Bad People Don't Exist

[Jack]

You are using an observable fact "human suffering" to make an objective claim that morality is not subjective. And you are completely wrong. That cultures have enforced different moralities through the eons, is not an opinion. It is a historic and observable fact.

Why am I wrong? Yes I know that people have historically and culturally had different views, but that doesn't necessitate that morality is subjective, it may mean that moral truth is something to be discovered. Reasserting that I am wrong over and over doesn't make me wrong, it makes you sound like a broken record.

And yet, it was the White masters who believed they were sparing the poor enslaved blacks and native americans, because they thought living in the stone age was suffering. AGAIN, subjective.

No, not subjective, because they were actually causing suffering, sure accidentally doing the wrong thing for the right motives doesn't make the slave owner evil, only naive, and not knowing any better. Even in the cases where the slaves love their masters or some such, they're still being denied autonomy, and robbed of a future that would be of their own volition.

 

[Jack]

You do realize ethics are subjective right?

Actually I believe most philosophers of ethics are not subjective relativists.

That's one poor (if popular) theory among many.

 

[Billy]

Why am I wrong? Yes I know that people have historically and culturally had different views, but that doesn't necessitate that morality is subjective, it may mean that moral truth is something to be discovered. Reasserting that I am wrong over and over doesn't make me wrong, it makes you sound like a broken record.

You are wrong because you don't know what you are talking about, the meaning of the terms you are using, or how to apply them correctly. Why don't you just come out and say that God is your ultimate truth since that's what you are implying when you say morality is something objective to be discovered. How fucking absurd! Here I will use a STUPID subjective opinion as a fact like you are. No, you're wrong, your morals are wrong, slavery is a GOOD thing because the dominant power has a GOD GIVEN right to dominate people he is stronger than, because his force creates order, and chaos causes suffering, and since SUFFERING is the linchpin for whats moral according to you, then clearly I am right, because there would be LESS suffering in my demented example. This is what you came here for right? A nice circular subjective argument devoid of logic and rationality? Lets do it! Hitler was RIGHT! The Germans are the master race, killing off all the undesirables was for the MORAL good of the rightful rulers of earth, and fighting him was immoral because he was right, because I feel like it was right, this is the "truth" waiting to be discovered. Now, prove me wrong! Lets watch you make a mockery of rationality and objectivity. Enjoy your Ethics 101 crap-bonanza.

No, not subjective, because they were actually causing suffering, sure accidentally doing the wrong thing for the right motives doesn't make the slave owner evil, only naive, and not knowing any better. Even in the cases where the slaves love their masters or some such, they're still being denied autonomy, and robbed of a future that would be of their own volition.

Nope, wrong. there was LESS suffering living as slaves than being eaten by lions and tigers and dying of starvation in Africa. Prove my morality wrong! Futures of our own volition cause MORE suffering, because there is uncertainty, much better to be a slave and have that pressure off your back.

 

[Jack]

You are wrong because you don't know what you are talking about, the meaning of the terms you are using, or how to apply them correctly. Why don't you just come out and say that God is your ultimate truth since that's what you are implying when you say morality is something objective to be discovered. How fucking absurd! Here I will use a STUPID subjective opinion as a fact like you are. No, you're wrong, your morals are wrong, slavery is a GOOD thing because the dominant power has a GOD GIVEN right to dominate people he is stronger than, because his force creates order, and chaos causes suffering, and since SUFFERING is the linchpin for whats moral according to you, then clearly I am right, because there would be LESS suffering in my demented example. This is what you came here for right? A nice circular subjective argument devoid of logic and rationality? Lets do it! Hitler was RIGHT! The Germans are the master race, killing off all the undesirables was for the MORAL good of the rightful rulers of earth, and fighting him was immoral because he was right, because I feel like it was right, this is the "truth" waiting to be discovered. Now, prove me wrong! Lets watch you make a mockery of rationality and objectivity. Enjoy your Ethics 101 crap-bonanza.

Dude, you're so easy to read it's embarrassing. You can just concede that you don't understand everything about the world can't you? Why do you have to filter everything through your anti-religion crusade? My issue here is you're asserting that "morality is subjective" and pretending like you know definitively that everyone else is wrong. Yet you can't prove your position, nor can you refute arguments offered for another. The claim that morality is subjective requires just as much justification as any claim about morality.

Nope, wrong. there was LESS suffering living as slaves than being eaten by lions and tigers and dying of starvation in Africa. Prove my morality wrong! Futures of our own volition cause MORE suffering, because there is uncertainty, much better to be a slave and have that pressure off your back.

There are plenty of people willing to tell you what to do if you'd like, if you want to be told what to do, that's your prerogative, no one is stopping you from obeying me.
What you're saying though is analogous to saying: "I think my punching you in the face is less painful than kicking you in the nuts". Not gonna fly.

 

[Billy]

Dude, you're so easy to read it's embarrassing. You can just concede that you don't understand everything about the world can't you? Why do you have to filter everything through your anti-religion crusade? My issue here is you're asserting that "morality is subjective" and pretending like you know definitively that everyone else is wrong. Yet you can't prove your position, nor can you refute arguments offered for another. The claim that morality is subjective requires just as much justification as any claim about morality.

you are not offering an argument... you are offering subjective opinions then asking me to prove them wrong on the basis of objectivity. Its YOUR position that has to be proven. I am saying morality is subjective, AKA not objective. And you want me to use objective criteria to prove a negative subjective pretense? No, that's on you, you're the one saying that your position is objective, its your job to prove as such, as its the positive claim. You're the one arrogantly arguing that your version of morality is true and real and not subjective, and then you have the balls to say I am the one claiming to know everything? Really dude? Perhaps you should skip the ethics class and try a debate course next time. I am not saying youre wrong morally, I am saying you're wrong in proclaiming that your subjective viewpoint is anything other than subjective. This is what I cant stand, when moral absolutists and religious fanatics try to talk like they're debating objectively quantifiable facts... its revolting. You would be much better off saying GOD told you, or something, then at least people would walk away and say whatever. But no, youre trying to sit there and mish mash 2 schools of thought together, its pathetic.

There are plenty of people willing to tell you what to do if you'd like, if you want to be told what to do, that's your prerogative, no one is stopping you from obeying me.
What you're saying though is analogous to saying: "I think my punching you in the face is less painful than kicking you in the nuts". Not gonna fly.

WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT! Who is right in your subjective example? the nuts guy or the face guy? That there is a difference of OPINION though is fact enough that its not quantifiable through any objective method, ergo SUB-FUCKING-JECTIVE.

 

[Apone]

I'm not going to read through the whole thread, but I will say that I disagree that good and evil are subjective, and agree that there are only good and evil acts.

Basic morality isn't just some arbitrary law cooked up by religious people, it has its roots in human survival and can probably explain our dominance as well. The people who help each other and do 'good' things become stronger and can acquire more resources, the people who are 'bad' and hurt each other weaken the tribe and make it harder for everyone to acquire resources. I think we've gotten past the desperation that used to make these things so important, but at the same time it wouldn't at all do to have people killing each other for fun or sport. Even something as obsolete as sexual morality, (ie: no sex before marriage, virginity as a virtue) is rooted in the desire not to foster a lot of sexual jealousy and potentially destructive competition between people.

It also means that killing because you're insane/angry is destructive, but killing someone who does that is actually beneficial, because it means that a threat to the whole has been eliminated. Of course, modern prisons have completely eliminated the need for this, but in the bad old days it probably helped a lot.

So yes, it's subjective, but on the other hand I think that certain actions/beliefs have a lot of benefits and certain actions/beliefs have a lot of drawbacks.

 

[Billy]

I'm not going to read through the whole thread, but I will say that I disagree that good and evil are subjective, and agree that there are only good and evil acts.

Basic morality isn't just some arbitrary law cooked up by religious people, it has its roots in human survival and can probably explain our dominance as well. The people who help each other and do 'good' things become stronger and can acquire more resources, the people who are 'bad' and hurt each other weaken the tribe and make it harder for everyone to acquire resources. I think we've gotten past the desperation that used to make these things so important, but at the same time it wouldn't at all do to have people killing each other for fun or sport. Even something as obsolete as sexual morality, (ie: no sex before marriage, virginity as a virtue) is rooted in the desire not to foster a lot of sexual jealousy and potentially destructive competition between people.

It also means that killing because you're insane/angry is destructive, but killing someone who does that is actually beneficial, because it means that a threat to the whole has been eliminated. Of course, modern prisons have completely eliminated the need for this, but in the bad old days it probably helped a lot.

So yes, it's subjective, but on the other hand I think that certain actions/beliefs have a lot of benefits and certain actions/beliefs have a lot of drawbacks.

subjective is not the same as beneficial though. And I agree with you on natural morality, as shown via evolution. We evolved to be a certain way because it works best, but at the same time there are plenty of people genetically disposed not to share, not to help, but to take form those around them, they tend to become the ruling class. Kings, warlords, celebrities, Steve Jobs, so on and so forth. But when all that is compared against what we know about whats objective vs subjective. Its still subjective. Beneficial or not, of course is another argument, a subjective argument LOL.

 

[Apone]

In order to have a discussion about anything, you do sort of need to set some parameters... if you're just talking about good or bad in a broad unlimited sense, then neither really exist... I was defining good as 'good for humans in general'... which I think is a pretty objective definition, considering everyone here is probably human. Of course, in some ways our helping each other and propping each other up in order to dominate the planet has been a very bad thing for a lot of other species as well as the planet itself... and, in the end, I suppose ourselves as well, which is actually kind of interesting because it does sort of make you wonder how you would end up defining good and evil in an overpopulated world where resources are so scarce and everyone is competing for them.

About the 'immoral' people who rise to the top-- I could still say that the ruling class is also in some ways good for people, because a firm power structure means decisions can be made quickly, resources can be distributed without conflict, and people can have a sense of 'place'. These people are often given a pass because success is actually a 'good' thing, and forgives the immoral actions that a person may have committed in order to attain it-- but of course, this depends on how successful the person is and what they do with their success... if they're bad at their job, then people will become hostile. It's kind of interesting to think about the nature of power in terms of good and evil.

Power structures are definitely advantageous in a primitive society, but whether or not it's suitable for modern society is up for debate... I do think that if the current power structure disappeared altogether that things would collapse pretty quickly-- but I suppose a more optimistic person like [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] might think otherwise.

 

[Odyne]

In absolute terms, there are no bad or good. As a species, we have managed to draw a relevant definition for the two. Bad or evil is what puts the survival of our species in peril; Good is what does not or enhances it.

Are there bad people? As a human being viewing another, I would say yes there are. There are some pretty horrible people out there. If the Universe were to take a look at us and make a judgement instead, it would stand impartial, I think.

 

[Jack]

you are not offering an argument... you are offering subjective opinions then asking me to prove them wrong on the basis of objectivity.

I actually offered one, the universal experience of suffering. Then you attempted (unsuccessfully) to undermine it by highlighting what you thought were counterexamples of people who like certain institutions that have caused a large degree of suffering.

Its YOUR position that has to be proven.

And yours is what? Immune to the laws of rational discourse?

I am saying morality is subjective, AKA not objective. And you want me to use objective criteria to prove a negative subjective pretense?

You made a claim, you back it up. If you're unable to back up the grand claims you make with evidence, that's not my fault. The solutions would be to either be more careful when you spout your cynical philosophies, or to find a more rational viewpoint.

No, that's on you, you're the one saying that your position is objective, its your job to prove as such, as its the positive claim.

No, "morality is subjective" is a positive claim as well. If you don't understand that, you might want to take a course in logic. Also, I haven't actually made the claim 'morality is objective'. I think you're only assuming that because I've been challenging the parade of people asserting that 'morality is subjective' over and over as if it were factual. If so, I'm sure that's an honest mistake on your part.

I'll help you out. If you were to say "I am not (personally) convinced morality is objective", that's fine, as other than your own testimony, that wouldn't require justification.

But when you say "Morality is subjective. Period." You're stating a fact about the world that cannot be justified by your mere opinion or testimony, therefore it requires a presentation of facts for support.

In other words, you've been saying "morality is subjective"

I've challenged you to prove that, and you responded by telling me to prove that it isn't.

This is the onus probandi fallacy, otherwise known as 'shifting the burden of proof'. It is a classic informal logical fallacy.

This is what I cant stand, when moral absolutists and religious fanatics try to talk like they're debating objectively quantifiable facts... its revolting. You would be much better off saying GOD told you, or something, then at least people would walk away and say whatever. But no, youre trying to sit there and mish mash 2 schools of thought together, its pathetic.

That's something you might want to take up with the field of ethics. For the record, there are more theories of ethics than merely absolutism and subjective relativism. If you're an atheist, you might find consequentialism more to your liking. Granted, the idea of oughtness may still be an issue for you, but it is something you can investigate.

WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT! Who is right in your subjective example? the nuts guy or the face guy? That there is a difference of OPINION though is fact enough that its not quantifiable through any objective method, ergo SUB-FUCKING-JECTIVE.

The point of the analogy was supposed to be that the choices given were a false dilemma, like the one you gave as if being eaten by lions, was the only option for a black individual other than being forced into slavery after being exposed to Europeans.

 

[Nixie]

Interesting....very interesting

I would say that morality generally has its roots based on some type of rational, objective reason which have since been lost to the mists of time after they became moral standards and culture(s) evolved.

One can say that the objective/observable rationale for "thou shalt not kill" is related to the idea (as someone mentioned) to observable consequences of what happens when there aren't enough people to protect the group. It is bad to kill the hunter who then cannot help provide meat. It is bad to kill the children because then there is no one to assist when you are older. It is bad to kill the women because no one is there to tend hearth, have kids. Observable facts that killing is bad because it puts the community at risk.

Man is by nature a social creature seems to be something that is forgotten in the whole moral debate going on here. Just like a certain type of bird learns to build it's nest a specific way to better survive, man has learned to develop certain rules of behavior that increase the liklihood of survival. Of course, you have to believe in the social contract first.

I think I can say (for myself) that morals exist because man is social by nature and morals developed as a result of objective reasons which then became ingrained into the social psyche.

 

[tfg345i4u5lw]

This is perfect to make my point about my 20% uncertainty

If you learned to play the piano at age 16 you could be called a piano player. What if you then went on to never play the piano again.

At age 70 could you still claim to be a piano player?

Some experiences change the way we think forever. So if the person was so involved with piano that it changed the way they look at the world then yeah I think a 70 year old could still call themselves a piano player.

 

[the]

You cannot PROVE morality.

How open minded.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Wow!

The topic has... erm... advanced quite a bit since my last visit.

I skipped most of the "argument" to be honest and don't particularly want to get drawn into a tit for tat so I will simply say that up to the point I started skipping posts, I agreed with Billy. Morality is subjective.

You cannot say that making someone suffer is immoral and leave it at that, which is really what you'd have to do for it to be objective.

Imagine someone really gets a kick out of torturing small babies. If he goes too long without doing it he gets really antsy and depressed. If you take away his ability to torture small babies you are making him suffer. Is that immoral?

What if you are in an interview for a job and you do much better than everyone else. You get the job and they don't. As a result one of them loses their house because they can't afford the mortgage. He suffers. Is it then immoral to try hard in interviews?

For morality to be objective you would need a list of all potential outcomes from every potential action. These would need to be put in order of severity so you can say objectively what actions are more or less immoral than other actions.

As people respond differently to various consequences and feel differently about them, they threfore suffer different amounts in the same situations. This fact alone makes it impossible to create an objective scale of severity for consequesnces of actions.

How people feel about things is subjective therefore so is morality


And to this...

Some experiences change the way we think forever. So if the person was so involved with piano that it changed the way they look at the world then yeah I think a 70 year old could still call themselves a piano player.

I agree but what if he hated playing the piano and never wanted to do it again?

There are so many posts that I would like to respond to but I think this thread has taken on a life of it's own now so I'll leave most of the work to others who may or may not agree with me.

Bad people do not exist. People exist. People do bad things. They may see the world differently to you and you may not understand the reasons they behave the way they do. Perhaps you should just try a little harder to understand the different approaches to life that people take

 

[Patrick Williams]

Just my 2 cents on this.

Plato and the Early Church Fathers believed that evil was not an active, living thing but was simply the negation of the good. That is, evil is simply the actions one does when the vacating of the good has taken place and the vacuum that is left is the evil we see.

According to the early church fathers, we are all images of God and were created to act like God, to be a little "god" if you will but, in the fall, we forsook being what we actually were and turned away from the good.

In Kabbalah (Jewish mysticism), they believe that each of us, deep down inside, is like a ball of light (so to speak) but we have become encrusted over with tarnish, dirt, grime and numerous other things that hides who we really are and were meant to be. The early church says something similar and that is what Theosis is all about - becoming what we were originally meant to be; polishing off the dirt and grime (so to speak) so that the light hidden deep inside can shine forth.

So, does evil exist? Yes, it does but not as an active, living force but rather it exists when the good has departed. When love departs, hate enters in. Where care departs, selfish greed enters in, etc.... So evil is simply the absence of good and people who do evil are acting in a way that is contrary to our original nature (even to this day).

evil is a form of non-being, an emptiness, a vacuum which lacks the things we consider positive attributes.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

There are no such things as bad people

There are no liars

There are no murderers

There are no thieves

The only thing you are is human. everything else, you do

you can change that at any time by doing something different

Thoughts?

Ontological goodness - that is the goodness of things insofar as they exist is undeniable.

However, a person is not simply something that exists - it is also something that thinks and acts.

Since thoughts and acts are judged according to what is fitting to the person holding them, one can say that thoughts of complete, or partial, destruction of one's existence (or of other persons) is unfitting, or wrong in a person; and more so acts which destroy one's, or others' existence.

So yeah, a person is good insofar as he exists. But a person's existence also involves thinking and acting - so that you can say that a person exists/lives well, or badly according to how they think, or act.

 

[Jack]

Poetic Justice,

Well to summarize, it went like this:

Billy: Morality is subjective.

Me: How do you know?

Billy: Prove that it isn't.

Me: You're shifting the burden of proof.

Normally people offer up the argument that societies have different beliefs and practices as a reason for arguing that morality is subjective, but there is an alternative, and that is to believe that moral truth is something to be sought out, and discovered.

So I see no reason to think morality is subjective.

Imagine someone really gets a kick out of torturing small babies. If he goes too long without doing it he gets really antsy and depressed. If you take away his ability to torture small babies you are making him suffer. Is that immoral?

No, his suffering is self-inflicted, and is the logical outcome of his own evil.

"What if you are in an interview for a job and you do much better than everyone else. You get the job and they don't. As a result one of them loses their house because they can't afford the mortgage. He suffers. Is it then immoral to try hard in interviews?"

No, but this is why noblesse oblige is so important. Even if it's been forgotten in our society.

But allow me to point something out here. If I had to guess, I would imagine that you do not like seeing people suffer either because of your own empathy and moral intuitions, and if it were up to you, it would be both ways. The other person would be provided for, and you would have a job. I hope you can see that simply because it's not in our power to do both, doesn't mean a particular action in that situation would be wrong, or that morality doesn't exist, but that human situations are complex.

I believe that we can create a better world by trying. (Felt like I should include that.)

How people feel about things is subjective therefore so is morality

But don't you agree that your feelings can change when you find yourself exposed to new information, or when you come to a realization? I find that this is why understanding each other is so important.

 

[Billy]

Poetic Justice,

Well to summarize, it went like this:

Billy: Morality is subjective.

Me: Not its not, its objective!

Billy: Incorrect.

Me: Prove its not!

Billy: You want me to prove a subjective opinion with objective facts? I cant, you have to prove it, but you cant, because its subjective and beyond objective facts.

Me: DUHH Ummm YOU cant prove it, now you're shifting burden of proof!

Billy: X_x

Fixed that for you.

 

[Jack]

Fixed that for you.

To those following this discussion, Billy hasn't changed his argument to clarify anything that he said, he only changed my argument to make it easier to attack.

Let's examine his 'fix'.

"Billy: Morality is subjective."

Me: Not its not, its objective!

This is not what I said, or how I argued.

If you look at post #38, in my first response to Billy I quoted him as saying:

You seem to be going off on some tangent trying to equate truth/evil/good/bad with objective reality. You're wrong. Period. Its all subjective. You cannot PROVE morality.

To which I responded:

Also, it's all subjective? That's quite an assertion.

Can you prove that?

Really, I want to know, what makes you so certain morality is subjective? Do you have any evidence at all?

Clearly he is mistaken in thinking I was trying to 'prove morality' (which I wasn't, I responded to jacobi by saying "that's debatable") but that's not the point.

The point is, he asserted I was wrong as if the subjectivity of morality was some kind of fact, and in my response, I questioned his assertion. He made the assertion again in #48, and #65.

Billy: Incorrect.

Me: Prove its not!

Billy: You want me to prove a subjective opinion with objective facts? I cant, you have to prove it, but you cant, because its subjective and beyond objective

Here is the key, "morality is subjective" is an ontological truth claim. So is "morality doesn't exist". It requires justification.

Again:

If you were to say "I am not (personally) convinced morality is objective", that's fine, as other than your own testimony, that wouldn't require justification.

But when you say "Morality is subjective. Period." You're stating a fact about the world that cannot be justified by your mere opinion or testimony, therefore it requires a presentation of facts for support.

 

[Billy]

So, you're saying morality is not objective?