j4_jjjj t1_j0l1p46 wrote on December 17, 2022 at 1:41 PM

Reply to comment by unripenedboyparts in The good/ binary in morality is misguided and can be dangerous | Tommy Curry, Massimo Pigliucci, Joanna Kavenna by IAI_Admin

I think I still dont follow your logic. Good and evil are by definition subjective views. In what way would a neutral observer attribute good or evil to an action without adding their own biases?

To a "God", killing an infant is merciful and good if its part of their "plan".

unripenedboyparts t1_j0l5awo wrote on December 17, 2022 at 2:15 PM

>Good and evil are by definition subjective views.

I've never heard these terms defined that way.

>In what way would a neutral observer attribute good or evil to an action without adding their own biases?

Again, I don't get how this affects the objectivity or subjectivity of a thing in theory. Perception is fallible and a failure to observe something does not necessarily determine its existence or non-existence.

>To a "God", killing an infant is merciful and good if its part of their "plan".

That's such a hypothetical scenario I don't think it has any bearing on reality, and is not even a true thought experiment as you haven't defined "God." But the biggest problem is that you're just reiterating that you think evil is subjective as support for said belief. That is, you're using a belief that something is evil/good as proof that evil and good are subjective, when all it proves is that the belief is subjective.

The problem with good and evil is that they oversimplify complex realities, are vague, and carry a rhetorical weight that exceeds the objective information they convey. But that objective information still exists, and explaining away good and evil through semantics is a poor substitute for reframing it in more sophisticated terms.

It's equally okay to say you just like punching babies, as this is a philosophy sub and free discussion is "good." ;)

j4_jjjj t1_j0l8fvv wrote on December 17, 2022 at 2:42 PM

The first defintion for evil everywhere I look says "morally wrong".

Morals are subjective, no?

unripenedboyparts t1_j0laq4f wrote on December 17, 2022 at 3:01 PM

Almost nothing, if anything at all, is inherently subjective. Morals are standards that are typically arbitrary, but when you focus on the subjective judgment that results in a thing being labeled as "evil," you're missing the point of doing such a thing in the first place. Some morals are just plain stupid, like the idea that sex is evil but reproduction is not. Calling such a code "subjective" is unwarranted validation.