Can someone be inherently evil?

[DGFone]

Also remember that in the end, every single human being has those instincts that prevent us from being truly evil. Yes, you can override these instincts, and people have done so plenty of times, but that's no longer "inherently".

[Regulus]

You are now applying a certain way of reasoning to morality

Exactly. Reason *is* an ultimate truth, grounded into reality.

If there is no reason for something to be wrong, then it isn't.

You can try to argue with that, but it's pointless and, ultimately, unreasonable.

[Regulus]

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.

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.

[cleargreenwater]

Regardless of any other details. If you are getting killed, the person killing you is evil. That really is universal.

What if the victim is Anders Breivik? Would he perceive his killer as evil? Yes. Would most of the world? Not necessarily. Empathy for innocence plays a great role. A person who morally believes the innocence of the victim matters will have a different opinion than a person who morally believes all human life is sacred.

But to reply to your situation: Euthanasia.

Morality is an illusion. You can't touch morality, you can't perceive morality, you can't define morality. It is a creation of the conscious mind, like coincidence. We believe and act like it's there, but it really isn't. It surely doesn't serve a greater purpose. The universe will continue to be, with or without us. The universe has never cared nor has it ever shown to be capable of caring.

We can however give certain definitions to ''good'' and ''bad''. We know certain things are good for the well-being of a creature and we know certain things aren’t. That way morality can be linked to facts. They will now correspond to certain emotions, laws, impulses and relationships.

But then again we are defining ''morality'' which is still a relative term.
''Good'' and ''evil'' are relative terms within the relative practice of ''morality'' within the relative study of ''ethics''. It doesn't matter how deep you go, it will never be true.

Yeah, I was thinking "involuntarily being killed", not euthanasia, that's with the consent of the person dying.

I still can't call concepts like "evil", "good" or "bad" non-existant though just because they're individually and socially invented and defined. They exist because humans need them to exist to make judgments, potentially survival ones.

I know what you're saying. The concepts are illusory, and what any given person defines them as is a moving target that doesn't matter.

But how can you say they don't exist when you use them multiple times in a day and will continue to do so throughout your life, and it gives real benefits to adhere to and potentially watch out for if someone isn't?

Sure, it doesn't matter if you, me, or anyone else exists or not to the universe, or what we find moral at any set moment. But the concept of mores and morals are human concepts so why should their existance depend on any but human standards, according to their human social usefulness in a human's set place on earth? They developed for a reason, so they exist.

I guess it's the difference between being younger and absolute truth being THE most absolute truth, and starting in on middle age where absolute truth is things you absolutely know are used and true around you.

E.g. Whether god is real or not, I know other people think he is therefore I am going to have to deal with him/her/it until I die because that's the paradigm that exists, even though the concept of dieties is invented. Same thing with "evil", "good" or "bad", the personal and larger human repercussions of the concepts are undeniable.




...and sorry if this crosses anyone else's posts in the time it took me to type it, I'm looking busy at work.

.........JESUSCHRIST I MISSED HALF THE THREAD. Nevermind, carry on at the speed of the internet.

[Regulus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[cleargreenwater]

Objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.

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]

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''.

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?

[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.

[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.