Originally posted by psmith81992Well this is where we differ again: subjectivity. I call morality a human contrivance that we've invented to give more weight to what I would otherwise call preferences. Makes our responses and feelings feel more justified that way, if we're absolutely and cosmically correct in our sentiment.
I didn't say intrinsically. On a macro scale, things are indeed relative but you can make universal claims about individual cases. ISIS is evil. The fact that they don't think so doesn't make the opinion subjective. Suicide bombings, using children as shields, etc.
Reeks of human arrogance to me. IS does things that I would strongly prefer not happen, enough that I want them stopped (the details of HOW to stop them a point of contention in itself). But I'm not going to say that my disapproval of their claims and deeds is objectively correct. They are my personal (i.e. subjective) preferences. IS isn't 'wrong' to do what they do. Or 'right'. It's their preference. And it contrasts with the preferences with just about everybody else. In a big, emotional way.
If you want to use the word evil to describe all that, then I'll understand for convenience's sake. Which brings me round to your original question:
Originally posted by psmith81992
Do you believe there is evil in this world that needs to be purged and that whoever is capable should do it?
And my short is nope. My long answer is "there is more than one capable entity, they are regional, and I want them to do it. With a little help from their flying friends, if they want."
IS isn't 'wrong' to do what they do. Or 'right'. It's their preference. And it contrasts with the preferences with just about everybody else. In a big, emotional way.
And my short is nope. My long answer is "there is more than one capable entity, they are regional, and I want them to do it. With a little help from their flying friends, if they want."
Originally posted by psmith81992Exactly, for the sake of convenience I'd use the word "evil". It gets across the speaker's sentiment quite nicely.
If you are asserting that morality involves nothing more than preferences, and a particular group's preference is universally despised (everybody that isn't them), then they are evil under your explanation of morality.
But wide or universal consensus can also be written as "all the humans share this feeling." That's a great step toward cooperation or harmony, but when it comes to labeling our emotions and thoughts as objective fact, I won't do it. There's no irrefutable law written in to the fabric of the universe that says certain actions and thoughts are right, and certain ones wrong. The people who think there is usually accredit said "law" to a deity of some manner. And you already know I'm not in their camps.
There's no irrefutable law written in to the fabric of the universe that says certain actions and thoughts are right, and certain ones wrong.
There's no irrefutable law written in to the fabric of the universe that says what it means for something to be right or wrong in the first place. Morality is no more of a human invention than the notions of right and wrong. You cannot hold morality to the standards of universal law unless you do the same with the concepts of right and wrong, or good and evil, in which case you cannot claim to know anything about them whatsoever.
Once you accept that these concepts are all under the domain of human design, it's pretty easy to see that certain statements about good and evil, or right and wrong, can be objectively correct by virtue of being tautologous. Which is exactly why I completely disagree with the idea of moral nihilism.
Originally posted by appletoniaBingo.
There's no irrefutable law written in to the fabric of the universe that says what it means for something to be right or wrong in the first place.
Originally posted by appletonia
Morality is no more of a human invention than the notions of right and wrong.
Right and wrong are also human inventions.
Originally posted by appletoniaAnd I do. Seems a bit redundant now to be differentiating between the three.
You cannot hold morality to the standards of universal law unless you do the same with the concepts of right and wrong, or good and evil,
Originally posted by appletoniaMainly because they're human inventions whose interpretations switch from person to person.
in which case you cannot claim to know anything about them whatsoever.
Originally posted by appletoniaAs in, evil is wrong because it's not right?
Once you accept that these concepts are all under the domain of human design, it's pretty easy to see that certain statements about good and evil, or right and wrong, can be objectively correct by virtue of being tautologous.
Originally posted by appletoniaAlright, ya lost me here.
Which is exactly why I completely disagree with the idea of moral nihilism.
My point is that good and evil as human concepts only have meaning as they relate to other human concepts, and that they are human concepts does not mean that they have to mean something different from person to person.
I am watching someone express sorrow. I feel pure and immediate joy at seeing that person's sorrow, and I find everything else about that person irrelevant. I do not consider the consequences of that sorrow when feeling joy over it, but simply the presence of the sorrow itself.
I do not believe you can argue that in that moment, I am not objectively evil to a certain extent.
Once you accept that these concepts are all under the domain of human design, it's pretty easy to see that certain statements about good and evil, or right and wrong, can be objectively correct by virtue of being tautologous. Which is exactly why I completely disagree with the idea of moral nihilism.
My point is that good and evil as human concepts only have meaning as they relate to other human concepts, and that they are human concepts does not mean that they have to mean something different from person to person.
Agree with this. So LL, are you saying that without the belief in a god, there can be no universality?
Originally posted by appletoniaI really don't like getting in to a discussion that relies on semantics, but there's little choice here.
My point is that good and evil as human concepts only have meaning as they relate to other human concepts, and that they are human concepts does not mean that they have to mean something different from person to person.I am watching someone express sorrow. I feel pure and immediate joy at seeing that person's sorrow, and I find everything else about that person irrelevant. I do not consider the consequences of that sorrow when feeling joy over it, but simply the presence of the sorrow itself.
I do not believe you can argue that in that moment, I am not objectively evil to a certain extent.
If your sense of what it means to be "evil" is to possess a certain mentality or emotion in a specific situation that most others would not have, and would most likely consider to be inappropriate... then sure. By that specific, strict definition of the word 'evil', you are objectively evil. You could also define the word "lampshade" by the same definition and you would be objectively lampshade.
Consider that even here, discussing this, you presented your own version of what it means to be evil. Dave can provide his own, so could I, so could most people. Most will have variations on the degrees of magnitude of the offending state they consider to be the prime attribute of "evil". Every human will have a different idea of what "evil" is and what examples demonstrate it. Some people consider the internet evil for various reasons. Others consider murder and genocide. Others have considered science evil. In that manner, the notion that an objective, irrefutable, universal definition of "evil" exists, is broken.
When considering that, and with the absence of a scientifically concrete demonstration of the literal existence of such a thing as "evil" (i.e. proof that it exists as a fundamental thread of the cosmos, akin to the fundamental forces), I can't subscribe to the belief that evil exists in the framework of moral fact. I see and hear people use the term (and it's polar opposites) as emotion-laden words that lend their ideas and actions greater weight, and serve to justify what we do and why it should be accepted.
To be fair, I extend the same attitude to "goodness" or righteousness. To me, no act or thought is inherently right or wrong, good or evil. They're just acts, or thoughts. We ascribe our personal, subjective emotions to them, and suggest that our attitude is the "correct" attitude.
Originally posted by psmith81992Not in terms of moral right and wrongness. Morality and god are by no means exclusive. But I think if you could prove the former, then proving the latter is within your capacity. Believing in an intangible, abstract (and speaking as atheist), a human creation such as a god, would certainly help in cementing one's certitude that an absolute, irrefutable sense of right and wrong also exists, regardless of attitude or context. Total moral objectivity is easier with a god, especially when that god's morals just happens to also be your own. Few of that camp seem to find the similarity suspicious.
Agree with this. So LL, are you saying that without the belief in a god, there can be no universality?
Before we continue, I should clarify that when I speak of evil, I'm not necessarily speaking of a great magnitude of evil as the term is usually used, but simply any magnitude of the core essence of it. Somebody could be evil as I am defining the term here, but not in the manner I might use the word in everyday conversation.
Consider that even here, discussing this, you presented your own version of what it means to be evil.
It's my own version in the sense that it's how I chose to frame different concepts together, but it's something that can be attributed to everybody in the sense that it was constructed from basic inferences drawn from things that I believe are universally agreed upon.
You're exactly right that this largely revolves around semantics, and that's something a lot of people don't seem to understand.
Consider that even here, discussing this, you presented your own version of what it means to be evil. Dave can provide his own, so could I, so could most people. Most will have variations on the degrees of magnitude of the offending state they consider to be the prime attribute of "evil". Every human will have a different idea of what "evil" is and what examples demonstrate it. Some people consider the internet evil for various reasons. Others consider murder and genocide. Others have considered science evil. In that manner, the notion that an objective, irrefutable, universal definition of "evil" exists, is broken.
When considering that, and with the absence of a scientifically concrete demonstration of the literal existence of such a thing as "evil" (i.e. proof that it exists as a fundamental thread of the cosmos, akin to the fundamental forces), I can't subscribe to the belief that evil exists in the framework of moral fact. I see and hear people use the term (and it's polar opposites) as emotion-laden words that lend their ideas and actions greater weight, and serve to justify what we do and why it should be accepted.
We ascribe our personal, subjective emotions to them, and suggest that our attitude is the "correct" attitude.
Again, suggesting something doesn't make an action subjective. Simply having an opinion that I am a better singer than axl rose doesn't make the entire argument subjective, it just makes you dumb or deaf or something else. I think people miscontrue the idea that simply having a different opinion than the overwhelming majority makes the issue subjective, I just don't agree.
Total moral objectivity is easier with a god, especially when that god's morals just happens to also be your own.