A Question Of Morality

[Pedersen]

What is "good"? What is "evil"? Can they be defined? Philosophers have long sought the answers to these three questions. Various answers have been proposed by many different people. The most commonly accepted answers, though, are the answers given by religion.

The major problem with accepting religion for the answers is that different religions have wildly different concepts of good and evil. To provide two examples, consider Judaism and the religion of the Mayans.

Judaism teaches "Thou shalt not kill", and the religion of the Mayans practices human sacrifice. These are diametrically opposed ideas, and are (obviously) incompatible when trying to define good and evil. To their practitioners, each side would fully believe their own idea of good and evil is the right idea, while the other side is absolutely wrong.

While there are no known practitioners of the Mayan religion alive today, other differences exist between religions which make their definitions of good and evil incompatible. A less drastic example is the difference between Christianity and Buddhism.

Christianity teaches that there is a single God, with a single son. Buddhism does not believe in the existence of God as a single supreme being. Christianity teaches that whatever God wills is right and good, while Buddhism teaches that good comes from within, and is known by the level of inner peace.

As a result of these clashes, it is very difficult to formulate a definition for good and evil, leading many to state that such is impossible, as every religion has their own definition for good and evil.

We need a better definition, one that does not come from religion. I believe that I have found one possible way of defining good and evil. This method does not rely on religion. It does not rely on ephemeral qualities such as inner peace. Instead, it uses one single element: Time.

Every human life will exist for a finite time. For some, this time is measured in seconds. For others, this time will be over a century. But all life has a finite time to exist. The length of time is unknown, but it does exist.

As a result, a simple statement pair can be made: That which takes time from me without my permission is evil. Things which give time to me are good.

With these two statements in mind, it becomes very easy to determine if something is evil, or good.

The obvious examples first:


Murder: If I am murdered, then all of the remainder of my time is taken from me without my permission. This is an evil act.
Rape: If I am raped, then the time for the act to be performed is taken from me. In addition, the time for me to deal with the mental and emotional effects is taken from me. As I cope with these effects, the people around me who must deal with me trying to cope have that time taken from them. This is an evil act.
Abuse: I receive any of the various types of abuse from an aggressor. This takes my time away from me, as I must cope with the abuse. This is an evil act.
Work: I exchange my time for money. This money allows me to do other things. As this exchange is one to which I have previously agreed, this is a good act.
Charity: I give away some of my money to groups helping others. As I make the choice to do this, this is a good act.
Religion: I choose to follow a specific religion, and its attendant rules. As I make the choice whether or not to follow these strictures, this is a good act.
Coercion: I spend my time forcing someone to do things according to my needs and desires. For instance, forcing my wife to move when she does not wish to. In so doing, I make her spend her time coping with the move, the disconnect with family and friends, the hassles of changing addresses, updating contacts, etc. I have taken time from her that she did not wish to give. This is an evil act.

Other situations can be analyzed in the same way. As you can see, it is possible to analyze how good or evil an action is just by asking two questions: How will my time be spent here? How will my actions cause the time of others to be spent?

I do not believe this definition of good and evil to be complete at this time. I believe that there must be holes in it, but I am incapable of seeing them. I have tried to do so for many years, and still can not find the issues.

I am hoping that the people here can help me clarify this. I have tried to live by these rules, and usually do well (I'm human though, so still make mistakes). I'm considered by many to be a good person. But I can't believe that this is everything.

Please, won't you take some of your time to help me learn what I've got wrong?

Thank you.

[Will-Mun]

Well as for what you got wrong, I see two things... The first and foremost... Is thinking that the definitions of good and evil came from religion... Which is just horse radish. The concept of good and evil do not spawn from old books and adult imaginary friends, they spawn from civilization and community, a group of people attempting to coexist in a way that benefits everyone.


The second is, well, it's too complex, you're making what is a simple premise sound needlessly complicated. Good and evil are basically this.

Do what you want, as long as it does not hurt someone else.

Hurt of course does not mean simply in the physical sense... Emotional, financial, do not do anything to anyone, without their expressed permission.

You can ball-gag em and take a whip to them for all I care, as long as they want it. Some people just like that.

Good is living your life without imposing on someone else's.

Evil is taking action against someone else against their will.

[AFPheonix]

I think religion was ultimately developed to be a community's way of enforcing the common ethics and morals they needed to follow in order to operate smoothly.
Don't want people to take other's stuff? Call it stealing and set up a specific punishment for it, reinforced with a supernatural action that could be taken if the offending community member doesn't shape up. Same thing for any other act that would lead to disharmony.

[Seshat]

Evil is a very human concept. Nature doesn't have evil or good - nature simply has actions and consequences.

However, the question you're asking, Pederson, is an extremely complex one. For some ideas on where to start if you really want serious answers, try these resources:

* Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Wikipedia entry is here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development), and contains references that can probably be found in a library.

* The writings of the current Dalai Llama (http://www.tibet.com/DL/book.html).

* The whole field of moral philosophy, though a good start is the book Right and Wrong (http://www.dymocks.com.au/ProductDetails/ProductDetail.aspx?R=9780733619397): how to decide for yourself, by Hugh Mackay.


Myself, I work from attempting to be rigorously honest with myself - if I catch myself lying to myself, I try to figure out why and to stop doing so. I also try to determine the likely consequences of my actions, and determine whether I'm willing to accept them. I think the combination is working. I certainly hope so!

[Boozy]

Read The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer. Its a well-researched book looking at morality through science and biology. I think it should answer a lot of your questions.

He goes a bit heavy on the evolutionary psychology, but all in all its an informative read.

[tendomentis]

On a much more primal level, "good" and "evil" could be characterized by "selfless" and "selfish".

Any act that primarily or solely benefits yourself would be considered selfish (evil) and any act that primarily or solely benefits someone other than yourself would be considered selfless (good).

Nature doesn't have an equivilant since all organisms ultimately seek to prolong their own survival margin (comfort and luxury indicating a large survival margin), so the idea of good and bad or selfless and selfish would be results of human sapience and the ability to overcome our natural inclinations.

Biology follows thermodynamics, so organisms in general don't expend energy to help another unless it benefits them. A creature acting selflessly would, in essence, be acting contrary to the natural order as it would be acting to benefit another organism at its own expense with no hope of return on investment, thereby eliminating any personal benefit.

Any further extrapolation from the basic selfish and selfless concepts would be a function of culture and would not necessarily have to be universal across disparate cultures as a result of environmental and socialogical influences.

As always, IMHO.

[Pedersen]

Well as for what you got wrong, I see two things... The first and foremost... Is thinking that the definitions of good and evil came from religion... Which is just horse radish.

Actually, no, that wasn't what I was stating, though I do admit to not having been clear enough on that. For many people, their concepts of good and evil come from their religion. When two religions have diametrically opposed concepts of good and evil (see the Mayan/Judaism section for one such example), conflict will occur.

My ideas are an attempt to find a universal concept of good and evil, one that explicitly denies the use of religion as the means of measurement and, because of that, manages to find a way to reduce conflict.

As I said, I haven't found holes in my theories/ideas, but I know there must be some.

However, the question you're asking, Pederson, is an extremely complex one.

--SNIP LIST--

Myself, I work from attempting to be rigorously honest with myself - if I catch myself lying to myself, I try to figure out why and to stop doing so. I also try to determine the likely consequences of my actions, and determine whether I'm willing to accept them. I think the combination is working. I certainly hope so!

I will be reading that list, and the mentioned item from Boozy (below you) starting tonight. I am very serious about this. I've been intrigued by the issue of deciding good vs evil since the basic philosophy class in college.

Add in that conflict seems to be on the rise in the world today, and everybody claiming that we have to accept and tolerate other people's definitions of good vs evil because there is no such thing as a universal definition, and I've found myself trying harder to refine my definition.

I probably am not the person who can successfully do this, but I think it is important to do.

On a much more primal level, "good" and "evil" could be characterized by "selfless" and "selfish".

Any act that primarily or solely benefits yourself would be considered selfish (evil) and any act that primarily or solely benefits someone other than yourself would be considered selfless (good).


Well, there is one issue with such a definition: Consider the act of eating. Eating benefits yourself almost exclusively. By looking at good/evil as selfless/selfish, you wind up defining the mere act of eating as an evil thing to do.

Somehow, I very much doubt you meant to do that :)

For a more extreme example, consider some world leaders that have performed acts of legendary evil. A good example would be someone like Vlad Tepes. You could also use Pol Pot, Slobodan Milosevic, Stalin, Mussolini, and even (everybody's favorite) Adolf Hitler. Each of these people did something strikingly evil, usually engaging in a form of genocide.

And yet, each of them did this out of a perceived need to do it in order to repair damage done to their country. And, for a time, they did repair some of that damage. The coming damage was worse in pretty much every case, but they did, in the short term, repair their country.

The reason I mention this is because, in the use of selfish/selfless as a definition, these people actually earn the title of "good". Why? They sacrificed everything to improve their country, and the well being of all the people of their country. They even, in most cases, gave their lives. They were selfless, and so therefore good.

As I think you can agree, those labels cannot make a workable definition. I've worked through some of the others, and I come back to this: My definition, using time, seems needlessly complex, but it is still the only one I haven't managed to rip apart.

I hope someone else will do so for me, I really do. I want to improve this definition, or even find a newer and better one.

[tendomentis]

Your definition of good and evil still don't hold up under cross-cultural introspection though.

I used selfless and selfish as root definitions because those acts start with the individual, not the culture the individual occupies.

The examples you used of Hitler or Stalin actually still apply. From their cultural perspective, they were acting selflessly for their culture. It just so happens that what they did to benefit their particular culture negatively impacted other cultures, so as I said universal ideals of good and evil do not necessarily maintain their nature when applied across disparate cultures.

From a strict standpoint, feeding oneself is a selfish act as it only benefits the individual. If all the members of a "tribe" only concerned themselves with feeding each other, all would be fed. From a very pure and non-cultural viewpoint, using selfish and selfless as the "universal" basis for perceived good and evil is the only ideal that remains constant across disparate cultures. The extrapolations of selfish and selfless that become that culture's good and evil do not always remain consistent across cultural boundaries.

Lets say that "seflish" is represented by the number 2, and "selfless" is represented by the number 4.

2 and 4 remain 2 and 4 as long as they are 2 and 4, but let's say, for example that the society that uses 2 and 4 breaks into to two tribes and those separate tribes become the nations of Belgium and Qatar (just stay with me, I know I'm getting abstract). Belgium now uses 24 to represent "evil" and 48 to represent "good", but Qatar uses 20 to represent "evil" and 40 to represent "good".

Both of those cultures' concepts of good and evil are logically based on the "universal" concepts of selfish and selfless, but the extrapolations each culture uses to define evil and good are not mutually compatible or interchangeable, but the basis for each culture's definition of good and evil (the common denominators, as it were) are identical.

Am I making any sense? I tend to ramble.

[Pedersen]

Your definition of good and evil still don't hold up under cross-cultural introspection though.

The examples you used of Hitler or Stalin actually still apply. From their cultural perspective, they were acting selflessly for their culture. It just so happens that what they did to benefit their particular culture negatively impacted other cultures, so as I said universal ideals of good and evil do not necessarily maintain their nature when applied across disparate cultures.

Your reply can, mostly, be summarized in those two paragraphs. On the one hand, you state that my definitions do not hold across cultures. And then go on to state that selfish/selfless does hold across cultures. Finally, you prove it by showing that it does not hold across cultures.

I'm sorry, but this time it did not make sense. Maybe I'm a bit slow on the uptake (I have missed the obvious items many times in the past), but I don't follow how being selfless/selfish defines good and evil in a way that someone from any culture can agree with.

To use the world leaders again, people who were victims of said leaders would be very hard pressed to have died saying that the leaders were good and righteous. Families of those same victims would be hard pressed to say it today.

And yet, from a certain perspective, their actions were good.

I am seeking a definition that removes the need for the perspective. I am attempting to define good and evil in such a way that somebody from China could evaluate the actions of somebody from Brazil and come to the same conclusions as someone from Nigeria evaluating the same actions with the same information made available about those actions.

As such, selfless and selfish are very very poor guides to good and evil. My definitions (is time taken by force, or given willingly) are easily evaluated, and evaluation is possible without reference to local culture or foreign culture.

Stating that it is impossible, by the way, will simply make me ignore you. I do not believe in something being impossible (which is a whole different debate). I do believe there are many many things which we do not know how to do yet, but I do not believe in the impossible. If you would like to carry out that debate, create another thread, and I will join that one there.

[tendomentis]

What I was trying to say in my post (but probably got buried by my explanation) is that concepts that you call good and evil don't exist, at least not in a universal way.

Good and evil will always be defined by the culture the individual is in, but good and evil are derivations of selfless and selfish and those concepts DO remain constant from culture to culture as they are based on an individual's actions not as defined by culture.

[tendomentis]

My definitions (is time taken by force, or given willingly) are easily evaluated, and evaluation is possible without reference to local culture or foreign culture.

I'm sure you invested a lot of thought into your definition (no, I'm not being sarcastic), but I think you're trying to apply or create universal definition for concepts that by their very nature vary from culture to culture.

Like trying to identify a disease by the symptoms alone, when many diseases could share the same symptom, you have to identify the root cause and treat that, not just the symptoms. Cultural perceptions of good and evil exist as derivatives of selfless and selfish, but as derivatives that have been formed by various environmental and socialogical influences they can vary from culture to culture, so you never will find a universal constant of good and evil (just like the numerical factor analogy I used, you can use the same factor but come out with different end products as a result of environmental and/or socialogical influences). You're seeking an absolute where one can't exist simply due to the fact that different human cultures define abstract concepts like good and evil differently according to their history and influences.

You have to identify the root.

Stating that it is impossible, by the way, will simply make me ignore you.

That's your call, not mine. I can't cater to your perception of "possible" just for the sake of debate, at least not anymore than I would tell you that 2+2=5 isn't impossible for the sake of debate.

If you truly want to find out "what+what=5" though (metaphorically speaking of course), I'd be happy to debate with you what might lead to that answer...but it's your call.

[Greenday]

Eating isn't entirely a bad, selfish thing. By eating food, you could be supporting the economy by buying the food from someone or having them prepare it, or you could be helping keep a specific animal population from grossly over-populating.

The original post gives a pretty decent way to choose good vs. evil for most situations. But there are some things I cannot agree with. You say killing is bad as it takes away someone else's time. What about killing in self-defense? I certainly don't see that as an evil thing, as long as killing is a necessary amount of force to protect oneself.

[Pedersen]

I'm sure you invested a lot of thought into your definition (no, I'm not being sarcastic), but I think you're trying to apply or create universal definition for concepts that by their very nature vary from culture to culture.

And that's it exactly. I am trying to find a definition that could be taught. As of right now, it's not an intuitive definition. It does take some explaining. It might very well be completely wrong. But I haven't found a reason for it to be wrong.

The long and the short of it is this: The people of the world have issues agreeing on definitions of good and evil. Some items are in a very gray area, and can be viewed as both, depending on cultural bias. I am hoping to find a way to provide a baseline. Something which people around the world could look at and say: This works. I can agree with this.

Will such come to pass? Doubtful. Even if it did, it would not be likely to happen in my lifetime, nor even in the lifetime of the grandchildren of people born today. But we all have our own goals, and our own dreams. I have always thought that to dream small was to (effectively) not dream at all.

I want to at least try.

Right now, your debate with me amounts to "It's not possible, because different cultures value different things." I accept the second part, but not the first. Why? Well, maybe some historical quotes will help.


Well informed people know it is impossible to transmit the voice over wires and that were it possible to do so, the thing would be of no practical value. Editorial in the Boston Post (1865).
There is no need for any individual to have a computer in their home. Ken Olson, 1977, President, Digital Equipment Corp.
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. Lord Kelvin, ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist.
I must confess that my imagination, in spite even of spurring, refuses to see any sort of submarine doing anything but suffocating its crew and floundering at sea. H.G. Wells, Anticipations (1901).


Furthermore, doing searches on such topics as women's suffrage, apartheid, busing, reverse discrimination, and other hot button topics from at least 20 years ago (some of which continue through today) will show that cultures can and do change. I have to reject the notion that what I am suggesting is impossible simply because different cultures have different values. People change. This can be a change as well.

Basically, I am trying to determine why I am wrong. If you wish to continue to reiterate the point that different cultures have different values and that makes my idea impossible, please feel free. Just know that the words are being wasted on me. I do not believe this change is impossible.

I believe it is worthwhile, and needs to happen. Maybe, if I'm very very lucky, my definitions are actually good ones. If not, maybe you can help me learn why they're bad, so I can improve them until they are good.

That's my goal, anyway.

Eating isn't entirely a bad, selfish thing. By eating food, you could be supporting the economy by buying the food from someone or having them prepare it, or you could be helping keep a specific animal population from grossly over-populating.

Actually, Greenday, you are mixing up two separate actions. You can support the economy by buying food without eating the food. You can help keep an animal population under control without eating them. Eating is a separate act, and a purely selfish one, when you break it down. Why does one eat? Either to live, or for pleasure. Both of these are selfish.

Note, I do not think that eating is evil. At least, I really hope not, because I really enjoy it. But, make no mistake, eating is very selfish.

The original post gives a pretty decent way to choose good vs. evil for most situations. But there are some things I cannot agree with. You say killing is bad as it takes away someone else's time. What about killing in self-defense? I certainly don't see that as an evil thing, as long as killing is a necessary amount of force to protect oneself.

Under these definitions, killing, even in self-defense, is evil, make no mistake. However, it is the lesser of two evils. Yes, I am being overly strict in these definitions, but for good reason. If I genuinely am to try to spread this sort of message (I don't know how yet), then my definitions have to be as precise as possible.

With that said, though, here comes a very thorny question: Is suicide evil? By my own definitions (and my own beliefs) it is not evil, as long as others are unaffected by it, or as long as the effects on others are less than the effects of not taking your own life (for instance, terminal patients).

After all of that, I'd like to close with two other quotes:

A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds. M. Twain.

The only way to discover the limits of the possible is to go beyond them into the impossible. Arthur C. Clarke.

[Greenday]

Ah, but is eating to extend your time in order to continue contributing to society a selfish thing?

And as for suicide, when doesn't it affect other people? Other people have to spend their time cleaning up the mess you make, people spend a lot of time grieving, etc.

[Pedersen]

Ah, but is eating to extend your time in order to continue contributing to society a selfish thing?

Most likely, yeah, it could be selfish even then. After all, you're eating for the express purpose of extending your time. What you do with that time afterwards does not change why you are eating.

Mind you, the overall set of actions could be unselfish, while the individual action is highly selfish.

And as for suicide, when doesn't it affect other people? Other people have to spend their time cleaning up the mess you make, people spend a lot of time grieving, etc.

An orphan with no friends, no home, and no job goes to the beach and just starts swimming out to sea, as far as possible. No mess to clean up (unless the body washes to shore, which I do not know the likelihood of). Nobody to grieve, nor even to miss the person.

Granted, that's not the circumstances around most suicides, but it is very possible to have a suicide which impacts nobody. And that case would be decidedly non-evil in using these definitions.

[rahmota]

I'd have to agree with the statement that good and evil are not universal concepts and cannot be universal concepts as too many people cannot agree on what is good. Especially if you try and remove religion from the definition of those terms.

I prefer to consider the universe frm a harm vs benefit concept. At least for my own personal POV. Is my action going to harm someone and if so how much harm is it going to do? Is this action going to benefit myself or others and if so by how much? Sufficient harm could be called evil. The bad thing is harm and benefit are still relative terms for the most part as well.

Sad thing is good/evil harm/benefit or any of that is going to be a relative term and defined personally by each individual for the most part. As what benefits me may harm you or the world at large and the best I can do is minimize my harm/impact.

[tendomentis]

You used historical quotes of beliefs that were challenged and eventually overturned, but that does not undo the unrelenting fact that some ideals and concepts ARE logically impossible.

For example, you cannot have a bright darkness, a quantity divided by zero, or infinity to the tenth power. In that same way, you cannot have a universal ideal of concepts that by their very nature are derived independantly from disparate cultures. One would need to break down the non-universal concepts until you found a common factor, and I've previously stated what I personally believe those common factors to be.

I'm not saying to not seek an answer, but one must keep enough awareness of the very nature of the question one asks of one's self to know to not continue to seek an answer along a dead-end thought process. If you can be aware of the fact that 2+2 will never equal 5, then you can begin to search for the different quantities that do sum 5.

Please take my comment for what it's worth, simply my humble opinion.

[Seshat]

On a much more primal level, "good" and "evil" could be characterized by "selfless" and "selfish".

Any act that primarily or solely benefits yourself would be considered selfish (evil) and any act that primarily or solely benefits someone other than yourself would be considered selfless (good).

Wow. It's hard to find a concept that I disagree with more strongly than this.

I was raised to be selfless. I kept doing what others wanted, trying to be who others wanted me to be, and eventually my body rebelled. I've spent more than ten years trying to rebuild myself.

In the process of rebuilding myself, I've learned that each and every person must tend to their own needs before tending to the needs of others. Tending to one's own wants before tending the wants of others is also preferable, though tending to one's own wants while denying the needs of others is a form of selfishness that I think is probably a wrong.

In the safety lectures on airplanes, they tell you to fit your own oxygen mask before helping others. In first aid courses, they tell you to assess the situation for danger before going in and attempting to help the patient. They do this because a certain level of selfishness is necessary.

Attempting to be selfless and trusting that others will also be selfless and see to your needs forms an unhealthy co-dependence. Each person must tend to their own needs, before even starting to tend to the needs of others. I've seen 'selflessness' fail badly too many times to believe 'selfishness' to be inherently evil.

[tendomentis]

Wow. It's hard to find a concept that I disagree with more strongly than this.

I was raised to be selfless. I kept doing what others wanted, trying to be who others wanted me to be, and eventually my body rebelled. I've spent more than ten years trying to rebuild myself.

In the process of rebuilding myself, I've learned that each and every person must tend to their own needs before tending to the needs of others. Tending to one's own wants before tending the wants of others is also preferable, though tending to one's own wants while denying the needs of others is a form of selfishness that I think is probably a wrong.

In the safety lectures on airplanes, they tell you to fit your own oxygen mask before helping others. In first aid courses, they tell you to assess the situation for danger before going in and attempting to help the patient. They do this because a certain level of selfishness is necessary.

Attempting to be selfless and trusting that others will also be selfless and see to your needs forms an unhealthy co-dependence. Each person must tend to their own needs, before even starting to tend to the needs of others. I've seen 'selflessness' fail badly too many times to believe 'selfishness' to be inherently evil.

Believe it or not, I agree with you to a certain extent. A certain level of selfishness is necessary in this world. I merely identified what I believe the roots of cultural perceptions of "good" and "evil" to be, not condemned either one.

My beliefs run closest to Zen Buddhism more than any other established religion, so I do believe in a necessary fundamental balance of all things, including the necessary existence of both selflessness and selfishness.

[Boozy]

I would agree that taking care of oneself is not inherently selfish.

For example, children are better off with happy mothers. So while leaving your children with a babysitter for a weekend to go to the spa may be considered selfish on its surface, its really not if Mom needs time to recuperate and de-stress.

Most people seem to grasp the concept of "do unto others" but forget that sometimes we need to do for ourselves. Its healthy, and good for our loved ones too. It takes the pressure of our parents and spouses and friends, all of whom love and care for us. My mom and dad always told me that the best gift I could give them is to be happy.

[tendomentis]

Wow. It's hard to find a concept that I disagree with more strongly than this.

I was raised to be selfless. I kept doing what others wanted, trying to be who others wanted me to be, and eventually my body rebelled. I've spent more than ten years trying to rebuild myself.

I should also point out that if one were to act truly "sefllessly", they would WANT to help another even to the physical and/or emotional detriment of themselves.

I obviously don't know you from Adam and vice versa, but considering that you now seem to regret the decision to be selfless, the selfless lifestyle you say you lived couldn't have been truly selfless as a selfless act would not be governed by whether or not YOU physically or emotionally suffered, otherwise by definition it is a selfish act (even if it initially started as a selfless act).

Please note that I am in NO WAY trying to demean or belittle your accomplishments or life. I am simply basing my comment on your comment (which I know does not sum up your life).

And again, I do believe in a necessary balance of selfishness and selflessness, so I am not "condemning" any act based on either. And I am not trying to single you out in any way or judge you, I am simply using your comment to illustrate the following definition of selfish and selfless:

Selfish: acting in such a way that the individual is the primary and/or sole beneficiary of said act

Selfless: acting in such a way that an entity other than the individual is the primary and/or sole beneficiary of said act without any regard to the reprecussions to the individual as a result of the act

As far as humanity is concerned, I don't believe truly selfless acts occur with any real frequency (at least in as much as my own observations are concerned, which are inherently limited), but if selfish acts occur then selfless acts must also occur to act as a counterpoint, even if both do not occur with the same frequency at the present time in history.

Of course, these are just the ramblings of a man who longs to just stop pretending to be sane, so please accept this comment as simply one man's possibly incoherent thoughts.

[Pedersen]

You used historical quotes of beliefs that were challenged and eventually overturned, but that does not undo the unrelenting fact that some ideals and concepts ARE logically impossible.


These were not just beliefs, but as far as the people of the time were concerned, they were absolute facts. They were as unchangeable as the fact that the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

Some of the other facts that people believed that are worth mentioning to explain my issue with your particular arguments:

The earth was flat.
The earth was the center of the universe, and the sun orbited around it.

To the people at the time, these were facts. Solid, immutable, unchanging, facts. To label something as impossible simply because it goes against commonly accepted facts is to limit oneself unnecessarily.


For example, you cannot have a bright darkness, a quantity divided by zero, or infinity to the tenth power.

Hmmm, mathematicians are in for a rough time of things then, what with the second two of your "facts". They routinely raise infinity to various powers. In fact, you will frequently see ∞ to the n power in proofs. And yes, 10 is a valid value for n.

The mathematical definition for any number divided by 0 is, ∞. You will get divide by zero errors on computers because the computer does not have a way to handle the concept of infinity. You are taught that it is wrong in school because infinity is considered too tough a concept for children to understand.

A "bright darkness"? That's even easier. Go outside on a moonlit night. Poof, you have bright darkness.

2+2=5? Two methods:
Rounding error. Also known as "2+2=5 for very large values of 2". If you have a device which performs addition, but does not display decimals (rounding them away), but which does accept them, this is how it works:

2.48+2.47=4.95 But, without decimals, you enter "2.48", and you see "2". "2.47" gives you "2". And "4.95" rounded? Well, that's "5".

Method two:
2 is simply a symbol, as are both 4 and 5. If I change the definition of "5" to mean "four of a given item", and change "4" to mean "five of a given item", then "2+2=5" is suddenly a valid statement.

That, by the way, is what I'm looking to explore: Is there a new definition of good and evil that can be formulated, and taught, such that people could learn to agree on it as a baseline?

You are arguing against the logistics of the teaching. For now, I am not mentioning the teaching at all because the teaching does not matter until the definition is done.

Teaching it, when it is done, may well be impractical. It may take a dozen lifetimes. It may never be completed. But the point is not whether the teaching can or will be completed, not for me. The point is whether or not the definition is even feasible.

At this point, our debate has devolved into debates I would have with my sister when I was 8 or so: "Yu-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" etc etc etc. I have tried to explain my goal, and gotten nowhere, which is a shame.

I would agree that taking care of oneself is not inherently selfish.

Actually, taking care of oneself is, by definition, a selfish act. The reason people don't like to acknowledge this is because they are brought up to believe that being selfish is a bad thing.

The overall goal may be to be more selfless. But the actual, individual act, divorced from every other consideration, is a very selfish act. It's only when taken in context with other actions that a person can be judged as being selfish or selfless.

Possibly a bit overly pedantic, but it is a distinction worth mentioning.

[tendomentis]

The mathematical definition for any number divided by 0 is, ∞. You will get divide by zero errors on computers because the computer does not have a way to handle the concept of infinity. You are taught that it is wrong in school because infinity is considered too tough a concept for children to understand.

A "bright darkness"? That's even easier. Go outside on a moonlit night. Poof, you have bright darkness.

According to varioius sources (which I referenced before posting my comment), dividing by zero is labeled as "impossible". I'm all for the indominability of the human spirit, but certain logical truths are impossible no matter what you do to them. You can decide to redefine 5, but then YOUR five doesn't mean what everyone else's five means, so you've negated any value that comes from your accomplishment. You can play rounding games all you want, but I didn't say "rounded 2 + rounded 2 = 5 is impossible".

Oh, and if the moon is shining bright, then it isn't a bright darkness, just not as dark as a non-moonlit night. It's also "impossible" to have a statement be completely true and completely false at the same time (although in quantum mechanics, a statement can be true and false prior to observation, but after observation the statement becomes one or the other, but that deals with quantum histories and theories on parallel quantum histories).

In the same way that creating a univeral "beauty" is "impossible" (as beauty is in the eye of the beholder), you can't universally define good and evil. Researchers believe they have found what specific physical traits in humans appeal to humans of the opposite gender, but that again only holds for some and still doesn't explain why some men prefer blondes and some prefer redheads and some prefer brunettes. Some abstract concepts can't be defined universally. You can define them "semi-universally" as in defining them for a majority, but you will never be able to define an abstract, culturally defined concept universally. You could redefine good and evil all you want, but it won't be "universal" since an isolated tribe in the depths of the Congo won't necessarily share your reformulated definition of good and evil. You could try to track down everyone on the planet and teach them your reformulated definitions (hey, just like some relgions try to do....isn't that weird), but since another human born on another part of the planet will not be born with your reformulated definition of good and evil, it STILL won't be universal.

Impossible tasks are fun to tackle because they challenge your mind to think in different and sometimes new ways, but not when people are your guinea pigs.

At this point, our debate has devolved into debates I would have with my sister when I was 8 or so: "Yu-huh!" "Nuh-uh!" etc etc etc. I have tried to explain my goal, and gotten nowhere, which is a shame.

I have been guilty of becoming too personally involved with a viewpoint of a debate that I responded out of a personal sense of frustration, so far be it from me to "throw the first stone" as it were. Suffice to say, if you don't want to debate opinions other than or that may run contrary to your own, then why come to a debate forum to expound on your personal views?

If everyone agreed with everyone else, we wouldn't have half (if any) of the problems we have in society, and forums like this would simply not exist.

[Pedersen]

I have been guilty of becoming too personally involved with a viewpoint of a debate that I responded out of a personal sense of frustration, so far be it from me to "throw the first stone" as it were. Suffice to say, if you don't want to debate opinions other than or that may run contrary to your own, then why come to a debate forum to expound on your personal views?

I enjoy debating. But we're not debating the same question. You are debating possibility/impossibility. I'm offering an answer which says possible. You're claiming impossible because of predefined cultural bias, without debating the question/answer I have put forth.

Enjoy your debate. Maybe others will partake of it.

[tendomentis]

I enjoy debating. But we're not debating the same question. You are debating possibility/impossibility. I'm offering an answer which says possible. You're claiming impossible because of predefined cultural bias, without debating the question/answer I have put forth.

Enjoy your debate. Maybe others will partake of it.

I apologize if you felt I was hijacking the thread, and I apologize to everyone else if that was the general consensus. That certainly was not my intention.

My intention was merely to argue that what you are trying to define as universal can't be defined universally and try to uncover what element of "good" and "evil" CAN be defined universally (if at all). If that was detrimental to the debate as a whole, then I apologize, both to you Pedersen and to anyone else who might have been offended or offput by my comments.

If the general feeling is that my comments were unhelpful or irrelevant, I'll not comment on this particular thread.

Again, I apologize.

[Seshat]

I should also point out that if one were to act truly "sefllessly", they would WANT to help another even to the physical and/or emotional detriment of themselves.

I obviously don't know you from Adam and vice versa, but considering that you now seem to regret the decision to be selfless, the selfless lifestyle you say you lived couldn't have been truly selfless as a selfless act would not be governed by whether or not YOU physically or emotionally suffered, otherwise by definition it is a selfish act (even if it initially started as a selfless act).

I physically collapsed - became unable to get out of bed - because I was ignoring my body's warning signals. Since that collapse, my opinion of my actions has changed.

Don't mistake my current regret for my feelings then.

[Seshat]

And returning to good vs evil: we've determined that selfish/selfless is not an accurate descriptor.

So let's take things right back. I'll throw up a few premises, and we'll debate them for agreement/disagreement. If we end up agreeing on some premises, we'll be able to see what conclusions we can draw from them.

Premise: Nature is neither good nor evil.

Premise: Animals which cannot reason, are inherently incapable of good/evil.

Premise: Humans are capable of good/evil.

Question: is the ability to reason the significant distinction between beings capable of good/evil and beings which aren't?


Now some unrelated questions:

Question: is 'evil' something which is against the survival and cohesion of the social group in which the alleged evildoer operates?

Question: is 'evil' something which is against the survival of the ecosystem in which the alleged evildoer operates?

[tendomentis]

And returning to good vs evil: we've determined that selfish/selfless is not an accurate descriptor.

Descriptor? No, and I never claimed it was. Culturally common roots? Yes.

Premise: Nature is neither good nor evil.

Premise: Animals which cannot reason, are inherently incapable of good/evil.

Premise: Humans are capable of good/evil.

Question: is the ability to reason the significant distinction between beings capable of good/evil and beings which aren't?

Your premise depends on the assumption that humans have the ability to "reason", which is a subjective statement. One would ask if a dolphin or a bonobo possesses the ability to "reason" as it defines reason. If humans are simply acting out their nature, then an act could not be good OR evil is nature is inherently neither.

Orangutans have been observed grouping up and murdering one of their own for no discernable reason. The victim was not a competitor, was not mating or attempting to mate with female members of the tribe, was not using the same hunting ground. The group just stalked and then brutally attacked him and didn't stop until he stopped moving. Were humans to act in such a way, the majority would define it as an evil act.

Limiting good/evil to reasoning capability is short-sighted as it requires a human-supremist viewpoint to be accepted as fact just to explore the premise. For all our civilization and supposed "higher reasoning" ability, humans still act and live very much like our bonobo cousins.