Good and evil... do they exist?

[Seditious]

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?

Pleasure has obvious intentionality, happiness, like a mood, tends not to. In the wake of pleasure you may be happy (in such cases we may say 'that pleasure is the subject responsible for my mood'), but the pleasure itself is not the happiness, the end of the pleasure is not the end of the happiness.

Happiness isn't some physical or mental delight, but rather the contentment of desiring no such things. It's the absence of both pleasure and pain. It's a rather Buddhist idea I embrace. I wish I could articulate this better but I haven't focused on any of this aspect for many months.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

What are you guys actually debating right now?

 

[Seditious]

What are you guys actually debating right now?

the will
concepts of good.
etc.

(I think it necessary in a discussion of 'evil' because evil is either a thing or an intention, and since cultures and epochs differ so much on ideas of evil things we have to look as to whether sane people ever have 'evil' intentions to see if even the few cross-cultural agreements have any validity in using the term, or if that is no more support of 'evil' than say, if lions (by their behavior suggest they) agree being killed is bad, are evil in killing another lion merely because they universally agree on a concept of 'bad'.)

 

[JColtrane]

Pleasure has obvious intentionality, happiness, like a mood, tends not to. In the wake of pleasure you may be happy (in such cases we may say 'that pleasure is the subject responsible for my mood'), but the pleasure itself is not the happiness, the end of the pleasure is not the end of the happiness.

Happiness isn't some physical or mental delight, but rather the contentment of desiring no such things. It's the absence of both pleasure and pain. It's a rather Buddhist idea I embrace. I wish I could articulate this better but I haven't focused on any of this aspect for many months.

Ah okay, that makes more sense. Still, I must ask: is every single human action's goal this happiness?

In response to vihris-gari:
A debate about whether it is possible to will "evil" or "bad" things is pretty pointless if the meanings of "good", "evil", and "bad" are being used differently by people on each side of the debate. I just thought it would be helpful to clarify this. But if this debate isn't interesting to anyone, someone please butt in and let seditious and I know! Although, that would inevitably spark another debate
I guess that's the up and downside of a philosophy forum: everything is a debate!

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Mmk, well there are two main definitions of "good" which I can think of:

(1) Those things which satisfy our desires and goals, and which we believe should exist, or should be done. In this sense, "good" and "evil" are simply expressions of our attitudes, and don't really carry the weight of truth or falsity to them. For example, if I say, "Killing people is evil," this isn't actually a true or false statement, but the equivalent of me saying, "I don't like killing." Thus, it doesn't matter whether people agree or disagree over these things, as they're merely comparing their desires to each other.

(2) Those things which constitute absolute moral truth. This assumes that there are such moral facts in the universe, which always should be adhered to no matter what. Those who support this view of good and evil typically believe that these truths come from a supreme, perfect being, though there are obviously other lines of argument (i.e that moral truth consists of whatever the majority of people agree is the truth).

I personally find (2) pretty meaningless, since it assumes an essential knowledge of the facts of the universe which I think humanity lacks (if such facts about the universe even exist, that is). I am very much a fan of the idea that "good" and "bad" are completely undescriptive attitudes.

In response to Coltrane's question, I think a human's goal is defined as the satisfaction of his/her desires, whatever those desires may be. Everybody's going to have a slightly-different, slightly-unique set of principles, so to apply the same set of principles to everybody will never work. Of course, you can usually get away with a small set of principles such as, "everyone should do what they can to ensure the life, health, and freedom of as many people as possible".

I guess that's the up and downside of a philosophy forum: everything is a debate!

Damn straight.

 

[Seditious]

Ah okay, that makes more sense. Still, I must ask: is every single human action's goal this happiness?

That's certainly what I hold. Of course such broad and fundamental things I'm always concerned are wrong, but I'm unable to find anything I can't explain away, though I've certainly searched and left no objection I've found without satisfactory answer (nothing's more depressing in philosophy than leaving something unanswered, unsure!!!)

I'm curious for any end someone can suggest as otherwise, but I've never found one.

the most recent one to mind is someone sayinng 'pleasure, truth, and beauty are desired for their own sake---these are ends in themselves'. but they're simply not.
we appreciate beauty for the pleasure it brings us, and truth is pragmatic, and if pleasure made us feel bad, or feel nothing, lol why would we prefer it to not having pleasure, ...and so on with all such things it appears to me.

What I normally ask is 'would you value something if it would never in any way lead to happiness?' (if it wasn't something that could be used socially like money, or wasn't truth that could be applied or that anyone was interested in, and all avenues covered like that... if something has no utility, no value as a means to happiness, evidently we assign it no subjective value, showing such things are valuable only as means to that end, and we're unable to say to what end happiness is valued)

it's one of those things that sounds so unimportant or even vacuous just looking at it by itself, but in a whole philosophy it contributes to serious implications.

 

[Seditious]

(1) Those things which satisfy our desires and goals, and which we believe should exist, or should be done. In this sense, "good" and "evil" are simply expressions of our attitudes, and don't really carry the weight of truth or falsity to them.

so what if my goal or desire is sex, is rape good because it is one of the ways to achieve my goal/satisfy my desire? Does it make sense to say 'not raping' is evil because it thwarts my desires' satisfaction?

how do you distinguish which of the means to satisfy desires/achieve goals 'should' or 'should not' be done? The Emotivist model you're suggesting tends to undermine 'shoulds' (in the manner I think I might have expressed in the Humanism is Nonsense thread)

(2) Those things which constitute absolute moral truth. This assumes that there are such moral facts in the universe, which always should be adhered to no matter what. Those who support this view of good and evil typically believe that these truths come from a supreme, perfect being, though there are obviously other lines of argument (i.e that moral truth consists of whatever the majority of people agree is the truth).

Yea. I mean if it's a moral fact that homosexuality is wrong, from where comes the duty which says a homosexual 'should not' do what is factually immoral? 'God!' would probably be the answer, because without such thing there is nothing to suggest why their view of 'immorality' would be an objectively bad thing to embrace.

In response to Coltrane's question, I think a human's goal is defined as the satisfaction of his/her desires, whatever those desires may be. Everybody's going to have a slightly-different, slightly-unique set of principles, so to apply the same set of principles to everybody will never work. Of course, you can usually get away with a small set of principles such as, "everyone should do what they can to ensure the life, health, and freedom of as many people as possible".

But why do you satisfy your desires? In fact, if you desire sex, why do you not rape someone, behaving as if your human goal is to satisfy desires? don't we find ourselves, as Aldous Huxley put it, "called upon to pass judgment on what our desires and dislikes affirm to be good or bad"?

(That point is where I bring in my anthropology which greatly opposes shit like Objectivism. )

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm curious for any end someone can suggest as otherwise, but I've never found one.

I think a human's goal is defined as the satisfaction of his/her desires, whatever those desires may be.

That is an end different from the one you proposed, right? Maybe it's more basic than what you're looking for, but I really don't think you can get any more specific than "satisfaction of one's desires" without just making random generalisations about what makes people happy.

edit: I didn't catch your big response to me above before posting this - now working on responding to that...

 

[zabu of nΩd]

so what if my goal or desire is sex, is rape good because it is one of the ways to achieve my goal/satisfy my desire? Does it make sense to say 'not raping' is evil because it thwarts my desires' satisfaction?

how do you distinguish which of the means to satisfy desires/achieve goals 'should' or 'should not' be done? The Emotivist model you're suggesting tends to undermine 'shoulds' (in the manner I think I might have expressed in the Humanism is Nonsense thread)

Okay, my bad - I was getting myself confused. "Satisfaction of desire" is actually more along the lines of the definition of happiness - not the definition of good. Ignore that statement of mine. What I was actually trying to get at in my part (1) is that "good" can be defined as an expression of a person's attitude on what should be done.

But why do you satisfy your desires? In fact, if you desire sex, why do you not rape someone, behaving as if your human goal is to satisfy desires?

This is an easy one. We don't rape people because we're afraid of the consequences of rape, which generally go against our desires. Just because there are restrictions on how we satisfy our desires doesn't mean we won't still look for the 'optimal' solution, given those conditions. For most people, if they desire sex and they can't get it, masturbation is the most optimal alternative.

I'm not sure what is meant by the question "Why do you satisfy your desires?". You satisfy your desires because you have them.

 

[Seditious]

That is an end different from the one you proposed, right? Maybe it's more basic than what you're looking for, but I really don't think you can get any more specific than "satisfaction of one's desires" without just making random generalisations about what makes people happy..

It's different. some people claim it to be a candidate for contradicting end, but I disagree with it.

Our desire for chocolate isn't necessarily in our self-interest because it may not actually be a means to happiness. The desire for sex a rapist has is the clearest example of such a thing---he immaturely misconstrues pleasure as happiness and seeks pleasure, rather than realizing such is our social setup that this act of pleasure will likely detriment his happiness. I would argue that what we have here is a man ignorant of his end, not a man with a different end.

I don't believe anyone seeks pleasure as an end---I'm probably going to put sugar on my Weetbix in a moment, and have a cookie afterwards, but it's because of what I think the pleasure will do for me as a mental being that I seek it. When pleasures make someone feel worse, too much chocolate, too many drugs, being a slut, they often wish for the virtue (strength of character) to resist their desire, for the know another end is more important than mere pleasure (the very idea of 'pleasure disappointing' (as quoted below) suggests an end to which pleasure is aimed).


this is as good a place as any to share a favourite quote of mine, you might enjoy it.

From Steve Chandler's 17 Lies That Are Holding You Back

We began to see the connection between self-control and happiness, we began to realize only the disciplined were free. Self-control can begin with being aware of the difference between acting toward my own happiness and taking pleasure. Pleasure is a temporary sensation, and happiness is enduring. Pleasure disappoints, happiness does not. Knowing the difference is a huge step. For example, perhaps I take great pleasure in the sensation of chocolate cake being in my mouth and being swallowed, 'mmm that's real pleasure' but once the cake is swallowed, my true happiness remained unaffected, in fact, my happiness might even by negatively effected if I eat too much and feel sick and get fat, the cake can lower my self-esteem. I've never heard of this exchange in all my years of human conversation:
"You look happy, why are you so happy?"
"who me? oh, I'll tell you why I am happy; three hours ago I ate a large amount of chocolate cake."
And that's how pleasure and happiness have come to be at war with one another. They seem to the immature person to be the same thing, which is why immature people become pleasure-seekers, it appears to be the same thing.

 

[Seditious]

This is an easy one. We don't rape people because we're afraid of the consequences of rape, which generally go against our desires. Just because there are restrictions on how we satisfy our desires doesn't mean we won't still look for the 'optimal' solution, given those conditions. For most people, if they desire sex and they can't get it, masturbation is the most optimal alternative.

So why do you deny one immediate desire for the good of another more distant desire being satisfied? If you're just here to satisfy desires why does it matter which you satisfy (I mean if that's your goal it surely doesn't matter how long you live or anything). Do you not choose which desires will and wont be satisfied because of some end they pertain to?

I'm not sure what is meant by the question "Why do you satisfy your desires?". You satisfy your desires because you have them.

So, again, if you satisfy desires merely because you have them, why do you satisfy some and not others---merely having them can't explain their being satisfied as if human behavior is without motive. (having been attacked by fleas this past week I'm well aware my desire to scratch conflicts with my desire not to make the problem worse---the only way I can decide which desire to refuse is by appealing to the end desires are satisfied or denied for the good of)

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Our desire for chocolate isn't necessarily in our self-interest because it may not actually be a means to happiness. The desire for sex a rapist has is the clearest example of such a thing---he immaturely misconstrues pleasure as happiness and seeks pleasure, rather than realizing such is our social setup that this act of pleasure will likely detriment his happiness. I would argue that what we have here is a man ignorant of his end, not a man with a different end.

I don't believe anyone seeks pleasure as an end---I'm probably going to put sugar on my Weetbix in a moment, and have a cookie afterwards, but it's because of what I think the pleasure will do for me as a mental being that I seek it. When pleasures make someone feel worse, too much chocolate, too many drugs, being a slut, they often wish for the virtue (strength of character) to resist their desire, for the know another end is more important than mere pleasure (the very idea of 'pleasure disappointing' (as quoted below) suggests an end to which pleasure is aimed).

I still think you're making assumptions about what constitutes the right 'goal' for people to seek. What if some people simply want nothing more out of life than pleasure? Obviously that doesn't go for everyone, and I'm certainly not saying that pleasure is the same as satisfying one's desires. You can desire any number of things aside from pleasure. You can desire to be a successful mathematician, in which case you might put yourself through long nights of frustrating equation-solving and theorem-learning.

But for other people, they might want nothing more than to just do nothing, and be drunk or stoned all the time. I'm not so sure that such acts are a result of this person being ignorant of better possibilities for themselves. Wouldn't these people strive for more if they actually cared about striving? Maybe being drunk is the only thing that really motivates them in life. Of course, for most people it's not strictly one way or the other -- people tend to find their own individual balance of short-term and long-term satisfaction.

So why do you deny one immediate desire for the good of another more distant desire being satisfied? If you're just here to satisfy desires why does it matter which you satisfy (I mean if that's your goal it surely doesn't matter how long you live or anything). Do you not choose which desires will and wont be satisfied because of some end they pertain to?

I'm still not sure what you're talking about here. Maybe you're interpreting my usage of the word "desire" differently than I intend it. To me, desire equals wanting something. You can desire pleasure, success, enlightenment, whatever. Desire, in the sense I use it, is whatever is motivating you to do what you do. I hope that helps...

So, again, if you satisfy desires merely because you have them, why do you satisfy some and not others---merely having them can't explain their being satisfied as if human behavior is without motive. (having been attacked by fleas this past week I'm well aware my desire to scratch conflicts with my desire not to make the problem worse---the only way I can decide which desire to refuse is by appealing to the end desires are satisfied or denied for the good of)

I think I've explained by now why people don't pursue some of their desires in the most direct way. If two or more desires conflict (i.e. wanting sex now vs. wanting to not spend years in jail for rape), then the person will adjust their actions in what they perceive to be the optimal way. This doesn't seem very far-fetched to me, but maybe I'm missing something. It just sounds to me like you're saying, 'Because people don't always satisfy all their desires, this means their desires aren't actually what motivates all their actions.' -- an argument which I think I've successfully countered by now.

 

[Έρεβος]

I still think you're making assumptions about what constitutes the right 'goal' for people to seek. What if some people simply want nothing more out of life than pleasure? Obviously that doesn't go for everyone, and I'm certainly not saying that pleasure is the same as satisfying one's desires. You can desire any number of things aside from pleasure. You can desire to be a successful mathematician, in which case you might put yourself through long nights of frustrating equation-solving and theorem-learning.

But for other people, they might want nothing more than to just do nothing, and be drunk or stoned all the time. I'm not so sure that such acts are a result of this person being ignorant of better possibilities for themselves. Wouldn't these people strive for more if they actually cared about striving? Maybe being drunk is the only thing that really motivates them in life. Of course, for most people it's not strictly one way or the other -- people tend to find their own individual balance of short-term and long-term satisfaction.

It isn't a matter of conscious "wants." Someone "wanting" pleasure is simply becoming slave to their base inhibitions, nothing more. It is a matter of knowing yourself, knowing your nature, and gaining control within your mind. Anyone that seeks pleasure for an in itself is not free, therefore lacks the intelligent "right" to seek what they want, as they don't even know what they want, or more-so ... what they need.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It isn't a matter of conscious "wants." Someone "wanting" pleasure is simply becoming slave to their base inhibitions, nothing more. It is a matter of knowing yourself, knowing your nature, and gaining control within your mind. Anyone that seeks pleasure for an in itself is not free, therefore lacks the intelligent "right" to seek what they want, as they don't even know what they want, or more-so ... what they need.

But everybody wants pleasure at some point or other. Who doesn't want to relax after a long day at work, or after a week of exams? People don't live their lives only to do work, or only to think. Generally, anyone who wants to stay sane finds something fun to do in-between their periods of doing serious stuff. How do you know it isn't part of human biology to seek pleasure from time to time? We do have to relieve stress, after all.

And besides all that, what is so inherently wrong with seeking pleasure? You say that someone who seeks pleasure doesn't know what they need, but what do people need in the first place? Your argument seems to be going off the assumption that the goal of every human is to gain control over their desire for pleasure (or possibly eliminate pleasure from their lives, I'm not sure). While that's a noble goal and all, it's certainly not a necessary goal, and many people may not even be happy with that goal in the long run.

 

[speed]

But everybody wants pleasure at some point or other. Who doesn't want to relax after a long day at work, or after a week of exams? People don't live their lives only to do work, or only to think. Generally, anyone who wants to stay sane finds something fun to do in-between their periods of doing serious stuff. How do you know it isn't part of human biology to seek pleasure from time to time? We do have to relieve stress, after all.

And besides all that, what is so inherently wrong with seeking pleasure? You say that someone who seeks pleasure doesn't know what they need, but what do people need in the first place? Your argument seems to be going off the assumption that the goal of every human is to gain control over their desire for pleasure (or possibly eliminate pleasure from their lives, I'm not sure). While that's a noble goal and all, it's certainly not a necessary goal, and many people may not even be happy with that goal in the long run.

Hic Bibitur!

The problem today is not pleasure, its the form of pleasure. Instead of truly being free to frolic and think openly--free from outside influences, dogma--most model even their pleasure on very standardized social norms. Fuck it. I say live it up, and do what one wishes (this will be misinterpreted Im sure). I dont trust anyone averse to fun.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The problem today is not pleasure, its the form of pleasure. Instead of truly being free to frolic and think openly--free from outside influences, dogma--most model even their pleasure on very standardized social norms.

I guess for those people it's not so much the form of pleasure that matters, but the social comfort/acceptance they feel from participating in what everyone else does. What can you say, most people are of a herd mentality. I still maintain that these people don't necessarily need 'better quality' pleasure in order to live out what they think is a satisfactory life.

 

[Έρεβος]

Hic Bibitur!

The problem today is not pleasure, its the form of pleasure. Instead of truly being free to frolic and think openly--free from outside influences, dogma--most model even their pleasure on very standardized social norms. Fuck it. I say live it up, and do what one wishes (this will be misinterpreted Im sure). I dont trust anyone averse to fun.

Fun isn't the same thing as pleasure. They aren't truly even related. Fun is a light-hearted sort of satisfaction, living in the moment; while pleasure is just shallow sensory gratification.

 

[Έρεβος]

But everybody wants pleasure at some point or other. Who doesn't want to relax after a long day at work, or after a week of exams? People don't live their lives only to do work, or only to think. Generally, anyone who wants to stay sane finds something fun to do in-between their periods of doing serious stuff. How do you know it isn't part of human biology to seek pleasure from time to time? We do have to relieve stress, after all.

And besides all that, what is so inherently wrong with seeking pleasure? You say that someone who seeks pleasure doesn't know what they need, but what do people need in the first place? Your argument seems to be going off the assumption that the goal of every human is to gain control over their desire for pleasure (or possibly eliminate pleasure from their lives, I'm not sure). While that's a noble goal and all, it's certainly not a necessary goal, and many people may not even be happy with that goal in the long run.

State your definition of "pleasure."

 

[zabu of nΩd]

State your definition of "pleasure."

Hmm... been thinking about this off and on for a while. I'm pretty much using it to mean 'recreation' or 'amusement' - anything that gives you short-term gratification. Drugs and sex are the stereotypical obvious examples, but things like TV, computer games, or reading the metal forums are all valid examples, I think.

I don't equate it with happiness, of course, because pleasure doesn't always make you happy. Depending on one's mood, it sometimes requires more serious pursuits to make a person feel happy. "Happy" is a really shallow, clichéed word to use, so feel free to substitute in "satisfaction" or "contentment" if you wish.

The main point I'm trying to argue here is that a person's satisfaction in life generally comes from some combination of serious pursuits and pleasurable pursuits. A lot of people here seem to think that it is a person's absolute duty to strive to "conquer" pleasure, which I find rather absurd. You don't have to conquer your desire for pleasure in order to live in harmony with it.

 

[Seditious]

I still think you're making assumptions about what constitutes the right 'goal' for people to seek.

You'd be right. It's an assumption I think I can defend.

What if some people simply want nothing more out of life than pleasure?

Then they're not aware why they want pleasure.

But for other people, they might want nothing more than to just do nothing, and be drunk or stoned all the time. I'm not so sure that such acts are a result of this person being ignorant of better possibilities for themselves.

what do you think leads them to pleasure seeking?

Wouldn't these people strive for more if they actually cared about striving? Maybe being drunk is the only thing that really motivates them in life.

why do they strive for pleasure (anyone who takes a sport, or a hobbie really seriously will tell you how much effort and striving it involves). I wouldn't say they don't care about striving, just that pleasure is what they are striving for because they see it as a way to get what they want.

I'm still not sure what you're talking about here. Maybe you're interpreting my usage of the word "desire" differently than I intend it. To me, desire equals wanting something. You can desire pleasure, success, enlightenment, whatever. Desire, in the sense I use it, is whatever is motivating you to do what you do. I hope that helps...

That's how I use it also. Maybe reread what you wrote and my response again.

I desire to be healthy, but I also desire cookies. These are both motivators of behavior, and if my goal in life is merely to answer desires I have no real reason to care which I satisfy because so long as I'm satisfying desires I'm doing my purpose in life... which is why I asked why you would preference any desire over another if desire satisfaction itself is the end, rather than merely a means to a real end.

I think I've explained by now why people don't pursue some of their desires in the most direct way. If two or more desires conflict (i.e. wanting sex now vs. wanting to not spend years in jail for rape), then the person will adjust their actions in what they perceive to be the optimal way.

So you're saying having desires doesn't explain acting on desires, which is what I asked you about earlier. So again I have to ask, why do you satisfy desires?

maybe I'm missing something. It just sounds to me like you're saying, 'Because people don't always satisfy all their desires, this means their desires aren't actually what motivates all their actions.' -- an argument which I think I've successfully countered by now.

desires incline us to toward actions (That's all a desire is---an inclination toward an action), but obviously my having a desire to stab someone doesn't explain my stabbing someone, as you've said, if I don't want to spend time in jail, desire isn't the end all to my actions. While a desire to stab would explain the action, why I took that action, why I satisfied that desire is not explained by the mere presence of desire, and that is why I ask you to explain why you satisfy desires, saying 'because I desire an act' just doesn't tell us anything.