CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is the concept of good and evil real? Or is it just an illusion.
I was thinking about the concept of good and evil, and trying to make sense of it. And after a few hours of reasoning, I've came to my own conclusion that the concept of good and evil does not exist. It is only an illusion. The only thing that exist is what is beneficial and what is not beneficial. What is beneficial to us, we take it, and we label it "good" and vice versa. I would like to have your opinion on this issue.
A few hours seems a long time to come to this conclusion. Surely you've come to something deeper than this?
Socrates philosophy on good and evil was, paraphrased, that if one truly knew what was good and what was evil, they would never choose evil.
Why?
It's assumed that there would be something inherent about "good" which would cause a person to choose it, something beneficial, as you say above.
The choice of evil then wouldn't come from the benefit of it, but a misunderstanding of the harmful consequences. So, what may seem to be beneficial, in reality would not be.
Now, when one views good and evil from the perspective of an individual, one may come, wrongly, to the conclusion that what is beneficial to them, in the moment, can be defined as good. Or as you seem to have concluded, that good and evil are self-defined.
This is too narrow a perspective to be accurate however.
Actions have far wider consequence than our own mental state in the moment. Should all choose to do what benefits (what they perceive to benefit them) in the moment, we see that everyone's shared experience becomes less beneficial, no matter that they are acting in a way which seems most beneficial in the moment.
When it is understood that we share a collective experience of life and that all of our actions effect the whole and not only ourselves, and that it is from this "whole" that we derive most of life's pleasures, then the idea that "if one truly knew the difference between good and evil they would never choose evil" is not some happy, sweet thought or a bumper sticker, but an accurate assessment of the entire human experience.
Determining good and evil in any given situation can sometimes become difficult, but there is a right and a wrong answer, and degrees of right and wrong. It's a matter of how deeply one understands the the consequences of a choice from the perspective of our shared experience.
that if one truly knew what was good and what was evil, they would never choose evil.
He also said that we can't know whether anything is actually good or evil, for we all lack the knowledge to do so.
It's assumed that there would be something inherent about "good" which would cause a person to choose it, something beneficial, as you say above.
If it's inherent we wouldn't need to figure it out. It would be automatic. Therefore, those who don't do good are retracting from the norm. (just based on that statement).
when one views good and evil from the perspective of an individual, one may come, wrongly, to the conclusion that what is beneficial to them, in the moment, can be defined as good.
If they can not reason the consequences of their action, they are not fully aware of what benefits them. Thinking in the short-term is bad entirely.
Actions have far wider consequence than our own mental state in the moment.
Just how it's very easy to get people to donate to charity when they are in a rush and do not have time to think about whether it will actually benefit them or not. They are motivated by short-term guilt.
Should all choose to do what benefits (what they perceive to benefit them) in the moment, we see that everyone's shared experience becomes less beneficial, no matter that they are acting in a way which seems most beneficial in the moment.
It all truly comes down to what the action is and how much thought someone puts into their actions. Once again, a reasonable person will not go against their own interests just how an unreasonable person will not go against their own interests. The difference is that a reasonable person will have a more efficient system for figuring out what benefits them (in short term but more importantly the long term).
When it is understood that we share a collective experience of life and that all of our actions effect the whole and not only ourselves, and that it is from this "whole" that we derive most of life's pleasures,
Now you're just making assumptions about what life is and how we are a collective. Not every action effects the lives of others. Most of them will go unnoticed and matter in no way to others. Believing in a collective conscious is as naive as believing in God. It seems nice, to think that you have little control over your individualism and that there's a bigger thing out there guiding everything, but in actuality the universe is neutral and cares in no way about your individual efforts.
but there is a right and a wrong answer, and degrees of right and wrong.
Based only on the question. If you ask "Is this car blue?" when asking about a blue car (as we have recognized as blue through the study of light waves) the correct answer is that it is blue. However, if asking if there is good and evil, on what grounds is there to say that there is?
It's a matter of how deeply one understands the the consequences of a choice from the perspective of our shared experience.
Does this mean that good and evil come down to cost-benefit analysis? And would this mean that you just came to the conclusion that self-interest is the end all in determining good and evil?
He also said that we can't know whether anything is actually good or evil, for we all lack the knowledge to do so
Which is why the quote is "if one truly knew" ... the "if" part is important. So I'm going to skip the next few sections because it's all the same misunderstanding I can hopefully clear up here.
It all truly comes down to what the action is and how much thought someone puts into their actions. Once again, a reasonable person will not go against their own interests just how an unreasonable person will not go against their own interests. The difference is that a reasonable person will have a more efficient system for figuring out what benefits them (in short term but more importantly the long term).
This reply's a little off subject so I'm going to try to better describe what you are replying to. The point is, regardless of immediate consequence, it is plain that if every single person chose the course of action which they perceived to benefit only them in that moment, it is very evident that the entire world would be a worse place. Now, something which benefits one in the moment can very often be genuinely good, I'm not saying it would not be. Try not to read into more than I'm saying. I'm just showing how it is possible to show that good and evil are not an illusion.
Imagine a poll, like when they call you and ask you a question about whatever. With a small sample the result is not evident (what the poll's about doesn't matter). As you expand the sample a pattern begins to emerge. Now back to human behavior. Through a pattern similar to how you'd need a large sample for an accurate poll result, we see that overall choices which benefit the whole will lead to more good. For something to lead to more good, good must exist. If good exists evil must exist. Therefore the answer to the title of the debate Is the concept of good and evil real? Or is it just an illusion? is that it is not an illusion. Things are inherently good or evil in a shared sense, which is the only sense words defining universal human emotion can be definitely defined in. That we individually in a moment may not see this is inconsequential. That we may not see it in a lifetime is inconsequential. It is still clearly the case.
So then, it's established that good and evil must exist because they describe human experience, and we experience these things, hence existence.
Now you're just making assumptions about what life is and how we are a collective. Not every action effects the lives of others. Most of them will go unnoticed and matter in no way to others. Believing in a collective conscious is as naive as believing in God. It seems nice, to think that you have little control over your individualism and that there's a bigger thing out there guiding everything, but in actuality the universe is neutral and cares in no way about your individual efforts.
You've missed what I'm saying so horribly I'm starting to think maybe you won't be able to understand this. First, get rid of the idea of conscious. I didn't say that. I didn't mean it. I'm talking about real observable action and consequence.
Say I choose to binge eat. Okay, my choice, doesn't affect anyone.
I feel bloated and I'm kind of an ass to the cashier, not her fault, I'm just in a shitty mood.
See? A private choice had an effect greater than myself. Perhaps it goes nowhere from there, most likely it wont go anywhere. But maybe it will. Maybe that was the shitty mood that broke the camels back and now she's in a shitty mood and so on.
It's the combination of all of the trillions, and trillions, and trillions of choices all over the world, which together, not individually but all adding to the whole, affect everyone everywhere at some point. Sometimes more than other times. Sometimes its unnoticeable. Everything has consequences though even if it seems not to. Everything affects an overall which adds, to different degrees, to everyone else's experience.
It's impossible to know every time what will affect what, to what extent, etc. 999/1000 any particular little choice won't be any big deal at all.
But, if there were some way for every person to see the whole of every decision every time, "they would never choose evil." Because it would be through this, admittedly impossible, knowing that one would lose desire to do anything not good. Desire requires benefit of some sort, any sort. Truly knowing would eliminate the desire.
it is plain that if every single person chose the course of action which they perceived to benefit only them in that moment, it is very evident that the entire world would be a worse place.
Really? How is this evident? I assume that you have evidence, yes?
something which benefits one in the moment can very often be genuinely good, I'm not saying it would not be.
Yes, which means it does not matter whether the the action is for self-profit or not. The only thing that DOES matter, if determining if something is good, is if it resulted in any good or not (assuming that good and evil exist).
As you expand the sample a pattern begins to emerge.
Only based on the poll, created by the person.
In the Universe there is no creator, so there is no morality or good/evil to uncover (unless you have evidence of its existence).
we see that overall choices which benefit the whole will lead to more good.
Prove this, please.
For something to lead to more good, good must exist.
Then we've reached a dilemma, for I see no evidence of "good" existing.
If good exists evil must exist.
So if there is no evidence for good, there is no evidence for evil. cool.
is that it is not an illusion.
Why is that the answer?
Things are inherently good or evil in a shared sense, which is the only sense words defining universal human emotion can be definitely defined in.
No. That's not how we show that something is real. You're using a teleological argument but for morality.
That we may not see it in a lifetime is inconsequential. It is still clearly the case.
In scientific endeavors, I'd find this to be in the way of actually trying to figure shit out.
So then, it's established that good and evil must exist because they describe human experience, and we experience these things, hence existence.
Once again, teleology is a fallacy. Something doesn't exist just because we sense it in our culture and upbringing. It exists because it does, and we can claim that it does through the scientific method.
So far, nothing for good and evil.
I didn't mean it. I'm talking about real observable action and consequence.
I've yet to see you explain a "real observable action" that helps show that good and evil exists.
Say I choose to binge eat. Okay, my choice, doesn't affect anyone.
It could, or it could not.
I feel bloated and I'm kind of an ass to the cashier, not her fault, I'm just in a shitty mood.
Same could come from if you break your arm in a sky-diving accident. Any action at any time for any reason could cause you to be a dick to someone.
A private choice had an effect greater than myself.
If you're alluding to Chaos or Quantum Theory, this has NOTHING to do with Good and evil. As well, what makes you believe that it's "greater?" Just because it's NOT you?
Maybe that was the shitty mood that broke the camels back and now she's in a shitty mood and so on.
And then she closes up early and avoids being raped. Good thing you acted out of selfishness. lol.
It's the combination of all of the trillions, and trillions, and trillions of choices all over the world, which together, not individually but all adding to the whole, affect everyone everywhere at some point.
Yes, everything effects everything else. Chaos and Quantum Theory touch up on it. At the same time, this has NOTHING to do with showing that Good and evil are real.
Everything has consequences though even if it seems not to.
No, everything has a consequence no matter what, and this makes them all equal to each other in a Universal sense. in determining whether these things are "good" or "evil" really comes down to subjective morality. Maybe it's good that your fat-ass caused the woman to give birth to an Asian kid who shoots up his school, leading in a massive mourning and a gun ban. Or maybe it's evil. If good and evil truly exist, it is not to our understanding. And with something like Good and Evil or God, whether it exists or not is irrelevant.
But, if there were some way for every person to see the whole of every decision every time, "they would never choose evil."
But that isn't the case. Unless Evil is defined as an act against oneself (which Objectivists would view it as, if you support Ayn Rand and all), people will commit Evil acts if it will benefit them (especially if they see it will benefit them in the grand scheme of things).
So if you are telling me that Evil is an act against oneself, we've established that Good and Evil are completely subjective and are based solely on self-interest.
If there is no such thing as good than there is no such thing as "happy"
Evil = things which cause more sadness than happiness.
If there is no such thing as evil than there is no such thing as "sad"
So then we know these things to exist in some form, and an inability to measure them is inconsequential. To say otherwise is like looking into space and saying "I can't tell how big it is, therefore it's not there."
Next, even you would not argue that mood does not effect choice would you? I'll assume you won't.
If one chooses evil more than good, this will cause others to be unhappy by the definition above. This mood will make it more likely these people in turn will choose evil. More likely, not definite, but more likely is all you need. Through the law of statistics this will eventually multiply of course. That is evident.
And of course the opposite also is true.
Happiness leads to decisions that more often make more people happy and etc.
This does not have to be the case every single time or to any great degree every single time. Things can be a little good, or a little bad. Maybe it takes 100 little bad things to cause one to make a decision that causes another to be unhappy.
Maybe it takes 5,000 tiny negative decisions.
At some point there is going to be a perceivable negative consequence. This effects another, and another, and so on.
It's not magic shared conscious, it's how human behavior works. Denying human behavior is futile I find. You might as well accept that good and evil exist and that we all have some connection to one another, even if it is far away and immeasurably small in some instances.
if this is how you define it, I suppose giving everyone ecstasy and anti-depressants would be a good thing. Hell, i'd agree with that. And... evil is not giving those things. If someone asks you for some Molly and you say no, well, you're being evil.
If there is no such thing as good than there is no such thing as "happy"
Another fallacy, but let's humor you for a bit.
Happiness is measured by your neurology (at least, if we wish to say that happiness is real, there must be a way to measure it). If we are referring to just people who say they're happy, well, that's subjective and useless. Serotonin and Dopamine determine chemical happiness. It all determines love and other bullshit.
So since we have actual SCIENTIFIC (as opposed to to teleological bullshit) ways to measure happiness (as arbitrary the word may be), we can, based on your beliefs, have scientific ways to measure goodness. If someone is committing acts that increases the chemical happiness in others, I guess they're doing good. So slipping 60mg of molly (not recreational but still therapeutic) into someone's food once a week can be considered a good act. Hell, making someone go insane with happiness (and yes, that's how the brain works) is a good act. If anything, the guy who creates a system to invoke pure madness (in that, they're insane but happy) would be the most anti-evil guy, right?
So then we know these things to exist in some form
Scratching out me humoring me, no, you're just assuming they do.
inability to measure them is inconsequential
More teleological God fallacy stuff.
I can't tell how big it is, therefore it's not there.
Physicists actually believe that they know the size of the Universe after almost a century of research and experimentation. There conclusion may be false, but the good thing about science is that they at least have a means of determining why it would be false.
Your beliefs in good and evil are not like the beliefs of Physicists. Truly, I feel like I'm arguing with a Theist.
If one chooses evil more than good, this will cause others to be unhappy by the definition above.
All assumptions, but sure, if you truly believe in what you're saying, why wouldn't this be right?
This mood will make it more likely these people in turn will choose evil.
Another assumption.
More likely, not definite, but more likely is all you need.
Still an assumption.
Through the law of statistics this will eventually multiply of course. That is evident.
You need to conduct a study that ends in a statistic in order to use the law of statistics for your argument, sir.
Happiness leads to decisions that more often make more people happy and etc.
Assumption.
Maybe it takes 5,000 tiny negative decisions.
Maybe, if you can measure all this, of course.
At some point there is going to be a perceivable negative consequence.
Perception of such subjective beliefs is, well, subjective.
It's not magic shared conscious, it's how human behavior works.
O RLY? So good and evil are part of human behavior? Where's the evidence for such a claim?
Oh yeah, you already said that good=happiness. Happy actions are good, right? Well, let's just assume that you're not making stuff up as you go and say you're right.
Denying human behavior is futile I find.
Yeah, I know, I study Psychology. I don't deny human behavior and even have some of my own theories. Good and Evil as some shit that creates happiness and evil haven't been brought up yet. Sure, some philosophy courses may help (look to David Hume and Emanuel Kant), but all of this as a science is sort of... rubbish.
You might as well accept that good and evil exist and that we all have some connection to one another
No, I'm not just gonna accept something just because enough people say it's true. If I did, I'd believe in God.
I need evidence, sir.
even if it is far away and immeasurably small in some instances.
How far? How small? Would we ever produce technology to eventually measure this far away, small fuckin' thing that no one has provided evidence for just yet?
Well, if it does exist but has no evidence it is, like God, irrelevant to science.
if this is how you define it, I suppose giving everyone ecstasy and anti-depressants would be a good thing. Hell, i'd agree with that. And... evil is not giving those things. If someone asks you for some Molly and you say no, well, you're being evil.
No, because that would have negative long term effects on humanity as a whole. Imagine if everyone on earth were addicted to these? Really, you're just being facetious now. Maybe in one situation taking an anti-depressant would be more good than bad, maybe in another the opposite. You keep trying to go to extremes.
Another fallacy, but let's humor you for a bit.
It's not a fallacy to define a word. Don't humor me, name the fallacy.
Happiness is measured by your neurology (at least, if we wish to say that happiness is real, there must be a way to measure it). If we are referring to just people who say they're happy, well, that's subjective and useless. Serotonin and Dopamine determine chemical happiness. It all determines love and other bullshit.
I know! Damn I should have taken that angle. Thanks.
So since we have actual SCIENTIFIC (as opposed to to teleological bullshit) ways to measure happiness (as arbitrary the word may be), we can, based on your beliefs, have scientific ways to measure goodness. If someone is committing acts that increases the chemical happiness in others, I guess they're doing good. So slipping 60mg of molly (not recreational but still therapeutic) into someone's food once a week can be considered a good act. Hell, making someone go insane with happiness (and yes, that's how the brain works) is a good act. If anything, the guy who creates a system to invoke pure madness (in that, they're insane but happy) would be the most anti-evil guy, right?
You're looking at a wide issue through a small, small spectrum. I'm talking about both the individual and the people around them they effect. You're stuck on what one person feels in one moment.
Scratching out me humoring me, no, you're just assuming they do.
Um, this was to "So then we know these things to exist in some form" speaking of good and happiness, evil and sadness. You actually helped me prove my point though, through the ability to measure chemical reaction in the brain we "see" happiness. So, while the feeling of it and that we all can describe a similar feeling (though it may actually vary from one to another) is enough to prove that happiness and sadness, and by extension good and evil, do exist, you took the proof a step further.
More teleological God fallacy stuff.
This was to "the inability to measure them is inconsequential." You are incorrect. Being able to measure something in its totality is not a prerequisite for proving its existence. Which you go on to prove further in the space example. As you say above, we actually know scientifically happiness exists. To what extent it affects an individual and others is not necessary to accept its existence.
Okay, the next part you should have put as a whole part, because it's all the same idea. Here's what I said:
If one chooses evil more than good, this will cause others to be unhappy by the definition above. This mood will make it more likely these people in turn will choose evil. More likely, not definite, but more likely is all you need. Through the law of statistics this will eventually multiply of course. That is evident.
So that is a single thought that you split into pieces to reply to with... basically it's an assumption. It is not an assumption though. I defined evil as something which causes more sadness. Therefore, tada, choosing evil will "cause more sadness." That's the definition. Obviously then choosing good, defined as what creates the most happiness would do the opposite.
You could have an argument that "just because someone chooses to do something which makes more people happy, does not necessarily mean those now happier would be more likely to also choose what would continue to make them and others happier" to which I'd say true, it does not guarantee others would act in a way which would "spread happiness" or whatever, but it would make it more likely. More likely is all you need when you're talking about large numbers, billions of people.
You might still want to say "Na uh! I don't care if someone is nice to me! I kick them!" okay. Still though, most people return kindness for kindness because part of our instinct is as a pack animal, and pack animals cooperate. It is natural to return kindness for kindness for humans even if it does not happen every time and for every person. I'm talking about overall.
Perception of such subjective beliefs is, well, subjective.
You're still talking about vague belief when it's been defined. "Happiness" is only subjective in that we cannot yet measure it precisely per say. But as you point out we have proof of its existence through actual brain activity.
O RLY? So good and evil are part of human behavior? Where's the evidence for such a claim?
Oh yeah, you already said that good=happiness. Happy actions are good, right? Well, let's just assume that you're not making stuff up as you go and say you're right.
Okay... thanks.
Yeah, I know, I study Psychology. I don't deny human behavior and even have some of my own theories. Good and Evil as some shit that creates happiness and evil haven't been brought up yet. Sure, some philosophy courses may help (look to David Hume and Emanuel Kant), but all of this as a science is sort of... rubbish.
Only rubbish in that you cannot measure it... yet. And rubbish if you are defining good and evil outside of the human experience, as some standard outside of ourselves like a theist would. If you define it from within the human experience of happiness and unhappiness, and if you make an attempt to measure this in the individual and in this effect on other individuals, it is no longer rubbish but insight into how we affect one another through our actions... unless your claim is also that we do not have an effect on one another, in which case I'd say rubbish.
No, I'm not just gonna accept something just because enough people say it's true. If I did, I'd believe in God.
I need evidence, sir.
You named the evidence. The brain activity thing, chemicals and whatnot when happy. You'd think yourself having these feelings at any particular time would be enough for you to then assume "hm, I feel different things, happy, sad, whatever, its stands to reason others would as well." But okay, that's not enough. Trust in the studies having to do with brain activity then.
How far? How small? Would we ever produce technology to eventually measure this far away, small fuckin' thing that no one has provided evidence for just yet?
Well, for example you could hook two people up to a machine which measures the amount of dopamine or whatever, how "happy" they are, have them be kind to another with the same contraption, and see how that in turn effects them and so on. It would be pretty easy. To measure overall you'd need to strap this equipment to everyone for a number of years of course, but with just two you would be able to see a result. With enough similar experiments you would see a pattern. Eventually you could come to the conclusion, and my premise is the conclusion would certainly be happiness spreads as does sadness. I can only come to this through my experiences and observations now, which seem a mystery to you for whatever reason. But I'm curious if you've observed a different pattern? Do you notice happiness pissing people off more often than not?
Well, if it does exist but has no evidence it is, like God, irrelevant to science.
Perhaps that's your hang up. Comparing this measurable thing (by your admission) in the brain to god is where the confusion lies maybe. These are not the same, or even close to the same argument. Actually this would be an anti-theist argument, goodness and evil coming from ourselves and human experience instead of some all-powerful father figure. It would lead to all sorts of evils-according-to-theists being deemed good and vice-versa should the idea catch on.
Trying to prove your point by making shit up is a fallacy, I'm quite sure of it.
Damn I should have taken that angle.
You didn't because you didn't even know that happiness was real. You just assumed. I mean, if you had known that, it would have just been a matter of word logic. Unfortunately, you believe in stuff that isn't real (good and evil).
I'm talking about both the individual and the people around them they effect. You're stuck on what one person feels in one moment.
If everyone is taking a therapeutic amount of drugs, they would all have a better chemical structure. So happiness, chemical wise at least, is attainable. But considering the definition of good this doesn't help you at all.
You actually helped me prove my point though, through the ability to measure chemical reaction in the brain we "see" happiness.
A certain aspect of happiness. Happiness, as a total term, is still arbitrary. But we can at least measure certain chemical reactions that help with happiness. But as I pointed out, complete madness may not be considered happiness even though chemically it is.
What's the point? That truly believing in what you believe in is teleology, not scientific.
and by extension good and evil, do exist, you took the proof a step further.
All I did was say that drug use and drug selling helps improve levels of chemical happiness. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing.
Being able to measure something in its totality is not a prerequisite for proving its existence.
Being able to measure it at all is, however. You don't need to have the physical object. But if you are measuring nothing, you are, literally, measuring nothing. Which would make goodness and evilness nothing... ha.
we actually know scientifically happiness exists.
I was kind of making fun of your belief system, but we know that certain prerequisites for happiness (serotonin and dopamine) can be measured. Even so, once again, whether one is happy or not is purely subjective. Why? Because happiness as an actual thing (outside of science) isn't real. Refer to my statement about madness.
I defined evil as something which causes more sadness.
well, yes, evil causes harm and injury. But what causes harm and injury is, once again, subjective. Better than your definition of good, but still missing the point.
Overall, Evil is defined as Morally wrong or bad. There is no possible way to measure morality or moral actions. That's because they don't exist.
It is natural to return kindness for kindness for humans even if it does not happen every time and for every person.
It's natural? Where's the evidence for that part?
But as you point out we have proof of its existence through actual brain activity.
Now you're acting like we're more than just organic machines. W/e Jesus.
unless your claim is also that we do not have an effect on one another, in which case I'd say rubbish.
Our effect to one another is EQUAL to all other effects, either by human or non-human, according to physics, of course.
so really, happiness is as much a part of the human experience as it is apart of the entire Universe (if that's how you want to look at it).
Which would mean that you'd have to define happiness or goodness or evil or w/e as something that is Universal. And that's why I don't believe you when you say that good and evil are real. I mean... where's the evidence?
Trust in the studies having to do with brain activity then.
Once again, if this were truly the case we'd say that a way to invoke pure madness in all people for eternity would be the ultimate good act. And why not? Oh yeah, because it's subjective and B/S.
Do you notice happiness pissing people off more often than not?
Ah, so it's anecdotes you want, ay?
Well, luckily, I don't like to assume how other's feel. Our adrenal glands invoke similar reaction between Fear and Love.
What does this all show, really? That if you're asking about the happiness that people love to talk about, it isn't real. However, if you're asking about the science behind "feelings" of happiness, you'd see that chemical structures are all over the place. This is because it's like looking at a pit full of incest maggots and seeing that this is just what nature is. Chemical reactions and shit put together. The chemical we see behind happiness are the same we see behind anger and fear. This is because it's just interpretation.
So good and evil, if the same as happiness and sadness, are just based on interpretation. And that just means that it's subjective...
sigh... i know you'll just say something else. bring it.
Good according your source, the first noun = profit or advantage; worth; benefit: What good will that do? We shall work for the common good.
When you first started disputing me, I was using "benefit" to describe this concept. I could see you were misinterpreting what I was saying, so I thought using "happy" would make it easier. Apparently not because your replies continue to show you are not arguing with my point but with some imagined position you think I'm taking.
We define good and evil. They exist as states we've defined. While "good" and "evil" are only descriptions of these states, the states themselves are quite real. Happy. That is a state of mind. It is a state of mind we define as good, beneficial, etc.
That is the starting point of my argument.
Prove that part is incorrect. Prove to me that we do not define beneficial things (like being happy) as good.
Here is my proof good exists. We know "happy" exists. As you so fortuitously pointed out, it can even be observed in the brain that something is going on when one claims to have these sorts of feelings. So this state of being exists for us as a feeling. We describe this feeling as "good".
So, definitely not an illusion. It's no more an illusion than colors of the spectrum. Blue exists for example as a description of our perception of an area on the visual light spectrum. That some people are color blind does not mean that there is no such thing, it just means there is a difference between how people see it. (Now que up your "but that's just perceptions." Which will mean you're missing the point still. Perception is the point. Description of perception we have of things around us and in us.)
That's Illusion vs. Reality. That's the debate. The rest is a proposition based on the Socratic theory and my observation of humans (anthropologic, my minor, groups of people).
-----------------------------
Part 2
Good is something with benefit. I propose the more it benefits the better it is. If it benefits more than one person it is even better.
So than there are levels of good I propose (and conversely evil, and combinations of the two, I'm trying my hardest to keep the concept simple).
The reason I believe there are levels of good is due to certain states we observe in ourselves, such as "happiness," can seem more intense. Similar to the color spectrum. How there can be deeper blues and lighter blues, and whether others may see these differently, or see them not at all does not mean that there is not area of the color spectrum we've defined as blue, and that we've defined different shades of blue.
Good works similarly.
So Part 1: Good is not an illusion. Part 2: Good has range.
---------------------------------------------
Part 3: I propose that good can be spread from one person to another.
I have two reasons to believe this. A) I observe in myself that when friends or family, or sometimes even strangers are happy, this gives me a similar feeling even should I have no direct benefit. I do not believe myself to be unique in any way so it stands to reason others would in some instances experience this same feeling. B) Others have often claimed the same feeling--that seeing another person happy has the same effect on them. I have no reason to believe others would lie about this.
You will need to prove to me that this thing I and others claim to observe in ourselves is not the case. It is not necessary that every person feel it to the same degree. It is not necessary that every person experience this at all. It only has to be the case that some people do. Prove to me no one does.
I propose Part 3 is the majority. I propose enough so that choosing that which benefits more people increases happiness enough that others in turn will more times than not, choose that which will benefit more people, and so on.
This is the hardest to prove. However, the rest is logical enough that this is not a stretch.
----------------------------------
And this has been my argument from the very first thing I wrote down. Either you understand it or you are going to continue to argue some dream thing you imagine me to be saying.
Belive it or continue to think your feelings are a bubble that is impenetrable or your imagination, however, don't pretend to understand what I'm talking about than mock me for something you've wrongfully imagined I'm saying.
I was using "benefit" to describe this concept. I could see you were misinterpreting what I was saying, so I thought using "happy" would make it easier.
Oh, so it's not happiness. Good, we're back to square one. So, how do you prove this benefit you speak of?
some imagined position you think I'm taking.
I apologize, I thought you were talking about happiness for a second there... could you quote my specific points, though? It makes it easier for me so I know what exactly you're talking about...
We define good and evil. They exist as states we've defined.
Yes... and a defined product does not equate a real product.
While "good" and "evil" are only descriptions of these states, the states themselves are quite real.
How?
Happy. That is a state of mind. It is a state of mind we define as good, beneficial, etc.
Oh, that's how... so happy IS the definition you want. But no, happiness doesn't prove benefit. No where in the history of science have we proven that happiness=benefit. So, what are you really trying to tell me? Good=benefit or Good=happiness or good=happiness=benefit? I can say, already, that anyway you spin it, it still doesn't prove its existence (i've explained all that already, but w/e, let's just continue with your argument.)
That is the starting point of my argument.
Ok.
Prove that part is incorrect. Prove to me that we do not define beneficial things (like being happy) as good.
Well, i'm sure you know how a null hypothesis works, so we'll start at that. Give me a sample size and tell me how the study will be conducted. Let's get research started right now (hell, I could make this my Ph.D and say "fuck you" to anyone who ever doubted David Hume).
While you're working on that, I'll ask that you also prove to me that what you're saying is true ( beneficial things (like being happy) as good. )
Here is my proof good exists. We know "happy" exists. As you so fortuitously pointed out, it can even be observed in the brain that something is going on when one claims to have these sorts of feelings.
Now you're just making me feel that I have wasted my time... I've described to you how, truly (without me humoring your statements in the first place) that even happiness is not identified. It is a non-physical thing. We have methods of measuring what some will say makes them happy, sure, serotonin, but this does not account for unbalanced serotonin or too much serotonin or misused serotonin that can lead to madness and even extreme feelings of anxiety (depending also on the dopamine levels). We haven't actually proven that happiness exists... c'mon. 20th Century science, here.
We describe this feeling as "good".
Even so, all subjective.
That some people are color blind does not mean that there is no such thing, it just means there is a difference between how people see it.
Color blindness has to do with an issue in coding between the eyeball and the brain. It isn't a subjective feeling that we made up to describe shit. Color waves are measured and identified by a standard. happiness is not, (as described, hopefully you read it this time).
Description of perception we have of things around us and in us.)
The problem with your point is that color blind people actually have a broken perception on picking up certain color waves. So really, they're wrong if they call something red when it's actually green. We're picking up waves that they have the inability to due to an issue with their X-Chromosome.
You're, once again, pulling a pseudo-Einstein (i'm sure you're familiar with the atheist professor vs. some student who turns out to be Einstein).
Good is something with benefit.
So good HAS benefit. How do we define this benefit?
I propose the more it benefits the better it is. If it benefits more than one person it is even better.
So this is based on YOUR beliefs of what is beneficial. More people benefiting is more good. Okay, so we are going by YOUR beliefs. Watch me, this gets good ;)
The reason I believe there are levels of good is due to certain states we observe in ourselves, such as "happiness," can seem more intense.
Of course, it's on a scale, correct? This would imply that binaries are arbitrary, would it not? This can mean one of two things:
1. Good can exist without evil (making them separate), meaning that all can be good and none can be evil. This would make good an actual, physical product... that you have yet to show me, but eh, I'm sure you've got it hidden somewhere.
2. Good and evil actually must exist with each other, making them actual binaries, or Derrida style binaries, meaning they're not actually binaries but one in the same thing... only being things that we made up to describe stuff that has yet to be discovered.
long philosophical theory short, they don't exist.
Don't worry, just covering all bases, keep reading.
Similar to the color spectrum.
The color spectrum is based on measurable, concrete assertions. Not on something as subjective and unidentifiable as "happiness" or "good" or even "what benefits this person emotionally (happiness)".
How there can be deeper blues and lighter blues, and whether others may see these differently, or see them not at all does not mean that there is not area of the color spectrum we've defined as blue, and that we've defined different shades of blue.
Would it make it easier if we gave each shade a different name so you can stop comparing colors to happiness?
So Part 1: Good is not an illusion. Part 2: Good has range.
Part 1: Yet to prove this.
Part 2: Sure, just not the same as a color spectrum.
I propose that good can be spread from one person to another.
Just how Christmas Spirit can :)
I have two reasons to believe this.
You don't need reasoning to believe that the Christmas Spirit can be spread :)
I observe in myself that when friends or family, or sometimes even strangers are happy, this gives me a similar feeling even should I have no direct benefit.
So what you're saying is that you can feel happiness even without benefit? Cool, so by your definition, good can't equal happiness if good=benefit because you've just shown me that benefit and happiness are mutually exclusive. Yay! :)
but wait, there's more.
I do not believe myself to be unique in any way so it stands to reason others would in some instances experience this same feeling.
Not unique in that you bear no quality that is outstanding, or that you are the same as everyone else?
If you are not outstanding, sure, uniqueness has a limited existence. This doesn't entail that another would share an ability as you do, this just means that all of your abilities hold equal status to other's abilities, making anything you do just as bad or good as anything else... which really, already, trumps the idea that good and evil are real (unless, of course, we understand that good and evil are the same... making them subjective, arbitrary, blah blahblah).
Now, if you're just the same as all other humans, once again, where does good come in? And by the way, no, people do not share the same abilities (as over a centuries worth of Psychology has come to realize... thanks to genetics).
B) Others have often claimed the same feeling--that seeing another person happy has the same effect on them. I have no reason to believe others would lie about this.
Evolution describes this phenomena as the need for lower types to team up to keep themselves safe and prosperous. Meanwhile, those that exhibit more selfish tendencies are bigger risk takers and can either live highly or not so high.
Empathy is about understanding, an advantageous quality. However, this "spread" of happiness you speak of doesn't entail goodness or benefit. It doesn't even suggest that the happiness is real. It just says that prosperity is beneficial, over all. If that's all it takes for goodness to exist, than, yeah, as I (and the debate creator) has been saying this whole time, it comes to self-profit. Nothing to do with the collective or altruism. It all, truly, comes down to self-profit. And since we all benefit differently, what would be good depends, truly, on the individual, NOT on the collective. To say this implies that some people are just wrong, and then, well, you've got a teleological thing going here (but maybe, as an Atheist talking to an Atheist, you'd assume Nihilism... but maybe you don't believe in Nihilism, which makes me wonder... where do you think this collectivist morality is coming from?)
You will need to prove to me that this thing I and others claim to observe in ourselves is not the case.
People used to say "you need to prove to me that these psychics that I and others claim to observe are actually tricking us" and then the Cato Institute proved to them that this was the case. Actually, they found that 100% of the psychics they tested were falsified. Now, I'm no Cato Institute for all I have is a University at my disposal, and if I asked them to test this theory that you've generated, they'd laugh at me. Now, I can ask some social psychologists to chime in, but while they can agree with some of your statements, they'd do the same as I'd do, explaining the evolutionary and self-interested prospects to the entire thing. Although, I'd disagree with how they try to apply this all politically, but we can't all be group-thinking can we?
Prove to me no one does.
Prove to me that no one has been touched by an Angel.
I propose enough so that choosing that which benefits more people increases happiness enough that others in turn will more times than not, choose that which will benefit more people, and so on.
Of course, this still doesn't define good acts vs. bad acts, and how we can define what is truly beneficial or not... actually, I think this is what I'm still asking you to do.
I get it, YOU believe that good is what benefits the collective. That isn't what's in question... it's whether goodness and evil are true things, or just shit that we've made up.
I go with the latter.
don't pretend to understand what I'm talking about than mock me for something you've wrongfully imagined I'm saying.
How is it not? What is it about child rape that is detrimental to society? When you think about it, nothing. If the child is too young to know better, and the and no physical or mental harm was caused, then child rape would be classed as good, in your model. So why is child rape not good?
This would be true if it were just one child being raped, sadly. However, there isn't just one, there are hundreds upon hundreds. And you cant be raped without some sort of injury, whether or not your physically or mentally injured. Something will remain with you forever. And the families that have to live with this fact. Is it good for them. No because they are tormented by the fact that their child has been violated by another human being. And in order for them to know that the raped occured someone would have to be accused and recognized as the rapist so he or she would be put on trial which costs the tax payers money, so how is that good? It aint because that money could be used for something more productive like education. I dont even see how you could say child rape isn't a bad thing on any point of view or level.
Just for clarification, I do think child rape is immoral. I'm only saying that this model is flawed.
However, there isn't just one, there are hundreds upon hundreds
Therefore there are hundreds and hundreds of child rapists being benefited, not just one.
And you cant be raped without some sort of injury, whether or not your physically or mentally injured. Something will remain with you forever.
Even if one is not aware of what rape is? Prove it.
And the families that have to live with this fact. Is it good for them. No because they are tormented by the fact that their child has been violated by another human being.
I was not referring to the families. That's a consequence of the act, not part of the act itself. Therefore it has no bearing on the morality of child rape.
And in order for them to know that the raped occured someone would have to be accused and recognized as the rapist so he or she would be put on trial which costs the tax payers money, so how is that good? It aint because that money could be used for something more productive like education.
See above, swap families with "money". Again, this is irrelevant to the act of child rape.
I dont even see how you could say child rape isn't a bad thing on any point of view or level.
In this model of morality, it can be viewed as a good thing.
So I'm confused on which side your taking. Your saying that to the rapist it's a good thing, which means that the "concept" of good and evil does exist, just with different perceptions of it. Yet your arguing that it's an illusion?
And the outcome of an action determines whether or not one can view the action as good or evil. So those families, my taxes, and those childrens future have everything to do with the rape as it happens. Whether or not the the individual performing the act percieves his or her actions as evil, I do. and the question does not ask from which vantage point is it real, it asks is it real. For me the act of child rape is evil.
But even with your point of view, it being viewed as good to the rapist. It's not like the rapist is wanting anyone to know that he or she is raping the child which means that person acknowledges what he or she is doing is evil. So even that person admits to themselves it's evil. So how can you argue it's not evil and be seen as good?
So I'm confused on which side your taking. Your saying that to the rapist it's a good thing, which means that the "concept" of good and evil does exist, just with different perceptions of it. Yet your arguing that it's an illusion?
No, I've already said that all I'm saying is that this model is flawed. My usage of child rape is purely hypothetical. I said that child rape is beneficial to the rapist. And so, in this model, it would be seen as "good". However, the fact that you responded in disgust proves that the model is flawed. My position is that good and evil do exist, and that child rape is immoral.
And the outcome of an action determines whether or not one can view the action as good or evil. So those families, my taxes, and those childrens future have everything to do with the rape as it happens.
No they don't. Because that would require you to assume that the rapist would admit to it, making it dependent on an outcome which may not happen. Thus we can only deal with what is known for certain, that a child has been raped. So this is all that we deal with.
Whether or not the the individual performing the act percieves his or her actions as evil, I do. and the question does not ask from which vantage point is it real, it asks is it real. For me the act of child rape is evil.
I agree. But this model would have it seen as good.
But even with your point of view, it being viewed as good to the rapist.
No, it's beneficial to the rapist, NOT good.
It's not like the rapist is wanting anyone to know that he or she is raping the child which means that person acknowledges what he or she is doing is evil
Exactly. Which is why your point about taxes, family, etc, is irrelevant, because it presupposes that the rapist would tell the family.
So even that person admits to themselves it's evil.
They don't. They might not want the world to know because they'd be thrown in jail, or beaten up, or killed. Besides, it doesn't exactly come up in everyday conversation.
"So yeah, we'll go to the cinema on Friday. Oh, by the way, I raped your daughter".
So how can you argue it's not evil and be seen as good?
For the millionth time, I do not think child rape is not evil. I'm saying that in this model of morality, it can be viewed as good, because there is a net benefit.
The Concept of good and evil isn't an illusion. it's an idea and ideas are real. The idea of good vs evil right vs wrong is a real concept and concept by definition is an idea. Now wether or not the "Good" benefits you or the "evil" affects you is irrelavent because whats good for you may be evil for someone else. Like it was good to have a slaved black man for white people back in the day. Doesn't mean it was good for the black man. To the black man it was evil. The concept is real.
Of course it's real! God kicked us out of paradise for obtaining the knowledge of good and evil, which is why we all have such a uniform and evident opinion on the topic and why acts we perceive as good or evil haven't changed since the dawn of man.
Everything is real, even poorly developed concepts like good and evil. Common sense should tell you that good refers to the helpful or beneficial, and evil refers to the harmful. Of course the question of "harmful to whom?", or "helpful to whom?" renders the concepts relative, but just because all judgments are subjective by their very nature and subject to illusory notions, doesn't mean that making such judgments is entirely futile. Moral relativism is the epistemological first principle of psychopaths.
What we see as Good and Evil is just a slightly decorated human expression of supporting the continuation and progression of us as a species, and preventing anything that would delay progress.
One of the main drives of Evolution is Survival, and this is lodged naturally straight into our brains. Since humans survive and work better in groups or communities, murder would be seen as a "bane" towards a community, and to progress, so it would be considered "evil. But caring for the well being of other humans is what we do want, as it supports us as a species.
The environment is the determining factor in whether the person will do good or evil. There are no good or bad people, there are only people who make both good and evil decisions due to their situation; therefore the concept of good and evil is "invalid" because people commit "good" and "evil" deeds because the situation drives them to do so.
Absolutely. That's why slavery, cannibalism, polygamy were acceptable in earlier days. And homosexuality was considered unacceptable. It all depended/depends on what benefits the majority.
Harry Houdini once said “My brain is the key that sets my mind free.” I think he meant that if you swung a dead possum around in a room full of magicians you're bound to hit an illusionist who will vote good and evil is all an illusion.
The concepts of good and evil are merely relative terms. What might be considered 'good' in a certain area or place, might be considered 'evil' in another. Good and Evil all depend on a person's outlook and attitude. They cannot be defined clearly, and are dependent on perspective. For example : Eminent scholars of Islam, such as Sheik ul-Islam Imam Malik, and Imam Shafi among others, ruled that Islam disallowed homosexuality and ordained capital punishment for a person guilty of it. Homosexual activity is a crime and forbidden in most Muslim-majority countries(Like Iran, North Sudan and Yemen). Homosexuality is considered a sin, and hence "EVIL". On the other hand, Sweden is seen as one of the most homosexual - friendly countries, making same - sex marriages fully legal in 2009. Homosexual activity in Sweden is definitely not considered "EVIL".
Hence, it can be concluded that both the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' are merely illusions.
Good and Evil is a measurement we use to help us decide if something is right or wrong. There is nothing in the world that is "truly good" or "truly evil" (especially evil).
Good and Evil is a measurement we use to help us decide if something is right or wrong. There is nothing in the world that is "truly good" or "truly evil" (especially evil).
What others have said here is more than sufficient (for the most part), and my personal view is that we all have views on what or who is "good" or "evil", so it's all subjective; meaning nothing can truly be either of those things. That's my little philosophical take on it anyway :P
I agree 100 percent that the idea of "good and evil" is only an illusion. Similar to what the person who created this debate, I believe that persons would label good do so because they get something out of it. For those who disregard this I ask this… If good and evil are not an illusion then what classifies as good and evil, without using the bible as a reference? Bible excluded because the person who wrote it would have put their sense of good and evil. Please respect my opinion because I respect yours no matter what, thank you.
It's an illusion, if it wasn't the everyone would have almost the same idea on what is good or bad, yet everyone has different opinons on what's bad or not. For instance, Hitler's conception on what was good was obviously different from other's since what he was doing was clearly evil. Good and bad are not materialist things that are clear and or something we can easily grasp. We decide by our consciousness, moral values & religous teachings on what is good or bad.
Basic morals are helpful to decide what is good or not, but it's ourselves and our beliefs that determine what we find as good or bad.
