Is there a Universal Good and Evil?

[MR. Nate]

I don't think so. They are usually used to define one another.

[n8freeman]

good and evil are perceptions
they differ form person to person

like say if i shot Mr. Nate right now
many would consider that evil

but i would consider it justified because he stole my name therefore i dont think its evil
(this is just an example, i wouldnt do that)

[Rocky Horror]

There are no morals/ethics except those we make ourselves, i.e. Laws passed by the Government.

And your arguement that the only sense of morality is from God is flawed because of the vast amount of religions and levels of religion.

For instance, killing innocent people is usually accepted to be evil and cruel, but some people can justify with their own god.

[n8freeman]

There are no morals/ethics except those we make ourselves, i.e. Laws passed by the Government.

And your arguement that the only sense of morality is from God is flawed because of the vast amount of religions and levels of religion.

For instance, killing innocent people is usually accepted to be evil and cruel, but some people can justify with their own god.

that would make sence, except i dont rly have my own god
i consider myself agnostic

i also believe there are widely excepted things that the majority claim to be good and evil

[Rocky Horror]

There are no morals/ethics except those we make ourselves, i.e. Laws passed by the Government.

And your arguement that the only sense of morality is from God is flawed because of the vast amount of religions and levels of religion.

For instance, killing innocent people is usually accepted to be evil and cruel, but some people can justify with their own god.

that would make sence, except i dont rly have my own god
i consider myself agnostic

i also believe there are widely excepted things that the majority claim to be good and evil

Such as......?

[n8freeman]

the majority of human beings consider murder to be wrong

but not evry human being, just a majority

[MR. Nate]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self Reliance.
Check out the essay itself, might change your life.

It is an excellent essay, albeit not a life-changing one. I do think you have missed his point on consistency. He seems to be focused on consistency over time as an issue, not the consistency of worldview.

The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.

. . .

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.

The part that really scares me, however, is earlier

On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested, — "But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature.

So he is closer to arguing a loyalty to oneself, despite what culture or other external forces have to say. It seems that a serial killer could quote much of this in philosophical defense of their motive. I would prefer the "wholeness" that, say Parker Palmer would push. Consistency within and without as a measure of integrity.

There are no morals/ethics except those we make ourselves, i.e. Laws passed by the Government.

And your arguement that the only sense of morality is from God is flawed because of the vast amount of religions and levels of religion.

For instance, killing innocent people is usually accepted to be evil and cruel, but some people can justify with their own god.

Just because there are multiple religions does not mean they are correct. Someone could say that they killed for God, but that does not mean it is so, if their killing has occurred outside of what God has actually commanded. If morality and ethics truly emerge from the character of God, they supersede individual interpretations.

the majority of human beings consider murder to be wrong
but not evry human being, just a majority

So, if 51% of the worlds population thought you should commit suicide, would that be the right thing to do?
Ethics based on majority are far too easily changed to have an real authority.

[n8freeman]

im not saying that u should conform to the majority, im just saying on a few topics the overwhelming majority considers something to be evil

basically that many people have the same perception on whether something is good or evil
but thats all it rly is, a perception

[luns101]

Sorry to interrupt, i am digging your and vtmarik's little exchange. i can see this thread going down the god/no god path, but i guess that's inevitable, at least partly, given the question.
Asking where atheists get their morality is the same as asking them where religion comes from: People. It's all from people.

Yeah, they almost always do.

I do, however, think it's an interesting question. I mean...the United Nations (whether you like them or not) does try to establish a universal truth as far as how nations treat each other. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if there is an attempt by all the countries of the world to at least try to be decent to each other then that speaks of there being a standard good/evil (if not at least the goal of trying to agree on what it is)

[MR. Nate]

Updated list of those that feel that torturing innocent children and skeet shooting newborns is not only justifiable, but they can be fun pastimes as well.


Riao
Pico
vtmarik
Rocky Horror
heavycola
n8freeman*

*denotes those who want a 51% of the population to agree prior to actually pulling the trigger.

[Rocky Horror]

If there is no Universal Good and Evil <I should really copyright that by now> then there is no reason against killing children, EXCEPT if we start believing that Government's Laws are morally right.

[MR. Nate]

If there is no universal right or wrong, what gives the government the warrant to dictate that anything is wrong? They're just making it up. And what system do you base your belief of their laws?

Keep in mind that the holocaust was legal.

[heavycola]

Sorry to interrupt, i am digging your and vtmarik's little exchange. i can see this thread going down the god/no god path, but i guess that's inevitable, at least partly, given the question.
Asking where atheists get their morality is the same as asking them where religion comes from: People. It's all from people.

Yeah, they almost always do.

I do, however, think it's an interesting question. I mean...the United Nations (whether you like them or not) does try to establish a universal truth as far as how nations treat each other. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if there is an attempt by all the countries of the world to at least try to be decent to each other then that speaks of there being a standard good/evil (if not at least the goal of trying to agree on what it is)

the UN is an interesting thing to consider. I mean thinking about it, even the holocaust was perpetuated (presumably) by people who thought they were acting for some greater good. So in that case the values being espoused at that level - the declaration of human rights, i guess - are based on overwhelming consensus and not universally held opinions.
There is a kind of convention/stereotype in the UK of the churchgoer who doesn't really believe in the miraculous stuff but agrees with the moral messages within christianity. I mean we have had plenty of arguments on here about how bloodthirsty/compassionate/whatever the bible is, but i wouldn't argue that modern christianity is, as far as my liberal-with-a-small-L xian acquaintances go, a morally bad way to live one's life.

NAte: there is no such thing as an innocent child. And don't knock skeet shootign newborns until you've tried it.

[Rocky Horror]

The point is that there IS no way of telling what is right or wrong.
Our methods usually are :-

1. Conscience - Controlled by the Government and our upbringers.
2. Government - Can be wrong <according to the opinion of some>
3. Religion - <sigh> There are many religions and many gods, and they all believe that their's is the right one, but they all have different rules.

Therefore, how do you now what's right?

Answer - You don't. Nothing is wrong and our personal advancement is the only thing that influences us <if we don't follow the above options>.

[Pico]

Wow Nate, completely missed the point I was going for. I wasn't condoning any action anyone brought forth as an example, yours being skeet shooting babies i guess. I meant, we as a people (human race), banded together in small pockets around the planet and came up with lists of what we thought was right and wrong.

Some of these pockets of people, started religions, others governments. As we came across those who are different than us, and shared different lists, we started shoving our beliefs down their throats and vise versa.

Its easy to judge something, if you've lived under the same general list of rights/wrongs your whole life. I'm not saying anything Hitler did was good. He was a fucking prick. But at the time, in his country, he was a revolutionary. THEY thought what he was doing was universally right. Same can be said of any group, government, cult, religious sect.....

They tend to believe what they are doing is universally right, and everyone else is universally wrong. And if your judging what I or any others say by your beliefs (religious or otherwise) and not of what you know, then you prove my point. Your saying what is good and evil, based off a biased outlook you've accepted as right.

[MeDeFe]

If there is no universal right or wrong, what gives the government the warrant to dictate that anything is wrong?

The fact that people recognize this government as a government with the right to pass laws and dictate what's right and wrong.

They're just making it up.

Yeah, so what? At least they're (hopefully) not making it up randomly.

And what system do you base your belief of their laws?

I think you missed an "on" somewhere in there... between "And" and "what" maybe?
Anyway, if I understand your question correctly the answer will probably be along the same lines as the first. People agree with it. I know I'm summing things up something terribly here, but that's really all it boild down to. As long as a majority of people agree with what the government (or any other institution) does or a sufficiently large group does not disagree openly at the very least, it'll keep ticking.

Keep in mind that the holocaust was legal.

Yeah, but what does that prove?


@ luns: About the UN... how does the UN indicate that there is "good" and "evil" as universal standards somewhere? I really don't see how you come from an international institution initially formed to prevent further world wars to there being a standard good and a standard evil. I suppose you mean one imposed on us from somewhere "outside".

[MR. Nate]

So essentially everyone's answer is:

There is no ultimate right or wrong, Culture or societies makes it up as we go along. All morality is relative. Is that it?

[heavycola]

So essentially everyone's answer is:

There is no ultimate right or wrong, Culture or societies makes it up as we go along. All morality is relative. Is that it?

The interesting question is why we feel the need to make it up in the first place.

[MeDeFe]

relative in so far as that it's not imposed on us from outside, but that humans make it up and pass it on. Yes, essentially morality is dictated by the society in which a person lives. For all I know some things might even originate from basic instincts like the will to survive or the wish to rise in a hierarchy.

[Pico]

So essentially everyone's answer is:

There is no ultimate right or wrong, Culture or societies makes it up as we go along. All morality is relative. Is that it?

Pretty much.

[MeDeFe]

So essentially everyone's answer is:

There is no ultimate right or wrong, Culture or societies makes it up as we go along. All morality is relative. Is that it?

The interesting question is why we feel the need to make it up in the first place.

Instincts, personal gain, stuff like that. I already had this discussion once somewhere before and I wish to point out that anything that can be said on this matter is pure speculation.

[MR. Nate]

By the allowing culture to dictate morality, you should agree that:

1. Ghandi was wrong for rebelling against his culture to help the poor achieve equal rights.

2. Hitler was correct in ordering the Holocaust because the majority of culture agreed with him.

3. Martin Luther King Jr. was wrong for fighting against racism because it was a cultural norm.

4. William Wilberforce was wrong for battling slavery because it was a cultural norm.

Is that correct?

[Lord_Paul]

There are so many ways to argue it, but the answer to the question would be no. In some situations, (see post above) the "right thing" is "wrong" in some way. Even following some of the laws are "wrong", from s moral standpoint.

[Rocky Horror]

Damn right.

[luns101]

the UN is an interesting thing to consider. I mean thinking about it, even the holocaust was perpetuated (presumably) by people who thought they were acting for some greater good. So in that case the values being espoused at that level - the declaration of human rights, i guess - are based on overwhelming consensus and not universally held opinions.
There is a kind of convention/stereotype in the UK of the churchgoer who doesn't really believe in the miraculous stuff but agrees with the moral messages within christianity. I mean we have had plenty of arguments on here about how bloodthirsty/compassionate/whatever the bible is, but i wouldn't argue that modern christianity is, as far as my liberal-with-a-small-L xian acquaintances go, a morally bad way to live one's life.

Well, even taking Christianity or atheism out of the equation - doesn't the unending striving for world peace speak to the attempt that there is some ultimate universal good that mankind is trying to achieve? It seems to me that, regardless of nationality, there are basic rules of civil conduct by mankind.