What Is "evil"?

[FiddlingAround]

Evil is the point where you do something that means that you're no longer the hero of your story. At least not for this chapter.

 

I like that.

[zandurian]

Interesting subject and responses.

 

Interesting also that everything in the universe (and our experiences) seems to exist through polar opposites: Light/darkness, pleasure/pain, ignorance/knowledge, truth/lies, love/hate, good/evil etc etc even down to the positively and negatively charged atoms and amino acids.

 

It seems that all these contrasts are made possible by the existence of space/time (as nothing can 'happen' or change in static eternity) so even stillness as opposed to motion (more polar opposites) are anti-eternity by nature.

 

I'm not sure I can accept the notion that we have certain morals ONLY because society invents and imposes them on individuals. Societal norms definitely influence behavior and can help people violate their consciences or (conversely) discover areas in their consciences which lay dormant but yet certain things are (more or less) universally accepted as good or bad in all societies.

 

Plus, in my life studies I have witnessed individuals staging "rebellions of conscience" against everything they have been taught by parents and society so that tells me their at least can be innate sense of right and wrong that transcends external conditioning.

 

I'm studying human nature right now hoping to discover more about these ideas of morality and how much is innate and how much is conditioning. This (personal informal) study has led me to investigate feral children and how a lack of contact with other humans affects mental/emotional/social development. Really fascinating stuff.

 

Looking forward to more discussion on this subject!

[Shyone]

Interesting subject and responses.

 

Interesting also that everything in the universe (and our experiences) seems to exist through polar opposites: Light/darkness, pleasure/pain, ignorance/knowledge, truth/lies, love/hate, good/evil etc etc even down to the positively and negatively charged atoms and amino acids.

 

It seems that all these contrasts are made possible by the existence of space/time (as nothing can 'happen' or change in static eternity) so even stillness as opposed to motion (more polar opposites) are anti-eternity by nature.

 

The contrasts are more symantic than real. Hot, cold and TEPID. Fast, stopped, slow, medium. Light, dark, dim. Pleasure, pain, neutral, slightly one or the other... Ignorance, knowledge, Christian.

 

When you seek to divide everything into polar opposites, you will find support because of bias, not because there are ONLY polar opposites.

 

 

I'm studying human nature right now hoping to discover more about these ideas of morality and how much is innate and how much is conditioning. This (personal informal) study has led me to investigate feral children and how a lack of contact with other humans affects mental/emotional/social development. Really fascinating stuff.

 

Looking forward to more discussion on this subject!

 

Study should give you some real insight. A good ethics course can be an eye-opener. Morally ambiguous situations are more common than simple moral/immoral questions. We have some innate "properties" that may help us to approach such situations, but our upbringing, and even incidental learning (e.g. television, friends, observation), can lead us to the correct (or "best") solutions for most moral delimmas.

[zandurian]

The contrasts are more symantic than real. Hot, cold and TEPID. Fast, stopped, slow, medium. Light, dark, dim. Pleasure, pain, neutral, slightly one or the other... Ignorance, knowledge, Christian.

 

When you seek to divide everything into polar opposites, you will find support because of bias, not because there are ONLY polar opposites.

 

My point is more that the polar opposites exist allowing for all that occurs in between (such as the ones you pointed out). For instance, the positive and negative charges allow matter to have form within time/space.

 

 

I'm studying human nature right now hoping to discover more about these ideas of morality and how much is innate and how much is conditioning. This (personal informal) study has led me to investigate feral children and how a lack of contact with other humans affects mental/emotional/social development. Really fascinating stuff.

 

Looking forward to more discussion on this subject!

 

Study should give you some real insight. A good ethics course can be an eye-opener. Morally ambiguous situations are more common than simple moral/immoral questions. We have some innate "properties" that may help us to approach such situations, but our upbringing, and even incidental learning (e.g. television, friends, observation), can lead us to the correct (or "best") solutions for most moral delimmas.

 

It's those innate "properties" I'm most interested in and secondly I want to discover what the conditions are which cause/allow someone's sense of love and self sacrifice to win out over apathy and self preservation.

[Shyone]

 

My point is more that the polar opposites exist allowing for all that occurs in between (such as the ones you pointed out). For instance, the positive and negative charges allow matter to have form within time/space.

 

Even the polar opposites are symantec. High and low, highest, lowest, higher, lower.

 

Electron charges and energies are not equivalent to human emotions or experiences.

 

Even something like light/dark with the intermediaries has some wiggle room. One could perhaps describe "absolute darkeness", but there is no "absolute lightness". If "light" = 1,000 lumens, then there is still something that could (at least theoretically) be lighter (brighter).

 

One man's pleasure is another's pain. With a pain scale of 1-10, there is no 11, but I think that realistically whatever pain has been experienced, there could still be something worse. Bone pain is excruciating. Pour boiling oil onto their skin, they will have even more pain, but the scale arbitrarily stays at 10.

 

Love/hate? Without resorting to metaphysical contructions, is there a maximum love, or a maximum hate?

 

The world is analog, not digital, and the dial settings we have assigned are mostly arbitrary.

 

Loud/soft? An absolute silence could be the polar "soft" but for every loud, there is a potential "louder."

 

It's those innate "properties" I'm most interested in and secondly I want to discover what the conditions are which cause/allow someone's sense of love and self sacrifice to win out over apathy and self preservation.

 

I am reminded of an experiment by Frederick II (the Great). He took two children and had them raised with absolutely no direct human contact, and especially no exposure to language. The goal was to see what language the children would speak. The children, of course, went insane and could not speak at all.

 

What is the "innate" language?

 

It turns out that language is a property of culture. Values are also taught. Altruism and heroism may seem to be innate, but sometimes it's just that there is no better solution than to lay down one's life for another. Sometimes this is because the person him/herself would die as well, so the self-sacrifice is the "logical choice." Sometimes it results from an overestimation of ones abilities, as when a person jumps into raging waters to save someone drowning. Clearly the person is trying to stay alive and save the other simultaneously, but a miscalculation results in self-sacrifice and tragedy.

 

Animals have some similar traits - the desire to help others that are in pain. This much is probably innate. I can imagine an evolutionary role for this. Saving others helps preserve the species, and there are probably a hundred other potential benefits I haven't considered, many of which would not need concious reasoning to help decide a course of action, so these might be termed innate as well.

 

IOW, desires and empathy are probably innate, but behaviors that result from innate properties have many different kinds of influences. Why does one person sit on the bank while another jumps in (other than the jumper may think he's a great swimmer)?

 

Self-preservation by inaction versus (potential) self-sacrifice by taking action. These are the behaviors that result from two (or more) conflicting desires.

 

I don't know why I'm writing about this. Study and let us know what YOU think.

[OnceConvinced]

Evil is what the other guy does that you don't like.

 

Exactly. It's as simple as this.

 

It's not about what God deems to be evil, but whoever is in power at the - whoever has influence over the masses. The religious biggots in OT times determined what was evil and what was good and declared it to be God's morals. Of course as the human race has become more enlightened, a lot of that stuff has changed. It's now evil to make rape victims marry their rapists, it's now evil to have slaves, etc etc. God's morals have changed over the centuries.

[Franko47]

Interesting subject and responses.

 

 

Plus, in my life studies I have witnessed individuals staging "rebellions of conscience" against everything they have been taught by parents and society so that tells me their at least can be innate sense of right and wrong that transcends external conditioning.

 

 

 

 

This is a valuable mechanism, and I'm glad to see that it does exist in the human condition. There are still even many things at my age that I wonder about, or have changed my mind about through the years, so it can be a never-ending process, as long as one keeps thinking for themselves. In a way, I never have quit chafing against the ideas that I rebelled against growing up in the late sixties and early seventies. Although I became part of the "establishment", I still have a kind of "fuck the establishment" mentality at times.

 

Some people I know find this confusing at times; it's like I'm still just keeping all the "moralistic clones" off-balance.

[zandurian]

 

Even the polar opposites are symantec. High and low, highest, lowest, higher, lower.

 

Electron charges and energies are not equivalent to human emotions or experiences.

 

Even something like light/dark with the intermediaries has some wiggle room. One could perhaps describe "absolute darkeness", but there is no "absolute lightness". If "light" = 1,000 lumens, then there is still something that could (at least theoretically) be lighter (brighter).

 

One man's pleasure is another's pain. With a pain scale of 1-10, there is no 11, but I think that realistically whatever pain has been experienced, there could still be something worse. Bone pain is excruciating. Pour boiling oil onto their skin, they will have even more pain, but the scale arbitrarily stays at 10.

 

Love/hate? Without resorting to metaphysical contructions, is there a maximum love, or a maximum hate?

 

The world is analog, not digital, and the dial settings we have assigned are mostly arbitrary.

 

Loud/soft? An absolute silence could be the polar "soft" but for every loud, there is a potential "louder."

I like these examples (being an audio engineer long before digital recording was around - well, unless you count my old roll 'player piano' as digital). Also good points about my supposed "polar opposites" NOT being "absolute opposites".

 

 

I am reminded of an experiment by Frederick II (the Great). He took two children and had them raised with absolutely no direct human contact, and especially no exposure to language. The goal was to see what language the children would speak. The children, of course, went insane and could not speak at all.

Yes, that little experiment came up in my studies. I understand (IIRC) they all died quite young as well (?)

 

 

What is the "innate" language?

Of course there is technically no innate language per se but there are ideas and thoughts due to innate intelligence regardless of the ability to put those thoughts and ideas into words. So the lack of human contact and teaching is like a garden with no water - but the seeds still contain the potential for a fruitful garden.

 

 

It turns out that language is a property of culture. Values are also taught.

Altruism and heroism may seem to be innate, but sometimes it's just that there is no better solution than to lay down one's life for another. Sometimes this is because the person him/herself would die as well, so the self-sacrifice is the "logical choice." Sometimes it results from an overestimation of ones abilities, as when a person jumps into raging waters to save someone drowning. Clearly the person is trying to stay alive and save the other simultaneously, but a miscalculation results in self-sacrifice and tragedy.

The self sacrificial scenario I'm speaking of would be a situation where someone knew they would die for sure and consciously chose death to save someone else (as opposed to some kind of instinctive reflex). Not necessarily logical at all - or ... the 'logic' of love perhaps?

 

 

Animals have some similar traits - the desire to help others that are in pain. This much is probably innate. I can imagine an evolutionary role for this. Saving others helps preserve the species, and there are probably a hundred other potential benefits I haven't considered, many of which would not need concious reasoning to help decide a course of action, so these might be termed innate as well.

I do see animals having some beneficial instincts which mimic heroic acts but I don't see non human animals committing any acts like the well thought out illogical self sacrifice which humans are capable of.

 

 

IOW, desires and empathy are probably innate,

Okay - we agree on this.

 

 

but behaviors that result from innate properties have many different kinds of influences. Why does one person sit on the bank while another jumps in (other than the jumper may think he's a great swimmer)?

We agree here as well and when this is fully investigated it is probably what will make or break my ideas about good and evil (darkness vs. enlightenment).

Self-preservation by inaction versus (potential) self-sacrifice by taking action. These are the behaviors that result from two (or more) conflicting desires.

Again - you are speaking of a split second reflex decision. What about a planned methodical act of sacrificial love?

 

I don't know why I'm writing about this. Study and let us know what YOU think.

Well, hopefully you will stay in the discussion and keep checking my ideas for flaws or disagreements. That's how I learn and I love to hear all view points. I should probably start a thread on human nature even though I think this is on topic for a discussion of evil.

 

Now, back yo your statement "One man's pleasure is another's pain".

 

Okay - that's possible ie: I'm sure that if you lined up 10,000,000 people and stuck an ice pick through their hands you are going to get the occasional oddball who will respond "Oh - that's nice!!!" but really - is not pain, although perceived differently by all, generally agreed to be an unpleasant experience?

 

That's what I am looking for in my studies - moral consensus and where it comes from. Sure - a few kooks will say "Rape is awesome - it's the most beautiful thing ever!" but seriously - it's seems there ARE universal moral absolutes.

[Shyone]

 

The self sacrificial scenario I'm speaking of would be a situation where someone knew they would die for sure and consciously chose death to save someone else (as opposed to some kind of instinctive reflex). Not necessarily logical at all - or ... the 'logic' of love perhaps?

 

I can just barely imagine such a scenario. Sometimes this is done out of principle, and people are indeed willing to die for principles. I think, however, that most people imagine that they will survive if they help someone else to survive (although sometimes the rescuer dies unexpectedly).

 

Sometimes I just think that it is impulse. Pushing someone out of the way of a bus might be an example of that.

 

I'm having problems thinking of a scenario where a person gives his life for another where his life was not also in danger. The hand grenade in the vehicle will kill everyone, but if you know you will die anyway, the only choices are die together, or save some. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one." Very logical.

 

 

Now, back yo your statement "One man's pleasure is another's pain".

 

Okay - that's possible ie: I'm sure that if you lined up 10,000,000 people and stuck an ice pick through their hands you are going to get the occasional oddball who will respond "Oh - that's nice!!!" but really - is not pain, although perceived differently by all, generally agreed to be an unpleasant experience?

 

That's what I am looking for in my studies - moral consensus and where it comes from. Sure - a few kooks will say "Rape is awesome - it's the most beautiful thing ever!" but seriously - it's seems there ARE universal moral absolutes.

 

Moral consensus. Hmmm. There are more areas of moral ambiguity than moral consensus I think. Consider Republicans versus Democrats. As things stand now the only consensus is that the opposite party can do no good. Remember the soldiers that shot the "pirates"? Republicans were pretty consistent in their condemnation, while Democrats were pretty consistent in their praise.

 

Remember Bush's policies to keep us safe?

 

Consensus is a herd phenomenon I think. On some level, it's probably quite primative. There are some things that could gain universal consensus like the example you gave, but only rarely. Families tend to stand by their relatives even if they have done something heinous. The defense "She asked for it" may sound trite, but that's what people do. They approve of the people, so they must then find their actions reasonable.

[Vomit Comet]

It's kind of like pornography: you know it when you see it. Though it depends on who's doing the "seeing", of course.

 

Also, there's downright evil and then there's just run-of-the-mill human shittiness.

 

Downright evil: the Holocaust. Even many of Hitler's biggest fans today try to pretend it didn't happen.

 

Run-of-the-mill human shittiness: Goldman Sachs fucking the country in the ass while Obama performs the reach-around. Bush the Younger pretending to be "jes' folks" while handing everything over to the corporate elite on a silver platter.

 

Somewhere in the middle: Darth Cheney. Not up their with Hitler by any stretch, but he's a ruthless, evil SOB in his own right and deserves to be behind bars.

[zandurian]

Moral consensus. Hmmm. There are more areas of moral ambiguity than moral consensus I think.

 

But on the big issues there is consensus among humans - at least in principle (IOW - everybody 'knows' but not everybody 'does'). Almost everyone understands that genocide is wrong that slavery is wrong that stealing is wrong that rape is wrong that lying is wrong etc etc.

 

Not too many years ago slavery was legal right here in the U.S. yet today it is illegal in every country in the world. Now, I'm an amateur anti-slavery activist so am well aware of the many abuses (there are literally millions of slaves in the world right now) but isn't that the point? Isn't that why billions of people are caught up in religion trying to equalize the opposing forces?

 

Even when the British slave trade was a legal, extremely lucrative and popular practice William Wilberforce was able to appeal to conscience and within a few short years the massive British slave empire came crashing down. That tells me that there is more to humans than just primitive animal survival instincts - much more.

 

Let's take it out of the strict 'dying for someone else' mode for a moment since (as you pointed out) such opportunities are rare. But every time someone prefers another over themselves and gives up money or safety or goods (with no benefit to themselves whatsoever) it (IMO) points to a super-animal nature.

 

As far as the logic of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - don't you watch Star Trek movies? They prove there is an illogical principle which generally takes over whenever people are involved

[Shyone]

Moral consensus. Hmmm. There are more areas of moral ambiguity than moral consensus I think.

 

But on the big issues there is consensus among humans - at least in principle (IOW - everybody 'knows' but not everybody 'does'). Almost everyone understands that genocide is wrong that slavery is wrong that stealing is wrong that rape is wrong that lying is wrong etc etc.

 

Not too many years ago slavery was legal right here in the U.S. yet today it is illegal in every country in the world. Now, I'm an amateur anti-slavery activist so am well aware of the many abuses (there are literally millions of slaves in the world right now) but isn't that the point? Isn't that why billions of people are caught up in religion trying to equalize the opposing forces?

 

Even when the British slave trade was a legal, extremely lucrative and popular practice William Wilberforce was able to appeal to conscience and within a few short years the massive British slave empire came crashing down. That tells me that there is more to humans than just primitive animal survival instincts - much more.

 

Let's take it out of the strict 'dying for someone else' mode for a moment since (as you pointed out) such opportunities are rare. But every time someone prefers another over themselves and gives up money or safety or goods (with no benefit to themselves whatsoever) it (IMO) points to a super-animal nature.

 

As far as the logic of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" - don't you watch Star Trek movies? They prove there is an illogical principle which generally takes over whenever people are involved

The gradual "realization" that slavery is immoral argues against any innate understanding of the immorality of slavery. I think, rather, that there may be something that resides in us about fairness - and with a few more connections (slaves are human, like me, they suffer, I would not like to suffer or be captive) then suddenly it is apparent - slavery is wrong.

 

Convincing others that there a deeper principles involved that we all share can transform an act from "moral" to "immoral." I think the key is empathy for others.

 

Empathy drives us towards equality. If we don't stand for the other guy, they won't stand for us. If we do, let's hope there is enough empathy to go around.

 

We can also set priorities that are unique. One person may value his own life above all else, while another can value another's life more then their own (e.g. the President, a friend, wife, child, etc.). If time is allowed for someone to set priorities, a person may even decide that another's life is worth more than theirs because they have children or they are younger, etc.

 

You should talk to some heroes and ask them why they did what they did. You will probably find a lot of different answers, but maybe you can eventually make sense out of them.

 

You should meanwhile read about altruism in animals. You may be surprized.

[zandurian]

 

The gradual "realization" that slavery is immoral argues against any innate understanding of the immorality of slavery. I think, rather, that there may be something that resides in us about fairness - and with a few more connections (slaves are human, like me, they suffer, I would not like to suffer or be captive) then suddenly it is apparent - slavery is wrong.

 

Of course, as a theist, I see this as a spiritual awakening. Just for the record - I am not necessarily against the idea that we are evolving to a higher consciousness and I do believe all humans have a spiritual core regardless of a belief in it or not. This is (admittedly) my bias and slant through personal experience and observation.

 

Convincing others that there a deeper principles involved that we all share can transform an act from "moral" to "immoral." I think the key is empathy for others.

 

Empathy drives us towards equality. If we don't stand for the other guy, they won't stand for us. If we do, let's hope there is enough empathy to go around.

 

Brilliant - reminds me of a P.O.D. lyric "So I'll trust in love". I'm hopeful in spite of/because of our history. Your words and your understanding of these things add to that hope. Almost everyone I meet really want the same things - security, love, peace of mind. Personally I believe to live and let live is the highest morality. The "do unto others" principle will eventually bring our peace.

 

 

We can also set priorities that are unique. One person may value his own life above all else, while another can value another's life more then their own (e.g. the President, a friend, wife, child, etc.). If time is allowed for someone to set priorities, a person may even decide that another's life is worth more than theirs because they have children or they are younger, etc.

 

That's the trick for me - to see the sameness and the uniqueness at the same time. To see ordered purpose and chaotic randomness simultaneously.

 

You should talk to some heroes and ask them why they did what they did. You will probably find a lot of different answers, but maybe you can eventually make sense out of them.

 

You should meanwhile read about altruism in animals. You may be surprized.

 

Thanks - I'll follow your advice on this.

[Ouroboros]

Ignorance, knowledge, Christian.

I would sort the list differently: Christian, ignorance, knowledge.

 

Zandurian,

 

I think you're an interesting person. I have a feeling you and I will talk more in time.

[zandurian]

Ignorance, knowledge, Christian.

I would sort the list differently: Christian, ignorance, knowledge.

 

Zandurian,

 

I think you're an interesting person. I have a feeling you and I will talk more in time.

 

Thanks Mr. Solo. Gotta' say I'm loving the site and the folks here. Long live the rebellion!!!!

[Shyone]

Ignorance, knowledge, Christian.

I would sort the list differently: Christian, ignorance, knowledge.

 

Zandurian,

 

I think you're an interesting person. I have a feeling you and I will talk more in time.

Your order is correct. It is an increasing order.

 

Thank you for the correction.

[Ouroboros]

Thanks Mr. Solo. Gotta' say I'm loving the site and the folks here. Long live the rebellion!!!!

And welcome to the site. I forgot to say that.

 

 

Thank you for the correction.

I thought you'd like it.

[Skankboy]

Societal norms definitely influence behavior and can help people violate their consciences or (conversely) discover areas in their consciences which lay dormant but yet certain things are (more or less) universally accepted as good or bad in all societies.

I would interested to hear what "certain things" you are referring to. I have yet to find an example of an action that hasn't been morally justified in a society at some point in human history. This to me points to their not being any kind of objective morals (other than perhaps, "do what it takes to get along as a society").

[zandurian]

Societal norms definitely influence behavior and can help people violate their consciences or (conversely) discover areas in their consciences which lay dormant but yet certain things are (more or less) universally accepted as good or bad in all societies.

I would interested to hear what "certain things" you are referring to. I have yet to find an example of an action that hasn't been morally justified in a society at some point in human history. This to me points to their not being any kind of objective morals (other than perhaps, "do what it takes to get along as a society").

 

No argument from me that awful things have been morally justified throughout history. The proof though is where we are now. For example - today slavery is illegal in every country worldwide (yes, I know it still goes on - I'm involved in fighting against human trafficking but that's another story). My point is that it is universally recognized by human governments to be immoral. Now, you may counter that civilization has forced this to be the case, but it still begs the question, why?

 

The abolition of (for example) the massive British slave trade happened in spite of it's popularity and even it's scriptural justification. Why would Christians (led by William Wilberforce) rise up against a lucrative, legal, popular and scripturally justifiable practice? If there were no moral objectivity how could this happen? I believe innate empathy is the key to objective morality. It's a simple concept - "How would you want to be treated if you were the other person".

 

Yes, we override it, fight against it and fear/greed (or whatever) causes us to lose sight of it. But I believe the concept is embedded somewhere deep in the universal psyche of human kind. Just needs a little resurrecting (spiritual enlightenment/evolution - whatever you want to call it).

[Shyone]

 

The abolition of (for example) the massive British slave trade happened in spite of it's popularity and even it's scriptural justification. Why would Christians (led by William Wilberforce) rise up against a lucrative, legal, popular and scripturally justifiable practice? If there were no moral objectivity how could this happen? I believe innate empathy is the key to objective morality. It's a simple concept - "How would you want to be treated if you were the other person".

 

Yes, we override it, fight against it and fear/greed (or whatever) causes us to lose sight of it. But I believe the concept is embedded somewhere deep in the universal psyche of human kind. Just needs a little resurrecting (spiritual enlightenment/evolution - whatever you want to call it).

The key to empathy is first to recognise that the other person is human too.

[Skankboy]

If there were no moral objectivity how could this happen? I believe innate empathy is the key to objective morality. It's a simple concept - "How would you want to be treated if you were the other person".

If there was an objective set of morals, there wouldn't have been legalized slavery to begin with. It because the morals are subjective that people and/or societies are able to change what it considered "moral" (for better or worse) as civilizations have progressed.

 

Where we are now is nice, but I'm sure a couple of hundred years from now people will be looking back at us as being "morally backwards".

[Ouroboros]

If there was an objective set of morals, there wouldn't have been legalized slavery to begin with. It because the morals are subjective that people and/or societies are able to change what it considered "moral" (for better or worse) as civilizations have progressed.

 

Where we are now is nice, but I'm sure a couple of hundred years from now people will be looking back at us as being "morally backwards".

I agree.

 

But when it comes to the word "objective" and the use of it for morals, I'd like to point out some things.

 

First of all when the word "absolute" is used, it suggests morality that are consistent, unchanging, universal, eternal, etc, while the word "objective" doesn't really suggest that at all. Objective is more like something that can be applied to a group of people without the consideration of a specific individual's unique interests. For instance, the laws against thievery are objective laws. It applies to everyone and all the time (in our current culture) without discrimination to race, religion, hair-color, personal opinion, or number of shoes in the closet.

 

So I do think objective morals exists, but not absolute. The objective morals are developed in society, from subjective influence, personal interests, majority beliefs, and much more.

 

And I do think it's possible to come up with a set of objective morals or rules which we all could agree on to be the best ones for the happiness of us all. They would be established on our opinions, but opinions based on common sense and benefits for the whole group. It's basically a pragmatic approach to an agreement for an objective morality. It's not individuals controlling what is right and wrong. A persons interest might be overridden because of the larger benefits. But in the end, we all would agree it is for the better.

 

So some morality is objective in this sense, and some is subjective (personal opinion and not agreeable with everyone), but no morality can be said to be totally absolute (it doesn't apply to flies, monkeys, lions, aliens, angels, or God, but only humans and for our specific contemporary framework of understanding the world).

[Shyone]

 

So some morality is objective in this sense, and some is subjective (personal opinion and not agreeable with everyone), but no morality can be said to be totally absolute (it doesn't apply to flies, monkeys, lions, aliens, angels, or God, but only humans and for our specific contemporary framework of understanding the world).

I think that any morality that is "one size fits all" has the potential to be unjust, and even "objective" moral standards are subject to change.

 

Robin Hood exemplifies that when there is great disparity of wealth and accompanying oppression, extralegal means of rectifying the situation may be appropriate.

 

Rebellion involves killing. To the power holders, it is murder, but to the rebels it is heroism. This is true whether the cause for the rebellion is just or not.

 

"Rape" is perhaps an objectively bad thing, or "universally" bad thing, but even then definitions have changed. A man could, at one time "rape" his wife with impunity, but society's morals have changed and laws changed.

 

Hence the circumstances and consensus of the society determine "objective" morality by defining it in law. AS morality changes, laws change.

[Ouroboros]

I think that any morality that is "one size fits all" has the potential to be unjust, and even "objective" moral standards are subject to change.

Of course they can change.

 

The view I'm presenting is that "objective" can be seen on different levels. It's not objective in the sense of all humans, all the time, created by some eternal force, but objective in the local sphere.

 

An objective rule can be considered as a rule which applies to multiple persons simultaneous. It's a rule which is accepted by the group as applicable to all.

 

Robin Hood exemplifies that when there is great disparity of wealth and accompanying oppression, extralegal means of rectifying the situation may be appropriate.

Sure. The rules change.

 

Rebellion involves killing. To the power holders, it is murder, but to the rebels it is heroism. This is true whether the cause for the rebellion is just or not.

Right.

 

"Rape" is perhaps an objectively bad thing, or "universally" bad thing, but even then definitions have changed. A man could, at one time "rape" his wife with impunity, but society's morals have changed and laws changed.

Agree. The definition has changed, and so has the objective rule of the law.

 

I differentiate between "absolute" (always a certain way) and "objective" (applicable to all regardless of individual desires).

 

Hence the circumstances and consensus of the society determine "objective" morality by defining it in law. AS morality changes, laws change.

Right. The laws represent (or legalize) the objective view of certain mores and values. It sets it in stone, in a way. The law doesn't change fast, and it stays fairly the same between one judge to the next, so the law isn't applied solely on the judges subjective view.

[Skankboy]

So some morality is objective in this sense, and some is subjective (personal opinion and not agreeable with everyone), but no morality can be said to be totally absolute (it doesn't apply to flies, monkeys, lions, aliens, angels, or God, but only humans and for our specific contemporary framework of understanding the world).

I see where you're coming from Han. I guess I was using "objective" in the sense of "pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality." [Dictionary.com]

 

I guess it's the "exisiting independent of thought" that has always been the key difference between subjective and objective (for me).

 

Subjective items exist only in our minds and have no independent existence in reality.

 

But like I said, I see where you're coming from. Using "absolute" as opposed to "objective" is probably less confusing for most.