Odemus

They may be his constructs but I would be more inclined to think that good and evil are what they are because of his nature. I absolutely agree with you though, in the scenario where a god/creator exists, good and evil are what he has declared them to be. How good and evil become what they are is irrelevent except to the one who has final authority and ultimate power.


The difference would be that 1) a god/creator is the final authority. He has the power to create, destroy, or rearrange at his pleasure. If he decides he has grown bored with his creation he can wipe it all out. Who will argue good and evil then? Difference #2) would be in consequences. If there is no god then we all ultimately face the same exact fate regardless of what kind of life we've lead or morals we've held-non existence. If there is a god, then our actions are held to his standards. While we may conclude that we find those standards evil, the fact remains they are above us and applied to us regardless of our opinions.

winstonjen

I would agree with that, but it is too absolute and restrictive. Sometimes it's a zero-sum game - some must die for the rest to live. However, one absolute I agree with is the reduction of total human happiness - that is an absolute wrong, and one person's happiness should not be exchanged for anyone else's happiness. Happiness of the group is a different story.

Vandrare

would you be able to explain this a little furthur for me please? i'm just not sure what you mean, particularly in the case of happiness (as in does the group being happy rather than content mean they are morally right over the individual?).

winstonjen

An example: a husband is forced to go shopping with his wife, even though he hates it. The husband then forces his wife to watch football with him, even though she hates it. I don't see either of those things being 'moral'.

Vandrare

is this really a forced situation?? after all whats forcing either of them to do what they dont want? perhaps its more a case of compromise - "i'll come shopping with you, if you keep me company at the footy". in that case i dont see that morality comes in to the picture.

though if you mean for instance in the case of something like racism where black peoples rights for ignored just because whites were happier with things that way i totally agree with you.

winstonjen

But if there's no implied exchange, I feel it's wrong. Also, the fact that they're married may make them feel that they have an obligation.

I agree with that, I just chose a different analogy.

Vandrare

well i guess this necessarily comes down to a matter of opinion as to what is right and wrong, also exactly what you mean by forced. since they are in fact married also, wouldn't that imply a kind of obligation (a word which i use tentatively for lack of a better option) to each other? perhaps something like responsibility to work on their relationship together or something like that would be a better way to express it...

anyway, getting back to the original topic though, how does this right/wrong equate with evil then?

Alonzo Fyfe

First, I start with the principle I have used elsewhere in these posts:

No value claim (whether positive value or negative value) is true except that which relates an object of evaluation to a set of desires.

When making moral claims, the 'object of evaluation' is desires themselves. Desires have value in the only way that anything has value -- in virtue of the desire's tendency to fulfill or thwart other desires. Desires that tend to thwart other desires are bad. The people who have bad desires are evil.

In slightly different words, an evil person is a person who has desires that dispose him to thwart the desires of others.

pmurray

I specified that there had to be a social relationship. Even so, some people do say that spiders are "evil", when what they mean is that they are afraid of them.

Vandrare

here's a link that could be of interest for people regarding evil in different religious scriptures:

http://www.unification.net/ws/theme058.htm