j4_jjjj t1_j0ksgt1 wrote
Reply to comment by DariusStrada in The good/ binary in morality is misguided and can be dangerous | Tommy Curry, Massimo Pigliucci, Joanna Kavenna by IAI_Admin
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.
unripenedboyparts t1_j0kw7kx wrote
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.
j4_jjjj t1_j0kz5h6 wrote
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?
unripenedboyparts t1_j0l1eva wrote
>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.
j4_jjjj t1_j0l1p46 wrote
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
>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
The first defintion for evil everywhere I look says "morally wrong".
Morals are subjective, no?
unripenedboyparts t1_j0laq4f wrote
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments