Current Events > how are people ok with using "evil" and "good" as labels?

(+) Yeah! (+)

how are they that confident in the definition of "evil" and "good" to begin with?
how do they know that the thing they're labeling won't change?

---

I can't imagine a society where mass murder of regular civilians is considered anything but evil >_>

---

averagejoel posted...

how do they know that the thing they're labeling won't change?

I have no idea what will change. I speak and think about things as they are right now. It's the same reason I talk about all gods and religion being bullshit.

Also, just because a label could change doesn't your personal views will change. If society said rape was good, I'd still call it evil.

---

Hexenherz posted...

I can't imagine a society where mass murder of regular civilians is considered anything but evil >_>

in that context, "evil" is kinda reductive and pointless as a label. it also gives the impression that it just sprang up out of nowhere

---

Is this a thin veil way to justify your actions?

---

good? bad? i'm the guy with the gun.

---

averagejoel posted...

in that context, "evil" is kinda reductive and pointless as a label. it also gives the impression that it just sprang up out of nowhere

wat

---

hockeybub89 posted...

I have no idea what will change. I speak and think about things as they are right now. It's the same reason I talk about all gods and religion being bullshit.

Also, just because a label could change doesn't your personal views will change. If society said rape was good, I'd still call it evil.

part of the point here is that being "evil" or "good" are processes rather than states of being -- they're things you try to be rather than things you are.

---

Veggeta X posted...

Is this a thin veil way to justify your actions?

no

---

I'm not sure what you mean... I agree that evil and good are qualities of actions rather than inherent attributes objects have, if that's what you man

---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm not sure what you mean... I agree that evil and good are qualities of actions rather than inherent attributes objects have, if that's what you man

that's absolutely part of it

another is that I think people just kinda... overuse them as descriptors

---

averagejoel posted...

part of the point here is that being "evil" or "good" are processes rather than states of being -- they're things you try to be rather than things you are.

I don't know where you're getting this definition from.

---

Hexenherz posted...

I don't know where you're getting this definition from.

it's not a definition

---

Evil being a process doesn't negate it's use as a descriptor. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is if you're just going to Octillery respond

averagejoel posted...

it's not a definition

There has to be some basis for your logic here, because you're trying to restrict how these words are used, especially limiting their common applications. Can't have a serious discussion on the matter if you're not going to justify your more restricted semantic meaning of the words.

---

I think people couch value judgements in "good vs evil" because it kind of lauders the uncertainty by making it a bit mystical.

---

i am perfectly fine with labels like good and evil

---

Platoe posted...

Evil being a process doesn't negate it's use as a descriptor. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is if you're just going to Octillery respond

part of the point is that I don't think it has much (if any) use as a descriptor, just because it's so vague

---

Platoe posted...

Evil being a process doesn't negate it's use as a descriptor. I'm not sure what the point of this thread is if you're just going to Octillery respond

This, essentially.

Theres a certain fuzzy grey area, but if you can actually try to argue that genocide isnt evil in good faith, you have problems.

---

Or, youre being abstruse and philosophical just for the sake of it.

---

Hexenherz posted...

There has to be some basis for your logic here, because you're trying to restrict how these words are used, especially limiting their common applications. Can't have a serious discussion on the matter if you're not going to justify your more restricted semantic meaning of the words.

I'm not trying to restrict how the words are used. I just don't think they're useful as descriptors and think maybe people should try to be precise with the words they use.

---

averagejoel posted...

I'm not trying to restrict how the words are used. I just don't think they're useful as descriptors and think maybe people should try to be precise with the words they use.

That answers my question

---

averagejoel posted...

I'm not trying to restrict how the words are used. I just don't think they're useful as descriptors and think maybe people should try to be precise with the words they use.

Like asshole and nice person?

Perhaps abhorrent piece of refuse and decent human being

---

Cue: oh, but for what amount of abhorrence, and what quantum of decency?

---

averagejoel posted...

part of the point is that I don't think it has much (if any) use as a descriptor, just because it's so vague

Society needs to be able to communicate morals. What it sees as right and what it sees as wrong.

From these agreed upon beliefs we build social contracts and culture.

You can argue theres no concrete, intrinsic metric by which to measure good or evil. But theres no concrete metric for descriptors like clever, stupid, brave, admirable, valuable, annoying, embarrassing, etc.

life is uncertain and largely meaningless. Human society constructed meaning. Theres value in deconstruction, but trying at it too hard isnt going to produce anything useful

---

While they're partly based on the values of a society, humans don't fluctuate so wildly that they're irrelevant terms. We always see murder as bad, but our values shift to determine who can justifiably be murdered depending on which groups are dehumanized by the populous.

AlisLandale posted...

Society needs to be able to communicate morals. What it sees as right and what it sees as wrong.

From these agreed upon beliefs we build social contracts and culture.

You can argue theres no concrete, intrinsic metric by which to measure good or evil. But theres no concrete metric for descriptors like clever, stupid, brave, admirable, valuable, annoying, embarrassing, etc.

life is uncertain and largely meaningless. Human society constructed meaning. Theres value in deconstruction, but trying at it too hard isnt going to produce anything useful

That puts it far more eloquently and succinctly than I could have.

Good and evil are shorthand for a whole host of socially constructed meanings and unless youre being deliberately obtuse, you know thats tacitly understood.

---

The_Creep_2020 posted...

Perhaps abhorrent piece of refuse and decent human being

KingWhiteKnight posted...

Like asshole and nice person?

these kinda seem vague to me too, though "asshole" and "nice person" are at least not invoking morality

---

averagejoel posted...

I'm not trying to restrict how the words are used. I just don't think they're useful as descriptors and think maybe people should try to be precise with the words they use.

Theyre the best equalizers for the truth though, yeah something is helpful, handy, and heartwarming

Is it good tho? The lies are in the rest of the words but the truth lies at the top of the umbrella position

You gotta remember that theres logic and proportion, and then theres the other side of reality indiscriminate of a humans definition of things.. where natural law and order rule. Good and evil may change according to humans, but there is an order of good and evil that doesnt give a **** about what you think is good or bad.. it just is

Something something obective morality something something god

Something something society something something greatest quality of life for largest amount of people

---

averagejoel posted...

these kinda seem vague to me too, though "asshole" and "nice person" are at least not invoking morality

Of course theyre vague. Most terms dealing with subjectivity or that are socially constructed are. Because theyre... *cue music* subjective.

That said, most people subscribe to generally overlapping ethical or moral codes of behaviour. You may as well debate the difference between right and wrong. Once again, socially constructed. With a certain grey area with wiggle room, but the extremes are (aside from sociopaths) unanimously agreed upon.

---

AlisLandale posted...

Society needs to be able to communicate morals. What it sees as right and what it sees as wrong.

From these agreed upon beliefs we build social contracts and culture.

You can argue theres no concrete, intrinsic metric by which to measure good or evil.

I don't think a lack of a concrete, intrinsic metric is what makes "good" and "evil" ineffective descriptors. they're just vague moral judgements.

But theres no concrete metric for descriptors like clever, stupid, brave, admirable, valuable, annoying, embarrassing, etc.

while it's true that there's no concrete metric for those words, all of them except "stupid" are much more specific descriptors, and none of them invoke a moral judgement

---

TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YETDeath waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point"

MY POINT EXACTLY.

GNU sir Terry

---

COVxy posted...

I think people couch value judgements in "good vs evil" because it kind of lauders the uncertainty by making it a bit mystical.

I've never seen "lauder" used as a verb. do you mean "launder"?

aside from that, I think this is accurate. I also alluded to this here:

averagejoel posted...

it also gives the impression that it just sprang up out of nowhere

---

Apropos of nothing Joel, do you have issues with your food touching on your plate?

---

The_Creep_2020 posted...

Apropos of nothing Joel, do you have issues with your food touching on your plate?

no

---

This hang-up on morality is so bizarre. So few of our social constructs are critiqued so often for so little practical value.

When we deconstruct gender and sex, or nationality, or money and consumption, there are tangible goals that are being sought after.

But what is the endgame of deconstructing morality?

---

AlisLandale posted...

This hang-up on morality is so bizarre. So few of our social constructs are critiqued so often for so little practical value.

When we deconstruct gender and sex, or nationality, or money and consumption, there are tangible goals that are being sought after.

But what is the endgame of deconstructing morality?

Is there some contortion of semantics and morality where it is ethical for me to cook and eat the guy who lives downstairs?

---

averagejoel posted...

But theres no concrete metric for descriptors like clever, stupid, brave, admirable, valuable, annoying, embarrassing, etc.
while it's true that there's no concrete metric for those words, all of them except "stupid" are much more specific descriptors, and none of them invoke a moral judgement

I don't see how "admirable" is more specific than "good" or "evil" -- they seem like the same kind of thing. I also don't see how stupid is different than the others.

Just to take admirable as an example, that can be applied to any variety of things depending on the speaker and all that it conveys is that the speaker looks at the thing/action in a certain way. That is also what good or evil convey to me as descriptors.


---

Flippancy aside, I think its part of some peoples innate need to constantly test boundaries, however nebulous they may be in the first place.

Or, alternately, some peoples need for firm definitions and bounds, where everything must be hard coded and inviolable.

---

The_Creep_2020 posted...

Is there some contortion of semantics and morality where it is ethical for me to cook and eat the guy who lives downstairs?

This is indeed a worthy inquiry. If we can find the answer to this, we can also discover the ethics of cremating your friend and smoking their remains in a marijuana joint.

we must consult the top minds of intelligencea


---

AlisLandale posted...

This is indeed a worthy inquiry. If we can find the answer to this, we can also discover the ethics of cremating your friend and smoking their remains in a marijuana joint.

we must consult the top minds of intelligencea

Forget my friends, my mum keeps my dads ashes in her closet!

---

for example, I'm just trying to kick this around in my head

what does "Hitler was admirable" tell me about Hitler, that "Hitler was evil" doesn't in terms of precision?


---

averagejoel posted...

I've never seen "lauder" used as a verb. do you mean "launder"?

Yeah, there was supposed to be an "n" in there.

---

It can be used vaguely, but that doesn't make it all that vague. Extremes, or things that should be extremes, exist, and we are regularly exposed to them with the power of lightspeed media. Guy that kept his family in a basement and raped them for a decade? Evil, that's not difficult.

---

Labels are always inexact.

That is their nature.

That doesn't mean don't use labels.
---