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.  

[deleted]

No. There are possible dichotomies. Not just all of them are good. It is like a capitalist putting out a false dichotomy and then his lackeys concluding "philosophically" that the whole articulation/categorisation is wrong, making a way to nonmoral/naturalistic capitalism and laissez faire.

You don't need to throw off the baby and keep the bathwater.

This whole community is 100% anti-philosophical propaganda.

Inb4 AI made article about the propaganda used in Reddit communities within 24 hours.

These observations would seem to be in agreement with the Genesis story in the Old Testament, wherein Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise for presuming to attempt to take the knowledge of good and evil to themselves, that knowledge being reserved to God, and beyond humanity's ability to comprehend...one of the first lessons from the Bible, and one much ignored.

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.

Meh, it's a mix of a matter of perspective+individual situations+certain absolute goods/evils.

Punching a sinless newborn baby will always be morally, unequivocally wrong and that's a fact.

Nietzsche is calling; from a century ago.

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.

Unless that baby is Hitler of course. /s

And a lesson most misunderstood, for falling to temptation and desire wasn't the original sin. It was thinking they knew better, with pride.

Well stated. Also good and bad/evil are used a metrics for value. How do you ascribe morals without defining the value of them?

[removed]

There can be no compromise on moral principles. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. When you deny that morality is binary, when you deny the good as a standalone achievable thing, only evil will benefit from this.

There's this little work called "beyond good and evil" by friedrich nietzsche, that seems to touch on this topic a bit. Might be worth checking out sometime

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

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

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

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.

Pretty sure that the argument is that by defining singular actions as one or the other we reduce our chance to learn from them.

Not saying that there are things without an obvious dichotomy, but rather the space between each is huge.

Stealing is bad.

But when you steal from a corporation that increases their prices bc of theft, who are you directly hurting.

Point is to increase discourse over issues in order find truth buried in right and wrong.

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

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

Agreed 100%. I will add it should be kept in mind that one can use that as a defense for morally objectionable actions. As others have mentioned Nietzsche said very much the same about the complexity of morality and dangers of viewing it in a lense of simple good and bad, and the Nazi party, playing with the context, used those words to justify their actions to a lot of people.

Not at all saying that means the alternative is better, and binary morality has led to likely more horrors in the past done it the name of an objective "good", just more a reminder of how most ideas can be twisted to justify horrible actions and how it's important to stay vigilant on the topic of understanding morality in every case. Yes, probably something that doesn't need to be said for most of you and certainly not something that hasn't been said before, but someone might need to hear it. The idea of morality being a gray scale can and has been used to justify horrible actions like most ideas can, and when someone makes sweeping statements about the nature of morality as if they have an objective and clear understanding of it, one way or the other, it's usually a good idea to take a close look at what they're doing. Solid chance of fuckery about

Both problems can simultaneously exist. Yes when it comes to societal problems, it would be too chaotic to entertain nuance, a binary system is practical and achieves more order than the alternative.

However, that way of thinking does not necessarily need to extend to the way we think on an individual level. "Good" and "bad" should and is helpful to constantly requestion and reevaluate.

>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.

I'm cool with calling actions good or evil. It's calling people good or evil that I have a problem with. And even when it comes to actions, I think it's not always clear whether it's good or evil.

But before we talk about good or evil, we have to define it. I'm always entertained when somebody says "good and evil are objective" and then say a bunch of obviously unintuitive and controversial things are right or wrong.

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.

The concept of moral principals presupposes a binary morality (principle vs no principles). If you deny binary morality (principles) there needs to be no compromise.

Peak philosophy, the dichotomy between moral dichotomies and moral not-dichotomies

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

Any rationale instead of matter of fact statements? Because you clearly didn’t even hear their points.

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.

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.

When you say that something is a good, it is because the good is what is sought when achieving an end. All voluntary actions are taken to achieve something that is considered to be a good on some level by oneself, thus it is impossible to seek evil in and of itself unless one is insane and views evil itself as a good. It is possible to seek goods that are lesser, detrimental to others, or based on an inaccurate understanding of reality--this is corruption.

My point is that people do not seek to do evil ever, they only seek to do things that are good only for themselves and no one else, or they are deluded as to the reality of a situation. Even people who perversely seek to do acts of pure malice view the pleasure obtained from the malicious act to be a good that is sought by themselves. What we call evil is the choosing of a lesser good over a greater one, so there is a hierarchy of goods, with the best action being at the top and the worst action being the least good. Evil is like an asymptote that can't ever be reached. Pure Evil is like the speed of light: it can be sought, but never obtained, and this is because one simply seeks evil as a good, leaving the tiniest spark of goodness in one's motivations.

There is always some good sought for someone or something in some action, so one should speak about what is the best course of action to achieve worthy goals, acknowledging the hierarchical nature of goods and their complex relationships to people and things rather than fitting them into a binary category. Binaries do not exist in nature, they are a product of simplified human analysis of a situation. What does exist in reality is a complex set of interacting things, and goodness is what one seeks when one performs literally any action--even if it is an inferior good that is accompanied by great destructiveness to others or the world.

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

how can you determine if the binary of good and evil does more good or evil?

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

> 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.

But what is good and bad is relative and never concrete.

In the long run, perhaps a shift towards "advantageous to the survival of the largest percentage of the population" is a shift that's been happening, well, forever. Some ideals that were popular and widely accepted as "good" decades ago are no longer seen as advantageous, so slowly, over time, they've fallen out of fashion. Just look at slavery. It used to be widely popular. Now, it's a fringe behavior, because a large portion of the population finds it barbaric. There's another fringe that believes that owning a pet, regardless of how well cared for the pet, is abusive. That's, pretty much, our current spectrum of beliefs. And that's how evolution works.

Good v bad/evil is a very simple dichotomy. Things that advance society, or advance an individual without harming society as a whole are "good". Things that harm society as a whole or harm individuals or advance individuals at the cost of society are generally deemed to be "evil".

as a species, and for very good reasons that have to do with not wanting to die, we have learned that certain things are good for the overall health of the group, and certain things are not good for the overall health of the group. Good things for the health of the group are, going to work, helping someone get through a troublesome time, looking out for your neighbor, and, in general, being a decent human being. Things that we have determined to be not good for the health of society are along the lines of committing unprovoked violence against another member of the group, not contributing to the upkeep of the group by working or performing a trade or craft or task necessary for the group to be successful, acting in bad faith to miss guide other members of the group for personal power, doing things that harm the children of the group, Taking things that one has not created or worked for themselves without the permission of the person who did create it or work for it, etc.

The debate comes into play when we start talking in terms of "absolutes". There are exceptions to almost every rule, and special circumstances. For example, it is generally considered "bad" or "evil" for an individual to commit an act of theft. However, is it still "bad" if the act of theft is committed against "evil" situation person? Or if they act was committed in order to feed a starving family, i.e., not an active laziness, but one of self preservation? and, what if the family was starving, not because of the societal oversight or societal evil, but because they failed to do the things that they needed to do to secure their provisions in the standard way?

"Morally relative" situations like this or what spur the debate of absolute morality. Is good always good, is bad always bad, is there any overlap, when is good bad, and when is bad good?

Further spurring this debate is the fact that, as a species, we come from a variety of different locales and circumstances,mand therefore have a variety of different needs and challenges. meeting those needs and overcoming those challenges have their own criteria, which motivates societal opinions on what is considered "good" versus what is considered "bad". This leads to superstitions and traditions of their own kind, but more than that, it ensures that there can be no real global consensus on the absolute make up of good versus evil, As what is good for one group may be detrimental to the overall health and stability of another group.

persons who argue that morality is subjective, undefinable, or inconsequential in of itself, or individuals who lack an understanding of the society in which they live. By simply examining one's capabilities, the goals of the society in which they live, and, to an extent, one's personal desires, A general moral litmus can be created by which ones actions can be measured. To advocate that morality is inconsequential is the same as advocating for the end of society itself, as a society without order and without a common vision and a common means of accomplishment and standard of behavior is a society which cannot stand. History has proven this time and time again, and no amount of philosophical quandary can change this.

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.

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.

So, it's bad?

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.

Any danger that needs to be explained and isn't immediately recognizable isn't a real danger.

People claiming things are dangerous that aren't immediately recognizable as dangerous are only after power and destruction of whatever they claim is dangerous.

Sounds like a nihilist trying to drag down everyone to their level of hopelessness and subjectivity.

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.

> 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?

Pursuing the truth is better than resting on falsehoods.

Weeeeell, ya know Jimbo, a little self-righteous morality is a dangerous thing and ugh . . .

Relative to what if not concretes?

I don't know what that means. But is this the is ought problem?

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.

In other news, water is wet.

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.

I agree. These are arbitrary judgements we race to stick on people things based only on narrow and present-centred definitions.

It depends. A good and bad binary is necessary and correct, but that doesn't mean that there aren't shades of grey.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. 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.

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

What is your definition of the word "good?"

Well you said good and bad is relative and I'm asking you relative to what?

Relative to whatever this or that person or group of people happen to feel about a topic.

There's no such thing as a solid concrete morality as if bestowed upon us by God. That would make things a lot easier.

But without being able to be lazy and just say "cuz God said so" how can we know what is moral and good and what isn't?

If you stare into the abyss long enough...

[deleted]

[deleted]

Well, obviously? Nietzsche figured that out a century and a half ago. Healthy/Unhealthy would be a better binary, but I’m sure that would run that to its own set if problems as well, depending on who is determining them. At least they would be more observable and more in line with scientific thought. Good and evil are of course, far foo vague and difficult to pinpoint. You could even go Bonhoeffer’s route and do a smart/stupid binary 🙃

> 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.

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.

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.

> 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.

One does not guide a good-bad dichotomy.

The good-bad dichotomy guides people.

Authority figures that promote, enforce, or impose a good-bad dichotomy can definitely serve to misguide people or pose a danger to humanity or nature. However, it is a double-edged sword. It can also be applied appropriately and provide for peace and safety.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. I think many people - especially philosophers - are well aware of the subjectivity of good and evil and they're able to arrive at conclusions that are not stuck in that dichotomy. However, some people have very poor critical thinking skills and they have the conscience of a alligator.

If we depart entirely from the dichotomy, how do we preserve peace?

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.

> 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.

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

Surprisingly enough Nietzsche didn't solve philosophy. The inquiry continues.

[deleted]

It's.... well it's not great.

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

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

Thanks tho

“Ironic…”

> 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.

i do not think, at this present moment in time, that we have enough know how to work around this.

Right but okay so I'm not that big of a philosopher or whatever, but I do get where they're coming from when they say "Poor people today enjoy luxuries that kings in medieval times could only dream of." Like, society has always progressed and quality of life has always gone up, at least since the Renaissance.

PS Maybe not for the developing world and Native reservations and stuff... but I guess what I'm arguing against is the idea that you can't create a list of pros and cons, that there's just cons.

Counterpoint: the power of abstraction means all correlations can be generalized into polarities, and simplifying morality this way, like all abstractions, has its benefits and its costs.

Cuz there's a tootsie roll center. Better than truth.

but its fine.

to your own feelings.

all morality is rooted on ones emotions.

[deleted]

I also hazel too long.

You're welcome...

We been hazeled it appears.

Wait, I just hazed myself. Can one do that?

Must google...

[removed]

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.

The sin wasnt about knowledge, it was about breaking the rule.

"You disobeyed. So you are cast out"

Yet another form of control.

To the person doing the punching, its probably not evil.

Good and evil are subjective views, but we use consensus morality to impose laws. This is where moral ambiguity becomes moral code.

BTW, I agree punching babies is evil. But thats my subjective view.

We should keep in mind that this is a myth. You may take what message from it you like, I suppose. I'm sure there's more than one thread of meaning in there. I agree that it wasn't about 'knowledge' in general at all. It was about 'the knowledge of good and evil' and our inability to judge good and evil because of our limited mortal understanding. (This aligns with the later observations that 'we know not what we do', 'judge not, that ye be not judged', etc.) Thus the stricture enjoining them to not eat of that fruit, eh? If it was about obedience and control, any kind of tree would do for the story, I would think...the tree of really tasty cookies perhaps...'Don't touch' thunders God. 'Those are my cookies!' Instead, the tale specifically refers to the knowledge of good and evil. Every time we declare an enemy to be evil, as they declare us to be, we taste that fruit: war and conflict and the loss of paradise.

Fair point, the tree of knowledge (imo) seems to extend beyond just good and evil though, and may even refer to a heightened state of consciousness where we are aware of our actions (ie having a conscience and other attributes)

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 🙂

It's almost as if morality is inherently subjective and a product of the human experience...

Good and evil are definitely not subjective. If the only evidence of harm exists in one person's qualia, no one would call it "evil." If it's called "evil," that means it's gone beyond subjective experience into something that can be measured objectively, like deliberate torture or genocide.

We can call them relative, but even that's a triviality as almost everything is relative. "Evil" is essentially that which is harmful to life, and is ranked according to its perceived necessity (e.g., killing for survival). At the most, you could say that these perceptions are subjective, that evil isn't wrong, or that it doesn't exist, but that doesn't tell us about what evil is. And that's something we can do whether we believe in evil or not, similarly to how we can say an action is "wrong" in a certain religion or ethical philosophy we don't subscribe to.

Ultimately, everything has some kind of objective value whether we can immediately perceive it or not. Object and subject are relational frameworks.

Maybe I've read too much gnostic literature. I thought the moral of that story was that knowledge itself is a fall from paradise because ignorance is bliss, and you can never reclaim innocence once it's lost.

Considering OP's title, it might just be binary.

How do you measure that, though? Even today, people will advocate death and torture of their perceived enemies. Are they evil? How many people need to believe something is evil before its objective?

Such a blind and egotistical take.

Some people think it's good to commit acts others consider evil. If neither side can compromise all you have is inevitable genocide and the only morals that matter are who has the biggest stick.

>How do you measure that, though?

That is notoriously difficult, hence the entire field of ethics.

>Even today, people will advocate death and torture of their perceived enemies. Are they evil?

Well, maybe. That's kind of my point. Calling something "evil" is essentially just a way of saying it is harmful, presumably intentionally so, as we don't usually assign moral weight to non-sentient objects, and most often to the extent that the harm exceeds its benefit to the evildoer. As a term, it carries connotations that are unhelpful (i.e., it tends to frame things in absolutes and does not allow for the existence of competing interests), but that's different from being subjective. When we're talking about torturing an infant or committing genocide, we're not talking about subjective perceptions. We're talking about the actions that are being done.

>How many people need to believe something is evil before its objective?

I don't see how that's supposed to have an effect on anything. Objectivity is fundamentally different from subjectivity, it's not just a degree of subjectivity.

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".

>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." ;)

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.

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

Morals are subjective, no?

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.

hamhazeled again!

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.

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

[removed]

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.

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"?

> 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.

> 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.

>> 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. >

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

This demonstration satisfies me, thank you.

> 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.

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

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.

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.

"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.