Bad People

[fester30]

(Hmmm...now I'm sounding dense myself!) In other words, you can't really determine what is good or bad, so forget about it. Live and let die.

In whose other words? Who said anything close to this?

Paul McCartney  

[penfold]

Ultimately consequentialism falls back on the same principle as deontological ethics. Be it actions, consequences or intentions; things are only good or bad, just because.

@Melmoth,

thanks for your post. I should make clear, I am not happy with consequentialism and certainly would not advocate any kind of 'principle of utility' as moral method. I share your suspicion that consequentialism is a based upon moral certainty just as surely as any deontological system. It is no coincidence that most of the great consequentialist figures (Mill, Putnam, Butler etc...) find their methods justify the commonly accepted moral norms of their times!

My own view is that of G E M Anscombe: ethical statements are meaningful when spoken in the context of certain 'brute facts' and 'normal circumstances'. So 'Punishing a man' is ethically Bad if 'he is known to be innocent' (Brute fact) and if 'circumstances are normal'.

It might be pointed out that this system gives no definition of "Good" and "Bad"; such terms can only be defined as a set of behaviours, the boundaries of that set being only determined by examples. To me this actually a strength. I certainly do not like the idea that Good and Bad are 'things-in-themselves'; but I would not follow Hume in arguing they are meaningless. The nice thing about Anscombe's method is that without relying on moral truths, it rescues moral statements form meaninglessness.

But I digress...

I couldn't quite work it out from your post; given that you allow things to be Good or Bad 'just because' (and thus have meaning); would you allow the descriptions of ethically Good or Bad be applied to a person?

[AreEl]

Excellent observation! The atheist says ''Good and bad are determined by cultural consensus and are a matter of opinion''

I'm not sure who "the atheist" you're talking about is, but hastily generalizing does not a good argument make.

I was talking about pure, unadulterated atheism; the atheism that is uncontaminated by religious holdovers insofar as morality is concerned. If you are aware of an atheism with such uncontaminated moral absolutes, present it to us.

whereas the Christian would say, ''Good and evil are determined by God and are objectively known.''

Do you have an objective means in which to acquire these "objectively" known good and evil determinations?

For a Christian, the Bible is the revealed word of God. So, what is in that book is considered objectively true for the Christian. For the atheist - and for all agnostics and most theists - what is in the Bible is considered of mythical interest (at best) and not objective at all. Now, did you not already know the answer to your own question?! (I'm sure you did!) I'm quite certain that most of the people who will participate in this discussion will be quite familiar with all this stuff already.

In other words, for an atheist/an agnostic/& most theists, morality is a judgement of value and will change according to one's culture; for a Christian, morality is a judgement of fact which is unchangeable because the Bible is seen as objectively true.

However, this discussion isn't about Christianity. Again, if you know of moral absolutes in atheism, present them to us for discussion.

[Melmoth]

We construct our moral systems around an already assumed, yet transient and difficult to express, set of moral certainties. It's not an attempt to discover the basis of morality but simply to define and rationalise what we already think we possess in entirety. We measure the worth of all moral systems against our assumed, ungrounded certainties, and this is the only thing that can give or take away their integrity.

Excellent observation! The atheist says ''Good and bad are determined by cultural consensus and are a matter of opinion'' whereas the Christian would say, ''Good and evil are determined by God and are objectively known.'' The atheist conception of Good vs. Bad necessarily denies the possibility of absolutes in relation to moral knowledge. (Hmmm...now I'm sounding dense myself!) In other words, you can't really determine what is good or bad, so forget about it. Live and let die.

Just to clarify, because I think you may have misunderstood me slightly, my observation was directed at all moral systems, including, especially, religious ones. If we were only trying to describe morality as a natural phenomenon, conducting surveys and what not, coming up with a foruma to say, "this is generally how people judge right and wrong," then that would be an exception.

What I'm talking about are systems that prescribe, that set down the rules to be followed, and there's no better example of that than religion. Firstly, in defining such a system, you've already posited that a person would be amoral without it. This creates a massive problem for you because it means that in order to explain it, or justify following it, you have to begin from a position of complete amorality.

It's no good just saying that a system works under its own terms, from a position of itself, because that would be true for any system and therefore banal. Yet to say that a system "does not work" would also assume a separate set of moral standards to wiegh it against. Eg. from a consequentialist perspective, I'd say that theism "does not work" because it holds actions to be innately 'good' or 'evil' regardless of their consequences. From a theistic perspective I might say that consequentialism "does not work" because of its double-standards - it proposes that under certain circumstances rape and murder could be OK.

You can only judge these systems against each other, therefore your choice is ultimately arbitrary. That's what I was trying to hint at. I don't think we are naturally amoral beings, so our attempts to prescribe morals onto others usually wind up being loose descriptions of our own moral, emotional framework. A Christian doesn't get their morality from Christ's teachings - they follow Christ's teachings because he supports a moral sense that they already possess.

If I had to choose, and I don't, I'd rather follow an atheistic system, simply because they tend to be more satisfyingly complex, more detailed, more fun to think about, and they don't involve impossible claims. Plus they come closer to describing my own innate, natural morality. But there's no more logic to this than simply making up my own list of absolutes and sticking to those. We only have our emotions to base this decision on.

@penfold
I'll get to you later today. Sorry I couldn't now - got a lot to do!

[AreEl]

Melmoth,

thanks for your reply. I don't think I misunderstood you the first time because I agree with everything you said in your second post, even this:

What I'm talking about are systems that prescribe, that set down the rules to be followed, and there's no better example of that than religion. Firstly, in defining such a system, you've already posited that a person would be amoral without it. This creates a massive problem for you because it means that in order to explain it, or justify following it, you have to begin from a position of complete amorality.

...although I don't see the ''massive problem'' with amorality. Animals are without morals,  we are fleshly beings, therefore we are born amoral (without innate morality).

You can only judge these systems against each other, therefore your choice is ultimately arbitrary. That's what I was trying to hint at. I don't think we are naturally amoral beings, so our attempts to prescribe morals onto others usually wind up being loose descriptions of our own moral, emotional framework. A Christian doesn't get their morality from Christ's teachings - they follow Christ's teachings because he supports a moral sense that they already possess.

I agree with reservation. My only question is whether you mean ''I don't think we are naturally immoral beings'' above. I'm fine with the lack of innate morality in animals (and man). Your statement about where a Christian gets his moral sense is profound and true...very profound, indeed.

I'll look forward to your answer to Penfold's reply. Thanks for your interesting input.

[Davin]

I'm not sure who "the atheist" you're talking about is, but hastily generalizing does not a good argument make.

I was talking about pure, unadulterated atheism; the atheism that is uncontaminated by religious holdovers insofar as morality is concerned. If you are aware of an atheism with such uncontaminated moral absolutes, present it to us.

So you're correct until someone shows you otherwise? The one making the assertion supports their assertions.

whereas the Christian would say, ''Good and evil are determined by God and are objectively known.''

Do you have an objective means in which to acquire these "objectively" known good and evil determinations?

For a Christian, the Bible is the revealed word of God. So, what is in that book is considered objectively true for the Christian. For the atheist - and for all agnostics and most theists - what is in the Bible is considered of mythical interest (at best) and not objective at all.

Something objective is something that is not dependent on consideration. The bible is not objective at all. In fact all Christians demonstrate this by ignoring contradictions and innaccuracies.

Now, did you not already know the answer to your own question?! (I'm sure you did!) I'm quite certain that most of the people who will participate in this discussion will be quite familiar with all this stuff already.

You stated that you have objective moral standards, but you derive those "objective" moral standards subjectively. Do you see the problem?

In other words, for an atheist/an agnostic/& most theists, morality is a judgement of value and will change according to one's culture; for a Christian, morality is a judgement of fact which is unchangeable because the Bible is seen as objectively true.

So you stone people to death who do things on the Sabbath? You support slavery and see nothing wrong with selling daughters to cover debts? You think it's wrong to wear cotton blends? You don't have a cross?

However, this discussion isn't about Christianity. Again, if you know of moral absolutes in atheism, present them to us for discussion.

You stated that Christians have objectively known morals, I'm challenging that statement.

[penfold]

Davin, the peculiar idiosyncrasies of Christian ethics are fascinating, but they are not the topic of this thread. Any chance you and AreEl could take it outside?

Thanks

[penfold]

I don't think there is an objective bad, subjective badness isn't uncommon.
Someone who does bad repeatedly with no redeeming actions, yes I'll call them bad.
An apple can go bad, a human can too.
It's probably a bit late to ask but what is our working definition of bad?

I would agree there is no 'objective bad'. But 'Bad' has meaning. Take the statement: "It is unjust to knowingly punish an innocent man (in normal circumstances), and unjust behaviour is ethically Bad". You would have to travel far for this sentiment to lose its currency; its meaning is readily apparent to us.

My working definition of Bad is a set of behaviours defined by examples. (Eg. Using the above example we develop a paradigm case of 'unjust'. That which is unjust is Bad by any reasonable understanding of the terms). This is a pretty weak definition but I know of no better one.

You seemed to suggest that there was a balancing act going on, but that a person "who does bad repeatedly with no redeeming actions" is Bad. That, I assume, is based upon what a person has actually done (not merely what they got caught for doing). You also say that badness must be 'subjective'. Does that mean as long as you think you're Good then you are (at least from your subjective standpoint)?

To go back to Pol Pot. The problem here, is based upon his actions we would judge him (on balance) as Bad. He seems to judge, based upon his own actions, that he is Good. It should be noted that he has a fuller 'data-set' than the rest of us (as the only subject who knows everything a person has done is that same person!)

Is your position that both points of view (Pol Pot Bad vs Pol Pot Good) are equally valid? I would say that such a claim would render ethics meaningless.

Or would you say that we can make an objective list of things done by Pol Pot and determine he is Bad? If so you are making the case for objective ethics, and so an objective bad.

[curiosityandthecat]

(Hmmm...now I'm sounding dense myself!) In other words, you can't really determine what is good or bad, so forget about it. Live and let die.

In whose other words? Who said anything close to this?

Paul McCartney  

...do we have a picture of Paul McCartney?

[The Magic Pudding]

I would agree there is no 'objective bad'. But 'Bad' has meaning. Take the statement: "It is unjust to knowingly punish an innocent man (in normal circumstances), and unjust behaviour is ethically Bad". You would have to travel far for this sentiment to lose its currency; its meaning is readily apparent to us.

My working definition of Bad is a set of behaviours defined by examples. (Eg. Using the above example we develop a paradigm case of 'unjust'. That which is unjust is Bad by any reasonable understanding of the terms). This is a pretty weak definition but I know of no better one.

OK I'll work with unjust for now, I'd probably see bad at one end of the spectrum and good at the other, all humans fitting somewhere between the extremes.

You seemed to suggest that there was a balancing act going on, but that a person "who does bad repeatedly with no redeeming actions" is Bad. That, I assume, is based upon what a person has actually done (not merely what they got caught for doing). You also say that badness must be 'subjective'. Does that mean as long as you think you're Good then you are (at least from your subjective standpoint)?

Ye I don't doubt certain types of people can see themselves as good, even after causing the death of 20% of their population in the name of social restructuring.  I don't know if these people are insane or just indifferent to the suffering of others.  They have an obsession so deaths can be ignored or disregarded.  I'd hope leaders such as Roosevelt and Churchill questioned their own good/badness.  The burning of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would deserve at least that.  I don't know if it is "just" to nuke or firebomb a city, to kill a thousand others to save one of your own.

To go back to Pol Pot. The problem here, is based upon his actions we would judge him (on balance) as Bad. He seems to judge, based upon his own actions, that he is Good. It should be noted that he has a fuller 'data-set' than the rest of us (as the only subject who knows everything a person has done is that same person!)

So Pol Pot has a fuller data set?
Maybe not, he didn't personally suffer millions of painful deaths.  He didn't experience the love for a child and then the anguish of watching them starve.  I think he would he query his data to get an answer that justified his actions.  I don't think he would be asking how many children died because of him, though it is possible he took pleasure in these things.

Is your position that both points of view (Pol Pot Bad vs Pol Pot Good) are equally valid? I would say that such a claim would render ethics meaningless.

Or would you say that we can make an objective list of things done by Pol Pot and determine he is Bad? If so you are making the case for objective ethics, and so an objective bad.

His point of view isn't valid to me, my definition of just would give some weight to the interests of others.  I think he's playing by different rules, something is just if it serves his will.

[Melmoth]

Phew. @Penfold, sorry about the delay. Had a very important deadline to meet.

I couldn't quite work it out from your post; given that you allow things to be Good or Bad 'just because' (and thus have meaning); would you allow the descriptions of ethically Good or Bad be applied to a person?

That's a very difficult question to answer. Not one I'm 100% decided upon, truthfully. For now, I probably wouldn't describe a person, as a sort of general entity, as either good or bad.

I think that for a person to be one or the other would require the existence of a soul. And I don't necessarily mean anything metaphisical or supernatural by that. When I say a soul, I mean an anchor of some sort. Something that fixes a person to one consistent identity.

When I look at myself in the mirror, it seems that no matter how much I change physically, no matter how much my opinions change, now matter how much my memories change, no matter how much the way I think, the way I percieve the world, the way I percieve others, the way they percieve me, and the way I percieve myself changes, I am still, somehow, indefinably, the same person. This evasive anchor is what I mean by the 'soul.' And I'm not just talking about DNA.

I think the soul is a very convincing illusion but that the 'self' is really very plural and amorphous. You can talk specifics, say that it's been good here or bad there, but I don't think you can generalise it.

I hope that answers your question and that I haven't missed anything - it's bound to happen sooner or later. So many things are being said by everyone. There's so much to take in.

What I'm talking about are systems that prescribe, that set down the rules to be followed, and there's no better example of that than religion. Firstly, in defining such a system, you've already posited that a person would be amoral without it. This creates a massive problem for you because it means that in order to explain it, or justify following it, you have to begin from a position of complete amorality.

...although I don't see the ''massive problem'' with amorality. Animals are without morals, we are fleshly beings, therefore we are born amoral (without innate morality).

Once again, purely in the interest of making sure I'm not misunderstood: I have no problem with amorality either, by which I don't mean 'immorality', to answer your other question. Amorality is blissful. :raised:

[AreEl]

Melmoth,

I agree that the following is true for the vast majority of people, atheist, agnostics and theists (even Christians)*:

The only thing we can base morality on - indeed, the only thing we ever do base morality on - is subjective, emotional instinct. The only essential difference between an atheist and a Christian, with regard what I've said, is that it isn't typically required of atheists to deny this, nor typically allowed for Christians to admit it.

The idea that ''everything is relative'' has popular favor at this time in the West. With this in mind, I would add that whatever morality one chooses can be neither ''good'' or ''bad'' because there can be no such thing as absolute good & bad. What is ''good'' today (gay marriage for example) was ''bad'' 50 years ago; pedophelia was ''good'' in ancient Greece but you'd have to have big balls to say that it is ''good'' today.  (I don't condemn gay marrage or pedophelia between consenting individuals; I am just presenting these two as examples of the ''values hypocrisy''  which is part of most worldviews.) If morality really is subjective, hell! why not live it up? You determine your morality. It isn't ''the greater good'' (Utilitarianism) as some have suggested that must determine your conduct for that would be just replacing one god with another.  You - and you alone - determine which road you will follow,  and ''good''/''bad must also be determined by you. If ''the greater good'' is served by your morality, fine; if it isn't, that's fine as well.

Another thing, if your worldview includes the paradigm of evolution, then you must accept that good and bad must also change according to circumstance. If every evolved thing is constantly changing - the universe itself, life on Earth, technology, politics, etc. - then ''good''  and ''bad'' also evolve through time. Good and Bad are subjective as Penfold and others have seemed to imply.

Do I agree with this? No, but I understand the reasoning.

Devin made a brilliant point here:

Devin wrote:
You stated that you have objective moral standards, but you derive those "objective" moral standards subjectively. Do you see the problem?

The point isn't brilliant; it only appears so because both of you have within the meta-narratives** of your worldviews the idea that: all is relative/subjective. Most people would now agree that ''everything is subjective'' and that there can be no such thing as objective moral truth.

I have to be bold indeed to affirm that morality as a science can be objectively known!

 

*My observation is that most people accept a worldview which fits their feelings, then rationalize it. Few do things the other way around.
**meta-narrative: an overarching story accepted as true.

[Wilson]

"Bad" and "good" have no meaning aside from morality.  And for most of us here, there is no absolute, objective morality.  So calling someone "bad" means that you don't like his actions and that he's violated your own individual moral standards.  Someone else, with a different moral worldview, wouldn't necessarily call him "bad".  We as a society tend to have similar moral ideas, with some variations, so if someone has violated the moral standards of the community, then most of us - but not all - will agree that he is "bad".  But it's not an absolute.

I think the general approach for most of us - those of us blessed and cursed with the capacity for empathy - is indeed "the greatest good for the most people and the least harm".  It's all pretty subjective and impossible to define qualitatively and quantitatively.  And we naturally give greater weight to some people than others, so that muddies the waters.  Trolleology is helpful in trying to work out the math.  But just do the best you can and be aware that there's no final answer as to whether someone is good or bad - just, at best, a consensus.

[penfold]

I probably wouldn't describe a person, as a sort of general entity, as either good or bad.

I think that for a person to be one or the other would require the existence of a soul. [...]

[...] I am still, somehow, indefinably, the same person. This evasive anchor is what I mean by the 'soul.' And I'm not just talking about DNA.

I think the soul is a very convincing illusion but that the 'self' is really very plural and amorphous. You can talk specifics, say that it's been good here or bad there, but I don't think you can generalise it.

From an analytical view your position is an attractive one. The vague edges of the 'self' are indeed a huge problem for ethics. However there is a danger here. You claim that the self is required to anchor moral judgement. Yet if the self is something ultimately beyond our grasp then we risk losing the capacity for moral judgement.

If self X performs action Y; and Y is Bad (by whatever moral mechanism) we want to be able to hold X to account for Y. This is the basis of all judgement. The problem is that you seem to doubt whether we can meaningfully talk about X at all. It seems to me that, following your argument, as well as not being able to place a judgement like “Bad” on X we cannot blame X for any action (like Y) either. Just as we need an X to anchor “Bad” so too do we need an X to anchor responsibility for action Y. So here are the options as I see them:

1) We abandon all moral judgement, because while we can call Y a Bad action we cannot meaningfully identify an self (X) to anchor it too. So, literally, have no one to blame for Y.

2) We reconstruct morality allowing us to punish person X for action Y even though there is no coherent notion of self to 'anchor' Y on X.

3) We allow that even though our notion of X is vague and evasive, we stand by the principle that it is none the less a sufficient anchor to allow us to make X responsible for Y.

Of these options (3) seems to me most palatable. If we accept (1) then all judgement is arbitrary, which seems to run contrary to our experience of life: to go back to my earlier example: we could call the deaths and social upheaval in Cambodia Bad, but we could not blame any individuals for it. If we accept (2) then morality becomes a very queer beast indeed; where we would have to try and find some mechanism other than responsibility to link person X to action Y; personally I can think of no adequate substitute.

If, however, we do go with (3) then we accept that the 'self' as ill-defined as it is, does have moral weight, at least to the extent that we can hold people responsible for their actions. But surely, if we can go that far, why can we not also assign the self qualities like Good and Bad?

[Melmoth]

The idea that ''everything is relative'' has popular favor at this time in the West. With this in mind, I would add that whatever morality one chooses can be neither ''good'' or ''bad'' because there can be no such thing as absolute good & bad. What is ''good'' today (gay marriage for example) was ''bad'' 50 years ago; pedophelia was ''good'' in ancient Greece but you'd have to have big balls to say that it is ''good'' today. (I don't condemn gay marrage or pedophelia between consenting individuals; I am just presenting these two as examples of the ''values hypocrisy'' which is part of most worldviews.) If morality really is subjective, hell! why not live it up? You determine your morality. It isn't ''the greater good'' (Utilitarianism) as some have suggested that must determine your conduct for that would be just replacing one god with another. You - and you alone - determine which road you will follow, and ''good''/''bad must also be determined by you. If ''the greater good'' is served by your morality, fine; if it isn't, that's fine as well.

In a nutshell. Only, I'd say that "the greater good" itself is no more concrete than the sense of moral purpose that serves it (or doesn't as the case maybe). As I said in one of my earlier posts: destroying the planet along with all life on its surface could arguably be for "the greater good," in some people's philosophies.

EDIT: Also, to say that 'you determine your own moraity' would be a little off, in my terms. I said that morality is instinctive and emotional. You can no more determine it than you can control what makes you happy or sad. If you want to make it 'objective' on the ther hand, regardless of what system you set up or what God you summon to back it, then unless you really have done this - somehow built a castle on the amoral quicksand - then all you'rereally doing is 'carving your own path' as you put it. You'd only be scrambling for ways to give those instincts more apparent value than they actually have, and to extend your own ego out into a universal level.

The point isn't brilliant; it only appears so because both of you have within the meta-narratives** of your worldviews the idea that: all is relative/subjective. Most people would now agree that ''everything is subjective'' and that there can be no such thing as objective moral truth.

I have to be bold indeed to affirm that morality as a science can be objectively known!

I'm glad you make that claim because, though I couldn't call it 'good' or 'bad', at least it's interesting! Which is the most we can aspire to be, I think.

So, that leaves me with the question, how?

You could be saying, simply, "There is a source of objective morality out there, which can be understood, although I don't necessarily understand it myself. My own moral opinions are still, if not subjective, at least extremely fallible." However a truly bold claim would be, "There is a source of objective morality out there and I also possess an objective, personal understanding of it." So I could divide this into two or three questions, really:

1) How do you know objective morality exists to be understood?
and if applicable
2) How do you then go about, objectively, understanding it?

3-ish. Sort of an incidental question) You say you follow the teachings of Jesus because they match an innate, instinctive morality that you already possess. This sounds like an admission of subjectivity to me. What about those of us whose innate 'moral compass' does not match those teachings? If they were truly objective, then there ought to be a reason for us to believe them, and to follow them, regardless of how we feel. Is there such a reason?

If self X performs action Y; and Y is Bad (by whatever moral mechanism) we want to be able to hold X to account for Y. This is the basis of all judgement. The problem is that you seem to doubt whether we can meaningfully talk about X at all. It seems to me that, following your argument, as well as not being able to place a judgement like “Bad” on X we cannot blame X for any action (like Y) either. Just as we need an X to anchor “Bad” so too do we need an X to anchor responsibility for action Y. So here are the options as I see them:

1) We abandon all moral judgement, because while we can call Y a Bad action we cannot meaningfully identify an self (X) to anchor it too. So, literally, have no one to blame for Y.

2) We reconstruct morality allowing us to punish person X for action Y even though there is no coherent notion of self to 'anchor' Y on X.

3) We allow that even though our notion of X is vague and evasive, we stand by the principle that it is none the less a sufficient anchor to allow us to make X responsible for Y.

Of these options (3) seems to me most palatable. If we accept (1) then all judgement is arbitrary, which seems to run contrary to our experience of life: to go back to my earlier example: we could call the deaths and social upheaval in Cambodia Bad, but we could not blame any individuals for it. If we accept (2) then morality becomes a very queer beast indeed; where we would have to try and find some mechanism other than responsibility to link person X to action Y; personally I can think of no adequate substitute.

If, however, we do go with (3) then we accept that the 'self' as ill-defined as it is, does have moral weight, at least to the extent that we can hold people responsible for their actions. But surely, if we can go that far, why can we not also assign the self qualities like Good and Bad?

I'm more in favour of 1. It's easy to call actions and/or their consequences 'bad' but it's too difficult with people. The self may be defined enough, however, for you to judge whether or not  person X is likely to recommit action Y, and to intervene. Or you might see things like punishment as functional, regardless of accountability; merely a tool of the social engineer. In other words, although person X cannot be held accountable for action Y, and although s/he is not likely to recommit, punishing them for it will still provide a strong disincentive to others.