[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I acknowledge the primal need and the subsequent action as simply "less-bad" than one who would steal to steal. It is still stealing. The antithesis of stealing is giving or at least, not stealing. I'm assuming we understand that good and evil fall within a continuum right? I'm not saying the man who steals bread is Pol Pot, but even if we define good and evil by either Jesus Christ or Pol Pot, we are talking about ultimate selflessness vs complete selfishness. Empathy or lacking empathy just doesn't strike me as an elegant way to simplify the concept because empathy is merely a byproduct of selflessness; taking yourself and your primal needs out of the equation.

You first said "a person who would risk all that he has before bringing harm to another is "selfless" and/or "good."" Did you really mean lose all? As in, you have to actually die to be "good" if no one donates voluntarily?

He is not weighing the needs of both fairly. He is augmenting his needs above that of the baker's as you mentioned. His children are his interest, not the baker's. He has elevated his interests above the baker's.

As an unbiased observer, I can unequivocally state that a starving family's needs for food are greater than a baker's needs for one loaf of bread. His children aren't my interest, they aren't related to me and I'm not responsible for them. But if I saw this situation, I would buy the bread and give it to the family. If I didn't have the means to buy it, but I did have the means to steal it, I would. It's not the man's bias that "puts" his needs above the baker's, they are greater needs by their nature.

But this is simply a greater degree of bad. In your above example, that is not the opposite of stealing bread. It is merely a more wanton thievery. The opposite of stealing would be not stealing or giving.

dying? Why don't you say "dying?" That's what you mean isn't it?

Do you consider stealing for your children not stealing?

I consider there to be exceptions to the "stealing is evil" rule. I'm surprised that you don't.

If you don't mind I have another question for you: was deposing Saddam Hussein "evil?" Saddam clearly didn't want to be deposed, therefore our actions (even if motivated purely by empathy for Saddam's victims) bring harm to Saddam, although it was far less harm than the collective harm spared to his future victims. Does the fact that Saddam was harmed make our action "evil" in your view?

I'm just trying to take your simplicity argument and making it simpler.

I'm starting to see what you mean. Thank you for elaborating.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

This simple distinction breaks down as soon as you feel empathy towards two or more people: do you steal food from someone who is starving himself just to save your family? Is it more important to be loyal to your wife than to your children? If a good friend is involved in a bad situation, do you interfere against his will or respect his right of self-determination? Should you tell someone the shocking truth or carry the burden in silence?

You don't understand, empathy doesn't tell a person what choice to make, it tells a person that has already made a choice whether it was "good" or "evil," in hindsight. The same action can be either "good" or "evil" depending on the motives.

If you take action [i]against[i] one person out of empathy for another person, that's good. If you take action against one person out of selfishness for yourself, that's evil. One of your examples is to take action (partially) against one person out of empathy for that same person. That is still good. If you truly do it out of empathy. It's not always easy to assess your own true motivations, and I never said it was easy, I said it was simple. It's simple because it's a yes or no question. But it's not easy to know the true answer "yes" or "no," what your motivations boil down to.

Even if you feel empathy for someone, what is to be done about it may differ from person to person and culture to culture. So feeling empathy doesn't imply you're doing `the right thing.'

But what is considered "good" and "evil" also differs from person to person and culture to culture. One person's sin is another person's salvation. Therefore it's clear that we will never arrive at a definition of "good" and "evil" based solely on actions, outward appearances, and small details. What I'm saying is that we can arrive at a definition of "good" and "evil" by looking at motivations and empathy. Empathy and "the right thing" both vary between people and between cultures, but they vary together; they don't vary from each other.

is it better to sacrifice yourself for something or live for something?

Both are "good," since they are both done out of empathy

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You don't understand, empathy doesn't tell a person what choice to make, it tells a person that has already made a choice whether it was "good" or "evil," in hindsight. The same action can be either "good" or "evil" depending on the motives.

Now I'm confused: typically, a distinction between good and bad is used to guide you to make decisions, to `lead a good life.' While I agree in practice there are decisions where you simply don't know what the `good' choice is, if you're arguing for `empathy' as a yardstick, then it would be a pretty useless criterion.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you take action [i]against[i] one person out of empathy for another person, that's good. If you take action against one person out of selfishness for yourself, that's evil. One of your examples is to take action (partially) against one person out of empathy for that same person. That is still good. If you truly do it out of empathy. It's not always easy to assess your own true motivations, and I never said it was easy, I said it was simple. It's simple because it's a yes or no question. But it's not easy to know the true answer "yes" or "no," what your motivations boil down to.

That doesn't make any sense to me. You're suggesting to use empathy as a measure of whether an action was good or bad. In this paragraph you admit that if you're faced with a choice, both choices can be considered `good' according to your definition of good. But that would render the distinction between good and bad meaningless if only this one single criterion is used.

Instead, this is just another argument why you need to supplement your decision-making process by something else, you need more criteria. This sounds abstract, but you yourself mention other criteria in your post: motivation, mindset and personal history of the other person could be one, but there are certainly others. While empathy helps understanding these things, empathy to me implies you're feeling for the other person. Certainly, culture is another one. You also mention actions (since you write … based solely on actions, emphasis mine).

The other thing which has been mentioned by ebuddy which I find very important: there are shades of gray in life. The simpler the rule, the easier it is to suggest that life is black and white.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Now I'm confused: typically, a distinction between good and bad is used to guide you to make decisions, to `lead a good life.'

No, we're not talking about "good and bad," we're talking about "good and evil." There is a big difference. For example, choosing a PC instead of a Mac would be a "bad" decision, but not because it's "evil," just because it's an inferior product . Or more clearly, you can be "good" or "bad" at soccer/football, and it has no bearing on whether you are a "good" or "evil" person. "Good" has (more than) two different meanings, and we're only talking about one of them, the one that pertains to morals, the opposite of "evil."

When faced with a difficult major life decision, often either all the choices are "good" (as in good vs evil) or all the choices are "evil," and you have to pick one anyway. That's what makes these choices difficult in the first place! Of course there is no deductively correct answer ("good" as in "good or bad" at soccer), to make a tough decision like this you can't consult some algorithm, you have to follow your heart (aka empathy).

In this paragraph you admit that if you're faced with a choice, both choices can be considered `good' according to your definition of good. But that would render the distinction between good and bad meaningless if only this one single criterion is used.

Of course both choices can be considered "good," that's the whole reason you posed the question that way! You purposefully chose questions with ambiguous answers, as a demonstration that some questions don't have an obvious "right" answer.

But the only reason you think that "all" the choices are "good" is because you're ignoring all the possible "evil" decisions. There are always more than 2 options in life, and obviously multiples of them will fall into the category of "good," and multiple will fall into the "evil" category. If you start by selecting/offering only the "good" options, and then try to decide among them by which one is the only "good" option, of course you are going to be confused. No definition of "good" or "evil" is going to solve that problem.

Here is an easy way to understand why knowing what makes "good" and "evil" is not a decision-making algorithm (aside from the obvious fact that it offers only a binary choice): Suppose a company called "Google" has a primary instruction "don't be evil." Does this allow you to predict all of Google's actions? Of course not. There is still a limitless number of different paths, decisions, actions, directions, etc that Google can take, while still following this instruction to the letter. If my criteria of "empathy" doesn't tell you which decision to make in all circumstances (even in all morals-related circumstances), that's because it's not supposed to. It's supposed to tell you whether any one thing is good or evil, which is also something that doesn't tell you which decision to make in all circumstances. Does that make sense? I know it's a hard thing to communicate, but I hope I'm doing a half-way decent job of it.

Instead, this is just another argument why you need to supplement your decision-making process by something else, you need more criteria. This sounds abstract, but you yourself mention other criteria in your post: motivation, mindset and personal history of the other person could be one, but there are certainly others. While empathy helps understanding these things, empathy to me implies you're feeling for the other person. Certainly, culture is another one. You also mention actions (since you write … based solely on actions, emphasis mine).

The other thing which has been mentioned by ebuddy which I find very important: there are shades of gray in life. The simpler the rule, the easier it is to suggest that life is black and white.

If you think that something can be both good and evil, then you must acknowledge that the thing is composed of parts, good parts and evil parts, and at some stage of reductionism, there is some sort of "atom" that can not be further deconstructed. The question isn't whether something can be a combination of both good and evil "atoms," the question is what makes each "atom" good or evil. "Shades of gray" is a deflection of this question, a way to avoid considering the answer. It's a logical fallacy called Loki's wager. It's quite a clever deflection, IMO, but it is still just a deflection.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You first said "a person who would risk all that he has before bringing harm to another is "selfless" and/or "good."" Did you really mean lose all? As in, you have to actually die to be "good" if no one donates voluntarily?

Someone who risks losing all has already accepted the possibility that he will lose all. It could be that no one has donated and it could be that the man has not asked. He simply took according to a baser, survival instinct. Again, I think "good" is defined by actions that transcend instinct.

As an unbiased observer, I can unequivocally state that a starving family's needs for food are greater than a baker's needs for one loaf of bread. His children aren't my interest, they aren't related to me and I'm not responsible for them. But if I saw this situation, I would buy the bread and give it to the family. If I didn't have the means to buy it, but I did have the means to steal it, I would. It's not the man's bias that "puts" his needs above the baker's, they are greater needs by their nature.

IMO, the scenario was a little loaded to begin with and perhaps even unrealistic. What is the father's condition that one loaf of bread is all he will ever have to steal? Aside from that, we automatically know more of the man (with children) than we do of the baker. If the baker donates his surplus loaves to the local mission at the end of the week for example, the father has not only taken from the baker, but takes away from everyone the baker provides for. You mention the father has empathy, but this is obviously no match for his immediate need. Again, he had to suspend his compassion for the baker in lieu of his compassion for his own interests. It is natural or instinctual that the man would simply take what he needs for his children, but there is no escaping the fact that he is taking what does not belong to him. He did not kill the baker, he did not handcuff the baker or destroy the baker's shop, but these are all just examples of a more pervasive dissociative state.

dying? Why don't you say "dying?" That's what you mean isn't it?

While dying may do wonders for one's legacy of "goodness", accepting the possibility or risk is accepting that possibility or risk. I don't think it's necessary for one to die to establish selflessness though this may be and often is the result.

I consider there to be exceptions to the "stealing is evil" rule. I'm surprised that you don't.

Again, if we're required to adhere to one or the other without acknowledging any degree or continuum; we're talking about Jesus Christ vs Pol Pot. No, I would not relegate the father's actions in our hypothetical as that of Pol Pot, but if this were a linear ideal; he's closer to badness than goodness IMO.

If you don't mind I have another question for you: was deposing Saddam Hussein "evil?" Saddam clearly didn't want to be deposed, therefore our actions (even if motivated purely by empathy for Saddam's victims) bring harm to Saddam, although it was far less harm than the collective harm spared to his future victims. Does the fact that Saddam was harmed make our action "evil" in your view?

Justice is a sense of "greater good"; a justification to respond in a way that is simply "less bad". In this sense, evil begets evil. Had Saddam come to the conclusion that what he was doing was destructive to the Iraqi people while adorning his livelihood with extravagance and power, evil would not have come to him. We brought it in a reaction that A. did not transcend our instinct to react (justification) and B. took the form of a great deal of destruction. i.e. what we did was "less bad" than what Saddam was doing. If it is to be defined as either Jesus Christ or Pol Pot, what the US did was neither.

I'm starting to see what you mean. Thank you for elaborating.

I appreciate that, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm not confusing this all the more.

[hyteckit]

Atheists:

Do you hate religion the same say some religious folks hate other religions. Like Christians hating Muslims wanting to destroy Muslims, or Muslims hating Christians and wanting to destroy Christians. Do you think some religions are just inherently 'evil'?

Would you disown your child if your child choose to belong to a religious group? Would that depend on the religion? Like Christians disowning their child if they child follow the Muslim faith or Muslims disowning their child if they child decides to follow Christianity.

[Uncle Skeleton]

My feeling is that holy wars are really just secular wars in disguise. The real issue is land, supremacy, vengeance, or some other mundane non-supernatural reason. And atheists are equally susceptible to these.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Do you hate religion the same say some religious folks hate other religions. Like Christians hating Muslims wanting to destroy Muslims, or Muslims hating Christians and wanting to destroy Christians. Do you think some religions are just inherently 'evil'?

No, of course not. Some religions (or ‘religions’) seem to lean more towards the ‘evil’ side of things, like Satanism or the KKK (both of which I guess aren’t really religions per se, but they share many of the characteristics), but of the more common religions, I can’t think of any that aren’t based on morals and doing the ‘good’ thing.

Would you disown your child if your child choose to belong to a religious group? Would that depend on the religion? Like Christians disowning their child if they child follow the Muslim faith or Muslims disowning their child if they child decides to follow Christianity.

I might find it a bit hard to be particularly palsy with anyone, even my own child, if they were, say, KKK members; but apart from such extreme scenarios, any (hypothetical) child of mine should make up his or her own mind as to religious beliefs and associations, and disowning them because they chose to believe in a religion would be an insane (and, from my experience at least, thankfully also rather rare) thing to do, just like it’s insane when religious people disown their children because they choose not to believe, or to follow a different religion (which, though a minority of cases, sadly doesn’t seem to be quite as rare as the other way around).

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Someone who risks losing all has already accepted the possibility that he will lose all. It could be that no one has donated and it could be that the man has not asked. He simply took according to a baser, survival instinct. Again, I think "good" is defined by actions that transcend instinct.

The question is, can it ever be "good" to steal, or is it always "evil?" Imagining new ways to make it be "evil" is easy. That's not the question.

While dying may do wonders for one's legacy of "goodness", accepting the possibility or risk is accepting that possibility or risk.

Ok I get what you mean.

Again, if we're required to adhere to one or the other without acknowledging any degree or continuum; we're talking about Jesus Christ vs Pol Pot. No, I would not relegate the father's actions in our hypothetical as that of Pol Pot, but if this were a linear ideal; he's closer to badness than goodness IMO.

I already explained to Oreo how this is an evasion. I'll cut right to the punch line: what's good about it? What part of it is good exactly?

What we're trying to understand is what makes "good" things good and what makes "evil" things evil. Between you and me, my impression is that we're trying to decide whether "good" means helping others or rather hurting one's self (or must it be both, helping others BY hurting one's self).

i.e. what we did was "less bad" than what Saddam was doing. If it is to be defined as either Jesus Christ or Pol Pot, what the US did was neither.

The topic is "is there such a thing as good and evil?" When you refer to this "Jesus Christ vs Pol Pot" extremism angle, it sounds like you want to say "no, there is no good or evil (in the real world), there is only a middle ground of neither." Is that what your answer would be, or am I misreading you?

I appreciate that, but I'm starting to wonder if I'm not confusing this all the more.

The sign of a good answer is that it raises new questions

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Atheists:

Do you hate religion the same say some religious folks hate other religions. Like Christians hating Muslims wanting to destroy Muslims, or Muslims hating Christians and wanting to destroy Christians. Do you think some religions are just inherently 'evil'?

Would you disown your child if your child choose to belong to a religious group? Would that depend on the religion? Like Christians disowning their child if they child follow the Muslim faith or Muslims disowning their child if they child decides to follow Christianity.

If a relative or friend joined a religious group, my reaction would depend on the religion. I would try to persuade anyone from joining any recent "American" church like Mormonism or JWs or Scientology, just because of the cult factor and historical claptrap they engage in. If someone joined an intolerant fire-and-brimestone church, I would be really critical, especially if they started getting preachy and political. If someone joined a religion that required a large measure of cultural adjustments, I would certainly insist that they're quite pointlessly changing clothing and food and other customs, as I'm pretty sure God doesn't give a damn who eats what or whether you wear a funny hat.

So it depends a great deal on what they intend to change.

I was raised Catholic. I'd be more concerned if a relative became a hyper-Catholic who criticized everyone else as "cafeteria Christians" like Chongo does, than if a relative became a Reform Jew or liberal Muslim or whatever.

But for some reason, if a relative decided to become a monk or move away to a join the Amish or sit meditating on the shore of the Ganges - any transformative isolation - I'd be more curious than critical.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

The question is, can it ever be "good" to steal, or is it always "evil?" Imagining new ways to make it be "evil" is easy. That's not the question.

I think it's important to acknowledge varying perspectives in a discussion like this. (Preface all with IMO) You may have already hit it, but simply put; there is goodness (ultimate selflessness or empathy) and then there are all varying degrees of selfishness before it. (everything else) For example, if we were to pose the question to this forum; "What is Goodness?", some answers would show commonality, but I have little doubt that many would be quite diverse. (accounting for the predictable scream of trolls and flame-baiters. ~ evil people ).

To your question: No. Stealing can only vary in its degree of evil. I know this because the entire scenario is enveloped in badness. From the circumstances driving the necessary theft, the theft itself in taking what does not belong to you, through to the inevitable impact and reaction of the victim. Stealing is by nature, provocative, insidious or deceitful regardless of the intention behind it.

I already explained to Oreo how this is an evasion. I'll cut right to the punch line: what's good about it? What part of it is good exactly?

See above. There is only ultimate goodness, selflessness, or empathy with all varying degrees of selfishness before it. I'll try to explain in more detail in the next point.

What we're trying to understand is what makes "good" things good and what makes "evil" things evil.

Because this thread is an opportunity for atheists to address questions, I'm treading around lightly in here as we've derailed this thing pretty well, but if you're considering "good" or "evil" in a purely secular or academic sense; you could not acknowledge evil "things" as this implies some supernatural force acting upon its subject. In short, evil is manifest through the actions of mankind. Actions can be either good or bad, evil or good. To define this, I've been using selfless and selfish. IMO, there is only an ultimate degree of selflessness and all matter of varying degrees of selfishness before it.

Between you and me, my impression is that we're trying to decide whether "good" means helping others or rather hurting one's self (or must it be both, helping others BY hurting one's self).
The topic is "is there such a thing as good and evil?" When you refer to this "Jesus Christ vs Pol Pot" extremism angle, it sounds like you want to say "no, there is no good or evil (in the real world), there is only a middle ground of neither." Is that what your answer would be, or am I misreading you?

You're not misreading me. While I've certainly thought of the concepts of good and evil, I've never put quite this much thought into the ideals or been forced to flesh it out quite this way. Any confusion is likely the result of me refining my explanation as we go.

I use Jesus Christ (taking liberty as an atheist had prior) as an example of ultimate selflessness. If someone hits you, turn to them the other cheek. or If someone takes your cloak, give to him your tunic also... that sort of thing. I would use Vlad the Impaler for example, or Pol Pot as the polar opposites; illustrations of ultimate self-servitude or selfishness. In your context, 0 empathy vs 100% empathy. I take the concept a little further by suggesting that by using selfless or selfish, you see an ultimate selflessness and all matter of varying degree of holding out a little for self, or selfishness before it.

The sign of a good answer is that it raises new questions

Well then we're likely doin' a wizz-bang job here!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because this thread is an opportunity for atheists to address questions, I'm treading around lightly in here as we've derailed this thing pretty well

Yeah, you're right, I'll let it be. Sorry for the derail, atheists.

Thanks for answering my questions. I understand your perspective better now. I haven't decided if I am convinced yet, that comes with time

[BadKosh]

does being an Atheist make you better at problem solving?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, we're not talking about "good and bad," we're talking about "good and evil." There is a big difference.

To me the word evil invites polemics into the discussion and I don't believe in what most people call evil. And if you point out the difference between bad and evil, shouldn't you also replace the word `good' with something else? After all, `good' may also mean `being good at soccer.'

In any case, whether you want to insist on using the word evil, it's clear from my posts that I don't refer to an aptitude of someone at something.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

When faced with a difficult major life decision, often either all the choices are "good" (as in good vs evil) or all the choices are "evil," and you have to pick one anyway. That's what makes these choices difficult in the first place!

Now that's exactly the point. We don't need to start a discussion whether murdering, raping or molesting children is wrong/bad/evil/reprehensible/disgusting. It's the difficult choices where you show character and define yourself.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But the only reason you think that "all" the choices are "good" is because you're ignoring all the possible "evil" decisions. There are always more than 2 options in life, and obviously multiples of them will fall into the category of "good," and multiple will fall into the "evil" category.

That doesn't make sense to me: of course, you're always limiting yourself to a few reasonable options, e. g. robbing a bank usually isn't one of them when I enter a bank to tap money from the ATM. But I don't cut out the `evil' options, I focus on the options that are useful in pursuing whatever I want to do at that moment.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's supposed to tell you whether any one thing is good or evil, which is also something that doesn't tell you which decision to make in all circumstances. Does that make sense? I know it's a hard thing to communicate, but I hope I'm doing a half-way decent job of it.

No, it doesn't make sense to me. And I don't think it's a failure to communicate your idea, it's just that I don't think empathy as a sole tool helps you distinguish good and evil. And I think this point of view is simplistic.

Let me tell you a story to illustrate my point: A few years ago I was working at a company part time to pay for my living expenses as a student. I had a colleague I was on very good terms with: nice guy, brilliant musician, the kind of guy you want to have a beer with after work. After I quit, I found out that he was busted downloading child porn at work and he got sentenced. A few months later, he contacted me since he wanted to explain himself. I thought about it and decided to hear his side of the story. He admitted to the crime (he pled guilty in the meantime), but when pressed, I couldn't help but doubt that he believes he had done something wrong. Later on, after drinking some more, he also told me, he was (from my point of view) sexually abused by his mother. From his point of view, it was nothing objectionable. The abuse by his mother made him lose the ability to distinguish `good' from `evil' when it comes to this (at least that's my interpretation). However, we don't need to discuss whether sexual abuse of children is good or evil.

Empathy by itself misses the complexity of life. The other thing is that empathy is pretty useless by itself to me: I'm not so much concerned with things that fall clearly into one of the two categories (since I'm neither good nor evil), but rather things in between. In certain situations, empathy tells me `something is wrong' rather than what I should do about it.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If you think that something can be both good and evil, then you must acknowledge that the thing is composed of parts, good parts and evil parts, and at some stage of reductionism, there is some sort of "atom" that can not be further deconstructed. The question isn't whether something can be a combination of both good and evil "atoms," the question is what makes each "atom" good or evil. "Shades of gray" is a deflection of this question, a way to avoid considering the answer. It's a logical fallacy called Loki's wager. It's quite a clever deflection, IMO, but it is still just a deflection.

I don't think there are atoms of good and evil. It's a hypothetical notion like the unicorn. Good and evil cannot be properly and objectively defined, it's not a mathematical object or an elementary particle from physics. The idea of `good' and `evil' to me is a remnant of the marketing aspect of religion: it doesn't sell if it doesn't give clear-cut rules to its followers. I prefer to speak of values and priorities, because even though these words have to be filled with meaning (what are your values and priorities?), I think they express much better that there is no single approach to life, but currently at least 6 billion. Values and priorities are not `good' or `evil' by itself, but they are a much better tool to understand others and yourself.

Furthermore, the existence of shades of gray to me is not a diversion from the argument, but a central fact of life. I can understand your objection, but I think it stems from the fact that our outlook on this subject is very different. (And I say that without making a value judgement, I accept that my point of view is just that.) You insist that empathy is the way to distinguish `good' from `evil' while I say that empathy is not the only criterion that should be used. I'm not saying the concept of `good' and `evil' is not worthy of discussion, but rather that it is a subject that lacks an objective and universal definition. The concept still makes sense subjectively.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think it's important to acknowledge varying perspectives in a discussion like this. (Preface all with IMO) You may have already hit it, but simply put; there is goodness (ultimate selflessness or empathy) and then there are all varying degrees of selfishness before it. (everything else) For example, if we were to pose the question to this forum; "What is Goodness?", some answers would show commonality, but I have little doubt that many would be quite diverse. (accounting for the predictable scream of trolls and flame-baiters. ~ evil people ).

While I agree selflessness is important, I don't think it's suitable as a sole criterion. Nor is it clear what it means? Is sacrificing your life in an instant more selfless than dedicating your life to a cause? What about placing this cause before your own family?

Even within a culturally homogeneous community, it's not clear what `selfless' means. It's even more difficult (read: near impossible) to compare different cultures.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

To your question: No. Stealing can only vary in its degree of evil. I know this because the entire scenario is enveloped in badness. From the circumstances driving the necessary theft, the theft itself in taking what does not belong to you, through to the inevitable impact and reaction of the victim. Stealing is by nature, provocative, insidious or deceitful regardless of the intention behind it.

I absolutely agree: stealing, for instance, is something that should be avoided, because it's wrong and does harm to others. But it may be a `necessary evil' (no pun intended).

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO, there is only an ultimate degree of selflessness and all matter of varying degrees of selfishness before it.

What would that be to you? (I'm just curious.)

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

does being an Atheist make you better at problem solving?

No, other way around

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

shouldn't you also replace the word `good' with something else?

I didn't think of it because the question was phrased "good and evil." I can use "virtuous," but I don't know if that's a good choice.

Now that's exactly the point. We don't need to start a discussion whether murdering, raping or molesting children is wrong/bad/evil/reprehensible/disgusting. It's the difficult choices where you show character and define yourself.

If I can paraphrase you, yes there is such a thing as good virtuous and evil, yes you know it when you see it, no the way you know it can't be put into words. Is that a fair summary?

If so, then if I provide words that fit your assessment of virtuous and evil, you must be able to provide an example of something that you know is either virtuous or evil and which doesn't fit my words. Otherwise my definition is accurate. I have not seen this example.

Let me tell you a story to illustrate my point: ... The abuse by his mother made him lose the ability to distinguish `good' from `evil' when it comes to this (at least that's my interpretation).

So is he "virtuous" or "evil?" If my definition is correct, then either (a) he is "evil" and lacks empathy (or selflessness, I'm not picky), (b) he is "virtuous" and has empathy, or (c) he is neither and therefore not relevant. If you can't say whether the thing/person/example is "virtuous" or "evil" and you can't say whether it is based in empathy or not, then my definition fits it.

In certain situations, empathy tells me `something is wrong' rather than what I should do about it.

In those same situations, "virtuous" or "evil" tell you the same thing. Correct? If not, please provide a counterexample.

The idea of `good' and `evil' to me is a remnant of the marketing aspect of religion: it doesn't sell if it doesn't give clear-cut rules to its followers.

In what circumstances do "virtuous" and "evil" give clear-cut rules, but "empathy" does not? If the two are matched in every circumstance, then my definition fits it.

You insist that empathy is the way to distinguish `good' from `evil' while I say that empathy is not the only criterion that should be used.

You sound like I'm making a value judgement, I'm only making an observation of expediency. Consider this parallel question:
What is porn? As above, "yes there is such a thing as porn, yes I know it when I see it, no the way I know it can't be put into words." What is porn to one person or culture is not porn to another (eg nude beaches). The parallels are all there. Now I provide a simple definition to what constitutes porn, that it causes sexual arousal. If you care deeply about porn, you might say "no, sexual arousal alone is not the only criterion that should be used. It should also have pretty girls and they shouldn't be crying and there should be some emotion to the 'acting.'" Now I agree, all these things should be part of it, and as you've said ignoring these components misses the complexity of life. But that is irrelevant to the fact that the definition I gave is sufficient to distinguish porn from non-porn. Within a person or culture where the thing does not cause sexual arousal, it is not porn, but in a person or culture where it does cause that, it is. It's not a matter of "should," it's a matter of "can." Can this definition make the distinction. Yes, it can.

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No, other way around

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think there are atoms of good and evil. It's a hypothetical notion like the unicorn. Good and evil cannot be properly and objectively defined, it's not a mathematical object or an elementary particle from physics. The idea of `good' and `evil' to me is a remnant of the marketing aspect of religion: it doesn't sell if it doesn't give clear-cut rules to its followers. I prefer to speak of values and priorities, because even though these words have to be filled with meaning (what are your values and priorities?), I think they express much better that there is no single approach to life, but currently at least 6 billion. Values and priorities are not `good' or `evil' by itself, but they are a much better tool to understand others and yourself.

This, this, a thousand times this. This is a far more eloquent way of expressing my ideas than I am capable of formulating.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I was raised Catholic. I'd be more concerned if a relative became a hyper-Catholic ....

What is a "hyper-Catholic?"

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

I don't think there are atoms of good and evil. It's a hypothetical notion like the unicorn. Good and evil cannot be properly and objectively defined, it's not a mathematical object or an elementary particle from physics. The idea of `good' and `evil' to me is a remnant of the marketing aspect of religion: it doesn't sell if it doesn't give clear-cut rules to its followers. I prefer to speak of values and priorities, because even though these words have to be filled with meaning (what are your values and priorities?), I think they express much better that there is no single approach to life, but currently at least 6 billion. Values and priorities are not `good' or `evil' by itself, but they are a much better tool to understand others and yourself.

This, this, a thousand times this. This is a far more eloquent way of expressing my ideas than I am capable of formulating.

It all just seems like an evasion to me. Are there such things as good and evil? It seems like your answer is yes (is it?). Do you know it when you see it? It seems like your answer is yes (is it?). What are they? It seems like all you want to do is stick your fingers in your ears. The question doesn't mean that good and evil have to be the most important things in your life. Simply saying "I would rather talk about something else" is not an answer, it's an evasion. It's as if someone asked you what a Mac is and you say you would rather talk about politics or religion. Just because those topics seem more important doesn't make them an answer to the question.

I know it's outside your comfort zone, but just answer the simple yes or no question, do you know it when you see it (good or evil)? I can't imagine that anyone would answer "yes they exist, but I can't tell one from the other."

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

What is a "hyper-Catholic?"

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I know it's outside your comfort zone, but just answer the simple yes or no question, do you know it when you see it (good or evil)? I can't imagine that anyone would answer "yes they exist, but I can't tell one from the other."

If you ask me directly, are there absolute Good and Evil in the world, my answer would be no. All the talk we do about Good and Evil depend on arbitrary goalposts that we place in the ground -- Good is Good and Evil is Evil because we collectively, as a society, say it is. But even then, the two are not defined the same by everybody. You and I both use empathy pretty heavily to define the two, while others (including Oreo) don't quite as much. And that's how values and priorities come into play. If you roughly have a certain set of values and priorities, you are seen as Good; a different set, you are Evil. Fall between the two, and you don't really get a label.

This is also something that must evolve over years and years of introspection, and continues to shift until the day we die. We teach children simplified versions of Good and Evil because they don't have the life experiences to make complex value decisions on their own. Actually, I would argue that many religions attempt to reinforce Good and Evil because they remind us of a younger, simpler time, when you could easily paint the world in broad strokes of black and white. It's certainly easier, at the very least.

So on an intellectual level, no, I don't buy into "Good" or "Evil" in any real sense. But on an emotional level, my natural reaction is the same as most people: to label certain value sets as Good, and others as Evil. So I do recognize the two when I see them, at least according to my own internal interpretation of the two, which happens to largely line up with that of my parents, my friends, my coworkers, my girlfriend... you get the picture. But I recognize that those reactions are partly due to societal reinforcement, and partly to simple survival instincts (caring for your family is beneficial because your genes are more likely to survive that way).

And obviously, I don't speak for everyone. That's just my humble little opinion.

[Oisín]

I know it's outside your comfort zone, but just answer the simple yes or no question, do you know it when you see it (good or evil)?

Usually, though not always.

For example, what do you call it when someone donates a wad of cash to charity (empathy = ‘good’), but only does it because it makes them look good (lack of empathy = ‘evil’)? I’d call it both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ at the same time. You’d have to split the action up into subactions to separate out the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’, but the action can’t be split up into subactions: the wad of cash being put into the charity collecting tin is a single, non-complex action.

So no, there are many times when I don’t quite know it when I see it—or when I don’t even consider whether ‘good’ or ‘evil’ enter into the picture, though the action in question might well be put in one (or either, or both) of the categories.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

You and I both use empathy pretty heavily to define the two, while others (including Oreo) don't quite as much.

You and he keep saying it is so, but have done nothing to convince me it is the truth. Can you give any example of something that is good but it is not derived out of empathy or selflessness (or in some other way disproves the rule)?

If you roughly have a certain set of values and priorities, you are seen as Good; a different set, you are Evil.
...
to label certain value sets as Good, and others as Evil.

Wait, values are good or evil? As in, if you value work over play, or abstinence over birth control, that's evil? I'm not connecting on this, can you give an example?

[DrTacoMD]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wait, values are good or evil? As in, if you value work over play, or abstinence over birth control, that's evil? I'm not connecting on this, can you give an example?

Ah, I was thinking larger values, like valuing human life, or valuing freedom of expression. But yes, if someone valued work over human life, then that would likely trend towards Evil.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Wait, values are good or evil? As in, if you value work over play, or abstinence over birth control, that's evil? I'm not connecting on this, can you give an example?

Obviously ‘work over play’ isn’t a good example, but identifying different value sets with ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is precisely the reason (well, one of the reasons) we humans tend to get into arguments about values. Politics are mostly just differences between which value sets individuals label as ‘good’, and which value sets they label as ‘bad’.

Can you give any example of something that is good but it is not derived out of empathy or selflessness (or in some other way disproves the rule)?

Giving to charity in order to look good. There’s nothing empathetic about it if you only do it to look better yourself, but the net result is still (if we remove all the intermediate administration clutter and all that) that somewhere, someone in need gets food on the table or is clad.

Sure, the ‘good’-ness of the result is a biproduct, not the act itself—but it’s still there as a direct consequence of the act itself, regardless of the intention behind the act.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Usually, though not always.

For example, what do you call it when someone donates a wad of cash to charity (empathy = ‘good’), but only does it because it makes them look good (lack of empathy = ‘evil’)? I’d call it both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ at the same time. You’d have to split the action up into subactions to separate out the ‘good’ and the ‘evil’, but the action can’t be split up into subactions: the wad of cash being put into the charity collecting tin is a single, non-complex action.

But you did split it up; you can't do something and then say it can't be done.
You know that providing money for charity is "good" and you know that using a charity to serve one's own pride is "evil." He did one of each. No?
And each of those components correlates with empathy. No?
So how is my definition not sufficient?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by DrTacoMD 

Ah, I was thinking larger values, like valuing human life, or valuing freedom of expression. But yes, if someone valued work over human life, then that would likely trend towards Evil.

Um, because it's the antithesis of empathy

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But you did split it up; you can't do something and then say it can't be done.
You know that providing money for charity is "good" and you know that using a charity to serve one's own pride is "evil." He did one of each. No?
And each of those components correlates with empathy. No?
So how is my definition not sufficient?

I meant that the act of giving to charity itself can’t be split up into subacts—using this act to serve one’s own pride is a different act.

If you buy a bucket of paint, you can then go paint your walls, or you can go spray the paint over your neighbour’s car (for example); both would be acts made possible from your initial act (and serving, originally, as the intention for the initial act). But they’re separate acts, not part of the act of buying paint. Similarly, going around telling people how much you’ve given to charity is a different act from actually giving to charity.

But if you focus on only the initial act, when this person puts a wad of cash into the charity collection tin, is that ‘good’ or ‘evil’? Since this act is borne out with a motivation that represents a lack of empathy, your gauge would have it as an ‘evil’ act. And while I’d agree that there is an element of ‘evil’-ness in the situation (more specifically, in the intention behind the act), I’d say the act itself is still ‘good’.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Obviously ‘work over play’ isn’t a good example, but identifying different value sets with ‘good’ or ‘evil’ is precisely the reason (well, one of the reasons) we humans tend to get into arguments about values. Politics are mostly just differences between which value sets individuals label as ‘good’, and which value sets they label as ‘bad’.

I asked for an example. Can you please provide one?

Here's my example, Bush authorizes torture of terrorist suspects. To me, it seems evil, because I think it discards empathy for the suspects. But if his true motivation was entirely out of empathy for the victims of terrorism (not for example out of rage or hatred or frustration), then from his perspective it is good. If from his perspective the suspects are definitely guilty, they deserve it anyway. It is all about intent. As outsiders, we can never know his true intent. We can only consider what his intent seems to be, but he can consider what his intent actually is (if he chooses not to delude himself). It's far more rational to consider whether something is good or evil from the perspective of the only person who can truly know what the intent is, the person doing it.

Giving to charity in order to look good. There’s nothing empathetic about it if you only do it to look better yourself, but the net result is still (if we remove all the intermediate administration clutter and all that) that somewhere, someone in need gets food on the table or is clad.

What's good about it? The fact that it helps others, right? How is that not a product of empathy or as ebuddy would say selflessness?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I meant that the act of giving to charity itself can’t be split up into subacts—using this act to serve one’s own pride is a different act.

Ok...

But if you focus on only the initial act, when this person puts a wad of cash into the charity collection tin, is that ‘good’ or ‘evil’? Since this act is borne out with a motivation that represents a lack of empathy, your gauge would have it as an ‘evil’ act.

You just said you are treating the giving and the pride as separate (I bolded it for easy reference). How is this not a contradiction of that?

[Oisín]

I asked for an example. Can you please provide one?

There are dozens for what I was talking about. Let’s take higher taxes. Those are fairly easy to translate into a ‘value set’, so to speak, with everything they represent (larger government, etc.).

Personally, I would label the value set that higher taxes represent, very broadly and generally speaking, as being ‘good’. There are many, many, many other people who would label this value set ‘bad’.

(But I feel like we’re talking about entirely different things with this ‘value set’ business, so I’ll just leave that here. It was just meant as a comment to DrTacoMD’s comment, nothing more)

What's good about it? The fact that it helps others, right? How is that not a product of empathy or as ebuddy would say selflessness?

How is incidentally (i.e., non-intendedly) helping someone a product of either empathy or selflessness? It can even be an unintended consequence of an act carried out specifically to hurt the person it ends up helping. (Far out example, but) if I take a baseball and take a swing at someone’s head intending to hurt/kill him, but accidentally miss and instead hit (and deflect) a rock that would otherwise have hit him in the head, the net result is that I’ve helped him. I wouldn’t exactly say that my swinging a bat at his head was a product of empathy or selflessness.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok...

You just said you are treating the giving and the pride as separate (I bolded it for easy reference). How is this not a contradiction of that?

It’s not: unless I’m misreading you, your gauge was that the ‘good’- or ‘evil’-ness of an act should be determined by the presence or lack of empathy in the intention behind the act.

Using the charity to your own ends is at first (while putting the cash in the tin) an intention, rather than an act. Once the money is in the tin and you’re among your peers, telling them how much you just gave to charity, it becomes an act, a separate one.

But while putting the money in the tin, the ‘using’ part is intention alone, and by your gauge, it’s what the act should be judged by. Since there is no empathy in this intention, the act should be classified as ‘evil’. Later, when the ‘using’ bit is the act to analyse, there is a new intention behind that act—most likely to appear very generous and righteous to your peers. There’s not much empathy in that, either, so the act of ‘using’ would also be classified as ‘evil’.

I’d agree with the latter classification, but not with the former.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

While I agree selflessness is important, I don't think it's suitable as a sole criterion. Nor is it clear what it means? Is sacrificing your life in an instant more selfless than dedicating your life to a cause?

No, they are both an ultimate sacrifice of self.

What about placing this cause before your own family?

This simply illustrates a degree of selfishness. You can't be ultimately selfless to your cause and ultimately selfless to your family. For example, those who've placed their cause above all else have nothing else. The use of the word "before" in your statement above is a clue of what I mean. This doesn't even take into account what you mean by family. Wife? Children? Second cousin whom you've never met?

Even within a culturally homogeneous community, it's not clear what `selfless' means. It's even more difficult (read: near impossible) to compare different cultures.

How so? Stealing is a crime in the US, it is a crime in Afghanistan, it is a crime in Europe, it is a crime in __________ ...

I absolutely agree: stealing, for instance, is something that should be avoided, because it's wrong and does harm to others. But it may be a `necessary evil' (no pun intended).

Right, but it's still an evil. I mean, IMO.

What would that be to you? (I'm just curious.)

I'm not an atheist. Derail alert.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Personally, I would label the value set that higher taxes represent, very broadly and generally speaking, as being ‘good’. There are many, many, many other people who would label this value set ‘bad’.
...
...but accidentally ... helped him...

These are benefit judgements, not moral judgements. You're talking about "bad" as in deleterious ("bad news" or "bad weather"), not as in "evil" ("bad person" or "bad character"). Taxes are disadvantageous, not wicked. Accidentally helping someone instead of killing them is beneficial, not righteous. There are multiple different meanings of "good," and we're only talking about the moral one (as opposed to "evil"). I know you're the last person I should have to warn about the dangers of homographs

I wrote a fair bit about this earlier in the thread, did you read it? I'm just curious if it was poorly written or poorly visible.

unless I’m misreading you, your gauge was that the ‘good’- or ‘evil’-ness of an act should be determined by the ... intention behind the act.

Using the charity to your own ends is at first (while putting the cash in the tin) an intention, rather than an act. Once the money is in the tin and you’re among your peers, telling them how much you just gave to charity, it becomes an act, a separate one.

In one breath you say the intention is integral to the act, and in the next you say they are separate.

Since there is no empathy in this intention, the act should be classified as ‘evil’.

The act he's pretending to do is empathic. Whatever "good" is produced by him mimicking "good" people is the result of the act being mimicked (if somehow "good" people usually did something else, like whack snakes for whacking day, then that is what he would do to feed his pride; the goodness or badness of the outcome derives entirely from that which he copies, and he contributes nothing to this outcome). The act being mimicked is no doubt born in empathy. How else would charity have originated if not from empathy?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In one breath you say the intention is integral to the act, and in the next you say they are separate.

No, I’m saying I think they can be separate (though most commonly, of course, they’re not), which is why I agree with Oreo and Taco that boiling the ‘good/evil’-ness of an act down to presence or absence of empathy in the intention behind the act doesn’t always work. It only works when the intention matches the act, which is not always the case.

The act he's pretending to do is empathic. Whatever "good" is produced by him mimicking "good" people is the result of the act being mimicked (if somehow "good" people usually did something else, like whack snakes for whacking day, then that is what he would do to feed his pride; the goodness or badness of the outcome derives entirely from that which he copies, and he contributes nothing to this outcome). The act being mimicked is no doubt born in empathy. How else would charity have originated if not from empathy?

Now you’re arguing that you shouldn’t look just at the act and its intention itself, but also at where that act might come from, who else does this act, the historical background or context of the act, etc. In that case, I’m sure everything can be boiled down to only empathy, but it’s a completely different analysis of acts.

But all right, take a different example, then: an old rich person who hates his family and doesn’t want to leave them a single dime in his will. He goes out into the street with all his money and decides to just give it to the first person he sees wearing a green shirt (or some other random trait).

He’s not mimicking anything he perceives as ‘good’ in the act of giving the money to Mr. Greenshirt, he just wants to get rid of the money; and there’s no empathy in the intention behind the act (to deprive his relatives of his money), either.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This simply illustrates a degree of selfishness.

I don't think this is necessarily true: just think of, say, Nelson Mandela's family. His accomplishments helped literally millions of people who were oppressed by the apartheid regime. However, that cost his dearly.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How so? Stealing is a crime in the US, it is a crime in Afghanistan, it is a crime in Europe, it is a crime in __________ ...

I'll give you a concrete example: in ancient Japan, when one of your children did something wrong (it could have been a mishap) and was thus sentenced to death, the family would be obliged to kill the child themselves. This would clean up the stain on the family's honor/reputation and everything would be fine, the debt of the family to its retainer would have been repaid. They put the well-being of the extended family/clan before their own children.

I've heard a similar story from a story involving two remote Afghani villages from a colleague whose daughter has covered the story as a reporter. (I could tell the story if you want.)

This is what I mean by `setting priorities:' in their cultural context it makes sense to prioritize the well-being of the clan rather than the well-being of an individual.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If I can paraphrase you, yes there is such a thing as good virtuous and evil, yes you know it when you see it, no the way you know it can't be put into words. Is that a fair summary?

No, that's not it at all.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If so, then if I provide words that fit your assessment of virtuous and evil, you must be able to provide an example of something that you know is either virtuous or evil and which doesn't fit my words. Otherwise my definition is accurate. I have not seen this example.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So is he "virtuous" or "evil?" If my definition is correct, then either (a) he is "evil" and lacks empathy (or selflessness, I'm not picky), (b) he is "virtuous" and has empathy, or (c) he is neither and therefore not relevant.

He does not lack empathy, i. e. he can take the role of the child who we would say is forced to perform sexual acts. Since he didn't mind as a child/adolescent when he was abused, he doesn't find it objectionable today when other children are sexually abused. Hence, he is empathetic, but his habit (past tense, I hope) of consuming child porn is clearly unacceptable.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

In what circumstances do "virtuous" and "evil" give clear-cut rules, but "empathy" does not? If the two are matched in every circumstance, then my definition fits it.

So to me, this is an example where someone who does not lack empathy does something reprehensible/wrong, i. e. an example you have asked me to give.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You sound like I'm making a value judgement, I'm only making an observation of expediency.

To decide what's good/virtuous and what is bad/evil is a value judgement.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

What is porn? As above, "yes there is such a thing as porn, yes I know it when I see it, no the way I know it can't be put into words." What is porn to one person or culture is not porn to another (eg nude beaches).

That analogy doesn't make sense to me, mostly because the `I know it when you see it' classification of porn makes no sense to me. Law should use objective criteria. The `know it when you see it' question reduces this to the lowest common denominator.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It all just seems like an evasion to me. Are there such things as good and evil? It seems like your answer is yes (is it?). Do you know it when you see it? It seems like your answer is yes (is it?). What are they? It seems like all you want to do is stick your fingers in your ears.

`Good' and `evil' are concepts that help you structure life. It helps you to find out what choices to make by trying to adhere to guiding principles. The choice of values and priorities is and has always been subjective, although strongly influenced by the sense of `morale' that you get from your community.

Is this concept useful? Yes, very much so. So is the concept of the electron as an elementary particle. But can the notions of good and evil be characterized objectively? In my opinion, no. Especially not by a single idea. All you can do is shine light on the concept from different sides and come up with different characterizations. Empathy is certainly one such angle from which you can look at the subject. But it's definitely not the only one.

You may think this is an evasion, but as a matter of fact, it's just a different philosophical approach to life.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Now you’re arguing that you shouldn’t look just at the act and its intention itself, but also at where that act might come from, who else does this act, the historical background or context of the act, etc. In that case, I’m sure everything can be boiled down to only empathy, but it’s a completely different analysis of acts.

Look you said yourself: "the ‘good’-ness of the result is a biproduct". Those are your exact words. The fact that my explanation/definition of the 'good'-ness is also a biproduct in that case is what makes it a good definition.

But all right, take a different example, then: an old rich person who hates his family and doesn’t want to leave them a single dime in his will. He goes out into the street with all his money and decides to just give it to the first person he sees wearing a green shirt (or some other random trait).

He’s not mimicking anything he perceives as ‘good’ in the act of giving the money to Mr. Greenshirt, he just wants to get rid of the money; and there’s no empathy in the intention behind the act (to deprive his relatives of his money), either.

I wouldn't call that action "good" or "honorable" or "righteous," would you? Based on his intent, I would call that more "evil" than "good."

[Oisín]

I wouldn't call that action "good" or "honorable" or "righteous," would you? Based on his intent, I would call that more "evil" than "good."

Not if I were the random person in the green shirt.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

He does not lack empathy, i. e. he can take the role of the child who we would say is forced to perform sexual acts. Since he didn't mind as a child/adolescent when he was abused, he doesn't find it objectionable today when other children are sexually abused. Hence, he is empathetic, but his habit (past tense, I hope) of consuming child porn is clearly unacceptable.

So to me, this is an example where someone who does not lack empathy does something reprehensible/wrong, i. e. an example you have asked me to give.

Does he do it out of empathy (eg he does it to provide the children involved with some sort of service), or does he do it out of self-gratification? IOW, does he do it for the people he empathizes with, or for himself? Somehow I doubt it's the former, but you tell me.

I guess this argues that ebuddy is right. You can't simply have empathy to soften your action, you have to actually act towards your empathy, which would be selflessness or altruism.

To decide what's good/virtuous and what is bad/evil is a value judgement.

To apply "good" and "evil" to things is a value judgement, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm applying things to "good" and "evil."

That analogy doesn't make sense to me, mostly because the `I know it when you see it' classification of porn makes no sense to me. Law should use objective criteria. The `know it when you see it' question reduces this to the lowest common denominator.

Ha! Tell me about it!. You just described exactly why I would prefer to understand what makes us know which things are "good" and which are "evil."

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Empathy is certainly one such angle from which you can look at the subject. But it's definitely not the only one.

I'm not claiming it's necessary, I'm claiming it's sufficient (to borrow terms from the scientific method). Do you see the difference?

It's like I'm saying that "Barbie Pink" can be explained by "red," "green" and "blue" and you're objecting because that ignores the fact that it can also be explained by "cyan," "magenta," "yellow" and "black" (actually more accurately you're saying "cyan," "magenta," and unidentified other components that you are skeptical can all be described ). Your definition isn't wrong, it's simply another option that is (by your design) less useful because it includes elements you refuse to identify.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

Not if I were the random person in the green shirt.

So in other words it takes a huge bias in order to meet that definition

What if you were an informed disinterested bystander (you know, a fair evaluation)?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

So in other words it takes a huge bias in order to meet that definition

What if you were an informed disinterested bystander (you know, a fair evaluation)?

I’d say the intention was purely ‘evil’, while the act itself, seen completely isolated*, was ‘good’. Giving money to someone else is something I’d usually call selfless or empathetic. The consequences of the act, of course, have elements of both ‘evil’ (consequence one: family gets no money) and ‘good’ (consequence two: Mr. Greenshirt gets extra money for free).

* And thereby not judging it by your gauge of whether or not the intention represents empathy, but whether or not the act itself does, regardless of intention.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

I’d say the intention was purely ‘evil’, while the act itself, seen completely isolated*, was ‘good’. Giving money to someone else is something I’d usually call selfless or empathetic.

It sounds like you're agreeing with me.

BTW, I don't like "empathetic" because it sounds too much like "pathetic" . What do you think?

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It sounds like you're agreeing with me.

BTW, I don't like "empathetic" because it sounds too much like "pathetic" . What do you think?

I’m mostly agreeing with you—my only bone (and I now realise that I don’t think I ever made that clear) was that an act can’t always be judged by its intention; sometimes you have to judge it both by the act, regardless of intention, and by the intention, regardless of the act. Apart from that, I pretty much agree that empathy or selflessness is a decent gauge for what constitutes ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in our societies. (I’m sure there are societies, past or present, where our idea of empathy or selflessness would clash in some cases with what is deemed ‘good’ or ‘evil’—but I have no idea what they’d be, so let’s just ignore them.)

And no, I don’t much care for adjectives to -pathy, either (at least not the ones that haven’t just made their own English form -pathic). ‘Pathetic’ has given them too much of a negative value.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think this is necessarily true: just think of, say, Nelson Mandela's family. His accomplishments helped literally millions of people who were oppressed by the apartheid regime. However, that cost his dearly.

His political activism did not require three wives and multiple children estranged from their father through physical absence and political strife. While Mandela's political activism has had an unquestionably positive impact on ending South African apartheid, it was a cause more dear to him than the multiple families he chose to create. Mandela also realized that armed resistance (taking the life of another) was among the means of a desired end. This is less than ultimate selflessness. I've used this as an example of evil begetting evil.

I'll give you a concrete example: in ancient Japan, when one of your children did something wrong (it could have been a mishap) and was thus sentenced to death, the family would be obliged to kill the child themselves. This would clean up the stain on the family's honor/reputation and everything would be fine, the debt of the family to its retainer would have been repaid. They put the well-being of the extended family/clan before their own children.

Evil begetting evil; in this sense deemed barbaric and the practice ended. One selfish act (taking the life of another) to ensure an untainted reputation for you and your family (family being your interest). Both examples of selfishness.

This is what I mean by `setting priorities:' in their cultural context it makes sense to prioritize the well-being of the clan rather than the well-being of an individual.

Let the fact that this is not a contemporaneous example illustrate its merit. Regardless, something that is deemed acceptable by society does not define its merit in terms of good or evil. In this case, they are still taking from one to protect themselves and serve their own best interests. (their children in the baker-theft example, the remainder of your family in this example) This is less than ultimate selflessness, deemed barbaric, and the practice ended.

[ebuddy]

In short; you know evil by the fact that its acts must be justified.