurentius · 01-02-2002, 02:41 AM

AVE

Posted by incommendatus

Quote:

When human life is the standard, the Good is anything beneficial to human life. Anything detrimental is the Bad or Evil.

There are more than just one human-life standard. And that's how GOOD and BAD may have appeared in the first place.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]

Ism Schism · 01-02-2002, 07:22 AM

This topic reminds me of something my father once told me (disclaimer: I don't know if he came about this on his own or read it elsewhere) -- "There are only two emotions: love and fear, every other emotion is just a subset of these two."

I have thought about this quite a bit, and it seems to hold up quite well, except for the fact that love breaks down into the more precise position of "enjoyment".

Enjoyment and fear. If you have neither of these you have, for all intents and purposes, no emotions, you simply do not, and can not care.

This is precisely what I find silly about "Objective Ethics" based on any "rational" position or argument.

Morality all boils down to emotion, there is nothing "rational" about it. There is no "rational" scale concerning "good and evil"; though there are 7 billion "emotional" scales: all based on the subjectively applied values of "enjoyment and fear".

When there is a rational scale for what I should enjoy, or fear, maybe -- and I do mean maybe -- then, I will believe in objective(aka: universal) ethics, until then it is nothing more then a silly joke.

excreationist · 01-02-2002, 07:46 AM

Ism Schism:
I think it is a bit more complicated than that... what about pain? This is different to fear. I think that fear is just the expectation of pain - or perhaps the expectation of a decrease in pleasure.
And there is also frustration. That is different from physical pain (including hunger, etc) since it is not directly related to your body being injured.
And pleasure can be split up into kinds of pleasure. e.g. the warm-fuzziness of security/connectedness, the thrill of newness and surprises, and the relief from the end of tension.

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]

Ism Schism · 01-02-2002, 08:04 AM

Originally posted by excreationist:

I think it is a bit more complicated than that... what about pain? This is different to fear. I think that fear is just the expectation of pain - or perhaps the expectation of a decrease in pleasure.

Perhaps you are right, "pain" may very well be the lowest common factor on the negative side of emotion. For if there is nothing to pain you, there is nothing at all to fear. Good call.

And there is also frustration. That is different from physical pain (including hunger, etc) since it is not directly related to your body being injured.

Is frustration not pain? If not I suppose it's rather benign in nature...

And pleasure can be split up into kinds of pleasure. e.g. the warm-fuzziness of security/connectedness, the thrill of newness and surprises, and the relief from the end of tension.

Enjoyment at the "end" of pain is obvious, almost to the point of redundancy. Warm-fuzziniess is also enjoyment, so long as you enjoy "warm-fuzziness". Pleasure is pleasure: any 'pleasure' falling under 'pleasure' is a subset.

Good call though on "pain". Pain is lower on the scale then fear (I think

) .

Test1: If there is no pain what is there to fear?

Test2: If there is no fear what can hurt you?

I think test 1(yours) holds up better, much better.

So, as of now we have: pleasure or pain?

[ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Ism Schism ]

pug846 · 01-02-2002, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ChurchOfBruce:

However, I do think morality *is* subjective, and here's a couple examples. No, I do not murder, but I would murder in self-defense, or (and actually this is the stronger one) in defense of my family. I do not steal, but if my children were going hungry, I *would* steal food to feed them.

--Frank

You're actually arguing against moral absolutism - which isn't the same as those that claim morality is "objective."

01-01-2002, 07:36 PM	#1
Crito Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 56	If we lack both a judge and sensation of pain... ...can there be evil? If a god does exist, and this god punishes and rewards humans for their sins or piety, then we can say that good and evil exist. But if a judging god does not exist, does it then follow that the notion of good and evil is subjective? I suppose there could be universal constants called "The Good" and "The Bad"; but who's to say that we know--or would ever know--what actions fit into which categories? Further, even if we know which actions are objectively good and which actions are bad, why should we act in accordance to the good (if we are not judged)? This is probably an answer: I do not rape, murder, steal, etc., because I do not wish to be raped, murdered, robbed, etc. It's also painful to watch others suffer; eg., you are disturbed by the sorrow your friend has after his parents died. And so actions that cause you pain--either directly or indirectly--you call bad. But what if you cannot sensate pain? That is, what if evil is subjective and you cannot be pained? Couldn't we then say that such a person is morally destitute? And, thus, if we were all this way, we would lack a notion of good and evil. So let's assume that morality is subjective, and let's assume that we cannot be either physically or emotionally pained (is this even possible?). Do you think, then, that we would still act the least bit good? -Crito~ the Agnostic

01-02-2002, 07:46 AM	#8
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	Ism Schism: I think it is a bit more complicated than that... what about pain? This is different to fear. I think that fear is just the expectation of pain - or perhaps the expectation of a decrease in pleasure. And there is also frustration. That is different from physical pain (including hunger, etc) since it is not directly related to your body being injured. And pleasure can be split up into kinds of pleasure. e.g. the warm-fuzziness of security/connectedness, the thrill of newness and surprises, and the relief from the end of tension. [ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

01-02-2002, 08:04 AM	#9
Ism Schism Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 72	Originally posted by excreationist: I think it is a bit more complicated than that... what about pain? This is different to fear. I think that fear is just the expectation of pain - or perhaps the expectation of a decrease in pleasure. Perhaps you are right, "pain" may very well be the lowest common factor on the negative side of emotion. For if there is nothing to pain you, there is nothing at all to fear. Good call. And there is also frustration. That is different from physical pain (including hunger, etc) since it is not directly related to your body being injured. Is frustration not pain? If not I suppose it's rather benign in nature... And pleasure can be split up into kinds of pleasure. e.g. the warm-fuzziness of security/connectedness, the thrill of newness and surprises, and the relief from the end of tension. Enjoyment at the "end" of pain is obvious, almost to the point of redundancy. Warm-fuzziniess is also enjoyment, so long as you enjoy "warm-fuzziness". Pleasure is pleasure: any 'pleasure' falling under 'pleasure' is a subset. Good call though on "pain". Pain is lower on the scale then fear (I think ) . Test1: If there is no pain what is there to fear? Test2: If there is no fear what can hurt you? I think test 1(yours) holds up better, much better. So, as of now we have: pleasure or pain? [ January 02, 2002: Message edited by: Ism Schism ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-01-2002, 11:50 PM	#5
incommendatus Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Cape Coral, FL Posts: 9	When human life is the standard, the Good is anything beneficial to human life. Anything detrimental is the Bad or Evil.

01-02-2002, 07:22 AM	#7
Ism Schism Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Wilmington, Delaware Posts: 72	This topic reminds me of something my father once told me (disclaimer: I don't know if he came about this on his own or read it elsewhere) -- "There are only two emotions: love and fear, every other emotion is just a subset of these two." I have thought about this quite a bit, and it seems to hold up quite well, except for the fact that love breaks down into the more precise position of "enjoyment". Enjoyment and fear. If you have neither of these you have, for all intents and purposes, no emotions, you simply do not, and can not care. This is precisely what I find silly about "Objective Ethics" based on any "rational" position or argument. Morality all boils down to emotion, there is nothing "rational" about it. There is no "rational" scale concerning "good and evil"; though there are 7 billion "emotional" scales: all based on the subjectively applied values of "enjoyment and fear". When there is a rational scale for what I should enjoy, or fear, maybe -- and I do mean maybe -- then, I will believe in objective(aka: universal) ethics, until then it is nothing more then a silly joke.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.