Can someone be inherently evil?

[Regulus]

[quote="Woeler"][quote="Regulus"][quote="Woeler"]No, because ''what is wrong?''. Your wrong is not my wrong. Your morality is not my morality and thus it can not be universally determined.[/quote]

Logic is a universal language. It is the only universal language.

You are refusing to acknowledge the fact that there is logic behind morality, in its purest form.[/quote]
Alright, I'll demonstrate it.

Person X kills Anders Breivik.

Person X is evil because he or she killed a human being
Person X is good because he or she has taken care of a mass-murderer

No matter what option suits you best, there will always be people who will think of moral theories as to why the other option is better because logic can be applied to both answers. The majority on this planet believes (they don't and can't know) killing is ''wrong''. Does that make killing ''wrong''? As much as the majority believing in God makes God real.[/quote]

You chose that example because it is inconclusive.

But that's exactly what it is: inconclusive.

Not every action needs to be defined in absolutes.

If the outcome, however, could be evaluated at every possible level, then it would not be inconclusive. There would be a definite answer, as to whether or not person X's action had a positive or negative impact on the people that were affected by his actions.

And while positive and negative are generalized terms, less than a hair of common sense is required to understand the meaning behind those ideas.

[Woeler]

[quote="Regulus"]You chose that example because it is inconclusive.

But that's exactly what it is: inconclusive.

Not every action needs to be defined in absolutes.

If the outcome, however, could be evaluated at every possible level, then it would not be inconclusive. There would be a definite answer, as to whether or not person X's action had a positive or negative impact on the people that were affected by his actions.

And while positive and negative are generalized terms, less than a hair of common sense is required to understand the meaning behind those ideas.[/quote]
That's how actions are. Cause-action-consequence. And again it cannot be determined if it is ultimately right. Deontological (Emmanual Kant) morality says that an action should be defined by the ''action taker's'' intentions. Teleological (Plato) morality says that an action should be defined by the consequences. Nihilistic morality says nothing matters at all because all consequences will eventually be erased from ''the known''.

Your ''logic'' says an action should be judged by the impact it has on the people that were affected (consequences). Only teleologists would agree with you, deontologists would not, and they are just as ''right'' or ''wrong'' as you are.

But to further explore your statement lets take another example. 9/11. We, as western people will absolutely place this action under the ''wrong'' category. The taliban (e.g. Osama Bin Laden) Would not. He sincerely believed he was doing the ''right'' thing. I would 100% agree that our view on morality is in a humanistic sense ''better''. But that proves nothing.

[cleargreenwater]

[quote="Woeler"]Objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.[/quote]

I agree with this and follow the logic.

And I simulaneously believe that it's intellectual absurdity to call something so functional as morals/mores unreal at the same time because it's not objectively absolute or true.

Are evil, good or bad true or possible? No. But at the same time they're functionally real, and beyond that is a voluntary theoretical exercise. Good to do, but I would rather ensure that the people around me have similar working concepts/definitions of them through the vehicle of morals, whether it matters in any objectively true way if someone shoots me on a disagreeing principle or not.

So for all intents & purposes, sure, moral judgments, including evil, exist. Since that's what it takes for a group of people to be in agreement on concepts vital to their survival and functioning.

[Regulus]

[quote="Woeler"]That's how actions are. Cause-action-consequence. And again it cannot be determined if it is ultimately right. Deontological (Emmanual Kant) morality says that an action should be defined by the ''action taker's'' intentions. Teleological (Plato) morality says that an action should be defined by the consequences. Nihilistic morality says nothing matters at all because all consequences will eventually be erased from ''the known''.[/quote]

The reason for these different views is that no one can accurately assess the outcome of any action.

If the person knows with absolute certainty what the outcome of their action is going to be, all three views turn out to be equal. It's because they all follow the same fundamental idea.

That's why morality gets sketchy: because no one actually knows what the truth is.

That isn't to say such a truth can't exist. Really, in these indeterminable cases, we just can't find it.

[Azdgari]

So much cool stuff going on here!

How do we (let's say you all as individuals first) create or define the morals you live by?

[Woeler]

[quote="Regulus"][quote="Woeler"]That's how actions are. Cause-action-consequence. And again it cannot be determined if it is ultimately right. Deontological (Emmanual Kant) morality says that an action should be defined by the ''action taker's'' intentions. Teleological (Plato) morality says that an action should be defined by the consequences. Nihilistic morality says nothing matters at all because all consequences will eventually be erased from ''the known''.[/quote]

The reason for these different views is that no one can accurately assess the outcome of any action.

If the person knows with absolute certainty what the outcome of their action is going to be, all three views turn out to be equal. It's because they all follow the same fundamental idea.

That's why morality gets sketchy: because no one actually knows what the truth is.

That isn't to say such a truth can't exist. Really, in these indeterminable cases, we just can't find it.[/quote]
But we cannot know the outcome of our actions beforehand, so this is completely irrelevant and would only work for an omniscient and omnipotent being.

We have never found an absolute truth and we will never find an absolute truth. That is because either we can not comprehend it or because there isn't one at all. Either way it's useless acknowledge it's existence. Just try to comprehend an absolute truth. You can't.

An ultimate morality can only exist if it were determined beforehand by an all-knowing entity. That is why religious people think they posses the absolute morality. Such an entity can only exist beyond existence, and so absolute morality can only exist beyond existence. Since things that are beyond existence do not exist, we can say an absolute morality does not exist. Even if such an entity ''is'' somewhere in nonexistence, it's still nonexistent.

Complicated to explain? Hell yes, Nietzsche wasn't a guy who wrote easy books.

[Regulus]

But, more often than not, omniscience isn't necessary to be able to determine the effects of an action. In fact, I'd say about 99% of the time, it's such a simple issue that we don't even realize we think about it.

Suppose someone you know has the flu. Suppose this person asks you to go to the store and pick up some coke and cough drops.

I bet even a three-year-old could figure out what the right thing to do is, in such a situation. It's not complicated. All it takes is a little bit of empathy.

And even then, if empathy does not suffice, all it takes is a little bit of research of flu symptoms to realize that someone with the virus probably cannot get the items they require on their own, and that the items they asked for would help them get better quicker.

For the typical, mundane, everyday decisions, it's so easy a caveman can do it, provided said caveman does not have a mental disorder.

[Woeler]

Exactly, 99%. Which means the other 1% makes it still non-absolute.

And still it fails. What if you live in Afghanistan and there is are no such things? What if that person murdered your mother? And still it wouldn't be definite, because you are observing this from a developed western moral sense, so unless you believe western moral values are superior to other values around the world this is still inconclusive.

And even if 99% would do this, it still wouldn't be the slightest proof that it would be the ''right'' thing to do or that it is absolutely moral.

[Regulus]

You're overcomplicating it. It all comes down to this:

Do onto others as you would want others to do onto you.

It's not cultural at all. It's just logic.

How often is it that you don't know how you want to be treated? I mean, seriously?

Only when the issue involves death does religion make its way into the scene, and that's only because the two are so closely related in people's minds.

[Woeler]

[quote="Regulus"]You're overcomplicating it. It all comes down to this:

Do onto others as you would want others to do onto you.[/quote]
Who says it does?