Thread: Good and Evil: Inherent or Subjective?

I think you'll find that we haven't defined good and evil.

Good and evil isn't inherent in the universe because they are just labels we give to arbitrarily define parts of existence. Our brains are dualistic - left right, up down, light dark, cause effect, good evil. This is how we evolved.

This is the problem - its completely arbitrary.

If we lived in a world where murder was apart of every culture and an accepted part of how our society worked, it would be the social norm. You wouldn't be taught that murder was wrong, you'd be taught that not being able to defend yourself from murder was weak. Your wife cheats on you? You kill her. You want your bosses job at work? You kill him and get a promotion. Someone kills your best friend, you are entitled to kill the offender. In a primitive, warlike society, murder would not be explicitly evil. It would be an option.

Now I'm going to pre-empt everyone else who will say "But I would know it's evil, so I wouldn't do it". In that kind of society, when you are the minority, you would be seen as weak. You'd be a target.

And it's not that far a stretch of reasoning. Look at fundamentalists in the Middle-East. They blow themselves up and kill hundreds of people. But because those people are 'infidels', its ok by them and their religion. They've been taught that killing is a GOOD THING so long as you're killing non-muslims. If that's all you've ever been taught by all your elders and parents, you will believe it to be true. Child minds take the word of authority as gospel, and this is the way that children are indoctrinated and exploited.

^^

What Alex said!!

Good and evil are wsubjective terms defined by what you see as "right" and "wrong"-- which are also subjective.

So no, there are no "forces" of good and evil in the universe.

they are absolutely, 100% subjective. I can say a million examples. One of the easiest to explain would be the black rights movements. Back in the old days, most people considered black people less deserving of rights than white people, and people hated them and did all kinds of nasty things. They absolutely hated black revolutionists with all fo their hearts. Now we praise the black revolutionists for bringing us together. I can name many more, but I dont feel I have to.

Good and evil are indeed subjective, but they are hardly arbitrary. The vast majority of cultural moral codes revolve around the ideology of maintaining a status quo and keeping things balanced. An ideal moral code is one that benefits the largest number of people possible and has the least possible negative effects on any one individual. Because we are all biological creatures, what we percieve as positive and negative effects on our person are largely universal. We all want healthy food, shelter, and companionship. Denying another of these things is 'evil' because we know that they are made of the same stuff as us, and so we know they want basically the same stuff as us.

When it comes down to it, 'good' is the ability to identify with another being and recognize similarities in yourself. 'Evil' is either the inability, or the refusal to do this, and so is basically a detachment from the other being. Once you no longer feel any substantial connection between yourself and another thing, it becomes easy and normal to disregard its possible needs and desires.

Part of morality is genetically inherent.

Bad and good are subjective.
Just as beauty is, and race, gender etc.

If you were the last person on the planet, would you be so concerned with morals when there is none to judge but yourself?

Since most morals deal with the interaction of one sentient life form with another, I don't really see where the application of morals really applies to being the last person on Earth.

- Stealing has no meaning because no one else exists to own anything.
- Rape has no meaning because no one is left to be violated.
- Betrayal has no meaning because you have no one to betray.

The list goes on.

The human moral sense was born out of reciprical altruism for our families and hunting groups, as well as other families and their hunting groups as we met them on the plains of the savannah for trade. No humans left means no need for a moral sense. You're alone until you die. What is there to be moral about?

Originally Posted by Alextanium

Since most morals deal with the interaction of one sentient life form with another, I don't really see where the application of morals really applies to being the last person on Earth.

- Stealing has no meaning because no one else exists to own anything.
- Rape has no meaning because no one is left to be violated.
- Betrayal has no meaning because you have no one to betray.

The list goes on.

My point, exactly.

He meant that your question doesn't make sense. The concept of morality isn't void subjectively for the person who lives alone but it's void in its entirety because the person is alone. You can't act morally towards a stone etc.

They arfe defined by us, and our ourown personal definitions. We think tha Nazis were evil. The Nazis thought we were good.

If you cannot be judged, then only you are left to judge yourself.

Morals are therefore ways of expressing judgement and division upon yourself and others.

The exact same kind of thinking that stems racism, sexism, and all freedom supressing ideas.

Defined by judgment.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Defined by judgment.

I hoped someone would pick that out.

It leads to a paradox, that no-morals is actually a moral preference over any morals.

Though, that's why I'm saying it's irrelevant. Why would you care if you were the last person on Earth.

Because I would be alone. ^, my point exactly, with the example of the Nazis.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

They arfe defined by us, and our ourown personal definitions. We think tha Nazis were evil. The Nazis thought we were good.

So? We think that humans are made of cells, previous cultures thought they were made of God knows what. That doesn't mean that both assertions are of equal worth or truth value.

Wait...what? That has nothing to do with anything...? I can use a diferent example. Muslims think the US Army is evil, the US army thinks Muslims are evil (In general, not trying to offend anyone...)

lol, US army thinks fundamentalist terrorists are evil, they have made a clear distinction in that regard.

Originally Posted by xXSomeGuyXx

Wait...what? That has nothing to do with anything...? I can use a diferent example. Muslims think the US Army is evil, the US army thinks Muslims are evil (In general, not trying to offend anyone...)

Neither of that is correct unless you seek to equate Muslims with terrorists.

I do know for a fact that terrorists are evil.

Terrorists aren't evil-- Just selfish.

Ego is the only thing that creates what we call evil. It creates division, and claims itself greatest.

With such thinking, there is no freedom.

A war for freedom is nothing but a war on freedom.

Originally Posted by Korittke

Neither of that is correct unless you seek to equate Muslims with terrorists.

I do know for a fact that terrorists are evil.

So its settled then, morals are universal and dictated by a higher power.

Originally Posted by ClouD

Ego is the only thing that creates what we call evil. It creates division, and claims itself greatest.

And rightfully so.