Dasadon wrote:Name one species on this planet other than humans that has a concept of good and evil.

This is flawed, because no other species on this planet has the ability to use logic, so obviously no other species on this planet will have the concept of anything at all. If you count metaphysical beings, you're going in 'personal experience' territory which is near impossible to argue for or against.

Doing so would be like a color blind person looking up at the sky and seeing that it is gray comparing his observation with other color blind people and then coming to the conclusion that because it looks great to all of them that it must be crazy to everyone. Obviously this isn’t the case because not everyone is colorblind. Some people see color it when they look at the sky they see this color that we called blue.

This isn't a good analogy because the color of something doesn't have tangible results and effects on the world. Breaking someone's leg with an ax creates an effect that isn't a matter of opinion.

Likes2Read wrote:And yet, I know full well that cultures exist on this earth, right this instant, where women are bought and sold like property. I think they are appalling. Perhaps they are appalled by the very idea of women being autonomous, independent humans with full human rights. I won't be visiting any of those parts of the world, needless to say.

How does them thinking that validate the concept that what they do is subjectively good? Does it change the effect their actions have on the victim? If good and bad was subjective, the women of that culture would be absolutely fine, because in that culture, nothing bad happened to them.

Likes2Read wrote:I hasten to add that I absolutely believe good and evil exist.

I also believe that some actions which you or I might deem good, someone else from another place and/or era might define as evil, and vice versa.

Huckkeberry Finn, in Mark Twain's story, thinks he's going to hell for being a "low-down dirty abolitionist" (opponent of slavery). Churches back then, in that place, promoted slavery. Helping slaves escape was a crime, as was teaching them to read and write. I trust that we in the 21st century are diametrically opposed to all these attitudes that were considered normal in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Are these things more evil now than before? No. We have just upgraded our understanding to include the stance that abusing people and treating them as property is wrong.

Yet, human trafficking still exists, so clearly, not every person has gotten the memo yet.

You just contradicted yourself and argued the point I'm making.
"Upgrading our understanding" means that there is an objective good and bad, and that our understanding became better and matched that. So the culture that does not have an "upgraded understanding" has a skewed view, rather than an equally valid subjective view.. so good and bad is objective.

LightOne wrote:Deep in the past they spoke to us and told us their view, whether directly or through oracles yeah and half of our teachings were based on their influence. Yahweh for example even did actions to show it was him speaking and his message when delivered.

Yahweh is a very bad example to use for a 'good' natured deity.

You cut out a lot of my first post, where my point was that different people from different cultures are going to have different lists of what's good vs. what's evil.

In order to get everyone on as close to the same page as possible, countries codify laws to specify what is and is not permitted. People might or might not agree with every law, but at least they'll know what's legally expected of them in that country.

Maybe "upgraded our understanding" (to outlaw slavery) means that I subjectively agree with those changes made in US laws. But I also know that slavery and human trafficking have not been eliminated from the earth yet, so obviously there are some monsters walking around who are just fine with the idea. If it's legal to treat humans like property where said monsters live, it means some very powerful people in that society would disagree with our assessment of slavery as evil. Maybe lots of people there do.

My point, which I feel the need to clarify, is that there is not, and likely never will be, worldwide consensus on what "good" and "evil" mean. I can give you a long list of what I think are examples of good or evil, only to find that some people here think otherwise about my examples, and in the world at large the debate would rage on even more.

Likes2Read wrote:You cut out a lot of my first post, where my point was that different people from different cultures are going to have different lists of what's good vs. what's evil.

I responded to that in several different ways.

My point, which I feel the need to clarify, is that there is not, and likely never will be, worldwide consensus on what "good" and "evil" mean.

Worldwide consensus doesn't relate to whether or not there is or isn't an objective truth of something.

This is flawed, because no other species on this planet has the ability to use logic, so obviously no other species on this planet will have the concept of anything at all. If you count metaphysical beings, you're going in 'personal experience' territory which is near impossible to argue for or against.

Yes I agree there aren’t any other species that have such a capacity for logic. The reason I asked this question was because it was stated that there are other species that have a concept of good and evil. I asked for the species to be named full well knowing that you can’t name something that doesn’t exist

This isn't a good analogy because the color of something doesn't have tangible results and effects on the world. Breaking someone's leg with an ax creates an effect that isn't a matter of opinion.

You should pay more attention then because the analogy isn’t about the color of something it’s about the perceived color of something. Those two things are quite different.


I’m going to continue to believe that good and evil is subjective in fact I would even go as far as to say that it technically doesn’t even exist. I’m going to continue to believe that good and evil is subjective in fact I would even go as far as to say that it technically doesn’t even exist. And I will continue to believe so until I receive something more that suggests otherwise then some other persons opinion.

Worldwide consensus doesn't relate to whether or not there is or isn't an objective truth of something.

Please do me a favor and describe what you think good and evil mean.

Dasadon wrote:

Worldwide consensus doesn't relate to whether or not there is or isn't an objective truth of something.

Please do me a favor and describe what you think good and evil mean.

Cult wrote:Right and wrong in the sense of what is and what is not beneficial to sentient beings individually and societally

Dasadon wrote: You should pay more attention then because the analogy isn’t about the color of something it’s about the perceived color of something. Those two things are quite different.

The perception of color in the mind of a colorblind vs not colorblind person isn't analogous to the perception of an act in regards to whether or not it's good or bad, because color has no tangible effect or consequence on anything, while an action does. I understood what you said, it's still not a good analogy.

Right and wrong in the sense of what is and what is not beneficial to sentient beings individually and societally

If something or someone is not beneficial to my individuality thing is not evil ( which is what we are talking about) and nor do I view that as immoral because my definition of morality is different from yours. The reason that it’s different from yours is because I decide what i think is and is not moral. If morality is objective I would not be able to do this.

For me this is extremely situational.

For example if someone steals from me I’m not going to jump to a conclusion about weather or not that person is good or bad because I don’t understand that persons situation. maybe that person is drunk or high. Maybe that person was programmed to think it’s ok. Maybe they were never taught that they shouldn’t take what doesn’t belong to them. There are a number of reasons for why people behave the way they do. It’s not as simple as “That guy is evil” or “that guy is great”

It’s one thing to say whether or not something is or is not beneficial to your individuality but another thing to say that that thing is good or evil.

Dasadon wrote:If something or someone is not beneficial to my individuality thing is not evil ( which is what we are talking about) and nor do I view that as immoral because my definition of morality is different from yours.

If something is not beneficial to you, it's not necessarily bad. If something is directly detrimental to you, it is bad. If something is directly beneficial to you, it is good.

The reason that it’s different from yours is because I decide what i think is and is not moral. If morality is objective I would not be able to do this.

Yes you would be, because you can have opinions about anything and everything.

For example if someone steals from me I’m not going to jump to a conclusion about weather or not that person is good or bad because I don’t understand that persons situation. maybe that person is drunk or high. Maybe that person was programmed to think it’s ok. Maybe they were never taught that they shouldn’t take what doesn’t belong to them. There are a number of reasons for why people behave the way they do. It’s not as simple as “That guy is evil” or “that guy is great”

I agree with you here, but I'm not talking about people. Good and bad people don't exist. Good and bad actions do exist.

Cult wrote: I agree with you here, but I'm not talking about people. Good and bad people don't exist. Good and bad actions do exist.

Ah, but then you run into the slippery slope of subjective ethics. Let's start with an easy one: Stealing is Bad. Most of us would not like to be stolen from. Having our resources taken from us is directly detrimental to us, and therefore fits your definition of 'evil.'

But do we include intent in the action, or do we divorce the act from intent?

What if a man stole or pocketed medicine from a pharmacy to help a loved one who was ill? Is the act still evil? Would there be a difference if it was a life-threatening illness vs. a mere inconvenience?

What if someone were to steal food to feed others who are starving? What if we steal resources we need during moments of crisis (such as incidents of 'looting' during major disasters)? Are those acts still evil? Are they evil against an individual moreso than they are against a larger entity, such as a major corporation that will feel the effects less?

How about killing? Thou Shalt Not Kill, after all. Notice it doesn't specify which species. We kill animals frequently for food. Americans are all about killing in self-defense (and sometimes in retaliation, as in the Death Penalty still active in a very few states). If someone was moments away from killing you, and you killed them before they could, would your killing of this individual still be evil? If the only way to save twenty people was to kill one, would that action be evil?

Again, a large amount of subjectivity unless you are willing to say All of X Action is Bad, Regardless of Circumstance--which is a valid point of view, if one lacking in empathy and generally unpopular with most. If that is the view you take, however, you must be clear that you judge action alone devoid of intent, and intent will never matter in your judgment that an action is 'good' or 'evil.'

What in the name of god have i started? O_O