Star Wars, The Dark side of the force and the Light side of the force. Absolute good means doing everything you can to help everyone around you without ever TAKING anything in return, even if it's offered. Also making sure it is good and right in all aspects from every perspective.
Absolute evil is wanting to destroy everything around you simply because you find it repulsive that their are things weaker than you. You are the top and you want to show it by ruling everyone around you.
There can be no such thing as absolute right and wrong because everyone's morals are different. You think Adolf Hitler thought he was a devious and sick man? You think he believed what he was doing was wrong and evil? It all depends on how they were raised, what their morals are, and the level of mental wellness.
Hope this helped.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is as (in)valid as it has ever been. The only difference being that today, in many societies, one can express his opinions on the subject without being put at a stake. Thinking is what makes something good or bad, it is difficult to "absolutelly" prove it either way. As for right or wrong (as in true or false), there may be absolutes but can a human be absolutelly sure about something?
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't misunderstand me, but they are right in their way. Right and wrong, good and evil are absolutes. And absolutes are very relative in almost every case.
I mean even today in this moment most people would agree that it is alright to kill people under certain circumstances (self defence might struck as an easy example). Or the death penalty. Or wars. Or abortion, if you have a certain position.
Morality is relative. It is determined by society, but societies chance and so do morals.
Comment has been collapsed.
The OP mentioned "absolute". There are several ways one can support that killing others is not correct (I generally agree it isn't correct). One can also claim that killing others is right, in fact there are many examples of this. These are different ways of thinking, different ideologies (or lunatics if you will). One can judge them based on their own beliefs and the outcomes of such idealogies. In many cases one can (almost?) objectivelly conclude that some beliefs or practices are harmful to society but even then it is difficult to call it "absolutelly" good/bad (or did you mean true/false?). Many ideologies have been held to be absolutelly correct in the past yet now their are not, in some cases they are now even viewed as absolutelly wrong. I think it is very arrogant to claim that something is absolute. People who do so are often so fanatical about their beliefs that they are actually blind.
Comment has been collapsed.
One of the most infamous examples would be Hitler and World War II. Hitler believed that the people he was ordering killed were no better than animals using up the resources his master race needed. And yet many people say the holocaust was evil. (What are your views?)
However, by your reasoning, no one should say the Holocaust was evil because Hitler just had a different view and it would be arrogant to claim he, or his actions, were evil, else they are fanatics.
Would you agree, or am I not understanding you?
Comment has been collapsed.
You missed the "absolute" part. Yes, Hitler is an easy example that comes to mind. I do not think the holocaust was good. It was horrible for the targeted groups and I would guess it ultimatelly wasn't beneficial to Germany, or the rest of the world, but I am no historian or a seer so others would have a better founded opinion on this. Anyone can say the Holocaust was good, as few do, and anyone can say the Holocaust was evil, as most do. It is not a question of whether they should or shouldn't say it was evil (thought one might do either depending on what they believe or want to achieve). There is no arrogance in saying that you view something as evil or good (harmful or beneficial would make better terms), especially if you can justify your view not by using someone else's words but by logic, understanding the processes involved and using historic examples/solid evidence. There would, however, be arrogance in claiming something is "absolutelly" evil or good. To be honest though, even if I played devil's advocate I couldn't find anything to justify Hitler's goals nor his means.
Even so, arrogance and absolutes are fatal and blinding, they creates a false, simplified and unreasonable view of the world. It is simple to "wrap things up" by being absolute. That could however stop one from realizing the truth or at least exploring the possibilities. For example, you say Hitler believed he was doing good by killing "pests". Can you be sure he actually believed that? Or maybe he just did that as part of his plan. Maybe he didn't really believe they were harmful and still just killed them to further his goals. Either way his actions were monstrous. What other means did he use and how? Why did he succeed and why did he fail? What were his goals? There is value in exploring and answering such questions but that is probably not something of much interest to those who deal in absolutes. If you have an absolute answer/opinion then there is nothing to question, nothing to improve, nothing to advance. To them it is enough to know he was a genocidal, warmongering monster (of course, like I said earlier, there are also a few who view him as a hero). A lot is lost in such views.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here you go. Just randomly stumbled over this site not so long ago and I don't use it regularly.
The fact that the Austrian guy keeps appearing in discussions is pretty interesting, though. I guess people just like to use extremes, and Hitler arguably personifies some of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
You might want to use that site in small doses. It is one of the most dangerous time sinks.
It is easy to use such extremes in an arguement. The problem is that a lot of the time the arguements themselves are logical fallacies, which is perhaps why they need to rely on extremes to "prove" them. It is also a problem of white and black logic, not everything is that way yet those who bring such examples may only see it that way.
Comment has been collapsed.
The questions of "Is there absolute right and wrong? And if so, what is it?" is valid and will always be valid because the belief in it or not is just that- a belief. Therefore there really is no argument against it because people just believe it exists or not.
I would guess that most people who believe that there is absolute right and wrong would say that religion and therefore history is the source of the basis of absolute right and wrong. Cultural traditions and teachings passed down throughout the generations is the ultimate source and basis for telling people what is right and what is wrong. Most people learn these things from their families (and religious leaders) from a early age and change as they grow based on their life experiences. (Although depending on how hard their beliefs were drilled into their heads as a youngster it might not change much as they age)
Comment has been collapsed.
A person would need more info to answer that question. If the child was about to push a button that would cause nuclear war because the button was so big, red and shiny, some people would think that would be the right thing to do.
The definitions of right and wrong differs from person to person and always will.
Comment has been collapsed.
So, if someone truly believes it is right and good for him (or her) to go around and kill young children, then they can do it. You might think it is evil but its not what you think that matters. You have no say in what they believe.
Is that what you are saying?
Comment has been collapsed.
Discerning between the two is not a mechanic humans are good at. I find it interesting though that the most destructive evils out there are slightly good. For example, a lie that has a little truth to it has much more destructive potential than a complete lie that no one will believe. Fun fun!
Comment has been collapsed.
Indeed. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" E.g. Almost every architect of every genocide in the 20th Century.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is no absolute right and wrong. The one exception is asking expansive questions in an internet forum and getting other people to do your Philosophy 101 homework for you. That's absolutely, objectively, wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Bam! Nailed it! Now no one else has to post that line that they all thought about when they read the title and OP.
Comment has been collapsed.
Although that's begging the question. The concept of polarising political views as "right" & "left" is outmoded and rarely used outside the fairly simplistic realm of news media. It works so well in the U.S. and some other countries because there happen to be two political parties with mostly diametrically opposed views/politics.
The Political Compass test is enlightening.
Comment has been collapsed.
technically speaking every concept is a human invention, every single one is simultaneously valid and not, depending on individual - you cannot tell whether someone else's belief is true or not, hence there is no universality as long as there are at least two human individuals - you cannot tell that 'people still believe ___' - some do, some don't. hell of an assumption you made for starters. the 'absolute' you're referring to is a concept as well, and there is nothing absolute about it. if you're working on some philosophical issue then you should know this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, I'll give you might opinion on the matter.
The concept of being absolutely right or wrong is definitely right in most cases. The thing is - we might not know enough to be able to judge. (as our knowledge is full of holes we even don't know about)
Concept of good and evil, on the other hand, is probably a perfectly subjective matter which might even cease to exist (I mean that it might lose it's sense), if we are given enough knowledge about the world. (for example - it might occur that we have no free will at all, and whole world was set by the beggining of action-reaction chain which set everything in motion, every single part of the universe would play it's part and change something)
It's complicated of course, but I think I wrote it as clear as I could, taking the lenght of the post into consideration. :)
Oh, and it makes adventures in time even more confusing for my brain. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
"Still" valid?
That would imply it was ever valid to begin with...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think there are too many variables to talk about absolutes. I mean someone can do something that maybe good for some but might harm others. In another situation somebody could do something for the right reasons but only end up creating devastation. I think that yes sometimes things are quite obviously evil or good but definitely not all of the time.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am frankly disturbed by this forums' prevailing notion that good and evil are relative concepts.
While I agree that deciding whether an action is truly good or evil can be difficult and knowing all the facts is important, I also believe that there is an absolute answer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps there is, at least in some cases. But can you or anyone else be absolutelly sure that you are right? Can you be absolutelly sure that know all the facts? If not, then how can you declare that something is absolutelly right or wrong?
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said I (or any other fallible human) would have the answer, just that there was one. Also, not all involved facts are necessarily relevant.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lots of answers there. What's the next homework question?
Comment has been collapsed.
I would say absolute good is doing all in your power to support life, which is love. Absolute evil is doing everything you can to destroy life or love. The really odd part of this is that even if you are absolutely evil your spark, soul, life force however one calls it is pure good or love. I guess absolute evil in essence would be chaos, entropy, a black hole that can only sustain it's self through devouring life or love.
Comment has been collapsed.
Our society is based on the idea that everyone has free will, otherwise you could get out of any crime simply by blaming causality.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think evil and good don't exist at ALL. Absolute or not. Science has almost all but proven that Free Will is an illusion, of course we will need shitloads more evidence to convince people, as most people find this terrifying. I actually thought exactly the same way about Free Will before i even knew the meaning of Free Will. I'd just see someone doing something i considered at the time to be "evil" and i thought about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree entirely, despite that video. Yes, it is entirely possible that if we get all the data, find out all the genes and etc., it is possible to determine the most likely course of action someone will take in a given situation, but the fact that if someone knows that they're being predicted like this, they might change what they do shows that humans do have free will.
Despite this, I do believe that there's no such thing as absolute good or evil. What's right for one might not be right for everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
"but the fact that if someone knows that they're being predicted like this, they might change what they do"
Who is to say the fact they changed their mind is because they have free will and not because it's due to randomness and determinism? You're really just begging the question.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is that begging the question? You predict Frank will close the door based on his past experiences, his history, his genes, and everything else you'd need to know. If you tell him this, now Frank might choose not to close the door simply to prove wrong that you can predict him. Nothing else in the universe will do this. If you predict that an animal will do something with one hundred percent certainty, and then communicate that you have predicted that (which is possible with a small handful of organisms), the animal will not change its behavior to spite you. Atoms do what atoms do because oxygen doesn't simply decide not to bond with hydrogen if the conditions are right. If a wolf is hungry and has food, it won't decide not to eat because it needs to watch its cholesterol. Humans are the only organisms capable of defying prediction like that, and I think "The ability to purposefully defy prediction" is a pretty good definition of free will.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's begging the question because you're assuming it's free will that makes him change his mind and second guess himself, you're assuming it's not a chemical reaction of him reacting in a predicted way after being told his life is predicted, and you're assuming that the prediction is that he will close the door.
The statement "the ability to purposefully defy prediction" is begging the question, because you're already assuming they are defying the prediction, you haven't proven that they have, you're just assuming that since they thought they were changing their behavior as not to do what they thought was predicted of them means they defied the supposed prediction.
e: "but the fact that if someone knows that they're being predicted like this, they might change what they do" is begging the question because you're assuming free will exists to prove free will exist "they might change" would imply that they have free will, and you go on to say that change of mind is what proves free will. You're assuming that the fact he changed his mind was caused by free will and not determinism/causality/randomness
Comment has been collapsed.
"If you tell him this, now Frank might choose not to close the door simply to prove wrong that you can predict him"
That's just adding more data you need. Once you add the data of what telling Frank would do to his choice, then you could -once again- predict what he'd do. We're talking about having ALL the data, you understand, so we already know what the effect of telling Frank would do to his decision.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the person only changes their actions because of our actions, i don't think that constitutes free will.
Here's a little quote from a review of his (Sam) book on the subject:
"He begins his book by telling a shocking story of how some burglars robbed, child-abused, raped, tortured and set a family's house on fire and killing them apart from the father who survived.
He then says that one of them had shown signs of remorse and attempted suicide a couple of times, and the other had repeatedly been raped as a child, and both of these men had been suffering from brain tumors.
He concludes that if any one of us had been in their shoes, traded places, atom for an atom, we would have done the very same thing, since their actions aren't built upon free will but upon their past experiences and certain circumstances which resulted the action."
Comment has been collapsed.
I stopped thinking about that a while ago, because in final conclusion it makes every attempt to make the world a slightly better place useless to begin with.
Also it offers people in a situation as described a too cheap excuse for what they have done.
Comment has been collapsed.
What would be the consequences of no free will? It doesn't matter what you do, you'll end up where you are meant to end up anyway. That takes away every reason to try to be a good person. Also I find it important to take responsibility for your actions. But you aren't really responsible for anything, if you didn't have a choice to begin with, are you? I find that thought rather depressing and demotivational tbh.
If there is free will I am right with my assumption and everything is super duper. If there isn't any free will, however, then my choice to refuse the thought of no free will wouldn't have been my choice anyway. Quite ironic in a way.
In the end this is pretty much like religion, I think. It doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as it makes you feel good and you don't act too irresponsible.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find that to be oversimplified, in a way. When Sam Harris used the serial killer as an example, he skimmed through the various causes, including "bad genes". Also, quoting your previous post, he talked about "[trading] places, atom for an atom" which would make us do "the very same thing" as that of a criminal, given the same past experiences and such.
If, for example I'd trade places with a serial killer, and would have every atom of his then... I wouldn't be "me" anymore. Even by following Harris' train-of-thought, the "causality" of my hereditary genes would not be there, therefore I wouldn't be "me" living "his" life, but rather him living his life.
If, on the other hand, I'd be "me" (maintaining the causality of my genes in a different context) then I firmly doubt that I'd be doing the exact same thing as the serial killer, because the chemical processes in my brain alone would make sure that my reactions would be different.
Sam Harris is debating on the absolute definition of "free will"; in the sense that we are not truly choosing freely, but rather choosing on the basis and causality of what preceded us, evolution included. As much as that is true, I can pragmatically claim that, on the basis of defining whether "I would've done the same thing or not," it is pointless.
I committed a brutal crime, but it's not me who chose these things but my genes and past experiences? Still doesn't matter, because I physically committed a crime which society didn't tolerate and I must take responsibility for my actions. Since we're social creatures, and live by the rules of such a society, backing ourselves up with the convenient "my genes made me do it"-theory still wouldn't justify the actions we have made.
The debate on whether something is "good" or "evil", however, is a whole other ball game, imo. That is decided by society and what society, over the course of the centuries, has grown to perceive what "good" or "bad" is. Each society created their own set of moral principles, based primarily on the human instinct of survival and self-preservation... everything else is based on the majority's philosophical and religious views. [EDIT: In the XV century, Copernicus was afraid to expose his heliocentric theory for the fear of being labeled as a heretic by the church. In this case the majority's view of good and bad had taken the path of geocentric philosophy and Christian beliefs.]
Comment has been collapsed.
294 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by OwieczkaDollyv21
189 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by BlazeHaze
375 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by AnonymousBroccoli
47,195 Comments - Last post 10 hours ago by Mhol1071
49 Comments - Last post 11 hours ago by OneManArmyStar
19 Comments - Last post 13 hours ago by FranEldense
49 Comments - Last post 16 hours ago by RileyHisbert
184 Comments - Last post 32 seconds ago by MHonk
48 Comments - Last post 38 seconds ago by BlackbeardXIII
56 Comments - Last post 40 minutes ago by pampuch721
113 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by drbeckett
37 Comments - Last post 54 minutes ago by ChaosCVZ
17,018 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Riszu
42 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Rinocap
Is the concept of absolute right and wrong, good and evil still valid? The "absolute" portion is important, otherwise this discussion will just boil down to everyone has their view of what is right and wrong and it can be totally different than the next guys view. Why is the concept still valid or why isn't the concept still valid? My theory is that people still think that there is absolute right and wrong, good and evil. If this is true, then, what is the basis for absolute right and wrong, good and evil? Circumstances? Our personal opinions? History? Experience?
Please stay on topic. This could be very interesting.
Comment has been collapsed.