AConcernedCoder t1_j0hmxuv wrote
Reply to comment by VersaceEauFraiche in The good/ binary in morality is misguided and can be dangerous | Tommy Curry, Massimo Pigliucci, Joanna Kavenna by IAI_Admin
>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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments