I don't believe in good or evil.
- Thread starter Peace
- Start date
After reading the description, I am more inclined to believe that "objective" morality is a product of ecology rather than a universal law.
Other primates exhibit morality, which leads me to believe that morality is about survival. Natural selection has three simple rules.
1. Self preservation. (Good health and diversity are essential to survival.)
2. Reproduction. (The species must be replaced each generation to survive.)
3. Cooperation. (The bigger and more cohesive tribe is usually the winner in a world of limited resources.)
I think morality evolved as a means of helping humanity to survive. However, I think morality is subject to change when people are put into a situation that threatens their survival.
Then you do believe in 'good' and 'evil' because you have just defined it. What you don't believe in is objective morality (based on the above post) or to put it in layman's terms 'Do you believe that humans have a universal set of moral standards?' or do you believe as Micheal Ruse put it;
because they have experience(d) them. the interpretation is subject to culture and upbringing. but there are acts that i think most can agree are either good or evil.
rape
child abuse
torture
charity
love
generosity
It depends on what you mean by "most".
Corrective rape is not an uncommon practice in Africa where men will rape lesbian women in order to convert them to heterosexuality. It is seen as a moral action.
Incredibly recent. The laws for animal abuse actually precede the laws for child abuse. Children were seen as property up until pretty much the 19th century.
Heard of water boarding?
Is often seen as an entitlement and a means by which the poor are enabled so that they don't have to work.
NAMBLA, also known as the North American Man-Boy Love Association.
In some cultures is seen as insulting to offer anymore than asked.
So subjective morality would be your position, the next step then would be to look at both arguments supporting for and against. It would be a good idea to record down why you agree with some points and disagree with others, either way, welcome to the world of philosophy.
I'm an objective moralist myself, an example of this position would be this;
So I believe that humans instinctively (which is the part that makes it objective) have a basic set of moral codes which came into being when homo came into existence on the evolutionary map (objective morals as in relative to our species and any species that may evolve from our current development). Thats not to say that humans are not capable of building subjective opinions on top of what is already objective, but it does imply that humans even on a basic level have a universal understanding of right and wrong, which appears to be a reoccurring factor in most religions, world views, throughout human history and civilizations.
Another example would be;
Objective: Murder is wrong.
Subjective: Depending on the context of the situation and what you define as murder.
Definition of Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Most people would agree by given the dictionary definition that murder is wrong; whether it be the murder of anyone, someone close to them, or themselves. Murder by this definition is fundamentally objectively and morally wrong.
Thats my basic understanding on the issue (just thought you might be interested in hearing it)
Not really. As I stated in the post above yours...
As such, I think morality is objective, in the sense that it is a natural behavior that evolved to help humans survive. However, I don't see it as a behavior that is expressed in the same fashion by all humans. Different humans express morality in different ways because they have different challenges to their survival based upon their own particular circumstances.
So we both agree that morality is objective, but we have different conceptions of how it is objective.
I think humans are driven by natural selection toward self preservation, reproduction, and cooperation. Those traits are found in most primates and morally driven actions have been observed in other primates such as chimps. The reoccurrence found in religions and world views are also simply the result of natural selection. Religions and world views which did not lend themselves to the survival of humanity, died out or were wiped out.
Murder is a poor example. By definition it is "unlawful killing". Law is simply a consensus of the masses that is carried out by an authority. So in essence, killing is only murder if most people agree that it is murder. That means that all sorts of genocide and ethnic cleansing could be consider lawful killing simply because the majority agreed to it.
Last edited:
The scale of good and evil doesn't take actions themselves into account, it only needs to look at the stuff that goes on inside your head to determine your level of good. And no matter how much you try to hide your evil actions from yourself, the scale of good and evil will see through such tactics. This is a god-eye view on good and evil.
There's almost no outwardly difference between a very good manipulator and an honest, empathic person, but when you look inside their head, the difference is clear. Doesn't that alone prove the existence of good and evil?
There's almost no outwardly difference between a very good manipulator and an honest, empathic person, but when you look inside their head, the difference is clear. Doesn't that alone prove the existence of good and evil?
Not really. In fact, some people can beat themselves up quite a bit for having thoughts that are quite common. The internal moral compass tends to be influenced most by early socialization. People who were raised by abusive parents often have a skewed moral compass which can lead them to feel like no matter what they do, they are a bad person.
i think i did mention in my post that it is subject to culture and upbringing. arguing for argument's sake is sort of unnecessary.
Intention is everything, killing out of malice regardless of the situation is what classes the act as murder.
About Good and Evil
I think that good and evil are ways by which a society sets a standard of expectations and acceptable/non-acceptable behavior from the masses. It
I think that good and evil are ways by which a society sets a standard of expectations and acceptable/non-acceptable behavior from the masses. It
To deny the concepts of good and evil is a subjective value judgement in and of itself, i.e. implying that the terms 'good' and 'bad' are both 'bad' labels ends up being self-referential. I wouldn't go so far as to wholeheartedly accept the concepts as objectively 'good' however either. If we were to take the 'morality as survival' concept to its logical conclusion, we come to the point of social darwinism and a reductio ad absurdum argument. It's never one way or the other, but a balance of the two that creates a socially adaptable equilibrium. Morality is very much like a mirror on mortality; we accept and deny both equally.
I think you'll find on that notion that 99% religions and philosophies throughout the ages will come with a basic ethic code of morals that are fairly consistent with each other; recognition of good and bad. Morality goes beyond a mere idea, its a mean of survival and conduct. Some call it the result of the selfish gene, some call it the image of God, either way it appears to be a metaphysical entity thats imprinted into our being. Acts on their own are neither good or bad until you add reason, intention and emotion onto them. Thats something that humans naturally appear to do, which makes us moral agents, which is why you can look at someone and proclaim whether they are a 'good' person or a 'bad' person.
From personal observation (though make note that this is coming from a set of young eyes) I think the biggest confusion amongst people is the association that accepting objective morals means you have to accept the existence of a deity. Though I would argue the origins of how our moral laws came to being in the first place, there are many atheists and agnostics alike that are accepting the case for objective morals without accepting God.
You don't need to believe in God to be morally good. One of the biggest mistakes made in Christianity is the assertion that somehow belief in God makes you a better person, however thats far from the truth as reality has pointed out. God if anything, makes the individual realize how corrupt they really are. There's no ego trip to be found in carrying a spiritual cross on your back (but thats for another discussion). Though one would argue that to have moral law, you need a moral law giver.
Who or what was and is big enough to influence a whole entire species? When were our eyes opened? Thats the biggest question here, I believe regarding this issue. I will need to investigate the atheist argument for objective morals and I'll comment further once I have done so.
From personal observation (though make note that this is coming from a set of young eyes) I think the biggest confusion amongst people is the association that accepting objective morals means you have to accept the existence of a deity. Though I would argue the origins of how our moral laws came to being in the first place, there are many atheists and agnostics alike that are accepting the case for objective morals without accepting God.
You don't need to believe in God to be morally good. One of the biggest mistakes made in Christianity is the assertion that somehow belief in God makes you a better person, however thats far from the truth as reality has pointed out. God if anything, makes the individual realize how corrupt they really are. There's no ego trip to be found in carrying a spiritual cross on your back (but thats for another discussion). Though one would argue that to have moral law, you need a moral law giver.
Who or what was and is big enough to influence a whole entire species? When were our eyes opened? Thats the biggest question here, I believe regarding this issue. I will need to investigate the atheist argument for objective morals and I'll comment further once I have done so.
Alright, I feel a bit rejuvinated...if I make a few mistakes forgive me (finished a night shift not too long ago)
Moral (objective) truths are those truths that go beyond/surpass; societal, religious, or even survival constraints (on occasion). Survival and morality can be at odds with one another, they do not have to be one in the same (though they often times interact with one another). What this means is personal moral resources (and truths) can be overcome in a number of circumstances... for instance military training, personal survival, dehumanizing an opponent, or simply the act of killing (making killing easier) can make our personal morality shift/slide. That doesn't however negate the universal/objective truth that exists; one such truth I've come to believe in - is that a human life has some inherent value.
Almost all societies, cultures, religions, etc. find some value in the life of a human being, the actual value is debatable (but this is a truth exists universally). We can certainly overcome this truth/belief through a variety of different means, but that doesn't necessarily make it invalid (sometimes we even fix such mistakes - slavery anyone?).
To say that all truths are relative to survival/ society would mean that some heroic deeds, and other acts beyond these influences simply would not happen (they would serve no purpose); but there are circumstances when one breaks free of societal constraints/influences to do the "right" thing (a.k.a. good). These are acts that go beyond personal / or humanities survival as well as societal pressures (even goes directly against them) - You could say that this is human nature, but why would a group of humans risk their lives for one person - Are the lives of this group less valuable? Or do we simply value something beyond society/survival? (Just to clarify - I'm talking about instances where we go against societal norms, pressures, or influences).
I got a bit off track... anyway, I'm just saying there's a possibility of finding objective (universal) moral truths (they may not be readily understandable/discernable - depending on our current pressures/influences/circumstances), but they can be found.
Moral (objective) truths are those truths that go beyond/surpass; societal, religious, or even survival constraints (on occasion). Survival and morality can be at odds with one another, they do not have to be one in the same (though they often times interact with one another). What this means is personal moral resources (and truths) can be overcome in a number of circumstances... for instance military training, personal survival, dehumanizing an opponent, or simply the act of killing (making killing easier) can make our personal morality shift/slide. That doesn't however negate the universal/objective truth that exists; one such truth I've come to believe in - is that a human life has some inherent value.
Almost all societies, cultures, religions, etc. find some value in the life of a human being, the actual value is debatable (but this is a truth exists universally). We can certainly overcome this truth/belief through a variety of different means, but that doesn't necessarily make it invalid (sometimes we even fix such mistakes - slavery anyone?).
To say that all truths are relative to survival/ society would mean that some heroic deeds, and other acts beyond these influences simply would not happen (they would serve no purpose); but there are circumstances when one breaks free of societal constraints/influences to do the "right" thing (a.k.a. good). These are acts that go beyond personal / or humanities survival as well as societal pressures (even goes directly against them) - You could say that this is human nature, but why would a group of humans risk their lives for one person - Are the lives of this group less valuable? Or do we simply value something beyond society/survival? (Just to clarify - I'm talking about instances where we go against societal norms, pressures, or influences).
I got a bit off track... anyway, I'm just saying there's a possibility of finding objective (universal) moral truths (they may not be readily understandable/discernable - depending on our current pressures/influences/circumstances), but they can be found.
Last edited:
You have it backwards. I didn't argue that things are moral because they lead to survival. I argued that morality evolved as a means of survival.
From studying positive psychology, I don't agree. For one, different religions can differ considerably on how they view the concepts of "good" and "evil" to the degree that they are entirely different concepts as we understand them. Second, some religions are actually opposed to dichotomous ways of thinking.