Define good and evil.
Riffing off Paul's post http://community.artofmanliness.com/forum/topics/morality-and-devia... I'd be interested to read how people define good and evil.
Clearly we have some theists amidst us, and for them the question should be easy to answer, but I'm more interested in whether or not the atheists have their own clear, concise and unambiguous definitions that do not reference any divine arbitration.
I do have my own ideas, but I don't want to color others' responses. At least not yet.
Clearly we have some theists amidst us, and for them the question should be easy to answer, but I'm more interested in whether or not the atheists have their own clear, concise and unambiguous definitions that do not reference any divine arbitration.
I do have my own ideas, but I don't want to color others' responses. At least not yet.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Yankee Cowboy Bob on -
If someone does not use a holy book, it gets subjective. Also, I feel that there are always times that we just sort of sense it. For example, my mother-in-law is evil. I just know it.
-
Permalink Reply by Mungo Hossenfeffer on -
I disagree. I think it is possible to have an objective definition of good and evil, though quantifying any given action by those definitions is a more difficult endeavour,
-
Permalink Reply by Yankee Cowboy Bob on
-
It raises a question for me that, if someone does not have a foundational reference point, the definition of evil changes from person to person.
"That's evil!"
"According to what?"
"Well..."
-
Permalink Reply by Mungo Hossenfeffer on
-
I don't really want to get deeply into religion here, since doing so is only likely to derail the question I'm interested in. That said, I can't resist asking if you think human sacrifice is morally acceptable because the Aztecs, who practised it did so on the basis of a religious, foundational reference point?
-
Permalink Reply by Yankee Cowboy Bob on
-
My point was consistency. They agreed. Not sure the Incas used the same playbook, but they would be in agreement among themselves as well.
-
Permalink Reply by Yankee Cowboy Bob on
-
-
Permalink Reply by Will on -
I think this boils down to defining morality.
Recommended reading: The Abolition of Man, the 2nd-3rd sections I think. C S Lewis discusses this issue. We know right from wrong, and contrary to a popular maxim, he says, morality isn't wildly different between cultures. It's hard to find one that thinks cruelty, cowardice, and treachery are virtues.
Also recommended: Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It's about a lot of things, but it does include -- what is that standard?
My view is that right and wrong exist, and they exist in the relationship between an observer and the thing observed. (This is *not* "beauty is in the eye of the beholder.") Beauty is in the *relationship* between the eye of the beholder and the thing beheld, and it is real.)
Also recommended, in a way: Dao De Cheng. And this gives the non-answer that I think most closely addresses the question: you can't *have* a clear, concise and unambiguous definition. The way that can be named is not the true way. Whenever you try to pin it down, someone can find a valid exception.
-
Permalink Reply by Herb Munson on -
Excellent reply, will. Simplistic as it may sound believe me you'll know it when you see it.
-
Permalink Reply by Mungo Hossenfeffer on
-
Will, thanks for the response. I've read most of the required reading, and in particular have studied the Dao De Ching extensively (your explanation for 'The way that can be named is not the true way', of course, is not an adequate explanation!).
By and large I think you're in the right area when you connect this with a definition of morality. But good and evil are terms bandied about all too readily. I'm interested in seeing if people from this diverse group have their own clear understanding of what those terms actually mean.
-
Permalink Reply by Will on
-
:"your explanation for 'The way that can be named is not the true way', of course, is not an adequate explanation!"
That's very Daoist too -- provided we recognize that the explanation that can be given is not the adequate explanation.
-
Permalink Reply by Mungo Hossenfeffer on
-
Bing!
One cigar for the man with the beard!
Subscribe to the Art of Manliness Blog
AoM T-shirts
© 2010 Created by Brett McKay
