Objective good and evil?

[Qoeleth]

It seems that good and evil do not have objective existence, aside from human perceptions and experiences.

Imagine that there were no human beings in the universe. Could any actions or event (earthquake, explosion) be then qualified as good or evil? It would seem not. In the absence of humans, good and evil would seem to be meaningless.

Taking this a step further, if there was no life at all in the universe, it would be even more evident that the qualifications of good and evil were meaningless. A star might explode, ocean might dry- but without living things, it would all seem neither good nor evil.

So, good and evil seems to depend upon the existence and experience of human beings, or at least living things of some form.

Good and evil might be quasi-objective (i.e. common to the reality of ‘all’ people), and, as a result of this, a quasi-universal morality can be validly postulated.

But good and evil cannot be ABSOLUTELY objective, since, without living things being involved, they necessarily cease to make sense.

 

[Giants]

It seems that good and evil do not have objective existence, aside from human perceptions and experiences.

Imagine that there were no human beings in the universe. Could any actions or event (earthquake, explosion) be then qualified as good or evil? It would seem not. In the absence of humans, good and evil would seem to be meaningless.

Taking this a step further, if there was no life at all in the universe, it would be even more evident that the qualifications of good and evil were meaningless. A star might explode, ocean might dry- but without living things, it would all seem neither good nor evil.

So, good and evil seems to depend upon the existence and experience of human beings, or at least living things of some form.

Good and evil might be quasi-objective (i.e. common to the reality of ‘all’ people), and, as a result of this, a quasi-universal morality can be validly postulated.

But good and evil cannot be ABSOLUTELY objective, since, without living things being involved, they necessarily cease to make sense.

This is essentially correct. For concepts like “good” and “bad” or even “evil” to make any sense, there must be a conscious system present and able to experience changes. Good and Bad would have no meaning in a Universe made up entirely of rocks - because rocks don’t have consciousness. If a rock collides with another rock and splits in half, it means nothing in terms of good and bad.

This, by the way, would be true regardless of whether God existed or not. God’s edicts about what is good and bad only matter because God is promising (or alternately, threatening) changes in our conscious experience, depending on how well we obey his rules.

Anyway, this is why we have an objective morality in the absence of God. We all agree that human flourishing is better than human suffering, and that any action or event that increases the former at the expense of the latter is Good (and vice-versa is Bad). Add to this our accumulated knowledge of the Universe and how it works, and we can make rational, reasoned judgements on what are moral choices and what are not.

This does not guarantee that we will always have a clear understanding of things. There is still much to be learned about How Things Work in the Universe, and reasonable people may intelligently disagree on certain questions of morality, even those of great consequence. Further, some moral questions (like whether or not to steal a loaf of bread) may render one verdict today under one set of circumstances, but a different one tomorrow under a separate set of circumstances.

There also tends to be a common confusion on the use of the words of “objective” and “subjective.” Morality can be ontologically subjective, while still being epistemologically objective. That is to say, the basis of morality would be objective, even if the precepts we derive from that basis can change, depending on circumstances.

 

[Christianus_Dei]

Well, regardless of whether moral laws are created by humanity or given to us by God, if we were to just disappear from the universe, they would lose their relevance to the physical world.

If one actually applies logic and philosophy to the laws themselves, good is in fact objective, but evil is just a weak reflection and perversion of it.

No, objective morality could not depend on humanity’s viewpoint on what is moral or not, since that relegates morality to a viewpoint that can change(and has changed, the culture of today has insanely different views on what is evil than the culture did centuries ago). It becomes a viewpoint of a viewpoint, not an objective law.

 

[po18guy]

Imagine that there were no human beings in the universe.

You just doomed your premise.

 

[Giants]

You just doomed your premise.

Not if you understood it his premise, and not if you treat good and evil as exclusively human concepts.

 

[Qoeleth]

You just doomed your premise.

I think it is valid to pose our non-existence as a hypothetical premise.

Don’t get me wrong- I am not arguing for ‘moral relativism’ as it is popularly understood- but rather that morality in any form is relative to the existence of living things. Indeed, this premise seems like a good starting point for a quasi-objective morality (i.e. ‘relatively objective’, insofar as it applies universally to human beings, but not ‘objectively objective’).

Indeed, even different life forms could have different moralities. For example, some species of fish eat their young, and breed with their siblings. Are such thing immoral, for that particular form of life?

 

[fred_conty]

I think what happens is that only man can be tested. In his everyday life, he is confronted with a moral challange. For example, he sees a way to steal an extra five out of the till without getting caught. Now he’s confronted and must make a decision, yes or no. This goes on thruout his day and his life, confrontations of moral decision making, which cannot be avoided. Man is a decision processor. He must make up his mind. It’s just natural to him.

Animals, and plants, don’t steal do they?

So that means that morality lies with man alone. And without him, no morality.

What’s your thought?

 

[zro_x]

I think the idea of true moral objectivity is at least worth some consideration. Under moral objectivity, morality would not exist without humans, yes, but not because humans are conscious, but rather because they have a free will. In other words, the reason why morality exists is because there are moral agents who have the ability to obey any moral law. This would mean that our actions are good and bad in and of themselves, rather than because of any consequences they bring about.

 

[fhansen]

It seems that good and evil do not have objective existence, aside from human perceptions and experiences.

Imagine that there were no human beings in the universe. Could any actions or event (earthquake, explosion) be then qualified as good or evil? It would seem not. In the absence of humans, good and evil would seem to be meaningless.

Taking this a step further, if there was no life at all in the universe, it would be even more evident that the qualifications of good and evil were meaningless. A star might explode, ocean might dry- but without living things, it would all seem neither good nor evil.

So, good and evil seems to depend upon the existence and experience of human beings, or at least living things of some form.

Good and evil might be quasi-objective (i.e. common to the reality of ‘all’ people), and, as a result of this, a quasi-universal morality can be validly postulated.

But good and evil cannot be ABSOLUTELY objective, since, without living things being involved, they necessarily cease to make sense.

Of course good and evil don’t exist-or are meaningless terms-without some kind of sentient, rational being with free wills. Because good and evil can’t exist unless they are willed. And this is why most people already intuit that natural catastrophes aren’t genuinely evil, even if they may seem to us that way at times, in the same sense that an act committed willfully and deliberately for the purpose of causing harm to another is evil.

 

[Qoeleth]

I think what happens is that only man can be tested. In his everyday life, he is confronted with a moral challange. For example, he sees a way to steal an extra five out of the till without getting caught. Now he’s confronted and must make a decision, yes or no. This goes on thruout his day and his life, confrontations of moral decision making, which cannot be avoided. Man is a decision processor. He must make up his mind. It’s just natural to him.

Animals, and plants, don’t steal do they?

So that means that morality lies with man alone. And without him, no morality.

What’s your thought?

I agree that moral values seems to rest on decision making. But I think some degree of morality might be applied to animals. I mean, if there is an acceptabel ‘human behaviour’, there could also be an acceptabel standard of behaviour for each animal species.

 

[Edward_G]

Even worse: You can’t have one without the other. Without evil, nothing is good and vice versa. So, it’s not only subjective; it’s relative. And it’s never been a hidden thing: God made Satan, allows Satan to exist, used Job in a bet with Satan on poker night in Heaven, and probably sent Satan to tempt Jesus.

When I debate atheists, they invariably want to blame God for something. What I tell them is that good is whatever God does. That’s it. God is the author of good and evil, He is not under a system of good and evil. So, it’s a pretty arbitrary thing. It’s relative. Whatever God says to do this day is what’s good today. That’s it.

That’s why, I believe, Jesus didn’t get too hung up on sin. The real sin was not believing he was the Son of God. Otherwise sin just seemed to be something people did. Easily forgiveable by God.

 

[inocente]

So, good and evil seems to depend upon the existence and experience of human beings, or at least living things of some form.

Good and evil might be quasi-objective (i.e. common to the reality of ‘all’ people), and, as a result of this, a quasi-universal morality can be validly postulated.

But good and evil cannot be ABSOLUTELY objective, since, without living things being involved, they necessarily cease to make sense.

We think men ruling over women, keeping and trading slaves, child labor and segregation by skin color are evil, while many others didn’t at one time or another over the last 300 years.

Perhaps 300 years from now people will also look back on us and think we were evil, even though we can only guess at why that might be.

The definition of evil therefore seems to hinge on our social group opinion, and I’ve seen the mouthful collective subjective used at times.

 

[fhansen]

I agree that moral values seems to rest on decision making. But I think some degree of morality might be applied to animals. I mean, if there is an acceptabel ‘human behaviour’, there could also be an acceptabel standard of behaviour for each animal species.

This is true. Everything is made with its own proper nature. The difference is that animals have no choice or say in the matter of this “morality”, or law for them; they simply “obey” Gods will without having even the ability to consider opposing it.

 

[davidv]

Even worse: You can’t have one without the other. Without evil, nothing is good and vice versa. So, it’s not only subjective; it’s relative. And it’s never been a hidden thing: God made Satan, allows Satan to exist, used Job in a bet with Satan on poker night in Heaven, and probably sent Satan to tempt Jesus.

When I debate atheists, they invariably want to blame God for something. What I tell them is that good is whatever God does. That’s it. God is the author of good and evil, He is not under a system of good and evil. So, it’s a pretty arbitrary thing. It’s relative. Whatever God says to do this day is what’s good today. That’s it.

That’s why, I believe, Jesus didn’t get too hung up on sin. The real sin was not believing he was the Son of God. Otherwise sin just seemed to be something people did. Easily forgiveable by God.

The bolded sentence above can only be true if good and evil are distinct things. In Catholic theology evil is not a distinct thing, it is the absence of the good. Good can exist fully without anything missing. Evil is not necessary to good to exist.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I agree that moral values seems to rest on decision making. But I think some degree of morality might be applied to animals. I mean, if there is an acceptabel ‘human behaviour’, there could also be an acceptabel standard of behaviour for each animal species.

Acceptable to the animals? Or some one else?

 

[zro_x]

I think it is valid to pose our non-existence as a hypothetical premise.

Don’t get me wrong- I am not arguing for ‘moral relativism’ as it is popularly understood- but rather that morality in any form is relative to the existence of living things. Indeed, this premise seems like a good starting point for a quasi-objective morality (i.e. ‘relatively objective’, insofar as it applies universally to human beings, but not ‘objectively objective’).

Indeed, even different life forms could have different moralities. For example, some species of fish eat their young, and breed with their siblings. Are such thing immoral, for that particular form of life?

No, they are not, because animals do not have immortal souls or free wills. If they did, then if moral objectivity is valid, than they would be subject to the same standards we are. If moral subjectivity is valid, than such actions would not be immoral.

 

[inocente]

I agree that moral values seems to rest on decision making. But I think some degree of morality might be applied to animals. I mean, if there is an acceptabel ‘human behaviour’, there could also be an acceptabel standard of behaviour for each animal species.

This is true. Moral behavior and moral standards have been observed in other animals for a long time.

cheating reconstruction - youtube.com/watch?v=3aGj-Y0shIs

fair play - youtube.com/watch?v=aAFQ5kUHPkY

talk by Frans de Waal with other examples - ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html

 

[Sair]

It seems that good and evil do not have objective existence, aside from human perceptions and experiences.

Imagine that there were no human beings in the universe. Could any actions or event (earthquake, explosion) be then qualified as good or evil? It would seem not. In the absence of humans, good and evil would seem to be meaningless.

Taking this a step further, if there was no life at all in the universe, it would be even more evident that the qualifications of good and evil were meaningless. A star might explode, ocean might dry- but without living things, it would all seem neither good nor evil.

So, good and evil seems to depend upon the existence and experience of human beings, or at least living things of some form.

Good and evil might be quasi-objective (i.e. common to the reality of ‘all’ people), and, as a result of this, a quasi-universal morality can be validly postulated.

But good and evil cannot be ABSOLUTELY objective, since, without living things being involved, they necessarily cease to make sense.

Good and evil are directly related to the well-being and flourishing of living beings. In so far as we are all related, there is enough common ground to establish an intersubjective basis for what we consider to be a moral framework. Much as those who insist upon ‘objective’ grounds for morality say that nothing matters if the universe is ultimately going to burn itself out, if you’re in pain - or, for that matter, enjoying any exquisitely pleasurable experience - then right then and there, it matters plenty.

I agree that there can be no absolute good and evil, since I also agree that any perception of good or evil depends upon living, subjective entities. There are, however, objective and scientifically valid grounds for considering some behaviours to be better than others, if your aim is to allow the well-being and flourishing of life.

 

[Sair]

I agree that moral values seems to rest on decision making. But I think some degree of morality might be applied to animals. I mean, if there is an acceptabel ‘human behaviour’, there could also be an acceptabel standard of behaviour for each animal species.

Certain other animal species have been observed to practise some form of ethical behaviour - primarily the social species such as chimpanzees, wolves, dolphins etc. In any social group, there are always going to be expected behaviours, always checks and balances upon what any individual is permitted to do by the group. There is no reason to think that the difference between humans and other social species is one of kind rather than merely degree.

 

[Sair]

Even worse: You can’t have one without the other. Without evil, nothing is good and vice versa. So, it’s not only subjective; it’s relative. And it’s never been a hidden thing: God made Satan, allows Satan to exist, used Job in a bet with Satan on poker night in Heaven, and probably sent Satan to tempt Jesus.

When I debate atheists, they invariably want to blame God for something. What I tell them is that good is whatever God does. That’s it. God is the author of good and evil, He is not under a system of good and evil. So, it’s a pretty arbitrary thing. It’s relative. Whatever God says to do this day is what’s good today. That’s it.

That’s why, I believe, Jesus didn’t get too hung up on sin. The real sin was not believing he was the Son of God. Otherwise sin just seemed to be something people did. Easily forgiveable by God.

Why is not believing in God the only thing that isn’t ‘relative’ in terms of morality, then? Surely if God created humans in full knowledge of their capacities, he would anticipate nonbelievers, so the creation of nonbelievers would be ‘good’, in that regard, since God knowingly did it.