Do you believe in wrongness?

[NaturalBornNEET]

Do you believe there are things that exist that are objectively "wrong" and need correcting? Seems most people operate on this assumption that what they interpret as wrong is in fact wrong and not just their own interpretation of it.

Another way to frame the question is do you believe in evil?

 

[U. A.]

Objectivity does not exist.

"Color" is subjective. "Bright", "cold", "fun"; absent belief in some theistic dictum, there is literally nothing absolute.

"Evil" is the same. Subjective, however, does not mean non-existent.

 

[NaturalBornNEET]

Objectivity does not exist.

"Color" is subjective. "Bright", "cold", "fun"; absent belief in some theistic dictum, there is literally nothing absolute.

"Evil" is the same. Subjective, however, does not mean non-existent.

This is canon. I think it's vain to try fix the "outside" when it's self evident that all "problems" are merely your judgment of them as problems, so if any transformation is to be undertaken it should be of your mind and how it relates to the world.

 

[Hvergelmir]

This is canon. I think it's vain to try fix the "outside" when it's self evident that all "problems" are merely your judgment of them as problems, so if any transformation is to be undertaken it should be of your mind and how it relates to the world.

That also sounds like an extremist take.

Sometimes it's easier to just challenge evil, and put it right. I think the world will be better if everyone stands up for what is right, than if everyone sits in meditation not caring about it.
Even when right and wrong is subjective, there's overwhelming agreement on the fundamentals.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Seeing as humans are beings that can reason and feel deeply- yes- I think there are certain actions that are very wrong. The obvious ones are child molestation, rape and murder. I don't think you can look at any of them and think- maybe they weren't so bad. They didn't really impact that other person.

I suppose it could be argued to say it's pretty insulting for victims of rape or child abuse that it's up to them to reframe their thinking. That what happened to them wasn't actually all that bad or serious- of course it was!

What becomes a little more complicated is whether we can claim a person is outright evil. But sure- I think we are all capable of doing evil actions.

I suppose there are ones that are outright evil and utterly selfish and will likely cause suffering to another being for the rest of its life. Then, there are very probably the day to day choices we all likely make that are convenient but do still cause suffering.

Maybe that is one definition of evil though- knowingly causing suffering to another being- when you have the choice not to. As humans especially- we have that choice. We have the empathy/ knowledge to know how our actions affect others. While it may be difficult, we also have will power to prevent us doing things we know full well are simply considered wrong. But- we surely know they are too. Would a potential rapist or murderer mind some other person doing that to their family?

But yes- I'd say all three of the above are fundamentally wrong actions. They brutally remove the agency of another person. So- of course they need to try to be prevented and then- punished- if they do occurr.

The complicated one is choice. Some people seem to believe in determinism. So- some people will literally have no choice but to end up a rapist or murderer. So- even if we agree the choice to rape a child is bad. If they didn't strictly make that choice, it isn't their fault (seems to go the theory.)

I struggle with that though- if I'm honest. I think there are circumstances where it becomes more likely a person will turn a certain way. If they encountered abuse themselves say. But still, I just think we have millions and millions of thoughts. Likely many thousands of times we can challenge thoughts we know are wrong or, we know are taking us down a path where we may actually act wrongly.

I find it hard to believe some people can't stop themselves. Because presumably they are every day. Those of us tempted to do anything shady likely say no to ourselves more than yes. I imagine- the more evil or illegal the action, the more we would hold ourselves back. I doubt many serial killers murder every day! So- they are very capable of holding themselves back. Obviously- that's in the case of more premiditated acts but then- I imagine, a lot of them are.

How we became 'evil' or, became able to notice it, is an interesting idea I think. It's partly why I hate the concept of God and religion. Because- any evil action taken here- God presumably envisaged first or- let Satan introduce. So- that means we have a God that wanted it this way! Maybe to test us but- I don't see that as a good excuse. I can't help but worry that if there is a God- they themselves are at least, partly evil.

If it's all just simply chance and evolution then- we're simply animals that grew a conscience. So- rape, murder etc. exist in the animal kingdom too. Although- we tend to believe most animals act entirely based on instinct. So, we don't blame them to the same extent.

Why we grew a conscience and debatably, greater empathy is interesting I think. Maybe because we are a social species. So- working together helped us as a species. Having individuals within that species who go around committing extremely unsocial acts likely hurts the whole group so- maybe our senses of right and wrong became heightened to create more harmony. Plus- we perhaps (debatably) feel things more deeply. I imagine a human's experience of being raped is more impactful than a ducks. Although obviously- we can't know for sure. But- seeing as we are a sensitive race- certain things really affect us- a sense of right and wrong is therfore important to protect the more vulnerable.

 

[NormallyNeurotic]

I do not believe in evil, but I do believe in harmful. There are objectively harmful or bad actions, but I don't believe entire people are tied down to a "good or bad" label. Their actions make them what they are, and some choose to be disgusting, horrible people.

 

[Hvergelmir]

...that it's up to them to reframe their thinking. That what happened to them wasn't actually all that bad or serious- of course it was!

I think part of healing can be to reframe, specifically ones own role and relation to an event.

Victims often adopt an unhealthy frame of mind, where they feel bad about themselves for what someone else did.

If they didn't strictly make that choice, it isn't their fault (seems to go the theory.)

If they're not at fault for doing evil, we also can't be at fault for the way we choose to deal with it?
I don't think determinism changes the equation. It must apply equally to both sides.

While I believe in determinism, I don't think it ought to be a factor in how we see people, unless we're working on large scale social science.

 

[Forever Sleep]

If they're not at fault for doing evil, we also can't be at fault for the way we choose to deal with it?

That's an interesting idea but then- we disagree on how we should deal with it- capital punishment, reformation etc. But then- we are expected to think. A lot of people- even those directly affected by violent/ homicidal crime don't push for the death penalty. So- they temper what they surely must sort of wish for. Plus, a good argument against capital punishment is the falability of the justice system.

We are still often held at fault though. I suppose there's the famous French crime of passion leniency but- that isn't universal at all. We're more likely vulnerable to be accused of using excessive force if we react in an extreme way to criminals I imagine. Which kind of does seem crazy really. Like you're not really supposed to defend yourself. Like some of us were all told at school- 'don't retaliate'.

 

[NaturalBornNEET]

my biggest motivation for making this thread comes from my own struggle of reconciling the cruelty of the big outside world, and imo it's such a incomprehensibly vast universe with no shortage of random things it can generate that living your life trying to control and fix the world to fit your ideal seems vain and immature. But I know how big an effect the mind can make to how you relate to others, and ones mind is much easier to control than other's minds.

Plus if this was a common attitude I think there would be much less cruelty overall, because the default mode of thinking would be to spot and scrutinize one's own bullshit rather than other's. Granted such a society wouldn't be a very productive one.

 

[Hvergelmir]

That's an interesting idea but then- we disagree on how we should deal with it- capital punishment, reformation etc.

It was a thought experiment, designed to show how appeals to determinism must be applied equally to both sides.
My stance is that each side carry responsibility for, and ought to justify their own action.

...the default mode of thinking would be to spot and scrutinize one's own bullshit rather than other's. Granted such a society wouldn't be a very productive one.

Sounds like a good default mode, and I think it could be very productive.

 

[U. A.]

my biggest motivation for making this thread comes from my own struggle of reconciling the cruelty of the big outside world, and imo it's such a incomprehensibly vast universe with no shortage of random things it can generate that living your life trying to control and fix the world to fit your ideal seems vain and immature. But I know how big an effect the mind can make to how you relate to others, and ones mind is much easier to control than other's minds.

Plus if this was a common attitude I think there would be much less cruelty overall, because the default mode of thinking would be to spot and scrutinize one's own bullshit rather than other's. Granted such a society wouldn't be a very productive one.

You need -1 more posts to view this content

 

[DarkRange55]

Objectivity does not exist.

"Color" is subjective. "Bright", "cold", "fun"; absent belief in some theistic dictum, there is literally nothing absolute.

"Evil" is the same. Subjective, however, does not mean non-existent.

Basically, yeah.

Although some would argue with
>>literally nothing absolute
Measured speed of light in a vacuum?
Plank's constant?
But like all of "reality", even these could be a dream,

 

[sheeplit]

No. I don't believe in evil. There is only what you value, what others value, and how you attend to those differences. The belief that any one person has some objective moral clarity is vain and arrogant.

 

[maylurker]

evil is behaviour that reliably cause unneccessary suffering and destruction across cultures and time. like any kind of violence innocents genocide betraying trust. if u strip away all the moral relativism bs human well being has objective prerequisites like not being raped or lied or hurt etc