Are humans inherently evil?
- Thread starter Kasz
- Start date
Dominick_7
Member
Evil is that which is not good. Good is what which is desirable in itself for its own sake. Evil therefore would have to be that which is not desirable for itself in its own sake. Good is consequently that which is ultimately helpful orderly and healthy, and evil is that which is unhelpful, disorderly, and unhealthy. Apart from this definition, where good is rooted in objective ultimate or absolute/ie God, I dont see how anyone could look at something atrocious and say theres something wrong with it in itself, objectively, for its own sake. Apart from this "wrong" is just opinion, feelings, or preferences. Unless the standard for good is objective and absolute, relativism is the result.
Dominick_7
Member
Any reason you think 'evil is that which is not good'? Of course, it makes further definitions easy, but that's kind of cheating
Because words mean something. I could call it Babagenoush, but I think youd be confused with what I mean by what I say
Etymologically I think the choice of words I used are on spot, and in line with what this thread is about. The meaning is the issue, not the symbol, and my point is that good naturally has a definition that corresponds to reality because thats what it is, and evil is the opposite of good. Good is related to a THING a substantial reality, where as evil is more so a lack of good in a substantially existing good thing. Its a deprivation, privation, and what ought not be. Evil is like rot to a tree, rust to a car, and a moth eaten hole in a shirt. A completely rotted tree is a pile of saw dust, a completely rusted car is a heap of rust, and a completely moth eaten shirt is a hangar. Evil implies some good thing being corrupted or rotted away. This applies ontologically as far as entrophy or physical evils like cancer or what not, the way entrophy applies to our brains and mind, or in regards to actions as far as to how good things are used, towards whichever ends..of use or misuse.When we see someone get victimized, or when were hurt, we naturally, intuitively say thats WRONG, it OUGHT NOT happen..implying an objective or real wrongness about the act..as if it REALLY violates a standard which allows us to know the difference and measure or identify how the action didnt line up with what ought to be/what is good...its not just like..hey you like raping and stealing, I like chocolate, whatever ya know? ie its not about opinions as theres nothing objectively wrong with preferences of a wide variety of good things that can be preferred over other good things..ie chocolate vs vanilla..but thats not the same thing as seeing theft, greed, rape, or murder take place.
So my point is that there is reality vs non reality, objective truth that corresponds to or matches reality vs false presumptions, and there are real differences in things..one of those differences we ALL naturally know and live in light of (no matter what we claim we believe) is the difference between what is good vs evil, what is healthy vs unhealthy, what is diminishing of relationships and ones value and things that are beneficial and enhancing of ones value and relationships. Even a full blown pantheist has real complaints about things at some point. As a side note someone brought up selfishness but even that can be questioned..whats WRONG with selfishness? The concepts of good and evil are at the root of these more questions, but only someone who wants to see the truth, who are wiling to look into it even IF it happens to point out something wrong in themselves, are going to acknowledge this self evident reality.
Really, anyone who disagrees with this ends up contradicting themselves, or loses the right to say anything at all because what theyre saying is meaningless at best. Avicenna said of these kinds of people "they ought to be burned and beaten until theyre forced to admit that to be burned is not the same as not to be burned and to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten".
You are making sense for me in general, I just think the conception of 'evil' simply as anything that is not 'good' is flawed. You mention healthy and unhealthy, but there are many things that are neither - some conception of 'evil' as being opposed to, or directly causing the absence of, 'good', seems necessary.
Dominick_7
Member
Why is it flawed? And how do you say that without reference to some objective standard?
Which moral actions are neither healthy or unhealthy? I used different terms to relate to different spheres of being as far as to how they are effected or impacted. Physical evil would apply to physical realities as far as that kind of damage for example. Not entirely clear on what you disagree with, maybe you could clarify it for me that would help me better understand you.
PS: Note that I'm not saying its necessary to know how many wrongs there are or how many principles of moral law there are..but if there is even just one objectively wrong/not right thing, then this implies a moral law by which to be able to measure/differentiate between the two, and an objective moral law giver who is identical w the good that the standard comes from.
I don't see a need for reference to any objective standard, the thought that it is flawed is based simply upon it's usefulness as a language tool - if anything that is not 'good' is 'evil' then 'evil' loses any punch that it has typically been deemed to have and also encompasses 'neutral', 'mundane', and anything which a 'good' label is not usefully applied to. It is not necessarily inconsistent with anything to apply the term in such a way, I just don't see what purpose it could serve.
Dominick_7
Member
How do you measure what is useful and why should something be useful vs a waste of time? Do you have a real complaint about how language works in relationship to reality as far as how I;m using it or not? If so then how is that any different from what I'm communicating as far as the real difference between the realities of good vs evil, where evil is not good and good is not evil (pretty obvious). If not why make it a point to use preference as the basis for a discussion about philosophy or objective truth about reality? Really how can any word have punch pr meaning unless it has a basis in reality?
I dont get on what basis you say evil is not what is not good. Its like someone saying why does it have to be either something or nothing..cant there be anything in between the two? Or cant nothiness cause something? These things are contradictory because they fly in the face of what these words mean in relationship to reality. If we take something to mean that which is or has being, then if something isnt or doesnt have being that would be the opposite of something, namely nothing. Or are you complaining because saying evil is what is not good is rhetorically strong necessary and persuasive and therefore its useless??
If you dont see a need to reference an objective standard for measuring reality how can you make any truth claims, make any real complaints, or any have meaningful dialog/discussion with anyone in objective reality?
I don't see a need for reference to an objective standard because I don't believe one is possible.
Something and nothing are exactly as you say - that is the way those terms have always worked in reality. A toothbrush is something, therefore it is not nothing. Is a toothbrush good or evil? I'm pretty sure most people would say neither...
Something and nothing are exactly as you say - that is the way those terms have always worked in reality. A toothbrush is something, therefore it is not nothing. Is a toothbrush good or evil? I'm pretty sure most people would say neither...
Dominick_7
Member
How do you know that an objective standard is not possible without a way to be able to measure that as well? To say you can't know something you must know where to draw the line on what you can and can't know. But the only way to do that is to have looked past the line to know where to draw the line, which thereby implies knowledge of whats past the line to say you can't know anything about "it". In essence you are making an objective statement about what is or isnt in objective reality, in this case an intelligible objective standard, while saying you cant know anything about it (the very it/thing you just mentioned you know nothing about)..how would you know what to even reference if you can know nothing about it? How is that not an indirect statement about objective reality? How is that not the same as saying something like "I can't speak one word in english"?
BTW a toothbrush is good because it exists, and has a good purpose, to maintain healthy and clean teeth.
So healthy teeth are a good cause, I guess that's fair enough, poor example. How about a rock? Or a porno mag? Or malaria?
Although I didn't say anything about 'knowing' of a lack of objective standard, I have no problem with using the term 'know' as it is commonly used - I 'know' the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, although I have not had the privilege of seeing the event for myself yet. To claim that knowledge is only possible when it is beyond all possible doubt, is to either claim that it is entirely non-existent, or only exists regarding analytic statements.
Although I didn't say anything about 'knowing' of a lack of objective standard, I have no problem with using the term 'know' as it is commonly used - I 'know' the sun will rise in the east tomorrow, although I have not had the privilege of seeing the event for myself yet. To claim that knowledge is only possible when it is beyond all possible doubt, is to either claim that it is entirely non-existent, or only exists regarding analytic statements.
Dominick_7
Member
Thats because you seem to assume nothing (at least actual) is self evident and undeniable, and that everything is only knowable via different degrees of certainty or probability. The problem with that is how can you know what is less than absolutely certain, without knowing what is absolutely certain by which to differentiate between the two, and see how close or far they are related? So probabilities and degrees certainty necessarily implies absolute certainty and a way to know it..both in regards to abstract reality and actual reality. Without a measure for knowing what is less than absolutely certain you cant know what is farther from certain, or not very certain at all.
Some self evident undeniable truths concerning ACTUAL reality are "I exist", "I change", "I know something", "I know at least one word in english", and another is "a Theistic God exists" but that takes more unpacking than the other premises. The reason we know these are actually and necessarily true is because whether we ask about them, or deny them, we must affirm their reality while in the experiential process of either asking about them or denying any are true. I must exist in order to deny I exist, if I didnt exist I couldnt be in the process of denying that I exist. Example: since I am denying I exist, and a produced statement necessarily implies an actually existing producer of the statement, I must actually exist in order to deny that I exist.
The example of a toothbrush was yours so blame yourself for that, but it doesnt matter what the thing is if its a thing that exists it is good and desirable in itself for its own sake. Something that doesnt exist cannot be meaningfully desired as its a requirement of something good to be a thing first of all. So a rock, yes its good in itself. While the material of the porno mag, trees I presume, is good, I would say that the content would have to be immoral, because its message/content is based on deceit, use and abuse of persons and their sexuality, and teaches people that people are less than people..not those were called to love and treat well but are portrayed as objects to lust after and use like theyre some thing, animal, or piece of garbage. As far as malaria I guess youre going to blame me again for your own use of these, but malaria is a corruption or breakdown of something healthy and good, so no I think that also is obviously wrong..physical evil in this case but evil in itself and evil as far as how it can effect humans.
BTW is your last statement nonexistent or purely and only analytical...? Is it not a statement about ACTUAL statements in reality, holding absolute certainty by ruling everything else out, saying that you CANT make those kinds of absolutely certain statements about actual reality since you relegate it all to the analytical/abstract?
My last statement is knowledge in the practical sense that I argue for, as I do not claim it must be beyond any possible doubt to count as knowledge.
The porno mag seems most problematic for you, so lets go there - is it good or evil, (according to your definition it must be one or the other) and how did you come to decide what it is?
As to the business of knowledge - are you familiar with the general arguments regarding induction? It is how we 'know' things with degrees of certainty, without ever knowing 'for certain'. If I let go of a ball 20 times, and each time it drops to the floor, I have some degree of certainty that the next time I drop it, the same will occur. After 20 billion drops of the same ball, I'm probably pretty certain, but there is no way to get beyond all possible doubt. Mathematical / analytic truths are a different case - a statement such as 'I exist' is tautological, the 'exist' part is already given by the 'I' part, no further information is granted. Yes, this can reasonably be called knowledge beyond doubt - it is analytical, as I said...
The porno mag seems most problematic for you, so lets go there - is it good or evil, (according to your definition it must be one or the other) and how did you come to decide what it is?
As to the business of knowledge - are you familiar with the general arguments regarding induction? It is how we 'know' things with degrees of certainty, without ever knowing 'for certain'. If I let go of a ball 20 times, and each time it drops to the floor, I have some degree of certainty that the next time I drop it, the same will occur. After 20 billion drops of the same ball, I'm probably pretty certain, but there is no way to get beyond all possible doubt. Mathematical / analytic truths are a different case - a statement such as 'I exist' is tautological, the 'exist' part is already given by the 'I' part, no further information is granted. Yes, this can reasonably be called knowledge beyond doubt - it is analytical, as I said...
Dominick_7
Member
I realize you are arguing for knowledge in the "practical sense" but you didnt even touch on the argument I gave for how ALL judgement, whether based in inductive, or deductive reasoning and logic, must be REDuctive to First Principles of Reason which are undeniable..that is, just like you cant build a house without a rock solid foundation, you cant have a worldview or make judgements without a foundation or basis in that which is absolute. If your foundation is weak then the house cannot stand, and will fall. Likewise if you reject basic obvious self evident truths that are not just related to the abstract, but related to the actual and are actually true AND necessarily true, you reject any basis to any judgments you make. Whether there is very little room for doubt, more room for doubt, all of those measurements are only possible if there is an absolute certainty from which one can gaugue how much room for doubt there is whether some or none. My point is that while you can deny what is obvious and self evident you cannot do so in any meaningful sense WITHOUT necessarily implying the opposite of the denial is true...namely that there are self evident undeniable absolute truths that provide us w absolute certainty.
Haha uh why not deal with the strongest points, or even main bulk of them? Though, we can start there if you'd like, doesnt matter to me really either way. Like I said the material the porno mag is made of, trees, are good. The pictures could possibly have good in them, like that they are pictures of men and women or what not and have fit form, BUT its the context or end towards which theyre depicted is the problem. Nothing wrong with a knife or with its designed purpose..say, to cut bread..but its QUITE another context and end to misuse it to stab an innocent person with it. So while the camera that took the porn pics with, the people have good and are good, because they exist and the source of their existence communicated His goodness to them, the end towards which they are acting (lust, dehumanization of humans, abuse and misuse of people w inherent value and dignity all of which is destructive, antithesis of healthy families relationships or commitment to another) is wrong. Nothing wrong with nudity, but there is something wrong with lewdness, gratuity, and graphic depictions of illicit unjust relationships between people. So in short, the being of which were talking about is all good, but the content, context, and ends towards which they are being used in the magazine is wrong..ie the way these beings are structured and posed is wrong.
Yes and I reject that notion like I argued before. Again, HOW can you have a meaningful concept of DEGREES of certainty WITHOUT certainty by which to gauge what has highest certainty, modest certainty, or little to no certainty. What youre communicating is like saying "ok so he almost hit the bullseye BUT we cant know anything about the bullseye"..or.."what he did was NOT ->GOOD<- BUT I dont/cant know what good is"...meaningless and self negating. If you have no knowledge of what is GOOD, how can you know what is NOT ->GOOD<-? If you have no knowledge of what is absolutely certain, then how can you know what is less than absolutely CERTAIN/CERTAIN in itself= ie self evident..not needing to be made evident by anything else other than itself because the predicate/description is identical to its referent. All triangles have three sides is an abstract example of this. I exist is an actual example. Its a "tautology" as long as you dont exclude the term tautology from being able to apply to the actual. If you just know what the terms means (tri=3 angle=sides) then you can see that the predicate/description is identical to its subject, and therefore perceive its self evidentness and necessity. Im NOT denying we know somethings with degrees of certainty, but Im saying those things can only be meaningful and knowable if theyre all reducible and have a relationship to what is absolutely certain, self evident, and undeniably necessary.
If I understand you correctly, I dont think I agree with your terminology of using "analytical" for "I exist" because YOU as an ACTUAL being dont MATHEMATICALLY exist..you ACTUALLY do exist. Mathematics is abtract, in the realm of the mind, is not actual or concrete. You can get an infinite number of dots between the beginning and end of a short line..but you cant get an infinite number of books between two ACTUAL books. The actual/rational and abstract/mathematical/logical are different hence why I say theres reason that deals with material truth about ACTUAL reality, and then theres logic/math that deals with the ABSTRACT. The thing you also seem to be missing is that the ONLY way you could measure the constant conjunction of cause related to effect w the ball example is if there is a self evident first principle called the law of causality. You presuppose it in every statement you make but then go on to deny it at the same time. This is the thing w secular education..they teach you the differing views, but teach you no way of how to adjudicate between them as to which is correct..they teach you asbtract logic but not reason, they teach you there are differing degrees of certainty that are made evident by other things, but dont teach you what is evident in itself.
Lastly, you cant know the connection between the balls activities in regards to the cause effect relationship WITHOUT the self evident principle of the law of causality which IS both abstractly/logically necessary and absolutely certain, but also ACTUALLY/rationally necessary and absolutely certain. Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from a little better.
Dominick_7,
Society is a structure like a scaffold. Behaviour is "good" if it strengthens and works within this scaffold. It is "bad" if it is destructive to this scaffold. Over time the scaffold can change but it is always internally coherent and self-regulating.
Also, there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena.
So far, all the historical knowledge and empirical evidence available to us shows that morals differ between different cultures. This cannot be elevated to an axiom because it would be self-refuting and hence must be granted inductively. To deny this is to deny historical and empirical evidence.
Society is a structure like a scaffold. Behaviour is "good" if it strengthens and works within this scaffold. It is "bad" if it is destructive to this scaffold. Over time the scaffold can change but it is always internally coherent and self-regulating.
Also, there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena.
So far, all the historical knowledge and empirical evidence available to us shows that morals differ between different cultures. This cannot be elevated to an axiom because it would be self-refuting and hence must be granted inductively. To deny this is to deny historical and empirical evidence.
Dominick_7
Member
In some cultures it works to care for their neighbor, in others they eat them..do you have a particular preference?
How do you judge what works and what doesnt without a moral framework? Are you saying there is no good and bad, no moral differences between actions, such as say rape or love? Is there ever a time when say, rape, is justified according to your way of seeing things...?
Also if there is no moral phenomena, why do you imply its better to hold your position without reference to a best or worse? If there is no real "ought" why are you trying to persuade me to become a moral zombie as if it was something I ought to, a view that is better than another? If it IS better and I OUGHT become a moral zombie or some secularist or relativist, then you just contradicted yourself because that would mean there are objective moral values since there are some things and actions that are morally better than others. If your arguments and views are not better let alone different, what are you saying and why are you disagreeing with me in that case? If no objective morals then there can be no moral disagreements..so in light of that I have to ask if you are saying anything at all?
Crap can cohere, so can evil, lies, or good, what is destructive (look at nazi germany), or enriching...coherence doesnt tell you what is the true or right course, and nor can pragmatism because its meaningless in that regard since you cant really know the ultimate specific ends of certain choices to be able to know what "works", and lies and evil can work for a time being..but that leads to destruction of order in ones life and in society..so why try to pass an incoherent contradictory, meaningless and empty system that offers no real answers or direction for ones choices as if it did offer real answers?
To put it more directly you said "Also, there are no moral phenomena, only moral interp0retations of phenomena."
my question to that is THAT statement part of phenomena that is moral, or is that just your moral interpretation of phenomena? That is, again, is that statement morally different or better than another view to follow, something one OUGHT to believe over its opposite, or is that just your moral interpretation which I take makes your view mere preference and having no real substance or weight in any discourse on matters of truth and ethics?
Uh where do you get that morals differ from culture to culture?? Which culture do you see cowardice seen as a virtue? Or lies theft or murder being explicitly affirmed as good? While people may disagree on the exactly number of moral laws, quite to the contrary, morals dont differ at all from culture to culture. If you mean legislation may differ, yes it may but that is not the same thing as moral law or principle. While legislation may differ from culture to culture depending on what kind of problems they have, and how severe they are, they may legislate differently as to react in curtailing evil in society..but say even concessions like how the US drives on the right side of the road and Europeans drive on the wrong side
ONCE that concession is agreed on in a society, the principle is the same..murder is STILL seen as wrong, its wrong to run over someone for no good reason. I don't know where you are getting your "information" but it is not by any means accounting for all the facts in the most coherent consistent fashion, answering the critical questions related to the issue. All moral laws can really be reducible to one..do good shun evil..or love God/the moral law giver and your neighbor as yourself. So if cultures differ in concessions or legislation that has no direct bearing on what moral law is and if its being respected and followed or not.It's not "without a moral framework." The moral framework is what strengthens the social contract. If society flourishes and is stable it would seem to be "working" don't you agree?
Nope.
Nope. I'm a westerner.
The concept of judgement is not predicated on the concept of morality.
I'm not. You should uphold the morality of your society. Actions which weaken the scaffold of society are evil. You "ought" not to do them because they are evil.
Saying "there are no objective morals" is self-refuting. Why do you ignore my qualifier? (i.e. - based on what we know so far). Also, sure: cultures can disagre about morals. Look at the debate over the cremation of Hindu widows. It seems barbarous to westerners but not to many Hindus.
It's evident when it doesn't work because a society ceases to flourish.
The law and social etiquete dictates the moral code which is best supportive for a society. Those who break very ingrained social laws (muder rape) are fuckin' evil by societal consensus, those who break etiquette are slobs.
It's a moral interpretation of phenomena. Yes, there are other interpretations. As stated above, inductively all availble empirical and historical evidence supports this interpretation.
Amongst the Malenesian headhunter tribes, upon coming of age, males must seek out and murder another tribesman. He must "bring back his head." This is seen as highly honourable.
In ancient Japanese culture, Samurai were allowed to murder innocent people on the streets to test the sharpness of their blade. This was seen as desireable and an extremely honourable way to die.
In Hindu culture, a widow is cremated/murdered when her husband dies. This is seen as a honourable, virtuous action.
In christianity, one is taught to "turn the other cheek". This behaviour would be seen as cowardly in viking, goth, islamic, celtic etc. cultures. Ever wondered why you couldn't be a priest in ancient greece? you'd just be a meek ascetic whom everyone trampled over.
Vikings saw it quite fit to rape, steal and lie to others.
Certain eastern cultures endorse torture of captives.
It's possible that universal optimum strategies for creating the scaffold of society might be discoverable. For example, most cultures don't enjoy murder, lying, stealing and consider these things evil. These things are evil in accordance to the internally coherent laws of a society.
This is nonsense. Many gnostic cultures believed that one should hate god (the demiurge/satan of the old testament). Western secular humanism does not believe that one should love your neighbor as yourself, merely that you should treat him with respect. Actions are not inherently good or evil but are interpreted as such in accordance to what strengthens a culture. If you raped a woman anywhere in the world, my culture would judge it as fucking evil.
As the above citations show, all available evidence suggests that there is no absolute agreement as to what constitutes good and evil between cultures.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Not sure I entirely agree with this. Some people may have no moral obligation to their society whatsoever. If they serve an important purpose within their society, but believe (for whatever reason) that abandoning that society is in their best interest, they'll leave the community. Now, can we call their behavior "bad" because it is harmful to the society?
Uh where do you get that morals differ from culture to culture?? Which culture do you see cowardice seen as a virtue? Or lies theft or murder being explicitly affirmed as good? While people may disagree on the exactly number of moral laws, quite to the contrary, morals dont differ at all from culture to culture. If you mean legislation may differ, yes it may but that is not the same thing as moral law or principle. While legislation may differ from culture to culture depending on what kind of problems they have, and how severe they are, they may legislate differently as to react in curtailing evil in society..but say even concessions like how the US drives on the right side of the road and Europeans drive on the wrong side
Christian doctrine says that "Thou shalt not steal," or kill, for that matter. However, these traits are inherent within Viking culture. They saw conquest as their right and a sign of strength, and the idea of "rape" was symbolic of their dominance over another culture. They did not believe that what they were doing was "wrong" or "evil."
It's not a case of loyalty (i.e. being loyal/behaving well towards your society as a holistic entity). Anytime someone does a business transaction (i.e. at a store) one is cohering to the moral scaffold of society. Only a complete psychopath could exist in a society without conforming to its functional moral/procedural structure - e.g. driving, walking on the street, buying stuff, not raping people etc). As they are harmful to the scaffold of society, psychopaths are locked away.
In general emigration from a western society does not violate its laws. If you have a position of extreme responsibility, yes it would be bad and grossly irresponsible to suddenly leave (e.g. acting army general, president, schoolteacher with a class to teach that day).
Yes, I was born Eeeeevile, my Momma was evil, my Papa was evil and my grandparents were eeeeevil. We were all a bunch of sick motherfuckers and damn proud of it, we always thrived everyday to do sick and twisted shit... all we could do to fight off the foolish ways of christianity and wanky assed do gooders of the world. We can do whatever we want, when ever we want and the sicker what we do is the bigger the rush we always got out of it. Its just so great being eeeevil.... thats why I love sick and twisted metal... because its so cool and all, the way those guys dress up and paint themselves up to look dead and all... its just so sick and eeeevil... makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside... like a night at home with my parents when they were alive and all... now their down in the basement and I go there everynight... paint my face all up and talk and dance with them... its just so cool, Im so cool, eeevil is so cool
Similar threads
