[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 37 KB, 470x342, hindley and brady.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4302437 No.4302437[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why is hurting others evil?

>> No.4302451

it's not.

>> No.4302452

Because God said so.

Unless God hurts others, of course, in which case it's okay as anything God does is good.

>> No.4302455

To this I want to say: if you ask this question, you don't understand 'evil'. It's absolutely self evident.

>> No.4302468

Ohhhhhhhhhhh Manchester
So much to answer for

>> No.4302473

>>4302455
It's not that I disagree it's evil, I just can't explain why it is.

Having said that, I probably don't understand evil and that's why I'm asking such questions, I want to understand it.

>> No.4302478

>>4302473
are you a sociopath

>> No.4302487

>>4302478
I don't believe so. I feel that hurting others is evil, I just can't explain it in rational thoughts.

>> No.4302488

>>4302451
>>4302452
Oh boy, the angsty teenagers decided to come on lit to discuss their spark notes summary of Beyond Good and Evil. Evil is a real phenomenon established by cultural norms. Broadly speaking the English language was made up as well, but it would seem a lot more retarded to make a thread stating English isn't real

>> No.4302504

>>4302437
>Implying objective good and evil
>2013
Laughing insane syphilis sufferers . treatsie

>> No.4302507

>>4302473
Well, do you know what sort of answer would be a satisfactory answer to you?
Is it even possible to conceive of an answer that would cause all to say "oh yes, that is why its evil. I understand now."
And if so, what would this type of knowledge could this be? Would it cause you to say "oh, I thought giving people gifts was not evil, but it shares this feature which is what makes hurting others evil, so now I believe it is."

Things are not evil in the same way that a surface is rough, you can't point to the imperfections and individual jagged edges and features that make it so.

>> No.4302513

>>4302488
But that's a genuine argument used by Christian apologists like William Lane Craig.

>> No.4302514

>>4302437
isn't that kind of like asking why righteousness is good?

>> No.4302515
File: 35 KB, 857x431, maximator on rights.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4302515

>having wheels in your head

>> No.4302519

>>4302487
Suffering is evil for some reason. I dont't want to suffer, society doesn't want to suffer, things that lead To suffering are bad and evil , no one should do them, society says. And I'm not making any judgement, just stating that.

>> No.4302529

>>4302513
There are genuine arguments for legalizing rape. I don't know why such a minority opinion needs to be mentioned other than to clandestinely straw man religious morality

>> No.4302542

>>4302487
Do you believe that living is evil? Because all life lives at the expense of other life.

>> No.4302543

>>4302507
I mostly wasn't looking for straight answer, but moreso to encourage discussion and learn something.

>> No.4302556

>>4302542
I don't.

What I mean by ''hurting others'' is going out of your way to hurt innocent people.

>> No.4302585

>>4302437

Because their suffering exists objectively

>> No.4302592

>>4302488
Anything established only by cultural norms, including language, is not objectively true. So tired of the small-brained idiots who can't wrap their heads around this.

>> No.4302601

>>4302585
If you are driving along the countryside and see some red barns with suffering people inside, you might think you are justified in thinking that there are suffering people inside barns. But what if those people were actually holograms? Therefore evil is a hologram. Thanks Obama.

>> No.4302619

>>4302585
Nice equating of suffering and evil there, dummy. Think with more precision.

>> No.4302625

>>4302619
It is evil to cause suffering.

>> No.4302629

>>4302592
No, he was right. Saying hurting others may not be "evil" is treating evil as an objective term that has an actual meaning in concrete world. It's not, it was fabricated by society for its purpose.

>> No.4302628

>>4302625
Why though?

>> No.4302632

>>4302625
Not objectively evil.

>> No.4302635

It isn't. You either have empathy and don't want to unnecessarily hurt others or don't. You can't reason your way to morality.

>> No.4302637

>>4302632
You can't treat 'evil' as an objective term where it's definitions are subjective.

>> No.4302639

>>4302635
it's a good thing morality doesn't have to be reasoned because it's a social construct

>> No.4302643

>>4302637
I know. Evil, good, etc. cannot be objective.

>> No.4302650

>>4302556
So if you don't make a concious effort out of it it's alright?

Also, why the speciesism?

>> No.4302653

>>4302629

You're confusing yourself. The fact that "evil" is subjective means it cannot possibly have this collective, societal definition you're trying to defend here. I, a member of this "society" can subjectively define my own values.

>> No.4302671

>>4302653
Evil is not subjective on the collective level.

>> No.4302674

>>4302653
The idea of good and evil are objective though.

>> No.4302683

>>4302650
I suppose that if it's by accident, it's not evil. Not necessarily ''alright'' but not evil.

I knew someone would be annoyed at the ''people'' thing. I believe hurting animals is evil as well.

>> No.4302684

>>4302674
Sorry, I meant not objective.

>> No.4302702

>>4302671
You're saying that concepts become objective (that's what I assume you mean by "not subjective") as soon as there is some vague "collective" understanding of them? That's going to be hard for you to defend, but I'll listen.

>>4302684
Right, but I'm refuting the idea that "society" collectively creates terms that are used the same way. They are used subjectively, always.

>> No.4302730

>>4302702
Yes, because the idea of good and evil Is not subjective then saying "x is evil" or "x is not evil" is useless, and further proves evil as a product of society.

>> No.4302733

was god an intuitive thought? like thomas edison's like bulb-moment, he had literally

>> No.4302737

>>4302730
Damnit I mean subjective. Not not subjective.

>> No.4302741

>>4302683
It's not by accident, it's just not very deliberately in order to hurt. But your very life is constantly at the expense of other organism. All of life is evil, by your standards, since to live means to live at the expense of something else.

>> No.4302772

>>4302702
Collective understanding of evil is by no means vague. We have comprehensive laws on which actions are immoral and a super majority opinion of concurrence. I can stand in front of a crowd of people and say murder is objectively wrong without a single dissenting opinion; at best I could get a hypothetical scenario with a subjective morality because a lack of a collective under standing on the issue.

I'm rather tired so I might not be articulating myself as best as possible, but basically any subjective component to good or evil comes from a lack of a collective, societal, or cultural presence on the issue

>> No.4302782

>>4302772
a million subjectives does not an objective make

>> No.4302783

Well it depends what you mean by "hurt"

I could hurt someone by telling them their ugly if they found me attractive and ruin their life for months with physiologic suffering to their weak mind.

>> No.4302809

>>4302782
Its a million of objectives rather than a million subjectives.

Malicious murder is objectively evil

Murder in self defense is objectively not evil

Excessive force in self defense that causes a murder is objectively evil

>> No.4302825

>>4302772
>We have comprehensive laws
And these laws are abstract ideals which are distinct from the complex, unique events (reality) which they apply to.

The crowd of people test isn't really worth much considering that people have been shown to suppress their true opinions in a crowd. Either way, though, this says nothing about their subjective definitions of "murder" which will literally be different from person to person. Say that drone strikes are objectively wrong and get ready for a debate. Define "murder" as the killing of an innocent person and then get ready to discuss innocence and collateral damage. It never becomes objective.

>> No.4302834

>>4302809
You can keep saying these things until you're blue in the face. You haven't come close to proving them.

>> No.4302849

>>4302809
cool mantra bro

>> No.4302856

>>4302825
We have legal definitions on what constitutes murder and innocent just as we have definitions for words, and words are not malleable to whatever an individual wants them to mean.

Just because a lot of moral dilemmas exist without any kind of cultural understanding doesn't mean there isn't any thing objectively evil. I'll even admit OP's statement is too vague to be objectively evil. Deliberately hurting innocent people for no reason might be objectively evil, but hurting people in general is subjective to the circumstances

>> No.4302866

>>4302834
>>4302849
This isn't some made up dogma. No nation in the world has laws that state these things as moral. No society in the world has an opposite consensus. Just because a handful of nut jobs might think differently doesn't mean it's not objective, just like how the fact that people think the world is flat doesn't make it not objective

>> No.4302884

>>4302856
Laws vary by region and are made by elite groups of people, not sure what you're trying to prove about objectivity by using the example of law. Definitions for words are post-hoc abstractions of how the words are used in real life, they are not the be-all, end-all as far as usage of the words go. (ie, people start to use "Google" as a verb, and the OED yields: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/google).).

Words are necessarily malleable because of the fact of subjectivity.

>> No.4302895

>>4302866
Evil is a man-made category, and hence cannot be mind-independent (necessary pre-req for objectivity). You don't see why it would be in a society's best interest to outlaw murder? That has to do with survival, ie the reason is not impartial or objective.

>> No.4302907

>>4302866
Value judgements are never facts, and thereby never objective. According to your logic, sugary stuff tastes objectively good.

>> No.4302911

>>4302884
This conversation is becoming a tad too focused on linguistics rather than morality. I only used the analogy because you stated that because an individual can decide what evil means to him that evil can't be objective, so I applied that logic to words by saying since words aren't subjective to an individual they must not be subjective overall.

The fact that certain actions have been so consistently viewed as evil in all of society must be proof of the objectivity of evil. It is almost as if the concept has been driven into our genetics

>> No.4302924

>>4302911
Where do you get that common agreement establishes fact?

>> No.4302930

>>4302911
>The fact that certain actions have been so consistently viewed as evil in all of society must be proof of the objectivity of evil

Or proof of the fact that people don't want to be murdered.

>> No.4302932

>>4302911
Universal morals arise because they are the most suitable choice to ensure survival. We make murder unlawful or discouraged because murdering everybody would be detrimental for survival. This does make it objectively evil. It is simply evil from the framework of someone who values life and survival of the species.

We don't hesitate to kill other species for this reason. Killing cows and pigs is beneficial for us as it provides food, so we consider it acceptable murder.

>> No.4302934

>>4302907
Facts are nothing more than consistent judgements. Gravity is objectively true because every time we throw up an object it always comes back down (I only give a crude summary of gravity for the sake of brevity). So yes, if every single person decided sugary stuff tasted good it would be so. Just like how every single society, culture, and nation consistently deciding that malicious murder is evil makes it so

>> No.4302943

>>4302437
>Why is hurting others evil?

Because that's the definition of Evil.

Do you understand how words work?
next question.

>> No.4302947

>>4302934
I like how you approach the sugar thing on a personal level but the evil thing on the national or cultural level, since there would be plenty of individuals that would disagree.

Also, just because nations and cultures are against citizen on citizen murder generally doesn't mean they think murder is evil. And since most nations and societies practice warfare, they demonstrate that they only find in-group murder to be bad.

>> No.4302945
File: 29 KB, 499x500, 1384555483989.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4302945

>>4302932
Killing animals isn't wrong because they can only feel stimuli and not emotions.

>> No.4302949

>>4302945

I'm going to assume you're either trolling or willfully ignorant of how emotions work in organic life forms.

>> No.4302950
File: 20 KB, 280x252, day carts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4302950

>>4302945
rené pls go

>> No.4302957

>>4302945
So we don't kill other humans because they'll feel sad?

>> No.4302958

It's evil because we are not inclined to do harm.

>> No.4302962

>>4302437
There are no moral facts. But I object the practice of killing because I don't want to be killed. What you allow from yourself you allow it to others.

>> No.4302972

>>4302947
Your, and every one else's, pointing out the benefits to out lawing murder doesn't cancel the objectivity of it, that's backwards logic. Just because people benefit from fire insurance doesn't mean all cases of home fires are fraud.

Also I only used different levels for the sugary taste example, because taste is an issue of biology where as evil is a cultural or societal phenomenon. It be like measuring height with pounds. Although your implicit acceptance that if every decided sugar tasting good was true it would be objectively true only brings you one step closer to seeing things my way, that common agreement establishes fact. The only thing left to disagree on is my unit of measurement

>> No.4302974

>>4302962
>What you allow from yourself you allow it to others.
Lel, I allow myself to cheat and steal all the time, doesn't mean that I think others are allowed to do so. The golden rule isn't a law of nature.

>> No.4302978

>>4302957
Were you sad when your grand mother died?

>> No.4302979

>>4302972
>. Although your implicit acceptance that if every decided sugar tasting good was true it would be objectively true only brings you one step closer to seeing things my way, that common agreement establishes fact.
I didn't imply acceptance at all, I tried to show you how ridiculous your argument is.

>> No.4302980

>>4302972
>that's backwards logic

This coming from a guy who equivocates law and objective fact.

>> No.4302982

>>4302978
So we only kill other humans because their relatives will feel sad?

So then killing a person who has no relatives or friends is fine? As long as someone, somewhere doesn't feel sad, killing is okay?

>> No.4302985

>>4302980
I equate law with the written manifestation of cultural views on immorality.

>>4302979
If every one breathed helium would it still be objectively true that human beings need oxygen to live?

>> No.4302990

>>4302982
Sure, if you kill them painlessly like we (try) do with animals. They probably had a miserable life any way if it was so devoid of social connections

If a tree falls in the woods and no ones around to hear it, does it make a sound?

>> No.4302992

>>4302985
>I equate law with the written manifestation of cultural views on immorality.

Laws are not necessarily the will of the majority, they can be (and often are) imposed. Cultural views can be motivated by force.

>> No.4302999

>>4302992
Got any evidence of murder being illegal despite differing societal or cultural views?

>> No.4303004

>>4302974
What you think does not matter. It is a performative act your committing the act in itself that changes the ethical landscape around you.

Ethics is not a series of beliefs, but a series of action and performative actions that are directed to limit other's behaviors.

>> No.4303006

>>4302990
I realize you're trolling and I'm falling for it, but you realize how faulty your logic is and the fact that nobody besides you and a select minority hold your view? In other words, not objective.

>> No.4303009

>>4302999
I don't think cultures disagree with murder being illegal (but this is for reasons of survival not of objective evil), I'm just showing you why pointing to the law as a representative of culture is misleading.

>> No.4303010

>>4302601
lel someone took epistemology
>dat gettier example

>> No.4303015

>>4302985
That's not true. Cheating on your gf and lying are largely considered immoral by the population but they are not illegal.

The law has nothing to do with morality and morality has nothing to do with the law. When the law claims an allegiance with morality is only as a way to justify its being unjustified. The aims of the law are not the banishment of evil, but the reproduction and conservation of the state.

>> No.4303039

>>4303009
>>4303015
I only used the law as a more concrete example because some one earlier thought to label cultural agreements as "vague understandings" when they are so much more than that. Also a tad unrelated, but cheating and lying are legally punishable in certain scenarios (divorce/ perjury)

>> No.4303066

>>4302945
>chimpanzees don't experience emotions
>anime reaction image
I'm embarrassed for you.

>> No.4303073

ITT: Nihilist lose again

>> No.4303077

>>4303073
I didn't see any nihilists. I did see somebody fail to explain how evil is objective because a lot of people want it to be illegal, though.

>> No.4303084

>>4303077
Yep, and 9/11 was an inside job because alot of security contractors would want another war

>> No.4303088

>>4303084
>complete non sequitur

>> No.4303120

>>4303088
Something objective can't be beneficial to any one. Gravity is really subjective and only pushed by NASA for more funding

>> No.4303121

>>4303073
>implying we have anything to lose

Joke's on you.

>> No.4303128

>>4303121
I laughed.

>> No.4303129

>>4303120
You aren't worth engaging with.

>> No.4303130

>>4303120
Even your facetiousness is coming out your ass.

>> No.4303189
File: 49 KB, 435x239, stock cunts.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4303189

>>4303129
That's what his girlfriend said.