Beyond Good & Evil

[The Last Spartan]

Who believes that there is such thing as good & evil? I do. Why or why not?

[PTL]

Moral relativism is such an incomplete philosophy. I'm getting sick of it.

[Turnus]

Moral relativism is such an incomplete philosophy. I'm getting sick of it.

Care to explain why?

But to very briefly answer the question: There is no actual good or evil, but due to human nature it is necessary that we invent them. For all practical purposes there has to be a good and evil, even though their foundations become arguable. Therefore there is good and there is evil, but in fact there is neither.

[The Last Spartan]

Well, I sort of agree.

We can see things as being good or evil, or we can see things as being bad for this guy & good for that guy.

Alignment just means what you do more, things that people like or things people don't like. I guess.

It's hard to explain. Because, people personify evil or give it an entity (the devil is a perfect example).

The question you have to ask is ,"What is good?" & "What is evil?"

To some people, evil can be standing up against a sh(itty) teacher or cheating on your wife. Some people would see good as killing another person because he/she doesn't have the same opinion or belief.

[Atheist Peace]

Would you mind explaining to me what defines evil, and what it actually is? I'd like to know, but I simply can't find the answers myself.

[The Last Spartan]

Would you mind explaining to me what defines evil, and what it actually is? I'd like to know, but I simply can't find the answers myself.

I just gave you examples.

Like I said, people have the tendancy to personify good & evil.

You can't say this is evil & that's good. Because good & evil is what people think is morally & ethically correct. It's majority opinion.

[PTL]

Care to explain why?

No one can ever actualize moral relativism. It's all speculation dependent upon mutable criteria. If you can never directly implement a philosophy then what's the point of it? Moral relativism is a flawed belief system. It can deconstruct any societal foundation but is completely impotent when it comes to constructing a genuine replacement. Moral relativism just isn't pragmatic; therefore, it isn't a viable option for any ethical decision making process. If anyone honestly believed in moral relativism then they'd find themselves unable to make any decision, ever. In moral relativism, there are absolutely no criteria to base decisions upon. Every action is basically amoral. Therefore, since every single action is basically as "good" or "bad" as the next I have no means to proceed in my life. I'm just as liable to do one thing as another. Human beings aren't so capricious as that.

Edit: Most moral relativists are really confused ethical egoists in disguise. When they say "good and evil" what they really mean to say is "good for me and bad for me." This isn't moral relativism, its egoism.

[Atheist Peace]

No one can ever actualize moral relativism. It's all speculation dependent upon mutable criteria. If you can never directly implement a philosophy then what's the point of it? Moral relativism is a flawed belief system. It can deconstruct any societal foundation but in completely impotent when it comes to constructing a genuine replacement. Moral relativism just isn't pragmatic; therefore, it isn't a viable option for any ethical decision making process. If anyone honestly believed in moral relativism then they'd find themselves unable to make any decision, ever. In moral relativism, there are absolutely no criteria to base decisions upon. Every action is basically amoral. Therefore, since every single action is basically as "good" or "bad" as the next I have no means to proceed in my life. I'm just as liable to do one thing as another. Human beings aren't so capricious as that.

You're right. It's not practical at all. It's still correct though. Unless you can show me the source of absolute morals, of course.

[PTL]

You're right. It's not practical at all. It's still correct though. Unless you can show me the source of absolute morals, of course.

Does moral relativism exist? In theory yes, in reality no. Moral relativism is the result of an incomplete analysis. A moral relativist will identify the absence of absolute truths and stop there, not realizing that identification of absence is only the first part of the process. What a moral relativist doesn't acknowledge is that functionality is inherent in humanity. Somehow we lack absolute truths, but we continue to retain some concept of truth - how? Because all systems are founded on definite criteria.

Think of the world as an empty canvas, onto this canvas we paint our perspectives, our foundations. As human beings, we can create anything we want, any system that we please. But humanity has a propensity for order, so naturally we impose order onto chaos. This provides our sense of ethical foundation. These foundations are actualized philosophies with definite criteria that designate what is functional (good) and dysfunctional (bad).

The funny this is, if you agree with me thus far, you cannot be an ethical relativist in the strictest sense of the term. This is because an ethical relativist asserts that all decisions are amoral. The implication of this claim is that there is nothing that can fulfill its function (good) or fail to realize its function (bad). If onto this canvas, say I've created a belief system that tells me I am to behave by performing action A. If I perform action A, I've fulfilled the requirement of my belief system (good) if not (bad). Because I have already well-defined and established criteria to judge, I can perform my action accordingly. Systems always predate actions. To act, I must know how to act. I know how to act through belief systems with definite criteria. I myself decide exactly how to abide by these belief systems. If I realize that I am the final arbiter of my actions, I am no longer a "moral relativist" I am an egoist.

I hope that made some sense?

[Turnus]

No one can ever actualize moral relativism. It's all speculation dependent upon mutable criteria. If you can never directly implement a philosophy then what's the point of it? Moral relativism is a flawed belief system. It can deconstruct any societal foundation but is completely impotent when it comes to constructing a genuine replacement. Moral relativism just isn't pragmatic; therefore, it isn't a viable option for any ethical decision making process. If anyone honestly believed in moral relativism then they'd find themselves unable to make any decision, ever. In moral relativism, there are absolutely no criteria to base decisions upon. Every action is basically amoral. Therefore, since every single action is basically as "good" or "bad" as the next I have no means to proceed in my life. I'm just as liable to do one thing as another. Human beings aren't so capricious as that.

This is why I said that good and evil exist and do not exist: they do not actually exist in absolute forms (as in moral relativism), but because their development is needed for the functioning of society, it is necessary that we believe in them. In theory, it is from this that I link "good" to what is beneficial to the running of a society, and "evil" to what is detrimental to the running of a society. But as these ideas develop naturally, they certainly do not always perform these functions.

[Irishman]

There is evil (to me), but there is no definite moral grounding. Morals are completly subjective, evil is what seems appaling and vile to oneself, but there is no set evil or good. How can we say that neurological impulses and drives are either evil or good? Morality is a concept created by man and has no place in nature. Morality is determined by the cultures "majority opinion".

For instance, in some cultures it is evil to kill anything, even insects.

[Atheist Peace]

There is evil (to me), but there is no definite moral grounding. Morals are completly subjective, evil is what seems appaling and vile to oneself, but there is no set evil or good. How can we say that neurological impulses and drives are either evil or good? Morality is a concept created by man and has no place in nature. Morality is determined by the cultures "majority opinion".

For instance, in some cultures it is evil to kill anything, even insects.

This is basically my view as well. I absolutely despise it, but it's the truth. I wish it weren't, but it is.

[Irishman]

It's all speculation dependent upon mutable criteria. If you can never directly implement a philosophy then what's the point of it? Moral relativism is a flawed belief system. It can deconstruct any societal foundation but is completely impotent when it comes to constructing a genuine replacement. Moral relativism just isn't pragmatic; therefore, it isn't a viable option for any ethical decision making process. If anyone honestly believed in moral relativism then they'd find themselves unable to make any decision, ever. In moral relativism, there are absolutely no criteria to base decisions upon. Every action is basically amoral. Therefore, since every single action is basically as "good" or "bad" as the next I have no means to proceed in my life. I'm just as liable to do one thing as another. Human beings aren't so capricious as that.

Not true. One would base their actions on common sense and natural instincts. You may not have external guidance, but everyone certainly knows what they, individualy think is right and wrong (beneficial and harmful). Moral relativism replaces these two sets of words, for instance a murdurer would be locked up because his actions are harmfull to society, and therefore, people would be guided not to murder by the common sense of the punishment, hence my theory that morals are actually constructs of society's laws.

EDIT--

In theory, it is from this that I link "good" to what is beneficial to the running of a society, and "evil" to what is detrimental to the running of a society. But as these ideas develop naturally, they certainly do not always perform these functions.

Wow, funny. We said the same thing.


__________________

This is all in absense of a concience of course, which is relative.

[Irishman]

But remember, every action taken is helpful for someone, otherwise the action would not take place. What is the extent of your "functional" ethics. Is it actions that benefit your community, your country, the world? These things can often be in conflict. For instance, what was good for Germany was not good for Poland.
Hence, even with your criteria, morals are still relative.

[MoROmeTe]

Unless someone can point me to some sort of fundamental truth on which all moral values can be based and that can be rationaly sustained (so God is sorta out of the picture) I say that the only "good" and "evil" we are ever gonna get are those which are based on limited and somewhat egoistical evaluations based on the utility something has to us as beings or to that which we hold to be important...

All morality is relative....

[I Have a Clever Name]

To my mind there is no good and evil, just survival and extinction. Human concepts such as good and evil have a biological basing and serve only to promote inter-species co-operation, just as the concept of meaning encourages us to become environmental analysts and manipulators.

[humvee2800]

I dont think " evil" is a good term, the concept of evil tends too make someone think of someone who does horrible things but that doesnt make someone "evil".

Everyone has there own beleifs, so good and evil become argueable points, i suppose the closest thing too either is morale right and wrongs as one can point out a few inarguable reasonable morales for people.

Something like dont go out and stab someone because they made fun of you




mind you something like stealing is a very iffy one as if there is a starving orphan in the street, stealing might be his only way of living, in that case the choice becomes more complicated and situational.