A Question Of Morality

[rahmota]

I'd have to agree with the statement that good and evil are not universal concepts and cannot be universal concepts as too many people cannot agree on what is good. Especially if you try and remove religion from the definition of those terms.

I prefer to consider the universe frm a harm vs benefit concept. At least for my own personal POV. Is my action going to harm someone and if so how much harm is it going to do? Is this action going to benefit myself or others and if so by how much? Sufficient harm could be called evil. The bad thing is harm and benefit are still relative terms for the most part as well.

Sad thing is good/evil harm/benefit or any of that is going to be a relative term and defined personally by each individual for the most part. As what benefits me may harm you or the world at large and the best I can do is minimize my harm/impact.

[tendomentis]

You used historical quotes of beliefs that were challenged and eventually overturned, but that does not undo the unrelenting fact that some ideals and concepts ARE logically impossible.

For example, you cannot have a bright darkness, a quantity divided by zero, or infinity to the tenth power. In that same way, you cannot have a universal ideal of concepts that by their very nature are derived independantly from disparate cultures. One would need to break down the non-universal concepts until you found a common factor, and I've previously stated what I personally believe those common factors to be.

I'm not saying to not seek an answer, but one must keep enough awareness of the very nature of the question one asks of one's self to know to not continue to seek an answer along a dead-end thought process. If you can be aware of the fact that 2+2 will never equal 5, then you can begin to search for the different quantities that do sum 5.

Please take my comment for what it's worth, simply my humble opinion.

[Seshat]

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).

Wow. It's hard to find a concept that I disagree with more strongly than this.

I was raised to be selfless. I kept doing what others wanted, trying to be who others wanted me to be, and eventually my body rebelled. I've spent more than ten years trying to rebuild myself.

In the process of rebuilding myself, I've learned that each and every person must tend to their own needs before tending to the needs of others. Tending to one's own wants before tending the wants of others is also preferable, though tending to one's own wants while denying the needs of others is a form of selfishness that I think is probably a wrong.

In the safety lectures on airplanes, they tell you to fit your own oxygen mask before helping others. In first aid courses, they tell you to assess the situation for danger before going in and attempting to help the patient. They do this because a certain level of selfishness is necessary.

Attempting to be selfless and trusting that others will also be selfless and see to your needs forms an unhealthy co-dependence. Each person must tend to their own needs, before even starting to tend to the needs of others. I've seen 'selflessness' fail badly too many times to believe 'selfishness' to be inherently evil.

[tendomentis]

Wow. It's hard to find a concept that I disagree with more strongly than this.

I was raised to be selfless. I kept doing what others wanted, trying to be who others wanted me to be, and eventually my body rebelled. I've spent more than ten years trying to rebuild myself.

In the process of rebuilding myself, I've learned that each and every person must tend to their own needs before tending to the needs of others. Tending to one's own wants before tending the wants of others is also preferable, though tending to one's own wants while denying the needs of others is a form of selfishness that I think is probably a wrong.

In the safety lectures on airplanes, they tell you to fit your own oxygen mask before helping others. In first aid courses, they tell you to assess the situation for danger before going in and attempting to help the patient. They do this because a certain level of selfishness is necessary.

Attempting to be selfless and trusting that others will also be selfless and see to your needs forms an unhealthy co-dependence. Each person must tend to their own needs, before even starting to tend to the needs of others. I've seen 'selflessness' fail badly too many times to believe 'selfishness' to be inherently evil.

Believe it or not, I agree with you to a certain extent. A certain level of selfishness is necessary in this world. I merely identified what I believe the roots of cultural perceptions of "good" and "evil" to be, not condemned either one.

My beliefs run closest to Zen Buddhism more than any other established religion, so I do believe in a necessary fundamental balance of all things, including the necessary existence of both selflessness and selfishness.

[Boozy]

I would agree that taking care of oneself is not inherently selfish.

For example, children are better off with happy mothers. So while leaving your children with a babysitter for a weekend to go to the spa may be considered selfish on its surface, its really not if Mom needs time to recuperate and de-stress.

Most people seem to grasp the concept of "do unto others" but forget that sometimes we need to do for ourselves. Its healthy, and good for our loved ones too. It takes the pressure of our parents and spouses and friends, all of whom love and care for us. My mom and dad always told me that the best gift I could give them is to be happy.

[tendomentis]

Wow. It's hard to find a concept that I disagree with more strongly than this.

I was raised to be selfless. I kept doing what others wanted, trying to be who others wanted me to be, and eventually my body rebelled. I've spent more than ten years trying to rebuild myself.

I should also point out that if one were to act truly "sefllessly", they would WANT to help another even to the physical and/or emotional detriment of themselves.

I obviously don't know you from Adam and vice versa, but considering that you now seem to regret the decision to be selfless, the selfless lifestyle you say you lived couldn't have been truly selfless as a selfless act would not be governed by whether or not YOU physically or emotionally suffered, otherwise by definition it is a selfish act (even if it initially started as a selfless act).

Please note that I am in NO WAY trying to demean or belittle your accomplishments or life. I am simply basing my comment on your comment (which I know does not sum up your life).

And again, I do believe in a necessary balance of selfishness and selflessness, so I am not "condemning" any act based on either. And I am not trying to single you out in any way or judge you, I am simply using your comment to illustrate the following definition of selfish and selfless:

Selfish: acting in such a way that the individual is the primary and/or sole beneficiary of said act

Selfless: acting in such a way that an entity other than the individual is the primary and/or sole beneficiary of said act without any regard to the reprecussions to the individual as a result of the act

As far as humanity is concerned, I don't believe truly selfless acts occur with any real frequency (at least in as much as my own observations are concerned, which are inherently limited), but if selfish acts occur then selfless acts must also occur to act as a counterpoint, even if both do not occur with the same frequency at the present time in history.

Of course, these are just the ramblings of a man who longs to just stop pretending to be sane, so please accept this comment as simply one man's possibly incoherent thoughts.

[Pedersen]

You used historical quotes of beliefs that were challenged and eventually overturned, but that does not undo the unrelenting fact that some ideals and concepts ARE logically impossible.

These were not just beliefs, but as far as the people of the time were concerned, they were absolute facts. They were as unchangeable as the fact that the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

Some of the other facts that people believed that are worth mentioning to explain my issue with your particular arguments:

The earth was flat.
The earth was the center of the universe, and the sun orbited around it.

To the people at the time, these were facts. Solid, immutable, unchanging, facts. To label something as impossible simply because it goes against commonly accepted facts is to limit oneself unnecessarily.

For example, you cannot have a bright darkness, a quantity divided by zero, or infinity to the tenth power.

Hmmm, mathematicians are in for a rough time of things then, what with the second two of your "facts". They routinely raise infinity to various powers. In fact, you will frequently see ∞ to the n power in proofs. And yes, 10 is a valid value for n.

The mathematical definition for any number divided by 0 is, ∞. You will get divide by zero errors on computers because the computer does not have a way to handle the concept of infinity. You are taught that it is wrong in school because infinity is considered too tough a concept for children to understand.

A "bright darkness"? That's even easier. Go outside on a moonlit night. Poof, you have bright darkness.

2+2=5? Two methods:
Rounding error. Also known as "2+2=5 for very large values of 2". If you have a device which performs addition, but does not display decimals (rounding them away), but which does accept them, this is how it works:

2.48+2.47=4.95 But, without decimals, you enter "2.48", and you see "2". "2.47" gives you "2". And "4.95" rounded? Well, that's "5".

Method two:
2 is simply a symbol, as are both 4 and 5. If I change the definition of "5" to mean "four of a given item", and change "4" to mean "five of a given item", then "2+2=5" is suddenly a valid statement.

That, by the way, is what I'm looking to explore: Is there a new definition of good and evil that can be formulated, and taught, such that people could learn to agree on it as a baseline?

You are arguing against the logistics of the teaching. For now, I am not mentioning the teaching at all because the teaching does not matter until the definition is done.

Teaching it, when it is done, may well be impractical. It may take a dozen lifetimes. It may never be completed. But the point is not whether the teaching can or will be completed, not for me. The point is whether or not the definition is even feasible.

At this point, our debate has devolved into debates I would have with my sister when I was 8 or so: "Yu-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" etc etc etc. I have tried to explain my goal, and gotten nowhere, which is a shame.

I would agree that taking care of oneself is not inherently selfish.

Actually, taking care of oneself is, by definition, a selfish act. The reason people don't like to acknowledge this is because they are brought up to believe that being selfish is a bad thing.

The overall goal may be to be more selfless. But the actual, individual act, divorced from every other consideration, is a very selfish act. It's only when taken in context with other actions that a person can be judged as being selfish or selfless.

Possibly a bit overly pedantic, but it is a distinction worth mentioning.

[tendomentis]

The mathematical definition for any number divided by 0 is, ∞. You will get divide by zero errors on computers because the computer does not have a way to handle the concept of infinity. You are taught that it is wrong in school because infinity is considered too tough a concept for children to understand.

A "bright darkness"? That's even easier. Go outside on a moonlit night. Poof, you have bright darkness.

According to varioius sources (which I referenced before posting my comment), dividing by zero is labeled as "impossible". I'm all for the indominability of the human spirit, but certain logical truths are impossible no matter what you do to them. You can decide to redefine 5, but then YOUR five doesn't mean what everyone else's five means, so you've negated any value that comes from your accomplishment. You can play rounding games all you want, but I didn't say "rounded 2 + rounded 2 = 5 is impossible".

Oh, and if the moon is shining bright, then it isn't a bright darkness, just not as dark as a non-moonlit night. It's also "impossible" to have a statement be completely true and completely false at the same time (although in quantum mechanics, a statement can be true and false prior to observation, but after observation the statement becomes one or the other, but that deals with quantum histories and theories on parallel quantum histories).

In the same way that creating a univeral "beauty" is "impossible" (as beauty is in the eye of the beholder), you can't universally define good and evil. Researchers believe they have found what specific physical traits in humans appeal to humans of the opposite gender, but that again only holds for some and still doesn't explain why some men prefer blondes and some prefer redheads and some prefer brunettes. Some abstract concepts can't be defined universally. You can define them "semi-universally" as in defining them for a majority, but you will never be able to define an abstract, culturally defined concept universally. You could redefine good and evil all you want, but it won't be "universal" since an isolated tribe in the depths of the Congo won't necessarily share your reformulated definition of good and evil. You could try to track down everyone on the planet and teach them your reformulated definitions (hey, just like some relgions try to do....isn't that weird), but since another human born on another part of the planet will not be born with your reformulated definition of good and evil, it STILL won't be universal.

Impossible tasks are fun to tackle because they challenge your mind to think in different and sometimes new ways, but not when people are your guinea pigs.

At this point, our debate has devolved into debates I would have with my sister when I was 8 or so: "Yu-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" etc etc etc. I have tried to explain my goal, and gotten nowhere, which is a shame.

I have been guilty of becoming too personally involved with a viewpoint of a debate that I responded out of a personal sense of frustration, so far be it from me to "throw the first stone" as it were. Suffice to say, if you don't want to debate opinions other than or that may run contrary to your own, then why come to a debate forum to expound on your personal views?

If everyone agreed with everyone else, we wouldn't have half (if any) of the problems we have in society, and forums like this would simply not exist.

[Pedersen]

I have been guilty of becoming too personally involved with a viewpoint of a debate that I responded out of a personal sense of frustration, so far be it from me to "throw the first stone" as it were. Suffice to say, if you don't want to debate opinions other than or that may run contrary to your own, then why come to a debate forum to expound on your personal views?

I enjoy debating. But we're not debating the same question. You are debating possibility/impossibility. I'm offering an answer which says possible. You're claiming impossible because of predefined cultural bias, without debating the question/answer I have put forth.

Enjoy your debate. Maybe others will partake of it.

[tendomentis]

I enjoy debating. But we're not debating the same question. You are debating possibility/impossibility. I'm offering an answer which says possible. You're claiming impossible because of predefined cultural bias, without debating the question/answer I have put forth.

Enjoy your debate. Maybe others will partake of it.

I apologize if you felt I was hijacking the thread, and I apologize to everyone else if that was the general consensus. That certainly was not my intention.

My intention was merely to argue that what you are trying to define as universal can't be defined universally and try to uncover what element of "good" and "evil" CAN be defined universally (if at all). If that was detrimental to the debate as a whole, then I apologize, both to you Pedersen and to anyone else who might have been offended or offput by my comments.

If the general feeling is that my comments were unhelpful or irrelevant, I'll not comment on this particular thread.

Again, I apologize.

[Seshat]

I should also point out that if one were to act truly "sefllessly", they would WANT to help another even to the physical and/or emotional detriment of themselves.

I obviously don't know you from Adam and vice versa, but considering that you now seem to regret the decision to be selfless, the selfless lifestyle you say you lived couldn't have been truly selfless as a selfless act would not be governed by whether or not YOU physically or emotionally suffered, otherwise by definition it is a selfish act (even if it initially started as a selfless act).

I physically collapsed - became unable to get out of bed - because I was ignoring my body's warning signals. Since that collapse, my opinion of my actions has changed.

Don't mistake my current regret for my feelings then.

[Seshat]

And returning to good vs evil: we've determined that selfish/selfless is not an accurate descriptor.

So let's take things right back. I'll throw up a few premises, and we'll debate them for agreement/disagreement. If we end up agreeing on some premises, we'll be able to see what conclusions we can draw from them.

Premise: Nature is neither good nor evil.

Premise: Animals which cannot reason, are inherently incapable of good/evil.

Premise: Humans are capable of good/evil.

Question: is the ability to reason the significant distinction between beings capable of good/evil and beings which aren't?


Now some unrelated questions:

Question: is 'evil' something which is against the survival and cohesion of the social group in which the alleged evildoer operates?

Question: is 'evil' something which is against the survival of the ecosystem in which the alleged evildoer operates?

[tendomentis]

And returning to good vs evil: we've determined that selfish/selfless is not an accurate descriptor.

Descriptor? No, and I never claimed it was. Culturally common roots? Yes.

Premise: Nature is neither good nor evil.

Premise: Animals which cannot reason, are inherently incapable of good/evil.

Premise: Humans are capable of good/evil.

Question: is the ability to reason the significant distinction between beings capable of good/evil and beings which aren't?

Your premise depends on the assumption that humans have the ability to "reason", which is a subjective statement. One would ask if a dolphin or a bonobo possesses the ability to "reason" as it defines reason. If humans are simply acting out their nature, then an act could not be good OR evil is nature is inherently neither.

Orangutans have been observed grouping up and murdering one of their own for no discernable reason. The victim was not a competitor, was not mating or attempting to mate with female members of the tribe, was not using the same hunting ground. The group just stalked and then brutally attacked him and didn't stop until he stopped moving. Were humans to act in such a way, the majority would define it as an evil act.

Limiting good/evil to reasoning capability is short-sighted as it requires a human-supremist viewpoint to be accepted as fact just to explore the premise. For all our civilization and supposed "higher reasoning" ability, humans still act and live very much like our bonobo cousins.