What I mean is that I think the words good and evil are being used way too much, considering that meanings for both of those words are created by a persons own morals, for example the generally thought evil things(murder etc), might not seem evil to the person doing it. Same way a lot of people would call Axis evil in WW2, while I am sure they didn't think themselves evil at the time. So what do you guys think?
Poll: Am i crazy for thinking good and evil are too subjective words to use?
- Thread starter Nihilm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yes, I'm pretty sure everybody knows that............
The "bad guys" never say, "Yep I'm in the wrong here and love being evil, it's pretty much all I do."
The "bad guys" never say, "Yep I'm in the wrong here and love being evil, it's pretty much all I do."
Good.
Bad.
I'm the guy with the gun.
Generally speaking......the bad guys usually don't think they're the bad guys.
Bad.
I'm the guy with the gun.
Generally speaking......the bad guys usually don't think they're the bad guys.
Indeed not a new viewpoint but still somewhat interesting subject from a philosophical viewpoint.
It is however rarely possible to use another more "precise" word to describe various acts and events. Even if a serial killer does not consider himself or herself to be evil. society as a whole only rarely find a better more objective word to describe them, like clinically ill or something similar. and so until we "create" a word that is objective in it's definition (if such a word can even exist), good and evil, despite their subjective nature will have to suffice.
It is however rarely possible to use another more "precise" word to describe various acts and events. Even if a serial killer does not consider himself or herself to be evil. society as a whole only rarely find a better more objective word to describe them, like clinically ill or something similar. and so until we "create" a word that is objective in it's definition (if such a word can even exist), good and evil, despite their subjective nature will have to suffice.
It's absolutely subjective. I don't believe there is some sort of "Universal Morality Code" - people will do what people will want to do and justify it however they see fit.
Murder is cited as being morally wrong, however in times of war, it isn't prosecuted. Murder being defined as the intentional and planned killing of another human being. At times killing is necessary to survive. It is instinct to defend oneself from harm.
Lying is also frequently cited as being morally wrong, but at times is also necessary for survival of oneself and others. Deception is frequently used in nature as a means of survival.
A interesting moral discussion on lying (featuring Eddie Izzard no less): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTYtu4lSqfU&feature=related
It's interesting, but I will never be convinced of a concrete moral system. We come to moral conclusions based on society and, mainly, nature.
Murder is cited as being morally wrong, however in times of war, it isn't prosecuted. Murder being defined as the intentional and planned killing of another human being. At times killing is necessary to survive. It is instinct to defend oneself from harm.
Lying is also frequently cited as being morally wrong, but at times is also necessary for survival of oneself and others. Deception is frequently used in nature as a means of survival.
A interesting moral discussion on lying (featuring Eddie Izzard no less): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTYtu4lSqfU&feature=related
It's interesting, but I will never be convinced of a concrete moral system. We come to moral conclusions based on society and, mainly, nature.
Things you agree with are good.
Things you don't agree with are evil.
That's about as subjective as it gets.
Things you don't agree with are evil.
That's about as subjective as it gets.
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.
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.
Not insane at all. In fact, you're 4 years late, I realized that when I as 12. Just sayin'. But w/e. Nothing in the world is definite, not even the computer screen your looking into right now.
This.Kortney said:
Just become most people fall in the grey area of what they do, I still believe there is good and evil. There is a black and white at the ends of the grey areas so don't be saying "Its all grey!"
edit: stupid Firefox saying Grey is spelled wrong.
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.
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.
That's a good point. If morality were truly, completely relative, it would effectively render it meaningless. On the other hand, people who brandish the morality card as a simple, absolute truth are also wrong. On the most basic societal level, what is and is not considered moral really comes down to whether it improves quality of life for people in the society. Actions like murder generally detract from quality of life (people killed are now dead, and people still alive are now left in a state of fear), and are thus deplored by society. However, many societies still practice capital punishment (which if you define murder as "humans depriving other humans of life" is technically murder), but do so under the banner of improving quality of life for the other people in the society.
From a game theoretic perspective, cooperation and trade occur when players (people) stand to each gain more (or at the very least not lose anything) by working together than they would by going it alone. That's why job specialization is possible; otherwise we'd all be hunters or subsistence farmers. What many people call "morality" is really nothing more than baseless - and thus illogical - idealism (see: the battle over gay marriage). Real morality stems from the question: for any given action, is the result beneficial to at least some players without harming others? If so, said action is considered moral. If it neither helps nor hurts anyone at all, it is neutral. However, if it does harm some, however slightly, that's where the question of morality comes into play.
In Star Trek, the Vulcans' slogan is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Logically this is sound; if many stand to gain from the sacrifice of a few, the combined benefit for society is more than the combined loss, and is thus a net gain. This is also true regardless of scale: "kill 1 to save 100" is equivalent to "kill 1,000 to save 100,000". NOW we're in the realm of relative morals. If all you care about is society as a whole, the aforementioned slogan makes perfect sense. If, however, you care about individual freedoms and to hell with "society", then it absolutely does not make sense. Although, if "society" collapses as a result of placing individuality first, everyone - including the individualists - are screwed. Also, if you care only about society as a whole, you could theoretically run into situations like "if I kill these 10 people in cold blood, the other 7 billion people in the world will get a single potato each." On a 1-to-1 scale, this is ridiculous; however, the COMBINED benefit of everyone who gets a potato could possibly add up to more than the loss to the 10 people killed, which would logically justify this admittedly stupid scenario. Therefore, the perspective that makes the most sense is somewhere in between. Morality has to be judged on a case by case basis, and it depends on who you care about. And there's nothing inherently moral or immoral in caring about one group more than another.
From a game theoretic perspective, cooperation and trade occur when players (people) stand to each gain more (or at the very least not lose anything) by working together than they would by going it alone. That's why job specialization is possible; otherwise we'd all be hunters or subsistence farmers. What many people call "morality" is really nothing more than baseless - and thus illogical - idealism (see: the battle over gay marriage). Real morality stems from the question: for any given action, is the result beneficial to at least some players without harming others? If so, said action is considered moral. If it neither helps nor hurts anyone at all, it is neutral. However, if it does harm some, however slightly, that's where the question of morality comes into play.
In Star Trek, the Vulcans' slogan is "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Logically this is sound; if many stand to gain from the sacrifice of a few, the combined benefit for society is more than the combined loss, and is thus a net gain. This is also true regardless of scale: "kill 1 to save 100" is equivalent to "kill 1,000 to save 100,000". NOW we're in the realm of relative morals. If all you care about is society as a whole, the aforementioned slogan makes perfect sense. If, however, you care about individual freedoms and to hell with "society", then it absolutely does not make sense. Although, if "society" collapses as a result of placing individuality first, everyone - including the individualists - are screwed. Also, if you care only about society as a whole, you could theoretically run into situations like "if I kill these 10 people in cold blood, the other 7 billion people in the world will get a single potato each." On a 1-to-1 scale, this is ridiculous; however, the COMBINED benefit of everyone who gets a potato could possibly add up to more than the loss to the 10 people killed, which would logically justify this admittedly stupid scenario. Therefore, the perspective that makes the most sense is somewhere in between. Morality has to be judged on a case by case basis, and it depends on who you care about. And there's nothing inherently moral or immoral in caring about one group more than another.
