Poll: Am i crazy for thinking good and evil are too subjective words to use?

[zfactor]

Just because the "bad guys" don't think what they are doing is wrong doesn't therefore mean they aren't acting in an evil way.

This forum really confuses me. One day we will have a thread like this and everyone acts like everything is a moral shade of grey and really subjective - then the next day there is a thread about a bully and everyone goes "KILL THE BASTARD!".

My point is that as a society we have a collective moral compass. Yes, it changes over time. For instance, the collective moral compass of the majority in the old days saw homosexuality as immoral. Now it's changing somewhat. There are some actions that a large majority of the community frown upon. Hitler's annihilation of Jews, gays, blacks, gypsies and political activists was evil no matter which way you try to spin it. Just because he thought he was partaking in a just cause doesn't make what he did any less evil. He killed millions of innocent people. In my books, that's evil. And it's evil to all of you too. Don't believe me? Have a close family member or a close friend murdered and see if you still think it's all "grey".

This is all a circle jerk anyway. It's all very fun and philosophical to talk about how everything is grey and all that jazz, but as soon as something strikes closer to home (such as the bullying issue in this particular community) everyone completely changes their tone in about a second. All of a sudden these morally "grey" outlooks become black and white.

That's relativism for you...

It says cultures define what is right and wrong for the individuals in that culture. So cultures (society) can have different viewpoints on right and wrong, but they are all equally valid. So people have different ideas on what is right and wrong, just some (like your example) apply to more people than others.

An interesting view on life, relativism.

 

[Sam Doctorman]

NO your not Crazy i think the same thing

 

[Ampersand]

No you're quite right, morality is subjective.
I'd imagine that most people who are genuinly evil don't believe themselves to be so.

 

[Erana]

They're definitely subjective, but still, I'll defend the idea of things I think are "evil". Like someone reveling in their absolute domination over someone when they're raping a person, etc. I keep that separate from things I just find wrong, like murder. I mean, people can snap, and do terrible things. It doesn't justify them or make the person who did them unaccountable for their actions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they were being evil. I mean, people have their low points.

 

[TheMadPunter]

They're definitely subjective, but still, I'll defend the idea of things I think are "evil". Like someone reveling in their absolute domination over someone when they're raping a person, etc. I keep that separate from things I just find wrong, like murder. I mean, people can snap, and do terrible things. It doesn't justify them or make the person who did them unaccountable for their actions, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they were being evil. I mean, people have their low points.

Ah, so you're also considering intent when judging morality. I actually forgot about that. That's an interesting question: does the morality of an action depend in any part on the actor's intent? Two people, same action, same results, different motivation - is one action more or less moral than the other?

 

[thedeathscythe]

No you're not crazy, it's not even a particularly interesting or new viewpoint.

I gotta say, old news. As a kid, and even through highschool, we're talking from grade 1 to 12, I went to a private school, run by catholicism. I was taught what was good and what was wrong but I never believed any of it. They told me that gay marriage was evil, and I just couldn't get behind that. To them, it was I suppose, but in my opinion, it isn't. Anything that is not factual is subjective (for instance, the solution to a math problem, or maybe the date of someones birth. All of that is concrete.).

 

[manythings]

I think you are crazy to think this is somehow news. Every descriptor is subjective.

Also when you make a poll you should, you know, make a poll.

 

[Blind Sight]

Not really, people have been running the 'good and evil are subjective' show in philosophy for quite awhile, it shows up in a lot of media as well. Just for a random example, Battlestar Galactica's version of God. Baltar explains it best: "God isn't on anyone's side. Good, evil, those are things we invented."

Some philosophies argue for a single moral code however, and in their view you'd probably come off as crazy. An Objectivist, for example, would think you're overcomplicating the situation and simplify the meanings of good and evil.

I've been meaning to use this TED conference video somewhere, it's excellent but quite long.


So there are other people that argue that scientific data and research can determine the overall morality of a situation or action, basically meaning that 'good' and 'evil' are pre-determined constructs of the human mind.

 

[Thedayrecker]

The idea of a subjective good, has been the basis of one of my rules to live by (more specifically "Rule 16: You're not good. Neither is he. Don't tell him"), so no you're not crazy for thinking it.

Also I want to point out that the idea of subjective good is old, and there is no way you could possibly be the only one who thinks and/or thought like this (for instance, the Earth is billions of years old, humans have been around for about 200,000 years [not to mention our ancestors, who have been around for millions of years], and Western Philosophy is 2500 years old, so there been plenty of time to ask this question, and ponder it's answer).

Tl;dr: No. Earth is old.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

the problem is that people define "good" and "evil" incorrectly. in truth, they aren't about actions, they are about how you view yourself in relation to the rest of the world. what i mean by that is that "good" is viewing the rest of humanity (as a whole) as being of a higher value than yourself. this doesn't mean being self-deprecating or self-loathing, it simply means realizing that what benefits the majority is what should be sought. on the other hand, pursuing your own desires/goals without any thought to how they affect others would be "evil".

to be more concise, "good" = ultimate selflessness, while "evil" = ultimate selfishness.

 

[LarenzoAOG]

Good and evil are probably the most subjective things I can think of, everybody has their own definition of good and evil, and nobody in the history of ever has ever been completely good or evil, even the Unabomber thought he was ultimatley helping people, and Mother Theresa probably woulnd't have been so nice if she didn't believe she would be rewarded for it after death. I'm not 100% sure but I don't think anyone has ever done anything with the sole purpose of being good or evil. Off-topic perhaps but I was thinking about this yesterday and decided to voice my thoughts.

 

[Slick Samurai]

Just because the "bad guys" don't think what they are doing is wrong doesn't therefore mean they aren't acting in an evil way.

This forum really confuses me. One day we will have a thread like this and everyone acts like everything is a moral shade of grey and really subjective - then the next day there is a thread about a bully and everyone goes "KILL THE BASTARD!".

My point is that as a society we have a collective moral compass. Yes, it changes over time. For instance, the collective moral compass of the majority in the old days saw homosexuality as immoral. Now it's changing somewhat. There are some actions that a large majority of the community frown upon. Hitler's annihilation of Jews, gays, blacks, gypsies and political activists was evil no matter which way you try to spin it. Just because he thought he was partaking in a just cause doesn't make what he did any less evil. He killed millions of innocent people. In my books, that's evil. And it's evil to all of you too. Don't believe me? Have a close family member or a close friend murdered and see if you still think it's all "grey".

This is all a circle jerk anyway. It's all very fun and philosophical to talk about how everything is grey and all that jazz, but as soon as something strikes closer to home (such as the bullying issue in this particular community) everyone completely changes their tone in about a second. All of a sudden these morally "grey" outlooks become black and white.

You're contradicting yourself, you admit that a moral compass points people's opinions, and that it changes over time, but you still say that some people are evil no matter what. Before which you say that you're confused as to why people get so angry at bullies, having answered your own question.

There isn't really anything such as evil, but there is good. A person will always believe they are doing something good, or believe they are doing something evil and need to change. There is never a time in real life where a person thinks themselves evil and likes it, because the sense of good is completely opinionated.

Hitler thought that the Jews were evil, and tried to clear them from the Earth for a more "dominate", more "good" race. If you asked Hitler on if he thought himself evil, he'd say he was the good guy, the protagonist, and the Jews and their allies were the evil empire.

From Hitler's view, we were "him". From his view the Allies were the Axis. This is pretty much how the human mind works.

 

[Kortney]

You're contradicting yourself, you admit that a moral compass points people's opinions, and that it changes over time, but you still say that some people are evil no matter what. Before which you say that you're confused as to why people get so angry at bullies, having answered your own question.

There isn't really anything such as evil, but there is good. A person will always believe they are doing something good, or believe they are doing something evil and need to change. There is never a time in real life where a person thinks themselves evil and likes it, because the sense of good is completely opinionated.

Hitler thought that the Jews were evil, and tried to clear them from the Earth for a more "dominate", more "good" race. If you asked Hitler on if he thought himself evil, he'd say he was the good guy, the protagonist, and the Jews and their allies were the evil empire.

From Hitler's view, we were "him". From his view the Allies were the Axis. This is pretty much how the human mind works.

Nope, you missed the point entirely. My point was that people who ramble on about morality being a shade of grey are bluffing, and that when they are personally involved it becomes black and white. I was making a point about how worthless discussion on morality is - because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter.

And by the way, your argument about Hitler not being evil because he thought he was doing good is total bullocks. Being responsible for the deaths of innocent people is evil. Hurting people who have done nothing to you is evil. Regardless of intent.

 

[2xDouble]

This thread is a bit discouraging. I definitely believe in a moral absolute that transcends culture or personality. Saying that moral judgments of our actions are entirely culturally relative or specific to an individual's viewpoint suggests that there's no basis for condemning (or even labeling) crime. It also suggests that there's no shared moral expectation. We tend to think cultures differ greatly in terms of ethics or morality, but they really don't. Has there ever been a society that felt murder, theft, dishonesty or cowardice were virtues? I've never heard of a society that didn't have prohibitions against these behaviors, at least when directed against members of that same community.

Good or evil transcends personal points of view and has an objective value. Can you say that the enslavement of Africans in America wasn't evil? Can you say that the education and enfranchisement of women wasn't good? Can you say that physical violence is never evil, or that charity is never good? There's a point to be made about moral relativism, and it can be a fun exercise to engage in, but to suggest there's no such thing as concrete moral values, at least as far as expanding the rights of individuals to direct their own destiny, is ridiculous and openly denies the notion that moral progress is even possible. I absolutely reject that idea.

People being free to decide how to live their own lives, and supporting that right for others, is an undeniable good.

Thank you. That's all I have to say on this subject.

 

[SultanP]

Can you say that the enslavement of Africans in America wasn't evil?

I can't, but the people who enslaved the Africans certainly could. They weren't going "Let's go be evil and enslave some people" they just figured what they did was allright.

Can you say that the education and enfranchisement of women wasn't good?

Again, I can't. I'm fairly sure you can find some male chauvinists who can, though.

Can you say that physical violence is never evil, or that charity is never good?

This one I'm not decided on. physical violence can certainly serve a purpose, if only to stop greater physical or psychological violence. The scope of that question is a bit too large for me to answer that fast, but it's an interesting thought. However, you can easily find violent people who don't think they are doing anything wrong by committing acts of violence against others. These things alone make the ideas of good and evil subjective, in these cases at the very least.

The point of societies not condoning certain traits and acts has nothing to do with whether good and evil are subjective or objective, but rather the fact that most people share roughly the same views on those subjects when it comes to living together in a community. Why that is I have an idea of, but that's not the point. The simple fact that not everyone has the same view of good and evil means that they are subjective.

 

[lacktheknack]

There most certainly is a set right and wrong, and we all know what it is.

However, we might not really think about it at the time (see: criminals who think they're the good guy), yet hindsight is 20/20 (seriously, NO ONE thinks the Aryan Master Race was a good idea any more, unless they don't bother learning about history).

 

[Steve Butts]

physical violence can certainly serve a purpose, if only to stop greater physical or psychological violence. The scope of that question is a bit too large for me to answer that fast, but it's an interesting thought. However, you can easily find violent people who don't think they are doing anything wrong by committing acts of violence against others. These things alone make the ideas of good and evil subjective, in these cases at the very least.

Of course you can find people who disagree on what is and isn't good or evil, but that doesn't prove that there's not a standard for defining good and evil that exists outside of our personal point of view. There are people who are color-blind, but that doesn't mean there's no difference between red and green. There are people who are bad at arithmetic, but that doesn't mean that 2 and 2 isn't 4. There are people who are unable to trust their own perceptions, either because of mental deficiencies or drug use, but that doesn't mean reality is any less concrete.

Even you suggest that violence is okay as long as it stops more violence, which is a clear sign that you think certain actions are better or worse than others. Regarding the issue of slavery, do you believe, objectively and divorced from any specific individual circumstance, that those people who believed slavery was alright were, in fact, wrong? Would you say that judgment transcends their point of view?

Let's say you and another person, under exactly identical circumstances, each have a chance to kill a third person. One of you chooses to kill, and the other chooses not to. Are outside observers meant to view the two outcomes solely as a difference of opinion?