Exploring Good and Evil: Where Do We Draw the Line?

[p-brane]

Originally posted by one_raven
After reading your reply and giving it some further thought I think that rape was a bad example.

I stand by the rest of what I said, however.
So far.

As long as you're not standing IN what you said!-)

Good and evil... hmmmm.

There are good points about evil where there don't seem to be any evil points about good.

Good things about evil:

1.)Evil results steer people toward good behavior.
2.)Evil contrasts and makes good look even better.
3.)Evil is alway recycled into good (Nazi's, Edi Amin, Rawanda, etcetra provide examples of what to look out for in people)

Evil things about good:

1.)You can get too much of a good thing?
2.)?
3.)?

 

[Denim Tent]

what is the ultimate basis for ought?

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Unless there is an absolute truth on conduct, ethics and morality, good and evil is purely subjective. Thus, uniform concepts of good and evil, a relative sense of absoluteness, are limited to certain cultural groups or person(s). In other words, good and evil cannot be defined universally, only interpreted and espoused by people. For example, many Muslims believe Osama Bin Laden is good but many Christians (if not all) believe he is evil. Perhaps one day humanity will have the ability and luxury to agree on universal principles of ethics. So that certain concepts of good and evil are universally understood and accepted. Then maybe good and evil will cease to be subjective and become absolute. At least for us, that is.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Values, God Metaphors, And Science

At the beginning of our existence, is not the being of each of our transient identities self evident? Then, is not the being of other consciousnesses within existence at least strongly intuitive? From that, can we not intuit a sort of pyramid of general moral values? At the top would seem a sort of “Great Commandment” responsibility to the material and spiritual Environment that nurtures us. Under that, might there fall a sort of “Golden Rule” or “Rule of the Veil” that commands responsibility for fulfilling our present, potential, mutual, and enlightened bliss? Such precepts would not seem inconsistent with a sort of fundamental, Perennial Philosophy relating to our regard for God, our selves, and each other---although adherents often clash over semantics or metaphors.

However, as we come to build up, associate with, and respect Traditional Emotional Investments in various arts, our general values take on more specific manifestations---often becoming manifested in conflicts within ourselves and against others as we tear between how to protect traditions and how to transcend them.

Speaking generally, it might be unavoidable that conflicts will continue to arise based on our differing investments in traditions and arts. But, can we at least resolve to try to avoid conflicts that are fired or based mainly on mistaken apprehensions about metaphors? Can we try to move to a higher, common ground for values, where we can appreciate our mutual concern for reconciling ourselves with each other and with our material and spiritual environments?

Can science help us move past limited, nonsensical, falsifiable metaphors for small time, totalitarian god beliefs that impose irrational, inconsistent sanctions based on literalistic notions that simply defy common sense or common experience? At a minimum, can we at least try to avoid killing each other over whose “God” metaphor for an Ultimate General Source Of Values is “really” correct?

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Dlan, your bombastic post failed to answer the thread topic question. What is "good and evil"? In all its verboseness, it failed to even answer its own question.

I shall try to rectify this with a worthy response. Good and evil is really all about opinion. However, there are some basic concepts of what is good and evil that all humans share. Yet as of yet there is no uniting factor.

I don't think science can help us "move past" our so called "limited" metaphors (whatever you mean by that). That is up to humans, not the things we manufacture, like science and other philosophies. So far I haven't seen any indication the human race, in its inherent nature, stemming from biological form is about to change. However, we can change through the accruement of knowledge, thus becoming able to augment our abilities and change our physical nature.

As for moving past our "limited" nature, that is very much a matter of opinion. What defines "limited" and what defines the correct philosophy? It's all very subjective. For instance, in your post you express nothing but your opinions but that's the world view you seem to regard as true.

So, what I have concluded from this thread and my post is "good and evil" is derived from human decision, not something inherent. Yet, oddly all humans share some basic concepts of what good and evil is. Finally, we will continue on this path of ontological inquery until we can all agree on a unified value/ethics system. Either that or we become like the borg, and then "good and evil" becomes irrelevant. As a species we have a lot of potential but we'll never grow out of our current behavior if we remain the same as we have for thousands of years. Whether we achieve difference from this homogenous and repetitive pattern through a change in philosophy or through science has yet to be seen.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Aesthetic Bombast

Thanks for recognizing my bombast and verbosity. I would not have minded if you had also mentioned my confusion and uncertainty. Even so, I hope I see part of your point, about progressing through "knowledge."

But what happens when we reach the point where it becomes strongly intuitive that what we can learn from knowledge is simply not going to be enough? What happens when we realize that there must exist some explanations that will simply forever be beyond our finite perspective? On old maps, perhaps they wrote, "beyond here there be dragons." Nowadays, instead of dragons, we think, "beyond here there be aesthetic, parsimonious metaphors."

If science can arrive at a point of being comfortable with a "final" explanation based on aesthetic metaphors (like under string theory), then why cannot philosophy recognize the possibility of an aesthetic metaphor that underlies our relativistic notions about values? Cannot scientific theories and philosophical values meet at a parsimonious point of aesthetics?

Apparently, scientists, in their faith, do not see ultimate aesthetic metaphors as being devoid of meaning or value. So, I am simply wondering whether an honest concsideration of parsimonious aesthetics as an ultimate justification for values might also be worthwhile? Might it: allow us to be more honest about needing to rely on faith about ultimates that we cannot know; about recognizing needs that can reinforce communities in search of common moral guidance? Kept at a general, parsimonious level, would that be a bad thing?

 

[Dayle Record]

In one book of pictures of Galaxies, there is a most arresting image. One huge spiral galaxy, intersects another at right angles, and surely there is some destruction on a grand scheme there. I am sure this is far away, and long ago, and who knows what the ultimate outcome will be? What would the good/evil of it be? I mean, does the one galaxy get a ticket, for running into the other one, or is the injured galaxy in a no parking zone? I think the good and evil construct, is about victim vs victor mentality. We would do much better if we applied compassion, rather than moral judgement. Then there would be no victims or victors.

 

[Polly]

We would do much better if we applied compassion, rather than moral judgement. Then there would be no victims or victors.

Beautiful, I totally agree.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Dlan: 'Parsimonious metaphors'

I have no doubt the human race will one day be able to agree on certain ethics. However, in the human world, most of existence is subjective. Since every individual is unique and there will always be different ideas on what is correct, I'm not sure if philosophy will reach an end point, your parsimonious metaphor.

Science itself, is a never ending chain of discovery, rediscovery, change in both understanding and method. It is so much like the rest of philosophy in some ways, that I don't think it will reach an end point either. The Universe itself is always changing and so are our ideas on it.

The tricky part about both science and other philosophies is that everything changes, both the physical world and our ideas, as I have said above.

Now, what will happen if we decide to abandon our human form and become robotic? The human race, like the Universe, is constantly evolving and diverging into new paths.

Along string theory, there is an idea that there was a Universe before the big bang. Since new scientific ideas about existence, some have questioned if there ever was a state of nothingness but always a Universe.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of a never ending cycle of creation and destruction, whereby branes or other universes collide perpetually? If one believes in God or some creator(s), then that makes sense. Why create a existence, only to see it destroyed finally? If one were conducting a lab experiment, they would want it to repeat itself and perhaps even, in endlessly new forms.

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

Dlan: 'Parsimonious metaphors'

I have no doubt the human race will one day be able to agree on certain ethics. However, in the human world, most of existence is subjective. Since every individual is unique and there will always be different ideas on what is correct, I'm not sure if philosophy will reach an end point, your parsimonious metaphor.

Science itself, is a never ending chain of discovery, rediscovery, change in both understanding and method. It is so much like the rest of philosophy in some ways, that I don't think it will reach an end point either. The Universe itself is always changing and so are our ideas on it.

The tricky part about both science and other philosophies is that everything changes, both the physical world and our ideas, as I have said above.

Now, what will happen if we decide to abandon our human form and become robotic? The human race, like the Universe, is constantly evolving and diverging into new paths.

Along string theory, there is an idea that there was a Universe before the big bang. Since new scientific ideas about existence, some have questioned if there ever was a state of nothingness but always a Universe.

Perhaps you are familiar with the concept of a never ending cycle of creation and destruction, whereby branes or other universes collide perpetually? If one believes in God or some creator(s), then that makes sense. Why create a existence, only to see it destroyed finally? If one were conducting a lab experiment, they would want it to repeat itself and perhaps even, in endlessly new forms.

So here is good and evil, ideas caught between a constantly changing world and human ideals.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Psycho Fish:
I think I agree with your inference that life might be nearly intolerable if we all shared the same tastes and values in the same degrees. If God exists, I assume God needs variety, even upon the risk of war. So, I do not expect that agreement on a common point of parsimonious reference for moral values should end controversy or conflict. Even so, a natural point of agreement in principle from which to try to find ways to resolve conflicts short of all out war would seem a good thing. So, my query is: might we ever intuit a common pyramid of general values?

At the top of such a pyramid, might there be a sort of “great commandment” responsibility to the material and spiritual environment that nurtures us, resting on a “golden rule” or “rule of the veil” that commands responsibility for fulfilling our present, potential, mutual, and enlightened bliss? Such precepts would not seem inconsistent with a fundamental, perennial philosophy, and most other virtues or values would seem amenable of being rationalized under them.

At a minimum, were we to find some such beginning point of reference, however ambiguous, might we then at least hope to avoid killing and terrorizing each other over whose “God” metaphor for an Ultimate General Source Of Values is “really” correct?

 

[PsYcHo_FiSh]

I believe the human race will find common ground, in terms of some ethics, some day. However, it isn't ideology we fight over most, it is economic interests. Thusly, a world united by economy is one with common values.

Globalization is becoming ever more prevalant, fast mass communication and efficient transportation across large distances is becoming more advanced.

Therefore, by force of economy and accessibility, the human race will mix more and I believe there will be a starting "point" to resolve issues by. A sort of secular Ten Commandments, an agreed upon course of conduct. Yet this won't come over night and it won't come easily.

After all, it took a century of religious warfare in Europe for philosophical tolerance to arise.

 

[Dlanorrenrag]

Your points make considerable sense to me. Thanks.