Stargazer Posted October 17, 2004 Report Share Posted October 17, 2004 Originally posted by: TeleMadDoes anything other than humans display evilness? (I would say that predators don't display evilness since they must kill to survive). Good and evil are subjective, and so only those species with concepts for good and evil could recognize it. But generally some things are "bad" for everyone, that is, to die. Then there are some species where that doesn't quite apply either. And yes, we need to kill to survive too, sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 Yes, very subjective stuff indeed. Not easy to see clearly through the spectacles of science. Ok, I've stayed out of this topic because I wasn't really sure how I should respond, but I guess I might as well jump in with both feet. Is there an evil force? That was the original question, right? Well, since we will probably never all agree on what evil is or isn't, how will we agree whether or not a 'force' is responsible for it? I don't think that evil is in the eye of the beholder. I think that attitude is ridiculous. Why is it so bad to say "This is wrong" and "This is right" ? Or "This is evil" and "This is good"? I think it's ridiculous that people seem so worried about offending people by stating what they think evil is that people are willing to let 'evil' things go unpunished. Ridiculous or pathetic, I'm not sure which. While it may seem that I'm advocating forcing my views or beliefs on others, to that I say "OH WELL!" If nobody is willing to stand up and say "This is wrong" or "This is Evil", I will be more than happy to let my voice be heard, and the rest of you can just live (hopefully quietly) with my decisions! Seriosuly, I obviously think that there is evil in this world. While I do believe that some of that evil is Satan, I also think that some of it is represented in all of us. I don't think you can attribute every 'evil' act to Satan, as most 'evil' is the direct result of free will by us. Stargazer, I love your avatar, but I totally disagree that good and evil are subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by: IrishEyesStargazer, I love your avatar, but I totally disagree that good and evil are subjective.Irish, then can you give us an example of any action that can not be considered good at one time and evil at another? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Good and evil are judgement values. Not facts. In this (deterministic) universe, nothing is inherently good or evil. It just is. In a fantasy, verying degrees of those values can be assigned to whatever upsets or pleases us. We attribute that to free will. I know this issue has been discussed before and usually everyone understands if they give it the deserving amount of thought, then here we go again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted November 4, 2004 Report Share Posted November 4, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteIn this (deterministic) universe, nothing is inherently good or evil. It just is.As such, no one is responsible for anti-social activities, and crime/ punishment should not be considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Not in our current social structure. FT. You aren't thinking this through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 That is an assumption Linda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by: IrishEyesStargazer, I love your avatar, but I totally disagree that good and evil are subjective.I wonder if it's really that rare that different people from different cultures and different times have different opinions on whether something is good or bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 Originally posted by: StargazerOriginally posted by: IrishEyesStargazer, I love your avatar, but I totally disagree that good and evil are subjective.I wonder if it's really that rare that different people from different cultures and different times have different opinions on whether something is good or bad?That was my point. And I asked for a specific example of an action that is ALWAYS bad. But there is also the issue of Subjective vs Objective. Are assignments of good/ bad always only Subjective, or, even though they are situational/ can change based on conditions, can an Objective approach be used? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted November 5, 2004 Report Share Posted November 5, 2004 You seem to be missing the point. Without people to make the judgements, there is no good or evil. No action is EVER bad, in fact, only bad in someone's opinion. Now you give an example to the contrary. This issue has been given lots of attention by philosophers for eons. It boils down to being mostly a religious issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted November 8, 2004 Report Share Posted November 8, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteNo action is EVER bad, in fact, only bad in someone's opinion. Now you give an example to the contrary. This issue has been given lots of attention by philosophers for eons. It boils down to being mostly a religious issue.I agree that good/ bad are human assignments and are situational. However I do find that objective evaluation can be given to actions to objectively decide if a given action in a given situation is good or bad, based on it's overall affect on humanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 What I understand you to say is that someone can decide whether a thing is good or bad. True, but how is that objective? In nature, the only criteria is survival. It's the trial and the judgement all in one. But whether it's good or bad, depends on what we perceive as the effect on us personally based on our own values. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 What I understand you to say is that someone can decide whether a thing is good or bad. True, but how is that objective? In Linda, what you mean by objectivity is that good and bad are absolute and will never change through different times and situations, right?But whether it's good or bad, depends on what we perceive as the effect on us personally based on our own values. So since everyone is different, then there is no objectivity right?True, but how is that objective? In nature, the only criteria is survival. What do you mean by 'the only criteria is survival'? Is this social Darwinism, racism? That you need to practise eugenics and all in order to ensure the survival of the species? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteWhat I understand you to say is that someone can decide whether a thing is good or bad. True, but how is that objective? In nature, the only criteria is survival. It's the trial and the judgement all in one. But whether it's good or bad, depends on what we perceive as the effect on us personally based on our own values.The last part I would call "subjective". A PERSONAL evaluation of what affect an action had on us. I would classify as "objective" an independant outside evaluation of the event based on it's affect to society. Let's look at an intentional action, birth control. Up until recently, we had a low total population, high infant mortality and short life spans. We were primarily an agrarian soceity, laborer intensive, localized. Having as many ofsprings as possible was objectively good for overall society. Though if a particular woman had life threatening trouble in childbirth, it would be subjectively harmful for her. However, now we have a large population, possibly more than can be sustainted, infant mortaility in industrialized countries is good and life span is long. Now birth control can be shown to be far better objectively, in fact being against birth control could be objectively considered bad. Yes the bottom line is "survival" of the species. And we can objectively analyze actions to see if they advance or retard that effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by: TINNYWhat I understand you to say is that someone can decide whether a thing is good or bad. True, but how is that objective? In Linda, what you mean by objectivity is that good and bad are absolute and will never change through different times and situations, right?I can't speak for Linda, but "absolute" and "objective" are different. "Objective" means that it can be evaluated as an OBJECT. It can be determined through reason and logic based on factual data. Yet it can be situational, objectively good one time and objectively bad another. While "Absolute" would indicate that a particular action is ALWAYS either good or bad regardless of situations. Absolute is typically based on some outside source establishing what is or is not absolute good or bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindagarrette Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 I Would "objectively" determine that birth control is bad because it interferes with the natural process of selection. And who iis to say what is advancement of a species? Was the demise of the dinosaurs good or bad? There is no objectivity in human judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted November 9, 2004 Report Share Posted November 9, 2004 Originally posted by: lindagarretteI Would "objectively" determine that birth control is bad because it interferes with the natural process of selection.And 3rd world countries where the kids die as fast as they are born, birth control is BAD in that situation? Bring the population under control to allow those alive to be fed is BAD? You can show this objectively how?And who iis to say what is advancement of a species? Was the demise of the dinosaurs good or bad?So we can not determine whether [/i]"demise of the dinosaurs"[/i] was an "advancement of (that) species" or not? Strange concept. Extinction may have advanced the dino's? Who's to say? There is no objectivity in human judgement.There is not a single thing that we can objectively decide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.