Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I'll start with a simple one. The very form of posing the question is reduced to two existential statements (statements about existence): «There is an objective good ” and “There is an objective evil“, and the question – ” are they true?”.
All existential statements are reduced to the formula: “there is at least one x that has the property A“, i.e. to verify the truth of such a statement, just one reliable fact is enough: “Yes! (A)x exists – here it is”. Offer ““cat” is verified (confirmed) by the fact that one of the representatives of this class is lying next to me, and each of you can verify it in his own way, if, of course, he knows what the word “cat”means. If a fact is reliably established and supported by reliable evidence, then it is an objective fact, and adds to the piggy bank of objective knowledge of humanity.
Let's assume the following situation: there is a certain Mr. X and he is an artist, and a certain Mr.Wu buys a painting from him. Y did good for X, because X got the money and is happy. Wu is also happy, as he has long dreamed of acquiring a painting by X. This interaction of two individuals X andU made both of them happy, i.e.Y did good for X, and X forU. This is a typical situation, the actual analogues of which are very numerous. Therefore, the sentence “there is objective good” is true.
Or the opposite situation. X killedU. ForU and all people close to him are evil. X found, and put far away and for a long time, or even tortured to death. For X, the consequences of his actions are also evil. It turns out that the given interaction X andIt brought evil to both of them. This is also a typical situation, saying that ” objective evil exists.”
Here I may be accused of saying that I did not mean that these are isolated cases that do not mean anything, but that something universal was meant. But what is the question is the answer. The point here is quantification. Try to formulate the question using the generality quantifier – “For all“,” For everyone.”
Universal statements expressed in terms of the generality quantifier, otherwise called “laws”, cannot be verified, i.e., they can be definitively confirmed, but they can be definitively refuted.
Perhaps in this question the word “objective” was not used in the same sense in which I used it above.
Maybe in the question “good and evil” – these are hypostatic concepts, and it was implied “that there are such things as good and evil?». In this form, the answer is, of course, negative – “they do not exist“, if only because good and evil are not things, not individuals, but categories, i.e., they do not exist.f. classes of classes, the elements of which are not individuals, as in the case of the common name “cat”, but the actions of people in relation to other people and to themselves, and such actions that are evaluated from the standpoint of certain moral and moral norms. In other words, “good and evil” are not things like cats, rocks, or atoms, but are properties, i.e. relations, i.e. multi-place predicates, which in turn imply more than one individual. For example, the word “father” implies the relation “X is the father of Y“. Then the concept of good is: “X did good for Y from the position of the norm S“. Whether there is a non-normative good is a separate question.
All moral and moral norms are expressed in terms of the quantifier of generality, and therefore they have the same logical form as the laws of nature,and some norms are called laws. For example, “legal laws”, “state laws”. But, despite this, the laws of nature and norms are diametrically opposed. A norm has no meaning if it cannot be violated, whereas a law of nature has no meaning and is considered falsified, i.e. refuted, if it can be violated. All norms are invented by people, the laws of nature must be discovered, and this is what science does.
As you have already noticed, I use the phrase “moral and ethical norms”, this is not only a tribute to tradition. Usually, ” morality “is interpreted as something external, i.e. as written and unwritten norms accepted in any community by tradition or convention, while” morality ” is more correctly considered as something internal, coming from each individual, and it is accompanied by a package of positive emotions. In other words, initially, a person receiving good from other people experiences positive emotions, then, in the course of personal evolution, he begins to experience the same emotions when giving good to others. In addition, the development of moral consciousness is directly affected by the level of intelligence and outlook. Therefore, there can be, and really are, situations when 1) is moral, but immoral, and, conversely, when 2) is moral, but immoral. The first case is when the level of moral consciousness of a certain person is higher and broader than the level of morality prevailing in this society, and, at the same time, this person rejects some accepted moral norms, simply because they are immoral from his point of view. For example, in some communities there may be a moral norm inherited from ancient times, “kill the outsider”, which some members of this community may not share, and do not fulfill, and in the eyes of other” moral ” members of this group look like moral freaks. On the other hand, there may still be people who strictly follow all the accepted rules of morality, but at the same time do not experience any positive emotions, and they do it mostly out of conformity and habit. Often such people are noticed in hypocrisy.
To summarize, if you rephrase the question like this:”Are there moral and ethical norms that are universal for all people?“, then you can also give an affirmative answer to it – ” Yes! They exist.” But there aren't many of them. For example, the norms of “don't kill“, “don't steal“, and “don't lie” are probably accepted in all communities. But the fact is that they are not universal in scope, or width – “do not kill, do not steal, do not lie“, but only in relation to “your own”, but not to “strangers”, because with” strangers ” you can do anything?!
There is (although perhaps you were referring to the more complex problem of the existence of absolute good and absolute evil?).
Any event that we perceive in life is objective and corresponds to the classic and well-known definition – ” matter is an objective reality given to us in sensations.” You were walking down the street, fell, hurt yourself – this is an objective fact of your life. However, you perceive it subjectively, through only your own emotions, the threshold of sensitivity.
That is, what exists, what can be felt, seen, and heard, including with the help of technical means, is objective. A house, a lake, a forest, cars, passers-by are objects or objects of knowledge and influence, part of the material world.
Our speech, including the conceptual apparatus with which we communicate and transmit information, is also an objective phenomenon. So we obviously understand that a specific word (for example, apple) can only have a certain meaning (a fruit of a certain rounded shape that has similar features inherent in the class-hence the word classification). Also, our ability to define concepts – processes, including complex ones, and not just concepts-objects, is also objective. From the total number of concepts of the same type, we derive universal concepts. So, tree + tree + tree is converted to a forest. Or murder + murder + homicide are summed up as serious crimes.
What objectively brings suffering, pain, injustice, damage and death to human life is defined by the concept of evil. Checking the objectivity of evil is simple, although it is not recommended. If you go to a bad neighborhood at night to get an adventure, you may encounter a group of angry young men, possibly drunk. And when you eventually find yourself with a broken arm, collarbone, or worse, you will automatically identify what happened to you as evil, because all the attributes of damage will be, as they say, there – blood, pain, suffering. If someone then tells you that this is just a moral assessment of a social experience that has occurred to you, which is useful in terms of drawing a conclusion and lesson, you will tell this person that they are wrong. Because you are in a hospital and in a cast, you are experiencing all the hardships of suffering, both mentally and physically. It's evil , you say, and you're right. The main attribute of evil is human suffering, and it is objective.
Thus, having been at war for thousands of years, humanity has determined the most difficult social phenomenon – war by evil, based on obvious (objective) causes, processes and facts that generate immeasurable human suffering. Those who sit in a chair and do not know the pain due to the loss of loved ones, relatives, friends, it may be interesting to talk about war as a civilizational engine, that is, sophistically refer it to a kind of “good”. But if you have seen people die, suffered terribly, or were on the verge of death, you automatically define war as evil. Believe me, your thinking will never go wrong here.
If suffering, illness, and death are objective, then so is the universal concept derived from terrible human experience.
Good, therefore, is also objective. It is easier with it – thanks to neurophysiology, we know that the reasons why we enjoy dopamine waves (dopamine is a pleasure hormone, a terribly pleasant chemical produced by the human body in response to something positive from the point of view of the brain, which orients us to satisfy hunger, reproduce and achieve success in the environment of our own kind). What gives you joy, happiness, delight – all your success and achievements, social comfort, relevance, security, love, reciprocity, a sense of collective, professional, spiritual unity, health, beauty, harmony, etc. – your thinking immediately refers to the good, namely objective, because it is a part of your world, you feel it as a process, as a phenomenon, as an object, and your whole being responds to it in the most pleasant way.
In philosophy, the most difficult problem is the problem of absolute good and absolute evil – that is, the initial, ultimate causes of absolutely all objective and subjective phenomena related to good or evil. That is, the answer to the question: why is evil possible in the universe, if initially it is harmony and perfection; in theology, it is created by God as a source of good and love. Since we do not accept evil, especially evil that is unjust and disastrous for the psyche of all normal people-genocide, the death of innocents, children, as well as sadistic and mass murder – we need to find an extreme reason to understand why this is happening. And having understood, make sure that this does not happen. Here, in the system of absolute good and evil, the elimination of the cause of evil as such will be considered perfect good. So, in Christianity, the example of the Resurrection of Christ is a fact of absolute good-Victory over evil, over death: “death means death.” However, as long as evil exists, the believer will look up to heaven and ask: why? Why, all-good God, do you allow such terrible suffering on Earth? This question is one of the most difficult problems in religion, the problem of theodicy: “Why is there evil in the world created by God?” It is known that the problem of theodicy is solved only by the person himself.
The problem of moral contradictions arises when a person allows evil (an action that brings suffering to another being) in the name of good (something positive from the point of view of social practice). For example, punishments, violent actions against instigators of riots, self-defense, crusades, the “war for democratic values” and especially the death penalty. Moral contradictions form the problem of a logical vicious circle in consciousness, when good and evil become in a position of negative codependency, for example: good is something that is not evil; evil is the opposite of good, what is done in the name of good even with the use of evil is good, because good is the opposite of evil.
Objectivity to the process of resolving moral contradictions formed by complex socio-psychological processes is given by law (jurisprudence), which allows evil in the form of a method necessary for good – that is, protecting the internal security and stability of the state and punishing evil in accordance with the law, which clearly defines the criteria that separate one from the other.
So the words “good” and “evil” are not empty at all. They are defined by the human ability to observe and classify a wide variety of phenomena in terms of benefit, harm or benefit, development and faith. And this is very important for the future, for progress, for humanity's determination of various social goals, for its survival and dominance on the planet.
No, they don't exist. Good and evil are categories of morality. Morality is an attribute of society. Society does not need objectivism to justify its postulates. It often happens that what is considered evil in one case will be good in another. But the very dichotomy of good and evil is relatively young. Further, if you are interested, my opinion, which I will not be able to prove: good comes from “to take”, “to get” means suitable for taking to yourself (the prefix ” to “in the meaning of “to”, as in Ukrainian). Evil comes from “zelo” – very, very much, too much, too much (hence the synonym for evil – “famously”). And these are not antonyms at all. They most likely occurred at different times and due to different necessity.
Our science has not established uniform definitions of what is GOOD and what is BAD for the species homo sapiens. And what non-material concepts and motivations for actions can be put in folders with such names. The “GOOD” folder and the “BAD” folder. In which folder can the commandments of Christ be nested? These folders are not filled out scientifically and officially for society, and for the state. So, snatches of snatches. 🙂
In society, otsebyatina wanders, sometimes not accepted by them. Yes, and in monstrous ways. But it keeps wandering.
The West promotes complete freedom, i.e. the freedom of stupidity and greed, among other things.
But I don't want an individual who professes and promotes the freedom of stupidity to be shy in my apartment, so to speak, before the door out of the house, and even after the door out of the house, i.e. on the street. For what great purpose should I tolerate his stupidity? For example, an individual walks around with his penis sticking out of his fly. Yes, they also agitate like-minded people and unite in parades and organizations in the form of parties. (an analog of homo meat).
Therefore, we need to encourage our scientists in this field to submit to a” referendum ” a project to sort out everything that is valuable to society in these folders.
And your thoughts about the folder Stupidity and public actions – how to leave it empty. When the Foolishness folder remains deliberately empty, society can be considered mature.
In the meantime, we make cakes in the sandbox. All of our social science.
🙂
Does the praying mantis harm the fly when it eats it? Neither the mantis nor the fly can answer this question – they are not capable of thinking, there are no such categories in their head: the mantis just wanted to eat, and the fly just got caught and tries to escape, nothing more. Only a human or other intelligent being can give a value judgment to this event.
Therefore, good and evil do not exist objectively. These are abstract concepts that exist only in the minds of those who have been able to understand and comprehend their concept. And only those who have known good and evil can make a conscious choice in favor of the first or second.
I think that objective evil is “the grossest form of ignorance.” based on non-compliance with the most important laws of human development: 1) in Buddhism- ” DO NOT DENY!”. 2) in Christianity – “PRIDE”, elevated to the “cult of an idol” – self-conceit “who am I?” – violating the 2nd Commandment “Do not create an idol for yourself. 3) failure to fulfill the law of dialectical materialism “NEGATION OF NEGATION”.
And objective good is “knowledge-wisdom“, which is realized either by” blind “faith (religion-church), or” faith “based on” effective “improvement of life through the” synthesis ” of culture, science and religion.
No, they don't exist. Good and evil appear when a person appears with his free will to do as he wants. In other words, there is neither good nor evil in nature outside of man. There is a necessity and a law. A law that no one can discuss. Animals act in accordance with it. A wolf slaughtered a roe deer. Is that evil? Not at all. It is the natural embodiment of necessity, conditioned by purpose and sacrifice. Plants” sacrifice ” themselves to animals, animals to people, and people to another person. It is the law of sacrifice, not natural selection, that develops the world.
Good is what makes me feel good, and evil is what makes me feel bad. Absolute good and evil do not exist, that is, there is no objective good or evil. There is no good or evil in itself.
It doesn't exist. Everything is relative. Trying to understand this issue through the juxtaposition “avoiding God/submitting oneself to God's will” actually leads to an even greater impasse. I'll explain. The devil is a great deceiver. And if he is a deceiver, then of course he will not do bad things, but, on the contrary, will do good to attract to himself. He might even hang on to a cross and write a Bible in which he calls God Satan. How can we be sure that the deceiver of the human race is not hiding behind the image of God? You can't tell the difference between good and evil pretending to be good.
Of course, they are the ones that are true, unlike people's opinions. Good is the harmony of the world and the harmonious development of the world. Evil is the destruction of the harmony of the world and the hindrance of harmonious development.
They don't exist. These are the moral categories of human consciousness. And people are not the same. First of all, they are not equal in their position in society and, accordingly, in their interests. What for one is evil, for the other is good. These are purely subjective things.
You can try to link it to entropy, social entropy. Life and what contributes to it-complication, reduction of entropy-is good. Magnification is evil. But not every religion will agree to this. I would repeat after the classic: “Not just everything!”
The question is very strange! Although I agree search search as always with a secret benefit … Op..and I caught a bird-happiness Уд I will bother� to give my personal explanation of this issue! Father and son! The son decided to cheat, caught a butterfly…and carefully hid it in his fist, hiding the fist behind his back! My father? Yes son….I caught a very beautiful butterfly … oh, that's good, son!!! Tell me…is she alive?” Or dead? Naturally deciding in any case, to do the opposite! To put my Father in a dead end!? But my father was Wise….and said…Everything is in your hands, son!!!😉 Precise definition of the question! Whether it will be evil or Good is up to the individual to decide!!! But life will relentlessly give out a “butterfly” (situation)…re.follow those who want to know what? And How?? With warmth.
Yes. People's opinion that this is what you need to do, but this is not, and the very concepts of good and evil are based on quite objective consequences of these actions. The fact that different people (even if they didn't necessarily live in different times) sometimes evaluate them differently only means that someone didn't take something into account or doesn't use logic well.