Philosophy Now Forum

'good/evil': behaviour considered immoral by (a) society

An obstacle, then, to navigate.

Certainly nuthin' a body 'ought' to abide.

#

"you are at the others judgement"

That's the case any-where or -time (whether objective or subjective standards are applied is irrelevant).

Being judged by another obligates me to abide by the judgment?

As I see: my only obligation is to navigate the judges and avoid their hands.

#

"A beholder who appears to be able to recognise 'evil'?"

A beholder who recognizes that different folks are gonna define 'good' and 'evil' in different (usually, self-serving) ways.

henry quirk wrote:Certainly nuthin' a body 'ought' to abide.

Fair enough, as long as you never use the police or courts or think it wrong that another takes from you if they are stronger or more numerous I'm fine with that.

#
As I see: my only obligation is to navigate the judges and avoid their hands.

#
Spoken like a true psychopath.

A beholder who recognizes that different folks are gonna define 'good' and 'evil' in different (usually, self-serving) ways.

Not what you said, you said given the choice you'd choose doing evil so you recognise it well enough, its why you can't then recognise good is what confuses me?

"Fair enough, as long as you never use the police or courts..."

As I trust neither, I use neither.

#

"...or think it wrong that another takes from you if they are stronger or more numerous I'm fine with that."

That folks with superior *strength or number take from others is the way things are everywhere and always.

If keep what I declare 'mine' it's by way of superior *strength, or, more wisely applied inferior *strength.

#

"Spoken like a true psychopath"

I can live with that.

#

"Not what you said, you said given the choice you'd choose doing evil..."

Given the choices offered (do evil or suffer evil) my choice, and my reasoning for the choice, is clear.

You, however, never answered the question, preferring to opt out with "do good".

#

"why you can't then recognise good"

I certainly recognize what I consider 'good' (some of which, I'm sure intersects with your own idea of what is 'good'). I certainly recognize what others consider 'good' (even though a great deal of what others consider 'good is -- to me -- just self-serving rationalization).

Mostly: I recognize that each will 'do' and (usually) justify the 'doing' after the fact.









*in context I mean not only muscle power but also any and all other means of exercising 'might' (one’s ‘self’)

henry quirk wrote:...
That folks with superior *strength or number take from others is the way things are everywhere and always.

Not true, if it was so we'd still be in the age of the thug and mystic with no rule of law, courts or democratic government.

If keep what I declare 'mine' it's by way of superior *strength, or, more wisely applied inferior *strength.

Nah, its because despite not wanting to be of it you live surrounded by a support unit.

I can live with that.

They usually can.

You, however, never answered the question, preferring to opt out with "do good".

But that is the answer to such an immoral question. To not suffer evil is to do the right thing and oppose it, not to do the wrong thing to others.

I certainly recognize what I consider 'good' (some of which, I'm sure intersects with your own idea of what is 'good'). I certainly recognize what others consider 'good' (even though a great deal of what others consider 'good is -- to me -- just self-serving rationalisation).[/quote] So not a complete psychopath then.

Mostly: I recognize that each will 'do' and (usually) justify the 'doing' after the fact.

*in context I mean not only muscle power but also any and all other means of exercising 'might' (one’s ‘self’)

I prefer Rands interpretation of rational selfishness or self-interest and it's not that 'might is right' but that because there's might the rational must have a right, with the first and foremost right being the right to life, i.e. the right to not being coerced or the right to freedom from violence, hence the rational band together to have and obey an ethical and moral stance that allows them to challenge might and it's short-termism.

"...we'd still be in the age of the thug and mystic with no rule of law, courts or democratic government."

HA!

I think you better look around: this is "the age of the thug and mystic", and, democracy is just mob rule in pretty clothes ('law' and 'courts' are that mob's sticks, used -- mostly -- to beat folks around the head and shoulders [more accurately: the mob believes they wield those sticks...they don't...the powers that be do]).

#

"...surrounded by a support unit"

Oh, and what a great job it does!

When the fellow with the revolver tucked into the waist of his sweat pants trundled up to me and 'asked' for my cash, the cops were johnny-on-the-spot and took that misguided man away.

No...wait...that's not what happened.

What happened was I kicked him square in the testes.

The support system (cops) didn't do jack.

And they didn't do jack when three fine fellows broke into my home in the middle of the night.

What made those mooks leave (in a hurry) was me, pointing my coach gun at their bellies, not the cops or the threat of the cops.

"support system" my anarchistic ass.

#

"To not suffer evil is to do the right thing and oppose it, not to do the wrong thing to others."

Well and fine (and irrelevant).

The question was specific, the possible answers limited to 'suffer evil, or, do evil'.

You opted out.

*shrug*

#

"Rands interpretation" is irrelevant to anything because those with 'might' will -- in fact -- do what each wants and each will do so without laying down a philosophical foundation first...only after 'doing' (or, in the midst of 'doing') will any come up with 'reasons' for what he or she or they do (and usually only because he or she or they perceive a possibly of having to explain themselves to some one or ones who might take them to task).

henry quirk wrote:HA!

I think you better look around: this is "the age of the thug and mystic", and, democracy is just mob rule in pretty clothes ('law' and 'courts' are that mob's sticks, used -- mostly -- to beat folks around the head and shoulders [more accurately: the mob believes they wield those sticks...they don't...the powers that be do]).

#

Not sure how it is for you over there but I do look around and from where I live things are a lot more peaceful for the citizen than they've ever been.

You appear to want it both ways? The mob either has the power or it doesn't and I disagree with this idea of mob-rule as applied to Democracy as a mob pretty much has no rules and has little need to be a majority, just a mob who outnumbers, so those powers that be are a mob. Now I'd agree that Democracy is in a fairly bad position at present as the elites have always tried to keep the mass stupid so as to circumvent what democracy could be but your position is supporting the idea that the current crop of powers that be have begun to push for, i.e. that democracy should be done away with and a reversion to those that know best should be the case. Me, I disagree, as when they did such as me died in droves and life was a lot more brutish and short.

"...surrounded by a support unit"

Oh, and what a great job it does!

When the fellow with the revolver tucked into the waist of his sweat pants trundled up to me and 'asked' for my cash, the cops were johnny-on-the-spot and took that misguided man away.

No...wait...that's not what happened.

What happened was I kicked him square in the testes.

And did you then rob him? As that's your position.

The support system (cops) didn't do jack. ...

I'm surprised you called them? Or did you just let this fellow go to reoffend.

And they didn't do jack when three fine fellows broke into my home in the middle of the night.

What made those mooks leave (in a hurry) was me, pointing my coach gun at their bellies, not the cops or the threat of the cops.

And you think that without govt and its systems such things would happen less? Once again, did you report this, I hope not.

"support system" my anarchistic ass.

From the sounds of it we live in different societies as such events are fairly rare over here. You appear to live in a world that agrees with your position, so I guess we get what we wish for.

#

"To not suffer evil is to do the right thing and oppose it, not to do the wrong thing to others."

Well and fine (and irrelevant). ..

You apparently didn't think so with the sweat-pants guy?

The question was specific, the possible answers limited to 'suffer evil, or, do evil'.

You opted out.

Nope, I pointed out the ethical philosophical error in the premises.

"Rands interpretation" is irrelevant to anything because those with 'might' will -- in fact -- do what each wants and each will do so without laying down a philosophical foundation first...only after 'doing' (or, in the midst of 'doing') will any come up with 'reasons' for what he or she or they do (and usually only because he or she or they perceive a possibly of having to explain themselves to some one or ones who might take them to task).

Not so, as Rands argument is not for the thugs or mystics, nor the altruists or hedonists or the "selfish", it's for the rational producers, a call to ethical arms so to speak.

"...where I live things are a lot more peaceful for the citizen than they've ever been"

I'm inclined to think the only difference between 'here' and 'there' are the rose-colored glasses one of us wears.

#

"You appear to want it both ways?"

Not at all. The mob rules, but the mob is directed. Those directors go by many names.

#

"did you then rob him?"

A kick to the sack momentarily incapacitates...he was down long enough for me to run like hell.

Besides, he had nuthin' I wanted...

#

"I'm surprised you called them? Or did you just let this fellow go to reoffend."

I didn't, and, he was/is gonna do that anyway.

#

"you think that without govt and its systems such things would happen less?"

Nope, and I never said or implied such a thing (in this thread).

#

"Once again, did you report this, I hope not."

No...there was, and is, no point.

#

"such events are fairly rare over here"

I'm bettin' you're wrong.

#

"rational producers"

Name one.

I'm certain you can name a number of 'reasonable' producers, but 'rational' producers?

No such animal.

Prove me wrong: name one.

#

"I pointed out the ethical philosophical error in the premises"

I just reviewed the thread: you've done no such thing.

Saying "do good" refutes nuthin', dismantles nuthin'.

All you did was sidestep and opt out.

henry quirk wrote:"...where I live things are a lot more peaceful for the citizen than they've ever been"

I'm inclined to think the only difference between 'here' and 'there' are the rose-colored glasses one of us wears.

The stats between our respective countries say differently.

#

"You appear to want it both ways?"

Not at all. The mob rules, but the mob is directed. Those directors go by many names.

Don't follow the conspiracy theory, more the cock-up theory.

#

"did you then rob him?"

A kick to the sack momentarily incapacitates...he was down long enough for me to run like hell.

Besides, he had nuthin' I wanted...

But your position is that it would have been better to do evil? So you could have robbed him of his gun since you like them so much.

#

"I'm surprised you called them? Or did you just let this fellow go to reoffend."

I didn't, and, he was/is gonna do that anyway.

Not whilst he was in prison he wouldn't and who knows a spell inside may have helped him.

#

"you think that without govt and its systems such things would happen less?"

Nope, and I never said or implied such a thing (in this thread).

Well, I accept what you say but think your implication is that govt and rule of law make no odds.

#

"Once again, did you report this, I hope not."

No...there was, and is, no point.

Shame for any loved ones or friends you have that may meet him and not be you.

#

"such events are fairly rare over here"

I'm bettin' you're wrong.

Bad bet as the stats say differently.

#

"rational producers"

Name one.

I'm certain you can name a number of 'reasonable' producers, but 'rational' producers?

No such animal.

Prove me wrong: name one.

#

I said it was a call to arms, if called then they recognise themselves and become one. Marx did a pretty good job of demonstrating this.

I just reviewed the thread: you've done no such thing.

Saying "do good" refutes nuthin', dismantles nuthin'.

All you did was sidestep and opt out.

Nope, its called a false dichotomy or dilemma.

"stats"

Generated and presented by 'who'?

'Who' says a lot about 'why'.

#

"conspiracy theory"

HA!

Never said jack 'bout hidden cults.

The powers that be are the ones with the money...they direct your democracy...the intent: to keep the domesticated, domesticated.

#

"But your position is that it would have been better to do evil?"

I never claimed I was bound by the parameters of this thread's question in the real world.

As I say up-thread: 'Anyway, if the choice is between doing evil, or, suffering evil, who in his or her right mind chooses to be the victim? Kind of a silly question anyway...living isn't such a black and white exercise.'

Your mistake: assuming because I answered a 'this or that' question (in a certain way) in good faith (sumthin' you still haven't done) that this is my position in the day-to-day.

*shrug*

#

"you could have robbed him of his gun"

I could have, but I already have my coach gun...another is just surplus.

Also: Who knows what other crimes were attached to that gun...not miring myself in his shit.

#

"Not whilst he was in prison"

You assume he would have went to prison.

I make no such assumption.

#

"implication"

My writing is plain...I write what I mean...do yourself a favor and stop looking for that which is not there.

#

"govt and rule of law"

Both have a (small, limited) place...too bad both tend to grow.

#

"Shame for any loved ones or friends you have that may meet him and not be you."

Pretty sure my family (blood and friends) can handle themselves.

#

"Marx"

I prefer Saint Max.

#

"I said it was a call to arms"

You have not one ‘rational’ producer to name?

I could name half a dozen reasonable and reasoning producers: real folks.

You play in Rand's Objectivist playground but you bring no toys: for shame.

#

"its called a false dichotomy or dilemma"

No: it's a legitimate (if silly) question...that you don't 'like' the possible answers doesn’t negate the question.

henry quirk wrote:"stats"

Generated and presented by 'who'?

'Who' says a lot about 'why'.

Goggle any, as by any measure you can find the stats with relation to criminality in our countries bear out my 'rosy' view.

#

"conspiracy theory"

HA!

Never said jack 'bout hidden cults.

The powers that be are the ones with the money...they direct your democracy...the intent: to keep the domesticated, domesticated.

As I already agreed but upon the whole I don't have a great man view of history.

#

"But your position is that it would have been better to do evil?"

I never claimed I was bound by the parameters of this thread's question in the real world.

As I say up-thread: 'Anyway, if the choice is between doing evil, or, suffering evil, who in his or her right mind chooses to be the victim? Kind of a silly question anyway...living isn't such a black and white exercise.'

It is to some, Christians and Kantians in the main.

Your mistake: assuming because I answered a 'this or that' question (in a certain way) in good faith (sumthin' you still haven't done) that this is my position in the day-to-day.

*shrug*

Fair point and my mistake. So you're just playing devils advocate and don't try to act as you say? I am answering in good faith, I think the question an error in that it presents either option as a 'better' when neither is.

#

"you could have robbed him of his gun"

I could have, but I already have my coach gun...another is just surplus.

Also: Who knows what other crimes were attached to that gun...not miring myself in his shit.

#

Fair point.

"Not whilst he was in prison"

You assume he would have went to prison.

I make no such assumption.

But a pretty reasonable one given your country's incarceration rates.

#

"implication"

My writing is plain...I write what I mean...do yourself a favor and stop looking for that which is not there.

#

Fair enough, then I think it plain enough that you do not think govt or rule of law of much use. Or is this you again playing devils advocate?

"govt and rule of law"

Both have a (small, limited) place...too bad both tend to grow.

#

Maybe but with respect to evil and evil doing?

"Shame for any loved ones or friends you have that may meet him and not be you."

Pretty sure my family (blood and friends) can handle themselves.

#

Fair enough, lets hope it never comes to that. For myself I'd have had him arrested just to be on the safe side.

"Marx"

I prefer Saint Max.

#

No eyed-dear?

"I said it was a call to arms"

You have not one ‘rational’ producer to name?

I could name half a dozen reasonable and reasoning producers: real folks.

You play in Rand's Objectivist playground but you bring no toys: for shame.

My apologies, Bruce Kavanagh, Bill Bailey and Tim Franklin.

#

"its called a false dichotomy or dilemma"

No: it's a legitimate (if silly) question...that you don't 'like' the possible answers doesn’t negate the question.

Nothing to do with 'like', I truly think it not an either or question, that you cannot think of a third response is your way.

henry quirk wrote: Cutting a man's throat to save a child might be considered 'good'; cutting a man's throat for the five bucks in his pocket might be considered 'evil'.

*Seems to me: good and evil are the constructs, each defined by the, for example, bringer of violence and the receiver of violence.

The violent man may have -- he believes -- good reasons for cutting the other guy's throat. The other guy (probably) will disagree with the violent man's reasonings and judge the violent man as 'wrong'.


Anyway, if the choice is between doing evil, or, suffering evil, who in his or her right mind chooses to be the victim?

Kind of a silly question anyway...living isn't such a black and white exercise.

*feeding the poor is usually considered a 'good'...an argument can be made that feeding the poor in perpetuity leads to a dependence of (otherwise capable) folks on the generosity of others...this learned or enforced dependence could be considered 'evil' (though certainly the dependent folks wouldn't see it that way)...again: circumstance and perspective define 'good' and 'evil'

Henry

When was the last time you cut a man's throat to save a child?

Is it possible that there is exhibited here a confusion between axiological 'good' and moral 'good'?

If the murderer for the five bucks says to himself: "This is good for me here and now" is it possible that he may be mistaken? Ethics would find the answer to be: Definitely, yes !
For it is an ethical mistake to murder. Why? Because it violates several ethical principles. By the very definition of "Ethics" it is a violation.
By research in Formal Axiology one learns that something, x, is good if it has all the properties needed to fulfill its purpose (or its definition, or intention.) So "x is good as a C" is not arbitrary.

....something to think about.

Picture a hypothetical alternative scene from the movie Rosemary’s Baby, specifically one in which the devil is on top of a drugged Rosemary in order to impregnate her with Satan’s prophetic offspring.
“This is no dream; this is really happening!” she declares.
“You bet it’s happening, baby,” Satan confirms to her smugly, for he perceives himself as the studly devil that many might attribute to such a powerful, feared entity.
Then in a second cartoon square (or whatever) above which it reads, “About thirty seconds later, Satan climaxes.”
As the devil appears pleased with his performance, Rosemary, however, looking up at him quite disappointed, says, “What? Is that it?!”

"by any measure"

A bit broad, don't you think?

Statistics usually serve an agenda...that is: the agenda colors the methodology...statistics, then, is largely an act of confirmation of bias (or promotion of agenda).

#

"I don't have a great man view of history"

Neither do I.

Wielding the big(ger) stick successfully (or the smaller stick more wisely) is usually an amoral event having nuthin' to do with 'greatness'.

#

"So you're just playing devils advocate..."

When I sit down to play chess, my opponent and I agree to the rules...neither changes the rules (segueing into some variation)...I take the question (and the two possible answers) posed at the beginning of this thread in the same light.

#

"your country's incarceration rates"

Which have much more to do with profit than justice.

#

"I think it plain enough that you do not think govt or rule of law of much use"

As I say: both have a limited role.

#

"...with respect to evil and evil doing?"

Beyond a certain, bare bones, limit: governance, and the rule of law that girdles governance, is the source of great 'evil' (as I see it).

#

"For myself I'd have had him arrested just to be on the safe side."

In the case of the would-be mugger, I certainly wasn't gonna stick around and try to hold him in place...I kicked him in the nuts, but he had the gun. I coulda called the cops after the fact, but -- even with the best of descriptions -- it would have been unlikely the doughnut eaters woulda got him.

In the case of the three who came into my home: I made it pretty clear to 'them' the only reason I wasn't laying open their bellies with shot was so that each could tell their friends my home was off limits...'the old man has a shotgun,' I said, 'spread the word.'

Not proof of anything, of course, but I never had another break in and I lived there for a couple or three years after the fact.

#

"No eyed-dear?"

Max Stirner.

Marx mocked him with 'Saint Max'.

#

"Bruce Kavanagh, Bill Bailey and Tim Franklin"

I googled and am stumped. Ran across a few folks with those names.

*shrug*

#

"that you cannot think of a third response is your way"

I can think of several ways to answer the question (I can also think of several variations of chess)...I just went with what was on the table.

*shrug*

##

"When was the last time you cut a man's throat to save a child?"

Be kinda dumb of me to admit to such thing in the public sphere.

Irrelevant anyway.

#

"axiological 'good'"

http://www.thecouchforum.com/comments.php?id=1313

http://www.thecouchforum.com/comments.php?id=1545

"moral 'good'?"

Poop.

#

"x, is good if it has all the properties needed to fulfill its purpose"

I need five bucks...I have a gun...I have the willingness and capability to use the gun...at gun point, I take five buck from a hapless fellow...my chain of behavior has "all the properties needed to fulfill its (my) purpose"...my choice to mug the hapless fellow (and the mugging itself), then was utterly ethical (for me), utterly 'good' (for me).

I understand why the hapless fellow might disagree (not my problem).

Again: 'good' and 'evil' are in the eye of the beholder.

That one binds him- or her-self up in ethical constructs (and logically justifies each link of the chain) obligates another to nuthin'.

##

"What? Is that it?!"

HA!

henry quirk wrote:"by any measure"

A bit broad, don't you think?

Statistics usually serve an agenda...that is: the agenda colors the methodology...statistics, then, is largely an act of confirmation of bias (or promotion of agenda).

HA!

I took a college level statistics course after graduation, and one of the first things the professor said was "Give a good statistician the raw data, and they can prove anything you want".

henry quirk wrote:
"your country's incarceration rates"

Which have much more to do with profit than justice.

#

"I think it plain enough that you do not think govt or rule of law of much use"

As I say: both have a limited role.

#

"...with respect to evil and evil doing?"

Beyond a certain, bare bones, limit: governance, and the rule of law that girdles governance, is the source of great 'evil' (as I see it).

#

"For myself I'd have had him arrested just to be on the safe side."

In the case of the would-be mugger, I certainly wasn't gonna stick around and try to hold him in place...I kicked him in the nuts, but he had the gun. I coulda called the cops after the fact, but -- even with the best of descriptions -- it would have been unlikely the doughnut eaters woulda got him.

In the case of the three who came into my home: I made it pretty clear to 'them' the only reason I wasn't laying open their bellies with shot was so that each could tell their friends my home was off limits...'the old man has a shotgun,' I said, 'spread the word.'

Not proof of anything, of course, but I never had another break in and I lived there for a couple or three years after the fact.

HA!

On this subject, I think I would trust Henry's judgment.