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.  

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.

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.

So, it's bad?

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.

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.

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

[deleted]

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.

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.

What is your definition of the word "good?"

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?

[removed]

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

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

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

In other news, water is wet.

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.

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 🙃

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

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.

[removed]

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.