IS EVIL REAL? OR, LIKE GOD, A HUMAN INVENTION?

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Unseen, do you differentiate between human concepts? Are all concepts artifactual? If not how is an ethical concept to be distinguished from a scientific concept,  a legal concept, a linguistic concept?

I’m not sure I can use your terminology because I don’t know what you mean by “human concept.” I will say that ethical notions (probably a better word than “concepts”) are not facts in the world to be discovered and formulated as laws anyone can rely on to remain the same over time. In France, beheading was abandoned in 1981 (the last execution by guillotine was in 1977). But today, beheading is still done in Saudi Arabia. If people can’t even agree on this, how can you defend the notion that ethical notions can be anything other than artifactual (tied to a culture, society, or social group…or even an individual person)?

[Simon Paynton]

@unseen – “ethical notions (probably a better word than “concepts”)”

– you’ve moved from “concepts” to “notions” for no good reason.

“how can you defend the notion that ethical notions can be anything other than artifactual (tied to a culture, society, or social group…or even an individual person)?”

– there are ethical notions shared by every culture.  Some vary a lot, some are the same wherever you go.  Basically, it’s the interpersonal values that don’t vary, but cultural values do.

[Reg the Fronkey Farmer]

Do you not agree with the concept of concepts? But Dr. Bob, the concept of anything is still a concept. It is subjective. Saying that “God is a concept” is to admit that your god exists only in the mind. Even it the concept is shared within a culture does not make it any less subjective.

The same with ethical notions (or ethical concepts). They are artifactual and will change over time.

[Unseen]

Simon Paynton wrote:

“how can you defend the notion that ethical notions can be anything other than artifactual (tied to a culture, society, or social group…or even an individual person)?”

I’m not asserting that “ethical notions can be anything other than artifactual” so I feel no need to defend it.

[jakelafort]

Unseen, you don’t know what i mean by human concept?

I mentioned scientific, linguistic and legal concepts.  The aforementioned are abstract ideas borne of human thinking.  Same as ethics.  Is there a way to distinguish ethics as a field of thought?  Clearly science, language and law are culturally and temporally dependent.

Ethical concepts can not be anything other than artifactual among those who are guided by religion, ideology,  authoritarianism and the like.  There is no disputing that point.  That does not however mean that ethical principles can not be formulated.  Further those principles produced at the pencil of reason may in fact be universally subscribed to by those not afflicted by religion, ideology and authoritarianism.

It seems all mammals have codes of conduct.  It is a biological imperative for social creatures.  Among humans we must balance the interests of the state against the interests of the individual, for one.   So for instance there will be a point in which the state is infringing on the individual in prosecuting matters of private morality such as smoking dope or homosexuality.  On the other hand there will be instances in which the individuals actions infringe on the rights of other individuals and the state will be justified in taking action.  The principles will be simple enough to apply to many issues and not at all simple in others.

[Simon Paynton]

@regthefronkeyfarmer – I agree, a concept doesn’t have to match up with reality.

@unseen – I think you misunderstood what I was saying.

@jakelafort – there are two classes of ethical principles: interpersonal, and cultural.  The interpersonal were the original ones from small groups before culture and religion, which is why they are shared by all people.  The cultural ones obviously vary the world over.  Some of the interpersonal ones vary a little (for example, monogamy vs. polygamy).

The interpersonal values are those which belong to us as a species, so if we were still just “mammals” living in groups on the savannah, those are the ones we would have.  If we could go back 1,500,000 years ago, we would surely find that those proto-humans had beautiful manners the same as ours, they would enjoy smoking dope and probably wouldn’t care about homosexuality.

“science reflects cultural values” – surely not?  Apart from what people make out of science or use it for.  Hard science is surely acultural.

[Simon Paynton]

The ethical principles I’m talking about aren’t synthesised, they’re discovered and abstracted.  The whole point is to discover what human beings do naturally as a species.

[Simon Paynton]

People do evil things, therefore evil is real.

[jakelafort]

Simon,  monogamy and polygamy are cultural values.  So are all of the other variations.

You may want to know what is innate.  But i think and assume that we as a species are way past the time we can do that.  The overlay of culture makes that way too difficult.  I think the few comparatively isolated tribes in Malaysia and the Amazon will have plenty of variation. But even if we can somehow discover what is universal among humans it is not sufficient.

We as a species need to improve.  Reason is the best tool we have to at least attempt to have universal basic ethical principles…not some goddamn tablet or stone with commandments or ancient text written by numb nuts.

[Simon Paynton]

“monogamy and polygamy are cultural values. So are all of the other variations.”

– they’re variations of the same thing – enduring pair-bonds as a context for child-rearing.  Polygamy means a number of simultaneous pair-bonds.

“You may want to know what is innate. But i think and assume that we as a species are way past the time we can do that. The overlay of culture makes that way too difficult.”

– one way is to look at very young children, who take a while to pick up cultural values.  They show innate tendencies towards a standard set of moral and ethical principles.  Another way is to compare all the anthropological data we have, and a similar universal set of moral and ethical principles emerges.

“But even if we can somehow discover what is universal among humans it is not sufficient.”

– not sufficient for what?  It’s actually not hard, if we start with the “animal” kingdom and move on from there, to discover what is universal.

“Reason is the best tool we have to at least attempt to have universal basic ethical principles…”

– probably the best, when it finally catches on.  Yet Jesus got there 2000 years before computers.  One reason for that was precisely because he rejected any cultural values he didn’t agree with.  In fact, he just ignored the lot, despite saying “I come to bring the Old Testament” or whatever – he was just being polite to the “fogies” of the day.

[jakelafort]

Yeah, young children.  How about identical twins who grow up apart and unaware of each other in differing environs?

Simon it is not sufficient to navigate the complex and facacta world we have created.  But to the degree ethics is innate as a result of advantages conferred through evolution I say hey, hey aint that the way?

 

[Simon Paynton]

It’s also possible to do it, easily, from a combination of first principles, evolution, looking at the animal kingdom, observation of humans: it’s a relatively easy thing to derive all the universal ethical principles we have.

Young children just confirm this picture, and demonstrate that human morality is species-specific and evolved.

In the West, our humanistic principles are pretty close to this (human flourishing is paramount – principle 1).

What would we do with a universal set of ethics?  If we bear in mind that culture always varies, but people are people everywhere.

[jakelafort]

Universal ethical precepts or principles would be invaluable.  We would not accept dictatorships, theocracies or even elect Trumps in democracies.

Cults,  religious institutions and …as I write i can’t help but self-critique and my thoughts are not realistic…yeah a coterie of humans would be this way…but face it …WE ARE DOOMED!

[Simon Paynton]

That’s a nice idea, but the fact is, these universal ethical precepts are very simple and basic, and the variation comes in how people apply them.  If we say that there are maybe 6 or 8 families of moral values, most of which most people would agree on – how are they to be applied?  Left and Right apply them in different ways.  East and West apply them in different ways.

For me, there are two benefits:  1) religious people wouldn’t be able to mock atheists any more, for not being able to say precisely where our ethics come from; 2) it fills the “official values vacuum” left behind when religion is left behind.  The “Humanist Society’s list of ethical values” is savagely poor, i.e. long-winded and vague, and not at all systematic.

[Unseen]

jakelafort wrote:

Ethical concepts can not be anything other than artifactual among those who are guided by religion, ideology,  authoritarianism and the like.  There is no disputing that point.  That does not however mean that ethical principles can not be formulated.

Any principle of evil that is formulated is “evil” not “Evil.” It’s an invention (formulation) not the application of a truth outside mankind. It is OF mankind.

[Author]

Posts