Good and evil... do they exist?

[JColtrane]

The desire he has is simply to be free. He does not desire freedom to a certain end, but rather the end he desires is freedom itself. Benefit does not enter the equation; it does not matter or even inversely matters whether the underground man's actions benefit him or not. He does not want to be a "slave" to what benefits him.

I see a major problem in your first statement: You re-define benefit in terms of merely pleasure.

In your second statement you confuse "good" and "positive" and "evil" and "negative". Do you absolutely equate these terms?

In the second statement you also say: "What we regard 'beneficial' is that which's harm is perceived as outweighed by its benefit". It is generally accepted that it is not ideal to use the word you are trying to define in the definition of the word, and thus it is not clear exactly where you differ from the definition that I gave above.

Ultimately, I just think this is a naive and psychologically ideal (in an abstract way) view of the world. I think that plenty of times people act knowing that the action is evil and knowing that the action will harm them more than it benefits them.
The human will is not so enslaved to "good" or "benefit": it does what it wants to for whatever end it has, whether it be freedom, harm, or benefit.

 

[Seditious]

The desire he has is simply to be free. He does not desire freedom to a certain end, but rather the end he desires is freedom itself.

so he desires freedom, acts towards that, and you're saying what, he's not doing something he considers good?

Benefit does not enter the equation; it does not matter or even inversely matters whether the underground man's actions benefit him or not. He does not want to be a "slave" to what benefits him.

so why be free rather than not free, isn't one subjectively valued as more beneficial? If freedom wasn't better he'd be content with his thinking he's not free. Maybe he doesn't want to be a slave to what is 'good for him' but he is always a slave to what is 'good to him.'

I see a major problem in your first statement: You re-define benefit in terms of merely pleasure.

In your second statement you confuse "good" and "positive" and "evil" and "negative". Do you absolutely equate these terms.

can you elaborate on that a little more? I don't know where you're seeing a redefinition of benefit, pleasure, pain (like from lifting weights), all sorts of things can be beneficial.

In the second statement you also say: "What we regard 'beneficial' is that which's harm is perceived as outweighed by its benefit". It is generally accepted that it is not ideal to use the word you are trying to define in the definition of the word, and thus it is not clear exactly where you differ from the definition that I gave above.

sorry. "What we regard 'beneficial' is that which's harm is perceived as outweighed by its improvement, good, giving of what is perceived as good or valued at the time." (maybe getting drunk is harmful, maybe negatively programming your mind with poor self-image thoughts because you're feeling negatively emotional is harmful... it can beneficial to drink or not drink, it really depends on how the person ranks the "cost/benefit")

Ultimately, I just think this is a naive and psychologically ideal (in an abstract way) view of the world. I think that plenty of times people act knowing that the action is evil and knowing that the action will harm them more than it benefits them.
The human will is not so enslaved to "good" or "benefit": it does what it wants to for whatever end it has, whether it be freedom, harm, or benefit.

lmao. I've never seen someone act knowing the action was evil. I've never even heard of an evil act---I've heard that suicide and martyrdom and war and lots of things are evil to various groups or individuals, I might even say religious indoctrination to the young is akin to mind-control and is 'evil' but that doesn't mean it's evil, that doesn't mean if you see it you've seen someone do an act you know is evil if you go to sunday school, it just means you agree with a bias of mine. I've been told lots of things are evil, but I've never known an act to be evil; that's an equally naive demonistic world view.

 

[JColtrane]

Yes, as I have repeatedly said, he thinks that he is doing something harmful, something evil, to himself, in order to prove his freedom. He doesn't think that the freedom he tries to gain is a good, or will be beneficial to him--that would destroy the whole point of his actions. He acts out of spite for the good.

In your first statement you equated "benefit" with "enjoyment"; that's what I was referring to.

My last statement I think I can sum up simply for you:
Are you going to say that no one in the history of the world has ever murdered someone, knowing that he or she would be caught, knowing that it was an evil act, and knowing that it would eventually cause him or her more pain and harm than benefit? I think it's possible.
How do you deal with Mersault's murder in The Stranger? In my opinion, he doesn't really do it for any reason at all. He just does it. Do you think that acts necessarily have a goal or purpose when they are preformed?

 

[Seditious]

Yes, as I have repeatedly said, he thinks that he is doing something harmful, something evil, to himself, in order to prove his freedom. He doesn't think that the freedom he tries to gain is a good, or will be beneficial to him--that would destroy the whole point of his actions. He acts out of spite for the good.

obviously he enjoys spiting the strictly 'beneficial' and 'thee good' for otherwise he would not do it. Even a masochist will endure something harmful, but not to spite pleasure, but because it is subjective a good to himself.

Are you going to say that no one in the history of the world has ever murdered someone, knowing that he or she would be caught,

of course not, even Hitler knew he would be caught

Are you going to say that no one in the history of the world has ever murdered someone, knowing that it was an evil act,

I don't think Hitler 'knew' it was an evil act. in fact I don't even know his genocide was an evil act.

Are you going to say that no one in the history of the world has ever murdered someone, knowing that it would eventually cause him or her more pain and harm than benefit?

you can't know the future, and sometimes you sacrifice a future good for a present good, every obese person and smoker knows the sacrifice to their future health but they don't think they're doing evil or wrong or bad, they're doing what is good for themselves at risk of causing something bad to themselves which they see as less important at the time of making the choice.

How do you deal with Mersault's murder in The Stranger? In my opinion, he doesn't really do it for any reason at all. He just does it. Do you think that acts necessarily have a goal or purpose when they are preformed?

Mersault is akin to a man with a pathological dissociative disorder. I don't judge the healthy by the sick. I'm sure there are many dissociative and compulsive disorder people who can't explain their behaviors in terms of purposes, and it's because they're unwell. They aren't representative of normal human action. There is no analogy there.

 

[JColtrane]

Just because the underground man enjoys his spite does not mean he thinks he is acting with an intention towards his own subjective view of the good. The point is that he enjoys acting in accordance with his own subjective view of evil. He sees his acts as evil, as spiting good, and just because he enjoys his spite does not mean he thinks that his enjoyment is a good. Rather, his enjoyment comes from the fact that he thinks his act is evil and is doing harm to him. Unless you want to objectively re-define "good", "positive", and "evil" for the underground man, I think he presents your view with a conundrum.

If you think Mersault is supposed to be psychologically disordered, you are mis-reading the novel. For Camus, in my opinion, Mersault is a sort of existential hero; he gives no heed to the traditional concepts forced upon him by society. It is not that he is deranged, he simply 'does not play their [society's] game'. This is ultimately what condemns him at the trial (his seeming 'lack of care' for his mother), not the fact that he murdered an Arab. In my opinion, Mersault appears passionless or "dissociative" because he doesn't see the point of all the things he is forced to do. This is why it's a tragic story, because at the end of his life Mersault realizes that he didn't really live life for himself.
I know with the opening line, it's easy to say that Mersault is somehow dysfunctional, but if you don't really move beyond this, I think you entirely miss Camus' point.

 

[Alter]

i belive in good and evil.

I belive every human during there life commit good and evil acts. Thus the more good you do the more "good" you are. Thus the more evil you do the more "evil" you are. So basicly it is weather you are nice and live your life with morals(eather relgious or self created) and kindness or evil whitch is filled with pointless hatered and unkindness and no morals to gide the way you live.

 

[Seditious]

Just because the underground man enjoys his spite does not mean he thinks he is acting with an intention towards his own subjective view of the good. The point is that he enjoys acting in accordance with his own subjective view of evil..

Only a man of fiction could convince himself he was doing what he called evil for any reason other than for the good he's found.

He sees his acts as evil, as spiting good, and just because he enjoys his spite does not mean he thinks that his enjoyment is a good. Rather, his enjoyment comes from the fact that he thinks his act is evil and is doing harm to him..

when people punish themselves for something they have done which they themselves think worthy of condemnation they are doing so in order to again feel good about themselves---to have justice done in their own perception of it. justice done is a good thing to them. His enjoyment (as you've explained it) from living up to his own values is no different to any sentiment for justice we all have. I feel I've done evil, I feel justice is served by my suffering, and I am pleased with what a just world this is where I have payed my debt. I could be of such beliefs that I enjoy my evildoing, yet believe I deserve harm for it, so evildoing that is harmful to myself is perfectly suitable because my values would say that is the good thing to happen. But, in any case, I think you're exaggerating his beliefs here.

Unless you want to objectively re-define "good", "positive", and "evil" for the underground man, I think he presents your view with a conundrum.

I see no more issue with this character than with any normal person. If he believes he deserves harm rather than the merely subjectively good, then his subjective moral opinion of the good is what he is living up to.

If you think Mersault is supposed to be psychologically disordered, you are mis-reading the novel. For Camus, in my opinion, Mersault is a sort of existential hero; he gives no heed to the traditional concepts forced upon him by society. It is not that he is deranged, he simply 'does not play their [society's] game'..

I never said he was psychotic, if anything he's dissociative (as everything from the news of his mothers death to his imprisonment examples)

In my opinion, Mersault appears passionless or "dissociative" because he doesn't see the point of all the things he is forced to do.

You raise him as a figure to prove not everyone acts with purpose, but what does a social norm or passion have to do with this? He either intended to kill the knife-wielding man or he acted in some dissociative manner as described, everything just sorta happening around him. No man who is merely a healthy being who rebels against the social rituals of the world because they're absurd acts without intention, if he was such a being rather than an ill man then his abnormal behavior is all a choice based on his purpose of doing as he wants rather than doing as 'people should'.

 

[Seditious]

i belive in good and evil.

I belive every human during there life commit good and evil acts. Thus the more good you do the more "good" you are. Thus the more evil you do the more "evil" you are. So basicly it is weather you are nice and live your life with morals(eather relgious or self created) and kindness or evil whitch is filled with pointless hatered and unkindness and no morals to gide the way you live.

how many starving homeless orphans do I have to adopt to outweigh the evil of one murder? just 2 (on separate occassions to ensure each is counted as an act)?

 

[JColtrane]

If you think that Dostoevsky's charachters are constrained only to fiction, you either don't know much about his charachters, or don't know much about reality.
Seriously, the man was an undeniable psychological genius.

I don't think you seriously dealt with my objection that you have just objectively redefined every action that a person subjectively makes as good.

Why did Mersault shoot the Arab? Well, if you ask him, it was because the sun was in his eyes. Doesn't seem like much of a reason to me.

 

[S<issors]

Extrapolating "subjective" logic leads to absurd conclusions. I won't go so far as to say good and evil are "neccesary," but if they don't exist, none of what we discuss here is significant. Sort of a Pascal style argument, I guess (only he was talking about God, not morality).

 

[Seditious]

I don't think you seriously dealt with my objection that you have just objectively redefined every action that a person subjectively makes as good.

You have no real objection, you're just trying to suggest his belief negates his experience being inconsistent. He believes something is 'evil' (as in good and evil) but he is able to find 'good' in it (as in good and bad).

Why did Mersault shoot the Arab? Well, if you ask him, it was because the sun was in his eyes. Doesn't seem like much of a reason to me.

If you ask an dissociative person why they did what they did they can't tell you. In fact, if you ask a hypnotized person why they did what they did (unaware they've been hypnotised) they can't tell you, in fact, they come up with ridiculous stories to try to rationalize it. John R. Searle makes this same refutation, that pathological/abnormal cases don't evidence anything against healthy behavior.

 

[speed]

If you think that Dostoevsky's charachters are constrained only to fiction, you either don't know much about his charachters, or don't know much about reality.
Seriously, the man was an undeniable psychological genius.

I don't think you seriously dealt with my objection that you have just objectively redefined every action that a person subjectively makes as good.

Why did Mersault shoot the Arab? Well, if you ask him, it was because the sun was in his eyes. Doesn't seem like much of a reason to me.

Agreed. He was. Each character was fully formed, and his novels as Bakhtin wrote, are polyphonic: as in, each character has his own voice, and the author never gets in the way (much like Shakespeare). Of course, all of his characters are more or less psychotic, which is a bit of a problem however.

For instance, Either/Or of your beloved Soren takes hundreds of pages to get to the same point --and not as convincingly--as the vile underground man, from Notes.

Finally, Nabokov (who hated all but the grotesque and hilarious early dostoevsky--and the double and some of his early short stories are my favorite works by him), made the point that Dostoevsky could or should have been a playwright, and would have been second to only Shakespeare, as his novels are essentially plays, with socratic dialogues.

But I find this talk about old Camus also interesting. Comments forthcoming.

 

[JColtrane]

You have no real objection, you're just trying to suggest his belief negates his experience being inconsistent. He believes something is 'evil' (as in good and evil) but he is able to find 'good' in it (as in good and bad).



If you ask an dissociative person why they did what they did they can't tell you. In fact, if you ask a hypnotized person why they did what they did (unaware they've been hypnotised) they can't tell you, in fact, they come up with ridiculous stories to try to rationalize it. John R. Searle makes this same refutation, that pathological/abnormal cases don't evidence anything against healthy behavior.

(1) I have a question that may help clarify our debate: What is "good"?
(2) That's all assuming Mersault is dissociative, which I don't think he is. Actually, I think he understands more about society and sociality than all of the other people he deals with in the novel.

Oh, and speed, your insights on Dostoevsky are great. I have never thought about his possibility as a playwright; that's a pretty interesting consideration.
Kierkegaard my beloved? Psssh, I have no problem agreeing that Dostoevsky is the better writer of the two, and one of the reasons that I am studying Kierkegaard so much is because I disagree with him on several points and want to develop a fully researched counter-argument.

 

[Seditious]

(1) I have a question that may help clarify our debate: What is "good"?
(2) That's all assuming Mersault is dissociative, which I don't think he is. Actually, I think he understands more about society and sociality than all of the other people he deals with in the novel.

Good as I use it is subjective good--we have a bodily/innate standard of good and bad. pain after the gym can be 'good' because we foresee it's value and thus endure it as the damage which causes muscle to grow, while 'pain' can be experienced as 'bad', pain in this case is the indicator of something good---something valued as positive for oneself. causing pain one might call evil, unless it is done for one's own good, like surgery to save a child, the child can't then understand that pain accompanied good, to have not had it would be the worse 'bad' in their subjective feeling themselves get sick and die.

(2) That's all assuming Mersault is dissociative, which I don't think he is. Actually, I think he understands more about society and sociality than all of the other people he deals with in the novel.

either he explained his behavior from a dissociative position from post-traumatic stress or something, in which case he was healthy and fired in self-defense but now distances himsel from such an act, or he was pathological all along and had no motive he can comprehend. Whatever he understands about society has no bearing on whether or not he is some obscure being who isn't aware of why he does anything

 

[speed]

Kierkegaard my beloved? Psssh, I have no problem agreeing that Dostoevsky is the better writer of the two, and one of the reasons that I am studying Kierkegaard so much is because I disagree with him on several points and want to develop a fully researched counter-argument.

I was too harsh. No, there's no problem at all with Kierkegaard's writing (in fact, I think, or I remember it being among the clearest for philosophers), it merely shows the power of narrative over academic or philosophical prose.

I do recommend Mikhail Bakhtin to everyone. In fact, a philosophical circle--the Bakhtin Circle--developed around his ideas. His book Problems of Dostoevsky's Poetics, as well as Rabelais and His World, are the two best books on philosophy/literature, I know of.

 

[JColtrane]

Good as I use it is subjective good--we have a bodily/innate standard of good and bad. pain after the gym can be 'good' because we foresee it's value and thus endure it as the damage which causes muscle to grow, while 'pain' can be experienced as 'bad', pain in this case is the indicator of something good---something valued as positive for oneself. causing pain one might call evil, unless it is done for one's own good, like surgery to save a child, the child can't then understand that pain accompanied good, to have not had it would be the worse 'bad' in their subjective feeling themselves get sick and die.

Hmm...yeah. With that definition of "good" it's pretty much impossible for any person to do "bad". I don't know; I just don't think it's that helpful of a definition. I mean, are you basing good completely on pleasure?

 

[Seditious]

Hmm...yeah. With that definition of "good" it's pretty much impossible for any person to do "bad". I don't know; I just don't think it's that helpful of a definition. I mean, are you basing good completely on pleasure?

Happiness would be more accurate.

The 'pleasure' of stealing rich people's cars for joyrides might not be good to that auto thief if he is going to end up in jail for 20 years. Like an obese person with a desire for food, what would be good in that case would be refusing the desire for pleasure.

Desire brings with it the sensation of that which is desired being good for them, but such at their circumstances (effective law enforcement, or failing health) that this desire doesn't accurately relate to their good, for it is a means to pleasure, but more likely to unhappiness than happiness. We can see this in the opposite as well, while 'pain' gives us the sensation of something being against our good, if that pain is caused by weight lifting then this desire to end the pain may not accurately be reflecting our good.

 

[JColtrane]

Happiness would be more accurate.

The 'pleasure' of stealing rich people's cars for joyrides might not be good to that auto thief if he is going to end up in jail for 20 years. Like an obese person with a desire for food, what would be good in that case would be refusing the desire for pleasure.

Well it seems to me you define happiness as long-term pleasure. So it's still defined in terms of pleasure, just a specific type of it.

 

[Seditious]

Well it seems to me you define happiness as long-term pleasure. So it's still defined in terms of pleasure, just a specific type of it.

if you group happiness in with pleasure then that's what it amounts to, but as I see it pleasure and pain are disruptions to happiness. happiness is pleasant, but I wouldn't say it's one of the pleasures, as pleasures are sought for what they bring us, happiness is not sought for any other end than its own, as Aristotle realized.

 

[JColtrane]

Well, the example you gave seemed to me to define happiness as a kind of long-term pleasure. Could you distinguish how happiness is different? Is it something different from pleasure? Does it include pleasure but add something more?