What is the basis for Good and Evil?

[aga_aquino29]

If it's true that what is "good" is innate in every human being, a culture who beheads, or sacrifices any form of life for what they is believe to be good, like blessing for the land and to that effect or protection from dignity so they abort a baby; is not in anyway evil, but merely following what they believe to be what is good.

According to moral theology, the basis for what is good or bad goes back to the decision of the consciousness, if your consciousness tells you that an act is evil then it is by all means evil, and if it says otherwise then it is otherwise.

According to Social Ethics, an act is considered good if and only if it is "humanizing"

Bio-ethics would tell us that life is inviolable, so if it an act does not harm life in anyway, it is good.

So given a situation, a teenager of 16 y/o is impregnated from a gang rape, and she has aborted the pregnancy.

According to her consciousness, for her own good she must abort it and save herself from the burden of caring for an unwanted child.

But the act isn't humanizing for the child, correct? But it is humanizing for the mother.

But it is life that she has violated.

With so much contradictions, what is the basis for Good and Evil?

[HelioPrime]

Good is actions that would lead more to a better humanity, while evil takes away from and leads away.

Multiple religions both east and west see good not as an object or force but the the road taken that is the better road.

In the christian view for example good actions are those that follow the will of god, while evil actions go against the will of god. Evil actions exist because without evil actions there would be no free choice to accept or reject good.

In this viewpoint god created good and evil as the result of giving people free will:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. Isaiah 45:7

[radradrobotank]

Sorry, is this a debate question or some sneaky pro-life propaganda?

Religious people claim that god gave people morality, while atheists like myself may be more inclined to look at evolutionary reasons for basic human morality. The vast majority of people can agree on some very basic moral principles, such as interdictions on murder, rape, and theft, so I would argue that there does seem to be a base that most people share. Morality is, however, further influenced by factors like personality, environment, family, social situation, and religion. Some "moral" acts, such as religiously inspired attacks on homosexuals or abortion doctors, not mention the witch burnings and inquisitions of the past, are based on ignorance and superstition.

Everyone needs to decide for him/herself what morality is. I feel strongly that morality is not purely due to environmental or social factors, that there is an underlying base for it, but I refuse to believe that god is the only possible source of this. Scientists like Richard Dawkins and Marc Hauser, among others, have some very promising theories on an evolutionary basis for morality.

P.S. Abortion, in a case like you mentioned, is about putting the interests of the conscious, developed mother over the interests of the cluster of cells growing in her body. In many cases, abortions are also performed to prevent a child from being born into a situation in which it cannot be properly cared for. The goal is harm reduction.

[Yasa]

I agree with radradrobotank. However, I'd like to clarify that while many people might share basic moral principles, I am in strong disagreement to the notion that humans have innate ideas or innate moral principles.

Given that (most) humans have the same capacities, their perceptions of the world around them is similar. I see good and evil as merely being an interpretation of the world and is thus subject to a large amount of subjectivity. Since we have similar experiences due to our natural faculties, many people end up agreeing on what they deem to be good and evil, right and wrong.

This is what I see as a basis for good and evil. They are only subjective perceptions of experience and not an objective fact existing without human interpretation.

[radradrobotank]

Good point, Yasa. I agree that morality is often subjective, and your point about common faculties is well-taken. There are, however, certain behaviours that we might call morality that can be seen in nature as well as in civilization, and can be satisfactorily explained by natural selection. Principles of reciprocity, kinship, and even reputation are observable in animals. It's possible that some widely shared moral principles are a direct result of evolution--natural selection favoured them and they are inherent insofar as they now reside in our genes. Dawkins' treatment of the subject in The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion is fascinating. Whatever the case, I'm sure that ongoing scientific work on the subject will provide some interesting results.

In any event, I think we can agree that no deity is necessary to explain morality either way.

[Kittsil]

This, I believe, is an issue that has confronted every reasoning person that ever lived. Although I am a very strong Christian, I agree with both Yasa and radradrobotank. Morality arises from both instinctual and sociological grounds.

Evidence to confirm radradrobotank:
If you look at the moral systems of various cultures, which were cut off for millennia, you will see very strong similarities. This shows that there must be some basis for an instinctual moral system. Whether this system is in support of a creator or can be explained by evolution is not involved in this debate.

Yasa:
I have to agree, but also to disagree. I do believe that there is a large social impact on a person's moral system. However, you describe an intellectual effect, as in people of similar abilities will come to similar conclusions. I see very strong evidence that morality is shaped not by how one thinks but by how one is taught.

It ties in with Locke's "tabula rasa;" it is obvious that much of how we think comes from those around us. Small tribes that indulge in human sacrifice do so out of a mutual fear. They do not see it as wrong, but if you take the son of a tribe member, raise him in a modern setting, and then send him back he would certainly take issue with the practice (granted, this is in reality speculation, because I have no citeable instances).

However, there are, as I said, apparent instinctual points as well. For instance, the murder of an innocent person is abhorred in every documented society. This has obvious explanations, both religious (God doesn't want you to kill his beloved creation) and non- (killing fellow members of the same race decreases viability and therefore reduces the probability that that race will survive).

[Kittsil]

*Claimer: This is a biased Christian comment. It assumes that the reader is a Christian. If you are not, then do according to your own conscience.*

To add a personal comment, supplementing that of HelioPrime: in a Christian mindset, good is doing the will of God. Since God is love, that obviously means that actions of love are his will, and therefore good, and that acts that deny love are evil.

To take the starting example: the girl who aborts her baby because she "cannot" raise it properly is acting, although it is harsh to say, selfishly. She is putting her plans ahead of the life of the baby and denying that baby the love it could have received from her. Therefore, she is acting evilly.

[JaneDoe321]

I don't think "good" is innate in anything. I think normally we use the words "good" and "evil" in incredibly subjective terms that boil down to "things that benefit me in some way" and "things that damage me in some way", and I think that's true culturally.

I don't think *morals* themselves are innate. I think for people (or most organisms, for that matter) to coexist in relatively small crowded spaces (village, household, city, etc) basic things have to happen, you can't randomly damage each other, to some degree you have to share in the raising of the young, etc. I think "morals" are a human way of trying to define those basic group living requirements (and then religion and/or other powermongers get involved and it gets all catty-wompus... )

[grandpa]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 I don't think "good" is innate in anything. I think normally we use the words "good" and "evil" in incredibly subjective terms that boil down to "things that benefit me in some way" and "things that damage me in some way", and I think that's true culturally.

I agree. An obvious example: Despite positive things others say about him, a Nazi would undoubtedly dismiss Einstein as only a terrible Jew. Another one: If I recommend we end the occupation and aggression against Iraq, some will ask, "how could you cut and run?" It is indeed largely a cultural question, and how one interacts with specific agents within a culture is key.

Grandpa h.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kittsil Yasa: I have to agree, but also to disagree. I do believe that there is a large social impact on a person's moral system. However, you describe an intellectual effect, as in people of similar abilities will come to similar conclusions. I see very strong evidence that morality is shaped not by how one thinks but by how one is taught. It ties in with Locke's "tabula rasa;" it is obvious that much of how we think comes from those around us. Small tribes that indulge in human sacrifice do so out of a mutual fear. They do not see it as wrong, but if you take the son of a tribe member, raise him in a modern setting, and then send him back he would certainly take issue with the practice (granted, this is in reality speculation, because I have no citeable instances).

I am in agreement here. I am an advocate for Locke's tabula rasa and position of no innate ideas. I agree that we owe our morality largely to our environment as you say. However, I was referring to the origins of "morality" in the species.

radradrobotank gives a good explanation regarding evolution, and I was only trying to give a practical explanation of how we might all find something to be good or bad given that we can collectively understand pleasure and pain as per our natural faculties.

[Morality Games]

With so much contradictions, what is the basis for Good and Evil?

You need to focus your perspective a bit more if you want to actually shed some light on things.

Anyway, what contradictions? This isn't as complicated as you make it sound. To know good and evil, you need only look at an individual's heart.

Good is the feeling that something is excellent and evil is the feeling something is terrible. To clarify, they are feelings, and feelings are interpretations of emotions.

Humans experience dread, apathy, misery, bitterness, pain, hatred, resentment, and determine from the illnesses accompanying such emotions that they are 'evil'. Many take a dim view of activities associated with these, considering them negatives that detract from life.

In contrast, humans experience happiness, wonder, excitement, love, enthusiasm, forgiveness, pleasure and determine from the healthiness accompanying such emotions that they are 'good'. Many take a bright view of activities associated with these, considering them positives that enhance life.

It is worth mentioning that some humans actually come to crave illness over health (at least in some ways, maybe not in all), so 'evil' can become their 'good', although they will appear strange to the rest of us.

Other animals would just accept whatever emotions they feel at face value, but humans have far too much imagination and free time to be content with straightforward approaches to existence. The human condition must be a dramatic condition, not a bestial one. Such is the view of every moral philosopher and theologian.

Other feelings that accompany emotions are:

Right (the feeling that a certain way of doing things is better than another)

Wrong (the feeling that a certain way of doing things is worse than another)

Fairness (the feeling that people are being treated the way they deserve)

Unfairness (the feeling people are not being treated the way they deserve)

Justice (the feeling that certain actions are the right actions for securing fairness)

Injustice (the feeling that certain actions are the wrong actions for securing fairness)

I am in agreement here. I am an advocate for Locke's tabula rasa and position of no innate ideas. I agree that we owe our morality largely to our environment as you say. However, I was referring to the origins of "morality" in the species.

Genetic predispositions are overwhelmingly strong influences on how people think, emote, feel, and act. Tabula rasa is outdated because it overlooks how that influence works out amongst individual people.

[Walrus]

I think morality is to an extent cultural but as similar moral structures appear to have evolved in separate cultures, this would suggest there are innate values to morality and they would most likely be ones that would help promote survival. The key element would probably be “reciprocal altruism,” which could promote the fitness of traits that would be a basis for morality, including: emotional attachments, empathy, sympathy, gratitude, trust, guilt at dishonesty and hostility towards those who are dishonest.