Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Heading to Hell · 06-21-2002, 01:22 PM

Is evil an absolute, a constant, or is it in the eye of the beholder? Personally, I think that evil as an absolute does not exist, and so it is wrong to point at somebody and say "Hey! You're evil!"
My reasoning here is that for any person doing any action, at the time they are doing it they are doing it for their perception of good. They believe, at that moment, that what they are doing is for good.
Now that perception of good can change drastically, and somebody like a rapist obviously has a different version of "good" to most people. But in their mind, they never think of what they are doing as evil.
Anyway, got to go now, as my phone bill is mounting up (cursed Americans with your free calls - grrr) but hope I have been reasonably articulate.
Ta.

John Page · 06-21-2002, 01:25 PM

In the eye of the beholder. One man's fish is another man's poisson[sic].

Andy G · 06-21-2002, 05:01 PM

I think this must partially depend on the definition of 'absolute evil'. If by this you mean some metaphysical moral code that exists independantly of any human then my initial response would be that there is no absolute evil.

However, if you believe that evil arises through those actions that are repugnant to humanity (ie. against all sense of our right and wrong) then I think a case can be made for absolute evil. I believe that our value system has evolved along with us to enable us to better survive in a world of competing individuals. There must be some elements of morality which are common to all cultures - be they past, present, or future. These are our moral absolutes.

I certainly do not think that most rapists believe they are doing some good by their actions. And they certainly aren't motivated by any such desire to do good, rather they are motivated by selfish impulses (the desire for power, gratification), etc.

AtlanticCitySlave · 06-21-2002, 05:21 PM

"My reasoning here is that for any person doing any action, at the time they are doing it they are doing it for their perception of good. They believe, at that moment, that what they are doing is for good.
Now that perception of good can change drastically, and somebody like a rapist obviously has a different version of "good" to most people."

-I don't see any reason to believe any of this, at least as a blanket statement. Sure, many people will say "i killed my sister because the demon god told me to, and it is good", but at the same time many (if not most) people who commit immoral acts realize they are just that, immoral. Psychopaths are often aware hurting other people is wrong in a moral sense, but they just don't really feel anything (sympathize) with the person they are hurting. Having done work with rapists, paper on them, and some other things, I can say that many rapists know what they do is wrong.
The question "Does evil exist?" presumes a definition of evil. I think, following Drange, if we take evil to be something like unnecessary suffering or premature death, then yes, it does exist. However, I don't fall into a subjective type camp concerning morality. I do think, concerning this part of your post, it would have to be conceded it is incorrect. There is at least one instance of what you mention in each set of people who realize what they do it wrong, yet do it anyway. Plato/Socrates idea that people always do what they think is good, even when it's wrong, is basically wrong. (As a simple example, how many of us have cheated on girlfriends/boyfriends, lied to someone, etc., knowing full well we shouldn't, i.e. it's wrong?)

crocodile deathroll · 06-21-2002, 06:41 PM

Evil is an extremely ambiguous word isn't it

tronvillain · 06-21-2002, 07:35 PM

Since I generally use "evil" to mean something like "things I hate", I would have to say that it does exist. *chuckle*

Bill · 06-22-2002, 04:09 AM

The problem with the relativist view of morality is that you can't have any "human rights" without also having "human wrongs." In other words, for there to be any universal standards of human behavior, you have to recognize some form of universal moral value scale. Otherwise, you cannot condemn anybody (Hitler, Nazis, etc.) for the Holocaust nor can you condemn terrorists, murderers, or anybody else on MORAL grounds. In the relativist case, it all comes down to "we have the power, and we are going to use our power to punish/excoriate/etc. you." That is not a morally justifiable stance, but an animalistic "will to power" (a la Nietzsche).

I do believe that there is an objective foundation for morality, and that objective foundation can be discovered by investigating the relationship between memes and human survival. Morality is a set of memes, and the memes we've inherited from our forebearers should be those which enhance human survival (at least, to some large degree; there is no perfect morality, and thus no perfect recipe for survival either). There is a plethora of books on this idea of locating the objective foundation of morality through evolutionary studies.

However, you must be careful not to commit a version of the naturalistic fallacy (as identified by Dennett in <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=112" target="_blank">Darwin's Dangerous Idea</a>) by presuming that morality serves the interest of the genes, and/or that animal behavior is inherently "right" and/or that it "justifies" any moral principles. Our human memetic morality has evolved on a distinct plane of existence (our mental plane), and if anything, it is at odds with what our biological nature would command us to do (eat, sleep, reproduce, as the cartoon goes). Our human mental powers have given humanity dominion over all purely biological creatures because only humans can really conceive of such a dominion. In other words, humanity lives (in some essential way) within its own mental "fantasy world," and human morality is one aspect of our shared "fantasy."

But that is not to say that one "fantasy" is necessarily as good as another (the moral relativist position). In fact, it is objectively true that some forms of "fantasy" are pro-survival while other forms of "fantasy" are anti-survival. We can define what is good for the human species, either as a whole, or as a collection of individuals (or possibly as a two-dimensional axis that considers both sets of values), and by measurements on some sort of scale, we can create an entirely objective measurement of which moral values are "good" for mankind and which moral values are "bad" for mankind. I would certainly hope that any such scale of value would define "killing off all Jews because some people in power don't like them" would be clearly defined as "bad" on anybody's moral scale. But again, it would necessarily have to be an objective moral scale, not a relativistic moral scale.

== Bill

Heading to Hell · 06-22-2002, 06:09 AM

Hmm. I stand modified.
My point was just that "absolute evil" as a concept is flawed. But I agree that relativistic evil certainly does exist. My point was not intended to be taken as a view that rapists and murderers are not "evil" in the eye of society. So I deserve to be shot down in flames for that implication.
Sorry,
Bob

RyanS2 · 06-22-2002, 07:17 AM

My last standpoint on relativity was that it was based on society, or that morality is relative to the goals which society wishes to obtain, and the rules of what are good/bad/indifferent are based on what society wants to obtain. Therefore, while in our society such things as oh.... book-burning are outrageous because we pride ourselves on freedom of speech, religion, etc., in dictatorships, books are dangerous articles which can be used to violate the government's command, in the same way the Council decided to get rid of Socrates because he challenged their ideas. In some societies, (Inuits for one), infantcide was necessary because of how harsh life conditions were, likewise our ancient ancestors had their kids spaced about four years apart because people could only carry so much, and two babies would hamper any family because they required more care and thus slowed down migration. We, of course, will thumb our noses towards them and declare that a moral evil, but infantcide versus extinction isn't a hard choice to make. In our society, infantcide is unnecessary because we aren't going to face extinction, and it's counterintuitive to respect for human life, so we declare it evil.

Click this link:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/</a>

And click on the morality arguments, (pt. 1, pt. 2, pt. 3, etc.) for full elaboration.

As far as an objective evil thing existing, click here:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/</a>

and click on the history of good and evil, part 1 and 2.

John Page · 06-22-2002, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill:
<strong>However, you must be careful not to commit a version of the naturalistic fallacy (as identified by Dennett in <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=112" target="_blank">Darwin's Dangerous Idea</a>) by presuming that morality serves the interest of the genes...</strong>

Bill:

I disagree. I would agree that our individual moral behavior might not serve our "personal" genes (e.g. committing suicide because you feel bad about something) but ultimately such behavior serves a like gene pool. This can be clearly seen in taboos on incest, genocide against other ethnic groups, fatricide etc. Just because our morality does not (or does not appear to) be directly connected to our genes in no way supports a conclusion that memes are somehow independent of our physical nature.

I do not believe memes are a separate life form (as some do, not necessarily you) or that they help define an "objective" morality. I would agree that culture-driven behavior serves survival just as much as genetic traits and encourages the development of the species through individuals that can cooperate through a common moral code.

What are memes? I think memes are a useful way of describing the abstract nature of brain activity that determines our behavior patterns. Succesful patterns will persist. Good and evil are concepts of the human mind and vary considerably depending upon both individuals and cultures.

Cheers, John

06-21-2002, 01:22 PM	#1
Heading to Hell Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Devon, UK Posts: 58	Does evil exist? Is evil an absolute, a constant, or is it in the eye of the beholder? Personally, I think that evil as an absolute does not exist, and so it is wrong to point at somebody and say "Hey! You're evil!" My reasoning here is that for any person doing any action, at the time they are doing it they are doing it for their perception of good. They believe, at that moment, that what they are doing is for good. Now that perception of good can change drastically, and somebody like a rapist obviously has a different version of "good" to most people. But in their mind, they never think of what they are doing as evil. Anyway, got to go now, as my phone bill is mounting up (cursed Americans with your free calls - grrr) but hope I have been reasonably articulate. Ta.

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

06-21-2002, 01:25 PM	#2
John Page Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: US Posts: 5,495	In the eye of the beholder. One man's fish is another man's poisson[sic].

06-21-2002, 05:01 PM	#3
Andy G New Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: UK Posts: 4	I think this must partially depend on the definition of 'absolute evil'. If by this you mean some metaphysical moral code that exists independantly of any human then my initial response would be that there is no absolute evil. However, if you believe that evil arises through those actions that are repugnant to humanity (ie. against all sense of our right and wrong) then I think a case can be made for absolute evil. I believe that our value system has evolved along with us to enable us to better survive in a world of competing individuals. There must be some elements of morality which are common to all cultures - be they past, present, or future. These are our moral absolutes. I certainly do not think that most rapists believe they are doing some good by their actions. And they certainly aren't motivated by any such desire to do good, rather they are motivated by selfish impulses (the desire for power, gratification), etc.

06-21-2002, 05:21 PM	#4
AtlanticCitySlave Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: New Jersey Posts: 251	"My reasoning here is that for any person doing any action, at the time they are doing it they are doing it for their perception of good. They believe, at that moment, that what they are doing is for good. Now that perception of good can change drastically, and somebody like a rapist obviously has a different version of "good" to most people." -I don't see any reason to believe any of this, at least as a blanket statement. Sure, many people will say "i killed my sister because the demon god told me to, and it is good", but at the same time many (if not most) people who commit immoral acts realize they are just that, immoral. Psychopaths are often aware hurting other people is wrong in a moral sense, but they just don't really feel anything (sympathize) with the person they are hurting. Having done work with rapists, paper on them, and some other things, I can say that many rapists know what they do is wrong. The question "Does evil exist?" presumes a definition of evil. I think, following Drange, if we take evil to be something like unnecessary suffering or premature death, then yes, it does exist. However, I don't fall into a subjective type camp concerning morality. I do think, concerning this part of your post, it would have to be conceded it is incorrect. There is at least one instance of what you mention in each set of people who realize what they do it wrong, yet do it anyway. Plato/Socrates idea that people always do what they think is good, even when it's wrong, is basically wrong. (As a simple example, how many of us have cheated on girlfriends/boyfriends, lied to someone, etc., knowing full well we shouldn't, i.e. it's wrong?)

06-21-2002, 06:41 PM	#5
crocodile deathroll Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Darwin Posts: 1,466	Evil is an extremely ambiguous word isn't it

06-21-2002, 07:35 PM	#6
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Since I generally use "evil" to mean something like "things I hate", I would have to say that it does exist. chuckle

06-22-2002, 04:09 AM	#7
Bill Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Gatorville, Florida Posts: 4,334	The problem with the relativist view of morality is that you can't have any "human rights" without also having "human wrongs." In other words, for there to be any universal standards of human behavior, you have to recognize some form of universal moral value scale. Otherwise, you cannot condemn anybody (Hitler, Nazis, etc.) for the Holocaust nor can you condemn terrorists, murderers, or anybody else on MORAL grounds. In the relativist case, it all comes down to "we have the power, and we are going to use our power to punish/excoriate/etc. you." That is not a morally justifiable stance, but an animalistic "will to power" (a la Nietzsche). I do believe that there is an objective foundation for morality, and that objective foundation can be discovered by investigating the relationship between *memes* and human survival. Morality is a set of memes, and the memes we've inherited from our forebearers should be those which enhance human survival (at least, to some large degree; there is no perfect morality, and thus no perfect recipe for survival either). There is a plethora of books on this idea of locating the objective foundation of morality through evolutionary studies. However, you must be careful not to commit a version of the *naturalistic fallacy* (as identified by Dennett in <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=112" target="_blank">Darwin's Dangerous Idea</a>) by presuming that morality serves the interest of the genes, and/or that animal behavior is inherently "right" and/or that it "justifies" any moral principles. Our human memetic morality has evolved on a distinct plane of existence (our mental plane), and if anything, it is at odds with what our biological nature would command us to do (eat, sleep, reproduce, as the cartoon goes). Our human mental powers have given humanity dominion over all purely biological creatures because only humans can really conceive of such a dominion. In other words, humanity lives (in some essential way) within its own mental "fantasy world," and human morality is one aspect of our shared "fantasy." But that is not to say that one "fantasy" is necessarily as good as another (the moral relativist position). In fact, it is objectively true that some forms of "fantasy" are pro-survival while other forms of "fantasy" are anti-survival. We can define what is good for the human species, either as a whole, or as a collection of individuals (or possibly as a two-dimensional axis that considers both sets of values), and by measurements on some sort of scale, we can create an entirely objective measurement of which moral values are "good" for mankind and which moral values are "bad" for mankind. I would certainly hope that any such scale of value would define "killing off all Jews because some people in power don't like them" would be clearly defined as "bad" on anybody's moral scale. But again, it would necessarily have to be an objective moral scale, not a relativistic moral scale. == Bill

06-22-2002, 06:09 AM	#8
Heading to Hell Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Devon, UK Posts: 58	Hmm. I stand modified. My point was just that "absolute evil" as a concept is flawed. But I agree that relativistic evil certainly does exist. My point was not intended to be taken as a view that rapists and murderers are not "evil" in the eye of society. So I deserve to be shot down in flames for that implication. Sorry, Bob

06-22-2002, 07:17 AM	#9
RyanS2 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 216	My last standpoint on relativity was that it was based on society, or that morality is relative to the goals which society wishes to obtain, and the rules of what are good/bad/indifferent are based on what society wants to obtain. Therefore, while in our society such things as oh.... book-burning are outrageous because we pride ourselves on freedom of speech, religion, etc., in dictatorships, books are dangerous articles which can be used to violate the government's command, in the same way the Council decided to get rid of Socrates because he challenged their ideas. In some societies, (Inuits for one), infantcide was necessary because of how harsh life conditions were, likewise our ancient ancestors had their kids spaced about four years apart because people could only carry so much, and two babies would hamper any family because they required more care and thus slowed down migration. We, of course, will thumb our noses towards them and declare that a moral evil, but infantcide versus extinction isn't a hard choice to make. In our society, infantcide is unnecessary because we aren't going to face extinction, and it's counterintuitive to respect for human life, so we declare it evil. Click this link: <a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/</a> And click on the morality arguments, (pt. 1, pt. 2, pt. 3, etc.) for full elaboration. As far as an objective evil thing existing, click here: <a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/" target="_blank">http://www.satan4u.8m.com/history/</a> and click on the history of good and evil, part 1 and 2.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.