LibriumArcana.Games

We've discussed morality, I've even went into a short spiel showing the difference between morality and law. However during that discussion we never touched the deeper issue that comes up when people think of morality and law. What is Good? What is Evil?

So what is the nature of Good? Is it universal (An action is not good for me unless it would be good if everyone did it.) Relative (What's good now and good for me is not good later or for you.) Or other? Is it possible for an action to be immoral but still Good?

How about Evil? What is evil, why is it different from good? Why do people chose to do evil? Is it possible to confuse evil with good?

Personally, I don't subscribe to the concept of "good" and "evil". They don't exist outside of people's own selfish interpretations of positive and negative effects/events surrounding and affecting them.

In know this isnt my forum, but um, Walper, do you have any logical reasons for this? Not to be an ass or anything, but I think that the purpose of this thread is to actually.. you know... discuss the matter, as opposed to simply stating an opinion with no logic behind it.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:In know this isnt my forum, but um, Walper, do you have any logical reasons for this?

Yes. Good and evil are human created concepts. Good and evil require the existence of morality, which is subjective. What is good to one person can be evil to another.

Not to be an ass or anything, but I think that the purpose of this thread is to actually.. you know... discuss the matter, as opposed to simply stating an opinion with no logic behind it.

The OP is asking "what is good and evil?". I'm asserting that without human morality, neither exists. And since human morality is very subjective, pinning down either definition is going to be pretty difficult.

Robert Walper wrote:Personally, I don't subscribe to the concept of "good" and "evil". They don't exist outside of people's own selfish interpretations of positive and negative effects/events surrounding and affecting them.

So, say, drowning one's children in a bathtub isn't unconditionally wrong? There are hard standards for evil. They might be rare, but they exist.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:Personally, I don't subscribe to the concept of "good" and "evil". They don't exist outside of people's own selfish interpretations of positive and negative effects/events surrounding and affecting them.

So, say, drowning one's children in a bathtub isn't unconditionally wrong?

My from viewpoint, excusing such an act would be hard to fathom in today's society. But I cannot justify that assertion without human morality coming into play.

There are hard standards for evil. They might be rare, but they exist.

Good and evil are based upon subjective human morality.

A male lion, when taking over a new pride, kills all the cubs that he has not fathered himself. I don't consider that evil, even though I'd consider similiar behavior on part of a human male unacceptable.

A male lion, when taking over a new pride, kills all the cubs that he has not fathered himself. I don't consider that evil, even though I'd consider similiar behavior on part of a human male unacceptable

One notes there are many differences between a male human and a male lion. For example... Sapientcy. Lions do not make consicence choses on the same level that humans do, lions do not make morale calls. Your comparsion is irrevalant.

frigidmagi wrote:

A male lion, when taking over a new pride, kills all the cubs that he has not fathered himself. I don't consider that evil, even though I'd consider similiar behavior on part of a human male unacceptable

One notes there are many differences between a male human and a male lion. For example... Sapientcy. Lions do not make consicence choses on the same level that humans do, lions do not make morale calls. Your comparsion is irrevalant.

Like I said, good and evil don't exist until bringing in that subjective human morality.

Like I said, good and evil don't exist until bringing in that subjective human morality.

The behavior of wildlife does not prove your point. Wildlife does have the capablity for choice in action. It's like claiming that laws don't exist because computers ignore them.

frigidmagi wrote:

Like I said, good and evil don't exist until bringing in that subjective human morality.

The behavior of wildlife does not prove your point.

Let me put it another. Define good or evil without using morality as a basis. It is generally accepted, so far as I know, that animals don't have human morality.

The universe by nature is immoral. There is no good or evil in it. The concepts of good and evil only exist by virtue of human percepetion influenced by morality, which is highly subjective.

No Walper, nature is Amoral. Straighten out your terms.

Animals lack the mental capacity to make moral choices, so they are completely and utterly irrelevant to the point.

Now Walper, what you are doing right now, is putting the cart before the horse. You are assuming human morality is subjective, then using this to say that, morality is subjective.
In other words, Walper, your argument is more than a little bit round.

I would argue thqat there are universal moral truths. Truths which are derived from the requirements of society. These truths are absolutely required for the proper functioning of any human society, and thus they can be used to define absolutely that which is good or evil. How they come about in societies is completely and utterly irrelevant, whether they are laid down by god, reason, or simple morality by consensus, the very fact thqat every functional society meets certain moral standards is evidence of their existence.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:No Walper, nature is Amoral. Straighten out your terms.

Animals lack the mental capacity to make moral choices, so they are completely and utterly irrelevant to the point.

Now Walper, what you are doing right now, is putting the cart before the horse. You are assuming human morality is subjective, then using this to say that, morality is subjective.
In other words, Walper, your argument is more than a little bit round.

I would argue thqat there are universal moral truths. Truths which are derived from the requirements of society. These truths are absolutely required for the proper functioning of any human society, and thus they can be used to define absolutely that which is good or evil. How they come about in societies is completely and utterly irrelevant, whether they are laid down by god, reason, or simple morality by consensus, the very fact thqat every functional society meets certain moral standards is evidence of their existence.

I think that adaquately defines it. Micro it, to th e person, and GvE boils down to what is in ones best interest. The tricky part is expanding the notion to society where you come across instances where one thing may be good for the individual but bad for the society. This is where conflict happens and the question of where the individual stops and society starts.

The only difference between good and evil, righteous and unrighteous, in my opinion is this, best summed up by Lord Cohen:

Lord Cohen wrote:People are divided into two groups - the righteous and the unrighteous - and the righteous do the dividing.

What was Hitler if not evil?

Comrade Tortoise wrote:No Walper, nature is Amoral. Straighten out your terms.

I mixed up a term. Sue me. You know what I meant.

Animals lack the mental capacity to make moral choices, so they are completely and utterly irrelevant to the point.

No, they fit perfectly fine with my point that humans alone employ subjective morality.

Now Walper, what you are doing right now, is putting the cart before the horse. You are assuming human morality is subjective, then using this to say that, morality is subjective.
In other words, Walper, your argument is more than a little bit round.

Kindly read my posts more carefully. Morality is subjective. (this is why, for example, some people think abortion is evil and wrong, while others do not). I then pointed out morality will determine what a person considers "evil" and "good", meaning evil and good will also be subjective.

I would argue thqat there are universal moral truths.

Submit some then, and explain how you know every person on the planet subscribes to them. And don't bring "majority rules" out either, since that would excuse ten people beating a single individual to death as 'right' because they are the "majority".

Truths which are derived from the requirements of society. These truths are absolutely required for the proper functioning of any human society, and thus they can be used to define absolutely that which is good or evil. How they come about in societies is completely and utterly irrelevant, whether they are laid down by god, reason, or simple morality by consensus, the very fact thqat every functional society meets certain moral standards is evidence of their existence.

Find one moral "standard" that no human society has violated because it is a fundamental "truth" of morality.

Morality is subjective. You cannot get around that, and good and evil are defined by morality. Therefore, there is no 'standard' for good or evil.

Rogue 9 wrote:What was Hitler if not evil?

A human being with a twisted goal for humanity. The fact that his morality differs from yours and mine does not make him 'evil' per say (though I'd hardly argue someone applying the term to him). From his standpoint, our morality is evil because it differs from his. "Good" is a point of view, one which many people justify differently in different ways.

You're engaging in sophistry, which isn't much better than comparing animal behavior to human cognitive processes. Just because two people have different perceptions of morality doesn't mean one or both of them can't be wrong.

Submit some then, and explain how you know every person on the planet subscribes to them. And don't bring "majority rules" out either, since that would excuse ten people beating a single individual to death as 'right' because they are the "majority".

No murder within social groups. No theft. Things of that nature. What each social group is, depends upon the society. For example, one primitive tribesman killing a member of his own tribe is immoral in that tribe. If he kills a member of another tribe, it is OK. It is bad for a soldier to kill his CO, but killing the enemy CO earns him a round at the pub. The rule against murder is necessary for any society to function properly.


The size of the group determines the scope of the rule. You will notice that we really only care about American dead in the Iraq war. Is it racist? Sure. But the simple matter is we only care about the US not the THEM. It is a trait necessary for the survival of society, and thus a universal social more'

Now, from these things we can derive Good and Evil. Based upon the results of any given action. Thus we allow for Morality, and Good to be two seperate entities.

For example, shooting a president who disolves the senate and declares himself dictator, is an immoral act. Murder. However, the act, based upon results, is good. And that act, in that circumstance, will ALWAYS be good. Because dictatorship is inherently bad for the proper functinig of a society. Because goodness or evilness is defined as effect on societal functioning.

And societal functioning is predicated upon the good of the individuals that make it up; if a society has practices that are to it's own collective good while being harmful to the rights of it's individual members, then it has betrayed it's purpose. Society is not and should not be an end unto itself.

Rogue 9 wrote:You're engaging in sophistry, which isn't much better than comparing animal behavior to human cognitive processes. Just because two people have different perceptions of morality doesn't mean one or both of them can't be wrong.

What proof can your provide however that one is intrinsicly wrong? One of Skepticisms strong points is the fact that what is moral in one place is not moral in another, and there is physical proof of this. Cannibalism in some areas of the world, changes through history as to what was acceptable to do to prisoners, changes through history as to what was acceptable to do to criminals. Rome had little problem with others holding other beliefs and often intigrated other religions. This is opposite to religions such as the abramaic where at certain times in history being another religion meant death. These are all examples of morality being a shifting thing.

Morality, just like war, is written by the winners.

For the record, no I am not a Skeptic.

Save that there are some things which were always considered immoral. Even cannibalistic tribesman do not eat THEIR OWN TRIBESMAN. They eat people of OTHER tribes.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:Save that there are some things which were always considered immoral. Even cannibalistic tribesman do not eat THEIR OWN TRIBESMAN. They eat people of OTHER tribes.

Which you have yet to state. The only thing I have seen as rather constant is something most animals even understand. "You don't kill or steal from your own guys without reason." And that's pretty f-ing basic.

Perhaps I should clarify my arguement. Good and evil can only exist by virtue of morality. Morality is not necessary for the survival and fitness of a species. Good and evil are human created concepts, and do not exist in any natural rule or law.

Robert Walper wrote:Perhaps I should clarify my arguement. Good and evil can only exist by virtue of morality. Morality is not necessary for the survival and fitness of a species. Good and evil are human created concepts, and do not exist in any natural rule or law.

Save that it is necessary for OUR species. A species of sapient social mammals. Abolish morality, and see how long our species lasts.

Comrade Tortoise wrote:

Robert Walper wrote:Perhaps I should clarify my arguement. Good and evil can only exist by virtue of morality. Morality is not necessary for the survival and fitness of a species. Good and evil are human created concepts, and do not exist in any natural rule or law.

Save that it is necessary for OUR species. A species of sapient social mammals. Abolish morality, and see how long our species lasts.

Our civilization as it exists today would undoubtedly crumble, as it depends upon order and unwilling cooperation. But our species would survive. Just in far more primitive and danngerous conditions, like the rest of the animal kingdom.