GENIUS FORUMS

If there are objective goods, there are objective evils. An objective evil is simply that which contrasts that which is objectively good. Since truth (and honesty) is objectively good, hypocracy is objectively evil. Is this a fair analysis of the existence of evil?

How so are truth and honesty objectively good? Isn't dishonesty a good thing sometimes? Doesn't ignorance have benefits?

I don't think truth or honesty is objectively good. You subjectively value them at this point in life.

How can anything be good or bad when everything is perfect?

Since this has caused some confusion:

I consider truth to be objectively good because it is impossible to assure that an ethical system is both consistent and justified unless you are capable of dealing with logic. Therefore, truth is necessary to all ethical systems: there is no such thing as an inconsistent ethical system. Anything inconsistent is either amoral, or immoral.

That is why I say truth is objectively good: it is needed for all ethical systems, and is not normative.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:If there are objective goods, there are objective evils. An objective evil is simply that which contrasts that which is objectively good. Since truth (and honesty) is objectively good, hypocracy is objectively evil. Is this a fair analysis of the existence of evil?

Ideals are also only interpretation.

Truth is considered a good (to you) because it is self-reliant. It is an ideal which safely propagates itself, as it reflects to you your own self-reliance. Evil, can also be truth, as truth can also be ignorance. Again, interpretation is the focal point which governs the two. In reality, the measure of good and evil, is determined by that which is deemed right or wrong - a subjectivity known only to the individual. In the sphere of morality, duality allows for the true non-dual nature of reality to properly function.

Now, what is it that determines the it of "is" and "is-not"?

Is it not virtue?

Evil, can also be truth, as truth can also be ignorance.

I would disagree with this. The way I defined evil, it only exists meta-ethically, as in that which is non-moral is that which cannot be a part of an ethical system by definition, and that which is evil is that which contradicts anything that is necessary for a collection of thoughts to be an ethical system.

Since an ethical system must be consistent, hypocricy is absolutely evil in the metaethical sense.

In reality, the measure of good and evil, is determined by that which is deemed right or wrong

This is where I converge from conventional definitions of good and evil. "Right and wrong" is a subjective evaluation; "good and evil" is, on the other hand, that which transcends all subjective evaluations and finds necessary commonalities across them. It is the difference between physics and metaphysics: what is true by virtue of experience, and what is true by virtue of definition.

Now, what is it that determines the it of "is" and "is-not"?

Anything that transcends all experience is determined logically. All else is determined through observation.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

Evil, can also be truth, as truth can also be ignorance.

I would disagree with this. The way I defined evil, it only exists meta-ethically, as in that which is non-moral is that which cannot be a part of an ethical system by definition, and that which is evil is that which contradicts anything that is necessary for a collection of thoughts to be an ethical system.

Since an ethical system must be consistent, hypocricy is absolutely evil in the metaethical sense.

How can an ethical system derive any meaning without a non-moral basis, based in observation?

It cannot, and that would be another example of a meta-ethical claim.

An ethical system that tries to base its meaning on observation is not actually an ethical system by definition. In fact, it contradicts ethics, and is evil by definition.

Define an ethical system

I'd define it as so:

An ethical system is a collection of fundamental normative values that, taken together, form an internally consistent belief system designed to regulate behaviour.

Does that sound reasonable?

Then according to that definition, the internally consistent system, is still bound by its own end - the means being its function (observable or pragmatic function).

Precisely. In this case, the end is the regulation of behaviour. An ethical system tells us what to do, or else it isn't an ethical system, but rather is something else.

Ah. My point was that the inherent meaning of the internally consistent system rests on the observable. It holds a place within reality, as opposed to solely the realm of the metaphysical. I guess in reality, all meta-physical realities first base themselves within a physical framework of some kind, or else they wouldn't properly relate. Agreed?

Yes. I can see nothing to disagree with in that. Anything transcendent needs to transcend something, and that something will ultimately be what we observe. Ethics, being part of the grand philosophic enterprise of understanding the world, will eventually need to be grounded in a clear, observable, purpose. I would only reiterate that this purpose is to find the good (that behaviour which is best), and anything that runs against this purpose must be evil. That is the definition of evil that I'm putting forth. It's kinda stealing the word from Christians, who make evil ethical. I say "bad is ethical; evil is metaethical. Bad is relative; evil is absolute."

Got it.

Both good and evil must be absolute, for their very existence as ethical means.

It's better than the Christian interpretation of evil, no? I think it's actually a concept I might be able to use in the future... that is, if I ever think of another idea. :P

:)

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Since this has caused some confusion:

I consider truth to be objectively good because it is impossible to assure that an ethical system is both consistent and justified unless you are capable of dealing with logic. Therefore, truth is necessary to all ethical systems: there is no such thing as an inconsistent ethical system. Anything inconsistent is either amoral, or immoral.

That is why I say truth is objectively good: it is needed for all ethical systems, and is not normative.

By "an ethical system," then, you mean something different than the ethics people actually have and follow in the real world. Real ethics is highly situational, and not coherent enough to be called consistent. In the end, people do what feels right. Different people have different judgements of what is and is not ethical.

If truth and honesty were objectively good, then there could be no situations in which lying would be the ethical thing to do. Intuitively, it seems that there could be higher goods, such as lying to save someone's life.

This is where I converge from conventional definitions of good and evil. "Right and wrong" is a subjective evaluation; "good and evil" is, on the other hand, that which transcends all subjective evaluations and finds necessary commonalities across them. It is the difference between physics and metaphysics: what is true by virtue of experience, and what is true by virtue of definition.

I doubt you can find an example where you will find no ambiguity or disagreement about what is the right thing to do, across all ages and cultures, in any context.

...as to moral feeling, this supposed special sense, the appeal to it is indeed superficial when those who cannot think believe that feeling will help them out, even in what concerns general laws: and besides, feelings which naturally differ infinitely in degree cannot furnish a uniform standard of good and evil, nor has any one a right to form judgments for others by his own feelings...

Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804), FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSICS OF ETHICS

Give up your relentless moralizing, the continual pinpricks which pierce the skin of your fellows. The distinction between good and evil is the sickness of the mind. Give up your morals, and the people will regain a love of their fellows.

Lao Tse, In a discussion with Confucious about the true nature of humanity.

Dave, I'm doing something far more mundane and trivial than what you think. I'm not proposing a universal ethic. I know that would be absurd.

On the contrary, I'm merely pointing out universal features of ethical systems -- that is to say, all systematic attempts to decide good behaviour. These usually are, when formalized, given the suffice "-ism" (although not all -ism's are ethical). There are facts that will contradict all systematic approaches to ethics: for instance, hypocricy is considered evil.

But as you correctly noticed, lying often feels intuitively good, whereas it cannot be considered good by any systematic ethic.

There are other weaknesses to all systematic ethical systems. They all require that one make normative claims, so someone who tries to base his decisions on facts is also technically "evil" in the meta-ethical sense. This would include someone who tries to use meta-ethics to make ethical decisions. I can speak of this distantly and academically, but I cannot use it as a guide for behaviour without pulling in some ethical claims of my own.

The belief that ethics needs to be systematic to be ethical is, in fact, a normative claim. So the distinction you made still exists, and I'm quite thankful you pointed it out, since it does nicely show the boundaries of this meta-ethic. Non-systematic ethics is beyond the scope of this train of thought, and quite possibly beyond the scope of any train of thought. Most people use more than one ethical system in conjunction to make decisions, balancing these against one another (but this only works because each system is, in itself, completely consistent), or no precise ethical system at all. Considered systematically, it is always evil to do so. Practically -- and ethics is fundamentally practical, or not worth anything -- it is essential to do so. Practicality is more important than avoiding evil.

If someone wishes to systematize ethics, which is an occasionally useful exercise for (for instance) legislation, he needs to understand that there are things that cannot fit into any systematic ethic.

I hope this response is adequate.

Actually, I will perform some self-criticism. The word "evil" is mis-used and over-used, and this is different enough, philosophically, from evil. I don't think this captures the essence of evil.

As Aristotle said, "Falseness is in itself mean and culpable, and truth noble and worthy of praise." (Nico Ethics, Bk. IV, Ch. 7)

I would say, then, that instead of evil, I should use the word "mean". "Meanness" captures the essence of not using a single consistent ethical system, hypocricy, and attempts to use facts to disguise normative claims. I will call someone who uses a single consistent ethical system "nice".

For example:

"It's good to be nice to people."
"Stuart Little is a (veryveryvery...) nice mouse who gets into lots of trouble."
"You can't be nice all the time."
(to the last, I will add "... but sometimes it can't hurt to deviate from the mean.")

This is where I converge from conventional definitions of good and evil. "Right and wrong" is a subjective evaluation; "good and evil" is, on the other hand, that which transcends all subjective evaluations and finds necessary commonalities across them. It is the difference between physics and metaphysics: what is true by virtue of experience, and what is true by virtue of definition.

uhh yeahhhh, try telling that to Nietzsche, who abhorred the word "evil" and layed the new, "good and bad" aristocratic schema. perhaps he only reserved this to solve the master/slave morality problem.

I don't philosophize to impress Nietzsche. He's dead, and even were he alive, his opinion would only matter so much.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I don't philosophize to impress Nietzsche. He's dead, and even were he alive, his opinion would only matter so much.

ok, i didn't say to impress him, i was alluding to him.

Well, then, he also wrote about writing new tables of values. I want evil to be my word, not a Christian word. So I'm taking it and adding it to my table of values. So: there!

Steven Coyle wrote:Define an ethical system

A procedural plan that effectively results in the optimal outcome.

I'd say that an ethical system is as difficult as legislating common sense. I suppose it is the same thing. Knowing for sure what will case the best outcome - heck, even knowing what the best outcome is - is beyond most people on even relatively simple matters. The basic idea for an ethical system is describing how good judgment is assembled so that it can be followed procedurally, because even those who have good judgment are prone to casting it aside for emotional reasons. Having an ethical system would describe how to behave "by the book" so people wouldn't have to be responsible for checking their emotions at the door, so to speak. It would also dictate good judgment for those who do not have enough of their own.

Having an ethical system would be a good thing, but it is a tall order to fill.