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!

 

[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. )

 

[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)

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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."

 

[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.

 

[Seditious]

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.

personally I use pleasure as a broad category including the mental pleasures and specifically refer to the other as 'sensory pleasure'. Suffering too is a broad category which includes the physical sufferings like pain, and also the mental sufferings like negative emotions.

 

[Seditious]

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..

yea. the way I'd put it is that it's anything which provokes a sense of elation

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.

who would those people be? I hope you're not misinterpreting me as saying any such thing.

That I state 'desires aren't your end', that 'pleasure is but a means' comes with no 'should' suggesting those means aren't means we should use. It's where pleasure is mistaken as the end, or doesn't reach the end it's intended for that such pursuit should be questioned.

 

[infoterror]

The concept of good versus evil is key to many belief systems.

If the sheep like it, I'm out.

There is no good and evil. There's dumb and less dumb. And those are human perceptions, not inherent to the world, which doesn't care if we live or die...

EUGENICS NOW

 

[Έρεβος]

There is no good and evil. There's dumb and less dumb.

Oh that is perfect.

 

[infoterror]

Eugenics now!

 

[MetalBooger]

if you dont think hitler was evil, then yer an asshole, if you dont think -Name yer baddies- is evil, yer an asshole.

If you dont think cake is good, then yer an asshole, if you dont think -Name yer goodies- is good, yer an asshole.

There, i prove that good an evil exists based on the asshole system.

 

[Seditious]

Okay, so you seem to be suggesting that people who seek pleasure don't know what's really good for them.

I'm suggesting people who seek pleasure see that as good for them.

What's so bad about a life of pleasure?

nothing, if it gets you what you want. There's nothing wrong with a life of raping women either, but if you're doing it hoping to alleviate trauma from being molested by your parents as a child then maybe there is something wrong with it---it's not effective, that's what's wrong with it. If pleasure-seeking actually gets you what you want, then that's great, but pleasure itself isn't what you want, it's merely your means.

.
Are you against all pleasure, or just some of it? I'm pretty sure it's impossible to exist as a sane human being without indulging one's desire for pleasure every now and then. I'm curious to hear the extent of your objection to pleasure.

I'm not against any pleasure or pain which succeeds as a means. If pain in exercise makes me better I'm not against that pain, and if pleasure in eating makes me worse then I am against that pleasure. So long as the means is beneficial I'm not against it. I'm only against adhering to a means as if the means itself was the end, and thus ruining our best hope of that end in the ignorance of its existence.

It sounded like this was in response to my saying that I wouldn't seek the pleasure of raping someone because I wish to avoid the displeasure of getting arrested. Assuming that's the correct context, then yes, it makes perfect sense to me for a person to pick a more distant (and reliable) pleasure over a more immediate (and risky) pleasure. This isn't difficult to understand, is it? If I'm truly interested in my pleasure, and not a moron, then I'm not going to risk things like sexual crime and hard drugs, which could potentially ruin my chances at ever achieving pleasure again.

What my difficulty with it is that you are suggesting 'pleasure' isn't the highest value, but that pleasures are means relating to a higher value from which pleasures themselves are given their value---some pleasures not valuable enough means to pursue. If -all- you were concerned with was pleasure, pleasure is pleasure, and it doesn't even matter how much pleasure you get or how long you live, living is just a means to pleasure, and putting off one pleasure now is just a means to getting another pleasure later, unless you have a higher value than pleasure you have no reason to discriminate over them. And if you do, then as I believe I was talking about way back then, then pleasure in fact isn't your goal at all, it's just a means, an instrument to whatever is actually important).

A good follow-up to the last quote. As I've said, you do have reason to prioritise your pursuits, because some desires are stronger than others. No need for you to simplify the pursuit of desire to 'fuck it, just give me whatever pleasure i can get, because it's all the same'.

So if your desire to rape was strongest, but still you deny it so you can enjoy cable TV and pizza and ya know... the benefits of liberty and friendly society, you're not just saying 'well I give in to the strongest desire for pleasure because pleasure is all that matters' you're saying despite pleasures I desire, something is so important I can't risk losing it merely to gain pleasure.

I said the way you act on your desires is determined by which of life's pleasures is more valuable to you. For most people, staying out of jail carries far more potential for pleasure than does raping someone. That will explain why people pick staying out of jail (unless they're insane).

and why do you care whether you have pleasure 100 times in your life or 30 times? pleasure is only for it's own sake right? it's not merely a means to an actual end is it? In other words, if you don't value getting pleasure for any reason other than that pleasure is awesome then you have no reason to discriminate. To say 'I'd rather have two pleasures tomorrow than one today at the expence of those two' is to suggest pleasure is a means for something. You want pleasure right? so why deny it---it must be because something pleasure gets it will get better by not having this pleasure now. It's only in superceding pleasure that you decide not to take pleasure when you can get it.

To put it most generally: we satisfy desires because doing so gives us pleasure, or makes us happy

if the answer to my satisfying desires is that I know it gives me pleasure, then any desire which I know gives me pleasure---the predictive power of this hypothesis affirms---I should be acting to satisfy... but I'm not am I? so that can't possibly be it. That's the objection I'm raising with you.

Is happiness enough of a justification for you? People want to be happy, and if they're not happy they'll look for ways to be happy. To me, that's a fine explanation for why people pursue their desires. I can't think of any further explanation you would need.

Happiness is the only end I can see. Happiness is the end people imagine pleasures are means to, that's my point here. No one seeks pleasure for itself, if someone thinks they do then they just don't understand themselves.