Good and Evil:

I think Good and Evil are a point of View, Example:

Bill kills Bob, is that good or evil?

Id say bob will probably see this as Evil because hes dead, Billy might think of this as Good because he got a few Thousand Dollars richer.

What do you think of good and evil?

To quote Nietzsche, "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena." Thus, it is impossible to prove that an action is moral or immoral, if by prove one means to provide objective and universal justification for the act.
As the Existentialists remark, one must often make moral choices without any guarantees about its outcome or indeed its moral status, yet one must therefore take responsibility for one's choice.

By the way, it would be interesting to see how Nietzche proved his view that, "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena.". Would that proof stand up as, say, the kind of proof we get in mathematics?

Mathematics deals with tautologies. 1=1 because, of course, it's a tautology. What kind of proof do we have for mathematics besides the acknowledgment that all tautologies are true? So, are you asking, "Would the proof that tautologies are true stand up to Nietzsche's interpretation of morality?" Huh?

What kind of proof could Nietzsche show for, "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena."? More importantly, what does this statement actually tell us? Of course everything will be our interpretation. There is no X phenomena, until after our interpretation. A phenomena, itself, is only a phenomena after our interpretation, right? Aren't we using the definition, "a rare or significant fact or event"? Things aren't rare or significant without meaning applied - and we apply meaning.

I was just pointing out that, as Aristotle says, every standard of proof is relative to its subject matter, and that we ought not to expect in morality, a standard that we expect in (say) the sciences

Physicists have to interpret what they observe in order to make what they observe physically significant.

Maybe N. does not have a proof that there are no moral phenomena because it is not true that there are none, and even N. cannot prove what is false.

Do you consider psychology a science, or psuedo-science? If a science, do you think the standards are different, than say, the standards of the scientific method used in physics? Clearly there must be, as often times there are theories in psychology which cannot be substantiated using the scientific method. However, would you then say that we cannot achieve the same standards we achieve in psychology when theorizing morality? It seems to me we could get standards similar to what we get in modern psychology. Couldn't we generalize about moral features, given the response of X patient to Y occurence?

But, you are right, I think proof is relative to its subject matter. Isn't it true, though, that some "proofs" are more conclusive and substantiated than others?



Sure, but I think there's a higher degree of intersubjectivity in physics than there would be with psychology, wouldn't you? With some other sciences or techniques to acquire knowledge, there's more of a drop off point which leads into ambiguity, misinterpretation, or something inconclusive. I mean, this is why people usually hold a science, such as physics, to a higher standard.



I actually need some clarification: How was N. using "phenomena" here? Was he using the definition "a rare or significant fact or occurence"? Or was he using it in a broader sense?

Good and Evil:

I think Good and Evil are a point of View, Example:

Bill kills Bob, is that good or evil?

Id say bob will probably see this as Evil because hes dead, Billy might think of this as Good because he got a few Thousand Dollars richer.

What do you think of good and evil?

I think you hit it right on the money. The universe is quite consistent in this way.

Rich

But, have you any good reason for thinking he is on the money? Or do you simply believe it on faith? And, what does that last sentence mean? Consistent in what way? People do make different and conflicting moral judgments. We all know that. But how does it follow from that, that neither side is right?

Like everyone else, I have my experiences and judgment. I think he hit it right on the money. He understands how the universe consists of opposites and what might be good for one is bad for another. Perfect in my opinion.

Rich

What I said, however, is that although one person, for example, may think abortion is good, another may think abortion is bad, but the question is, which one is right. Thinking that something is good or bad is one thing. But whether that thing is good or bad is another thing. You and he seem to be confusing the two.

How would you conclude something is good or bad, absent of judgment? How does one determine "what is right", without bringing morality into the equation? I don't see how they're confusing the two; there is no "whether that thing is good or bad" - what we think determines what is good or bad. There is one evaluation, our evaluation, unless you want to start approaching moral objectivism, which I think is absurd.

They seem to think that if people disagree morally, that is the end of the story. It is only the beginning of the story.

Well, it's definitely not the end of the story, even putting moral subjectivism and objectivism aside.

One could still contemplate why people disagree morally, and then apply ethical frameworks, such as utilitarianism, to help understand. And then depending on which framework used, one could conclude which actions are more wrong, or right, than others.

I don't think moral propositions hold any objective value (that is, I do oppose moral realism), but I don't think I'd consider myself a pure moral subjectivist. And definitely not a relativist. Depending on the society and/or framework used, I think it's perfectly fine to say X is right and Y is wrong. And there's clearly consensus regarding certain matters (for instance, a good majority think it's wrong to rape and murder young children), so to say every thing is relative would be ignoring reason. When I say moral subjectivism, I am merely asserting that morality is a human construct and does not exist objectively. That is, ultimately, moral propositions say nothing about the objective world. This doesn't mean they're meaningless or completely relative, though. And moreover, I think, they're definitely worthy of our consideration.

Thinking that something is good or bad is one thing. But whether that thing is good or bad is another thing. You and he seem to be confusing the two.

Something is good or bad without thinking. Nice. Let's see .... maybe a rock is in the best position to adjudicate what is good or bad, since I rock doesn't think.

Advice of the Day: Don't call other people confused until you have worked it out yourself.

Rich

Who said that something is good or bad without thinking? I didn't. I don't even know what that would mean. Try rereading what I said. What I said was that just because someone thinks (believes) something is good, it does not follow that it is good. Got it?