Does Morality Presuppose Good and Evil?

[Puppycow]

Nowadays it seems a bit old-fashioned to say that someone is evil.
If someone commits mass murder, we say that they have a "personality disorder," or some other form of mental illness.

However, it occurs to me that, if we eliminate the concept of good and evil entirely, would that undercut the foundations for morality? Instead of "morality" in the traditional sense of the word, is there another substitute?

What about justice? Doesn't the concept of justice also presuppose good and evil?

 

[qayak]

Nowadays it seems a bit old-fashioned to say that someone is evil.
If someone commits mass murder, we say that they have a "personality disorder," or some other form of mental illness.

However, it occurs to me that, if we eliminate the concept of good and evil entirely, would that undercut the foundations for morality? Instead of "morality" in the traditional sense of the word, is there another substitute?

What about justice? Doesn't the concept of justice also presuppose good and evil?

By definition morality is concerned with good and bad, or right and wrong, in human behaviour.

It is tough to say that any individual is good or evil because we are all both. We have the capacity to do great good or great evil. The trend is moving towards greater acceptance of this and instead of labelling the person, we label the specific action(s).

A great book to read on the subject is Michael Shermer's The Science of Good & Evil.

 

[UserGoogol]

I don't see why. Morality simply means that some things you should do and some things you shouldn't do. (If you ignore virtue ethics, which concerns itself more directly with good and evil on the personal level) morality concerns itself with making judgments of actions. Thus, the fact that people commit good or bad actions merely because they have something wrong with their brain does not change the fact that the actions are good or bad. In the utilitarian system (which I like) an action's goodness is simply how much happiness it causes minus how much suffering it causes, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether good or evil exists.

Some moral codes, of course, depend on the good old fashioned concept of good and evil, and those would be strained by dropping good and evil, but not morality as a general thing.

 

[Puppycow]

I don't see why. Morality simply means that some things you should do and some things you shouldn't do. (If you ignore virtue ethics, which concerns itself more directly with good and evil on the personal level) morality concerns itself with making judgments of actions. Thus, the fact that people commit good or bad actions merely because they have something wrong with their brain does not change the fact that the actions are good or bad. In the utilitarian system (which I like) an action's goodness is simply how much happiness it causes minus how much suffering it causes, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether good or evil exists.

Some moral codes, of course, depend on the good old fashioned concept of good and evil, and those would be strained by dropping good and evil, but not morality as a general thing.

OK, thanks. I think I am attracted to utilitarianism myself. What about justice I wonder? Is that also simply a matter of maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness? Or do we need to have good and evil for justice to have any meaning as a concept?

Religions like Christianity claim that God ultimately metes out justice, punishing evildoers and rewarding dogooders. As an atheist, I wish that were true (although not in binary way such as eternal punishment or eternal reward, but rather exactly in proportion to the actual total amount of good and evil) but I don't believe that it is true. So in reality, I believe that justice is the exception rather than the rule. I don't believe in karma either (at least I am not aware of any evidence for it.)

Should we then simply have a justice system based totally on practical considerations such as deterrance and public safety, or is it also important to punish evildoers because we can't rely on God to "sort 'em out"?

 

[Tobermory]

Basically, without attaching it to a set of fixed rules, morality is a fairly nebulous concept. And yet, even without the specter of religion, most of us can still tell right from wrong -- most of the time.

Also, let's not forget that religion is not the only source of so-called socially proper/moral behavior. The law (often steeped in Christian dogma) is supposed to serve that purpose as well -- how well it does this, however, is a debatable proposition.

But morality and religion are not intertwined. Throughout history, the church has taken actions that could be considered immoral under almost any definition of the concept. Fortunately, hypocrisy is a lot easier to define than morality.

 

[Puppycow]

Basically, without attaching it to a set of fixed rules, morality is a fairly nebulous concept. And yet, even without the specter of religion, most of us can still tell right from wrong -- most of the time.

Also, let's not forget that religion is not the only source of so-called socially proper/moral behavior. The law (often steeped in Christian dogma) is supposed to serve that purpose as well -- how well it does this, however, is a debatable proposition.

But morality and religion are not intertwined. Throughout history, the church has taken actions that could be considered immoral under almost any definition of the concept. Fortunately, hypocrisy is a lot easier to define than morality.

I agree religion is not necessary for morality, but my question is whether we need good and evil to have morality, or if instead we should simply think in terms of mental health.

 

[RandFan]

I agree religion is not necessary for morality, but my question is whether we need good and evil to have morality, or if instead we should simply think in terms of mental health.

First you will need to tell us what you mean by evil.

I think I understand your point. In the past it was believed that "evil spirits" would inhabit people's bodies and cause them to do "evil" or that the devil, and "evil" person would tempt people to do evil.

• Now we know that there are schizophrenics who harm others and they are mentally ill.
• We know that socio paths do not have a dminished or non existant ability to feel empathy for another person.
• We understand that long term stress and trauma can cause an otherwise moral person to act in an immoral or amoral fashion.
• We understand that brain damage can cause otherwise moral people to also act in such a way.

I think we are better off when we avoid simple answers to complex problems. Labeling someone evil doesn't tell us much.

That said, BTK was one evil prick.

It's a good question IMO.

 

[Mangafranga]

I'd say it presupposes good and not good. If evil is something other than not good, then I see not why it is necessary.

edit-actually I'd say it presupposes good or evil, and not necessarily both.

 

[plumjam]

Yeah, I still think there's a place for good and evil.
Sure, there are some psychos who are just mentally ill, have had damage to their prefrontal lobes etc..

But I think we all know from our own experience that good and evil exist, because we all know we're capable of both.

Sometimes, of my own free will I do acts that I know to be good.. and I take some joy in that fact.
Sometimes, as a kid, of my own free will I did acts I knew to be wrong, and took some joy in performing them (e.g. pulling the wings off flies). This, in it's own way was evil.

I think this taking joy in freely choosing to inflict suffering on others means that it's legitimate to use a word like evil.
And the converse for good.

 

[Wolfman]

I don't think that morality presupposes a need for "good" and "evil". This is a philosophical dichotomy that is common in Western culture, but many Eastern cultures view it entirely differently.

Take the concept of Yin and Yang. That is, "positive" and "negative" forces. Westerners tend to translate "positive" as "good" and "negative" as "bad"; but that is far from the truth. "Good" and "evil" require a concept of battle or conflict between two opposing sides, with one side eventually/ultimately defeating the other. The concept of Yin and Yang, on the other hand, requires a concept of balance, where there is no conflict or battle for one to defeat the other, but rather an ongoing effort to keep both in equal balance.

Most Eastern religions preach morality without teaching anything about "good" or "evil". So yes, it is quite possible to have morality without them.

 

[qayak]

I'd say it presupposes good and not good. If evil is something other than not good, then I see not why it is necessary.

edit-actually I'd say it presupposes good or evil, and not necessarily both.

You can't have one without the other. They are the opposite ends of the same thing, in the case, human behaviour. If you only had good, what would you call something that was not good?

Good and evil are decided in relation to each other just like hard and soft. You take and action that the majority decide is good or bad and you call it whichever is appropriate and then you plot other actions in relation to that one.

 

[RandFan]

You can't have one without the other. They are the opposite ends of the same thing, in the case, human behaviour. If you only had good, what would you call something that was not good?

Good and evil are decided in relation to each other just like hard and soft. You take and action that the majority decide is good or bad and you call it whichever is appropriate and then you plot other actions in relation to that one.

This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white.

 

[LBN]

Nature is beyond good and evil.

 

[uruk]

good and evil are value judgments based on givin circumstances.
I think that morality only presuposses that some actions are better than others.
What determins what actions are better than others are the circumstances and the prevailing social standards.

 

[qayak]

This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white.

Not at all. Good and evil are simply labels to make discussion and understanding easier. Both have infinite degrees to them and it is only a fool who would see everything as one or the other.

Labelling a Nazi as evil is wrong simply because they were in fact very patriotic, which most people see as a good thing, and many of them were great family men, which is another good thing. That's the trouble with demonizing people instead of condemning the specific action that is bad.

So Nazism is evil and many of the acts performed in its name were were evil but not all the people involved were. And certainly each individual was not completely evil.

 

[ksbluesfan]

Objective truths are a slippery slope.

 

[Puppycow]

Labelling a Nazi as evil is wrong simply because they were in fact very patriotic, which most people see as a good thing, and many of them were great family men, which is another good thing. That's the trouble with demonizing people instead of condemning the specific action that is bad.

Boy. But if we separate the act from the person who commits it, how do we punish the evildoers? You can condemn an act, but you can't punish it. You can only punish the person who committed the act.

 

[qayak]

Boy. But if we separate the act from the person who commits it, how do we punish the evildoers? You can condemn an act, but you can't punish it. You can only punish the person who committed the act.

If you label a person as evil then you cannot complain when they do terrible things because that is what evil people do.

When someone commits an evil act they are charged for it. They are not charged for being evil. If you label a person as evil and charge them with being evil, what would you do with a lifeguard who, after saving 10 lives, went out and murdered 5 people. They are still a +5 good person.

We don't do that. We charge them with the five murders and then, during sentencing, the rest of their life maybe brought up to help decide the punishment.

 

[RandFan]

Not at all.

"Not at all"? What do you mean?

Good and evil are simply labels to make discussion and understanding easier.

Ok.

Both have infinite degrees to them and it is only a fool who would see everything as one or the other.

Ok.

Labelling a Nazi as evil is wrong simply because they were in fact very patriotic, which most people see as a good thing, and many of them were great family men, which is another good thing.

Ok.

That's the trouble with demonizing people instead of condemning the specific action that is bad.

?

Ok.

So Nazism is evil and many of the acts performed in its name were were evil but not all the people involved were. And certainly each individual was not completely evil.

Not a clue dude. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. It's a perception.

How you say "not at all" to the premise is beyond me. What your premises are supposed to demonstrate or what they have to do with mine I can't say.

 

[omegablue]

Every moral code, as far as i know, presuppose indeed, what is commonly labeled as good and evil. It is primarily involved with labeling what is "good and honorable" and what is "not good/Evil and dishonorable". It is a tool or process, on the natural evolution of our known universe towards complexity, such as building human societies. In order to make life more complex, human beings naturally crave for organization. And there it goes, what is good is what fuels this craving, and as expected, evil are acts that primarily goes against the edification of what the moral code is about. This is a rough sketch of what i think. I think human suffering or happiness are not the primary goals of any moral code, sometimes it aims at avoiding some suffering but only the kind of which would help damaging the structure that the moral code is edified to make possible to persist. An example of well being and happiness not being taken as primary goal of a moral code, is the suffering of Africa with poverty and famine. It is the long stand result of war, domination, barbarism, and bad wealth distribution plus any horrors that for example, a system like capitalism and free-market can cause on one of the parts involved in the process, the sucked part, or the weaker part. The moral system of a capitalist society is built upon making sure capitalism can be practiced with almost no restrictions. Well being and suffering in this case for example are being left behind secondarily. This is only an example, im not preaching socialism here, for i know that it is as dangerous as capitalism, but just the other way around. So in my opinion, moral codes are about:

-First and most important: edifying a society, making progressive complexity possible;
-Second and less important: happiness and well being.

As someone said before, nature is beyond good and evil. And as i´m inclined to call everything nature, morals and ethics are not left out nature´s scope. Good and evil are just human judgements. I think even in morals or ethics, nature shows this "beyond good and evil" trait. That´s why no one can explain why humans are always craving domination, expansion and power , in known detriment of the well being of the sucked part. It is clearly craving unbalance. Even if every single human bit of the whole humanity knows that it does generate a huge abyss or unbalance involving suffering, the whole is acting this chaotic way. It is perhaps beyond our control and Will. It simply occurs cuzz it is the process of nature, or the cosmos. Perhaps!