Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: January 12th, 2018, 4:01 pm
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: January 12th, 2018, 4:01 pm
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
So, if someone makes the mistake of choosing to harm or threaten that which we consider to have value, or makes the mistake of intentionally promoting and creating chaos and harm, then we should label those people as being "evil"? Why do we need that label?Greta wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 7:13 pm
Evil is a subjective impression that one may have of local entropy or entropy-inducing entities, especially if they harm or threaten that which we consider of value.
Evil people are those who intentionally promote and create chaos and harm, eg. a sadistic rapist.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: January 12th, 2018, 4:01 pm
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
Ever heard of the concept of steelmanning? If you want to understand arguments for objective morality, then do some research and then steelman the position (it's the opposite of strawmanning).
Steelmanning
Knocking Down a Steel Man: How to Argue Better
“The beginning of thought is in disagreement – not only with others but also with ourselves.” – Eric Hoffer
You know when someone makes an argument, and you know you can get away with making it seem like they made a much worse one, so you attack that argument for points? That’s strawmanning. Lots of us have done it, even though we shouldn’t. But what if we went one step beyond just not doing that? What if we went one better? Then we would be steelmanning, the art of addressing the best form of the other person’s argument, even if it’s not the one they presented. Mackenzie McHale, from the Newsroom, puts it on her list of Very Important Things for journalists (#2), and it would serve us well, too.
Why should we do this? Three reasons: It makes us better rationalists, better arguers, and better people.
1. Better rationalists: I, and all of you, I think, care a great deal about what is true. One of the ways we find out what is true is to smash our arguments against each other and see what comes out, abandoning the invalid arguments and unsound conclusions for better and brighter ideas as we march towards Truth. Perhaps the greatest limitation on this method is the finitude of the arguments we can possibly encounter. By chance, we may never be exposed to good arguments for other positions or against our own, in which case we may wrongly but reasonably discount other positions as unsupported and incorrect, and we would never know.
So we need to find better arguments. Where? Well, aside from sitting in rooms alone arguing with ourselves (guilty), we have the opportunity to construct these better arguments every time we are arguing with someone. We probably know best which arguments are most difficult for our position, because we know our belief’s real weak points and what kind of evidence we tend to find compelling. So I challenge you, when arguing with someone, to use that information to look for ways to make their arguments better, more difficult for you to counter. This is the highest form of disagreement.
If you know of a better counter to your own argument than the one they’re giving, say so. If you know of evidence that supports their side, bring it up. If their argument rests on an untrue piece of evidence, talk about the hypothetical case in which they were right. Take their arguments seriously, and make them as good as possible. Because if you can’t respond to that better version, you’ve got some thinking to do, even if you are more right than the person you’re arguing with. Think more deeply than you’re being asked to.
In this way, you both learn, and you’re having discussions of the highest level you’re capable of, really grappling with the ideas instead of bringing up rehearsed points and counterpoints. It is a difficult task, but it forces us to face those arguments that might actually pose problems for us, instead of just what we happen to see around us. This ensures that we have the right answer, not just a successful answer.
2. Better arguers: But Chana, you might say, I’m actually trying to get something done around here, not just cultivate my rationalist virtue or whatever nonsense you’re peddling. I want to convince people they’re wrong and get them to change their minds.
Well, you, too, have something to gain from steelmanning.
First, people like having their arguments approached with care and serious consideration. Steelmanning requires that we think deeply about what’s being presented to us and find ways to improve it. By addressing the improved version, we show respect and honest engagement to our interlocutor. People who like the way you approach their arguments are much more likely to care about what you have to say about those arguments. This, by the way, also makes arguments way more productive, since no one’s looking for easy rebuttals or cheap outs.
Second, people are more convinced by arguments which address the real reason they reject your ideas rather than those which address those aspects less important to their beliefs. If nothing else, steelmanning is a fence around accidental strawmanning, which may happen when you misunderstand their argument, or they don’t express it as well as they could have. Remember that you are arguing against someone’s ideas and beliefs, and the arguments they present are merely imperfect expressions of those ideas and beliefs and why they hold them. To attack the inner workings rather than only the outward manifestation, you must understand them, and address them properly.
3. Better people: I’m serious. I think steelmanning makes you a better person. It makes you more charitable, forcing you to assume, at least for a moment, that the people you’re arguing with, much as you ferociously disagree with them or even actively dislike them, are people who might have something to teach you. It makes you more compassionate, learning to treat those you argue with as true opponents, not merely obstacles. It broadens your mind, preventing us from making easy dismissals or declaring preemptive victory, pushing us to imagine all the things that could and might be true in this beautiful, strange world of ours. And it keeps us rational, reminding us that we’re arguing against ideas, not people, and that our goal is to take down these bad ideas, not to revel in the defeat of incorrect people.
Try it. It might just be more challenging, rewarding and mind-expanding than you expect.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
1. The everyday meaning which is the same whether you are theist or atheist where you are simply saying something is extremely immoral (and assuming yourself to be of good moral standing).
2. The theistic meaning in which evil is a property of the universe.
Meaning 1 is usable by all, i.e. Hitler is evil. Meaning 2 only makes sense from the perspective of the specific religion, i.e. blasphemers are evil.
To give an analogy. I might say someone is lucky to have won a hand of poker. But I don't believe luck is a physical property of the universe which they have an abundance of. I don't believe they can carry around a luck particle and that luck has any effect on the universe. I don't believe in luck (in the strictest sense) but I can still call someone lucky and it still makes sense to do so as the meaning is normally clear.
-
- Posts: 460
- Joined: September 12th, 2017, 6:03 pm
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
I already steelmanned your objective morality on the last page, why haven't you posted a response?anonymous66 wrote: Ever heard of the concept of steelmanning? If you want to understand arguments for objective morality, then do some research and then steelman the position (it's the opposite of strawmanning).
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
No, they would only be "evil" if they had a persistent tendency to promote chaos and harm. One might label the accidental act "evil", eg. drunk driver killing a pedestrian, which would be an understandable response from victims of the act. Whatever, it's basically just damage and immaturity, although damaged and immature humans (and other animals) can be dangerous.anonymous66 wrote: ↑January 17th, 2018, 8:47 amSo, if someone makes the mistake of choosing to harm or threaten that which we consider to have value, or makes the mistake of intentionally promoting and creating chaos and harm, then we should label those people as being "evil"? Why do we need that label?Greta wrote: ↑January 16th, 2018, 7:13 pmEvil is a subjective impression that one may have of local entropy or entropy-inducing entities, especially if they harm or threaten that which we consider of value.
Evil people are those who intentionally promote and create chaos and harm, eg. a sadistic rapist.
I have little time for the notion of evil which, as per my previous post, is just part of reality's emergences. For instance, the residents of Pompeii would have felt like Vesuvius was evil as it rained fire, rock, lave and ash on to them. But it was just a mountain with an opening created by the pressure of a fissure beneath. Yet a planet that is not geologically alive could never support complex life.
-
- Posts: 439
- Joined: January 12th, 2018, 4:01 pm
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
The difference is that no one is harmed when they are called "lucky". I'm thinking of cases where someone is called "evil" and it turns out they are given that label because there is a disagreement of some sort (for instance: they believe X. I think X is wrong. They must believe X because they're evil... or they did or said X, I think what they did is very wrong. They must have done or said X because they are evil.). Doesn't the term "evil" suggest that someone is beyond redemption?
It seems to me that there are better ways to deal with problem people than to label them as evil.
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
Oh I understand arguments for objective morality, I just don't believe they make any sense. I can talk about why if you want but it's not super relevant to your OP.Ever heard of the concept of steelmanning? If you want to understand arguments for objective morality, then do some research and then steelman the position (it's the opposite of strawmanning).
Also in your OP, you said "I lean towards objective morality" so I am not strawmanning you, if you didn't mention objective morality then my response to your OP changes completely. Without objective morality, evil is subjective - which means naturally - you can decide whether it exists or not for you personally.
I think you actually strawmanned me by making it seem like what I said hinged upon attacking objective morality when it was really an aside. If evil is an objective fact (some arguments for objective morality assert this) and has been determined by God then it absolutely exists. You cannot make a sensible argument against objective fact. However since we can characterize objective facts with subjective distinctions then perhaps you can do the same for evil. In the sense that you view evil (which has been determined by God) to be an undeniable truth, you can still regard objective evil as not in itself being evil but simply being the territory of the misguided and lost. Perhaps you can separate the definition of evil into two parts and eliminate one half.
You do have to realise though that if you believe in objective morality, you forfeit the ability to determine what is right and wrong, good and evil.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
I know of a perspective of objective morality that allows for personal judgement, although if everyone's judgement is sound they will tend to come to similar conclusions. After just saying that I don't relate to poetry, there is a song lyric that is almost universally ridiculed that perfectly describes where objective morality lies:
In summary, morality pertains to the interaction between order and chaos. If we were to consider how immoral a killing performed without good reason was, consider the killing of these entities and the relative loss of order and sentience of those deaths:Someone left the cake out in the rain
I don't think that I can take it
Cause it took so long to bake it
And I'll never have that recipe again
- humans
- other great apes
- dolphins
- dogs and cats
- large, old trees
- intelligent corvids and parrots
- simpler birds
- rodents
- shrubs
- reptiles
- insects
- caterpillars
- weeds
- microbes.
Then consider the breakage and wastage of property - is it more immoral to smash a car or a cup? There is a loss of order again, in the cost to the environment of replacement and disposal.
There aren't clear or hard-and-fast lines, obviously. There's plenty who would rate and old tree or even a national flag as more important than a single human's life. For the most part our legal systems seem to effectively codify our respective societies' objective and relative moralities, although the system will always be distorted by powerful players and lobby groups to some extent - unless AI is given control and simply does the math :)
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
As I said to OP, I think this is just breaking the rules, God being omnipotent, all powerful, omniscient and everything else doesn't give him objectivity, people just say he has it and then you decide for yourself whether that's true or not.
At best what you're describing can be an argument that morality manifests itself from a consistent source like a genetic imprint or societal truth which makes a version of morality valid to everyone with only some wriggle room. Such an argument would not make those moral distinctions objectively true though, which is what objective morality is, it would just make those moral distinctions applicable to all humans.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
Point taken. I think, though, that that's about as close as we can get to objective morality, to consider the extent to which hard-won order is lost.Judaka wrote: ↑January 17th, 2018, 8:10 pmAt best what you're describing can be an argument that morality manifests itself from a consistent source like a genetic imprint or societal truth which makes a version of morality valid to everyone with only some wriggle room. Such an argument would not make those moral distinctions objectively true though, which is what objective morality is, it would just make those moral distinctions applicable to all humans.
If we lived alone in a barren land, with only scrappy plants and insects , but with a lifetime's supply of pre-packed food and water, then what would constitute morality? Perhaps to honour oneself, or create a hierarchy from the plants and insects? Morality clearly pertains to our relationships and is, this, relative.
However, just as infinite divisions lie within a finite number, objective morality seem to exist within our relational existence. Of course, if we want absolute objectivity then we need to know what the stuff of the big bang is that is subject to relativity - a theory that in essence says that nothing is quite objective but is dependent on gravity and speed.
-
- Posts: 251
- Joined: May 2nd, 2017, 10:10 am
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
It's closer to objective reality in the sense that it is precise and applicable to all people but it's equally subjective which I think is the point. I personally struggle to see how morality can ever be objective, it's an inherently subjective characterisation on behaviours and concepts which are formed using preferences and arguments of validity. The degree to which it is nature versus nurture is unknown to me, in the instance of sentience and loss of order in the killing of an animal I see two sides to it.I think, though, that that's about as close as we can get to objective morality, to consider the extent to which hard-won order is lost.
Firstly is that perhaps due to empathy, humans sympathise with the death of things and the more similar or attached they are to what is dying, the greater the feelings about it. Purposely stepping on a beetle is no big deal but if you stepped on my pet beetle Harry, now what you did was malicious and unforgivable.
Secondly is that sentience and loss of order are not to me, the real indications behind how immoral the killing of an animal is. Talking strictly about the animal and not reason for killing or method of killing, an easy example which shows what I think the real determining factor would be a comparison like a cockroach and a butterfly. The aesthetic appeal, the values associated with the animal and the emotions that people have towards the animals determine the level of immorality in killing one. Sentience is a factor in that, animals that are associated with identifiable traits like courage, strength, cuteness, friendliness and so on can be somewhat determined by sentience. Views about dolphins versus sharks, rats versus possums, asian miner bird versus cockatoos and so on.
I'm sure you as an Australian are aware of the introduced species which cause problems for the environment such as the asian miner bird, cane toads and so on. These are some of the most despised animals in Australia and many people don't care about them or want to see them killed off. It's a bit of a tangent but this has always been an interesting topic to me. Morality appears differently in different contexts and the word probably groups things which are fundamentally different in their origins and nature. It's hard for me to talk about it without contextualizing it.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15154
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
More of a good point than a tangent. We have agreed on the relative nature of morality but I suspect some measure of objectivity within the chaos of subjective views, like the forming of stars and planets in dust clouds - fuzzy concentrations of broad agreement.Judaka wrote: ↑January 17th, 2018, 10:50 pmI'm sure you as an Australian are aware of the introduced species which cause problems for the environment such as the asian miner bird, cane toads and so on. These are some of the most despised animals in Australia and many people don't care about them or want to see them killed off. It's a bit of a tangent but this has always been an interesting topic to me. Morality appears differently in different contexts and the word probably groups things which are fundamentally different in their origins and nature. It's hard for me to talk about it without contextualizing it.
While morality as per our usual definitions is obviously anthropomorphic, the responses of our companion animals suggest that there are at least strong commonalities in some areas between various mammals, and very likely birds and maybe some reptiles. The best example I can think of to that end was the viral video of the Capuchin monkey throwing a substandard treat back at its handler because its neighbour received a first rate treat. Fairness is basic and an unthinking sensibility; aside from other primates, toddlers too have an acute sense of what they think is fair dealings between peers.
Also, with any attempt at constructing an objective morality, numbers need to be involved, which leads us to utilitarianism. Not untrammelled utilitarianism, though, because context matters when it come to morality. Blind utilitarianism that lacks human flexibility and empathy is exactly what people fear if AI is granted control of more human systems.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Ramblings on Evil: What If It Doesn't Exist?
Which fork would you choose?
What would be the morally correct fork.
Which fork has greater entropy?
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023