Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Self-DevelopmentValuesOn Good and Evil

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

On Good and Evil

#11 · July 31, 2023, 6:42 pm

Quote from John Freeman on July 31, 2023, 6:42 pm
Hello DGX37,
thanks for your answer. In some threads it is bound to have disagreement. Especially in threads about philosophy which end up oftentimes being about values and beliefs. Expressing our opinions, not trying to be right and doing our best to be logic if not fact-based is what we can do best to avoid the values/beliefs territory I think. Because in the end these are subjective and personal so there can be no conversation about "does God exist" as it's unknowable. So it can only be a belief. But some topics are knowable. However, sometimes we can dissect a belief, remove some subjective and add some objective. I'm talking generally to express what I think about how to navigate these topics. That's how I do my best to approach them anyway.
I will answer only to your answer to my post. In this particular situation it seems we are 2 people sharing the same opinion. So one can feel as people are ganging on him. It’s not the case and I would not like you to to feel like that. It’s an exchange of ideas. Really. That is all. To me the goal is to learn from one another. Not to make someone change their minds nor to win. That being said I'll answer below.
Quote from DGX37 on July 31, 2023, 4:52 pm
Quote from John Freeman on July 31, 2023, 8:34 am
I want to add more details. What I mean is that absolute relativism in morality does not make really sense to me. I'll give an example: someone kills a baby which is a close parent. In absolute relativism no one could say if it's good or bad. Maybe it's good for the planet as one less human is there? Maybe this baby would have done harm? In the grand scheme of things of the universe, maybe it was for the better in 1000 years in another Galaxy? So it becomes undecidable.
I get what you're saying. Absolute relativism makes concept of good and bad useless, because if nothing is really good or evil, there are problems with deciding what should be done and what should not be done, choosing the right decision.
Yes that is exactly what I mean.
So that's why there is desire to make a decision objectively right or objectively wrong, so people know what to do. That's how I understand what you're saying.
I don't think there is a desire to make objective decisions. People have their self-interest first. So they will do what benefits them the most in many cases. Some people do their best to make objective decisions but also because it's in their interests: better quality decisions or due to their professions (as a doctor I'm expected to make decisions as objective as possible grossly speaking). What I mean is that ethics is a field which has the alleged goal of making moral decisions based on rationality. In ethics what I learned is that it's always a "weighing of interest": do the 1 innocent people lives matter more than the lives of 10 criminals? I don't know the answer I just made up this ethical dilemma. Ethics poses this as a solvable problem. It does not mean that it has one unique solution but that there is one or more preferable answer that can guide our behaviour. So most people don't think that hard because it's an effort. See below my argument with children.
But there's a problem with that, ultimately what is good is what people decide is good. "human faces" it's not a good example, nobody cares about privilege of shitting on someone else's bed, so nobody talks about it. But looking at history, people treating others like slaves during slavery, or mass slaughtering them in case of nazis, if you think you are superior to kill a person without feeling guilty, would that person find shitting on someone's bed "not ok"?
I'm not talking about "thinking . I agree with you: moral standards change with time and culture. I'm not debating that. That's why in my last post I wrote:
"Outside of the philosophical conversation and on a practical note: I think the most important thing is to have a personal moral code that fits (as well as possible) the culture we live in and stick to it as much as possible."
What I mean is that I'm quite sure there are certain things that most of us on the planet agree on. I travelled a bit and what I noticed is that people are people. Laughing, crying, giving birth, anger, etc. are universal human experiences. So is feeling hurt, betrayed, etc. Having more resources in Kenya is the same as having more resources in the USA. Yes you will share more with your family in Kenya probably but it's the same: you will have more possibilities than if you would not have.
So based on my humble knowledge experience, there are human universals. It goes back to the "blank slate" argument (listening to the book currently) so it is 2 different views on humans. And I do not think that culture is everything (apparently nor does the author but I'm not finished with the book and it's his research I'm sure there are contradictory arguments as well. So not using the authority argument here. Rather saying that it's an opinion that is not only mine.). I'm also not talking about the boy who got raised by Wolves. So we could say human cultural universals. At a young age (around 2) children learn that others can feel like they feel. So that's when they can be aware of "evil" as Lucio defined it (I think it's a better definition than mine, that's why I'm referencing it not using the authority argument).
So they understand that other human beings hurt like they hurt. So if they hurt them it also means that they're ok with being hurt in regard, which they don't. Later we develop our empathy so we feel hurt when other hurt (listening to the scream of a mother whose child just died makes us all feel uneasy, screams of pains the same). So we can feel a bit what others feel even if we're not the one who's been hurt. We are wired with mirror neurons. Here I'm also not talking about exceptions: psychopaths, etc.
When you go with your definition of evil in a more relevant case, for example hunting animals. One will say it's absolutely bad, another person will say there's nothing wrong with it. In this case idea of "evil" or "good" is just unhelpful, because it's really just imposing someone's definition of "good" on somone else, often then rationalizing why it's okay to hate on them because they are "evildoers".
I see your point. To me, most people don't think very hard (not talking about you here). So they go with what they feel. If we dissect this idea just a bit (has many ramifications) then we hurt animals for our own interest. It's evil to the animal and good to us. It's a win-lose scenario. In this case when we weigh the interests (ethics) we make ours prevails. So embedded in that is that human interests are superiors to other species interests. This is where we go in the belief territory. No one objectively know that our interest is superior. Hence the animalist vs specist debate. However, our whole planet is structured with this idea. It might change but so far that is what is thought about. Also, we are revisiting this idea of giving animals' interest more weight. However, I think it's foolish to think that being a superior (in the sense of that we dominate the planet) species we will one day be equal to cats, dogs and cows. What does it mean anyway? Cats and dogs voting? Cats and dogs not being in households but roaming free? (not trying to be cheeky but trying to imagine what it entails I know just a small percentage of people would think they can vote)
That's another argument I often have: we are first and foremost an animal species. We are an environment-transforming species. It's not that we are bad. It's what we do. Just like dogs bark. We change our environment to suit us. We build houses, make tools, etc. There's nothing bad in that: it's our nature. There was the myth of the "good savage" from Rousseau: in the natural state we are good and equals. It's been disproven. Small tribes are as aggressive if not more than urban people. To me it's totally ok. I don't think we are angels on Earth. In the first degree analysis we are imperfect animals with a superior ability to think and self-organize.
However, using ethics we can see that we can be less harmful to other species: eating less meat, polluting less, etc. So we can lessen the evil done. So that is a rational argument to do so. If we can lose just a little bit of pleasure to lessen a lot suffering then it's rational to do it.
This is where we go in the grey area: it's not absolutely good or bad to hunt. People who try to see it this way are being overly simplistic and then we cannot analyze the issue.
And to rational person, deciding people worth based on opinions is very bad, deciding what is "good" and then saying, those that don't adhere to it are "bad".
It's a great tool to create conflict or get the masses on your sides and hurt the other side. It's an amazing political tool but in reality, there's no such thing as "good" and "evil", it's not even talking about gray areas, it's just not real.
I never said this. This is about judging people. I talked about the concept that they exist. Again, many people like to do this because it makes them feel superior. In my analysis of the norwegian deputee I never said he was good or bad. What I think is that his behaviour is taking value from someone else. In this case, the store.
So to be clear, I don't want to talk for TPM. What I want to express is that what I noticed on this forum we do our best to move from common conceptions which are often off. We are seeking to know what is true and practical. Labeling people "good" or "bad" accomplishes neither. Actually, Lucio wrote a post on labels recently. We cannot avoid labels as all the words we use are labels. However, some labels are more useful than others to the point that some labels are harmful. Harmful to thinking and knowing what is real.
In some countries (if not many or most) people are divided in 2 camps (most of the times left/right). Yes sometimes that is our culture. We try to "be right", to "win", to "hurt the other side" (who is it really? conservatives? but which ones? all of them? and for what gain?) yes this is all brainwashing and groupthink, outgroup/ingroup thinking. I'm not trying to demean any country. What I mean is that no matter the country it's a trap we would be most careful to not fall into.
So here it's not about who's right to me it's about exchanging ideas.
It's like saying, water is objectively wet because I think wet is one of the properties of water and somene else can say, "well, it's not wet because according to my definition wet is something that is surrounded by water". This is not useful because being wet is losely defined, good and evil is also just an idea, it's not something grounded in reality like gravity or electricity, it's based on opinions, culture and feelings.
What you say is correct: if people are fighting on definitions then it's a lost cause. We would be talking about 2 different things. Lucio defined evil so now we can talk about it. We can disagree on the definition as well. That is more the case of you propose here: people not agreeing on the definition. So yes you're right we cannot have a conversation about a topic if 2 people have different definitions. If one is talking about love as in maternal love and the other is talking about love as romantic love then there will be misunderstandings.
To me the usefulness of a definition/concept/idea is how it can be applied. If I cannot use good or evil to guide my life then they are useless concepts. Since I do they are useful. Again not labeling anyone.
Actually I'm quite sure you do use them as well. Otherwise my deduction is that you only do what you do because of fear of external punishment or external reward. I'm quite skeptical you do. Maybe you don't use these words. However I'm quite sure you feel shame and guilt. So you know when you hurt someone. Of that I'm quite sure. I think you do have empathy. Then forcibly you do your best not to hurt people because it hurts you to do so on an emotional level. I respect that you don't like to call it "good" or "evil". Many times people who think like that is because of religious upbringing/environment they rebelled against. Or because of cultural environment using these labels for manipulation (as in your example) they rebelled against. That is based on my experience I don't know your specific case. It's not because people have abused these words and concepts that they're not real. Just like love. People have abused the concept of love for centuries. Still, Love is real and we intuitively know what it is. We can debate it, dissect it but I don't think people will start to say that love is a cultural concept and has no base in reality. Same for good and evil.
I will be self-critical with my first argument. I think where the limits of "good" and "bad" are is in 2nd, 3rd of nth degree effects. That is the consequences of an act. Or the consequences of the consequences of an act. You see where I'm going.
Something that might have been labeled a "bad action" can have positive unforeseen consequences. Let's say in my case my childhood environment pushed me to self-development and probably I would have gone so far if not for this. Maybe I would have been better for it we cannot know. The thing is that sometimes something that might seem bad can actually be good.
Pushing a child so he does not get runover by a car and he broke his arm. We did evil to do good.
However, this argument also falls. Because we intended good in the first place. There is this French saying: "Hell is cobbled with good intentions". That is when someone has good intentions and end up hurting people. I don't like it because well, that's all we have! If we don't intend to do good (add value, etc.) what do we have left? Not much. So I think that this sentence actually warns us that despite our best effort we can still be harmful and be ok with it.

Hello DGX37,

thanks for your answer. In some threads it is bound to have disagreement. Especially in threads about philosophy which end up oftentimes being about values and beliefs. Expressing our opinions, not trying to be right and doing our best to be logic if not fact-based is what we can do best to avoid the values/beliefs territory I think. Because in the end these are subjective and personal so there can be no conversation about "does God exist" as it's unknowable. So it can only be a belief. But some topics are knowable. However, sometimes we can dissect a belief, remove some subjective and add some objective. I'm talking generally to express what I think about how to navigate these topics. That's how I do my best to approach them anyway.

I will answer only to your answer to my post. In this particular situation it seems we are 2 people sharing the same opinion. So one can feel as people are ganging on him. It’s not the case and I would not like you to to feel like that. It’s an exchange of ideas. Really. That is all. To me the goal is to learn from one another. Not to make someone change their minds nor to win. That being said I'll answer below.

Quote from DGX37 on July 31, 2023, 4:52 pm
Quote from John Freeman on July 31, 2023, 8:34 am
I want to add more details. What I mean is that absolute relativism in morality does not make really sense to me. I'll give an example: someone kills a baby which is a close parent. In absolute relativism no one could say if it's good or bad. Maybe it's good for the planet as one less human is there? Maybe this baby would have done harm? In the grand scheme of things of the universe, maybe it was for the better in 1000 years in another Galaxy? So it becomes undecidable.
I get what you're saying. Absolute relativism makes concept of good and bad useless, because if nothing is really good or evil, there are problems with deciding what should be done and what should not be done, choosing the right decision.

Yes that is exactly what I mean.

So that's why there is desire to make a decision objectively right or objectively wrong, so people know what to do. That's how I understand what you're saying.

I don't think there is a desire to make objective decisions. People have their self-interest first. So they will do what benefits them the most in many cases. Some people do their best to make objective decisions but also because it's in their interests: better quality decisions or due to their professions (as a doctor I'm expected to make decisions as objective as possible grossly speaking). What I mean is that ethics is a field which has the alleged goal of making moral decisions based on rationality. In ethics what I learned is that it's always a "weighing of interest": do the 1 innocent people lives matter more than the lives of 10 criminals? I don't know the answer I just made up this ethical dilemma. Ethics poses this as a solvable problem. It does not mean that it has one unique solution but that there is one or more preferable answer that can guide our behaviour. So most people don't think that hard because it's an effort. See below my argument with children.

But there's a problem with that, ultimately what is good is what people decide is good. "human faces" it's not a good example, nobody cares about privilege of shitting on someone else's bed, so nobody talks about it. But looking at history, people treating others like slaves during slavery, or mass slaughtering them in case of nazis, if you think you are superior to kill a person without feeling guilty, would that person find shitting on someone's bed "not ok"?

I'm not talking about "thinking . I agree with you: moral standards change with time and culture. I'm not debating that. That's why in my last post I wrote:

"Outside of the philosophical conversation and on a practical note: I think the most important thing is to have a personal moral code that fits (as well as possible) the culture we live in and stick to it as much as possible."

What I mean is that I'm quite sure there are certain things that most of us on the planet agree on. I travelled a bit and what I noticed is that people are people. Laughing, crying, giving birth, anger, etc. are universal human experiences. So is feeling hurt, betrayed, etc. Having more resources in Kenya is the same as having more resources in the USA. Yes you will share more with your family in Kenya probably but it's the same: you will have more possibilities than if you would not have.

So based on my humble knowledge experience, there are human universals. It goes back to the "blank slate" argument (listening to the book currently) so it is 2 different views on humans. And I do not think that culture is everything (apparently nor does the author but I'm not finished with the book and it's his research I'm sure there are contradictory arguments as well. So not using the authority argument here. Rather saying that it's an opinion that is not only mine.). I'm also not talking about the boy who got raised by Wolves. So we could say human cultural universals. At a young age (around 2) children learn that others can feel like they feel. So that's when they can be aware of "evil" as Lucio defined it (I think it's a better definition than mine, that's why I'm referencing it not using the authority argument).

So they understand that other human beings hurt like they hurt. So if they hurt them it also means that they're ok with being hurt in regard, which they don't. Later we develop our empathy so we feel hurt when other hurt (listening to the scream of a mother whose child just died makes us all feel uneasy, screams of pains the same). So we can feel a bit what others feel even if we're not the one who's been hurt. We are wired with mirror neurons. Here I'm also not talking about exceptions: psychopaths, etc.

When you go with your definition of evil in a more relevant case, for example hunting animals. One will say it's absolutely bad, another person will say there's nothing wrong with it. In this case idea of "evil" or "good" is just unhelpful, because it's really just imposing someone's definition of "good" on somone else, often then rationalizing why it's okay to hate on them because they are "evildoers".

I see your point. To me, most people don't think very hard (not talking about you here). So they go with what they feel. If we dissect this idea just a bit (has many ramifications) then we hurt animals for our own interest. It's evil to the animal and good to us. It's a win-lose scenario. In this case when we weigh the interests (ethics) we make ours prevails. So embedded in that is that human interests are superiors to other species interests. This is where we go in the belief territory. No one objectively know that our interest is superior. Hence the animalist vs specist debate. However, our whole planet is structured with this idea. It might change but so far that is what is thought about. Also, we are revisiting this idea of giving animals' interest more weight. However, I think it's foolish to think that being a superior (in the sense of that we dominate the planet) species we will one day be equal to cats, dogs and cows. What does it mean anyway? Cats and dogs voting? Cats and dogs not being in households but roaming free? (not trying to be cheeky but trying to imagine what it entails I know just a small percentage of people would think they can vote)

That's another argument I often have: we are first and foremost an animal species. We are an environment-transforming species. It's not that we are bad. It's what we do. Just like dogs bark. We change our environment to suit us. We build houses, make tools, etc. There's nothing bad in that: it's our nature. There was the myth of the "good savage" from Rousseau: in the natural state we are good and equals. It's been disproven. Small tribes are as aggressive if not more than urban people. To me it's totally ok. I don't think we are angels on Earth. In the first degree analysis we are imperfect animals with a superior ability to think and self-organize.

However, using ethics we can see that we can be less harmful to other species: eating less meat, polluting less, etc. So we can lessen the evil done. So that is a rational argument to do so. If we can lose just a little bit of pleasure to lessen a lot suffering then it's rational to do it.

This is where we go in the grey area: it's not absolutely good or bad to hunt. People who try to see it this way are being overly simplistic and then we cannot analyze the issue.

And to rational person, deciding people worth based on opinions is very bad, deciding what is "good" and then saying, those that don't adhere to it are "bad".
It's a great tool to create conflict or get the masses on your sides and hurt the other side. It's an amazing political tool but in reality, there's no such thing as "good" and "evil", it's not even talking about gray areas, it's just not real.

I never said this. This is about judging people. I talked about the concept that they exist. Again, many people like to do this because it makes them feel superior. In my analysis of the norwegian deputee I never said he was good or bad. What I think is that his behaviour is taking value from someone else. In this case, the store.

So to be clear, I don't want to talk for TPM. What I want to express is that what I noticed on this forum we do our best to move from common conceptions which are often off. We are seeking to know what is true and practical. Labeling people "good" or "bad" accomplishes neither. Actually, Lucio wrote a post on labels recently. We cannot avoid labels as all the words we use are labels. However, some labels are more useful than others to the point that some labels are harmful. Harmful to thinking and knowing what is real.

In some countries (if not many or most) people are divided in 2 camps (most of the times left/right). Yes sometimes that is our culture. We try to "be right", to "win", to "hurt the other side" (who is it really? conservatives? but which ones? all of them? and for what gain?) yes this is all brainwashing and groupthink, outgroup/ingroup thinking. I'm not trying to demean any country. What I mean is that no matter the country it's a trap we would be most careful to not fall into.

So here it's not about who's right to me it's about exchanging ideas.

It's like saying, water is objectively wet because I think wet is one of the properties of water and somene else can say, "well, it's not wet because according to my definition wet is something that is surrounded by water". This is not useful because being wet is losely defined, good and evil is also just an idea, it's not something grounded in reality like gravity or electricity, it's based on opinions, culture and feelings.

What you say is correct: if people are fighting on definitions then it's a lost cause. We would be talking about 2 different things. Lucio defined evil so now we can talk about it. We can disagree on the definition as well. That is more the case of you propose here: people not agreeing on the definition. So yes you're right we cannot have a conversation about a topic if 2 people have different definitions. If one is talking about love as in maternal love and the other is talking about love as romantic love then there will be misunderstandings.

To me the usefulness of a definition/concept/idea is how it can be applied. If I cannot use good or evil to guide my life then they are useless concepts. Since I do they are useful. Again not labeling anyone.

Actually I'm quite sure you do use them as well. Otherwise my deduction is that you only do what you do because of fear of external punishment or external reward. I'm quite skeptical you do. Maybe you don't use these words. However I'm quite sure you feel shame and guilt. So you know when you hurt someone. Of that I'm quite sure. I think you do have empathy. Then forcibly you do your best not to hurt people because it hurts you to do so on an emotional level. I respect that you don't like to call it "good" or "evil". Many times people who think like that is because of religious upbringing/environment they rebelled against. Or because of cultural environment using these labels for manipulation (as in your example) they rebelled against. That is based on my experience I don't know your specific case. It's not because people have abused these words and concepts that they're not real. Just like love. People have abused the concept of love for centuries. Still, Love is real and we intuitively know what it is. We can debate it, dissect it but I don't think people will start to say that love is a cultural concept and has no base in reality. Same for good and evil.

I will be self-critical with my first argument. I think where the limits of "good" and "bad" are is in 2nd, 3rd of nth degree effects. That is the consequences of an act. Or the consequences of the consequences of an act. You see where I'm going.

Something that might have been labeled a "bad action" can have positive unforeseen consequences. Let's say in my case my childhood environment pushed me to self-development and probably I would have gone so far if not for this. Maybe I would have been better for it we cannot know. The thing is that sometimes something that might seem bad can actually be good.

Pushing a child so he does not get runover by a car and he broke his arm. We did evil to do good.

However, this argument also falls. Because we intended good in the first place. There is this French saying: "Hell is cobbled with good intentions". That is when someone has good intentions and end up hurting people. I don't like it because well, that's all we have! If we don't intend to do good (add value, etc.) what do we have left? Not much. So I think that this sentence actually warns us that despite our best effort we can still be harmful and be ok with it.

Gguwad has reacted to this post.

#12 · July 31, 2023, 7:43 pm

Quote from John Freeman on July 31, 2023, 7:43 pm
Off-topic
And I see the risk of that angle being misunderstood as "immature", self-serving (as in "look at me, I'm a good guy!" or "I get to feel good if I say I'm good"), naive, and similar.
I agree with this risk.
Since it's often used for virtue-signaling or manipulation (religion, etc.) as DGX37 noted. Same with other labels we use here "eagle", "high-quality", etc. That's why I think they're most useful as guideposts for ourselves. Otherwise there is the risk of deviance to be used: "I'm an eagle you're not an eagle", etc. Just like with "good christians/muslims, etc.".
I do believe that yes it's the demographic though as imperfect as these labels are. So maybe something that could be useful is simply to use your definitions in the marketing:
"At TPM, we serve first and foremost people who have been too nice, too submissive or too agreeable. These people have the honourable intention to be "good people" and add value to their lives and other's. However, there is evil in the World. We define evil as:
making others or the world worse off as a pattern of behavior (rather than one-off)
not feeling bad about making others worse off or feeling good about it
preferring win-lose to win-win even when win-win is preferrable
to have no interest or preference in adding value, and potentially to prefer taking without giving
This definition is not exhaustive. Also when we talk about "good people", we're not talking about:
Virtue-signaling: advertising their virtue to gain status
Using value-adding values to manipulate people so they get what they want.
In Summary using "goodness" for their own benefit.
Something along these lines. As a caveat. Then you could reference to it when people are in doubt on the forum.
/Off-topic
their own hyper-relativism set them up for abuse.
Yep definitely something that manipulators do: "is this really bad to do this? and what is good and evil anyway? [goes on to manipulate the person trying to not fall into absolutes]"

Off-topic

And I see the risk of that angle being misunderstood as "immature", self-serving (as in "look at me, I'm a good guy!" or "I get to feel good if I say I'm good"), naive, and similar.

I agree with this risk.

Since it's often used for virtue-signaling or manipulation (religion, etc.) as DGX37 noted. Same with other labels we use here "eagle", "high-quality", etc. That's why I think they're most useful as guideposts for ourselves. Otherwise there is the risk of deviance to be used: "I'm an eagle you're not an eagle", etc. Just like with "good christians/muslims, etc.".

I do believe that yes it's the demographic though as imperfect as these labels are. So maybe something that could be useful is simply to use your definitions in the marketing:

"At TPM, we serve first and foremost people who have been too nice, too submissive or too agreeable. These people have the honourable intention to be "good people" and add value to their lives and other's. However, there is evil in the World. We define evil as:
making others or the world worse off as a pattern of behavior (rather than one-off)
not feeling bad about making others worse off or feeling good about it
preferring win-lose to win-win even when win-win is preferrable
to have no interest or preference in adding value, and potentially to prefer taking without giving
This definition is not exhaustive. Also when we talk about "good people", we're not talking about:
Virtue-signaling: advertising their virtue to gain status
Using value-adding values to manipulate people so they get what they want.
In Summary using "goodness" for their own benefit.

Something along these lines. As a caveat. Then you could reference to it when people are in doubt on the forum.

/Off-topic

their own hyper-relativism set them up for abuse.

Yep definitely something that manipulators do: "is this really bad to do this? and what is good and evil anyway? [goes on to manipulate the person trying to not fall into absolutes]"

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#13 · August 2, 2023, 8:05 am

Quote from Gguwad on August 2, 2023, 8:05 am
I thought about it and I find the idea of "dragon" helpful to compare with "morality".
And that's why I find Lucio's argument unconvincing:
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 31, 2023, 1:03 pm
Just some possible ways of defining that most people would agree with:
We define evil as:
making others or the world worse off as a pattern of behavior (rather than one-off)
not feeling bad about making others worse off or feeling good about it
preferring win-lose to win-win even when win-win is preferrable
to have no interest or preference in adding value, and potentially to prefer taking without giving
....
Once you do that, then the argument that "good/evil" don't exist falls down.
Because for a dragon, you can do the same, I define dragon as:
Giant lizard that has wings and breaths fire
And say that once I do that, argument that "dragon" doesn't exist falls down.
That already tells you that good/evil are real for the simple fact of being real in most human's minds.
Most people would agree with an idea of what dragon is, at least in our culture, but simply it existing as an idea in human's minds doesn't make it real.
As in, the definition you gave fits with an idea of "evil", just like my definition fits with the idea of "dragon". The problem is, it is what it truly is.
The real definition of dragon:
A fable that is universally seen as giant lizard with a ton of variances between humans, like how many heads does it have, how big it is, what color it has, what element does it breath of if breaths anything at all, how many wings it has, how many legs it has and etc.
And the same is with morality, the real definition of morality is:
A social construct that humans universally see as deciding if individual's action's are good for their culture and society and to their fellow humans, created by culture which needs strong rules for it to not collapse and by evolution which selected those that found it repulsing to cause unnecessary or selfish harm on other humans as others would resent it and throw them out of their group resulting in death from starvation or becoming prey to other animals. It has ton of variances between humans, depending on time, culture, society's goals and survival needs of individual.
Now, people have no problem with admitting that dragon is not real, because it doesn't change the way we live, the morality on the other hand, it's beneficial to society to assume it's true, as it exists in reality and that's why I find the way you address it confusing:
Quote from John Freeman on July 31, 2023, 8:34 am
So when we think like that we're unable to use such labels as good and evil and therefore to decide. I'm not talking about judging other people. I'm talking about having an idea as clear as possible to oneself: "is that a desirable outcome/behaviour?". And be able to say yes or no (for oneself). I'm not talking about moral dilemmas: here we're all in there.
In the grand scheme of things of course no one knows.
Because the last paragraph sounds like there is an answer to the question on what is "good" or "bad". Just like there is answer to the question on what dragon is truly like. But we know there isn't, the grey areas about how dragon is like exist because dragons don't exist, and it's up to discussion on what we see them as.
The same is with morality, there is no answer to what is good and bad, because in reality morality is what we think it is, even though what you described as "human universals" is not going anywhere because there is rarely a reason for culture to disagree with "killing babies is bad" and there's rarely a reason for human individual to gain from it compared to costs of becoming an outcast ( which is why we find the idea so repulsive ).
It didn't stop certain cultures from sacrificing children to pagan Gods so even this universal value is not so universal either.
It's a topic we could talk a lot about but if we are to reach understanding and get to the bottom of it, we should focus on the main idea we think is true and we disagree on. What I want to focus on first is whether morality is real or not, leaving what that means for our lives or how people use it, or how it's helpful to us for later.
Also topics like this are topics that I respond after longer time because I find it helpful to process it, think about it and give my thoughts a day or two after.

I thought about it and I find the idea of "dragon" helpful to compare with "morality".

And that's why I find Lucio's argument unconvincing:

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on July 31, 2023, 1:03 pm
Just some possible ways of defining that most people would agree with:
We define evil as:
making others or the world worse off as a pattern of behavior (rather than one-off)
not feeling bad about making others worse off or feeling good about it
preferring win-lose to win-win even when win-win is preferrable
to have no interest or preference in adding value, and potentially to prefer taking without giving
....
Once you do that, then the argument that "good/evil" don't exist falls down.

Because for a dragon, you can do the same, I define dragon as:

Giant lizard that has wings and breaths fire

And say that once I do that, argument that "dragon" doesn't exist falls down.

That already tells you that good/evil are real for the simple fact of being real in most human's minds.

Most people would agree with an idea of what dragon is, at least in our culture, but simply it existing as an idea in human's minds doesn't make it real.

As in, the definition you gave fits with an idea of "evil", just like my definition fits with the idea of "dragon". The problem is, it is what it truly is.

The real definition of dragon:

A fable that is universally seen as giant lizard with a ton of variances between humans, like how many heads does it have, how big it is, what color it has, what element does it breath of if breaths anything at all, how many wings it has, how many legs it has and etc.

And the same is with morality, the real definition of morality is:

A social construct that humans universally see as deciding if individual's action's are good for their culture and society and to their fellow humans, created by culture which needs strong rules for it to not collapse and by evolution which selected those that found it repulsing to cause unnecessary or selfish harm on other humans as others would resent it and throw them out of their group resulting in death from starvation or becoming prey to other animals. It has ton of variances between humans, depending on time, culture, society's goals and survival needs of individual.

Now, people have no problem with admitting that dragon is not real, because it doesn't change the way we live, the morality on the other hand, it's beneficial to society to assume it's true, as it exists in reality and that's why I find the way you address it confusing:

Quote from John Freeman on July 31, 2023, 8:34 am
So when we think like that we're unable to use such labels as good and evil and therefore to decide. I'm not talking about judging other people. I'm talking about having an idea as clear as possible to oneself: "is that a desirable outcome/behaviour?". And be able to say yes or no (for oneself). I'm not talking about moral dilemmas: here we're all in there.
In the grand scheme of things of course no one knows.

Because the last paragraph sounds like there is an answer to the question on what is "good" or "bad". Just like there is answer to the question on what dragon is truly like. But we know there isn't, the grey areas about how dragon is like exist because dragons don't exist, and it's up to discussion on what we see them as.
The same is with morality, there is no answer to what is good and bad, because in reality morality is what we think it is, even though what you described as "human universals" is not going anywhere because there is rarely a reason for culture to disagree with "killing babies is bad" and there's rarely a reason for human individual to gain from it compared to costs of becoming an outcast ( which is why we find the idea so repulsive ).

It didn't stop certain cultures from sacrificing children to pagan Gods so even this universal value is not so universal either.

It's a topic we could talk a lot about but if we are to reach understanding and get to the bottom of it, we should focus on the main idea we think is true and we disagree on. What I want to focus on first is whether morality is real or not, leaving what that means for our lives or how people use it, or how it's helpful to us for later.

Also topics like this are topics that I respond after longer time because I find it helpful to process it, think about it and give my thoughts a day or two after.

#14 · August 2, 2023, 8:51 am

Hey man,

thanks for your answer. To be honest it turned into a "who's right" thing and I'm not interested in those. I'll be real with you. I understand and respect your opinion though: you think that morality is a social construct.

#15 · August 2, 2023, 11:15 am

I adressed all of the points above but probably I was not clear enough. Sometimes we try to have a conversation and it seems like we keep not understanding one another despite our best efforts. It happens. I don’t have anything more to add.

#16 · August 2, 2023, 11:26 am

DGX37, here's where your parallel falls down in my opinion:

You live as if dragons did NOT exist

You don't go out with an anti-fire suit or javelin weapons or expecting a dragon attack.

You live as if good and evil DO exist

First off, you said you prefer win-win to win-lose.

You may call that win-win, value-adding, team-work propensity or whatever.

OR...

You may call it a "good approach" as opposed to an "evil" one of win-lose and harming others.

Those are mere labels, but you still live as if good and evil are real, and you constantly make judgment calls and decisions based on that.

After all, you tell me if this is not the case.

I bed that you DO probably prefer having, say:

A girlfriend who is supportive and kind instead of one who is manipulative, aggressive, misandrist (hates men), an actual prostitute out to take as much as possible, etc. etc.
A friend who is an ally, cheers you on and wants the best of you, as opposed to one who is backstabbing, envious, pulls endless power moves, and wants you see you fail and suffer
...

It's not just you, of course.

You can see that people live based on the dichotomy good/evil all around us, in daily life.

For exampel, it's also the reason why "red flags" type of content is so popular: people seek to learn the red flags of value takers (evil).

OFF TOPIC: my guess is, we are all naturally wired to want to avoid evil types of people who are more likely to make us worse off.

THAT is the difference between good and evil.

It's not abstract and it's not philosophy.

It's very real, practical, constant, and even mundane: it's in the simple daily things.

John Freeman and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#17 · August 2, 2023, 4:53 pm

Quote from Gguwad on August 2, 2023, 4:53 pm
Quote from John Freeman on August 2, 2023, 8:51 am
Hey man,
thanks for your answer. To be honest it turned into a "who's right" thing and I'm not interested in those. I'll be real with you. I understand and respect your opinion though: you think that morality is a social construct.
Honestly I didn't see it turning into who's right, it's a shame we won't continue the discussion as this is a very interesting topic, but I understand if you don't want to.
Quote from John Freeman on August 2, 2023, 11:15 am
Sometimes we try to have a conversation and it seems like we keep not understanding one another despite our best efforts. It happens. I don’t have anything more to add.
I think I understand what you said, but didn't agree with it, and because the post was long instead of addressing every paragraph and making the post too long for anyone to care I remade my argument more concisely and regarding one point only. So we can get a fresh start, see our differences and get to bottom of why we both think differently, and hopefully see if there is something to correct in our thinking.
I adressed all of the points above but probably I was not clear enough.
My argument I think you didn't address was "Good definition we all have innate agreement of doesn't make something real.". And gave example of a a good definition of a dragon we can all agree on and why it still doesn't mean something is real, morality may still be real, but there needs to be better argument for it if we are to prove it. Not because you ignored it but because we didn't focus on it.
If you did and I missed it I would be very happy if you at least pointed me to that, after all I may be wrong and I still want to get corrected if that's the case.
The closest I saw to addressing it was that ethics exist and they can give us directions to how to act ( But it wasn't explained where do they get directions from, only that they are and they give you answers. )
Also that Good and Evil exists because I feel bad when I hurt someone, but I think it's not a good argument as it works like this only because it's beneficial feeling for survival, if the best way to go was to never help others, we would feel repulsion regarding helping them. Would that change what is wrong or bad? So I don't think feelings are enough to decide if morality exists

Quote from John Freeman on August 2, 2023, 8:51 am
Hey man,
thanks for your answer. To be honest it turned into a "who's right" thing and I'm not interested in those. I'll be real with you. I understand and respect your opinion though: you think that morality is a social construct.

Honestly I didn't see it turning into who's right, it's a shame we won't continue the discussion as this is a very interesting topic, but I understand if you don't want to.

Quote from John Freeman on August 2, 2023, 11:15 am
Sometimes we try to have a conversation and it seems like we keep not understanding one another despite our best efforts. It happens. I don’t have anything more to add.

I think I understand what you said, but didn't agree with it, and because the post was long instead of addressing every paragraph and making the post too long for anyone to care I remade my argument more concisely and regarding one point only. So we can get a fresh start, see our differences and get to bottom of why we both think differently, and hopefully see if there is something to correct in our thinking.

I adressed all of the points above but probably I was not clear enough.

My argument I think you didn't address was "Good definition we all have innate agreement of doesn't make something real.". And gave example of a a good definition of a dragon we can all agree on and why it still doesn't mean something is real, morality may still be real, but there needs to be better argument for it if we are to prove it. Not because you ignored it but because we didn't focus on it.

If you did and I missed it I would be very happy if you at least pointed me to that, after all I may be wrong and I still want to get corrected if that's the case.
The closest I saw to addressing it was that ethics exist and they can give us directions to how to act ( But it wasn't explained where do they get directions from, only that they are and they give you answers. )

Also that Good and Evil exists because I feel bad when I hurt someone, but I think it's not a good argument as it works like this only because it's beneficial feeling for survival, if the best way to go was to never help others, we would feel repulsion regarding helping them. Would that change what is wrong or bad? So I don't think feelings are enough to decide if morality exists

#18 · August 2, 2023, 5:19 pm

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 2, 2023, 11:26 am
DGX37, here's where your parallel falls down in my opinion:
You live as if dragons did NOT exist
You live as if good and evil DO exist

That is indeed the difference between two examples yet it doesn't make the parallel fall down.

That's because living as if something is real doesn't make it real.

For example people that believe in karma and people that don't live as if what they believe in is true.
And because they both believe in different things and live accordingly one of those ideas has to be fake. So one of thoes groups lives as if their idea DOES exist, even if it doesn't.

The same is if I think I will get a promotion next week, I may live and celebrate as if it was a reality. Of course that doesn't mean it IS a reality, I may very well be wrong and I have celebrated for nothing.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on August 2, 2023, 11:26 am
First off, you said you prefer win-win to win-lose.
You may call that win-win, value-adding, team-work propensity or whatever.
OR...
You may call it a "good approach" as opposed to an "evil" one of win-lose and harming others.

I prefer win-win because I see it as the most optimal way, not because it's "good". And I don't think you will find a serial murderer "good" because he gets pleasure from killing people and does the most optimal thing to get his pleasure.
It just happens I can achieve my goals best by cooperating instead of value taking.
Isn't this what Machiavellianism is about? Doing what it takes to achieve your goals, no matter the social constructs or other things created to keep us down? Isn't this what TPM is about? Showing that through cooperation we can all win? If it's not the optimal way we are just fooling ourselves and the power takers will win, but I don't think this is how it is.

#19 · August 2, 2023, 5:57 pm

Quote from DGX37 on August 2, 2023, 5:19 pm
It just happens I can achieve my goals best by cooperating instead of value taking.
Isn't this what Machiavellianism is about? Doing what it takes to achieve your goals, no matter the social constructs or other things created to keep us down? Isn't this what TPM is about? Showing that through cooperation we can all win? If it's not the optimal way we are just fooling ourselves and the power takers will win, but I don't think this is how it is.

Not really.

TPM is first and foremost what works.

And THEN adding on top the win-win, which has plenty of important benefits, but also some costs (the lesson on "being straight" in PU goes over this).

There are endless circumstances in life where one can achieve faster or bigger by being a taker / asshole / SOB / backstabbing others (or even killing others).

Otherwise, being effective / successful / a life winner and being "good" would be the same.

And if that were the case, we'd only have good leaders.

Obviously, that's not the case.

Anyway, after my previous message, I don't think there's much to add from my side to make the case that good and evil aren't social constructs but foundational real-life dichotomies that people base many of their life decisions on.

So we very much disagree on this, and that's OK.

John Freeman has reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#20 · August 2, 2023, 6:01 pm

Actually, that's what I felt like saying in my post above. Would I have been more assertive I would have said: let's agree to disagree. So room for improvement here for me.