In simplest terms, I would compare them to the smell of a flower, and trying to put your nose up to a live wire.

We could probably argue that some do not know the difference... however, I tend to believe that the majority of people do know what is right and what is wrong. Perhaps it's naturally easier to do the wrong?

This is rather broad...

The question welcomes all views of right and wrong, even ones I or anyone else may not be aware of, which is why I made it as broad as it is.

Right and wrong what? This is in the Ethics section, so I imagine you do not mean right and wrong in the sense of some claim being accurate or inaccurate, but I'm not sure if you are asking about motivation, the action itself, whether there are any constant right and wrongs, or any other number of things.

Some more direction would probably be helpful in developing a discussion.

The problem with ethics is that we often pursue it in a very silly way. We ask for lists of concrete rules that are always "right" or always "wrong" and then we are unhappy when our rules don't seem quite right in a specific case.

Good and Evil are not opposites, they are mutually intertwined metaphors for a certain class of consequential acts, and societal prejudices. Good often invokes evil to do it's work.

It's not only about subjectivity there are issues inherent to the broadness of these terms. Morality, in order to be valid for me, must be a system of thought not a list of values.

----------------

With that disclaimer I'll try to answer your question. Here are some things I categorize as good or evil:

Good:
Pursuing love.

Pursuing truth.

Pursuing the continuance of your own life, and the lives of others who serve you (people you love count as love serves us in profound ways.)

Pursuing things which give you pleasure, or give pleasure to those who serve you.

Reciprocity, usually simultaneous, but in some cases in response. (This is not the right word, but it's the best one I know. Try to move "mutually beneficial" connotations to "included" rather than "required." Reciprocal violence is also morally good but not if you initiate it.)

Judging your position relative to your previous position.

Amoral ( non-moral. Some of these things are beneficial, but when moralized to a normative form become evil usually. Also things which are very "context sensitive", I do not mean subjective.)
Charity
Kindness
Good will
Forgiveness
Honesty (speaking truth)
Lies
Violence
Custom and tradition
Love for specific persons

Evil:
Seeking Power
Hate (especially acting on it)
Moral Norms for the sake of Norms
Seeking falsehood
Judging your "position" relative to others (in moral, economic, or hierarchal realms)
Actions from righteousness (the emotion)
Willing Stupidity

I have to agree with Quatl saying;

Good and Evil are not opposites, they are mutually intertwined metaphors for a certain class of consequential acts, and societal prejudices. Good often invokes evil to do it's work.

But still find it hard to say whether something is right or wrong. There are so many examples when doing evil is doing good and doing good is evil.

Example:
Let's say you have killed a pedophile, motives can be whatever you want.
By killing him or her you have killed a human being, which is noted as evil. However you stopped this person from inflicting more evil and suffering on other people and mostly children. Does this make this particular murder good or wrong?

Good and Evil are defined by society, and Quatl provided quite a good list of what is good, amoral and evil in our current society. Taken good and evil in the religious debate we will be posting in the forum till the end of the universe.

I think there is some truth here. Right and wrong depend upon context.



Here I have some objections. You are right that when we use "good" and "evil", we usually use them according to some prejudice we hold. Often times what is called "good" does invoke "evil" to do it's work, ie, Bush claims Guantanamo Bay is for the purpose of "good", yet employs "evil" methods to achieve those supposedly "good" ends.

However our biases might influence our usage of Good and Evil, they are none the less opposites. Good and Evil are defined with respect to one another, good being one end of the spectrum, evil being the other.

Closely related? Yes. Often misunderstood? Yes. But none the less opposites.



And I have some questions about those you list. We will start with your list of "Good".



Are you sure this is necessarily Good? If sniffing cocaine gives me pleasure, does my pursuit of cocaine count as something good?



Lies, violence - these things I would see as "evil". But your inclusion of charity, kindness, good will, forgiveness, speaking truth, love for specific persons, and custom and tradition as amoral strikes me as odd. You readily include the pursuit of love as good, but acts of love (charity, kindness, good will, forgiveness, love for a specific person) you classify as amoral.

Could you clarify why you say so?

I guess if I had to make the question(s) more understandable I would say this. I don't think it's any question that everyone has their own opinions of what's right and what's wrong, though some things seem to be accepted by the majority as right and wrong. What do each of you look at when determining what's right or wrong? What in your opinion characterizes what's right as well as what's wrong?

In determining what is right and what is wrong in a particular instance, we could use several tools. One particularly helpful tool is utilitarianism - asking ones self how doing X,Y, or Z will influence everyone. Reducing suffering being preferable to increasing suffering. I say this and I'm not a utilitarian, by any stretch of the imagination. When we come to apply philosophy to the way we act/are, philosophy becomes a tool. While utilitarianism is a moral doctrine I find wanting intellectually, depending on our conception of utilitarianism, it can be a great real world tool.

Activities like sniffing cocaine can be good, and most of them I would say are. However it is more a mater of motivation, and an eye for unintended consequences. Recreational use of drugs is not something I have moral feelings about personally.

Addiction is not a good place to be however, so one should take care. Other pleasures that are less controversial can also lead to pain if used improperly, or used with avoidance as motivation, this type of motivation is extremely dangerous.




Yes, of course. I thought this might be confusing

Acts of love that come from love for the purposes of love are morally good. Acts of love pursued either for gain of social status, feelings of obligation, or self-righteousness, or under duress are evils. The acts themselves are not the issue, the motivation is. I especially wanted to include those there as most people seem to disagree with this.

You and I may disagree as to what we would call love, I do a lot of "nice" things for many folks that I do not love. Often for total strangers who I don't feel any particular feelings about at all. I just like doing nice things.

I must hold myself from violence when someone tries to force me to do these things however. Kindness must not be obligatory. The only thing I've experienced that causes more rage is direct threat to a loved one (threats to myself don't inspire rage at all strangely, just strategy.)

It should also be noted that I don't have a moral code persay as I haven't been able to find (nor make) one that works better than thinking about the consequences of my actions and making valuations based on each situation. I also have much stronger "rules" for my own behavior than I require of others. I generally don't care what you're doing as long as it doesn't harm me or mine. Most people seem to have stronger feelings for others behavior.
---------
@dancinginchains: Imoral acts (usually) have in common self harm, often only in a long term sense. I should note that people who serve your happiness inherit some moral aspects of self. (sometimes more consideration as often with love, and especially family)

Moral Good acts have in common self help, help of those one cares for, and help for those who serve the self in question.

Good and Evil can (I would say usually do) reside in the same act, and can vary in degree.

Normative morality very often becomes harmful in that it justifies the infliction of harm on "sinners." This harm is often violence, but emotional harm can very dangerous too.

(Note I use the term Serve here quite a bit, I don't mean this too simplistically. General members of one's society, and much of our environment I would include potentially.)

Explain how using cocaine is good, then. I have nothing against all drugs, or even all illegal narcotics, but a drug like cocaine, which is terribly devastating I do have a problem with. If you think using cocaine is good, explain why.

As far as I can tell, cocaine does harm to one's physical health and psychological health. Sounds like something other than something good. Yes, cocaine is pleasurable, believe you me it is. But that very pleasure is, in large part, an ego trip, which seems to be, in of itself, unhealthy.



Isn't that the point though? You categorized "Pursuing things which give you pleasure" as "Good". Now you claim that it is not the action, but the motivation, which is fine, but if you stick by this new claim, the old it seems should be tossed out.



I do not disagree with this statement here. But I do not see how this statement supports the notion that charity, goodwill, forgiveness, speaking truth, love for specific people, or respecting customs and traditions are somehow amoral.

Like you, I'm particularly interested in the motivation behind an action. But if we are going to classify somethings as good, others as bad, and still others as amoral, I do not see how the focus on motivation demands that charity, et al, are amoral. If anything, forgiveness, goodwill, charity, seem to be quite good, for the individual, and those on the receiving end of the charity, forgiveness, and goodwill.

Using our current health knowledge of the surefire effects of cocaine, how can sniffing a substance which basically warrants addiction be good if addicition itself isnt good?

I'm also interested to know how one "uses cocaine properly." ;]

Don't get me wrong I understand where you're coming from I'm just attempting to offer the other side of the same coin.

Good discussion so far.

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I was out of town for a week and I had no internet.

On the cocaine question Dancinginchains made an interesting assumption that cocaine use necessarily leads to addiction, I think Didymos that you may also be operating under a similar assumption as well. I don't think this assumption is valid.

I've been around a lot of recreational drug (some illegal, some "off label usage", and many alcohol drinkers) users in various phases of my life. Some of these people had very serious problems, but many others didn't appear to be any worse off than non users. The ones who did have problems had similar, though less obvious difficulties navigating life prior to their drug use. Depression, anxiety, poor social performance, bad attitudes about school or work, and/or unusually low self esteem, among others.

For this subset of folks, the drug use was used to replace the "normal" goal <-> reward structures in their lives. Their drug of choice eventually became The Goal of all their other activities.

This state is what most folks really mean when they say "addiction." The chemical addiction is something else entirely, though it can in itself cause problems, without the psychological reinforcement of long term avoidance based usage most folks can and do stop using with little difficulty once they decide to.

The drug itself clearly matters when talking about the chemical component of addiction, but cocaine is not among the most chemically addictive substances (opiates: opium, heroin, morphine etc, certain prescription anti-anxiety/anti-depressants, amphetamines: crystal meth, Ritalin etc, and nicotine, which if tobacco were not carcinogenic no one would care about really.) Cocaine is certainly chemically addictive, but it ranks somewhere between the booze/weed area and the groups mentioned above (yes even nicotine is more addictive than cocaine, in fact by far.)

Part of the problem for us as observers is that drug use has not been well studied. Usually the groups that are researched are people who have serious problems already so there is a major selection effect. We see people who have been arrested, or lost their jobs, or destroyed the emotional tranquility of their families. We don't see the guy who puts a half gram of coke up his nose on the weekend, and goes to work on Monday, cares for his children and is up on time for church on Sunday. But guys like this are by far more common than you would think looking at the research.
In my experience most drug users are of this sort!

In fact I used to BE one of these folks. I gave up illegal drugs when I decided than the legal risks by far out weighed the high of the drugs. I pretty much gave up alcohol too later as it got a bit boring as I got older, and the other rewards of life became more easily available to me. This too seems to be a trend, many folks who drank to excess in high-school and/or college seem to get bored with this and chill out after a few years.

So the drug issue is not as cut and dry as you say.

I am open to the idea that some people are naturally more disposed to drug related problems though. Their may be differences among us that make one more susceptible to self destructive behavior in general, as well as chemical addictions (even to particular drugs over others.) Alcoholism for example seems more common among those who have family histories of alcoholism. While other drug addictions haven't been studied in this kind of detail I wouldn't be surprised if this was true for other substances. Even then though it's difficult to isolate this from other factors as things like depression, necrotic thought postures, and anxiety seem to often run in families as well.


So I don't really know. What I do know is that drug addiction is not desirable. I also understand the appeal of getting high, as does most of our society clearly as nearly everyone drinks at least in part because of alcohols drug effects.

The drug policy in the US at least is for the most part irational, and I think it will stay that way for a long time to come. I could very well be underestimating the destructive effects of drugs "in and of themselves." All of this is anecdotal of course, but in absence of solid research I have little else to go on but my own experiences with drug use, and my observations of the hundred or so drug users I've known throughout my life.

Drug use does have a "risk of addiction" certainly, but their are many risky fun things in life that few would call immoral (rock climbing, sky diving ...)

So as for morality, I would class drugs under amoral, rather than immoral with the caveat that allowing one's own drug addiction (should it come to that) to continue is immoral.
----------------------
@Didymos Thomas:

My positioning of some things in my amoral realm is essentially dependent on what proportion I observe the behaviors results and intention as being good.

There is a complicating factor to moral discussions that is sometimes ignored as well. Some morality is not about acts per say but about virtue perception. Codes of conduct in particular are in part designed to convince others that we are virtuous (or that our groups of affiliation are.)

If the only intention leading a particular person to an act of charity (say) is to gain social status as a "virtuous person" this act is immoral because it is in effect a lie. A destructive lie in fact as it teaches observers that the appearance is more important than the substance of an act. This is a major social ill in the US at the moment.

Charity is often thus.

Forgiveness can be self destructive if the forgiven person continues to "sin against you" knowing they can get away with it.

If you love someone who sees you as a resource you will eventually experience emotional agony that is unsurpassed by anything other than deaths. (I speak from experience.)

I'd like to reassert my position that strict rule based moralities are a bad idea. An act in one context can be good, while being bad (even evil) in another.

Also note that I said "seeking long term pleasure" is good. A bunch of little short term pleasures may add up to one long term one, but not if they lead to your destruction.
------------------
We often see acts as good without regard for motivation, while evil is almost always weighed with intention. I don't think that's a good idea.

So strong is this tendency that while we have only one word for moral and amoral benefits: "Good" ; we have two words for bads that are very different in their connotations: "Bad" (stuff you don't want) and "Evil" (bad things done with hostile intent.)

Intentions are not motivations, but it is said (in the Bible, I believe) that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And the same may be true of motivations too.

Intent is what you hope to happen, motivation is why you act.

Either way, I'm not sure what your point is. Good intent is not always enough to guard against poor action, and the same is true for motivation. So what? This does not mean they are not worth consideration when we discuss good and bad action.

That is a rare and noble sentiment, Quatl. The argument that drugs are bad because they hurt you--how utterly vulgar, nauseating, and nihilistic this argument is! When we live in a world that values physical health and safety more than wisdom or virtue (which is spiritual health), who can blame anyone for misguidedly turning to any means of self-immolation and transcendence that they can find? If drugs are an escape from the Nothing, then I approve of the motive that leads one to take them. But there are, I would argue, better sources of fulfillment than drugs. Yet they are NOT Health and Safety--these despicable Epicurean pygmy gods. Such utter shallowness is inhuman. What is left of the soul during youth recoils from it, turning to the first apparent source of sustenance it can find to preserve its last lingering element of true morality--of a true, though still nascent, moral sense: an ideal, spiritual sense of good.

I salute you, Quatl, for having the heart and the gumption to say what you did.

I did not say they are not worth considering. I thought you held that the motive of an action is the only thing worth considering.

Cocaine interrupts the synapses and causes a person to be more creative, whether with conversation or music or art or whatever...

If you want to know why cocaine is good then check out 'jungh' on this website: SoundClick artist: Doobah's Dub-War - Electro Sessions I just wrote it, and to be honest I think it's alright.

Cocaine sends people into psychosis and violence, so in that context its a demonic, terrible drug, but it does have its benefits. Just be sure to understand that not every cocaine addict has a gun and makes rap music, some write university essays and jam tunes and are nice to everyone. Having said that another downside to cocaine is the Ozzy Osbourne effect, total brain meltdown into imaginary conversations and numbness.

Anyway my theory of good vs bad, is basically that good is creative and bad destructive.

My other theory about good and bad is that they are words introduced by religious zealots into order to convert people into oppressive regimes and destroy their ability to come up with coherent moral statements - in that saying 'x is good' is a cop out, it's lame and doesn't achieve any real benefits to a situation, it simply introduces a prejudice that actually harms ones ability to find real stimulating answers to difficult questions.

Drug addiction has its uses - some people find the an unsatisfied addiction to be the driving inspirational force behind some kind of creative spirit. I used to make drawings by negating to satisfy my nicotine addiction for hours at a time, I came up with some alright stuff, and I still love smoking.

I'm not sure if this contravenes forum policy but here's one of 200 pictures I made:

quote]I did not say they are not worth considering. I thought you held that the motive of an action is the only thing worth considering.[/quote]

I think motivation is a very large part of the equation. Not only does motivation, in of itself, have the ability to cause harm or benefit the individual, but motivation is where our moral compass rests. But I don't think anyone would seriously argue that the consequences of our actions are irrelevant.



I understand your position on cocaine. As someone who also tolerates occasional cocaine use well, I know where you are coming from. But I think, and hope, that in time you will realize what I finally realized - that smoking a joint is a much better way to rev creative juices and that cocaine is ultimately destructive to myself and those around me.

But then there is the intellectual argument - you say cocaine is helpful for creativity, and you are absolutely right. But there are other drugs which are at least equally affective in this way, yet far less harmful. And there is no doubt that cocaine is terribly harmful, both physically and mentally.



Ah, then recall your Bible stories. Adam and Eve were banished from Eden for eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

I agree with you. Right and wrong is a contextual thing.