h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>> >>"Good and bad are defined by our current circumstances. In our world - the only one we can sensibly talk about - random violence or eating people would generally be judged as 'A Bad Thing'."

>>"True, but I don;t think that generalisation helps as it is very close to saying that there is an absolute 'bad' or 'good'."

As far as I can see, it's nowhere near saying there are absolute standards of bad or good. It's merely making the practical observation that there are general commonalities.

One could imagine a situation where people considered universal infanticide to be a Good Thing, What God Wants, etc.
One just couldn't imagine that situation being sustainable.

Even in situations where violence is sometimes considered good or acceptable, there are likely to be limits simply because if there aren't limits, things can/will just fall apart.

Societies where eating people is not completely frowned upon do (and will) tend to have pretty clear limits on who can and can't be eaten.

>>One could imagine a situation where people considered universal infanticide to be a Good Thing, What God Wants, etc.
One just couldn't imagine that situation being sustainable.

But that's another hypothetical. Yes, there have been societies in which infanticide has been judged acceptable. But never *universal* infanticide.

Surely we have to confine our domain of enquiry to how people actually behave?

>>"I was just trying to provide another example of something which is generally considered bad (forcing a personality change on an individual against their will) but in certain circumstances is considered good (when it prevents that person from performing some socially unacceptable act)."

Isn't ethical/moral/(and some religious) education an attempt to cause a personality change, possibly not one that the subject necessarily wants? At the very least, it's an attempt to cause a change in propensity for action, which could be considered a personality change of a sort. Likewise, laws are attempts to regulate behaviour (or 'expression of personality').

>>"By which I hoped to show that it isn;t the act which makes it bad, it is the reasoning behind, the motive for, the act which makes it so."

Depends how you describe acts, and whether the description includes some context.
Needless killing of someone can be called bad whatever the perpetrator's state of mind, whereas killing in self-defence is usually considered acceptable. If I told someone "I killed someone last week", it's almost certain they'd want to know the context before judging.

If someone *did* believe in some absolute standards of Good and Bad, it seems a fair chance that their description of acts would contain some context. If it didn't, they'd seem extremely likely to keep coming up against situations where they had to balance two Goods or Bads against each other, so they'd not be able to take a completely black-and-white view of things.

>>"But that's another hypothetical. Yes, there have been societies in which infanticide has been judged acceptable. But never *universal* infanticide.
Surely we have to confine our domain of enquiry to how people actually behave?"

Edward,
I was basically agreeing with your comment on about generalities.
The point I was making was just that even if there aren't absolutes, there are likley to be some actions which are unlikely to be sustainable for practical reasons.
Effectively, there's a strong tendency for societies to avoid doing things too self-destructive for too long.

>>it isn;t the act which makes it bad, it is the reasoning behind, the motive for, the act which makes it so.

Sooo...

If your motivation for driving to the mall in a gas-guzzling SUV isn't malicious but just happens to lead to Bangladesh being flooded, that's OK?

If your motivation for downloading child porn is (you argue!) to research a part for a TV series, yet it reinforces the market for child rape...?

Arguably it's the reasoning that's at stake here. The wider picture was knowable and should have been considered.

So...what if you sincerely reason that it's a good idea to invade a country to depose a harmful regime, yet the net result is greater suffering for the population?

On that one, *my* reasoning is different. How much reasoning do we have to do before we're entitled to say something is wrong?

>>Effectively, there's a strong tendency for societies to avoid doing things too self-destructive for too long.

Hold that thought. It's a good one. Morality is sociobiological, yes?

>>Effectively, there's a strong tendency for societies to avoid doing things too self-destructive for too long.

>>Hold that thought. It's a good one. Morality is sociobiological, yes?

Really? Have you ever heard of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)? Bad example maybe but aposite I thought.

Unfortunately the human primate has an almost infinite capability for self-delusion and the denial of certain truths (especially where these truths impact upon their lifestyles).

We have been consuming the planet's resources and clogging up its self-repair mechanisms at an unsustainable rate for the best part of two centuries, and despite almost universal declamation from the world's scientific community, we still will not do anything effective for fear of putting 50 cents on a gallon of gas.

A smaller but still frightening example is the spread of AIDs in sub-saharan Africa. Despite the millions poured into education and contraception there is no apparent decline in the rate of infection through casual, unprotected sex. The world's only Superpower thinks that abstinence is the only option (despite all the evidence that shows that option will not work). And the world's largest single religious body actively campaigns against the only effective methods of preventing transmission.

Humans will self-destruct quite happily like a frog in a pot of boiling water. And when they can't reach someone they hate to kill then they will turn on each other.

Blessings,
Marvin-tholwch, the paranois andruid .

>>Really? Have you ever heard of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction)? Bad example maybe but aposite I thought.

etc.

Ah...but that's the thing. Society is complicated and human reasoning limited. Sometimes we don't know what's good for us. We live beyond our evolutionary decision-making means. To some people, MAD seemed like a good idea. And, objectively speaking, we have to admit they were right: there was no nuclear between the US and Russia. (Damn precarious, mind!)

We should remember our limitations when making complex choices. Two (or more) parties may have two (or more) entirely different solutions. Each may consider the other's risky to the extent that it is immoral. But maybe neither will have firm enough evidence for us to be definitive.

How wrong does someone have to be before we judge them immoral?

>> >>Effectively, there's a strong tendency for societies to avoid doing things too self-destructive for too long.

>>"Hold that thought. It's a good one. Morality is sociobiological, yes?"

More that it's ultimately practical, and an issue of consequences.

If having sex from age 12 upwards was believed to actually result in people growing into more well-adjusted, useful and happier adults, it'd probably be more likely to be encouraged and less likely to be frowned upon

And the $64,000 question is...

"How wrong does someone have to be before we judge them immoral?"

They don't have to be wrong at all, they only have to not believe what you do.

Both you and I are immoral to the extent that we shall burn in fire everlasting, simply because somebody's God did not choose us out to be saved.

That's the beauty of the christian perspective and the doctrine of original sin. Guilty as born y'honour .

Morality is a requirement to allow the small minded to feel superior to someone, indeed anyone else. The list of perceived immoralities in our enlightened, liberal democracy, guarded even as it is by the wonders of the Human Rights Act is almost infinite.

Immoral conduct is even frowned upon within that bastion of free speech the BBC. As I type I have to moderate my language and work around petty restrictions, even if my language is aposite, accurate and not intended to offend. All in case my shadow should fall across some imagined line of morality and thus offence.

I say poo to morality!

Blessings,
Matholwch .

PS: Can I still say 'poo'?

"If having sex from age 12 upwards was believed to actually result in people growing into more well-adjusted, useful and happier adults, it'd probably be more likely to be encouraged and less likely to be frowned upon."

The key word there is "believed". If it actually DID result in good things, and it could actually be demonstrated, I still doubt that it would be "believed" by those who are offended by anything that might seem like physical pleasure, much less tolerated, let alone encouraged.

That's the nature of "belief". It isn't susceptible to empirical evidence.

I'll get to the next page in a minute, but for Ed's response

"How can it be changed if it's immutable in the first place?"

You misread my, admittedly badly formed, post.

I said

"Secondly it doesn;t matter whether the personality, the identity is immutable. "

which is missing either a comma after 'identity' or a set of brackets round 'the identity'. personality and identity refer to the same thing here. In fact, just ignore the'identity' bit - it doesn;t add anything.

Just for the record ...

Is anyone here up to listing in point form what is being seen as the nature of belief and which things are deemed empirical evidence?

I've been lurking for awhile here and the playground has become a bit muddy, to say the least.

Perhaps everyone here could do with a bit of a recap, with regard to the last half dozen pages or so? Because the thread drift has been rather considerable.

Are we talking about wicked children or same-sex marriages, or what?

Where is our focus?

az

Gonna take several points above as one as I think they deal with the same issue:

"Needless killing of someone can be called bad whatever the perpetrator's state of mind,"

"If your motivation for driving to the mall in a gas-guzzling SUV isn't malicious but just happens to lead to Bangladesh being flooded, that's OK?"

"If your motivation for downloading child porn is (you argue!) to research a part for a TV series, yet it reinforces the market for child rape...?"

I think this is confusing two meanings of 'bad'. The examples given (if the reasoning on the part of the person performing the action is not malicious/knowingly contravening social rules) then the action is not morally bad. However, the consequences of the action are bad in the meaning that they have a negative impact on the lives of those they affect. If however you performed the actions in the full knowledge of their consequences and knowledge that doing so would contravene social rules, then it is also morally bad as an action.

"So...what if you sincerely reason that it's a good idea to invade a country to depose a harmful regime, yet the net result is greater suffering for the population? "
Same again as the above. The act is not morally bad if the person performing the action is not capable of understanding, or reasoning, how society would view it as bad.

"On that one, *my* reasoning is different. How much reasoning do we have to do before we're entitled to say something is wrong?"
It's not a quntitative issue, but a qualitative one. It isn't how much reasoning you do (and morally reprehensible acts seem to get a lot more reasoning after the event than morally acceptable ones) it is what reasoning you do. And your ability to comprehend social norms and your place within them.

<> Novo

Good or wicked according to whom? And also *what* society they happened to be born into were you referring to, Novo? And how would a foetus know this beforehand? How unfortunate for a foetus to become a fully born human in a society that didn't appreciate its innate merits.

Did the two wicked beings you spoke of end up becoming lawyers, by chance? Or estate agents?

az

<>

Not me, that's for sure, at least in the context of a discussion of ethics/morality

Every aspect of the subject is embedded in the context of other aspects, and also in actual societies and the physical world, and the whole is never fully coherent or complete. Empirical evidence is always germane to the process of moral reasoning, but the latter cannot be reduced without remainder to the former. There is no normative equivalent to TOE in the world of physics.

Noggin

Fair enough, Nog. I didn't expect it would break down that easily or even clearly ... just thought a bit of a recap might help show where the thread is going at this point.

Carry on as you were!

az

Morning Az,

I didn't want to break this interesting discussion.....but good manners mean I should reply.

My first post was badly phrased because I cannot define absolute good or absolute bad. I should perhaps have said that with all the love, and nurture, and atempts to persuade the two, they resolutely failed to follow the generally acceptable rules of behaviour ,in the UK as it was say 40years ago.

In fact they both went out of their way to be obstructive, destructive and generallly antisocial in the extreme.

I think one is 'banged up'. For all I know the other is dead certainly having totally rejected society.

As I understand it, they were not insane, or brain damaged, and could actually be 'pleasant' whe bent on achieving something for themselves.They simply appeared to dismiss (hate) all the people around them. And no, they were not hippies

Novo

They sound like sociopaths, although I wouldn't want to make a definitive diagnosis from that amount of information. Not sure whether the current paradigms suggest the condition as being genetic or environmental (or of course both).

Noggin

Perhaps it's better to avoid "good" and "evil" as lables altogether when assessing human behaviour. It seems fairly clear that those terms are usually applied as a subjective assessment that really amounts to approval or disapproval of character, personality, or behaviour.

Based on a sentence or two, Nog, I'd agree that a definitive diagnosis of sociopathic is premature...

Nevertheless, I think that Novo's description would permit us to say with a reasonable degree of confidence that the two people described are what is technically known as rotten pricks.