Does Morality Presuppose Good and Evil?

[qayak]

"Not at all"? What do you mean?

You said: "This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white."

And I said, "Not at all."

[ And then I went on to explaion why what I had said was not like saying every colour is black or white.

Ok.

OKAY

Ok.

Okay

Ok.

Okay

?

Ok.

So, are you questioning what I said or agreeing again?

If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you demonize people you are not making a moral judgement about their action. You are making a false statement about the person specifically so you do not have to THINK.

For instance, let's for one minute pretend that Einstein was a Nazi. If you were to demonize Nazis, then eveything about them is bad. That would mean that you would see Einstein's theory of relativity as being evil and wrong. But it isn't.

You must seperate the actions so that each of his activities can be seen for what they are. His nazi activity would indeed be bad but his theory of relativity would still be good and correct. He himself would be like the rest of us, capable of good and evil.

Not a clue dude. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. It's a perception.

Well, that doesn't really hold up anymore but many people still cling to it. It is as silly as those who still believe that you can't drink seawater to stay alive in an emergency situation.

How you say "not at all" to the premise is beyond me. What your premises are supposed to demonstrate or what they have to do with mine I can't say.

I say "not at all" because you are mistaken to see what I said as black and white thinking. The rest of your premises, based on the mistaken mistaken premise are, therefore, all mistaken.

 

[RandFan]

You said: "This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white."

And I said, "Not at all."

Yes, I said that. Thanks.

And then I went on to explain why what I had said was not like saying every colour is black or white.

I never said any such thing.

So, are you questioning what I said or agreeing again?

"Again"?

I'm agreeing with your premises. They don't in any way contradict the false dichotomy of good and evil.

If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you sermonize people you are not making a moral judgment about their action.

Couldn't be more beside the point.

You are making a false statement about the person specifically so you do not have to THINK.

I don't know what this means or what it has to do with anything.

For instance, let's for one minute pretend that Einstein was a Nazi. If you were to sermonize Nazis, then everything about them is bad. That would mean that you would see Einstein's theory of relativity as being evil and wrong. But it isn't.

What? I just don't get where you are going.

• I have specifically taken a position that everything about Nazis ISN'T bad.
• Thinking everything about Nazis is bad is black and white thinking.
• I'm against black and white thinking. That's my point.

Well, that doesn't really hold up anymore but many people still cling to it.

What?

I'm sorry but I have no idea where you get this. Where did you get such a notion?

It is as silly as those who still believe that you can't drink seawater to stay alive in an emergency situation.

???

Asserting something is silly and bringing in another point is not helping your case.

I say "not at all" because you are mistaken to see what I said as black and white thinking.

No, I did not. I'm pointing out that morality is simply perception. I go on to explain that the range of human behavior is dynamic and complex.

The rest of your premises, based on the mistaken mistaken premise are, therefore, all mistaken.

Huh?

qayak, I'm reasonably certain you don't even know what I'm talking about.

Look, slow down, I'm not attacking you. I was just making a point.

 

[qayak]

Yes, I said that. Thanks.

I never said any such thing.

"It's like saying that every color is black or white." (Randfan)

You said exactly that.

 

[qayak]

Couldn't be more beside the point.

First off, you changed my words when you quoted me. I did not say sermonize, I said demonize.

Second, if it is beside the point then I don't know why you responded to it. It was a point I made originally and that you responded to. Now you are saying it isn't the point.

In this instance, you don't get to decide what my point is, you can agree or dispute it but it remains the point.

 

[RandFan]

{snipped}

 

[RandFan]

qayak,

I'm sorry, I'm having a fight on another thread and I'm letting my emotions get the best of me.

Let me start from the beginning. I did go off the track here.

 

[RandFan]

This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white.

First, let me say that I might not have any idea what you are saying.

Saying that you cannot have one without the other is just a perception. I will stand by that.

Now, if you are not engaging in black and white thinking then I appologize. You are not making your point very clear.

To say you can't have one without the other is to create a dichotomy. Black and white thinking.

Second, I did not change demonize to sermonize. In 20,000+ posts I've never been accused of such a thing. I have no idea why it's changed. I did run spell check but I don't remember that word comming up.

 

[RandFan]

In this instance, you don't get to decide what my point is, you can agree or dispute it but it remains the point.

If you are responding to me then you are responding to my points. I can decide if it is beside my point.

 

[UserGoogol]

Boy. But if we separate the act from the person who commits it, how do we punish the evildoers? You can condemn an act, but you can't punish it. You can only punish the person who committed the act.

If you justify punishment by saying that bad people deserve bad things to be done to them, then yes, it sort of falls apart. But the way I see it, punishment is just a form of social engineering. When a machine or whatever acts in a way that's "bad," we try to stop that. We don't think fires are evil for killing people, but we still put them out. Similarly for humans. (Although I am not, as a general thing, a fan of "putting out" humans.) Because our knowledge of how human beings work is still fairly primitive, we're limiting to "slapping the machine on the side" in most ethical situations.

(Of course, in practice, punishment has less rational and less ethical justifications for it, in that people just like avenging what they deem to be misdeeds, but I think that's a good reason for it.)

 

[qayak]

I don't know what this means or what it has to do with anything.

You are the one that picks one sentence, quotes it out of context and then claims to not understand. If you put it back into context and read the sentences before and after, the meaning becomes clear.

What? I just don't get where you are going.

Then ask a question about it so that it can be clarified. Just repeating the single word "what" makes it perfectly clear that you have no idea what the topic is.

You quoted me and then said that what I had said was black and white thinking. If that is not what you meant then please clarify.

I'm sorry but I have no idea where you get this. Where did you get such a notion?

I get it from reading modern theories and studies that show what you say is not true. Evil is not in the eye of the beholder. The concept of good and evil can be show to be a universal human trait and exactly what actions are seen as good or bad are also universal, or at least a large number of them are.

???

Asserting something is silly and bringing in another point is not helping your case.

Well, it is done with the assumption that the other people in the discussion have a well rounded education. That is not always the case.

My point is to demonstrate how long a false idea will linger and the lengths people will go to when holding onto that idea. In the case of drinking salt water to stay alive, most people still believe it can't be done and they will allow themselves to die to prove it.

That, is as silly as holding onto the claim that evil is in the eye of the beholder. This was proven false in several studies quite some time ago and yet many people still cling to it. There is universal human agreement on what actions are evil.

This would mean that your assertion that evil is in the eye of the beholder, is only true if the beholder is humankind.

Look, slow down, I'm not attacking you. I was just making a point.

Once again: You quoted me and then said that what I had said was black and white thinking. In a discussion, that is an attack.

Now, if you had agreed with me, it would have been clearer if you had said something to the effect that the belief that Nazis are all evil was black and white thinking but you didn't. My post, in which I made the point that nazis were not all evil was the subject you were calling black and white thinking.

If the issue is simply my misunderstanding of the subject of your response, no problem.

 

[qayak]

If you are responding to me then you are responding to my points. I can decide if it is beside my point.

But I didn't. You responded to me and I clarified my point.

 

[qayak]

Saying that you cannot have one without the other is just a perception. I will stand by that.

Can you clear up what "one" and the "other " are?

The only thing I have said that about is good and evil. That was in another post long ago and not quoted by you. That post simply stated that good and evil define each other just as hard and soft do. In morality, good and evil mean absolutley nothing until they are applied to a specific action and its context.

Second, I did not change demonize to sermonize. In 20,000+ posts I've never been accused of such a thing. I have no idea why it's changed. I did run spell check but I don't remember that word comming up.

Well, you look at my post, you can see that it has not been edited, and you will see the word demonize. Then look at your quote, which I cannot edit, and the word has mysteriously changed to sermonize.

Not a big deal, except that you then say that my words are beside the point, which is annoying because they aren't my words.

My post: If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you demonize people you are not making a moral judgement about their action.

Your quote of my post: If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you sermonize people you are not making a moral judgment about their action.

I noticed it right away because sermonize is not a word I have ever used in my entire life. Running spell check could cause the change though. Demonize might not be a word in ithe system.

 

[qayak]

qayak,

I'm sorry, I'm having a fight on another thread and I'm letting my emotions get the best of me.

Let me start from the beginning. I did go off the track here.

Not to worry. Remember, I enjoy our heated discussions. Makes me sit up and go "Hmmmmmmmmmm!"

ETA: Plus it gets my post count up. I'm trying to catch you!

 

[RandFan]

I think we've moved beyond much of this so I'm going to skip parts of it. If there is something that you found important let me know and I will revisit it.

I get it from reading modern theories and studies that show what you say is not true.

I've been studying Morality for the last couple of years now and I've been reading everything I can get my hands on from Aristotle to Kant to Hume to Singer and please forgive me but I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about. I really don't.

Evil is not in the eye of the beholder.

I don't know of a single secular philosopher that shares this view. I dare say that many theology based philosophers don't either.

Is it evil for a cat to cruelly play with and kill a mouse? Where is this evil for which you speak?

The concept of good and evil can be show to be a universal human trait and exactly what actions are seen as good or bad are also universal, or at least a large number of them are.

Humans have justified slavery, murder, infanticide, filicide, you name it. Many societies that we think of fondly were brutal, cruel and engaged in practices that most of us would consider immoral. The Spartans left lame children to die on the side of a mountain. The Inuit and other Native Americans would leave older individuals out in the elements to die when they could no longer contribute. I could give you a dozen examples of where you are wrong.

In the Mayan society young girls happily gave themselves to be sacrificed. A mother and father thought it a great honor.

Most of us today would find that immoral.

It is true that the underpinnings, the genetics of our morals are to a large degree universal but you need to understand the relationship of nature and nurture. It is accepted that many phenotypes are not guaranteed to be expressed. It depends in large part on the environment.

It's late and I'm tired but I've got a lot of great links and information regarding morality if you are interested.

That, is as silly as holding onto the claim that evil is in the eye of the beholder.

This is a non-sequitur. My proposition must stand or fall on its own and not in comparison to some other one. I will stipulate that humans hold onto false assumptions. Fair enough?

There is universal human agreement on what actions are evil.

Actually there is not. Slavery is practiced in Africa to this day. Many people believe abortion is evil. Many do not. In China many people kill their infant child because it is of the wrong sex. In many Muslim countries it is considered evil for a girl to have a vulva. It's considered evil for a girl to show her hair, face, ankles, wrists and arms.

Women are, to this day, murdered if they commit fornication in many Muslim countries. I can find you YouTube videos if you don't believe me. The killing is called an honor killing. The adultery is called evil.

Do you consider honor killings moral? Do you consider sexual relations between unmarried individuals immoral?

Qayak, with all due respect, most of the world does not share your morality. I don't know where or how I would find such a morality. Looking in our genes can only tell us what is possible not what is right.

To find morality in our genes is to make a naturalistic fallacy.

This would mean that your assertion that evil is in the eye of the beholder, is only true if the beholder is humankind.

I was only talking about humans.

 

[RandFan]

Can you clear up what "one" and the "other " are?

The only thing I have said that about is good and evil. That was in another post long ago and not quoted by you. That post simply stated that good and evil define each other just as hard and soft do. In morality, good and evil mean absolutley nothing until they are applied to a specific action and its context.

Well, you look at my post, you can see that it has not been edited, and you will see the word demonize. Then look at your quote, which I cannot edit, and the word has mysteriously changed to sermonize.

Not a big deal, except that you then say that my words are beside the point, which is annoying because they aren't my words.

My post: If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you demonize people you are not making a moral judgement about their action.

Your quote of my post: If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you sermonize people you are not making a moral judgment about their action.

I noticed it right away because sermonize is not a word I have ever used in my entire life. Running spell check could cause the change though. Demonize might not be a word in ithe system.

Fair enough. I appreciate you giving me the benifit of the doubt on the sermonize thing. Yes, I noted right away that you didn't edit. Of course one has a couple of minutes to edit without it being documented but I don't think that happened here. I have no idea about the sermonize word.

Thanks.

 

[Tobermory]

This is way too long a thread to follow carefully, with much too much argument over very little. I believe that whoever said the concepts of good and evil are not black or white, and are subject to the eye of the beholder is right. At the same time, even without religion, we are programmed from childhood to think of certain things as good, and others as evil/bad.

Going back to one of the original questions in this thread, how can we consider a mentally-ill psychopath to be evil? To me, that's much the same as the cat playing with its prey. It is natural to the psychopath to be exactly as s/he is.

For some reason, this thread reminds me on an old song -- No New Tale to Tell. There's a line that runs through my head again and again, from time to time: "Going against nature is part of nature too."

Good, evil, morality, justice -- these are all human constructs that we impose on the natural world. Why? Because to some degree it improves how our society functions. But there is no such thing as good and evil per se. (Although there is definitely evidence to support the existence of the colors black and white, which are not necessarily opposites at all.)

 

[RandFan]

This is way too long a thread to follow carefully, with much too much argument over very little. I believe that whoever said the concepts of good and evil are not black or white, and are subject to the eye of the beholder is right. At the same time, even without religion, we are programmed from childhood to think of certain things as good, and others as evil/bad.

Going back to one of the original questions in this thread, how can we consider a mentally-ill psychopath to be evil? To me, that's much the same as the cat playing with its prey. It is natural to the psychopath to be exactly as s/he is.

For some reason, this thread reminds me on an old song -- No New Tale to Tell. There's a line that runs through my head again and again, from time to time: "Going against nature is part of nature too."

Good, evil, morality, justice -- these are all human constructs that we impose on the natural world. Why? Because to some degree it improves how our society functions. But there is no such thing as good and evil per se. (Although there is definitely evidence to support the existence of the colors black and white, which are not necessarily opposites at all.)

Don't forget to mention the sociopath. The psychopath has an organic problem that is a bit easier to understand. A psychopath is irrational.

A sociopath on the other hand is rational, they just feel little or not empathy. It seems that if there is no empathy then there is no morality. What is empathy? See mirror neurons.

BTW, I higly recomend Ramachandran's book, A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness.

Any way, it turns out that we don't all have identical sets of mirror neurons. This is a good explanation for why we don't all view the same things as right and wrong, at least in part that is. We still can't rule out environment. A person might be born with mirror neurons for feeling emapthy toward pain but if that person suffered trauma in an early life through neglect and abuse he might not grow up to experience empathy for pain in others. It just might turn him or her on.

 

[RandFan]

(Although there is definitely evidence to support the existence of the colors black and white, which are not necessarily opposites at all.)

You will have to show me this evidence. I'm confident to say though that there is no such thing as black and white. Only shades of grey.

 

[Tobermory]

You will have to show me this evidence. I'm confident to say though that there is no such thing as black and white. Only shades of grey.

In life, I would tend to agree. I am a relativist at heart.

But in science, black simply reflects no light, while white reflects all colors. In effect, black and white are exactly the same color, one is just brighter than the other. So I suppose that in a sense, your "shades of gray" analogy works in science too, though black and white do indeed exist as concepts.

 

[RandFan]

In life, I would tend to agree. I am a relativist at heart.

But in science, black simply reflects no light, while white reflects all colors. In effect, black and white are exactly the same color, one is just brighter than the other. So I suppose that in a sense, your "shades of gray" analogy works in science too, though black and white do indeed exist as concepts.

Yes, and to put a fine point on it, color is only a perception. To make matters worse the color that we percieve isn't the color that we see. Our eyes lie about the color. On top of that our brains then further monkey with the data.

Perception: Color & Luminosity -- Part III The Eye and the Brain