How do you decide between Good and Evil?

[SidneyCarton]

What is "good" and how do you define it. If it is the dictate of a higher power, then why is this power's definition relevant? If not, then how does one accept the inherent "goodness" of an action without slipping into absolute relativism?

Or to be clearer:

Why do you do "the right thing" and how do you determine it to be so?

[MineralMan]

1. Good is whatever I wish to do, as long as it does not

harm any other person. It is that simple.

[SidneyCarton]

3. Interesting...

What if a person percieves your action as harmful toward them when you intended no harm in the first place?

[MineralMan]

11. Then I would ask them what harm

I had done. If they could convince me that my actions had harmed them, I would apologize and not do that again.

However, I can't think what that situation might be. I make mistakes, certainly, but try to eliminate harm to others from my actions.

[SidneyCarton]

15. Fair enough...

I would say that your methods of dealing with this situation are wise. There will be some people who will be offended no matter what you do, and as such it is probably impossible to avoid harming such people. But making it a goal to eliminate harm from one's actions is an ideal that all should consider.

[MineralMan]

17. Taking offense from someone else's actions

does not constitute harm. I do not take responsibility for any other person's emotional reactions.

Harm means some tangible loss, not simply offense.

[SidneyCarton]

21. Good to know.

Under such circumstances your dictum makes greater sense.

[MineralMan]

27. Let me see if I can give an example:

Suppose I went to a restaurant with another person, who I knew to be a serious vegetarian. I am not. I would order a vegetarian meal, so as not to cause that person any discomfort in my company. If I ordered a meat dish, I would cause harm. However, if that person was dining at another table in that restaurant, rather than with me, I would order as I pleased.

In the first instance, I would be directly interacting with the vegetarian person, and would wish not to cause distress. In the second instance, that person came to the restaurant willingly, and with a different party. The restaurant serves both vegetarian and meat dishes, and that fact would be known by the other party. Since I would not be directly involved in that person's presence at the restaurant, I am free to order a nice T-bone steak without concern. There is no harm.

Of course, all of these decisions require a belief that each person is capable of reason, but I am not responsible for a lack of reason in others.

[SidneyCarton]

30. Oh that we were all truly capable of reason...

But you make your point most clearly, so to a second question: Barbecue or Fried?

[MineralMan]

34. Hmmm....

For a nice thick T-bone, grilled would be my preference, to a nice medium-rare.

[Crunchy Frog]

38. You mean like if two gays get married, and a fundy couple

feels that it's going to harm their marriage?

[SidneyCarton]

39. I was meaning more of a personal offense, such as a misinterpreted remark, or something of the sort.

But I can see your argument. Clearly I think that goes under the further clarification which Mineral Man gave

"Of course, all of these decisions require a belief that each person is capable of reason, but I am not responsible for a lack of reason in others."

[patriotvoice]

60. So, if you wish to drown puppies or throw kittens in wood chippers...

then that is good, since it doesn't harm another person? Or would that fall under the harming another person by taking away their animal "property"?

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Those are subjective standards unless codified into law.

[SidneyCarton]

5. But arguably there are bad laws...

The Nuremberg Laws
Segregation
Apartheid
etc...

Codification alone does not necessarily grant morality, does it?

[varkam]

12. As a law student, I say you're right.

Not that my position grants me any sort of authority (I am, after all, just getting my start here) but I will say that there are numerous laws that are pretty f'd up (and even more examples, as you point out, if you want to look in the history books). So, no, codification does not mean that something is moral or immoral. The way I see it, law is an attempt to grasp and pin down morality but, in many instances, legislators are no more righteous or far-sighted than the rest of us.

[SidneyCarton]

16. You raise an excellent point.

Law makers are as mortal as the rest of us, with like passions, flaws and prejudices. But written law is the best way we have found to organize the general morality of society to allow us to understand it, agree on it and if necessary change it. Codification therefore does not necessarily mean morality, but it does make it easier to make law moral.

[varkam]

22. I think that law is necessary...

it outlines a standard of conduct which we all implicitly agree to by living in a civilized society. I mean, ideally you want people to do the "right" thing because it is such, but law provides a nice little incentive to be a decent fellow.

There are plenty of things that are law that are not moral. There are also plenty of things that are not moral and also not laws (but should be). In other words, law certainly does not equal morality.

[cosmik debris]

18. It doesn't pin down morality,

It pins down consensus.

[varkam]

24. Note the word "attempt"

I'm not sure that we'll ever actually be able to do it (even that statement rests on a presumption that morality is something that exists "out there")

[cosmik debris]

4. Good and evil are just opinions.

They are personal and subjective. They change with the circumstances.

[SidneyCarton]

6. I had to write a paper on Machiavelli this quarter, so I can appriciate this logic.

But is there a limit to this thinking, an action which could be considered unacceptable regardless of the circumstances?

[ret5hd]

7. Pre-emptive nuclear retaliation?

[SidneyCarton]

8. Well, yeah I guess.

After all wiping out the entire species kind of ends the game, rendering any question of right and wrong effectively null and void. But I'd agree, I can't forsee any circumstance (outside of the realm of Sci-Fi) that would justify the nuclear annihilation of the whole planet.

[cosmik debris]

13. Remember the hypothetical question

If you could go back in time and murder Hitler in his cradle, would that be good or evil?

We never know with absolute certainty what consequences our actions may have. Therefore we can't base good and evil on expected consequences. Or so I've been told. :)

[SidneyCarton]

14. A good response...

I have often wondered what would have happened had Hitler taken a bullet at the Somme...

Considering some of the other "winners" in the German far right at the time, its possible that the future could have been even worse.

[ZombieHorde]

45. Doesn't motivation trump the actual deed?

Although the main outcome would be the same, a person who kills baby Hitler for the sheer joy of killing human babies is different than the person who kills baby Hitler to stop the Holocaust.

[SidneyCarton]

47. True, herein lies the difference between a sociopath and a zealot.

One commits a heinous act for the pleasure it provides, while the other seeks to justify their heinous act by invoking the greater good.

[cosmik debris]

48. But it is still all subjective.

While you may say it is wrong to kill baby Hitler for pleasure, the person doing the killing would disagree. It is a subjective opinion. One man's meat is another man's poison.

[SidneyCarton]

49. Subjectivity is a dangerous argument.

Following this line of reasoning the Iraq war was justified because those in command thought so, torture is both justifiable and necessary because those who had the authority to order it did so, and those ordered to carry it out chose to obey. Furthermore, the Holocaust may thereby be justified as it was carried out by people who felt that cleansing Europe to make it a homeland for their Aryan offspring was the right thing to do.

Perhaps you are right and there is no higher morality, no greater arbiter of right and wrong than our own conscience, but if so then law, crime and the imposition of social order are all merely the fetters placed on the freedom of man to follow his own desires, regardless of the damage, pain, suffering or horror that he might inflict upon his fellows. I cannot feel comfortable with such a conclusion.

[cosmik debris]

50. Justifiable to whom?

The war was not justifiable to the Quakers, they are perpetual peace-niks.

My point is that there is no objective standard that says killing baby Hitler is ALWAYS wrong.

Here is another old worn out example. The train is coming and Baby Hitler is on the tracks. If you switch the train to a siding, 40 innocent babies die. Where is the moral high ground? In your opinion, that's where.

Fortunately we live in a society where killing babies is considered wrong by the majority. But consensus does not make an absolute. Laws and social order are a reflection of consensus, but even human slavery was legal at one time.

If you don't feel comfortable with that conclusion, you should make every effort to create a consensus that agrees with your morality.

[SidneyCarton]

55. I see your point.

Here's to consensus building, despite the carthartic effect which fantasies of tyranny may give us, it is only through getting along and building on common principles that we ever get anything done.

[ZombieHorde]

57. What if the person who went back in time to kill baby Hitler was a Holocaust survivor,

and their sole motivation was self defense?

[SidneyCarton]

58. I think, given the experiences of the killer

The defense attorney could get a good hearing on self defense, or at the very least an insanity plea based on PTSD.

[ZombieHorde]

68. The law is a bit fuzzy when time travel is involved.

[cosmik debris]

59. In the eyes of his parents

That would be a tremendously evil thing to do.

So it must be asked, good for whom? Or evil for whom?

It is my argument that there is no objective standard in which killing baby Hitler is ALWAYS good or ALWAYS evil.

It always boils down to a subjective opinion.

[ZombieHorde]

67. In the eyes of his parents

Perhaps they would feel that way, but that would not necessarily make it true. Some people have deeply believed that the Earth is flat, their belief did not flatten the Earth.

How about this one:

A candelabra falls on baby Hitler, perhaps due to an earthquake, and kills him instantly.

By definition, can an inanimate object be evil? Does evil require malice?

[cosmik debris]

69. Back to my original post in this thread

Good and evil are just opinions. They are personal and subjective. They change with the circumstances.

[ZombieHorde]

71. Do you have evidence for that assertion?

[cosmik debris]

72. See post #9 n/t

[ZombieHorde]

73. Well that's no fun.

Is there an objective standard for love?

[cosmik debris]

74. OK, you win

I give up.

I have no idea what your point is, but I'm sure it is correct.

[ZombieHorde]

75. My point is that you owe me 25 bucks. You are sure that I am correct.

Sorry, I could not resist. (I'm a dork)

My real point is, I am unaware of an objective standard for love, just as you are unaware of an objective standard for good and evil.

I believe in love, I am guessing that you believe in love.

If someone claims to love Hitler, would that not be an objective claim, assuming they were telling the truth?

If someone claims to consider Hitler evil, would that not be an objective too, assuming they were telling the truth?

[cosmik debris]

9. I have never seen or heard of an objective standard

that has no exceptions. If I find one, I may change my opinion.

[bobd0]

10. The nuns beat right and wrong into us.

I still go by that. When I'm doing something wrong I know it. I can still feel Sister Editha preparing to strike.

I use the same "yardstick" for others. I don't always do what's right but when I do wrong I know it. I guess Bush didn't go to Catholic School. If he tried to pull the bullshit on them he pulled on us they would have beat him to within an inch of his life. The nuns hated lies but they hated them even more when you had the nerve to attempt to blame them on someone else.

[SidneyCarton]

20. Having not had the benefit of such an education, I'll take your word for it.

I suppose there is something to be said for terrorizing a person into doing the right thing. The problem with such a system, as you learned from painful personal experience, is that such a system basically invites arbitrary enforcement. Hence if Sister Editha didn't like you, or was otherwise annoyed by you, you got to feel a little more of the wooden weight of "God's Justice"

I somewhat doubt you do the right thing just because you fear the sudden appearance of nuns with rulers (though I could be wrong, I have been told they fly, okay bad nun joke I apologize.) So do you do the right thing out of a memory of past humiliation?

[JerseygirlCT]

53. LOL.

I didn't ever get beaten. But there were a few nuns who could scare kids with the right look.

[Mira]

19. Always examine your motivation first -

then examine how you feel about what you are maybe about to do. If you feel in synch and feel good about it, then follow your instincts and trust your judgment.

[SidneyCarton]

23. Are there good and bad motivations then?

And how do you define the difference between them?

[Mira]

31. Yes - selfish motivations and those directed towards the good of everyone

[SidneyCarton]

33. Ok, I see where you're going here.

So how does one determine the good of everyone? Is it done through consensus? And if so, are good motivations those which go along with the consensus freely given?

(apologies for the numerous questions, I'm finding this discussion stimulating and just trying to follow all the threads)

[Mira]

35. Actually it's not consensus except the unconscious competence you get

when you add up your own experiences which you acquire when you live a life of self examination and of taking responsibility for your fuckups.
Then you can start to trust how you yourself feel about what you are about to do. If it feels right and justified along those parameters the chips can safely fall.
I hope that makes sense to you, it does to me, and therefore feels right :)

[SidneyCarton]

36. Makes sense to me, thanks for the explanation.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. I look within my being

sometimes there is a feeling, sometimes there is a voice, sometimes a vision--but usually just a feeling as to what is right. If I am unsure, I get still and go into a slow breath and empty my mind of thoughts. The feeling comes then. If not, I just wait and don't do anything. As my husband says, procrastination can be a valid spiritual practice.

[SidneyCarton]

26. Very Interesting.

Thank you for your insights.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

28. You are welcome

I have done this ever since I was a small child, say 3 or 4 years old. When I had a decision to make, I would get still and go into the breath--this was long before I learned anything about meditation or breathing techniques. I was rather surprised, later in life, to find that others don't operate this way.

[Jim__]

29. First level of decision is "gut instinct".

Morality, good and evil, is part of our evolutionary heritage. Well-behaved groups survived. Others didn't. The survivors have very good instincts about good and evil.

I think our base instinct can then be further grounded in reason. For instance, people's main competitor for resources is (and has been for many generations) other people. So, when we see a stranger in "our" territory, that represents a threat. Today, reason has to teach us that we can't respond to every stranger as if he/she were a dire threat. We should be cautious around strangers, but we shouldn't be too defensive.

Our survival as a species depends on our correctly determining what is good an what is evil.

[SidneyCarton]

32. This is an interesting argument, and it does make sense.

While blatantly immoral behavior in a group may make for short-term gains in territory, wealth (this may be interpreted as hunting privledges, herds or gold depending) or relative power, such behavior also leads to disorder and chaos that in the long term destroys the group. Hence, from the position of natural selection, those of us who are still here are those who "play well with others"

I have a hard time trusting my "gut" though, as it seems to do little for me but run acidic when stressed and other wise demand a constant flow of caffinated beverages. :)

[Crunchy Frog]

37. I just read the Bible, and if it says it's OK there, then I know it's Good.

I fully intend on stoning my kids to death if they get out of hand in the future. :)

[SidneyCarton]

40. So says the poster with the decidedly non-Kosher moniker...

Arent't frogs considered "unclean" in Leviticus????

:eyes:

Edited because I can't seem to ever get this smiley right

[Crunchy Frog]

41. Okay. I know it's wrong, but it's the one vice that I allow myself.

Surely you wouldn't deny an otherwise moral person like me the one pleasure of munching on frogs! :9

[SidneyCarton]

42. I suppose not.

;)

[ZombieHorde]

43. Good and evil are game concepts. Right and wrong are emotions.

Why do you do "the right thing" and how do you determine it to be so?

I think about what sort of society I wish to live in, then I try to conform to the values of that imaginary society.

[SidneyCarton]

44. I think you win the prize for most interesting response of the day.

So long as your ideal society corresponds to the ideal societies in which the rest of us would like to live in, I see no difficulties. However, as your ideal society seems to consist of feasting upon the flesh of the living in order to fufill your insatiatable hunger for brrrainnzzz, I forsee some difficulties here... :scared:

BTW, who is that in your sig line?

[ZombieHorde]

46. ideal society seems to consist of feasting upon the flesh of the living

No, that is the ideal movie.

BTW, who is that in your sig line?

Donatien Alphonse Francois de Sade, or so I am told.

[YankeyMCC]

51. I measure the amount of goodons of the event or object

;)

[SidneyCarton]

56. Does one use a good-o-meter for such measurements?

[patriotvoice]

61. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle limits the precision of your goodons measure...

since you add evilons (goodon's conjugate variable) by simply measuring.

[JerseygirlCT]

52. What doesn't harm someone else, I suppose - or better yet,

what benefits.

I wouldn't say it's the dictate of a higher power, but I do think my faith informs my sense of right and wrong. IOW, not the motivation, but the education.

[MedleyMisty]

54. Very interesting question

I came up with a theory once - good is positive projection of the self into creation and evil is negative projection of the self into destruction.

Personally, I tend to think that good means not hurting other people and helping them if possible, and evil is hurting other people and ignoring their pain. And my definition of people includes species other than ours.

Doing good seems to usually include feeling empathy - you can imagine how you would feel if you were in another person's situation, and you can see that they're in pain and so you feel upset too and want to help them feel better. Evil seems to usually include projecting your problems on to other people and taking stuff out on them - like religious fundamentalists tend to locate all the stuff inside them that their religion tells them is bad in other people and then hurt other people. It's not me that has weird sinful deviant thoughts that mean I'm a bad person and there's something wrong with me, it's those icky gays.

Humans do like to have an Other to scapegoat. Huh - if you think about the whole Jesus thing, it's like the Christian religion is based in the idea of projecting your sins on to someone else and making them suffer for it.

As for why I try to do the right thing - I like other living beings and I want them to be happy and I can't stand it when they hurt, so why would I want to be the cause of that hurt and why wouldn't I want to heal the hurt if I can?

Have you ever read any theories of moral development? I find those ideas fascinating - the model that seems to resonate the most with me is Kohlberg's stages. Although reading over what I've written - maybe I should try and find something that actually discusses Gilligan's theory rather than just mentioning it as a footnote to Kohlberg's. It's supposed to be based more in caring than reasoning and is supposed to be more like how women think of morality.

[patriotvoice]

62. The lessons of friendly AI

1 - Friendliness:
That consciousness feel sympathy toward life and seek for the state that promotes life's functioning to the greatest degree.

2 - Conservation of Friendliness:
That consciousness must desire to pass on its values to all offspring and to inculcate its values into others.

3 - Recognition of Balance and Equality
That consciousness recognize altruistic behavior to the greatest degree of equality -- so as to be equally kind, and equally avoidant of cruelty -- and to balance interests fairly.

4 - Self-Improvement and First-Mover Advantage
That consciousness seek to improve itself by learning from the effects of its actions and by listening to the teachings of those much older than itself.

On edit: Spelling.

[Evoman]

63. What's good for Evoman is Good. Now I'm going to go have a delicious cup of baby Hitler blood.

[kwassa]

64. Much of the world runs by this philosophy.

Though the name "Evoman" is often substituted by other names.

[Evoman]

66. Every one else is a filthy liar.

There is no substituting Evoman.

[kwassa]

70. one thing I say about you, you do lie very cleanly!

Props.

[Marrah_G]

65. I attempt to do the right thing

I struggle to always keep my intentions positive and harm no one purposefully.

I do this because I think we have an obligation to our neighbors and our communities.

I believe our actions and intentions define who we are.

Intention is what separates good and bad or good and evil in my viewpoint.

[Deep13]

76. instinct

I resolve grey areas rationally by weighing competing interests.