jeremy and i had a conversation this morning (by that i mean around 3:30 this morning), and the question arose of how good and evil can be defined as applied to whether humans are inherently good or evil. this led to him asking, "would you agree or disagree that 'good' for the society has anything to do with 'moral good'?" my statement was that they are cousins of each other. moral good is defined by ones opinions, and usually, a large portion is taken from religious dogmas and doctrines. for example, a modern christian would typically be disturbed witnessing a human sacrifice, because "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is one of the ten commandments. God said it Himself: "Don't Do That." however, to the native americans who needed rain, it was a pretty good idea, and a honor to be chosen. morally, killing in that sense was a very good thing. societal good is what is deemed necessary for the group as a whole. this is where we get the modern general idea of good and evil.
for example, crime is looked upon as bad. why? because it is self-beneficial. the society cannot be aided by thievery. but, look at the man who jumped in front of a bus pushing a woman out of the way. that man was stupid. someone was going to get hit, and he went against his base instincts and got himself killed. fool, right? nope. this man was a hero, for his self-sacrifice.
humans honor altruism and abhor vanity. this is what defines societal good and evil. look out our villians; they are almost always greedy or vain or egotistical. our heroes are often found to be selfless, generous and modest. this is what aids society most, despite our individual, moral goods and evils.
this was about where we left off, as bed called us to go to sleep (well, him really, but i wound up going myself). so, it's open to discussion.
I don't necessarily think that what is good for society is what judges a man as inherently good or evil. I think sometimes things can be good for society, yet they tend to bring about a greater amount of evil or vice versa. For example, a woman goes back in time and kills baby Hitler. Yes, this is good for society because by killing Hitler she avoided mass genocide. Yet, she is still a killer nonetheless. So she can't be judged by her actions and how beneficial those actions were to society. Because while she may have saved the world, she still took an innocent (his life was innocent when he was a baby) human life.
ReplyDeleteyou assume that killing is evil. what dictates that killing is an act of evil?
ReplyDeletealso, you stated: " I think sometimes things can be good for society, yet they tend to bring about a greater amount of evil or vice versa."
how is it that killing one innocent baby is more evil than killing around ten million innocent men, women and children?
i'm playing the role of devil's advocate here; i do understand what you're saying. however, i think what i'm really punching holes in is the fact that you've already designated certain actions as good or evil (i.e. - killing as evil). what is it that makes an action good or evil? that's what my point is. killing is evil because humanity cannot benefit from losing members. morally, you may feel that killing a baby is horrifying and sickening, and many, including myself, would agree with you. however, it's evil to society for a different reason than just the emotional or traumatic.
I assume killing is wrong because we had a code of laws and a code of morality that deems killing illegal/morally wrong. I am not a cultural relativist, so if a culture thinks its morally right to take another life, I'd still condemn them for that belief.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the fact that the woman may have saved millions by killing baby Hitler, what she did was still, nevertheless, wrong. I'm not a utilitarian, so I do not look at the outcome of people's actions to determine whether or not that person is good. Actions can be good and still bring about a greater amount of evil. Actions can be wrong and still bring about a greater amount of good. For me, right and wrong are independent of good and evil.
you're right in stating that actions can be positive and bring about negative results, but your flaw in in your example. because the woman knew the outcome before the act was committed, one has to look at the action from a utilitarian perspective in order to understand her motivation. if it was some random woman who decided that the baby gave her the aura of a maniacal dictator and she killed him, that's a different story.
ReplyDeleteyou assume killing to be wrong because a code of laws and a code of morality exists. the code of laws dictates what is societally good and the code of morals dictates what is morally good. the laws are in place because they make a general agreement amongst all peoples that certain actions are encouraged and some are to be deterred from. your morals may tell you otherwise, but it's because it's the individual way of seeing things. your own personal laws, if you will. you're the only person who has to follow them. to say "a culture thinks [something is] morally right" is a fallacy, because a culture does not think morally. perhaps they share similar morals, but they all have different opinions, which change their individual morals (and if you don't believe me, think about all the different takes people have on christianity; do you know anyone who feels EXACTLY the way you do about God, Jesus, and your religion in general?).
going back to your original first statement: "I don't necessarily think that what is good for society is what judges a man as inherently good or evil." you're looking at it from a strictly moral point of view. as i stated above, society does not understand morality. if it did, we would have no need for laws. laws are stoic, which is why some people who abide by them verbatim are considered (morally) to be callous. for example, the judge who will convict a man to death for avenging his brother's murderer. the man is a cold-blooded killer, yet there was an emotional, human trigger that can be justified morally.