The terms good and evil are man made. In the end it is all relative to who percieves them. What is good for you is evil for me and vice versa.

Example. Stealing is evil. Killing is evil. But sometimes you must do both for survival. So good and evil are only relative to survival. When you live in a nice country like america and are afforded a higher lifestyle it is THEN easier to see many, many things as evil that are in fact not. If you lived in an african village you would see stealing food as a good thing.

I am just wondering what is good and evil for everyone out there.

If you lived in an african village you would see stealing food as a good thing.



Not if you're the one being stolen from.

I'm not completely sure that a certain evil exists..........

Not if you're the one being stolen from.

Which would make good and evil relative to the individual......like I said.

Malice is evil

Different sides to the same coin, their just different perspectives.

hahah, i think stealing food from a poor african thats hungry is wayyy more fucked up than stealing from an american

you made it sound like an african stealing food is "okay" to survive. It's still fucked up that you're stealing from another starving african!

you made it sound like an african stealing food is "okay" to survive. It's still fucked up that you're stealing from another starving african!

but who is it fucked up to? If your doing the stealing your fuckin so happy that you have food. The person you stole from may think it was evil, but that is only their perception. Anything, can be good or evil, what it really comes down to is your position in the matter. Whether somthing is "okay" or not is again just another perception of yourself, and doesnt really have anything to do with good or evil, unless you make it so.

Tomorrow, I shall make a post in here containing an argument against moral absolutism.

Tonight, I shall sleep.

My impression of how society views the subject of good/evil;

Benevolence = good.

Malevolence = Evil.

EDIT: I also find it amusing to note that evil gets an entire term to itself.

I am just wondering what is good and evil for everyone out there.

...You want a list or something?

Anyways, this has been discussed before, and the conclusion was what the initial argument was --- good and evil are subjective.

I'm pretty sure that Jeffery Dahmer was evil....

I'm pretty sure that Jeffery Dahmer was evil....

No. He wasn't.

You're pretty sure that Jeffery Dahmer was evil.... to you.

even if good and evil are perceptions, they still exist. They just aren't absolute.

No. He wasn't.

You're pretty sure that Jeffery Dahmer was evil.... to you.

LMFAO... so killing people and eating them is relative?

even if good and evil are perceptions, they still exist. They just aren't absolute.

Well they only exist as human created notions... They are not things in them self. They are merely classifications of how each individual values something.

Value exists... but good and evil are just ways of measuring that.


LMFAO... so killing people and eating them is relative?

Yes. It is.

Yes. It is.

We will simply have to agree to disagree on this one....

No... because I'm right.

Hitler killed a lot more people than Jeffery Dahmer. Was Hitler an evil person? A million Nazis in 1939 would probly have a very different answer to this question than you do. In reality, no. Hitler was not evil. He is percieved as evil, by the common and traditional Western morality.

Do we consider interacting with woman evil? Do we consider bare shoulders, singing evil? I bet somebody in Islamabad or Tehran would have a different answer than you as well.

Is eating pork evil? Is eating beef evil? Go ask a Jew and a Hindu the same exact question.

For the sake of argument, (and no, I don't really believe this) ... I highly value the eating of other human beings. Hell, people that go around killing people are doing them a favor, saving them from a long painful life. At the same time, we are reaching over population at an exponential rate... and I think we should all do more killing each other, and by a means of consumption, ridding the waste in an environmentally friendly way. Old Jeff D is my hero!

Regardless of what you may be thinking, there is no way you can argue this.

Might makes right... sure. But don't forget that the right that might makes, is nothing more than the right of the might. :D

No... because I'm right.

[...]

You're one of those people that just has to have the last word.... LOL.

You're one of those people that just has to have the last word.... LOL.

No, I'm one of those people that like to share knowledge by forcing others to think in a way they are not comfortable with. Please, do read the rest of my post.

No... because I'm right.

Hitler killed a lot more people than Jeffery Dahmer. Was Hitler an evil person? A million Nazis in 1939 would probly have a very different answer to this question than you do. In reality, no. Hitler was not evil. He is percieved as evil, by the common and traditional Western morality.

Do we consider interacting with woman evil? Do we consider bare shoulders, singing evil? I bet somebody in Islamabad or Tehran would have a different answer than you as well.

Is eating pork evil? Is eating beef evil? Go ask a Jew and a Hindu the same exact question.

For the sake of argument, (and no, I don't really believe this) ... I highly value the eating of other human beings. Hell, people that go around killing people are doing them a favor, saving them from a long painful life. At the same time, we are reaching over population at an exponential rate... and I think we should all do more killing each other, and by a means of consumption, ridding the waste in an environmentally friendly way. Old Jeff D is my hero!

Regardless of what you may be thinking, there is no way you can argue this.

Might makes right... sure. But don't forget that the right that might makes, is nothing more than the right of the might. :D

Hitler is only percieved as evil cause he didnt succeed in what he was trying to do. Im sure if you asked someone who was a nazi even today, i mean truly, they would havea different opinion. If he succeeded in killing off entire races and eventually ruling the world, he would be worshipped as a god today probably.

Hitler is only percieved as evil cause he didnt succeed in what he was trying to do. Im sure if you asked someone who was a nazi even today, i mean truly, they would havea different opinion. If he succeeded in killing off entire races and eventually ruling the world, he would be worshipped as a god today probably.

Thus, the statement, might makes right.

Those with power, determine what is classified as good and evil. In our society, it is a chemistry of powers that have determined a common morality, a morality we have based laws on.

It is because of this chemistry of powers Jove, that you consider Dahmer to be an evil man. Don't get me wrong... I agree. But understand the differences between classifying somebody as evil, and saying that they are evil, a priori, if you will.

Thus, the statement, might makes right.

Those with power, determine what is classified as good and evil. In our society, it is a chemistry of powers that have determined a common morality, a morality we have based laws on.

It is because of this chemistry of powers Jove, that you consider Dahmer to be an evil man. Don't get me wrong... I agree. But understand the differences between classifying somebody as evil, and saying that they are evil, a priori, if you will.

Exactly. If we were in a society where eating other people was rewarded Dahmer would be a man of great power.

So, according to some, any needs to see others suffer is evil...

Does that mean when people act the asshole on message boards to get some pleasure out of watching others suffer, they are evil?

Totse must be chock-full of evil little motherfuckers then.

No, I'm one of those people that like to share knowledge by forcing others to think in a way they are not comfortable with. Please, do read the rest of my post.

I read the whole thing actually, I just don't agree with you. The fact that you can't let that sit is amusing to me... don't take it personal.

I read the whole thing actually, I just don't agree with you. The fact that you can't let that sit is amusing to me... don't take it personal.

Then for sheer amusement... can you tell me in what ways you disagree and how I am wrong? I'm trying to have a worthwhile conversation here.

Then for sheer amusement... can you tell me in what ways you disagree and how I am wrong? I'm trying to have a worthwhile conversation here.

I just don't believe in a relativistic world view. It leads to many a conundrum, as in your (tongue in cheek) defense of Dahmer.

I will never agree with a might makes right view. For instance Bush has all the power and he has used that power to destroy many. The fact that many millions the world over disagree with his policies proves that might does not make right.

I just don't believe in a relativistic world view. It leads to many a conundrum, as in your (tongue in cheek) defense of Dahmer.

I will never agree with a might makes right view. For instance Bush has all the power and he has used that power to destroy many. The fact that many millions the world over disagree with his policies proves that might does not make right.

But bush is still president, while clinton was almost impeached for gettin a blowjob...

I just don't believe in a relativistic world view. It leads to many a conundrum, as in your (tongue in cheek) defense of Dahmer.

I will never agree with a might makes right view. For instance Bush has all the power and he has used that power to destroy many. The fact that many millions the world over disagree with his policies proves that might does not make right.

Because it leads many to a conundrum, does not mean it is not true. See my defense of Hitler. See my defense of Islam. See my defense of the Kosher and the Hindu.

Your analogy with bush is invalid, because Bush is but a minute fraction of the power chemistry here in America. In fact, in many ways everything "anti bush" has a lot more influence than he does! The avidly anti bush culture is more powerful. This can be seen with the trend of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11, our distaste in getting involved in foreign affairs, etc, etc. Now right after September 11th, this was very different. The same thing happened during/post Vietnam. I never said it has to be political power... that has barely anything to do with this.

In America (and all places really) this might comes from a variety of sources. Like I said, it is a chemistry. It is Christianity, Capitalism, Rugged Individualism, Science, mathematics, the state, the anti state, etc etc, the list goes on and on.

All of these ideals are very powerful, and it is their combined might that has created a sort of "common" morality.


Do you believe in God Jove? Where else are you getting this "higher" and "absolute" morality from?

Well they only exist as human created notions... They are not things in them self. They are merely classifications of how each individual values something.

Value exists... but good and evil are just ways of measuring that.

If they are created they exist, even as notions. How do good and evil measure value? If anything they measure some one's actions.

How do good and evil measure value? If anything they measure some one's actions.

When they measure someone's actions, they are measuring our personal value judgment of that person's action. But don't just limit value judgment to mere actions. Morality extends to all aspects of life... from art to science to politics to beauty and beyond.

[...]

Do you believe in God Jove? Where else are you getting this "higher" and "absolute" morality from?

As I said before I do not agree with you and no matter how much you belabor the issue I will continue to disagree.

I get my morals from the many thousands of years of human existence. I do however find it interesting that you would ask me that question... as if my belief or disbelief matters one iota.

As I said before I do not agree with you and no matter how much you belabor the issue I will continue to disagree.

I get my morals from the many thousands of years of human existence. I do however find it interesting that you would ask me that question... as if my belief or disbelief matters one iota.

Well I just cannot understand how somebody can believe in moral absolutism without a "higher power" to create and set up what is good and what is evil.

You say you get your morals from thousands of years of human experience... (which is not a favorable notion, especially for an agnostic/atheist, when you look at the history of morality)... but you're failing to see that this is not about where your morals come from at all.

Whether you get your morals from "human experience", from your parents, from society, from God, from television, from magazines, books, anything... It still does not make them the right morals. It just makes them morals.

You will never agree? You're sure of that, yet we have only begun to talk?

Doesn't leave a whole lot of room for growth.

No, there is only action and consequence. Beyond that we are left with arbitrary viewpoints. Of course if you stood in a pulpit on a Sunday and said that, no one would bother coming to you for their spiritual-crack-fix bread wafers.

Well I just cannot understand how somebody can believe in moral absolutism without a "higher power" to create and set up what is good and what is evil.

You say you get your morals from thousands of years of human experience... (which is not a favorable notion, especially for an agnostic/atheist, when you look at the history of morality)... but you're failing to see that this is not about where your morals come from at all.

Whether you get your morals from "human experience", from your parents, from society, from God, from television, from magazines, books, anything... It still does not make them the right morals. It just makes them morals.

You will never agree? You're sure of that, yet we have only begun to talk?

Doesn't leave a whole lot of room for growth.

The reason I disagree should be plain. Not to mention the fact that I have had similar discussions over the years... and my thought process has yet to change. The fact that someone can view an action as good or evil does not negate the action. If a giant rock were to plummet on this earth and kill every living thing on it that would be in fact evil.

Perhaps being a higher being and capable of reason is a prerequisite to understanding the concepts of "good" and "evil" but there you have it. But that they exist, is to my mind plain.... This reminds me of that old adage that openly wonders whether or not a tree makes a sound if there is not person near to hear it.... I say yes it does.

When they measure someone's actions, they are measuring our personal value judgment of that person's action. But don't just limit value judgment to mere actions. Morality extends to all aspects of life... from art to science to politics to beauty and beyond.

So I take that you ignoring the first part of my post means you agree.

The reason I disagree should be plain. Not to mention the fact that I have had similar discussions over the years... and my thought process has yet to change. The fact that someone can view an action as good or evil does not negate the action. If a giant rock were to plummet on this earth and kill every living thing on it that would be in fact evil.


No it wouldn't be! Because if every human were wiped out, nobody would be around to call it evil, therefore it would not be evil. When we think of this happening in the future, we can call it evil. If one human were to survive the catastrophe, he would most likely call it evil. But even this has to do with the might makes right motion. We humans have invented morality, and with that said it is very likely and understandable judge loss of human life as something "evil". This is why I asked if you believe in a God. How can these concepts exist a priori, outside the world of experience, without a God? Hell, for that matter, how can ANY a priori exist without a God? The truth is, there is no higher world. There is no "real vs apparent". The world of experience, the apparent world, IS the real world.

I'll ask again, please answer this time... do you believe in God?


Perhaps being a higher being and capable of reason is a prerequisite to understanding the concepts of "good" and "evil" but there you have it. But that they exist, is to my mind plain....

You misunderstood what I meant by higher being.


This reminds me of that old adage that openly wonders whether or not a tree makes a sound if there is not person near to hear it.... I say yes it does.

We're not going to turn this thread into THAT debate... but if a tree falls it makes a pattern of vibrations. This pattern of vibrations travels, yes, but without a microphone, without a listening device, without a human ear, nothing is able to interpret those vibrations and turn them into sound.

The same goes for morality. If something "evil" in your eyes takes place... the action still happens, like stated above the consequence still happens... but without a device or human consciousness to interpret the action as good or evil, it is not good or evil, it is just an action.

Here's a better metaphor:

The human consciousness is a tool, a measuring device, a sort of thermometer. A device that measures this world, that measures actions (and everything else) as good or evil, no different than the way a thermometer would measure hot and cold.

Imagine you are measuring something with a thermometer, and the temperature reads 87 degrees Fahrenheit. However, how can you really know this object is 87 degrees Fahrenheit? How can you be so certain that the thermometer is not broken or malfunctioning, and that there is no discrepancy? In order to make sure, you would need access to another thermometer. Using two thermometers, you would have to confirm your results. And if these were different, you would need access to even more thermometers.

The same works for the human consciousness, however we do not have access to a second or third consciousness in order to confirm our results. We our stuck with ours and ours alone. For this reason, our values are all relative. Our morality is relative, because we cannot escape relativity. We know no other consciousness but our own. It is impossible to know any other consciousness.

Morality is relative. I'm surprised people today still make the argument you raise and stand by.

So I take that you ignoring the first part of my post means you agree.

That good and evil exist as classifications? Yes, I already said that. The reason it wasn't addressed is because I thought we already agreed on this issue.

That good and evil exist as classifications? Yes, I already said that. The reason it wasn't addressed is because I thought we already agreed on this issue.

alright, High five.

No it wouldn't be! [...]

LOL.... you are really invested in this thing. Action is action whether or not there is someone there to see it, hear it or feel it.... that is the very essence of reality. Do you honestly believe that if you are not there to witness something that it does not, no cannot exist? This whole thing is just making me reel with laughter. You are proposing that a thing cannot be if one is not there to perceive it... how ludicrous. That my friend is a god complex if there ever was one....

And just so you will stop badgering me about it (though somehow I doubt it) I am an agnostic... but that is neither here nor there. Though I have been most entertained by our little discussion you seem to be taking this way too serious so let me state yet again that we simply agree to disagree....

LOL.... you are really invested in this thing. Action is action whether or not there is someone there to see it, hear it or feel it.... that is the very essence of reality. Do you honestly believe that if you are not there to witness something that it does not, no cannot exist? This whole thing is just making me reel with laughter. You are proposing that a thing cannot be if one is not there to perceive it... how ludicrous. That my friend is a god complex if there ever was one....

And just so you will stop badgering me about it (though somehow I doubt it) I am an agnostic... but that is neither here nor there. Though I have been most entertained by our little discussion you seem to be taking this way too serious so let me state yet again that we simply agree to disagree....

I do not agree to disagree with you on this. Because you have yet to explain what it is, that especially for an agnostic such as yourself, would make any moral absolutism possible to the slightest degree.

At least one with religion can use the "God made it that way" cop out. With that said, at least with the religious person would have already caused me to agree to disagree.

And please do not take this personally at all, I am doing this for a means of debate, sharing knowledge, and learning from each other. I'm not trying to be mean, even if I may come across that way when I am harsh. The problem with this though, is that I am not learning... we are not learning... because you are not providing us with any reason for a possibility of a TRUE and strung up system of absolute morals would exist in this universe.

And you misinterpreted my words about things happening with/without people around. I thought I explained it clearly when I responded to the tree falling down in the woods. Humans or not, the tree falls, sure. Humans or not, the impact causes vibrations. However what DOES depend on humans (or animals, or microphones, or anything with an ear) is the ability to harness those vibrations and turn them into intelligible sound. If you classify sound as synonymous with vibrations (I don't), then a tree does in fact make a sound. But to me sound is what is converted BY those vibrations... it is what we (or once again, anything with an ear) perceives from those vibrations. If a meteor hits earth when nobody is around, it still happens. If a river floods and nobody is around, it still happens. These are events that are independent of human existence. The tree falling is independent... however like explained about, the conversion from vibrations to sound, in my eyes, isn't. If life had evolved without ears at all... trees could still fall. Hell, we might even feel the vibrations. But we wouldn't hear anything. Like I said, you need an ear to convert it.

With that said, the same goes for morality. With or without humans, when the tree falls, it still falls. I've got that. However what does go away when you take the human out of it... is the ability to convert that action, that event, that tree falling, into something "good" or "evil"... something "good or bad". Without humans, there is nothing to give value to such a thing. Morality is a human invented concept. If the polar bear eats his children in a world without mankind, then nobody is around to cast value judgments and call this action "evil".

Take another aspect of morality... beauty. What we judge and value as beautiful, is a human invention. Beauty is not something that truly exists, well... it does, but only to the extent that it is a perception of something... a human way of looking at something. Independent of man, the beautiful flower will no longer be beautiful because nobody will be around to call it beautiful. It will merely be a flower, that would have been interpreted as beautiful had mind kind been around. There is a difference from this and saying the flower actually is beautiful. It isn't.

Something like morality cannot exist without perceivers... without judges that take in events, and spit out values. It's a human invention and it will go extinct right beside it's creators.

Unless of course, there really is a God... a universal perceiver. Ask yourself, being agnostic, if without God you would still believe in moral absolutism, or take this as the final conviction you need to spark belief in a God.

And even if it was a proven fact moral absolutism DOES exist... if somehow magically we knew there is a higher and designated absolute good and absolute evil... who are you to say you know what it is? Could not that Muslim have it right? Could not Hitler have had it right? Could not have Dahmer had it right? How do you know us "good people", aren't the ones with the broken thermometers?

Once again, I'm not trying to offend you, I'm not trying to fight with you. I'm trying to both learn and teach. But tell me, where does your confidence in moral absolutism come from? What evidence do you have?


With all this said, I must ask... and I think you should ask yourself... Are you disagreeing with me because what I say is false; or because you're afraid of what it would mean if what I say is true? Your strong belief in moral absolutes... is this a grounded conviction? Is this true, or is this preferred.

The truth can be a dangerous and scary thing in this postmodern world. Does that give you the justification to be scared away from it?

I do not agree to disagree with you on this. Because you have yet to explain what it is, that especially for an agnostic such as yourself, would make any moral absolutism possible to the slightest degree.
[...]

Wow that was quite the post. And don't worry you are not offending me in the slightest... debate is what it is and I accept that. Though this sort of debate really exhausts me as one never comes to any form of agreement or conclusion. Nevertheless, I will strive on seeing as you will not let this rest. That being said, to me the essence of "evil" if you will is annihilation. I derive my morality from how close one gets to that point. Will this or that lead one closer to annihilation. Which is why I consider such things as the death penalty to be "immoral" as it leads society to extinguish something that cannot be replaced... mainly a unique and sentient individual.

Now if that "annihilation" occurred on some far off world to just say some form of plant life it would be still be "immoral" quite simply because that species would no longer exist. That I am not there to witness that destruction does not make it less so... I accept that all the known universe is striving towards some form of existence while at the same time falling short of that goal... mainly a slow death. As the universe strives to exist I see anything contrary to that as "evil," as it goes against the very essence of existence which is to exist. Once again one does not have to be present for that life form to die one does not have to be present for that world to implode. Existence strives to create itself... I don't know any other way to put it, but there you have it.

Before the Big Bang there was nothing, that is until something strove to exist. That to me is the very essence of morality. Beauty is subjective annihilation is not....

Wow that was quite the post. And don't worry you are not offending me in the slightest... debate is what it is and I accept that. Though this sort of debate really exhausts me as one never comes to any form of agreement or conclusion. Nevertheless, I will strive on seeing as you will not let this rest. That being said, to me the essence of "evil" if you will is annihilation. I derive my morality from how close one gets to that point. Will this or that lead one closer to annihilation. Which is why I consider such things as the death penalty to be "immoral" as it leads society to extinguish something that cannot be replaced... mainly a unique and sentient individual.

Now if that "annihilation" occurred on some far off world to just say some form of plant life it would be still be "immoral" quite simply because that species would no longer exist. That I am not there to witness that destruction does not make it less so... I accept that all the known universe is striving towards some form of existence while at the same time falling short of that goal... mainly a slow death. As the universe strives to exist I see anything contrary to that as "evil," as it goes against the very essence of existence which is to exist. Once again one does not have to be present for that life form to die one does not have to be present for that world to implode. Existence strives to create itself... I don't know any other way to put it, but there you have it.

Before the Big Bang there was nothing, that is until something strove to exist. That to me is the very essence of morality. Beauty is subjective annihilation is not....

Why should something be immoral just because if ceases to exist? Your saying anything that doesnt strive to exist is immoral?

Why should something be immoral just because if ceases to exist?

No if something ceases to exist it is the victim of what I call "evil".... mainly annihilation.

Your saying anything that doesnt strive to exist is immoral?

To some degree yes.... we recognize that someone or something that seeks self annihilation is to a great degree sick. Striving to exist is the ultimate expression of nature. Evolution is a prime example of that...

No if something ceases to exist it is the victim of what I call "evil".... mainly annihilation.



To some degree yes.... we recognize that someone or something that seeks self annihilation is to a great degree sick. Striving to exist is the ultimate expression of nature. Evolution is a prime example of that...

Well than its only your definition of what is "evil". How can you speak for everyone by saying we recognize someone that seeks self annilhilation is sick? I agree evolution is a good example of striving to exist, but how can you classify that as good or evil?

Well than its only your definition of what is "evil". How can you speak for everyone by saying we recognize someone that seeks self annilhilation is sick? I agree evolution is a good example of striving to exist, but how can you classify that as good or evil?

Simply because that is the nature of nature, so to speak. Self destruction goes against the ultimate good, which is to exist.

Nature by its very action shows us that the ultimate "good" is existence and the ultimate "evil" annihilation.

Simply because that is the nature of nature, so to speak. Self destruction goes against the ultimate good, which is to exist.

Nature by its very action shows us that the ultimate "good" is existence and the ultimate "evil" annihilation.

So nature decides what is good and evil? I always thought the death of something to be a part of its existance. Your saying that life and death are separate.

So nature decides what is good and evil? I always thought the death of something to be a part of its existance. Your saying that life and death are separate.

Yes nature does that very thing. I am saying that life strives to perpetuate itself... and that death is the loss of that struggle. So yes I consider death to be a disease... one that I hope will someday be cured.

Yes nature does that very thing. I am saying that life strives to perpetuate itself... and that death is the loss of that struggle. So yes I consider death to be a disease... one that I hope will someday be cured.

Science will most likely prolong life, it already has, but i dont think we will ever get rid of death. Death is part of life and i cant agree that its just like any other disease that can be cured. If a tree dies and falls over is that evil? but the tree will eventually rot away and new life will come from it. How is the creation of new life evil?

Although the two of you have been going back and forth, Jove I would like to jump back to the comment you made, explaining your morality.

I myself greatly admire the morals you bring forth. The striving for an "upward and outward" rather than a withering and collapsing into oneself. The words you say, to me, convey a lot of truth. I personally share a lot of the same concepts of good and evil as those you bring forth... and I feel the need to say that I gain a lot of respect for somebody when I see they value such striving, such overcoming, such expression and expanding one's self. Your concepts of good and evil are a very noble morality.

But still, we cannot forget that these are merely our concepts of good and evil. Just in your post, the "I think"s and "my idea of"s and "I consider"s all depict, that this is your good and evil. This is not absolute good, this is not absolute evil... this is what you and I and consider to be good and evil. Nothing more.

Yes, if some far off alien population died off... we could consider the act of dying off victim to evil whether we play witness or not. But understand this is because your consciousness has acknowledged and already defined good and evil, to you. This is your morality. This is the morality you have acknowledged and defined for yourself. And that's not to say that it's a stupid morality or an insignificant morality... not at all... it takes values from your own life experiences... but it's a morality your consciousness, and not some "higher form" has defined. It is not a morality, a priori.

When that alien race dies off, you do not have to see it with your own eyes to perceive it, and label it as good or evil. In fact, just thinking about it, just using it as a point in your argument is enough to create it within your consciousness, perceive it, judge it, and give it a value judgment in accordance to the moral code your consciousness has already and every day continues to define.

It doesn't have to be a real act at all to be perceived and judged. It can take place completely in the imaginary... yet you still perceive it. The examples you use for debate and explanation, are by nature being judged by your consciousness. And although we can expand these rules to infinite possibilities... although we can apply the moral code of your consciousness to any situation in the universe... it is only because your consciousness has determined a world view, a guide as to what is good and what is evil. This may be your absolute good and evil... but it is not truly absolute good or evil.


Beauty is subjective annihilation is not....

Using this quote I can attempt to better explain what I'm saying here than the (maybe incoherent?) rambling I'm doing, that isn't hitting the mark.

You say beauty is subjective. Annihilation is not. Well first lets separate this statement, due to the fact that while beauty is subjective, bringing annihilation into this is merely referring to a decision and value judgment your consciousness has already is made. For this reason, we'll throw out the second part, and be left with "Beauty is subjective".

Your next step would be to ask, "What do I consider beautiful?" Your answers may vary, but for the sake of this explanation let's say you value symmetry, the representation of youth, and idk... color.

By coming up with this answer, your consciousness has determined a set of values, that you consider beautiful. You have defined beauty. (Just like you defined morality, above).

Well lets go back to that alien population... and lets say on this planet there is a flower, a flower you cannot imagine in this world... but it is perfectly symmetrical, it is bright with colors, and it invokes great feelings of youth in the people who witness it. Well knowing your defined requisites of beauty, it is a fair assessment to say that you would consider this flower beautiful.

Your definition of beauty, once defined, is infinite. It can be applied anywhere. Anywhere I go in this universe... (assuming I had complete knowledge of your definition of beauty) I could say "this is beautiful according to Jove" and "this is not beautiful according to Jove"... but the important part of these sentences is the "according to Jove". It can only be based off your definition on beauty, because there is no SET and absolute definition of beauty. If in aesthetics I personally value chaos and deep rich colors... then according to my definition of beauty this same flower is not going to be beautiful. It is, according to you. It is not, according to me. Neither is right or wrong... because it's subject to the perceiver. Beauty is subjective. Beauty is relative.

This same situation can be walked through, with morals rather than aesthetics. What you value as evil to you, is evil according to you. What I value as evil to me, is evil to me. It depends on our personal and individual definitions... yours is no more right than mine, mine is no more right than yours. I, personally find my system of values to hold more truth in the world than yours, but you feel the same way about mine. Though both of ours might be based off of some universal truth... the moralities themselves are not entirely true. They are never absolute. They are nothing more than a direct reflection of our very personal definitions of good and evil.

Morality is subjective. Morality is relative.

It is no different than beauty.

Although the two of you have been going back and forth, Jove I would like to jump back to the comment you made, explaining your morality.

I myself greatly admire the morals you bring forth. The striving for an "upward and outward" rather than a withering and collapsing into oneself. The words you say, to me, convey a lot of truth. I personally share a lot of the same concepts of good and evil as those you bring forth... and I feel the need to say that I gain a lot of respect for somebody when I see they value such striving, such overcoming, such expression and expanding one's self. Your concepts of good and evil are a very noble morality.

But still, we cannot forget that these are merely our concepts of good and evil. Just in your post, the "I think"s and "my idea of"s and "I consider"s all depict, that this is your good and evil. This is not absolute good, this is not absolute evil... this is what you and I and consider to be good and evil. Nothing more.

Yes, if some far off alien population died off... we could consider the act of dying off victim to evil whether we play witness or not. But understand this is because your consciousness has acknowledged and already defined good and evil, to you. This is your morality. This is the morality you have acknowledged and defined for yourself. And that's not to say that it's a stupid morality or an insignificant morality... not at all... it takes values from your own life experiences... but it's a morality your consciousness, and not some "higher form" has defined. It is not a morality, a priori.

When that alien race dies off, you do not have to see it with your own eyes to perceive it, and label it as good or evil. In fact, just thinking about it, just using it as a point in your argument is enough to create it within your consciousness, perceive it, judge it, and give it a value judgment in accordance to the moral code your consciousness has already and every day continues to define.

It doesn't have to be a real act at all to be perceived and judged. It can take place completely in the imaginary... yet you still perceive it. The examples you use for debate and explanation, are by nature being judged by your consciousness. And although we can expand these rules to infinite possibilities... although we can apply the moral code of your consciousness to any situation in the universe... it is only because your consciousness has determined a world view, a guide as to what is good and what is evil. This may be your absolute good and evil... but it is not truly absolute good or evil.




Using this quote I can attempt to better explain what I'm saying here than the (maybe incoherent?) rambling I'm doing, that isn't hitting the mark.

You say beauty is subjective. Annihilation is not. Well first lets separate this statement, due to the fact that while beauty is subjective, bringing annihilation into this is merely referring to a decision and value judgment your consciousness has already is made. For this reason, we'll throw out the second part, and be left with "Beauty is subjective".

Your next step would be to ask, "What do I consider beautiful?" Your answers may vary, but for the sake of this explanation let's say you value symmetry, the representation of youth, and idk... color.

By coming up with this answer, your consciousness has determined a set of values, that you consider beautiful. You have defined beauty. (Just like you defined morality, above).

Well lets go back to that alien population... and lets say on this planet there is a flower, a flower you cannot imagine in this world... but it is perfectly symmetrical, it is bright with colors, and it invokes great feelings of youth in the people who witness it. Well knowing your defined requisites of beauty, it is a fair assessment to say that you would consider this flower beautiful.

Your definition of beauty, once defined, is infinite. It can be applied anywhere. Anywhere I go in this universe... (assuming I had complete knowledge of your definition of beauty) I could say "this is beautiful according to Jove" and "this is not beautiful according to Jove"... but the important part of these sentences is the "according to Jove". It can only be based off your definition on beauty, because there is no SET and absolute definition of beauty. If in aesthetics I personally value chaos and deep rich colors... then according to my definition of beauty this same flower is not going to be beautiful. It is, according to you. It is not, according to me. Neither is right or wrong... because it's subject to the perceiver. Beauty is subjective. Beauty is relative.

This same situation can be walked through, with morals rather than aesthetics. What you value as evil to you, is evil according to you. What I value as evil to me, is evil to me. It depends on our personal and individual definitions... yours is no more right than mine, mine is no more right than yours. I, personally find my system of values to hold more truth in the world than yours, but you feel the same way about mine. Though both of ours might be based off of some universal truth... the moralities themselves are not entirely true. They are never absolute. They are nothing more than a direct reflection of our very personal definitions of good and evil.

Morality is subjective. Morality is relative.

It is no different than beauty.

This is perfect and the thread really can end right with that. I deff agree with both of your ideas that life should prosper and live on, but for the sake of the argument it deff is only just what we choose it to be.

Although the two of you have been going back and forth, Jove I would like to jump back to the comment you made, explaining your morality.

[...]

As I previously stated, we of course disagree. But that is the nature of this type of debate and being that it is such I will rest my argument.... wonderful post BTW.

The simple fact of the matter is you absolutely cannot catagorize something as abstract an idea as morality into two simple fucking groups.

There are infinite shades of grey between black and white.

Good and Evil: Another fuck-up brought to you by monotheism.

'Evil' does exist, but only within the sphere of human influence. It does not exist as a universal absolute. Morality exists for its usefulness in preserving the species, not for its ability to condemn or redeem one based upon their actions.

Early moralities, of which Judeo-Christian morality is an example, presuppose established systems of law. Metaphysical morality became dogmatic as the religions grew older, and attached themselves to various cultures across the globe as the word of God.

Now that systems of law are firmly established, the concept of eternal damnation is obsolete and should be erased, permanently, from the human psyche.

I'd love to see how someone can defend Rape as not being evil.

I'd love to see how someone can defend Rape as not being evil.

Human influence still, good and evil are only a perception. A praying mantis mates, and than the female eats the male. By our standards that would be evil, but to them? Studies show that submissive males that are being cannabilized achieve a longer duration aswell as a better chance of fertilzing the female. Its survival.

LMFAO... so killing people and eating them is relative?

You'd better believe that if I was starving, and I was stuck out in the woods and I had no idea how long it was going to be until I saw civilization again, or otherwise stuck out in the wilderness fending for myself, you'd better fucking believe I'd kill whoever the fuck I happened to be with and roast them over a nice little fire.

Fuck good and bad, I just see both sides as a means to survival, and both sides have their merits and demerits. I think "Good" people are the worst of all, look at Totse, a site generally known for its "evil" or atleast "bad" user base. I'd rather be here, with all of Totse's insanity, evil, and bad, than be at say a church, with a bunch of empty headed dumbasses.

I'd kill, steal, pillage, rape, etc for survival... well maybe not rape, but you get the idea.

People just need to learn how to balance the good and evil in their lives.

but who is it fucked up to? If your doing the stealing your fuckin so happy that you have food. The person you stole from may think it was evil, but that is only their perception. Anything, can be good or evil, what it really comes down to is your position in the matter. Whether somthing is "okay" or not is again just another perception of yourself, and doesnt really have anything to do with good or evil, unless you make it so.

the fact is the victim may even have seen it as a 'good' thing that he was stolen from; it may've taught him a valuable lesson. and he may've seen how frail the little african boy running away with the food, with no clothes on, and thought that it was better to have done something 'charitable' as opposed to not chasing the boy down and cutting off his hands. it's all a matter of perceptual timing.

the fact is the victim may even have seen it as a 'good' thing that he was stolen from; it may've taught him a valuable lesson. and he may've seen how frail the little african boy running away with the food, with no clothes on, and thought that it was better to have done something 'charitable' as opposed to not chasing the boy down and cutting off his hands. it's all a matter of perceptual timing.

Dude, its Africa... that little bitch is getting his ARM removed.

There are two points that people seem to be making here. One, that morality is subjective because the same action can be moral or immoral depending on circumstance. Two, that morality is subjective because people perceive different things as moral or immoral.

The former takes an entirely too simplistic view of morality. Naturally the morality of an action changes depending on circumstances. For instance, you could decide that killing was wrong, but then be forced to choose between killing a stranger or killing your entire family. Your moral compass differentiates between these two situations involving killing: more killing is obviously more evil, therefore the moral choice would be to kill the stranger. Thus, you have morality, and take into account the idea of differing situations. Some people believe that killing, no matter the situation, is wrong; and this argument would seem to make a good point against that. That is all it makes a point against, though. More complex views, such as Utilitarianism, don't fall into the same trap.

As for the second one...
No... because I'm right.

Hitler killed a lot more people than Jeffery Dahmer. Was Hitler an evil person? A million Nazis in 1939 would probly have a very different answer to this question than you do. In reality, no. Hitler was not evil. He is percieved as evil, by the common and traditional Western morality.

Do we consider interacting with woman evil? Do we consider bare shoulders, singing evil? I bet somebody in Islamabad or Tehran would have a different answer than you as well.

Is eating pork evil? Is eating beef evil? Go ask a Jew and a Hindu the same exact question.
You make very well the point that people have different perceptions of evil... but this has no bearing on the reality of morality and its existence. I have to go soon, so I'll leave your other posts for later; I don't know if you ever explain why you think perception of morality == morality, but if you do rest assured I'll get to it.

Kind of funny how people think killing in the army and killing in civilian life are any different. One way, he's a hero, other way he's a scumbag.

Fuck the double standard, do whatever you have to do to survive. It used to be not too long ago that men actually had that killer instinct in him. We've been so fucking feminized that a lot of guys can't even go hunting or fishing without being squirmish.

Killing is what humans do... wether it be other species or our own, sometimes its neccessary, and sometimes its totally random.

If any of you eat meat, yet wouldn't kill to get it, are hypocrits. Its all fine and dandy if you don't see the process of how that steak got to your table.

Why is it evil for me to kill a dog for sport, and its kind of cool when someone shoots down some big game? The fucking system is so twisted up its ridiculous.

Kill if ya gotta, don't if you don't. I'm sure if anyone here comes from a really shitty neighborhood like me will understand what I mean, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

Where else are you getting this "higher" and "absolute" morality from?
The idea that there needs to be a God for there to be morality is another one I find to be horribly mistaken. The question... Socrates, I think it was... posed illustrates this: Is what God does good because it's God doing it? Most religious persons will answer "no": God is good, in fact, because he conforms to some separate standard of good. And that leaves you with the same problem. The other choice - that God decides what is good - is basically just moral relativism again, except with a more powerful agent added in.

As for where I get my morality from, I'll deal with that later in this or another post. You give me some very good places to insert it. :)

No it wouldn't be! Because if every human were wiped out, nobody would be around to call it evil, therefore it would not be evil.
Why not? In this, and in the subsequent lines, you make a lot of claims, but don't actually support any.

Here, you seem to be saying that the human element makes something good or evil: "no one to call it evil --> not evil" implies "someone to call it evil --> evil." But that admits that things can be good or evil, something you seem to deny elsewhere.

We're not going to turn this thread into THAT debate... but if a tree falls it makes a pattern of vibrations. This pattern of vibrations travels, yes, but without a microphone, without a listening device, without a human ear, nothing is able to interpret those vibrations and turn them into sound.

The same goes for morality. If something "evil" in your eyes takes place... the action still happens, like stated above the consequence still happens... but without a device or human consciousness to interpret the action as good or evil, it is not good or evil, it is just an action.

You make a good point... but seem to have come to the wrong conclusion from it! Morality is, as you note, something that applies to humanity. We can choose; therefore, we must come up with a standard to tell us what to choose. A tree can't decide not to fall, can't will itself to fall, so it can no more have morality than... well... a tree. If there are no humans, then there will be no morality.

This does not mean, though, that morality doesn't exist while humans do. Just like pain doesn't exist without nerves - but it is certainly a real thing. Just like gravity doesn't exist without matter, or light without photons. One thing is a consequence of, a quality of, the other - but both certainly exist.

This is a good place to explain where I get my view of morality. I believe it is a necessary consequence of humankind. That is, we are formed in such a way as to make this action good and that action evil; it is an aspect of us like gravity is an aspect of the universe. Gravity is not, as far as I'm aware, subjective; but were the universe to cease to exist, so would gravity. Were the universe different, it might not exist. But because of how the universe is - has been formed - we have gravity.

Because humanity has certain qualities, certain things become good and bad as applies to us. Simplified example: We are formed so that we are prey to a thing called suffering; we are formed so that we find suffering bad. To make someone suffer is also bad, then. It is good to keep people from suffering. And so on!

The same works for the human consciousness, however we do not have access to a second or third consciousness in order to confirm our results. We our stuck with ours and ours alone. For this reason, our values are all relative. Our morality is relative, because we cannot escape relativity. We know no other consciousness but our own. It is impossible to know any other consciousness.
Any position other than solipsism is, when you get right down to it, resting on faith. As you have faith that this world of experience we find is the world, so do I; I have been given no reason to find otherwise. This world of experience shows me that other people communicate with me and have similar experiences. More, our brains are basically identical in form - made of the same material, working the same way. I cannot know with 100% certainty how others see the world, just like you cannot know that your hypothetical thermometer even exists... but it is likely that they have similar experiences. And if they do, then my moral system works - since it works for anything that can suffer.

And even if it was a proven fact moral absolutism DOES exist... if somehow magically we knew there is a higher and designated absolute good and absolute evil... who are you to say you know what it is? Could not that Muslim have it right? Could not Hitler have had it right? Could not have Dahmer had it right? How do you know us "good people", aren't the ones with the broken thermometers?
I don't. My reasoning just seems good to me, that is all; and unless someone can show me why it is wrong, I'll have to stick with it. Not trying at all is even more likely to land me in the wrong camp, since my reason - however feeble it may be - is at least a tool.

And that's not to say that it's a stupid morality or an insignificant morality... not at all... it takes values from your own life experiences... but it's a morality your consciousness, and not some "higher form" has defined. It is not a morality, a priori.
...
.. it is only because your consciousness has determined a world view, a guide as to what is good and what is evil. This may be your absolute good and evil... but it is not truly absolute good or evil.
It is not a morality I have created out of thin air, but rather a morality I have observed. A physicist might observe that matter behaves in such-and-such a way, and write down an equation to describe this. The equation can then be applied all across the universe, just like you mentioned morality can. But you don't say: "Math is subjective. Mathematics is relative. The equation can be applied, but it is still his equation, not an equation, a priori."

I've got to go again, but I think I've covered most everything I've wanted to, excluding DeathMonkey's most recent post. If you'll kindly be patient, I'll get to that and proofread this thing as well. :)

Kind of funny how people think killing in the army and killing in civilian life are any different. One way, he's a hero, other way he's a scumbag.
Like I mentioned: differing situations. It depends, in both cases. Killing someone trying to kill other people? Hero. Killing someone for fun? Scumbag. Both can happen in both situations, army and civilian.

Why is it evil for me to kill a dog for sport, and its kind of cool when someone shoots down some big game? The fucking system is so twisted up its ridiculous.
That is ridiculous. Hunters sicken me.

I'm going to rape, torture, dismember, and eat the OP's mother just for fun and tell the judge exactly what the OP said in court.

Good and Evil depends on ones point of view.

End of discussion.

I'm going to rape, torture, dismember, and eat the OP's mother just for fun and tell the judge exactly what the OP said in court.

If you believed this was good... go for it.

The judge will convict you however... because the majority and established western morality says that all of those things are evil. They SAY it is evil, therefore it exists as evil, therefore the government makes laws saying its wrong, therefore you would be convicted.

Good and Evil do exist... but they are empty human value judgments, and nothing else.

Good and evil are just illusions, but for the sake of human development I think respecting other peoples right to life and property should be taken into consideration.

and the conclusion was what the initial argument was --- good and evil are subjective.
Yeah, because it's just an orgy of moral-less pseudo-intellectuals stroking each other's e-penes and saying "aren't we enlightened" while ignoring actual discussion to focus on their mutual masturbation. :rolleyes: