[IBU]

This thread is for the discussion of the validity of claims of good and evil (are they subjective or objective). And for what reasons would you claim that such claims (moral ones) are objective or subjective.

Please use this thread for discussion of such issues.

Thank You


This will be trashed at 1000 posts, and new one created in all likelihood.

[Purgatory]

Good and Evil are just words we use as to identifying a person, place, object, or idea for something that is moral or wrong, just or tainted.

As an example, let's use Biblical figures. The majority of people that the whole Jesus Christ and God are supposedly good because of Jesus performing miracles such as curing a man's blindness, walking on water and then have either Peter, Paul or Luke hold his hand as they were able to walk on water, turning water into wine, etc.

Now for the antagonist, the Devil himself, AKA Satan, who is symbolized as his horned beast who conquers this fire and brimstone like place, whilst the torturing of many people take place. He is seen as a force to be reckoned with since he tried to take God's throne back when he was Lucifer, the angel of vanity. Now vanity was something He hated, and when Lucifer tried to claim God's throne, and his power, he was sent out of Heaven to his own little dominion.

However, there are people who have reverse points of view on these two figures. Some claim that God, for taking a man's life from him (to prove that said man was still faithful to Him), was not the benevolent force that we are taught to believe.

To veer from Biblical subjects, let's say someone was to steal food from a market, but was stopped. People view the criminal as "evil" for enacting the crime whilst depicting one who had stopped him as "good". However, this is but one side of a story. Now what if I were to say that person could not be able to afford said good, and his only way to live was to steal? What if he had to assist in providing for his family? Would people be so close-minded as to still call him a thief?

In my personal take on this, "good" and "evil" are just what people are taught to be two forces that collide with one another. To me, philosophically speaking, they are just perspectives that people have, their own beliefs to use for symbolizing people, things, etc., etc.

Also, as a suggestion to the OP, perhaps you could also add an extra question of something along the lines of:

If one were to collapse, would it be possible for there to only be completely "good" or "evil"?

[impersonal]

Good and Evil are subjective. They're whatever you want them to be.

(also they're absolute)
(and you can't decide what you want, as explained by schopi)
(so basically they're about as real as you can get, despite being "subjective"...much like many other things.)

[Jon Snow]

"There is no good and evil, but thinking makes it so"

[Coteaz]

Rats are evil because they bite me and give me nasty diseases.

[dreams lie]

Originally Posted by Coteaz

Rats are evil because they bite me and give me nasty diseases.

However, one may declare you to be evil for killing them.

[Luiz]

Now what if I were to say that person could not be able to afford said good, and his only way to live was to steal? What if he had to assist in providing for his family? Would people be so close-minded as to still call him a thief?

That's the problem about it. It rarely is the only option. I've watched some news about a homeless man who used to visit a public library and study a lot,and in a certain day,he took the exams and was approved. And there are many people who sells something in the street to live. You see?

[Coteaz]

Originally Posted by dreams lie

However, one may declare you to be evil for killing them.

Then I declare all those who declare me to be evil to be evil themselves.

...
Are the rats evil for biting me? Or am I evil for provoking a situation that ends in a rat biting me?

In other words, subjectivity at its finest.

[Takuza]

"There is no objective morality"
The above statement cannot be true because it in and of itself claims to be an an objective statement.

Discuss

[Jello Biafra]

Originally Posted by Takuza

"There is no objective morality"
The above statement cannot be true because it in and of itself claims to be an an objective statement.

Discuss

There is no paradox. The above is not a moral claim, thus within the context of it's own terms it is possible to make such a claim.

[Zephos]

I herald this the shortest debate on Narutofan.

[Jello Biafra]

Originally Posted by Zephos

I herald this the shortest debate on Narutofan.

Someone else will post. Just watch.

[Takuza]

Originally Posted by Zephos

I herald this the shortest debate on Narutofan.

It wasn't really meant to be a debate, which is why I placed it in the philosophical section

[Zephos]

Originally Posted by Takuza

It wasn't really meant to be a debate, which is why I placed it in the philosophical section

Which is a debate forum for philosophical/metaphysical things.

[Takuza]

Originally Posted by Zephos

Which is a debate forum for philosophical/metaphysical things.

Oh, I was under the impression that this is a discussion forum. My apologies.

[abstract]

morality =/= a statement

[Masa Escobar]

Originally Posted by Sif

There is no paradox. The above is not a moral claim, thus within the context of it's own terms it is possible to make such a claim.

True.

However, the basis of moral relativity states/implies that there are no absolute truths. Is this not a paradox in itself?

[Jello Biafra]

Originally Posted by Masanari

True.

However, the basis of moral relativity states/implies that there are no absolute truths. Is this not a paradox in itself?

Not necessarily. Moral relativism merely states that there are no absolute moral truths. Such a statement is not a moral claim.

[Masa Escobar]

I am not disagreeing with you, I am just trying to fully understand.

Ok a moral defines what is right or wrong. In a jist, the statement is not right or wrong, rather, depends on its relativity to the person. No?

[Jello Biafra]

Originally Posted by Masanari

I am not disagreeing with you, I am just trying to fully understand.

Ok a moral defines what is right or wrong. In a jist, the statement is not right or wrong, rather, depends on its relativity to the person. No?

Basically. A moral defines truth while a statement defines fact.