Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Wayne92587
Posts: 1780
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Wayne92587 »

Results in Lunacy!, Chaos, Insanity!!!
Results the Greatest Cause of all suffering, a Great Evil!!

You people are getting off track.

Beautiful and Ugly are exactly like Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Good and Bad.

All moral judgement are the same.

I found some time ago, that by not referring to something being ugly, I found what I at one time as being wrong, bad, was no longer Ugly.

It is the wide swings in judgement, not that one looks good and the other bad that generates the Chaos, Evil.

Good today bad tomorrow.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by LuckyR »

Steve3007 wrote:LuckyR:
I don't doubt that there are plenty of people who admire Hitler and think that he did a good thing. That wasn't my point. My point was about people's views of the difference between tastes and moral values. It is rare for people to think that the question of whether Hitler's actions were good or bad is merely a matter of personal taste, like the question of whether a particular object is beautiful or whether Marmite tastes nice. As I said, people sometimes disagree as to what is good and what is evil, but they usually do agree that whatever it is, it is not merely a matter of taste.
We can't have a conversation if I tell you what something (good and evil) is and you only provide info on what it isn't. So. If what qualifies as "good" is NOT a personal opinion, then what is it?

-- Updated July 17th, 2017, 10:55 am to add the following --
Wayne92587 wrote:Results in Lunacy!, Chaos, Insanity!!!
Results the Greatest Cause of all suffering, a Great Evil!!

You people are getting off track.

Beautiful and Ugly are exactly like Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Good and Bad.

All moral judgement are the same.

I found some time ago, that by not referring to something being ugly, I found what I at one time as being wrong, bad, was no longer Ugly.

It is the wide swings in judgement, not that one looks good and the other bad that generates the Chaos, Evil.

Good today bad tomorrow.
He gets it...
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Sayso
New Trial Member
Posts: 9
Joined: July 13th, 2017, 3:46 pm

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Sayso »

So. If what qualifies as "good" is NOT a personal opinion, then what is it?

I'm wondering if this is an indictment of opinion, per se?

Do right opinions every come about? Are you denying there is such a thing as knowledge?

One poster gave the criterion of survival as the basis of good. Without signing on to that view, it is, at least, a positive suggestion, and so deserves to be rejected with some argument, doesn't it?

Why is it so many people are comfortable with groundless denials and rejections? If that question is a proper issue, and not something that just takes us into psychological analysis... The logical form of beginning with a bare denial is that somebody then sets about invalidating that denial, which so often takes the hopeless form of an "ignorantiam."
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Spectrum »

LuckyR wrote:Good and evil are not like hot and cold, rather like beautiful and ugly, that is, subject to everyone's interpretation.
True in a way but that lacks substance.

The dichotomy of beautiful and ugly is evolutionary and has survival values.
Generally what is beautiful is signified by symmetry as in facial and body proportion. What is not symmetrical is naturally perceived as ugly, e.g. a damaged eyes, none & rotten teeth, or merely one breast, broken leg, etc. Non-symmetry, i.e. reflect ugliness thus signify a reduced potential to reproduce the next generation. This algorithm is embedded in the DNA of all humans.
Therefore there is some degree of objectivity to beautiful and ugliness in relation to survival values.

Because humans are endowed with self-consciousness, intellect, intelligence, empathy, we can use our discretion to override what is naturally embedded in our DNA. But we cannot deny that degree of objectivity within our evolved sense of beautiful and ugliness.

It is the same for good and evil. Basically and generally [the way nature works] what is good [accompanied by pleasure] is positive to the preservation of the species. What is evil is negative [accompanied by pain] to the preservation of the species.

What is effective Morality need to be grounded on these two basic principles. This is what Kant did with his Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
What is critical is we need to have very precise definition of 'good' and 'evil' and they must be well grounded to reduce subjectivity.

I agree there is a subjective/relative perspective to good and evil, but such a subjective perspective is not effective for an effective Philosophy of Morality [this section of the forum on Morality and Ethics].

Effective Morality require well grounded 'fixed goalposts' like the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' that are precisely defined for such a purpose.

-- Updated Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:04 pm to add the following --
Sayso wrote:One poster gave the criterion of survival as the basis of good. Without signing on to that view, it is, at least, a positive suggestion, and so deserves to be rejected with some argument, doesn't it?
Basically and generally, what is good [accompanied by pleasure] is positive to the preservation of the species and vice-versa for what is evil. This is how Nature works in general.

Now you may ask, what about the masochist who seek pain for pleasure, even pain for sex which may also aid in preservation of the species. What about homosexuality and other abnormal variations?
Point is Nature is never perfect and there will always be a small percentile of variations which has its pros and cons.
But the positive principle of Nature is it relies on the potential of large numbers, i.e. the larger majority to serves its direction.

I don't think any one can come up with a good argument against Nature on this issue even though it is not perfect.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Wayne92587
Posts: 1780
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Wayne92587 »

This post is a little far-out. I offer it up only as a thought experiment.

The way Lao Tse put it, These two are the same, are of a single source.

As a Singularity having a dual quality issues forth, the second quality is given a different name from the first, the two qualities being the same, there being no great distinction of One from the other, being a Singularity that is both Good and Evil, right and wrong, the distinctions of Good or Bad existing in name only, there being no great differentiation in substance between the two.

These two qualities come paired, one not differing greatly from the other, Good not existing without the Bad, Bad not existing without the good, the truth being that there is no distinction of one to the other until there is an extreme differentiation between the Two, one or the other becoming the cause of unnecessary suffering.

Morality, moral law, the distinction between right and wrong, good and Evil being a dismal failure in its attempt to bring order to the chaos.
Would that I could, I would destroy Moral Law and replace it with the Rule of Law.

The two qualities of a Singularity are born of Absolutely Bad Knowledge being mistaken to be absolutely Good Knowledge.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Steve3007 »

LuckyR:
We can't have a conversation if I tell you what something (good and evil) is and you only provide info on what it isn't.
Yes ok. A fair point.
So. If what qualifies as "good" is NOT a personal opinion, then what is it?
I didn't say it isn't a personal opinion. I said it isn't a personal taste. I think, as those words are used in general language, there's a difference. I think that beauty and ugliness are a matter of taste, just like the literal meaning of the word "taste" is. I personally don't like the taste of apple pie. It is not to my taste. It wouldn't make sense for me to make an argument as to why I don't like it. I just don't. By contrast, I'd say that "opinion" has an element of appeals to reason and empirical fact. We can defend our opinions with arguments.

It's often said that "you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts". But I think that saying is probably too simplistic because it makes the difference between opinion and fact too black-and-white. Opinion always seems, in my experience, to have an element of appeals to purported empirical facts.

But, on reflection, perhaps if it were possible to distil opinions down by removing everything that is actually an argument about what is or is not factually true, then all we'd be left with is personal taste. The people who would then still disagree would be moral absolutists (often based on religious views) who think that there are some basic irreducible goods and bads which are universally and objectively true.

I had a long discussion on this website, a long time ago, with someone who argued the case for that very thing using Aristotle's concept of "The Good".
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by LuckyR »

Spectrum wrote:
LuckyR wrote:Good and evil are not like hot and cold, rather like beautiful and ugly, that is, subject to everyone's interpretation.
True in a way but that lacks substance.

The dichotomy of beautiful and ugly is evolutionary and has survival values.
Generally what is beautiful is signified by symmetry as in facial and body proportion. What is not symmetrical is naturally perceived as ugly, e.g. a damaged eyes, none & rotten teeth, or merely one breast, broken leg, etc. Non-symmetry, i.e. reflect ugliness thus signify a reduced potential to reproduce the next generation. This algorithm is embedded in the DNA of all humans.
Therefore there is some degree of objectivity to beautiful and ugliness in relation to survival values.

Because humans are endowed with self-consciousness, intellect, intelligence, empathy, we can use our discretion to override what is naturally embedded in our DNA. But we cannot deny that degree of objectivity within our evolved sense of beautiful and ugliness.

It is the same for good and evil. Basically and generally [the way nature works] what is good [accompanied by pleasure] is positive to the preservation of the species. What is evil is negative [accompanied by pain] to the preservation of the species.

What is effective Morality need to be grounded on these two basic principles. This is what Kant did with his Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
What is critical is we need to have very precise definition of 'good' and 'evil' and they must be well grounded to reduce subjectivity.

I agree there is a subjective/relative perspective to good and evil, but such a subjective perspective is not effective for an effective Philosophy of Morality [this section of the forum on Morality and Ethics].

Effective Morality require well grounded 'fixed goalposts' like the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' that are precisely defined for such a purpose.

Now you may ask, what about the masochist who seek pain for pleasure, even pain for sex which may also aid in preservation of the species. What about homosexuality and other abnormal variations?
.
Don't be shy, what are these "precisely defined" definitions?

-- Updated July 19th, 2017, 12:19 am to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:LuckyR:
We can't have a conversation if I tell you what something (good and evil) is and you only provide info on what it isn't.
Yes ok. A fair point.
So. If what qualifies as "good" is NOT a personal opinion, then what is it?
I didn't say it isn't a personal opinion. I said it isn't a personal taste. I think, as those words are used in general language, there's a difference. I think that beauty and ugliness are a matter of taste, just like the literal meaning of the word "taste" is. I personally don't like the taste of apple pie. It is not to my taste. It wouldn't make sense for me to make an argument as to why I don't like it. I just don't. By contrast, I'd say that "opinion" has an element of appeals to reason and empirical fact. We can defend our opinions with arguments.

It's often said that "you're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts". But I think that saying is probably too simplistic because it makes the difference between opinion and fact too black-and-white. Opinion always seems, in my experience, to have an element of appeals to purported empirical facts.

But, on reflection, perhaps if it were possible to distil opinions down by removing everything that is actually an argument about what is or is not factually true, then all we'd be left with is personal taste. The people who would then still disagree would be moral absolutists (often based on religious views) who think that there are some basic irreducible goods and bads which are universally and objectively true.

I had a long discussion on this website, a long time ago, with someone who argued the case for that very thing using Aristotle's concept of "The Good".
Uummm... glad to hear we agree... I think.
"As usual... it depends."
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Steve3007 »

Uummm... glad to hear we agree... I think.
I share your apparent uncertainty as to whether or not we agree. So on that we are agreed.
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Spectrum »

LuckyR wrote:
Spectrum wrote:Effective Morality require well grounded 'fixed goalposts' like the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' that are precisely defined for such a purpose.
Don't be shy, what are these "precisely defined" definitions?
My focus in not on Moral & Ethics rather my project is on Islam and it Evils at present.

I did have a long discussion with John Bruce Leonard here on the related points;
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 86#p288786
Spectrum wrote:I have been proposing a Moral and Ethics Framework & System grounded on Moral Absolute Laws reasoned from evolution and empirical evidence.

These Moral Absolute Laws [theoretical ideals] are the 'oughts' but they are not enforceable but merely to be used as guides, i.e. also fixed goal posts or fixed lighthouses.

'Ought' cannot be 'IS' but they can exist and work complementarily like Yin-Yang.
What "IS" is to be processed and maintained within the Ethical system.
It is like a ship [one or a fleet] near the coast, it uses the fixed lighthouse as a guide and chart its own course depending on the circumstances and its own state potential.

The Moral Absolute Laws are the ideal and no one is expected to achieve them in practice. Maybe by chance one can reach that absolute target but it is not expected to be a regular thing, e.g. no [zero] murder were committed in June 20.. in location X.
What is critical is the emphasis on the Moral Gap management process and one must always ask the question why one's personal standard, actual performance are always far from the ideal. Establishing a continuous improvement mechanism to narrow the various Moral and Ethical gaps will contribute the overall moral competence of the average humans.

The difficulty is how to implement such a Framework and System? The other is how to derive grounded absolute moral laws as guides based on evolution?
You can get an idea of my points re GoalPosts and Absolute Moral Values from that thread.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by LuckyR »

Spectrum wrote:
LuckyR wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)


Don't be shy, what are these "precisely defined" definitions?
My focus in not on Moral & Ethics rather my project is on Islam and it Evils at present.

I did have a long discussion with John Bruce Leonard here on the related points;
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 86#p288786
So does that mean: "I don't know" or "I'm not going to tell you"?
"As usual... it depends."
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Spectrum »

LuckyR wrote:
Spectrum wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

My focus in not on Moral & Ethics rather my project is on Islam and it Evils at present.

I did have a long discussion with John Bruce Leonard here on the related points;
http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... 86#p288786
So does that mean: "I don't know" or "I'm not going to tell you"?
Read from the link. I have given quite a bit of points therein.
Point out what you do not agree with.
I will try my best to answer within the time constraint.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by LuckyR »

Spectrum wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


So does that mean: "I don't know" or "I'm not going to tell you"?
Read from the link. I have given quite a bit of points therein.
Point out what you do not agree with.
I will try my best to answer within the time constraint.
Ah so. I don't disagree that a motivated and smart individual (such as yourself) can and have tried to "objectively" derive absolutes as a foundation for a universal ethical structure. However, if that were possible (and logical) then widely divergent individuals would derive identical standards. Yet they don't. So these purportedly objective constructs are at least partially subjective. Thus how opinion creeps into the system and hence the basis of my original post.
"As usual... it depends."
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Spectrum »

LuckyR wrote:
Spectrum wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Read from the link. I have given quite a bit of points therein.
Point out what you do not agree with.
I will try my best to answer within the time constraint.
Ah so. I don't disagree that a motivated and smart individual (such as yourself) can and have tried to "objectively" derive absolutes as a foundation for a universal ethical structure. However, if that were possible (and logical) then widely divergent individuals would derive identical standards. Yet they don't. So these purportedly objective constructs are at least partially subjective. Thus how opinion creeps into the system and hence the basis of my original post.
Yes, They Don't, only not yet.
You're thinking of the past, present and the near future. It is very obvious in the present state there will be very divergent views due to the wide range of knowledge, intelligence, wisdom, emotional intelligence, spiritual intelligence and other intelligences of people around the world.

My proposal for a Universal Moral and Ethical Framework and System will depend on Team Human where there is a critical mass of humans around the world thinking as one Team.
Once Team Human is established, then each individual will strive to improve their average quotient re knowledge, intellectual intelligence [IQ], wisdom [WQ], Moral [MQ] emotional intelligence [EQ], spiritual intelligence [SQ] and other intelligences.

Let say the average quotients for the above is index at 100.
Then humanity must strive to increase the average quotient to say 120, then to 150 within 50, 75 or 100 years' time.
I am aware with Information Technology, Internet and advancement in other fields of knowledge, humanity is capable to increasing the average Quotient of humanity to greater numbers if not 50 years then the next 75-100 years.

As the various average quotients are increasing in time the critical mass of humans will be able to convene with acceptances of identical standards of absolute moral laws.
Note even now we are setting absolute moral laws and agreeing to it, re slavery, i.e. absolute zero slavery as Laws by all [almost] Nations. This is done without the necessity for theism but rather this improvement was activated by the inherent human empathy as supported by increasing activation of the mirror neurons within the human brain.

By then [75-100 years] humanity would have weaned of theistic morality with its immutable moral laws.

When there is Team Human [comprising the majority of humans in the world], absolute moral laws [as guidance] and [absolute ethical laws [judiciary] will be based on the consensus of all the team members [each individual]. Thus they are guided and obeying moral laws they themselves set for their own conformance.

You need to look at my proposals in terms of toward the next 50, 75 or 100 years and not based on the past, present or near future. By then the critical mass of individual humans within Team Human will have the sufficient competences [various Quotients] to agree on Absolute identical moral standards they can claim as laws they set for themselves.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Wayne92587
Posts: 1780
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is the Good versus Evil dichotomy a valid one?

Post by Wayne92587 »

It is not Islamic Law, Sharia that is Evil, it is the interpretation and the implementation that is the Greatest cause of Unnecessary Suffering the World Over.
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

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

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021