Let Us Say Evil is Purely Relative...

[Mister Emu]

I strongly, nay vehemently, denounce the notion that morality is relative. I may even be disgusted by it. That said I'm not sure this particular argument is well founded.

But if the Holocaust was good for some people, then we must consider the Holocaust in some circumstances morally justified.

Specifically, I don't believe that this statement is justified. To say that some people found the Holocaust morally justified is not to say that there are circumstances in which I would find it justified. That is, the relative morality of the Holocaust, including the potential moral justification, need not be based on the objective reality of circumstances, but rather the moral reasoner's subjective viewpoint.

Further, even if we understand that morality is primarily relative to circumstance instead of subjective desire this statement: "if that is the case, then is not the proposition that "good and evil are relative" little more than a very trivial point" seems to be a bit hyperbolic. The idea that morality is relative, even if only to circumstance, is still of foundational import. It is an answer, however wrong it might be, to one of, if not the first moral questions. Are morals real?

 

[dfnj]

say a group of travelers had their spaceships astronavigation computers knocked out,
they had no group reference in common to use to coordinate their efforts....
a good question would be to establish what is up?
x,y,z?
consensus attained would be the only logical recourse to pursue.

View attachment 38526

 

[dfnj]

I strongly, nay vehemently, denounce the notion that morality is relative. I may even be disgusted by it.

So you say morality is absolute and objective by expressing a subjective opinion.

If morality were absolute then religious law would be secular law. But it isn't because what is moral and what is not moral changes slowly over time. If you mean not relative as similar to the way we have colloquialisms In other words absolute morality is a kind of collective idea of morality then I marginally agree with you.

However, it seems to me morality clearly changes over time. Just consider these gems from the "literal truth" of God:

The killing of infants is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

In what Universe is the dashing of infants against the rocks morally okay?

Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master
was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

As if my wife would ever allow me to have a concubine. Also, don't you find it a little strange if the Bible were the absolute truth and word of God that having a concubine would be morally okay? Don't you find it a little alarming the Bible is implying sending someone out to be raped is morally okay?

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

I'm sorry, how can you think morality is absolute when the Bible, supposedly the word of God, got the morality of slavery wrong!

Morality is clearly relative.

 

[Curious George]

So you say morality is absolute and objective by expressing a subjective opinion.

If morality were absolute then religious law would be secular law. But it isn't because what is moral and what is not moral changes slowly over time. If you mean not relative as similar to the way we have colloquialisms In other words absolute morality is a kind of collective idea of morality then I marginally agree with you.

However, it seems to me morality clearly changes over time. Just consider these gems from the "literal truth" of God:

The killing of infants is often omitted from readings in church:

“Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us – he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)

In what Universe is the dashing of infants against the rocks morally okay?

Another blood-curdling tale from the Book of Judges, where an Israelite man is trapped in a house by a hostile crowd, and sends out his concubine to placate them:

“So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master
was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight. When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, ‘Get up; let’s go.’ But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.” (Judges 19:25-28)

As if my wife would ever allow me to have a concubine. Also, don't you find it a little strange if the Bible were the absolute truth and word of God that having a concubine would be morally okay? Don't you find it a little alarming the Bible is implying sending someone out to be raped is morally okay?

“Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18)

I'm sorry, how can you think morality is absolute when the Bible, supposedly the word of God, got the morality of slavery wrong!

Morality is clearly relative.

That some morals are "clearly relative" does not mean that all are.

Moreover, if we can conceive of a personified god then we can conceive of that god dictating some set of rules which we could then hold out as objectively moral. That our current, future, or past thoughts regarding the morality of specific acts differ does not entail that such a morality is not objective.

In short, we could have a secular and objective morality, or we could have a non-secular and objective morality despite the facts in your post.

 

[atanu]

It is in the West quite popular to declare that evil is relative. Yet, often missing from such discussions is any effort to address how problematic such a statement might be.

For instance, consider this: If evil is purely relative, then it is possible that the Holocaust was not evil for everyone, but was instead good for some people. But if the Holocaust was good for some people, then we must consider the Holocaust in some circumstances morally justified. However, considering the Holocaust morally justified in some circumstances, but not in other circumstances, implies that good and evil can be decided by circumstances. Yet, if good and evil can be decided by circumstances, then can it not be said that good and evil have an "objective" foundation in so far as circumstances are "objectively" real? And if that is the case, then is not the proposition that "good and evil are relative" little more than a very trivial point of almost no ethical significance, while the proposition that "good and evil are securely grounded in circumstances" of much greater moral consequence, for then we could say "In circumstances X, Y is always evil (or not evil)"? But if we can say that, how can evil be relative?​

I am neither endorsing nor criticizing the above view. I'm just laying it out for discussion in order to show one of the many ways in which the notion that good and evil are relative is problematic.

To me, evil is synonymous to suffering. Suffering has a common cause -- the ego. In deep sleep when the ego sleeps there is no suffering. That the ego-self is real is a common notion. This is the common ignorance on which sufferings rest. But after this, how suffering is perceived and/or tackled by different people are subjective and relative. IMO.

 

[dfnj]

That some morals are "clearly relative" does not mean that all are.

Moreover, if we can conceive of a personified god then we can conceive of that god dictating some set of rules which we could then hold out as objectively moral. That our current, future, or past thoughts regarding the morality of specific acts differ does not entail that such a morality is not objective.

In short, we could have a secular and objective morality, or we could have a non-secular and objective morality despite the facts in your post.

I think the basic heuristic of if it causes undue amount of suffering in others there should be a secular law against. We have laws against assault, rape, and murder. It doesn't take a bible to get right from from. So there is definite something we can grab onto with morality. But I agree with you. I don't see morality as being objective in the same way science is objective.

 

[PureX]

Gotta disagree here . . . Existing or not existing is neither good nor bad, it is subjective to the one experiencing it.

The fact that one is continuing their experience of it would clearly indicate that to continue existing is better than to cease existing.

The existence of Hitler was bad for many and good for others. Existing allows for both good and bad. Not existing at (e.g. Hitler) would have been good for many, and not so good for others. So, your theory holds no water.

The human definition and assessment of Hitler's existence is subjective, yes. But the possibility of humans being able to define and assess Hitler only comes with existence. Non-existence allows for no possibilities whatever. Existing can be good or bad, and/or both. Not existing cannot be anything. Possibilities are preferable to no possibility because something is something, and nothing is nothing. Something can be good. Nothing cannot.

Good and Evil do not, they cannot, exist prior and separate from the one experiencing it (whether Good or Evil).

We do not "experience good and evil". We conceptually define it, and then assess our experience of being according to these conceptual definitions. And the possibility of this conceptual experience remains in place regardless of whether we exist to embody it, or not. When humans are no longer extant, perhaps some other life form will find itself similarly enabled. Perhaps it already has.

 

[dfnj]

That some morals are "clearly relative" does not mean that all are.

The problems is deciding which morals are not relative is relative and a subjective opinion. So you might as well say all are relative.

Moreover, if we can conceive of a personified god then we can conceive of that god dictating some set of rules which we could then hold out as objectively moral. That our current, future, or past thoughts regarding the morality of specific acts differ does not entail that such a morality is not objective.

I believe Apophatic theology takes precedence over Cataphatic theology. God is perfect, whole, and complete without any needs or desires. Therefore, God having human qualities coming from a "personified" God would imply God has limitations. So I would argue God just exists.

Our needs and desires are the source of all that is evil in the World. Since God has no needs or desires God is perfect "goodness". We are not perfect like God. We have many imperfections causing us to have needs and desires. Therefore, what is evil and what is not evil is solely in the realm of man. We dub what is evil and what is not evil. There is no absolute morality. All morality is based on human opinion.

In short, we could have a secular and objective morality, or we could have a non-secular and objective morality despite the facts in your post.

What is secular and what is not secular is subjective. Everything in the World of non-secular thought is purely subjective. And what is "good" and "bad" objectivity is determined by a subjective opinion.

I'm not sure I agree with the statement morality is or can be objective. I don't think there is anything with regards to morality that can be said to be objective.

 

[Mister Emu]

So you say morality is absolute and objective by expressing a subjective opinion.

Sure. I'll say it again, too. I am now certain I am disgusted by the idea, and the person who proposes it after careful consideration, that there is no real discernible difference in morality. If you can view child torture and say "well, it's all in how you look at it; I can't say this is objectively wrong", you have a broken mind.

If morality were absolute then religious law would be secular law.

That's a ludicrous non-sequitur. To say that there is an objective morality is not to say that any religious group or authority has seized upon it in its entirety. Nor is it to say that the masses at large will accept it and hold to it.

If Global warming science were objectively real, then everyone would agree with it and the ways we need to act to reduce it. That's an absurd statement.

However, it seems to me morality clearly changes over time.

Our understanding of morality changes over time, just as with any discipline of thought. Our science similarly, and often in more dramatic fashion, changes over time, yet I would hardly say that science is at foundation a search for a relative truth.

In what Universe is the dashing of infants against the rocks morally okay?

Certainly, the relative moralist has no basis to condemn it.

I'm sorry, how can you think morality is absolute when the Bible, supposedly the word of God, got the morality of slavery wrong!

Morality is clearly relative.

Ha!

 

[dfnj]

Sure. I'll say it again, too. I am now certain I am disgusted by the idea, and the person who proposes it after careful consideration, that there is no real discernible difference in morality. If you can view child torture and say "well, it's all in how you look at it; I can't say this is objectively wrong", you have a broken mind.

What you know is you are certain what your opinion would be about child torture. All I am saying is the idea child torture is immoral is a choice. Obviously, the person doing the torturing did not choose the way you did. I'm not saying it's right or wrong. What I am saying is the entire list of everything we consider "right" and "wrong" is subjective. There are many instances where what is right and what is wrong is not as clear as the example you gave.

For example, the executioner and the soldier commit murder and they are almost always given a free pass on the morality of what they have done.

That's a ludicrous non-sequitur. To say that there is an objective morality is not to say that any religious group or authority has seized upon it in its entirety. Nor is it to say that the masses at large will accept it and hold to it.

What I am saying is there is no clear way to determine objectively in absolute terms for every possible case what is considered to be morally wrong. We will never achieve any perfect accuracy or perfect completeness. Therefore, what is evil and what is not evil is purely subjective.

Your problem is you think your opinions are facts. You think what you think is absolutely perfect and complete when it is not. This is why we have secular court of laws to decide who should be convicted based on subjective opinions as judged by a group of peers as opposed to police being judge, jury, and executioner.

If Global warming science were objectively real, then everyone would agree with it and the ways we need to act to reduce it. That's an absurd statement.

Yes, it is absurd to think we would agree on how to respond to global warming. And I also agree with you global science is objective and good science fact as the scientists of NASA are concluding:

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

And the causes are known to be objective facts also:

Causes | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Now whether we should responds to the facts and create a public policy abolishing the burning of fossil fuels is something we will never agree to do. The best answer to the problem is to do what the Chinese are doing to end the use of burning fossil fuels:

China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster aircraft carriers and in flying drones – NextBigFuture.com

Our understanding of morality changes over time, just as with any discipline of thought. Our science similarly, and often in more dramatic fashion, changes over time, yet I would hardly say that science is at foundation a search for a relative truth.

Yes I agree. Science has been very successfully in dispelling many silly superstitions over the last 200 years. Science has shown the silly superstition "global warming is not real" is just Big Oil propaganda.

Certainly, the relative moralist has no basis to condemn it.

We have very good secular laws against people dashing infants against the rocks. Thank God we do! Because without secular law we would have all kinds of crazy superstitions being legal!

Is it moral to let Florida become submerged from the rising sea levels caused by global warming? I don't care. I don't own a house in Florida so I don't care what our public policy is with regards to burning fossil fuels.

Ha!

I have no idea what this response means.

I wish I had your convictions about being "right". I always try to measure what my beliefs are based on my life experiences. One man's insurgent is another man's freedom fighter. It just seems to me there are many perspectives and nuances to our experiences.

 

[Mister Emu]

What I am saying is the entire list of everything we consider "right" and "wrong" is subjective. There are many instances where what is right and what is wrong is not as clear as the example you gave.

If all of right and wrong are relative, then there would be no such thing as a "clear" example at any level. That there are in fact clear examples of right and wrong suggests that there is, at some level, moral realism.

What I am saying is there is no clear way to determine objectively in absolute terms for every possible case what is considered to be morally wrong.

You are confusing empirical verifiability with objective existence.

Therefore, what is evil and what is not evil is purely subjective.

And, that is a non-sequitur.

Your problem is you think your opinions are facts. You think what you think is absolutely perfect and complete when it is not.

Heh. Incorrect.

We have very good secular laws against people dashing infants against the rocks.

To a moral relativist, they are only subjectively good. They can make no moral argument against the land where bashing infants against rocks is considered good secular law, or good religious law, or good law of any sort.

I find the idea that the difference between the law condemning infant rock bashing and the law affirming it is mere subjective preference to be viscerally offensive.

I have no idea what this response means.

You said in the space of two sentences that a particular moral idea, or set of ideas, was wrong(an absolute statement only meaningful if objective moral facts exist) and that morality is clearly relative. I find that humorous.

 

[atanu]

It is in the West quite popular to declare that evil is relative. Yet, often missing from such discussions is any effort to address how problematic such a statement might be....

I am neither endorsing nor criticizing the above view. I'm just laying it out for discussion in order to show one of the many ways in which the notion that good and evil are relative is problematic.

To me, evil is synonymous to suffering. Suffering has a common cause -- the ego. In deep sleep when the ego sleeps there is no suffering. That the ego-self is real is a common notion. This is the common ignorance on which sufferings rest. But after this, how suffering is perceived and/or tackled by different people are subjective and relative. IMO.

Allow me to C&P view of an Advaita teacher.

“The universe is perfect as a whole, and the part's striving for perfection is a way of joy. Willingly sacrifice the imperfect to the perfect, and there will be no more talk about good and evil.

There is no good and no evil. In every concrete situation, there is only the necessary and the unnecessary. The needful is right, the needless is wrong. In my world, even what you call evil is the servant of the good and therefore necessary. It is like boils and fever that clear the body of impurities. Disease is painful, even dangerous, but if dealt with rightly, it heals. In some cases death is the best cure.

It is in the nature of all manifestation that the good and the bad follow each other and in equal measure. The true refuge is only in the unmanifested.

Relatively, what causes suffering is wrong; what alleviates it is right. Absolutely, what brings you back to reality is right, and what dims reality is wrong.

Stupidity and selfishness are the only evil.

To understand suffering, you must go beyond pain and pleasure. Your own desires and fears prevent you from understanding and thereby helping others. In reality there are no others, and by helping yourself you help everybody else. If you are serious about the suffering of mankind, you must perfect the only means of help you have, yourself.

In the end you know that there is no sin, no guilt, no retribution, only life in its endless transformations. With the dissolution of the personal "I", personal suffering disappears. What remains is the great sadness of compassion, the horror of the unnecessary pain.

I do not know bad people, I only know myself. I see no saints nor sinners, only living beings.

I know no sin, nor sinner. Your distinction and valuation do not bind me. Everybody behaves according to his nature. It cannot be helped, nor need it be regretted.”​

~Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

 

[Yazata]

It is in the West quite popular to declare that evil is relative.

I'm inclined to think that good/evil is subjective. It's not unlike beautiful/ugly or even tastes good/tastes bad. Evil seems to me to be kind of a personal disapproval response applied to actions, coupled with a normative expectation in which we think that everyone else should feel the same way. (And a disapproval response that we experience as an intuition of 'bad' when they don't.)

Yet, often missing from such discussions is any effort to address how problematic such a statement might be.

For instance, consider this: If evil is purely relative, then it is possible that the Holocaust was not evil for everyone, but was instead good for some people.

Or put another way, some people (Hitler and many of the nazis presumably) considered it good in some sense at least and thought that they were doing the right thing. (Otherwise, why would they have done it?)

But if the Holocaust was good for some people, then we must consider the Holocaust in some circumstances morally justified.

Do judgments of right and wrong rest upon some prior rational justification process? Or does whatever justification process might occur follow the moral judgment, in hopes of rationalizing it and making it more persuasive to others?

However, considering the Holocaust morally justified in some circumstances, but not in other circumstances, implies that good and evil can be decided by circumstances. Yet, if good and evil can be decided by circumstances, then can it not be said that good and evil have an "objective" foundation in so far as circumstances are "objectively" real? And if that is the case, then is not the proposition that "good and evil are relative" little more than a very trivial point of almost no ethical significance, while the proposition that "good and evil are securely grounded in circumstances" of much greater moral consequence, for then we could say "In circumstances X, Y is always evil (or not evil)"? But if we can say that, how can evil be relative?

Because the relevance of circumstances to moral judgments doesn't seem to be objective. The famous Is-Ought' gap still needs to be bridged.

Hitler and many of those who followed him believed that the interests of the German Volk were paramount. Today, there are those who believe that adherence to their vision of God's revealed will is paramount. Others adhere to an abstract vision of 'human rights'.

But is there really any objective factual truth to these kind of visions? Aren't they more a matter of historical and cultural circumstance?

So to address your argument, I think that in different cultural circumstances people will sometimes make radically divergent moral judgments. But that observation still doesn't tell us which judgments are morally right and which are wrong. I don't really believe that there's any objective fact to that matter.

I do think that human beings do sort of approximate towards being on the same page morally. For example, there's the ubiquitous "golden rule" that's found in many cultures. An underlying sense of fairness and reciprocity seems to be pretty much universal among humans. I'd attribute that one to social instinct. Human beings evolved as social animals after all.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't follow. What is your point, and how does it relate to the OP?

I mentioned three things that should be considered evil but all were acceptable to those social groups.
Churches clearly condoned burning of people in the name of god. The hideous death by drawing and quartering was sanctioned but kings appointed by god. The final is straight from the bible. God drowns men women and children because they were evil. All actions accepted by a religion whose leader is often called the prince of peace. In each case justified by doing something that most would considered evil but when done in the name of a religion is no longer evil but a holy mission.

If the extermination of a group is placed in the role of them vs us then how it is viewed is by the us changes the perspective. The human behavior of dividing the world into those outside of the group and those included in the group can change the view of what is an evil act. Thus evil is always relative to the perspective the social group and the individual.

 

[Bear Wild]

But of course the entire concept of evil is only relative to human beings. Human beings view one group of humans exterminating another group of humans to be an evil practice. Do ants also view one group of humans exterminating another group of humans to be an evil practice? I seriously doubt it, since when one ant colony attacks and wipes out another ant colony humans don't tend to view it as an evil practice. It's viewed as simply being natural behavior for ants. Any other species would likely view humans killing humans as being nothing more than natural human behavior. In fact, for many species whose survival is threatened by human encroachment upon their natural habitats it would be reasonable to view humans killing off other humans as being a good thing, not an evil one.

Thus it seems obvious to me that evil is nothing but a relative concept.

I agree with you because it is humans that created the concept of good and evil. Thus it becomes a human created question not relevant to other species. Consider infanticide in both animals and humans. It is not so uncommon for a male of the species to kill the offspring of another's. Evil or protecting the chance for the male to have successful offspring of its own. Infanticide has been seen in the Inuit seen as a practice to protect the group. It is considered evil for many outside of the group or species yet not to those within the group.

Personally I consider it evil to destroy the planet the way we are currently doing yet others see it as a right of humans to take whatever they need from the world without respect to the rest of life on our planet.

 

[McBell]

It is in the West quite popular to declare that evil is relative. Yet, often missing from such discussions is any effort to address how problematic such a statement might be.

For instance, consider this: If evil is purely relative, then it is possible that the Holocaust was not evil for everyone, but was instead good for some people. But if the Holocaust was good for some people, then we must consider the Holocaust in some circumstances morally justified. However, considering the Holocaust morally justified in some circumstances, but not in other circumstances, implies that good and evil can be decided by circumstances. Yet, if good and evil can be decided by circumstances, then can it not be said that good and evil have an "objective" foundation in so far as circumstances are "objectively" real? And if that is the case, then is not the proposition that "good and evil are relative" little more than a very trivial point of almost no ethical significance, while the proposition that "good and evil are securely grounded in circumstances" of much greater moral consequence, for then we could say "In circumstances X, Y is always evil (or not evil)"? But if we can say that, how can evil be relative?​

I am neither endorsing nor criticizing the above view. I'm just laying it out for discussion in order to show one of the many ways in which the notion that good and evil are relative is problematic.





____________________________________

Good and evil are descriptions.
Descriptions are based on perception
Perceptions are subjective.

 

[Shad]

It is in the West quite popular to declare that evil is relative. Yet, often missing from such discussions is any effort to address how problematic such a statement might be.

For instance, consider this: If evil is purely relative, then it is possible that the Holocaust was not evil for everyone, but was instead good for some people. But if the Holocaust was good for some people, then we must consider the Holocaust in some circumstances morally justified. However, considering the Holocaust morally justified in some circumstances, but not in other circumstances, implies that good and evil can be decided by circumstances. Yet, if good and evil can be decided by circumstances, then can it not be said that good and evil have an "objective" foundation in so far as circumstances are "objectively" real? And if that is the case, then is not the proposition that "good and evil are relative" little more than a very trivial point of almost no ethical significance, while the proposition that "good and evil are securely grounded in circumstances" of much greater moral consequence, for then we could say "In circumstances X, Y is always evil (or not evil)"? But if we can say that, how can evil be relative?​

I am neither endorsing nor criticizing the above view. I'm just laying it out for discussion in order to show one of the many ways in which the notion that good and evil are relative is problematic.

The quote conflated real with evaluation of.