VersaceEauFraiche t1_j0gzyry wrote
Brass tacks: Yes, the good/bad binary is about control, and this is a good thing. Theology is about control. Ideology is about control. Laws, politics, government are all about control. All the words that we say to each other are arguments that seek to control the way that the other views the world, behaves, and acts. And as Nietzsche remarked about 140 years ago, "God is dead", western countries no longer operate on the basis of Good vs Evil in this implicit Christian sense that we all understand it to mean. To speak though as if this is the case, that 21st century Anglophone countries operate on a Good vs Evil basis, is absurd.
Practical and pragmatic rules of society are sacralized into totalistic Good and Evil binary because simply having a good argument as to why someone should or should not do something isn't enough to compel some people. Try using persuasive rhetoric on the criminal as he is mugging you. Perhaps he will or won't be convinced by you alone. Maybe the criminal wouldn't even be deterred by the prospect of eternal damnation, which is what sacralization of the law (morality) seeks to imbue within its adherents (or subjects). But if that is the case then perhaps the criminal wouldn't have been moved by anything at all. There are many possibilities to consider.
It is true, good men don't need laws to be good, and bad men will break laws regardless. Adding a moralizing aspect to these pragmatic, positive reciprocal feedback loops is the attempt to really hammer home, on top of the text of law and all of the punishments found therein, that you shouldn't do x y or z.
And again, there is this refrain of demonstrating that there exists nuances, or other modes of morality, in order to demonstrate the limitedness/incorrectness of the Western Good/Evil binary. What if we stop calling these heinous acts of rape and murder evil? Does that stop those things from occurring in the world? No, they persist. Focusing on changing the words describing these heinous actions, instead of seeking limit these actions, is just cope. Often times we get more upset at each other for the words we use to describe criminals and transgressors than at the criminals and transgressors themselves.
"Good/Evil binary has been used to perverse ends" and so has every other belief system of historical importance. All things are vectors through which violence enters this world, the one constant being man himself. I am not moved by this line of rhetoric, and neither should you be.
jackatatatat t1_j0h8739 wrote
Well stated. Also good and bad/evil are used a metrics for value. How do you ascribe morals without defining the value of them?
[deleted] t1_j0hklme wrote
This is exactly it. Instead of asking whether good/evil binaries are objectively valid categories, we should consider their use in pragmatic terms. Structure and order are part and parcel of being a human amongst humans. I think parenting has given me quite a bit of insight into the correctness of your point of view.
AConcernedCoder t1_j0hmxuv wrote
>Yes, the good/bad binary is about control, and this is a good thing. Theology is about control. Ideology is about control.
I disagree, assuming good and bad to be words that originated to communicate involuntary experience. One should not expect to be able to plunder, violate, or rape without incurring upon a victim some involuntary experience that we cannot fault the victim for describing as an evil. Control, on the other hand, might be useful in mitigating said consequences or for other means.
>Laws, politics, government are all about control.
If it is only about control, then what good purpose does it serve?
That the concepts good and evil exist for the purpose of control can be a confusion of purpose. If we want to assume that these concepts emerged in societies for practical reasons, it's doubtful that primitive peoples jumped to an abstract idea for the purpose of establishing a control structure. What is this new concept that the boss calls "evil" and why should we believe him? More likely it originated for a different purpose and was appropriated for other motives.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j0hswtn wrote
We can take the Nietzsche route and say that Good vs Evil binary took the place of Good vs Bad binary: Good once meant strong, healthy, having vitality and bad meant weak, impotent while Good now means meek, humble, self-sacrificing and Evil (bad) means selfish, greedy, and condemning the strong for acting upon their strength (among other things ofc).
But most, such as those on the panel, would reject the Good/Bad along with the Good/Evil binary as well because the Good/Bad binary exalts strength and power as virtues and it is quite clear what 21s century western academics think about power structures.
Yet this is just all descontruction with no corresponding construction. Even if there were conscrutction of some kind of moral frame that exists outside previous models the rejoinder will always be, as you said yourself, "why should we believe him?" And around the carousel we go.
AConcernedCoder t1_j0hx3ns wrote
I don't personally take the Nietzsche route on this subject.
Humanity and human experience are ancient -- it stands to reason that it's more ancient than language. We can infer that ancient humans experienced malevolent acts by malevolent actors, and what set of words would they have at their disposal to speak of these experiences? It isn't necessarily "bad" or "evil," obviously, language evolves and there is diversity to take into consideration, but finding some other basis besides human experience to pin this to is a challenge. It's doubtful that the necessity of a control structure was the origin.
VersaceEauFraiche t1_j0hz8d0 wrote
Yes, when I say control I mean, "control as a means to an ends", as in control as a means to end malevolent acts. I agree with your point about taking many things into consideration. My original post was more about agreeing and amplifying the lamentations of the panel.
AConcernedCoder t1_j0i56cq wrote
Then maybe I misunderstood. I also think the necessity of law is related to the necessity of moral language. I just don't consider it a control structure in a pejorative sense in and of itself, until someone uses to exert control over a society for some purpose other than its original purpose, like repurposing a defense mechanism as a weapon. While I somewhat understand Nietzsche's revulsion to the situation he found himself in and his drive to look backward, ancient greece for me is not comparable to a point of origination for humanity, and in my opinion his master/slave morality dichotomy doesn't go back far enough.
CaseyTS t1_j0j25qi wrote
You're making the assumption that the people who wield moral authority use that control to prevent harmful actions, in general. Frequently, that is not the motivation of people with moral power. Frequently enough that it is innaccurate to say that moral control of the masses is categorized as "good" in and of itself.
CaseyTS t1_j0j1pbx wrote
> Evil (bad) means selfish, greedy, and condemning the strong for acting upon their strength
If that's Neitzche's definition of evil, I have to say, it is not at all a general definition of evil. "Condeming the strong for acting upon their strength" doesn't enter into it. "Condemning the strong for acting upon their strength by oppressing people" is what I, and many people whose morals are about preventing human suffering, think.
CaseyTS t1_j0j1aaq wrote
That control that you're talking about has caused both great suffering and great advancement in different places and contexts. To say that having a few people (moral authorities) morally controlling the masses is a straight-up "good" thing in and of itself is incorrect if you consider mass human suffering to be evil.
CaseyTS t1_j0j2mpy wrote
> Good vs Evil in this implicit Christian sense that we all understand it to mean. To speak though as if this is the case, that 21st century Anglophone countries operate on a Good vs Evil basis, is absurd.
Also - why does the absense of some former, implicitly abrahamic morals imply that the West no longer operates considering good and evil? Not sure how that is connected. Christianity is a source of morality, and it is not unique in that way.
Edit: obviously, people in the west do bad things, but you're ignoring a huge portion of people if you think people in the west at large don't consider morals in their actions.
iiioiia t1_j0i2do3 wrote
> Brass tacks: Yes, the good/bad binary is about control, and this is a good thing. Theology is about control. Ideology is about control. Laws, politics, government are all about control. All the words that we say to each other are arguments that seek to control the way that the other views the world, behaves, and acts.
This meme is self-referential, misinformative, and (imho) self-contradicting.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments