Do you believe in evil?

[Shinra]

it's a simple concept that makes sense if you ask me... but the concept is subjected to the point of view of the user... me? I do believe evil exists and it influences us to act just in turn... it's one of those intangible concepts but it's a concept nonetheless... morality is all based on the attainment of the concept of satisfaction. we all want satisfaction for our acts either by selfless or selfish means. we paint the selfish as "bad" or "evil" people because they are imbalanced by gaining satisfaction for just themselves or for a reason that isn't understood at the moment by the person perceiving it. to me Evil is the act of being selfish AND/OR using unfair means to obtain satisfaction. if someone acts like that even once odds are the there is a just reason behind it or the just side will come back at them in one way or another.

Like say: "I steal food to feed my family." the reason is just, but the means of attaining it is evil or bad. meanwhile: "I work harder so I can satisfy myself." the reason is wrong but the method is right. those are considered "Grey" and so on and so forth...

and as humans the concept of duality permeates us as well that's why there's a fine line between good and bad, right and wrong... and that duality acts almost as infinitely as gravity. And it manifests in the way we act. we can walk the fine line all our lives and be equally satisfied on both ends. but our existence is dynamic just like the universe itself.

but it's as simple as "every action has an equal and opposite reaction."

 

[Nyangoro]

Morality is an universal agreement that was imposed from the very beginning of civilization in order to keep mankind in order which is why laws were imposed due to our moral standards analyzed by the rationale conscience. Otherwise, murder would be just as common as saying hello to someone. Say for instance, a dictator decided one morning, out of the blue, that he will drop nuclear bombs all over the planet with no particular reasoning behind his (or her) motive. The entire world would be in total chaos because the universal consensus of an action causing a reaction in conjunction with one another.

It is not a "universal agreement," it is a by product of social species. Morality is merely the name we've given to the standards under which human groups have decided to operate. All social animals have something akin to morality, but we consider ours to be more unique (and to an extent it is, due to its relative complexity), so it gets the special name.

The reason certain moral guidelines appear universal is simply because those certain guidelines follow very easily. Murder, for example, is the easiest to see. Societies which allow their members to kill one another don't tend to last long, so those don't persist. And things like empathy are evolved traits. A species that markedly cares for the members of its own group is like to see that group persist. And therefore, when they witness atrocities committed against members they consider their own group, they don't like it. And call it evil.

Because absolutely none of this changes the fact that morality is subjective. Morality does not exist naturally in the universe. It exists only within the minds of the groups. Even if the entirety of humanity was in agreement on every moral guideline, morality would still be subjective.

And for the record, it being subjective doesn't diminish its value. It seems common especially in societies influenced by the Abrahamic religions to find the idea that something must be objective and absolute to have worth. But that's not true. Morality being subjective doesn't diminish its importance or its weight. It's subjective because it's what we make of it. But because it is by us and for us, what we make of it matters a lot to us.

 

[Pinwheel]

Otherwise, murder would be just as common as saying hello to someone.

No. That isn't even remotely true. Do you really think that without objective morals people would just go around killing others? Have you ever heard of the phrase social cohesion?

 

[Taylor]

Morality is an universal agreement that was imposed from the very beginning of civilization in order to keep mankind in order which is why laws were imposed due to our moral standards analyzed by the rationale conscience. Otherwise, murder would be just as common as saying hello to someone. Say for instance, a dictator decided one morning, out of the blue, that he will drop nuclear bombs all over the planet with no particular reasoning behind his (or her) motive. The entire world would be in total chaos because the universal consensus of an action causing a reaction in conjunction with one another.

Yes, good, thank you for agreeing.

If it's a universal consensus, then it's a mad-made concept defined by society (you're actually referring to ethics here, not morality). If I look at two objects and then I double it, I have four objects. That's true whether or not society says it's true; that's an observable, testable fact. If humanity all got together and said, "Alright, on the whole, we've decided that murder is really bad and we shouldn't do it. Can we all agree to that?" then that's not objective. If "murder is really bad" were an objective, universal law, then why do murderers exist? If murder was objectively bad, there would be literally no outliers, but there are people whose morals say that it is okay to circumvent the ethics established by society.


You're mistaking the words "universal" and "absolute". You wouldn't say killing humans is entirely absolute. In times of war, it's okay. In some cases, countries support the death penalty. If your life is being threatened, you can respond in kind and kill the other person in self-defense. Many old civilizations performed human sacrifices to their deities, and many considered that to be an honor.

 

[bgizzles45]

It is not a "universal agreement," it is a by product of social species. Morality is merely the name we've given to the standards under which human groups have decided to operate.

How was this decision made? Is it not the conscience that rationalize the moral principles of survival?

All social animals have something akin to morality, but we consider ours to be more unique (and to an extent it is, due to its relative complexity), so it gets the special name.

There's nothing special about it at all. Social animals inherently know in their mind the fundamental principles of maintaining a stable pack, group, population because of the means of survival.

The reason certain moral guidelines appear universal is simply because those certain guidelines follow very easily. Murder, for example, is the easiest to see. Societies which allow their members to kill one another don't tend to last long, so those don't persist. And things like empathy are evolved traits. A species that markedly cares for the members of its own group is like to see that group persist. And therefore, when they witness atrocities committed against members they consider their own group, they don't like it. And call it evil.

This is due to the false projection the egocentric irrationally tries to justify the action to rationalize tribalism.

Because absolutely none of this changes the fact that morality is subjective. Morality does not exist naturally in the universe. It exists only within the minds of the groups. Even if the entirety of humanity was in agreement on every moral guideline, morality would still be subjective.

Morality exists to a certain extent to not only humans, but animals as well. Every living and non living being carries out a function that maintains the ecosystem. Otherwise it would collapse if nothing had a means to survive. Even a dog has a guilty conscience when it knows it has done something wrong.

And for the record, it being subjective doesn't diminish its value. It seems common especially in societies influenced by the Abrahamic religions to find the idea that something must be objective and absolute to have worth. But that's not true. Morality being subjective doesn't diminish its importance or its weight. It's subjective because it's what we make of it. But because it is by us and for us, what we make of it matters a lot to us.

I need you to emphasize why and how society is influenced by the Abrahamic religions when not every society derived from these religions. Civilizations have existed prior to abrahamic religions and were able to develop core ethics and morals as a means to strive.

 

[Deleted member 36435]

How was this decision made? Is it not the consciene that rationalize the moral principles of survival?

You seem to be skipping over the hundreds of millions of years where "immoral" or "evil" acts reigned supreme in order to weed out the week species, and that still happens just not all that applicable to modern humans. Because we have found that, due to our intelligence, it is more beneficial to work together rather than kill each other. However, this doesn't apply to nearly all of nature. It doesn't even apply at the atomic level where atoms like Oxygen will rip electrons from other atoms in order to stabilize themselves.

 

[Nyangoro]

How was this decision made? Is it not the conscience that rationalize the moral principles of survival?

The formation of the first moral principles wasn't some sort of decision made at a conference of the "first humans" or something like that. It's a trial and error process that social species go through. We just see the successes. And then human societies added more and more based on what the leaders or majority wanted/thought was best (depending on however the first human societies were set up, though I'd imagine the former). And they progressively got more complex from there. Sure, we can use rational criteria to try and determine what actions are best for our society, but that's still a subjective process.

There's nothing special about it at all. Social animals inherently know in their mind the fundamental principles of maintaining a stable pack, group, population because of the means of survival.

It's not special, no. However, it's also not the cause of some objective "truth" inherent in the universe. It's simply that certain behaviors tend to benefit the group, and so they tend to persist. And those successes carry over into instinct. And yet none of that makes morality objective (well, again, not beyond the objective fact that the concept definitely exists).

This is due to the false projection the egocentric irrationally tries to justify the action to rationalize tribalism.

I'm using the word "group" broadly. Any situation in which a collection of otherwise individual creatures comes together to form and persist as a single unit, I call that a "group." All of humanity can be a group. So can one's family, one's peers, one's ethnicity, etc. I use the term this way because how we view what happens to others is very heavily influenced by whether or not we consider those others to be members of our particular groups. You would probably feel bad if something happened to another family, but you'd feel worse if something happened to yours. You'd feel bad if something happened to another country, but you'd feel worse if something happened to yours. You'd feel bad if half the population of cats was wiped from the earth, but you'd feel worse if half the population of humans was wiped from the face of the earth. That's what I mean.

Morality exists to a certain extent to not only humans, but animals as well. Every living and non living being carries out a function that maintains the ecosystem. Otherwise it would collapse if nothing had a means to survive. Even a dog has a guilty conscience when it knows it has done something wrong.

Dogs don't actually feel guilt. They're just responding to anger/tone of voice. Regardless, that guilt exists doesn't make morality objective. Guilt is just another emotion. It just so happens that it's beneficial to society (like empathy, which it's paired with), so it persists. Standards of behavior can change, and so what one feels guilty about can change. Guilt's existence doesn't make morality absolute.

I need you to emphasize why and how society is influenced by the Abrahamic religions when not every society derived from these religions. Civilizations have existed prior to abrahamic religions and were able to develop core ethics and morals as a means to strive.

You misunderstand. What I meant was that finding marked value in things being absolute as opposed to relative is something common to societies influenced strongly by Abrahamic religions. Not that Abrahamic religions are the only ones that can achieve that. And certainly not that this applies to every society.

More importantly, what you said last is kind of what I'm talking about. You don't need absolutism to have a society with strong morals. So just because a society has strong morals doesn't mean that they subscribe to the notion that morality is something inherent to the functioning of the universe.

And overall, nothing you've said demonstrates why morality is objective. You always go back to talking about how societies make morals, which I agree with. And it's for that very reason that morality is subjective. Using logical reasoning to determine what standards of behavior are best doesn't make the resulting standards any less subjective. Which is why I said at the very beginning that the main problem here is misunderstanding the difference between something being objective and something being subjective.

 

[Azurith]

Yes. Evil exists. I've seen far more evil than anyone ever should.
But I still believe in the good of people, if not then what is the point of life?

Pure and simple: Men (and women) have free will. They can choose to be good or evil. Most will choose to be good, and some will ultimately choose evil.

 

[Chuman]

a bump like that confirms evil.

 

[Azurith]

a bump like that confirms evil.

Damnit, for the last time.. I'm NOT evil!

 

[Chuman]

Damnit, for the last time.. I'm NOT evil!

according to bgizzles, this is objective B)

 

[thetravelingfool]

good and evil are just words to describe two different extremes of reality. both aspects do actually exist but neither is necessarily good or evil but it all depends on perspective. of course there are things that are on one side of the extreme rather than the other. there are negetives and positives but even negetives have positives and positives have negetives. but there is no true right and wrong. I would say there is good and evil though, being that good and evil are just words used to describe both the pleasures and the unpleasant things of life which are, and do exist. but I will say there is no right or wrong but I do think there is better. hope I made sense lol

The very fact that the people who commit "objectively immoral acts" believe they are doing the right thing literally proves that the concept of morality isn't objective

hmmm you mean like those 2 girls on 2 girl one cup? or maybe you mean joe the rapist.

negative and positive polarities are not subjective. the only thing that subjective is what you label them.

 

[VoidGear.]

Please don't multipost. Edit your initial post.

 

[thetravelingfool]

im sorry I cant either my comp is malfunctioning or the site wont let me edit.

 

[Chuman]

evil is subjective. many people commit "evil" acts and don't realize they are, and many others believe something to be evil and are wrong. i can chat it up all day but there is a difference between murdering someone in cold blood or because its the so called "right thing".

there really is no justifying rape or torture of another person other than you're a sick fuck

 

[thetravelingfool]

evil is subjective. many people commit "evil" acts and don't realize they are, and many others believe something to be evil and are wrong. i can chat it up all day but there is a difference between murdering someone in cold blood or because its the so called "right thing".

there really is no justifying rape or torture of another person other than you're a sick diddly

I think besides what religious institutions brainwash you to believe is good and evil, you know what would be good or evil instinctively. otherwise there is no way you could say that you cant justify torture and rape.

 

[Nyangoro]

Good and evil are not like two poles on a magnet. There is no physical thing from which goodness and evilness springs into the universe. Morality is entirely us, a lot of which stems from things like empathy and valuing an individual's autonomy.

 

[thetravelingfool]

Good and evil are not like two poles on a magnet. There is no physical thing from which goodness and evilness springs into the universe. Morality is entirely us, a lot of which stems from things like empathy and valuing an individual's autonomy.

everything in our world is like poles on a magnet. we live in a dualistic world. night and day, summer and winter and even our emotions are dualistic. this is why we call people who go from one emotional extreme to the next bi-polar.
im not saying good and evil are magnetic forces im saying that they representative of the positive and negative aspects of. the physical things that spring good or evil into the world are living organisms themselves. but I do admit good and evil are largely dependent upon perspective but they still exist none the less.

 

[redcrown]

everything in our world is like poles on a magnet. we live in a dualistic world. night and day, summer and winter and even our emotions are dualistic. this is why we call people who go from one emotional extreme to the next bi-polar.
im not saying good and evil are magnetic forces im saying that they representative of the positive and negative aspects of. the physical things that spring good or evil into the world are living organisms themselves. but I do admit good and evil are largely dependent upon perspective but they still exist none the less.

I'm curious, what specific religion/philosophy do you follow? Your posts copy/circle each other in theme.

 

[Chuman]

I think besides what religious institutions brainwash you to believe is good and evil, you know what would be good or evil instinctively. otherwise there is no way you could say that you cant justify torture and rape.

there is no way to justify harming another human being to get your rocks off and if you believe that then fucking check yourself into a nuthouse.