Is there a Universal Good and Evil?

[satanspaladin]

Damnit! Create your own thread instead of derailing this one!

I dont think you can find a definitive answer to a universal good or evil.

For we are all unique ,so are perceptions of good /evil are unique to each of us .

A majority of humanity may think a specific act is good or evil but i doubt
you will find a consensus of opinion on any single act of good or evil there will all ways be voice of dissent.

Is this back on thread for you ?

[MeDeFe]

We were a long way from that point in the discussion. Come back once gringo and I have traded an other dozen of posts and we'll see if we can fit you in.

[insomniacdude]

No, everything is relative. In my mind there are clear acts of evil: genocide, most cases of murder, rape. Even though there are eople out there that think something like The Holocaust was "right" (as unfortunate as that is), I find that to be evil to the worst degree and cna find no rational defense for it in my mind, even if they believe they were doing the right thing. However, for a lot of things, there is no clear answer. Sometimes theft is wrong. Sometimes it "isn't".

[The Weird One]

well, i don't know who the good is, but i like to think of myself as the universal evil

[MR. Nate]

No, everything is relative. In my mind there are clear acts of evil: genocide, most cases of murder, rape. Even though there are eople out there that think something like The Holocaust was "right" (as unfortunate as that is), I find that to be evil to the worst degree and cna find no rational defense for it in my mind, even if they believe they were doing the right thing. However, for a lot of things, there is no clear answer. Sometimes theft is wrong. Sometimes it "isn't".

So you deny that murder and genocide can ever be right? Wouldn't they then fit the bill as something that is universally wrong?

well, i don't know who the good is, but i like to think of myself as the universal evil

That would be true if you weren't so darn nice.

[got tonkaed]

No, everything is relative. In my mind there are clear acts of evil: genocide, most cases of murder, rape. Even though there are eople out there that think something like The Holocaust was "right" (as unfortunate as that is), I find that to be evil to the worst degree and cna find no rational defense for it in my mind, even if they believe they were doing the right thing. However, for a lot of things, there is no clear answer. Sometimes theft is wrong. Sometimes it "isn't".

So you deny that murder and genocide can ever be right? Wouldn't they then fit the bill as something that is universally wrong?

well, i don't know who the good is, but i like to think of myself as the universal evil

That would be true if you weren't so darn nice.

to be fair there were many periods in history when murder or genocide of marginalized people was considered a possible option...so apparently despite the fact that most of us seem to think its a pretty horrific idea, it may not be universally deemed so.

[vtmarik]

No, everything is relative. In my mind there are clear acts of evil: genocide, most cases of murder, rape. Even though there are eople out there that think something like The Holocaust was "right" (as unfortunate as that is), I find that to be evil to the worst degree and cna find no rational defense for it in my mind, even if they believe they were doing the right thing. However, for a lot of things, there is no clear answer. Sometimes theft is wrong. Sometimes it "isn't".

So you deny that murder and genocide can ever be right? Wouldn't they then fit the bill as something that is universally wrong?

Killing someone in self defense isn't murder, it's self-defense.

[OnlyAmbrose]

No, everything is relative. In my mind there are clear acts of evil: genocide, most cases of murder, rape. Even though there are eople out there that think something like The Holocaust was "right" (as unfortunate as that is), I find that to be evil to the worst degree and cna find no rational defense for it in my mind, even if they believe they were doing the right thing. However, for a lot of things, there is no clear answer. Sometimes theft is wrong. Sometimes it "isn't".

I'm not sure how you can say that "everything is relative" and then go on to say that there are "clear acts of evil".

[got tonkaed]

No, everything is relative. In my mind there are clear acts of evil: genocide, most cases of murder, rape. Even though there are eople out there that think something like The Holocaust was "right" (as unfortunate as that is), I find that to be evil to the worst degree and cna find no rational defense for it in my mind, even if they believe they were doing the right thing. However, for a lot of things, there is no clear answer. Sometimes theft is wrong. Sometimes it "isn't".

I'm not sure how you can say that "everything is relative" and then go on to say that there are "clear acts of evil".

there are acts that are relatively clear?

[riggable]

universal good: creation of the universe.

universal evil: destruction of the universe.


everything else is marginalized.

[biznor]

To me, good and evil are relative to a given goal. Good moves a person closer to that goal, and evil makes that goal harder to accomplish.

Examples:

If the goal is to make everyone as happy as possible before they die, then it would be considered good to make people happy and bad to make people sad.

If the goal is to make as much money as you can possibly make in one lifetime, then it is considered good to make money by whatever means necessary, and bad to lose money.


Obviously it is much more complicated than this. People have multiple goals in life, and these goals often conflict with the goals of others. Therefore, if good and evil are defined relative to a given goal, then there is no universal good and evil because everyone has different goals.

[biznor]

universal good: creation of the universe.

universal evil: destruction of the universe.


everything else is marginalized.

I like this philosophy. It's short and sweet.

[daddy1gringo]

We need to coin a new word.

Maybe a thread asking for ideas is in order?

Or let's call it "nocomsux" (NO COMparative words, not SUbjective, no eXceptions). Yeah, I know it's a crap word but I've been up all night and will be going to bed as soon as I know noone is taking a shower anymore, at least the rest of the family will be off to Amsterdam so it'll be nice and quiet here while I'm sleeping. /rant end

One reason it has taken so long to get back is that the 2 main problems I see here are things we’ve been over and over, and I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth it.

First, with your “noncomsux” stuff you’re making it sound like the kind of statement I’m talking about is some esoteric, overly-specific concept of marginal significance in the search for truth or of “universal good and evil.” Well, that’s true of the idea of absolute truth you’ve been describing, where it can’t include any “external” concepts, and those concepts, as in your example “Jack is tall” include the concept of “tall” and even the subject of the sentence, “Jack”. As I said, for our discussion, that definition begs the question by making it impossible (not just difficult) for any such statement ever to exist in reality. But it is not true of what I am describing. Let me take it back to practical application.

Take whatever you believe in strongly and would argue for, perhaps that we need to take aggressive steps to end global warming, or that Bush should pull the troops out of Iraq, or that fanatics should stop trying to force people to believe in God, or it’s wrong for someone to hit you on the head and take your wallet, and there should be a penalty; whatever, you fill in the blank. You have clearly shown your opponent to be wrong, that His arguments are faulty and yours irrefutable. Then (I’m going to pull a Norse-at-his-best here) he pulls his legs into a full lotus, puts the thumb and index finger together on the upturned hands on his knees, and says “ That may be true for you, but it isn’t true for me. You see, there is no absolute truth. You see, if there’s a car accident, and two people see it …” and he proceeds to enlighten you on the Zen concept of subjective reality.

Now this guy, when he says “there is no absolute truth,” isn’t talking about what you have described. He’s talking about a statement that the listener has to agree to and act in accordance with if he’s going to be intellectually honest; something you can’t write off as “true for you, but not true for me.” If we have to get rid of the concepts of comparisons and exceptions, and just say “objective rather than subjective”, ok, but I don’t see the harm in including them. I think they’re part of what the speaker in my example would have in mind.

As I said from the beginning, the only way to assert that no such objective truth exists is by making a statement, which, if it is true, is exactly the type of statement the speaker is asserting does not exist. He is saying that you cannot continue insisting on the truth of whatever you have just demonstrated to be true to him, because his statement (“there is no absolute[read objective] truth”) is true. So, in order for the statement to be true, it must be false, therefore the statement is necessarily false. So some such objective truth must exist.

That brings me to the other point of disagreement,

I don't think the statement "There is no nocomsux truth" is inherently contradictory, though. As with ghosts, unicorns and the biggest prime number there can be a concept of "nocomsux truth", but this does not mean that "nocomsux truth" itself exists. Proof for or against has to come from elsewhere.

Once again, since we’re talking about statements here rather than physical things, the idea of the actual thing existing rather than just the concept gets a little more difficult; a statement is always just a concept. If a physical thing actually exists, you can touch it. (Though as we have been using the example of Gandalf, if he actually existed you couldn’t touch him without being turned from regular recipe to extra crispy).

Nevertheless, in my example, the actual statement exists, not just the concept. The concept of an absolute, or objective, or “noncomsux” truth, we could only make general statements about, describing what its characteristics would be. The statement “there is no absolute truth” as an actual statement that actually exists. It has particular words rather than other words. A person has actually used it in an argument. If it is true, it most certainly does contradict the statement that no such thing exists.

[daddy1gringo]

The thing is that reality itself is subjective. Many people 'know' that the threat of communists invading our country and destroying our government is real. Others 'know' that the elephant that lives in their bellybutton is real.

Facts that are in line with that reality are then declared true, and all others are declared false.

There is no absolute truth because there is no absolute reality, in the sense that the subjective reaction to the world around is reality.

But just because you can show that some things, even many things, are subjective, that doesn't prove that everything is, that there are not some things that are not subjective.

Also, this is a good example of my main point. What if I said that I disagree with your statement that "there is no absolute truth;" that I think there *is* absolute truth? Wouldn't you say that I am wrong? Aren't you, then, putting forth your own statement as an absolute truth? You certainly state it in a manner that says that it is absolutely true, meaning that anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.

[vtmarik]

The thing is that reality itself is subjective. Many people 'know' that the threat of communists invading our country and destroying our government is real. Others 'know' that the elephant that lives in their bellybutton is real.

Facts that are in line with that reality are then declared true, and all others are declared false.

There is no absolute truth because there is no absolute reality, in the sense that the subjective reaction to the world around is reality.

But just because you can show that some things, even many things, are subjective, that doesn't prove that everything is, that there are not some things that are not subjective.

Also, this is a good example of my main point. What if I said that I disagree with your statement that "there is no absolute truth;" that I think there *is* absolute truth? Wouldn't you say that I am wrong? Aren't you, then, putting forth your own statement as an absolute truth? You certainly state it in a manner that says that it is absolutely true, meaning that anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.

The sheer fact that you disagree with me in that hypothetical demonstrates the lack of the absolute, since an absolute is one of those indelible things that can't be altered or disagreed with.

By saying that everything is subjective, I am including that statement into everything. Subjectivity itself is subjective. What is absolute to some is poppycock to others.

You only need show that one thing is subjective to disprove an absolute, since the term absolute depends on all things agreeing with whatever principle is posited to be absolute.

[The Weird One]

well, i don't know who the good is, but i like to think of myself as the universal evil

That would be true if you weren't so darn nice.

I'm only like that on CC

[daddy1gringo]

The thing is that reality itself is subjective. Many people 'know' that the threat of communists invading our country and destroying our government is real. Others 'know' that the elephant that lives in their bellybutton is real.

Facts that are in line with that reality are then declared true, and all others are declared false.

There is no absolute truth because there is no absolute reality, in the sense that the subjective reaction to the world around is reality.

But just because you can show that some things, even many things, are subjective, that doesn't prove that everything is, that there are not some things that are not subjective.

Also, this is a good example of my main point. What if I said that I disagree with your statement that "there is no absolute truth;" that I think there *is* absolute truth? Wouldn't you say that I am wrong? Aren't you, then, putting forth your own statement as an absolute truth? You certainly state it in a manner that says that it is absolutely true, meaning that anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.

The sheer fact that you disagree with me in that hypothetical demonstrates the lack of the absolute, since an absolute is one of those indelible things that can't be altered or disagreed with.

By saying that everything is subjective, I am including that statement into everything. Subjectivity itself is subjective. What is absolute to some is poppycock to others.

You only need show that one thing is subjective to disprove an absolute, since the term absolute depends on all things agreeing with whatever principle is posited to be absolute.

So according to what you are saying, since there is no absolute truth, your statement: "There is no absolute truth," cannot be absolutely true. Since it is not absolutely true, there must be one or more exceptions to it. An exception to the statement "there is no absolute truth" would be an absolute truth, so one or more absolute truths must exist.

[got tonkaed]

The thing is that reality itself is subjective. Many people 'know' that the threat of communists invading our country and destroying our government is real. Others 'know' that the elephant that lives in their bellybutton is real.

Facts that are in line with that reality are then declared true, and all others are declared false.

There is no absolute truth because there is no absolute reality, in the sense that the subjective reaction to the world around is reality.

But just because you can show that some things, even many things, are subjective, that doesn't prove that everything is, that there are not some things that are not subjective.

Also, this is a good example of my main point. What if I said that I disagree with your statement that "there is no absolute truth;" that I think there *is* absolute truth? Wouldn't you say that I am wrong? Aren't you, then, putting forth your own statement as an absolute truth? You certainly state it in a manner that says that it is absolutely true, meaning that anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.

The sheer fact that you disagree with me in that hypothetical demonstrates the lack of the absolute, since an absolute is one of those indelible things that can't be altered or disagreed with.

By saying that everything is subjective, I am including that statement into everything. Subjectivity itself is subjective. What is absolute to some is poppycock to others.

You only need show that one thing is subjective to disprove an absolute, since the term absolute depends on all things agreeing with whatever principle is posited to be absolute.

So according to what you are saying, since there is no absolute truth, your statement: "There is no absolute truth," cannot be absolutely true. Since it is not absolutely true, there must be one or more exceptions to it. An exception to the statement "there is no absolute truth" would be an absolute truth, so one or more absolute truths must exist.

out of curiousity how does this advance your point. Should he agree to the only absolutle truth being no aboslute truth, that lack of absolute truth cannot manifest itself outside of semantics. Also by proving a semantic contradiction, you dont prove therefore by extension that a particular version of absolute truth must be true by arguing semantically that no absolute truth is a contradiction.

[daddy1gringo]

So according to what you are saying, since there is no absolute truth, your statement: "There is no absolute truth," cannot be absolutely true. Since it is not absolutely true, there must be one or more exceptions to it. An exception to the statement "there is no absolute truth" would be an absolute truth, so one or more absolute truths must exist.

out of curiousity how does this advance your point. Should he agree to the only absolutle truth being no aboslute truth, that lack of absolute truth cannot manifest itself outside of semantics. Also by proving a semantic contradiction, you dont prove therefore by extension that a particular version of absolute truth must be true by arguing semantically that no absolute truth is a contradiction.

A worthwhile question. This whole argument is a bit of a tangent to the thread question, but we started it way back near the beginning and it got interesting. The relevance is that in order to answer the thread question, we have to first establish that we can ever assert anything to be true without being de-railed by the "what's true for you is not true for me" thing. The question "Is there a universal good and evil" it seems to me is especially vulnerable to such de-railing.

I had thought of this line of reasoning some time ago, and it seems sound to me, that some absolute truth must exist because the negation: "there is no absolute truth" is self-contradictory. Since there are several intelligent, educated, and articulate people in the forum who I thought I could count on to disagree with me, I decided to put it up to get tested, and also perhaps contribute to the topic.

So to answer your question of what results I am hoping for, I am looking for people to either disprove my line of reasoning, or accept its conclusion, that the statement "there is no absolute truth" is necessarily false, and so some absolute truth must exist. (given the discussions I have had about the technical definition of "absolute", we may need to substitute "objective" or perhaps some other word, but for now we'll use "absolute")

Yes I am aware that this does not in itself prove any particular statement or version of truth is true, but I believe it's a necessary step to get there. You can't assert that a particular thing is an absolute truth if you are expected to accept as an axiom that no such thing exists.

I hope that clears things up.

[riggable]

paradoxes are evil.

[The Weird One]

ya

[vtmarik]

The thing is that reality itself is subjective. Many people 'know' that the threat of communists invading our country and destroying our government is real. Others 'know' that the elephant that lives in their bellybutton is real.

Facts that are in line with that reality are then declared true, and all others are declared false.

There is no absolute truth because there is no absolute reality, in the sense that the subjective reaction to the world around is reality.

But just because you can show that some things, even many things, are subjective, that doesn't prove that everything is, that there are not some things that are not subjective.

Also, this is a good example of my main point. What if I said that I disagree with your statement that "there is no absolute truth;" that I think there *is* absolute truth? Wouldn't you say that I am wrong? Aren't you, then, putting forth your own statement as an absolute truth? You certainly state it in a manner that says that it is absolutely true, meaning that anyone who disagrees with it is wrong.

The sheer fact that you disagree with me in that hypothetical demonstrates the lack of the absolute, since an absolute is one of those indelible things that can't be altered or disagreed with.

By saying that everything is subjective, I am including that statement into everything. Subjectivity itself is subjective. What is absolute to some is poppycock to others.

You only need show that one thing is subjective to disprove an absolute, since the term absolute depends on all things agreeing with whatever principle is posited to be absolute.

So according to what you are saying, since there is no absolute truth, your statement: "There is no absolute truth," cannot be absolutely true. Since it is not absolutely true, there must be one or more exceptions to it. An exception to the statement "there is no absolute truth" would be an absolute truth, so one or more absolute truths must exist.

out of curiousity how does this advance your point. Should he agree to the only absolutle truth being no aboslute truth, that lack of absolute truth cannot manifest itself outside of semantics. Also by proving a semantic contradiction, you dont prove therefore by extension that a particular version of absolute truth must be true by arguing semantically that no absolute truth is a contradiction.

I can answer that with a quote from the Principia Discordia:
"All things are true."
"Even false things?"
"Even false things are true."
"How can that be?"
"I don't know, I didn't do it."

[MeDeFe]

We need to coin a new word.

Maybe a thread asking for ideas is in order?

Or let's call it "nocomsux" (NO COMparative words, not SUbjective, no eXceptions). Yeah, I know it's a crap word but I've been up all night and will be going to bed as soon as I know noone is taking a shower anymore, at least the rest of the family will be off to Amsterdam so it'll be nice and quiet here while I'm sleeping. /rant end

One reason it has taken so long to get back is that the 2 main problems I see here are things we’ve been over and over, and I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth it.

First, with your “noncomsux” stuff you’re making it sound like the kind of statement I’m talking about is some esoteric, overly-specific concept of marginal significance in the search for truth or of “universal good and evil.” Well, that’s true of the idea of absolute truth you’ve been describing, where it can’t include any “external” concepts, and those concepts, as in your example “Jack is tall” include the concept of “tall” and even the subject of the sentence, “Jack”. As I said, for our discussion, that definition begs the question by making it impossible (not just difficult) for any such statement ever to exist in reality. But it is not true of what I am describing. Let me take it back to practical application.

It was not my intention to make it sound like that. The problem I saw is in our differing definitions of "absolute". You went with the, in my opinion rather sloppy, definition of 'absolute' as it's used in everyday language and added a few aspects, while I went with a literal and, as I see it, more precise though admittedly rather specialized definition. To solve this problem once and for all I proposed that we introduce a new term that entails your whole concept to make sure that we keep them separated.

Take whatever you believe in strongly and would argue for, perhaps that we need to take aggressive steps to end global warming, or that Bush should pull the troops out of Iraq, or that fanatics should stop trying to force people to believe in God, or it’s wrong for someone to hit you on the head and take your wallet, and there should be a penalty; whatever, you fill in the blank. You have clearly shown your opponent to be wrong, that His arguments are faulty and yours irrefutable. Then (I’m going to pull a Norse-at-his-best here) he pulls his legs into a full lotus, puts the thumb and index finger together on the upturned hands on his knees, and says “ That may be true for you, but it isn’t true for me. You see, there is no absolute truth. You see, if there’s a car accident, and two people see it …” and he proceeds to enlighten you on the Zen concept of subjective reality.

Now this guy, when he says “there is no absolute truth,” isn’t talking about what you have described. He’s talking about a statement that the listener has to agree to and act in accordance with if he’s going to be intellectually honest; something you can’t write off as “true for you, but not true for me.” If we have to get rid of the concepts of comparisons and exceptions, and just say “objective rather than subjective”, ok, but I don’t see the harm in including them. I think they’re part of what the speaker in my example would have in mind.

As I said from the beginning, the only way to assert that no such objective truth exists is by making a statement, which, if it is true, is exactly the type of statement the speaker is asserting does not exist. He is saying that you cannot continue insisting on the truth of whatever you have just demonstrated to be true to him, because his statement (“there is no absolute[read objective] truth”) is true. So, in order for the statement to be true, it must be false, therefore the statement is necessarily false. So some such objective truth must exist.

Well, I would maintain that this fictional person is arguing for his personal opinion that there is only subjective (that's the way I would term this) truth from a subjective point of view. He's simply omitting the "In my opinion" from every sentence. So there isn't really any contradiction there.

But arguing about ficitional characters is futile I think. So to get back on track: I never argued against objectively true statements, neither against universally true statements, nor against excluding comparative words. In fact I would have thought that you would leap at the opportunity I presented you with when I proposed we coin a new word for your concept, which I even agreed with and offered an example for in an earlier post. I just do not agree to calling it 'absolute'.

That brings me to the other point of disagreement,

I don't think the statement "There is no nocomsux truth" is inherently contradictory, though. As with ghosts, unicorns and the biggest prime number there can be a concept of "nocomsux truth", but this does not mean that "nocomsux truth" itself exists. Proof for or against has to come from elsewhere.

Once again, since we’re talking about statements here rather than physical things, the idea of the actual thing existing rather than just the concept gets a little more difficult; a statement is always just a concept. If a physical thing actually exists, you can touch it. (Though as we have been using the example of Gandalf, if he actually existed you couldn’t touch him without being turned from regular recipe to extra crispy).

Nevertheless, in my example, the actual statement exists, not just the concept. The concept of an absolute, or objective, or “noncomsux” truth, we could only make general statements about, describing what its characteristics would be. The statement “there is no absolute truth” as an actual statement that actually exists. It has particular words rather than other words. A person has actually used it in an argument. If it is true, it most certainly does contradict the statement that no such thing exists.

So which concept is it? Absolute truth? Objective truth? Nocomsux truth? Because I do not equate them and would only argue against the first. In fact I have done so since our discussion started. I already showed that the statement "there is no absolute truth", whether it's true or not, is not itself absolute and therefore not inherently contradictory.
Even in this second part of my last post I did not argue against your concept that I termed "nocomsux", even though it might not have been completely clear, I'll admit that. I only argued against the claim that the statement "there is no nocomsux truth" would be inherently contradictory. In fact, as I've already said in this post and before, I have no problem at all with the concept that there can be statements that have no exceptions, contain no comparative words and are true or false independently of the speakers emotions.

[daddy1gringo]

I can answer that with a quote from the Principia Discordia:
"All things are true."
"Even false things?"
"Even false things are true."
"How can that be?"
"I don't know, I didn't do it."

...so you just accept it by blind faith.

[NESconqueror]

I can answer that with a quote from the Principia Discordia:
"All things are true."
"Even false things?"
"Even false things are true."
"How can that be?"
"I don't know, I didn't do it."

...so you just accept it by blind faith.

I say this question has MANY angles...
If it was the mafia world, then Yeah... I am the evil there.
If it was the NES world, then HA NO. I would never betray the NES.