• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does good and evil really exist?

There's an interesting problem described by Bernard Williams on just this point, typically called the Representation Problem. Here's the gist:

This idea that morality is an adaptive trait has to have a mirror claim, which is that prohibitions must be explainable in terms of inhibitions. Pick some prohibition, such as "don't kill someone in cold blood." Now, if we're evolved to have an inhibition to not kill in cold blood, why do we do it so often? And why would the prohibition be necessary?

Anyway, yes, absolutely there exists good and evil. I didn't used to believe it, but I've come to. Genuine evil is quite rare. But it does exist, and it can even be defined. To do so, we need the concept of second-order desires. When I go to a restaurant, I know I should eat a salad. But that smokehouse double bacon cheeseburger sure looks good. I want it, but I don't want to want it. My first order desire is for the cheeseburger, and my second order desire is to have a different first-order desire. I'd like it if I actually wanted the salad.

People who are evil have no conflicting second order desires. A serial killer may (or may not) suffer a desire to not want to kill people. Such a person is ill. But there are people who have no inner conflicts, and who, when they harm others, are doing exactly what they want through and through. They want harm for its own sake. A good example is Joseph Goebbels. He was well aware there is nothing wrong with Jews and Slavs. They aren't actually inferior, and even if they are, that doesn't support genocide against them. He knew that; it's fairly clear in his diaries. But he wanted to see how far he could push the power of a lie; how many people he could kill just by telling stories. That was what was at the very bottom of the chasm that sat in place of his soul. You could sift through the mind of Joseph Goebbels forever and not find any fiber of exception to that desire. And when I really contemplate what it would mean, to be a thing like Goebbels, I don't find anything at all with which I can identify. I don't think he was really a human being, he was something else wearing a human being's flesh.

I can think of a few other examples. But he's the one that stands out IMO.
 
I tend to be what's called a rationalist. Essentially, I think human morality is based on something somewhat like the golden rule. We base what we know to be right and wrong on what we know about ourselves. We know not to kill people because we would not wish to be killed, we know not to steal because we would not like to be stolen from, we know not to rape because we would not like to be raped, etc.
 
US Conservative said:
Evil can be an objective observation without "fear" attached to it in any way, even if you'd like for that to not be the case.
Click to expand...
And the objective method for determining good and evil is?
 


Yet, there are things that , according to our social norms can be described as 'evil' . It might be totally subjective, and guided by social norms.. but yes, those things exist.
 
US Conservative said:
Empirical observation and rationality.
Click to expand...
Empirical observation is a method for quantitative data. "Good" and "Evil" are qualitative terms.
RAMOSS said:
Yet, there are things that , according to our social norms can be described as 'evil' . It might be totally subjective, and guided by social norms.. but yes, those things exist.
Click to expand...
Dragons are concepts created by societies too. That doesn't mean that they exist any more than "good" and "evil."
 
Unrepresented said:
Empirical observation is a method for quantitative data. "Good" and "Evil" are qualitative terms.

Dragons are concepts created by societies too. That doesn't mean that they exist any more than "good" and "evil."
Click to expand...

So your position is that good and evil can only be defined subjectively?
 
Unrepresented said:
Empirical observation is a method for quantitative data. "Good" and "Evil" are qualitative terms.

Dragons are concepts created by societies too. That doesn't mean that they exist any more than "good" and "evil."
Click to expand...

Bad analogy. Dragons are a claim about the physical world. However, 'Good' and 'Evil' are subjective terms that deal with how actions impact the rest of people, and society in general. We label those actions that are views as beneficial to society in general, and people in specific as GOOD, and we label those actions that are detrimental to society and people in general as 'evil'. It might not exist as more than a concept, but those concepts can be shown to be a result how actions impact people.
 
Unrepresented said:
Empirical observation is a method for quantitative data. "Good" and "Evil" are qualitative terms.

Dragons are concepts created by societies too. That doesn't mean that they exist any more than "good" and "evil."
Click to expand...

As evil exists in the minds of people, it can be studied, objectively through the scientific method, much like in psychology-as an example antisocial personality disorder. So too can the effects of such mindsets be studied. Its quite doable.
 
tacomancer said:
1. Morality and the concept of good and evil are not necessarily the same thing
2. The reason to suggest a behavior can easily have nothing to do with morality

For example: the statement "one ought not eat too much candy to avoid a stomach ache".
Click to expand...

Because that statement is a descriptive claim, not a normative claim. It's making a claim about the way things are, not the way things ought to be. It's just pointing out that if you eat too much candy you will have a stomach ache.

You're confused by the presence of the "ought". But the word is just being used in a different way. The presence of the string of letters o-u-g-h-t does not make a statement an ought-statement. What matters is the meaning of the statement, whether the statement is claiming something about the way things are vs the way things ought to be.

If you were to add "and I ought to avoid a stomach ache" that would be a normative claim. And as is your earlier claim "we ought to increase pleasure".


:doh Practicality is an ethical notion. Something is said to be practical if it's valued as worth doing. Ought to be done. As opposed to impractical, something which isn't worth doing, that isn't "useful", that doesn't have value. These are value judgements. Ethics. Notions about what we ought to focus on (the practical) and what we ought not to focus on (the impractical). The notion of practicality does not exist outside a context of morality/values/oughts.

Same with backfire. You are assuming an ought-statement. That it's something we ought to avoid.

tacomancer said:
This is the same sort of type of suggestion........will already want to do these types of things.
Click to expand...

But the key is that they are all ought-statements. They all share a common nature. They are all statements about the way things ought to be, rather than statements about the way things are. That's all morality is.

Your confusion stems from the fact that, colloquially, people tend to reserve the word "moral" to refer to only a certain subset of ought-statements, usually ought-statements regarding violence, sexuality etc. And the same goes with "ethics" - it's usually reserved for ought-statements regarding professionalism in the workplace and government. But such distinctions are completely arbitrary. They only exist in our use of language. There is no meaningful difference in the nature of the claim "I ought to go exercise" and the claim "You ought not torture". They both share the same nature - they both describe the way things ought to be. The meaningful difference arises between ought-statements and is-statements. Between normative claims and descriptive claims. Not among descriptive ones. And, since you apparently aren't aware of this, when philosophers are discussing "morality" - whether it's objective/subjective/non-existent etc - they are referring to ought-statements in general, just as I am, not just "moral" ought-statements.

Furthermore, even if you want to try to argue that there is some difference, it doesn't matter. Everything you have pointed out that applies to the subset of ought-statements we label as "morality" can be equally applied to ALL ought-statements. Every ought-statement we believe - including your claim "we ought to increase pleasure" - came about as an evolutionary tool. So, if you take the position that that means that moral statements have no basis, that they're just a fiction that evolution has led us to believe, the same can be said of all the other "non-moral" ought statements, including your claim that "we ought to increase pleasure". You are no more justified in making that claim that anyone making a "moral" claim. Evolution has simply led you to believe "we ought to increase pleasure". That doesn't mean it's actually the case that we ought to increase pleasure.


Yes, indeed. People make ought-claims all the time. That's why it's ridiculous to hear people say stuff like "there is no morality" and then in the next breath say "we ought to ____". It's cognitive dissonance.
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
So your position is that good and evil can only be defined subjectively?
Click to expand...
Yep. It takes a being who's either negatively or positively impacted by events to determine the value of their impact.
I don't think we particularly disagree on the subject.
US Conservative said:
As evil exists in the minds of people, it can be studied, objectively through the scientific method, much like in psychology-as an example antisocial personality disorder. So too can the effects of such mindsets be studied. Its quite doable.
Click to expand...
You can objectively study how humans determine "good" and "evil."

You can't objectively determine what's "good" and "evil."

There is an important distinction.
 

You absolutely can. I think the real issue here is you don't understand how to study.
 
US Conservative said:
You absolutely can. I think the real issue here is you don't understand how to study.
Click to expand...
What objective measurement is there that can determine the quality of good and evil? What metaphorical measuring stick is there to determine where something falls along the spectrum?
 
I consider evil to be the absence of empathy.
 
Amadeus said:
I consider evil to be the absence of empathy.
Click to expand...

I would slightly disagree. I would say that absence of empathy is the cause of evil.. but lack of empathy is not evil alone. Evil is the actions people take due to lack of empathy.
 
ashurbanipal said:
People who are evil have no conflicting second order desires.
Click to expand...

ethics and morals are all 'calculated' albeit of conscience, as its primary source. if the morals (good or bad) are used to 'govern' ones self its now called religion as a result of the 'will to act' in accordance with said morals.

which is why everyone has a religion.

Here is a rather easy philisophical read that I have had in my library for more years that I like to admit, that delves into this topic. There may be better out there now days dunno, but I enjoyed this particular piece of his work;

Beyond Good and Evil, by Friedrich Nietzsche
 

I don't know that it's quite that simple. We might say that conscience or moral intuition is part of our sensorium, and these are actually informing us of moral truth in the same way eyesight informs us of spatial and visual truths. That was G.E. Moore's idea, and it's stood the test of time fairly well.


Yeah, I like Nietzche. He's really misunderstood, though. He said almost the opposite of what people usually think he said.
 


Firstly, a more succinct question would be, "Does pure good and pure evil exist if you are not religious?"
 
twixie1 said:
Firstly, a more succinct question would be, "Does pure good and pure evil exist if you are not religious?"
Click to expand...

I think the idea I posted of second-order desires doesn't require the notion of religion.
 
ashurbanipal said:
I think the idea I posted of second-order desires doesn't require the notion of religion.
Click to expand...

Of course it does..who else is going to tell you whether you are being naughty or nice..

Who gave us the concept of ''good or evil?''
 
twixie1 said:
Of course it does..who else is going to tell you whether you are being naughty or nice..

Who gave us the concept of ''good or evil?''
Click to expand...

Perhaps we will, and perhaps we do.
 
A universal good exists. If you do not believe that the evil exists then you have no imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…