Absolute Morality Vs. Subjective Morality

[thepixiesrock]

However there are many cultures that share what is known as "universal taboos." These are behaviors that nearly all the various cultures share the same view as being bad or "evil."

 

But those acts are still not inherently evil, nor would they be if everyone on earth thought they were.

 

If everyone on earth thought something was evil, that wold make it evil, relatively. Unless you are saying it's absolutely not evil.

 

"Good" and "evil" are simply labels that are put on things we, either as an individual or a society, like and, respectively, disagree with - and thus something can never be proven to be absolutely moral or amoral. I might consider something immoral that the next generation accepts as a standard practise, while they, in turn, could abhor things that I support. You cannot make the claim that there are moral absolutes, even if they are universally applied, as the next generation might have a need to disregard the ancient taboos and adopt a forbidden practice - something that would disprove the absolute "evil" nature of the act. Maybe Walsingham is correct, and this entire discussion is pointless, but I do not agree.

 

I'm not saying that what we define as good or evil can't change. I was saying that as long as every single person on earth or in one society thought something was evil, then it would be evil in the confines of that earth/society. As long as you set a context, anything can be absolute, and as long as we don't set a context, then everything can be relative. This applies to everything and not just morality. So I can say there is a moral absolute if there is a context for it to be put in.

[Gorgon]

Speaking in these terms set me thinking back to an earlier discussino we had about chaos and order. I remembered that I argued that since all life is negatively entropic, we might regard entropy as the opposite of life. Therefore a universal definition of evil for any thinking (alive) being would be that which is entropic.

 

 

Consider Maoist China or Nazi Germany for a minute, states where absolute order coincides with absolutes chaos, the constant revolution, kids running around with little red books burning thousands of years of history, the ruthless pursuit of mass murder of a Jewish population. - but the trains run on time, and unless you want to wind up on the wrong side of an unstoppable mass movement you better start making the right noises, and having the right opinions. No place for diversity here.

Edited March 22, 2008 by Gorgon

[Istima Loke]

Plural and singular are labels, nothing more and nothing less.

 

But they are labels with set, absolute definitions, something that "good" nor "evil" has.

 

Since you can't seem to define "good" it's unsurprising you'd have a hard time understanding consistent moral ideas.

 

I cannot define "good," as "good" is an ever shifting idea. What is "good" for myself may not be "good" for you, and thus I could only give a personal definition -something that is useless when determining the inherent morality of an action.

 

 

There is no actual mental difficulty in defining "good" and "evil". And if people decide they want to do so, then in 30 years, you could be able to open the "Goodness Handbook" that kids would have at school and see what is "good" or "evil" as one can find out what is a "function" or a "group" in an algebra handbook today.

 

A lot of ideas change and a lot of concepts change, but still people try to understand what is harmful to them and what is not.

 

And nobody is arguing about the only choices being good and evil and there is nothing in-between nor that people are good or evil and none is somewhere in between. Or that each and every of today's concepts about "good" and "evil" are totally correct.

 

But to say that good and evil are not definable because you can question that in your mind is as wrong as anything can be.

 

 

EDIT: I hate forgetting to press the add reply button and then find put that what I said was already posted

Edited March 22, 2008 by Istima Loke

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But for some reason the person that those atoms make up isn't. How can that be?

 

For the same reason we say Eucaryotic Cell and not Eucaryotic Cells when dealing with only one of them, even though they are clearly made of several differing organelles. A Piece of a puzzle is singular, as is the greater puzzle.

 

Here, I'll define good for you, then: the greatest positive influence for the greatest number. And evil: the greatest negative influence for the greatest number.

 

I would disagree, for what might be helpful for the majority might not benefit myself, and thus might not be "good" in my opinion.

 

It's relevant because you've been avoiding answering it so that there can be some sort of debate on what determines if it's moral or not, but whatever.

 

Morality is a personal judgement, so your judgement of morality is irrelevant to my ideas. That said, I recognize the need for social morals, but I do not not preserve them as infallible.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I was saying that as long as every single person on earth or in one society thought something was evil, then it would be evil in the confines of that earth/society.

 

Ok, I misunderstood your meaning - thank you for the clarification.

[Cycloneman]

For the same reason we say Eucaryotic Cell and not Eucaryotic Cells when dealing with only one of them, even though they are clearly made of several differing organelles. A Piece of a puzzle is singular, as is the greater puzzle.

Why? Isn't a plural bigger than a singular? Aren't two men of greater number than one?

 

For example, suppose I have a puzzle made up of four pieces. There are four pieces but only a puzzle, even though those two terms are interchangeable.

 

How does that make any sense?

I would disagree, for what might be helpful for the majority might not benefit myself, and thus might not be "good" in my opinion.

If you can't accept more people getting benefits if you don't get any, you're a sociopath.

That said, I recognize the need for social morals, but I do not not preserve them as infallible.

Neither do I.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

For example, suppose I have a puzzle made up of four pieces. There are four pieces but only a puzzle, even though those two terms are interchangeable.

 

Because the Puzzle, while it is one thing comprised of smaller parts, has been labeled as an independent object.

 

If you can't accept more people getting benefits if you don't get any, you're a sociopath.

 

It depends on who is getting the benefits and how much I am affected.

[Cycloneman]

Because the Puzzle, while it is one thing comprised of smaller parts, has been labeled as an independent object.

"Labeled"? Sounds as though you've admitted I'm right!

It depends on who is getting the benefits and how much I am affected.

What sort of group would you not want to get the benefits?

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

All statements are worthless in YOUR worldview. Because that is self-destructive it renders itself impossible. Hence in fact we can argue that human perception and reason is capable of establishing truth. Because if the inverse was true, coming from a human, it could not be true.

 

"All humans are incapable of being correct. I am a human. Therefore that stament is incorrect."

 

I'm not savagely against a frank discussion of what should and should not eb regarded as good or evil. In fact it is precisely because I AM in favour of that debate that I believe teh results of such a debate would be worthwhile.

 

As an aside, and referencing the xbox question, we can debate what to call the colour of the xbox, but its qualities in reflecting the electromagnetic spectrum are more or less a constant and fixed truth.

 

You missed the point, I was saying if take away the subjective worldview of the individual you indeed find the all statements are invalid, so hence a worldview and morality is required at a subjective level else there is nothing at all... We're talking on similar lines.

 

A fixed truth is not the same as good and evil, which is merely a construct which we give mean, and doesn't particularly exist without us, because that itself requires faith, where there is no need to have faith in some which is fixed.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

"Labeled"?

 

According to the rules of the language.

 

It depends on who is getting the benefits and how much I am affected.

What sort of group would you not want to get the benefits?

 

For example, I would not wish Fundamentalist Christians to gain any more power in the U.S., even result would benefit the majority of people - for I, myself, as an atheist, would likely see my rights severely curbed, as would other people who are not of their faith.

[Walsingham]

Speaking in these terms set me thinking back to an earlier discussino we had about chaos and order. I remembered that I argued that since all life is negatively entropic, we might regard entropy as the opposite of life. Therefore a universal definition of evil for any thinking (alive) being would be that which is entropic.

 

 

Consider Maoist China or Nazi Germany for a minute, states where absolute order coincides with absolutes chaos, the constant revolution, kids running around with little red books burning thousands of years of history, the ruthless pursuit of mass murder of a Jewish population. - but the trains run on time, and unless you want to wind up on the wrong side of an unstoppable mass movement you better start making the right noises, and having the right opinions. No place for diversity here.

 

 

Good point. But I wasn't saying 'order' for that very reason. A diamond is ordered. it is not, however, negatively entropic.

 

N&S makes a better counter-argument by observing that life is sustained by entropically breaking down other things. My counters to this would be:

 

1. Not everything life breaks down is highly ordered. If a bacteria digests hot sulphurous water near the sea bed is that so entropic? When my cells turn glucose into ATP is that entropic?

 

2. Some entropic activity contributes to negative entropy in a higher order of dynamics. For example, when I eat a piece of fruit I am accelarating the entropy of teh fruit but assisting the lifecycle of the fruit tree.

 

3. Pursuing this line of reasoning we may observe that subsisting on lower and lower ordered systems can be considered morally superior. And, vice-versa, an animal that only ate philharmonic orchestras would be quite tiresome.

[Cycloneman]

"Labeled"?

 

According to the rules of the language.

So you admit that plural and singular are just labels?

For example, I would not wish Fundamentalist Christians to gain any more power in the U.S., even result would benefit the majority of people - for I, myself, as an atheist, would likely see my rights severely curbed, as would other people who are not of their faith.

That's... that's contradictory to what I said. If fundamentalist Christians gained more power in the US, then the result would not benefit the majority of people. Even if it did, it would hurt the minority far more than it helped them. If FCs magically stopped being such huge ****, then it would be perfectly acceptable for them to gain more power.

1. Not everything life breaks down is highly ordered. If a bacteria digests hot sulphurous water near the sea bed is that so entropic? When my cells turn glucose into ATP is that entropic?

 

2. Some entropic activity contributes to negative entropy in a higher order of dynamics. For example, when I eat a piece of fruit I am accelarating the entropy of teh fruit but assisting the lifecycle of the fruit tree.

 

3. Pursuing this line of reasoning we may observe that subsisting on lower and lower ordered systems can be considered morally superior. And, vice-versa, an animal that only ate philharmonic orchestras would be quite tiresome.

All consumption of energy is ultimately entropic, particularly for living things. By eating a fruit/whatever, you consume chemical energy to continue your body's current structure. However, when you die, all massive quantities of energy spent keeping your body together over the course of your life are wasted, since it is rapidly disintegrated by the nearby environment.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

So you admit that plural and singular are just labels?

 

That abide by absolute rules.

 

That's... that's contradictory to what I said.

 

Then give me an example of a group that could take control and no-one would be adversely affected. Even if, say, Secular Humanists took control, the religious groups would protest.

[Walsingham]

3. Pursuing this line of reasoning we may observe that subsisting on lower and lower ordered systems can be considered morally superior. And, vice-versa, an animal that only ate philharmonic orchestras would be quite tiresome.

All consumption of energy is ultimately entropic, particularly for living things. By eating a fruit/whatever, you consume chemical energy to continue your body's current structure. However, when you die, all massive quantities of energy spent keeping your body together over the course of your life are wasted, since it is rapidly disintegrated by the nearby environment.

 

It's not wasted, though, in terms of it producing life. I've chosen to describe good as related to all possible life.

 

I think. This discussion is stretching my brain.

[Cycloneman]

So you admit that plural and singular are just labels?

 

That abide by absolute rules.

Sure. Absolutely made-up rules.

 

That's... that's contradictory to what I said.

 

Then give me an example of a group that could take control and no-one would be adversely affected. Even if, say, Secular Humanists took control, the religious groups would protest.

So what? Just because someone might be adversely affected doesn't mean the act isn't "good". If I put Jeffrey Dahmer in jail, he's adversely affected. Does that make the act evil?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

So what? Just because someone might be adversely affected doesn't mean the act isn't "good".

 

And just because people are harmed, that does not make an act "evil." Every action is both "good" and "evil."

[Cycloneman]

It's not wasted, though, in terms of it producing life. I've chosen to describe good as related to all possible life.

Sure, okay. But your original point was that entropy was evil, so...

 

Guess we now agree?

And just because people are harmed, that does not make an act "evil." Every action is both "good" and "evil."

I disagree, firmly. Making words that describe things into nonsense words that mean nothing helps no one at all.

[Walsingham]

It's not wasted, though, in terms of it producing life. I've chosen to describe good as related to all possible life.

Sure, okay. But your original point was that entropy was evil, so...

 

Guess we now agree?

And just because people are harmed, that does not make an act "evil." Every action is both "good" and "evil."

I disagree, firmly. Making words that describe things into nonsense words that mean nothing helps no one at all.

 

1. Touche. My argument has changed. Spank me sideways.

 

2.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I disagree, firmly. Making words that describe things into nonsense words that mean nothing helps no one at all.

 

Neither does trying to say that actions are black and white - which is what you are doing if you deny that every action has a positive and negative element.

[Cycloneman]

I disagree, firmly. Making words that describe things into nonsense words that mean nothing helps no one at all.

 

Neither does trying to say that actions are black and white - which is what you are doing if you deny that every action has a positive and negative element.

Yes, every action has a positive and negative element, sure. But an action which has a significantly greater positive element is good, and an action which has a significantly greater negative element is evil. If an action, say, makes me happy, but causes the wanton killing of sixteen people, then it's obviously evil.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

But an action which has a significantly greater positive element is good, and an action which has a significantly greater negative element is evil.

 

No, it is only mostly "good" or mostly "evil."

[Pidesco]

I disagree, firmly. Making words that describe things into nonsense words that mean nothing helps no one at all.

 

Neither does trying to say that actions are black and white - which is what you are doing if you deny that every action has a positive and negative element.

Yes, every action has a positive and negative element, sure. But an action which has a significantly greater positive element is good, and an action which has a significantly greater negative element is evil. If an action, say, makes me happy, but causes the wanton killing of sixteen people, then it's obviously evil.

 

What if all those 16 people don't have any family nor friends, and are suicidal? Wouldn't it be a good deed, then?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Or the sixteen might have been horribly burned, mutated, or tortured into shells of humans with no reasonable standard of living - it might technically still be murder, but sometimes mercy-killings are warranted.

[Guest The Architect]

What if all those 16 people don't have any family nor friends, and are suicidal? Wouldn't it be a good deed, then?

 

Okay, that's one scenario, but what about the other scenario where these 16 people do have family, friends and aren't suicidal? Wouldn't it be a bad deed, then?

 

Or the sixteen might have been horribly burned, mutated, or tortured into shells of humans with no reasonable standard of living - it might technically still be murder, but sometimes mercy-killings are warranted.

 

Or the 16 might not be horribly burned, mutated, or tortured into shells of humans with no reasonable standards of living. Then what?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Then what?

 

It would then, probably, be a mostly bad deed in both my opinion and the opinion of others. Thus, one might be able to say that it was mostly evil.