There is no such thing as good or evil.

[Whitejack]

There is judgement based by perspective.

There is no good or evil. Only popular opinion. You call a cannibal evil, but somewhere, some time, some culture views cannibalism as a virtue. You say mother teresa was "good." I say she was feeding her own ego. See? Its all in how you view the world. Words are manmade and so only exist in our imaginations. They are only real if we choose to make them so. And even then, is something that can shift definitions from person to person so wildly really real? I don't think so. How can a murderer be "evil" when murder is the way of all living things? Every living thing murders. Even a large tree will cover smaller trees in shade denying them sunlight which effectively kills them. We humans label what is around us, but that doesnt make it objectively "true" just because a person says it.

If you try to find pure example of evil like terrorism, still it looks to them that they are doing good work killing "infidels", so theres no such thing as good or evil.

 

[malakadang]

Good and evil is man made. It is used to be relevant with the time and social situation of the geographical area.

When humans were tribes, it was good to pillage and loot.
Now we are 'civilized' such actions are looked down upon.

When we were knights, it was good to kill, and be an assassin.
Now we are 'civilized' such actions are looked down upon.

 

[JstarD]

This is true.

However this is why we have society, to create morally just citizens so that the world works together without drastically contrasting views and opinions.

 

[tiger9110]

I cannot help but be inclined to agree: there are just too many examples in favor of Whitejack's point to not make it a valid statement.

 

[blazinfasstt]

is this really a debate worthy topic?

yes we do all have unique perspectives created by unique experiences causing us to have varied versions of people views of right and wrong.
so you see, there is no real right or wrong, just peoples perceptions of them.

so simple!


btw, this is the whole reason that people do not debate morals on here.

 

[sw33tdwill]

Philosopher perspective nice.

 

[somedude7]

Morality is like science. It's a system of thought. People argue over what constitutes the system, though. There is no objective morality anywhere. This is called moral nihilism; in which one believes there is no morals so anything goes that is within the realm of physical feasibility. So, a person can decide not to partake in the discussion of morals or subscribe to them just like one can decide not to partake in science or use the scientific method. However, just like one cannot claim they're doing something scientific while not using the essential methods of science, one cannot claim they're doing something moral while not using the essential methods of morality. This means that if you, at the least of things, argue that there are no morals then you have no right to claim someone is "evil" or "morally wrong." If you did, then this would result in you simply being, in all practical and semantic terms, wrong. Which is fine, but no one should really be taking you seriously (unless they want to be wrong), since they'd be played for fools to believe you when you don't know what you're talking about.

The definition of morality has been up for debate in ages. Some people would actually disagree and say there is an objective moral truth out there that needs to be followed. I tried finding it myself, but gave up (if you can call it that) because after a while the thought occurred to me that I'm probably looking for something that's just not there. All the more power to the people that are continuing to try and find one though.

TL;DR There is no objective morality, only a system of thought. The system is highly debated. You can't accurately claim any values which involve the system of morality if you do not partake in it yourself.

 

[charmander412]

No. To say that there is no right and wrong is to say that there is no possibility of proper human relation and justice. --While it is true that people will have opposing ideas of what should be done, that does not mean that there is no objective ground on which we can evaluate the credibility of the opinion. To me, it seems that this ground is our innate rationality -- what is right is what can be reasoned as such. Cannibalism or terrorism will not stand for long under the crushing weight of reason. Coincidentally, what most would assume would be the outcome of such a rational standard is manifested in Western ideology; however, this is not a reflection of the imperiousness of these ideologies. Rather, it is merely a history lesson in the paths of development taken by different societies. The West emerged as a sort of beacon of truth justice a largely corrupt and inhumane world. This is its beauty.

For anyone who is to attack what I've said, I request that you think deeply about your argument and mine before making presumptuous and incomplete responses.

 

[1234567188]

Not true, Just because you perceive something to be good doesn't make it so, ultimately things are "good" and things are "evil" like things are red and green, being colorblind doesn't change what they are.

 

[charmander412]

I hope you respond to your own thread soon.

 

[malakadang]

Not true, Just because you perceive something to be good doesn't make it so, ultimately things are "good" and things are "evil" like things are red and green, being colorblind doesn't change what they are.

Wrong.

Red is a definitive color.
Green is a definitive color.

Morality is not definitive, hence your comparison is rendered invalid.

Morals are so complex its not funny.
The Death Penalty is a very good example.

Killing is morally wrong in most societies.
The Death Penalty is killing someone.

Euthanasia is another good example.

Killing is morally wrong in most societies.
Euthanasia is killing someone.

Both points can be argued to the extreme side however one thing is solid, it is based on perception.

Define good. Define evil.
What may be good for me to do might be evil for you to do.
For example, if I am a starving man and I've been starving for 2 weeks no food and have only drunk dirty puddle water does me stealing food mean it is 100% morally wrong? Are you saying there is no excuse nor any mitigating factors to this being morally NOT LEGALLY wrong?
Well what If I turn it around.
I am a very rich successful man, I can buy any boat any car any house any plane I want and still have enough to buy whatever I want. Now If I steal food does that mean it is 100% morally wrong? Both circumstances are the same yet binary opposites.

One one side we have a starving man stealing.
One the other we have a rich man stealing.

The common denominator is stealing, the starving man should be punished just the same as the rich man because it is 'evil' and there are no perceptional mitigating circumstances that would change this verdict; is that what you are saying?

 

[FlavorChild]

No shit theirs such thing as good and evil

and just because previous happening in history have influenced your opinions you overlook it ^.^

Morally the human mind can tell between the two because of inevitable emotions after something is committed For example When you give to someone just because you want to "that warm feeling inside lmao thats good" and another example when you kill someone or steal from someone "that feeling of ohh shit what have i done thats evil" .. unless manipulated or taught otherwise otherwise people are always gonna have some emotion evoked from actions taken which defines good and evil.

 

[blazinfasstt]

Wrong.

Red is a definitive color.
Green is a definitive color.

Morality is not definitive, hence your comparison is rendered invalid.

Morals are so complex its not funny.
The Death Penalty is a very good example.

Killing is morally wrong in most societies.
The Death Penalty is killing someone.

Euthanasia is another good example.

Killing is morally wrong in most societies.
Euthanasia is killing someone.

Both points can be argued to the extreme side however one thing is solid, it is based on perception.

Define good. Define evil.
What may be good for me to do might be evil for you to do.
For example, if I am a starving man and I've been starving for 2 weeks no food and have only drunk dirty puddle water does me stealing food mean it is 100% morally wrong? Are you saying there is no excuse nor any mitigating factors to this being morally NOT LEGALLY wrong?
Well what If I turn it around.
I am a very rich successful man, I can buy any boat any car any house any plane I want and still have enough to buy whatever I want. Now If I steal food does that mean it is 100% morally wrong? Both circumstances are the same yet binary opposites.

One one side we have a starving man stealing.
One the other we have a rich man stealing.

The common denominator is stealing, the starving man should be punished just the same as the rich man because it is 'evil' and there are no perceptional mitigating circumstances that would change this verdict; is that what you are saying?

well technically, it is impossible to know if two people see the same color the same way.
also, without someone perceiving the color it does not exist.

 

[malakadang]

well technically, it is impossible to know if two people see the same color the same way.
also, without someone perceiving the color it does not exist.

Technically speaking this this applies across the board, however you get where I'm coming from. The fact of the matter is the color of black and white are definitive, where as morality isn't, even if you want to debate whether or not a color is definitive, you cannot say it is less definitive than morality.

Your second point can also apply to everything. If I don't perceive you ie my sensory information doesn't sense you, then you do not exist to me.

 

[blazinfasstt]

Technically speaking this this applies across the board, however you get where I'm coming from. The fact of the matter is the color of black and white are definitive, where as morality isn't, even if you want to debate whether or not a color is definitive, you cannot say it is less definitive than morality.

Your second point can also apply to everything. If I don't perceive you ie my sensory information doesn't sense you, then you do not exist to me.

no no no no no
i mean that color is created by our perception
a firetruck exists without someone perceiving it, a red firetruck does not exist without someone perceiving it.


furthermore, two people may not perceive the same object as having the same color based on environmental factors such as lighting for one.

 

[malakadang]

no no no no no
i mean that color is created by our perception
a firetruck exists without someone perceiving it, a red firetruck does not exist without someone perceiving it.


furthermore, two people may not perceive the same object as having the same color based on environmental factors such as lighting for one.

You say firetruck I say ambulance, you say red I say blue, it's virtually the same thing isn't it?
Society has pronounced the color red to be the color red based on our sensory perceptions perceiving what that color looks like.
Society has pronounced what a firetruck looks like and what an ambulance looks like based on what our sensory receptors perceive it to be.

I see your point, but hopefully you see mine.

True, however that is an external factor. I can have see through red paper, and see through blue paper, and if you overlap them you see purple.

 

[blazinfasstt]

You say firetruck I say ambulance, you say red I say blue, it's virtually the same thing isn't it?
Society has pronounced the color red to be the color red based on our sensory perceptions perceiving what that color looks like.
Society has pronounced what a firetruck looks like and what an ambulance looks like based on what our sensory receptors perceive it to be.

I see your point, but hopefully you see mine.

True, however that is an external factor. I can have see through red paper, and see through blue paper, and if you overlap them you see purple.

i get that society decides what really is "red" or a firetruck. what i am trying to say is the difference between what society deems is a firetruck is different than what society deems is red because firetrucks, presumably, exist externally. the color red is only created when we perceive.

i am not arguing that people see the same thing and call it something different based on their societies teachings. i am arguing that we , most probably, perceive something different to begin with.

we can even create colors. just look at a vivid flag for about 30 seconds and then look at a white piece of paper.

 

[malakadang]

i get that society decides what really is "red" or a firetruck. what i am trying to say is the difference between what society deems is a firetruck is different than what society deems is red because firetrucks, presumably, exist externally. the color red is only created when we perceive.

i am not arguing that people see the same thing and call it something different based on their societies teachings. i am arguing that we , most probably, perceive something different to begin with.

we can even create colors. just look at a vivid flag for about 30 seconds and then look at a white piece of paper.

This has gotten so far off topic lol.

My original point was that you cannot compare the perception of 2 colors internationally recognized as red and what not, to morality which has a divide in what each culture perceives it as.
I take your point that it is 'in the eye of the beholder' however what exactly do you mean "when we perceive." Sensory perception of an object is an autonomic process, putting meaning to such basic processes is still for the most part involuntary as they are instilled in us at such a young age.
Regardless yes I agree we can perceive the same thing differently.

 

[Toxity Z]

Good and evil is man made. It is used to be relevant with the time and social situation of the geographical area.

When humans were tribes, it was good to pillage and loot.
Now we are 'civilized' such actions are looked down upon.

When we were knights, it was good to kill, and be an assassin.
Now we are 'civilized' such actions are looked down upon.

So based on what your saying, we are more evolved than those civilizations that eat each-other?

The civilizations that still eat each-other today?

it makes little sense to me how you think good and evil don't exist. Moral decisions are based upon your own morals, not the morals of your society.

People still kill people in societies where its frowned upon. What do you call that? Because I'm pretty sure that its evil.

When your a child, you can sense when your about to do something wrong. You still have retained innocence and a lack of knowledge but you still get a gut feeling and a feeling of remorse.

Remorse/Regret/Pride/Happiness/Anger.. It makes no difference. Society doesn't build emotions, and they aren't something that can be taught.

So if you wanna fuck another dudes wife, and you know its wrong but you do it anyway, that isn't evil? Even though you can feel that its wrong?

I don't see it. Good and evil exist just as much as air and water.

 

[Toxity Z]

There is judgement based by perspective.

There is no good or evil. Only popular opinion. You call a cannibal evil, but somewhere, some time, some culture views cannibalism as a virtue. You say mother teresa was "good." I say she was feeding her own ego. See? Its all in how you view the world. Words are manmade and so only exist in our imaginations. They are only real if we choose to make them so. And even then, is something that can shift definitions from person to person so wildly really real? I don't think so. How can a murderer be "evil" when murder is the way of all living things? Every living thing murders. Even a large tree will cover smaller trees in shade denying them sunlight which effectively kills them. We humans label what is around us, but that doesnt make it objectively "true" just because a person says it.

If you try to find pure example of evil like terrorism, still it looks to them that they are doing good work killing "infidels", so theres no such thing as good or evil.

Words have nothing to do with good or evil. You just took some thought that crossed your mind and ran with it.

There are places in the world where evil truly does exist like these villages where cannibalism is a "virtue".

The part about mother teresa feeding her own ego? Maybe she was. No one is to say what she was doing but herself, but she isnt the one who decides what is good or not.

The part about the trees? Survival of the fittest. Instinct. The bigger tree knows that if he doesn't do what he can the smaller trees will outgrow him and do it to him. Not to mention is only just a tree, if it could get up and walk away from the other trees to have a spot of its own, it likely would. Nature has no good or evil, because they don't have the mental capacity to understand any better. (ie the innocence of a child who doesn't know)

Back to the words, they can't tell you what is good or evil. You can read something but until it resonates in your brain and you have a thought and a feeling about it, it'll just be words. If you see something that is bad, your reaction is going to be "aw shit" or something similar to that. If you see something good you might naturally smile. Fine ass bitch walks by and winks at you and gives you her number, you might even get butterflies in your stomach.

Natural human emotion/feeling determines what is good or evil. Words are something made by humans to have an easier time communicating with one another, nothing more.