A Question Of Morality

[Pedersen]

What is "good"? What is "evil"? Can they be defined? Philosophers have long sought the answers to these three questions. Various answers have been proposed by many different people. The most commonly accepted answers, though, are the answers given by religion.

The major problem with accepting religion for the answers is that different religions have wildly different concepts of good and evil. To provide two examples, consider Judaism and the religion of the Mayans.

Judaism teaches "Thou shalt not kill", and the religion of the Mayans practices human sacrifice. These are diametrically opposed ideas, and are (obviously) incompatible when trying to define good and evil. To their practitioners, each side would fully believe their own idea of good and evil is the right idea, while the other side is absolutely wrong.

While there are no known practitioners of the Mayan religion alive today, other differences exist between religions which make their definitions of good and evil incompatible. A less drastic example is the difference between Christianity and Buddhism.

Christianity teaches that there is a single God, with a single son. Buddhism does not believe in the existence of God as a single supreme being. Christianity teaches that whatever God wills is right and good, while Buddhism teaches that good comes from within, and is known by the level of inner peace.

As a result of these clashes, it is very difficult to formulate a definition for good and evil, leading many to state that such is impossible, as every religion has their own definition for good and evil.

We need a better definition, one that does not come from religion. I believe that I have found one possible way of defining good and evil. This method does not rely on religion. It does not rely on ephemeral qualities such as inner peace. Instead, it uses one single element: Time.

Every human life will exist for a finite time. For some, this time is measured in seconds. For others, this time will be over a century. But all life has a finite time to exist. The length of time is unknown, but it does exist.

As a result, a simple statement pair can be made: That which takes time from me without my permission is evil. Things which give time to me are good.

With these two statements in mind, it becomes very easy to determine if something is evil, or good.

The obvious examples first:

• Murder: If I am murdered, then all of the remainder of my time is taken from me without my permission. This is an evil act.
• Rape: If I am raped, then the time for the act to be performed is taken from me. In addition, the time for me to deal with the mental and emotional effects is taken from me. As I cope with these effects, the people around me who must deal with me trying to cope have that time taken from them. This is an evil act.
• Abuse: I receive any of the various types of abuse from an aggressor. This takes my time away from me, as I must cope with the abuse. This is an evil act.
• Work: I exchange my time for money. This money allows me to do other things. As this exchange is one to which I have previously agreed, this is a good act.
• Charity: I give away some of my money to groups helping others. As I make the choice to do this, this is a good act.
• Religion: I choose to follow a specific religion, and its attendant rules. As I make the choice whether or not to follow these strictures, this is a good act.
• Coercion: I spend my time forcing someone to do things according to my needs and desires. For instance, forcing my wife to move when she does not wish to. In so doing, I make her spend her time coping with the move, the disconnect with family and friends, the hassles of changing addresses, updating contacts, etc. I have taken time from her that she did not wish to give. This is an evil act.

Other situations can be analyzed in the same way. As you can see, it is possible to analyze how good or evil an action is just by asking two questions: How will my time be spent here? How will my actions cause the time of others to be spent?

I do not believe this definition of good and evil to be complete at this time. I believe that there must be holes in it, but I am incapable of seeing them. I have tried to do so for many years, and still can not find the issues.

I am hoping that the people here can help me clarify this. I have tried to live by these rules, and usually do well (I'm human though, so still make mistakes). I'm considered by many to be a good person. But I can't believe that this is everything.

Please, won't you take some of your time to help me learn what I've got wrong?

Thank you.

[Will-Mun]

Well as for what you got wrong, I see two things... The first and foremost... Is thinking that the definitions of good and evil came from religion... Which is just horse radish. The concept of good and evil do not spawn from old books and adult imaginary friends, they spawn from civilization and community, a group of people attempting to coexist in a way that benefits everyone.


The second is, well, it's too complex, you're making what is a simple premise sound needlessly complicated. Good and evil are basically this.

Do what you want, as long as it does not hurt someone else.

Hurt of course does not mean simply in the physical sense... Emotional, financial, do not do anything to anyone, without their expressed permission.

You can ball-gag em and take a whip to them for all I care, as long as they want it. Some people just like that.

Good is living your life without imposing on someone else's.

Evil is taking action against someone else against their will.

[AFPheonix]

I think religion was ultimately developed to be a community's way of enforcing the common ethics and morals they needed to follow in order to operate smoothly.
Don't want people to take other's stuff? Call it stealing and set up a specific punishment for it, reinforced with a supernatural action that could be taken if the offending community member doesn't shape up. Same thing for any other act that would lead to disharmony.

[Seshat]

Evil is a very human concept. Nature doesn't have evil or good - nature simply has actions and consequences.

However, the question you're asking, Pederson, is an extremely complex one. For some ideas on where to start if you really want serious answers, try these resources:

* Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Wikipedia entry is here, and contains references that can probably be found in a library.

* The writings of the current Dalai Llama.

* The whole field of moral philosophy, though a good start is the book Right and Wrong: how to decide for yourself, by Hugh Mackay.


Myself, I work from attempting to be rigorously honest with myself - if I catch myself lying to myself, I try to figure out why and to stop doing so. I also try to determine the likely consequences of my actions, and determine whether I'm willing to accept them. I think the combination is working. I certainly hope so!

[Boozy]

Read The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer. Its a well-researched book looking at morality through science and biology. I think it should answer a lot of your questions.

He goes a bit heavy on the evolutionary psychology, but all in all its an informative read.

[tendomentis]

On a much more primal level, "good" and "evil" could be characterized by "selfless" and "selfish".

Any act that primarily or solely benefits yourself would be considered selfish (evil) and any act that primarily or solely benefits someone other than yourself would be considered selfless (good).

Nature doesn't have an equivilant since all organisms ultimately seek to prolong their own survival margin (comfort and luxury indicating a large survival margin), so the idea of good and bad or selfless and selfish would be results of human sapience and the ability to overcome our natural inclinations.

Biology follows thermodynamics, so organisms in general don't expend energy to help another unless it benefits them. A creature acting selflessly would, in essence, be acting contrary to the natural order as it would be acting to benefit another organism at its own expense with no hope of return on investment, thereby eliminating any personal benefit.

Any further extrapolation from the basic selfish and selfless concepts would be a function of culture and would not necessarily have to be universal across disparate cultures as a result of environmental and socialogical influences.

As always, IMHO.

[Pedersen]

Well as for what you got wrong, I see two things... The first and foremost... Is thinking that the definitions of good and evil came from religion... Which is just horse radish.

Actually, no, that wasn't what I was stating, though I do admit to not having been clear enough on that. For many people, their concepts of good and evil come from their religion. When two religions have diametrically opposed concepts of good and evil (see the Mayan/Judaism section for one such example), conflict will occur.

My ideas are an attempt to find a universal concept of good and evil, one that explicitly denies the use of religion as the means of measurement and, because of that, manages to find a way to reduce conflict.

As I said, I haven't found holes in my theories/ideas, but I know there must be some.

However, the question you're asking, Pederson, is an extremely complex one.

--SNIP LIST--

Myself, I work from attempting to be rigorously honest with myself - if I catch myself lying to myself, I try to figure out why and to stop doing so. I also try to determine the likely consequences of my actions, and determine whether I'm willing to accept them. I think the combination is working. I certainly hope so!

I will be reading that list, and the mentioned item from Boozy (below you) starting tonight. I am very serious about this. I've been intrigued by the issue of deciding good vs evil since the basic philosophy class in college.

Add in that conflict seems to be on the rise in the world today, and everybody claiming that we have to accept and tolerate other people's definitions of good vs evil because there is no such thing as a universal definition, and I've found myself trying harder to refine my definition.

I probably am not the person who can successfully do this, but I think it is important to do.

On a much more primal level, "good" and "evil" could be characterized by "selfless" and "selfish".

Any act that primarily or solely benefits yourself would be considered selfish (evil) and any act that primarily or solely benefits someone other than yourself would be considered selfless (good).

Well, there is one issue with such a definition: Consider the act of eating. Eating benefits yourself almost exclusively. By looking at good/evil as selfless/selfish, you wind up defining the mere act of eating as an evil thing to do.

Somehow, I very much doubt you meant to do that

For a more extreme example, consider some world leaders that have performed acts of legendary evil. A good example would be someone like Vlad Tepes. You could also use Pol Pot, Slobodan Milosevic, Stalin, Mussolini, and even (everybody's favorite) Adolf Hitler. Each of these people did something strikingly evil, usually engaging in a form of genocide.

And yet, each of them did this out of a perceived need to do it in order to repair damage done to their country. And, for a time, they did repair some of that damage. The coming damage was worse in pretty much every case, but they did, in the short term, repair their country.

The reason I mention this is because, in the use of selfish/selfless as a definition, these people actually earn the title of "good". Why? They sacrificed everything to improve their country, and the well being of all the people of their country. They even, in most cases, gave their lives. They were selfless, and so therefore good.

As I think you can agree, those labels cannot make a workable definition. I've worked through some of the others, and I come back to this: My definition, using time, seems needlessly complex, but it is still the only one I haven't managed to rip apart.

I hope someone else will do so for me, I really do. I want to improve this definition, or even find a newer and better one.

[tendomentis]

Your definition of good and evil still don't hold up under cross-cultural introspection though.

I used selfless and selfish as root definitions because those acts start with the individual, not the culture the individual occupies.

The examples you used of Hitler or Stalin actually still apply. From their cultural perspective, they were acting selflessly for their culture. It just so happens that what they did to benefit their particular culture negatively impacted other cultures, so as I said universal ideals of good and evil do not necessarily maintain their nature when applied across disparate cultures.

From a strict standpoint, feeding oneself is a selfish act as it only benefits the individual. If all the members of a "tribe" only concerned themselves with feeding each other, all would be fed. From a very pure and non-cultural viewpoint, using selfish and selfless as the "universal" basis for perceived good and evil is the only ideal that remains constant across disparate cultures. The extrapolations of selfish and selfless that become that culture's good and evil do not always remain consistent across cultural boundaries.

Lets say that "seflish" is represented by the number 2, and "selfless" is represented by the number 4.

2 and 4 remain 2 and 4 as long as they are 2 and 4, but let's say, for example that the society that uses 2 and 4 breaks into to two tribes and those separate tribes become the nations of Belgium and Qatar (just stay with me, I know I'm getting abstract). Belgium now uses 24 to represent "evil" and 48 to represent "good", but Qatar uses 20 to represent "evil" and 40 to represent "good".

Both of those cultures' concepts of good and evil are logically based on the "universal" concepts of selfish and selfless, but the extrapolations each culture uses to define evil and good are not mutually compatible or interchangeable, but the basis for each culture's definition of good and evil (the common denominators, as it were) are identical.

Am I making any sense? I tend to ramble.

[Pedersen]

Your definition of good and evil still don't hold up under cross-cultural introspection though.

The examples you used of Hitler or Stalin actually still apply. From their cultural perspective, they were acting selflessly for their culture. It just so happens that what they did to benefit their particular culture negatively impacted other cultures, so as I said universal ideals of good and evil do not necessarily maintain their nature when applied across disparate cultures.

Your reply can, mostly, be summarized in those two paragraphs. On the one hand, you state that my definitions do not hold across cultures. And then go on to state that selfish/selfless does hold across cultures. Finally, you prove it by showing that it does not hold across cultures.

I'm sorry, but this time it did not make sense. Maybe I'm a bit slow on the uptake (I have missed the obvious items many times in the past), but I don't follow how being selfless/selfish defines good and evil in a way that someone from any culture can agree with.

To use the world leaders again, people who were victims of said leaders would be very hard pressed to have died saying that the leaders were good and righteous. Families of those same victims would be hard pressed to say it today.

And yet, from a certain perspective, their actions were good.

I am seeking a definition that removes the need for the perspective. I am attempting to define good and evil in such a way that somebody from China could evaluate the actions of somebody from Brazil and come to the same conclusions as someone from Nigeria evaluating the same actions with the same information made available about those actions.

As such, selfless and selfish are very very poor guides to good and evil. My definitions (is time taken by force, or given willingly) are easily evaluated, and evaluation is possible without reference to local culture or foreign culture.

Stating that it is impossible, by the way, will simply make me ignore you. I do not believe in something being impossible (which is a whole different debate). I do believe there are many many things which we do not know how to do yet, but I do not believe in the impossible. If you would like to carry out that debate, create another thread, and I will join that one there.

[tendomentis]

What I was trying to say in my post (but probably got buried by my explanation) is that concepts that you call good and evil don't exist, at least not in a universal way.

Good and evil will always be defined by the culture the individual is in, but good and evil are derivations of selfless and selfish and those concepts DO remain constant from culture to culture as they are based on an individual's actions not as defined by culture.

[tendomentis]

My definitions (is time taken by force, or given willingly) are easily evaluated, and evaluation is possible without reference to local culture or foreign culture.

I'm sure you invested a lot of thought into your definition (no, I'm not being sarcastic), but I think you're trying to apply or create universal definition for concepts that by their very nature vary from culture to culture.

Like trying to identify a disease by the symptoms alone, when many diseases could share the same symptom, you have to identify the root cause and treat that, not just the symptoms. Cultural perceptions of good and evil exist as derivatives of selfless and selfish, but as derivatives that have been formed by various environmental and socialogical influences they can vary from culture to culture, so you never will find a universal constant of good and evil (just like the numerical factor analogy I used, you can use the same factor but come out with different end products as a result of environmental and/or socialogical influences). You're seeking an absolute where one can't exist simply due to the fact that different human cultures define abstract concepts like good and evil differently according to their history and influences.

You have to identify the root.

Stating that it is impossible, by the way, will simply make me ignore you.

That's your call, not mine. I can't cater to your perception of "possible" just for the sake of debate, at least not anymore than I would tell you that 2+2=5 isn't impossible for the sake of debate.

If you truly want to find out "what+what=5" though (metaphorically speaking of course), I'd be happy to debate with you what might lead to that answer...but it's your call.

[Greenday]

Eating isn't entirely a bad, selfish thing. By eating food, you could be supporting the economy by buying the food from someone or having them prepare it, or you could be helping keep a specific animal population from grossly over-populating.

The original post gives a pretty decent way to choose good vs. evil for most situations. But there are some things I cannot agree with. You say killing is bad as it takes away someone else's time. What about killing in self-defense? I certainly don't see that as an evil thing, as long as killing is a necessary amount of force to protect oneself.

[Pedersen]

I'm sure you invested a lot of thought into your definition (no, I'm not being sarcastic), but I think you're trying to apply or create universal definition for concepts that by their very nature vary from culture to culture.

And that's it exactly. I am trying to find a definition that could be taught. As of right now, it's not an intuitive definition. It does take some explaining. It might very well be completely wrong. But I haven't found a reason for it to be wrong.

The long and the short of it is this: The people of the world have issues agreeing on definitions of good and evil. Some items are in a very gray area, and can be viewed as both, depending on cultural bias. I am hoping to find a way to provide a baseline. Something which people around the world could look at and say: This works. I can agree with this.

Will such come to pass? Doubtful. Even if it did, it would not be likely to happen in my lifetime, nor even in the lifetime of the grandchildren of people born today. But we all have our own goals, and our own dreams. I have always thought that to dream small was to (effectively) not dream at all.

I want to at least try.

Right now, your debate with me amounts to "It's not possible, because different cultures value different things." I accept the second part, but not the first. Why? Well, maybe some historical quotes will help.

• Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value. Editorial in the Boston Post (1865).
• There is no need for any individual to have a computer in their home. Ken Olson, 1977, President, Digital Equipment Corp.
• Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist.
• I must confess that my imagination, in spite even of spurring, refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea. H.G. Wells, Anticipations (1901).

Furthermore, doing searches on such topics as women's suffrage, apartheid, busing, reverse discrimination, and other hot button topics from at least 20 years ago (some of which continue through today) will show that cultures can and do change. I have to reject the notion that what I am suggesting is impossible simply because different cultures have different values. People change. This can be a change as well.

Basically, I am trying to determine why I am wrong. If you wish to continue to reiterate the point that different cultures have different values and that makes my idea impossible, please feel free. Just know that the words are being wasted on me. I do not believe this change is impossible.

I believe it is worthwhile, and needs to happen. Maybe, if I'm very very lucky, my definitions are actually good ones. If not, maybe you can help me learn why they're bad, so I can improve them until they are good.

That's my goal, anyway.

Eating isn't entirely a bad, selfish thing. By eating food, you could be supporting the economy by buying the food from someone or having them prepare it, or you could be helping keep a specific animal population from grossly over-populating.

Actually, Greenday, you are mixing up two separate actions. You can support the economy by buying food without eating the food. You can help keep an animal population under control without eating them. Eating is a separate act, and a purely selfish one, when you break it down. Why does one eat? Either to live, or for pleasure. Both of these are selfish.

Note, I do not think that eating is evil. At least, I really hope not, because I really enjoy it. But, make no mistake, eating is very selfish.

The original post gives a pretty decent way to choose good vs. evil for most situations. But there are some things I cannot agree with. You say killing is bad as it takes away someone else's time. What about killing in self-defense? I certainly don't see that as an evil thing, as long as killing is a necessary amount of force to protect oneself.

Under these definitions, killing, even in self-defense, is evil, make no mistake. However, it is the lesser of two evils. Yes, I am being overly strict in these definitions, but for good reason. If I genuinely am to try to spread this sort of message (I don't know how yet), then my definitions have to be as precise as possible.

With that said, though, here comes a very thorny question: Is suicide evil? By my own definitions (and my own beliefs) it is not evil, as long as others are unaffected by it, or as long as the effects on others are less than the effects of not taking your own life (for instance, terminal patients).

After all of that, I'd like to close with two other quotes:

A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds. M. Twain.

The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. Arthur C. Clarke.

[Greenday]

Ah, but is eating to extend your time in order to continue contributing to society a selfish thing?

And as for suicide, when doesn't it affect other people? Other people have to spend their time cleaning up the mess you make, people spend a lot of time grieving, etc.

[Pedersen]

Ah, but is eating to extend your time in order to continue contributing to society a selfish thing?

Most likely, yeah, it could be selfish even then. After all, you're eating for the express purpose of extending your time. What you do with that time afterwards does not change why you are eating.

Mind you, the overall set of actions could be unselfish, while the individual action is highly selfish.

And as for suicide, when doesn't it affect other people? Other people have to spend their time cleaning up the mess you make, people spend a lot of time grieving, etc.

An orphan with no friends, no home, and no job goes to the beach and just starts swimming out to sea, as far as possible. No mess to clean up (unless the body washes to shore, which I do not know the likelihood of). Nobody to grieve, nor even to miss the person.

Granted, that's not the circumstances around most suicides, but it is very possible to have a suicide which impacts nobody. And that case would be decidedly non-evil in using these definitions.