Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IAI_Admin OP t1_j0grrw2 wrote

This debate focuses on whether the dichotomy of good and evil in Western morality does more harm than good. Tommy Curry argues that the terms good and evil have been
used as a form of control throughout history by the dominant ethno group to
impose norms and structures on other groups. This has significance in the
modern world where what we think constitutes good and evil influences economics
and use military force.  Massimo
Pigliucci adds that the categories of good and evil are unhelpful because they
create a sharp distinction where there is actually a lot of nuance. They are
also pernicious because they encourage us to think of ourselves as good and
write off our opposition as evil, prompting us to act in a way that is uncharitable
and uncaring. Joanna Kavenna notes that the language of good and evil has
practical origins rather than some absolute transcendent source. She concurs
that reference to good and evil is increasingly used as a means of control
through an evocation of this absolute moral realm that cannot be challenged.
This is a corrupt use of the good and evil terminology is a trap that must be
avoided.  

104

CleaveIshallnot t1_j0h4x0v wrote

Nietzsche is calling; from a century ago.

101

Dr_D3adpan t1_j0iudjg wrote

I’m reading Beyond Good and Evil right now and thought the same thing lol

20

CleaveIshallnot t1_j0ix43m wrote

If you stare into the abyss long enough...

8

ImmoralityPet t1_j0jrz7o wrote

the abyss also gazes into you... long enough?

5

CleaveIshallnot t1_j0jty7q wrote

Too long my friend. I Hazel way too long...

Thanks tho

−1

Pehz t1_j0hgpp5 wrote

"Whether the dichotomy of good and evil does more harm than good."

The debate is using the stones to destroy the stones, it seems.

61

thec0mpletionist t1_j0ipzll wrote

i think theres a significant difference between something being attributed as an inherently good/bad property/form and a system of thinking causing a positive/negative effect if used in specific ways.

8

[deleted] t1_j0hlbci wrote

And if everything is subjective, then there's no truth, then why bother searching for answers?

7

WaveCore t1_j0hliv0 wrote

Not being able to reach a truth is better than reaching a false truth

18

Happyradish532 t1_j0huubd wrote

I wouldn't say so. If people took that stance on enough topics, they wouldn't really believe in any ideas.

1

WaveCore t1_j0i53nm wrote

That's just not true at all. Let's say there are two theories for a truth, A and B. I don't necessarily have to commit to believing theory A or theory B, but I can lean more towards believing and being more convinced by either of them. If I happen to believe theory A more, who's not to say that developments in theory B could cause me to shift towards theory B later down the road?

But what happens to the close-minded is that they're either more sold on theory A or B, and henceforth stick to it and cease to keep up with the other theory. Because they've already written it off as "wrong" or "bad" in this case.

Thinking that you have to commit to beliefs is just intellectual laziness. It's more comfortable to assume that you have all the right and correct takes and therefore there is no need to challenge yourself anymore.

15

Happyradish532 t1_j0i9ihr wrote

The other user said no truth at all is better than a false truth. Sounds like you're saying something else. That you'd rather believe partially in something that may be wrong, and change your mind later. That's different than believing in no truth, which I see as offering the subject no thought at all. I guess we just interpreted the other users comment differently.

4

CaseyTS t1_j0j0wo2 wrote

> That's different than believing in no truth, which I see as offering the subject no thought at all.

Careful not to accuse your opponents of not even thinking just because you strongly disagree. People carefully think about and consider things that they do not have a definite truth for all the time, and even someone who questions everything and believes only in subjective reality (i.e. no objective truth) might think deeply about things.

3

Happyradish532 t1_j0m61u9 wrote

Fair enough, but I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Those were the words they used. How else was I supposed to take it?

0

iiioiia t1_j0i1ywf wrote

There's no requirements for one's beliefs to be true. And while it is often beneficial, it is not always.

5

kequilla t1_j0ied74 wrote

Pursuing the truth is better than resting on falsehoods.

1

iiioiia t1_j0i1r8m wrote

Subjectivity is perceptual, truth (actual, as opposed to perceived/declared) is not.

2

Pehz t1_j0i6x8q wrote

I'm not sure how that's related to my comment, I was just making a joke about using the language "more harm than good" when arguing that "good and bad" are misused.

I mean, it made sense and was arguably reasonable for Thanos to use the stones to destroy the stones.

2

[deleted] t1_j0gv3e9 wrote

[deleted]

37

thegreatpotatogod t1_j0kw20v wrote

Hi, are you me? I've often said pretty much the exact same thing! It's so common that people love to put things in little binary boxes, when it's so rare to actually be that clear cut in the real world. It's a useful mental shortcut sometimes, but also often goes too far and is treated as a fundamental truth rather than just categories for aiding our understanding of the world! Really nice to see someone expressing the same sentiment, even using some of the same phrases as I often do when describing it 🙂

2

littleferrhis t1_j0l8sky wrote

Everything is on a spectrum, but without categorizing life would become impossibly confusing. I like to think of color for example, there’s really only one specific true blue color, there are a bunch of different types of blue, light shades, dark shades, some mixed in with other colors, however at the end of the day everyone still calls it blue. It may not be fully accurate, specific shades may have their own identities which again may not fully match, some may just barely be blue, but its helpful because without calling it blue you would need a Phd to know what each minute color is.

Look at cutting edge attitudes on gender, the entire thing is an absolute mess, filled with genders that most don’t even know exists, and insistence on people respecting them, and even some wanting to get rid of the concept of gender entirely.

If you were to ask me, I’d argue to keep the binary gender in place, but stop doing the thing people do where they start assigning a million different traits to it. Stop saying “a true man must act like” or “a proper lady does”, and just accept that like a color spectrum, every person is just slightly different, and may not do the things the way you do them, and as long as they aren’t hurting anyone, that’s ok. And that goes for most binaries we have.

1

Gooberpf t1_j0ila37 wrote

It seems to me that this post is conflating the use of the good/evil dichotomy for selfish ends (like controlling populations) with the dichotomy itself.

Natural selection was perverted into eugenics, but that doesn't make it untrue or not useful as a concept on its own?

I'm also perturbed by what appears to be circular reasoning in this take. The existence or non-existence of moral absolutes is a metaphysical question on the same level as "is there such a thing as divinity?" and the arguments here which reduce the idea to how the dichotomy is in usage, e.g., "to control," implicitly presume that there is not a moral absolute and there is only the social aspect.

Well that doesn't answer the question of whether good/evil is a meaningful dichotomy when you're already assuming it isn't other than its effects on the societal level.

7

IOnlyUseTheCommWheel t1_j0ictqm wrote

> They are also pernicious because they encourage us to think of ourselves as good and write off our opposition as evil, prompting us to act in a way that is uncharitable and uncaring.

I mean, if someone is a murderous nazi and you're a POC I think it's perfectly OK to write off the nazi as "evil" because he wants to commit horrific actions, like murder against you. That's how we protect ourselves from an evolutionary perspective. We avoid the things and people who hate us and want to hurt us. A cheetah is probably considered evil to a gazelle after all, even if the cheetah doesn't see a problem ending the gazelles life (because he's a cheetah and that's what they do). Similarly, a nazi doesn't see a problem murdering a black person, because that's what nazis do. I think labeling that nazi as "evil" is literally protecting the POCs life and the nazi isn't harmed by the POC thinking they're "evil".

Do you disagree?

3

iiioiia t1_j0l6j8z wrote

I disagree in that people on the internet have well proven how bad humans are at accurately identifying Nazis - I've seen many claims that ~50% of the population are Nazis.

1

IOnlyUseTheCommWheel t1_j0lub5v wrote

"People on the internet" is an irrelevant red herring and completely unrelated to my point.

1

iiioiia t1_j0lw370 wrote

I believe it is relevant, because of this:

>> I mean, if someone is a murderous nazi and you're a POC I think it's perfectly OK to write off the nazi as "evil" because he wants to commit horrific actions, like murder against you.

Humans have well demonstrated that they use the word "is" in ways that are contrary to its technical meaning.

For example:

> "People on the internet" is an irrelevant red herring and [is] completely unrelated to my point.

Here you are describing how this appears to you, seemingly unaware that it may appear otherwise to other people, and that how it appears may be different than how it actually is.

1

IOnlyUseTheCommWheel t1_j0lyu6c wrote

Well, I was talking about a neo nazi that literally wants to murder someone.

That's a way different idea than "u killed me in fortnite u nazi".

It literally isn't what I'm talking about. I am not talking about random kids on fortnite labeling people as nazis. I'm talking about ACTUAL, SELF-DECLARED neo nazis who want to murder people, like these ones: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/590292705/5-killings-3-states-and-1-common-neo-nazi-link

Im talking about these kinds of people and as a POC I am perfectly right to fear these people. Are you trying to tell me I shouldn't fear a neo nazi like the ones here in this article and call these people "evil"?

1

iiioiia t1_j0lzhj9 wrote

> Well, I was talking about a neo nazi that literally wants to murder someone.

Right, but the difference between thought experiments and reality is that in a thought experiment, one's declarations of truth are assumed to be true (which is ok, because the space is purely virtual*), whereas in reality people's declarations of truth are not necessarily true, though they are often perceived as such.

> It literally isn't what I'm talking about. I am not talking about random kids on fortnite labeling people as nazis. I'm talking about ACTUAL, SELF-DECLARED neo nazis who want to murder people, like these ones: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/06/590292705/5-killings-3-states-and-1-common-neo-nazi-link

In that minority case, fine, but I am talking about the much more plentiful situation where people are accused of being Nazis despite not having admitted it, or not even exhibited any characteristics of it. Basically, I am referring to human delusion and silliness, which often has very serious consequences.

> Im talking about these kinds of people and as a POC I am perfectly right to fear these people. Are you trying to tell me I shouldn't fear a neo nazi like the ones here in this article and call these people "evil"?

Let's see how you react to what I have written here.

0

IOnlyUseTheCommWheel t1_j0lzpf0 wrote

> but I am talking about the much more plentiful situation where people are accused of being Nazis despite not having admitted it

Red herring.

But I'm glad you agree with me:

> In that minority case, fine

So since you have nothing to add to this discussion, I think we're done here.

1

iiioiia t1_j0m0bcq wrote

>> but I am talking about the much more plentiful situation where people are accused of being Nazis despite not having admitted it > > > > Red herring.

Red herring: a clue or piece of information that is, or is intended to be, misleading or distracting.

I disagree. The phenomenon I've mentioned does in fact exist, and is related.

> But I'm glad you agree with me

Only on a subset of the whole though.

> So since you have nothing to add to this discussion, I think we're done here.

I am going to report your comment to the mods on this basis:

> > > > Argue your Position > >> Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed. >

> Be Respectful > >> Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. >

0

IOnlyUseTheCommWheel t1_j0m320o wrote

> The phenomenon I've mentioned

Is irrelevant to the point I am making about ACTUAL neo nazis dude. You're trying to talk about "people on the internet".

Stop trying to change the subject. We're not talking about "people on the internet don't label nazis right". This is about whether certain actions can be declared as "evil" and what that means.

1

iiioiia t1_j0m3za3 wrote

> Is irrelevant to the point I am making about ACTUAL neo nazis dude.

I have explicitly acknowledged that I agree with you in that regard.

However, it is true that there are many claims that certain people or groups of people "are" Nazis, where the accused has made no confession or exhibited behavior.

You are not obligated to discuss this, but I think it is interesting that you are saying it is not in any way relevant.

> You're trying to talk about "people on the internet".

I am talking (not just trying) to talk about a very specific subset of people.

> Stop trying to change the subject.

The subject of this subthread is a function of the ideas that have been raised. If you do not desire to discuss the aspect I have noted, you are more than welcome to disengage from the conversation.

> We're not talking about "people on the internet don't label nazis right". This is about whether certain actions can be declared as "evil" and what that means.

I have injected it into the conversation, and I have asked for your thoughts on the matter.

1

IOnlyUseTheCommWheel t1_j0m42v2 wrote

> I have explicitly acknowledged that I agree with you in that regard.

Then we're done here I have zero interest in your red herring. Have a good day.

> I have injected it into the conversation,

Yeah I don't care.

1

iiioiia t1_j0m456k wrote

This demonstration satisfies me, thank you.

0

IOnlyUseTheCommWheel t1_j0m5o2n wrote

> I have injected it into the conversation

A little tip: this is what a red herring is. A discussion is about one thing and you "inject" the red herring into the pile of fish to distract from the other fish. That's why it's red.

1

iiioiia t1_j0m7fjv wrote

What I injected is directly related to the topic of discussion: "Nazis" (or so-called Nazis).

You are welcome to act as if this has no relevance whatsoever, and I am welcome to point out that you are incorrect. To me, this is satisfying as it physically documents the nature of the mind in a way that can be ingested at a future date. However, further replies also increases the potential value, so I encourage it.

0

kouteki t1_j0krd4w wrote

Interesting example. A US POC flags a WW2 nazi as evil, even tho nazism didn't explicitly target POC (unlike Jews, Roma and Slavs). According to the debate, this automatically makes the opponents of nazis good. That forces the US POC to root for a camp that is still actively lynching, segregating and in many ways targetting the POC.

A great practical example is Jessie Owens, who by all accounts was significantly better treated at the Olympics by Germans, then by his own country.

−3

[deleted] t1_j0luh8e wrote

[removed]

−1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_j0n7lh2 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

Late-Yesterday2106 t1_j0h5stf wrote

I agree. The binary morality rubric is detrimental to the basic humane condition and is only supported by the flawed civilization concept and the traditional way of life. A constant embracement and development of the system might lead to supererogation and the forbidden being the defining aspects which might cause a utopian and dystopian view of the human condition.

2

Chrome_Quixote t1_j0hfh8f wrote

Always relevant. Some good people being called evil lately, everyone turns into a chihuahua barking because others are.

1

brbaca t1_j0j1axx wrote

No kidding. If you don’t agree with the lamestream these days, you’re called an evil racist terrorist😂😂😂. Never has a group of people needed this common sense offering more than the folks of Reddit.

1

DarkJester89 t1_j0jydq3 wrote

> write off our opposition as evil, prompting us to act in a way that is uncharitable
and uncaring.

This whole sentence seems like it was written by someone who just wants to put words on a page and not considering what they mean in a paragraph together.

1

Banake t1_j1203hb wrote

"Massimo Pigliucci adds that the categories of good and evil are unhelpful because they create a sharp distinction where there is actually a lot of nuance. They are also pernicious because they encourage us to think of ourselves as good and write off our opposition as evil, prompting us to act in a way that is uncharitable and uncaring." Funny that Pigliucci is guilty of doing both these things nore than once.

1

Nee_Nihilo t1_j0j5q0t wrote

Hitler did evil. There's no nuance there. False false dichotomy.

0