Good and Evil: Universals?

[Whit]

     Hmm, okay maybe we're approaching this the wrong way...

Torturing babies for pleasure would be one example. Even if the entire world decided that this was acceptable behavior, in fact rewarded those who did it, it would still be morally wrong. The moral value of this action is not contingent on the cultural response to it.

     Why exactly would torturing babies be immorral then? If nobody has a problem with it why is it wrong?

[juju]

Well, let's back up. I'm saying that humans come up with morals themselves, and you're saying that they just "exist" outside of humans' influence, immutable. Is that right?

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Juju, that's a categorical fallacy.

What is a "categorical fallacy"? Is that a fancy way of saying I'm wrong? Whoops, I don't want to dilute the definition too much. We've got to be precise.

Originally posted by smoothmoniker
Scientific proofs are proper to the realm of physical things, and their interactions (mass, energy, chemical properties).

Universals are not the proper subjects of the scientific method. To assume that something is only true if it is scientifically provable is to exclude vast portions of the edifice of human knowledge.

Nothing exists outside of reality except maybe ideas. Are you trying to say that your ideas are so correct that they've trancended the concept of "idea" and become physical law? Or are you just trying to say that you're right no matter what?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that morals exist. What you're saying here is that you want to be relieved of this burden. You want me to just take your word for it. I'm sorry, but I can't do that. So far, the only proof you've offered of morals' existence is by labeling it a "Universal". I have no idea what this means, but the closest I can figure is that it means, "This concept is unquestionable. Please do not question it." Perhaps you could offer a more direct definition?

As to the Redness example, I do not agree that Redness exists. Light exists, and color is just the way we perceive it's various frequencies. In the same manner, morals are the way we perceive actions. Actions exist, morals do not.

Again, I think that morals are just rules we came up with to further our self-interest.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, I got it.
Good is a universal because even though everyone cannot agree on what goes on the list of good things, everyone can make a list of things they believe to be good.
Bad, second verse, same as the first.

[Whit]

     Um, Juju, if you accept that light exists and at different frequencies how can you not accept that there's one particular frequency we call "red"?

     Damn Bruce, that's quite possibly the most intelligent thing anyone has said on this thread. Of course the problem comes when things on peoples good list is on someone else's bad list. The Nazi attempt at the genocide of the Jews for example. We generally call that bad, they said it was good.
     So, how do we reconcile the contradiction? I suppose we could get all C. S. Lewis about it, but I'm not a big fan.

[vsp]

I'll throw out the old standby: "An it harm none, do as you will," which always struck me as a pretty good rule of thumb to live by. (Disclaimer: I am not a pagan/Wiccan, nor am I a participant in any other religion. However, I can acknowledge parts of religions and their beliefs that make sense without embracing the religions themselves.)

In that context, morality centers around the question of "what constitutes harm?" If something causes harm, particularly when it's intentional, most would chalk it up on the "Evil" side of the ledger. If it causes no harm and is instead beneficial, it goes under "Good." But what exactly _is_ "harm," and who gets to decide that?

From there, there's a huge argument waiting to happen between absolutists and relativists. Religion throws a huge monkey wrench into that argument; if an absolutist bases his/her moral beliefs around the concept of a Divine Being (i.e. God knows what is right and wrong, good and evil, and little to no gray area exists), and a relativist rejects that concept, there can be no agreement between them because they're arguing on different terms.

[juju]

Originally posted by Whit
Um, Juju, if you accept that light exists and at different frequencies how can you not accept that there's one particular frequency we call "red"?

If you define 'red' as a certain frequency of light, then it exists and is a real, scientifically provable phenomenon. If you define it as just the perception of that frequency, though, then it's not a 'real', physical thing.

[vsp]

Originally posted by juju

If you define 'red' as a certain frequency of light, then it exists and is a real, scientifically provable phenomenon. If you define it as just the perception of that frequency, though, then it's not a 'real', physical thing.

Not to mention that in practical terms, there isn't "one" red.

"Red" covers a variety of shades -- some lighter, some darker, some mixed with other colors, but with red remaining the dominating color. I could hold up five cards, each one with a varying shade of red, and say "What color is this?" and you'd probably say "Red" to any of them, yet also distinguish that they're different if I held them up together.

And so it also goes with "good" and "evil."

[xoxoxoBruce]

So, how do we reconcile the contradiction?

Can't. You will never get everyone to agree on what is good or Evil. Even if you did, there would be so many stipulations and qualifiers it would look like the US penal code.
That said, you might get everyone to agree that they have an opinion on what's good and evil. Therefore good and evil exist but can't be defined.

[juju]

Because everyone agrees on something, that means it's true?

[vsp]

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
Can't. You will never get everyone to agree on what is good or Evil. Even if you did, there would be so many stipulations and qualifiers it would look like the US penal code.
That said, you might get everyone to agree that they have an opinion on what's good and evil. Therefore good and evil exist but can't be defined.

There's something very Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about this line of reasoning -- the whole "You can't define 'quality', but you know what it is and when you see it" paradigm.

The CONCEPTS of good and evil exist, certainly. We're discussing them now. But if there is no general agreement on the _definition_ of those concepts, on what the concepts mean, then are the concepts useful in and of themselves? If the definitions are inherently unquantifiable, then what does the concept really stand for?

Whatever the person (or persons, or community, or authority) using the concept wants it to stand for, that's what.

[xoxoxoBruce]

good and evil are useful as shorthand to let people know how you feel.
Beer good.
Brussel sprouts bad.

[Whit]

     I think that's a misuse of the terms. Perhaps improving relations with beer, good. Shoving brussel sprouts down someones throat till they asphyxiate, evil.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'll buy that !

[novice]

Good= you may do that to, on, near, with, for, in, over me.
Evil = I would prefer it if you would do that to, etc,... someone else

[Tobiasly]

Just to try to stir a little more religious debate in...

A common argument used by atheists to "prove" that there is no God is that evil and suffering exist in the universe. If God is all-powerful and all-caring, he wouldn't allow these to exist.

My argument to that has always been that evil is indeed relative. Yes, the Christian God has defined what good and evil are (as vsp pointed out), but he could have made the spectrum itself to be different.