Good and Evil

@richrf,

richrf;96608 wrote:

I think you have to stop using your own beliefs as arguments.

Rich

Why, if they are true? Since, Quito is the capital of Ecuador, Ecuador has a capital. Is there something wrong with that argument?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96611 wrote:

Why, if they are true? Since, Quito is the capital of Ecuador, Ecuador has a capital. Is there something wrong with that argument?

None of these are true. You are just believing something because someone told you something. You can believe whatever you want or whomever you want to believe. Your beliefs are your beliefs. I believe differently. But none of these are relevant arguments. You are must reiterating what you believe.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;96627 wrote:

None of these are true. You are just believing something because someone told you something. You can believe whatever you want or whomever you want to believe. Your beliefs are your beliefs. I believe differently. But none of these are relevant arguments. You are must reiterating what you believe.

Rich

Sure. I believe a lot of things because I have them on authority. I believe water is H20. I believe that there is a country called Japan, And so do you. Furthermore, I not only believe them, I know they are true. Of course my beliefs are my beliefs. Whose else should they be. But, of course, most educated people in the world believe there is a country called, Japan, and that water is H20. Most of my beliefs are second hand, and so are yours. And most of my knowledge is second hand too. So what? What makes you think that it is not true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador? I advise you to look into an Atlas, or look it up on the Internet, and any other authoritative source. What on earth do you think is the capital of Ecuador, anyway? Berlin. You ought to study up on geography.

@no1author,

Good and evil hmm, one can't surive without the other, we all learn from the other side, depending which side you're on but I can tell you for nothing good always wins because it's the strongest.
Cheers!

@Caroline,

Caroline;96670 wrote:

Good and evil hmm, one can't surive without the other, we all learn from the other side, depending which side you're on but I can tell you for nothing good always wins because it's the strongest.
Cheers!

That is what Oscar Wilde would have called, "the triumph of hope over experience". (He defined a second marriage in that way).

@no1author,

Most of what we know comes from the "common stock of knowledge" that is characterised by it's being "public," collaborative, and pre-existing when we are born. It is also characterised by its non-falsifiability by those "in a position to know."
The common stock of knowledge, moreover, always carries with it an elaborative element, a "so on and so forth" discoverable if we attend to it. I know, for example, that water is H2O, and should I have the need, I can learn about the periodic table of elements and molecular structure that would confirm it.

This common stock of knowledge, a product of human history, we accept until an event occasions us to take note by its intrusion as something "new" or "out of the ordinary" or "not quite fitting into" what we know. And then, it is by using the rules and procedures learned from the common stock of knowledge (for example, how to use a map and what maps mean, or consulting a logic textbook), that we explain to ourselves the significance of the event.

@jgweed,

jgweed;96726 wrote:

Most of what we know comes from the "common stock of knowledge" that is characterised by it's being "public," collaborative, and pre-existing when we are born. It is also characterised by its non-falsifiability by those "in a position to know."
The common stock of knowledge, moreover, always carries with it an elaborative element, a "so on and so forth" discoverable if we attend to it. I know, for example, that water is H2O, and should I have the need, I can learn about the periodic table of elements and molecular structure that would confirm it.

This common stock of knowledge, a product of human history, we accept until an event occasions us to take note by its intrusion as something "new" or "out of the ordinary" or "not quite fitting into" what we know. And then, it is by using the rules and procedures learned from the common stock of knowledge (for example, how to use a map and what maps mean, or consulting a logic textbook), that we explain to ourselves the significance of the event.

So, why is Nietzsche your avatar, if the above is what you believe? Of all people!

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96011 wrote:

Of course, morality is not like physics, so, as Aristotle said, we should not expect the kind of "proofs" in morality that we expect in physics, just as we should not expect the kind of "proof" in physics that we expect in morality.

Yes yes yes.

At the end of Othello, Iago is tortured to death. Did his sin warrant this punishment?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96642 wrote:

Sure. I believe a lot of things because I have them on authority.

Are you referring to God?

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;96759 wrote:

Are you referring to God?

Rich

Nope. Hammond's World Atlas, Merriam-Webster Dictionary; stuff like that.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96763 wrote:

Nope. Hammond's World Atlas, Merriam-Webster Dictionary; stuff like that.

Good for you. And when your authorities disagree?

You have set your beliefs above others. It is what is commonly referred to as faith. I find it difficult to discuss things with someone who believes that their beliefs are correct because of some authority. Religious people do it all the time.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;96771 wrote:

Good for you. And when your authorities disagree?

You have set your beliefs above others. It is what is commonly referred to as faith. I find it difficult to discuss things with someone who believes that their beliefs are correct because of some authority. Religious people do it all the time.

Rich

Dictionaries usually do not disagree about how (say) a word is spelled. If they did, I would choose the latest.
I don't recall having set my beliefs above others. But, if I have, then if I have more evidence for my beliefs than other do for their's, then that's fine. If I believe the Quito is the capital of Ecuador, and you believe that La Paz is the capital of Ecuador, then, since I have much more evidence for my beleif than you do for your belief, I am right to put my belief above yours. My authority, in that case, is the authority of reason and evidence. Try it.You might like it. .

@kennethamy,

What does Ecuador have to do with good and evil? I'm not seeing the connection.

I rely on an encyclopedia to tell me the capital of Ecuador.

What reference material is used to tell one what is good?

@Arjuna,

Arjuna;96785 wrote:

What does Ecuador have to do with good and evil? I'm not seeing the connection.

I rely on an encyclopedia to tell me the capital of Ecuador.

What reference material is used to tell one what is good?

The dictionary can tell you what the word, "good" means. What things are good will depend on whether you have applied the term "good" correctly. Just as a dictionary can tell you what the word, "elephant" means. What objects are elephants depends on whether the word, "elephant" has been applied correctly.

A dictionary can tell you, for instance, that the term, "good" is "the most general adjective of commendation". The question is, then, when certain things should be commended or not, and why. Now, that seems to me a good start. For instance, we might say of a watch that the watch is a good watch. We are, therefore, commending that watch. What, then, makes a watch a good watch (commendable)? I suppose we can list the characteristics of a watch that make a watch a good watch.

@no1author,

richrf wrote:

You have set your beliefs above others. It is what is commonly referred to as faith. I find it difficult to discuss things with someone who believes that their beliefs are correct because of some authority. Religious people do it all the time.

If someone states their belief is correct, they are on the same level as a religious fanatic?

How are we to discern what is correct from incorrect, then?

More importantly, how are we not to believe our beliefs are correct? Isn't that what a belief presupposes - that we think something is correct?

Arjuna wrote:

What reference material is used to tell one what is good?

I know many websites that can provide information on what makes a number of electronics good, including various graphics cards, LCD TV's, and digital cameras. I, also, personally know what makes a good chicken cacciatore because I have experience in culinary arts.

You really have no idea how to find reference materials to determine what makes something good or bad? That seems hard to believe. Have you ever researched a product before buying it, comparing it to other like products (to determine which is better, good)?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;96801 wrote:

If someone states their belief is correct, they are on the same level as a religious fanatic?

How are we to discern what is correct from incorrect, then?

More importantly, how are we not to believe our beliefs are correct? Isn't that what a belief presupposes - that we think something is correct?

I know many websites that can provide information on what makes a number of electronics good, including various graphics cards, LCD TV's, and digital cameras. I, also, personally know what makes a good chicken cacciatore because I have experience in culinary arts.

You really have no idea how to find reference materials to determine what makes something good or bad? That seems hard to believe. Have you ever researched a product before buying it, comparing it to other like products (to determine which is better, good)?

Indeed. If I did not thing that Quito was the capital of Ecuador, I would not believe it was in the first place. A subscription to Consumer Reports is suggested. (I often wonder what happens to people when they discuss philosophy. Do they contract amnesia about what they do in the world? I suppose that is why Wittgenstein wrote that philosophizing "consists in the assemblage of reminders").

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;96804 wrote:

Indeed. If I did not thing that Quito was the capital of Ecuador, I would not believe it was in the first place. A subscription to Consumer Reports is suggested. (I often wonder what happens to people when they discuss philosophy. Do they contract amnesia about what they do in the world? I suppose that is why Wittgenstein wrote that philosophizing "consists in the assemblage of reminders").

Looking back, I'm guessing he was referring to good in the context of morality. But, then, there are many reference materials (ethical frameworks) with which to evaluate what is good and what is bad.

But how could he not be aware of that?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;96801 wrote:

If someone states their belief is correct, they are on the same level as a religious fanatic?

How are we to discern what is correct from incorrect, then?

More importantly, how are we not to believe our beliefs are correct? Isn't that what a belief presupposes - that we think something is correct?

I know many websites that can provide information on what makes a number of electronics good, including various graphics cards, LCD TV's, and digital cameras. I, also, personally know what makes a good chicken cacciatore because I have experience in culinary arts.

You really have no idea how to find reference materials to determine what makes something good or bad? That seems hard to believe. Have you ever researched a product before buying it, comparing it to other like products (to determine which is better, good)?

A watch is good to the extent it is similar to the ideal watch. The question is: what is the ideal watch? Consumer Reports will say: if you want this feature: this is the ideal watch... if you want this other feature: try this one. Consumer Reports can't tell you what you want, therefore it can't tell you what the ideal watch is.

We were talking about morality.

Moral relativism: all moral judgements are attitudes superimposed BY HUMANS upon their own experience. So you're a gentile and you don't believe that eating ham is immoral. But you respect a Jew's beliefs about that. Only he knows his own vision of the ideal. You don't question another person's beliefs about good and evil, because you have no authority... no divine revelation to bring to bear on the topic.

Moral absolutism: humans don't make moral judgements... they only become aware of the eternal truth regarding good and evil. A statement that an action was good can be viewed as objectively correct... all you have to do is glance at the description of eternal unchanging IDEAL.... for instance: the Ten Commandments.

Can you see why there might have been questions about authority for beliefs?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;96805 wrote:

Looking back, I'm guessing he was referring to good in the context of morality. But, then, there are many reference materials (ethical frameworks) with which to evaluate what is good and what is bad.

But how could he not be aware of that?

Is there any reason moral good should be completely different from non-moral good? When we say of a person that he is a good person, are we not commending him for being praiseworthy among persons, just as when we say of a watch that it is a good watch, we are commending the watch as being praiseworthy among watches? The question then becomes, what is it we praise people for, just as the question becomes, what is it we praise watches for. What makes a person good? What makes a watch good?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;96805 wrote:

Looking back, I'm guessing he was referring to good in the context of morality. But, then, there are many reference materials (ethical frameworks) with which to evaluate what is good and what is bad.

But how could he not be aware of that?

Yes, Soooooooo many. And they all say different things. Every philosophical book is different. Every religious book is different. Every encyclopedia and dictionary is different (definitions, pronunciations, etymology, etc.). Everything and everybody is different. Some people thought that Bush was one great guy for invading Iraq. Others thought he was a murderer for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Which side to come out on?

Just observing this discussion should be enough to show that what is good and what is bad is a matter of opinion/belief. The only way to get around it is to make oneself the living authority (e.g. God) or to appeal to authority (e.g. God). Or to just pretend. We all like to play pretend.

Rich

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know