Is it possible to define good and bad, and should we even try?

that's simple. anything or anyone that is construed as a threat (inciting self-defense mechanism). the issue is people can be faulty in determining that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In reality it is much more complex than just perceiving a threat, or at least that perception need itself not involve a rational process. There has, historically, been outgroup prejudice shown against Buddhists and Quakers, for example, even though they pose little threat to anyone (save as perceived cultural contaminents). Also, people can have a serious lack of empathy for even children of outsiders.

We do seem to be hardwired to forming a social identity and seeing ourselves as a part of that social construct. For a large number of people, all things they perceive as being outside that group are bad. The ones we see as actively threatening and outside that group are just especially bad.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This and That

The difference is, perhaps subtle:

"most definitions of good and bad depend on context. without context, it's meaningless.

a knife can be used to kill or it can be used for surgery to heal someone. it all depends on context and usage whether something is considered bad or good.

you have to consider the individual behind it and what their motives and intents are."​

The context you refer to is still subjective. I refer to the question of whether an objective basis for morality exists.

• • •​

While some people would apply such a notion in ways we might question—e.g., humans are hardwired to be xenophobic, thus we owe racism some manner of sympathy—those questions only serve to identify the complexity of identifying and expressing hardwired morality.

Likewise, the fact that humanity has organized into diverse social arrangements with diverse variations regarding morality and diverse justifications thereof only reminds that the hardwired moral impulse undergoes several transformations between its basic existence in the brain and its expression in human behavior.

Thus, while I would agree that most people instinctively know the basics of right and wrong, I might limit that recognition to its most basic form, e.g., as applies to the self. Everything beyond that is, in one way or another, acquired and conditioned behavior.

Analogously, the pathways etched on two identical microchips will produce different results according to diverse sets of electrical patterns flowing through them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes it's complicated but the premise or root is based on something more simple. as far as what makes it complicated is the level of consciousness of people involved as well as intelligence.

 

I realize I have been absent from this thread for a few days, and much has been said in the meantime. I started to try to address each point individually, but I simply don't have the time for that. Instead, I shall attempt to address those points that seem to be recurring ideas.

I attempt to keep the discussion 'nebulous' because I believe that is the only way to discuss such things as these. When people bring in specific examples they exacerbate the problem as I see it. They elicit emotional responses that are in turn based on cultural biases. My real intent here is to open everyone's eyes to the relativity of everything moral. Lori finally noted that her reponse was a conditioned Christian response. I don't think that is something to disparage - I too am Christian, and actually agree with a lot of Birch's statements about what is 'good' and 'bad', but I do so fully recognizing that they are in fact rooted in a Christian sense of morality. This again is my point - as long as we continue to bandy about words that carry such significance in the minds and hearts of others as though they were givens, the more we incite guilt, anger, judgment, and so on. In my mind, words such as wrong and right should ONLY be spoken in conjunction with a stated position so that we as a society CAN get past the relativity of them and actually communicate productively.

Regarding the points about the biological mechanisms at play when weighing morality - I have read the same articles and am fully aware of the fascinating evolutionary connections between what we find to be inherently "right" and "wrong," but again, I believe it to be unproductive to the growth of us as a species to simply toss our hands in the air and say "we were made that way." Of course, at this point I am clearly channelling a somewhat Nietzschean philosophy, and yes - I am very much fond of individuality as my primary concern, but that is a topic for another thread - BUT I believe it is our responsibility to ourselves and to mankind as a whole to do everything we can to grow as individuals and to take an active role in shaping the development of civilization.

So, now that I have stated what I believe to be "good," I shall be very clear - this is based on a combination of Christian and Nietzschean ethics.

 

you are overthinking it and directly contradicted yourself. you emphasize objective and then state that people know instinctively right and wrong when it concerns themselves.

you don't know nor anyone know why we have a survival instinct. the survival instinct is also as subjective as the example i posed. we deal with what is. what we define as objective that is not concerning things such as basic physics or elements still requires context and understanding. hence, the pouring down of bleach/throat example is always damaging. whether that is considered bad or good in an ethical or moral sense would require knowing the context of the situation.

it's also similar to equating form with function. you don't consider your car steel and plastic but a vehicle for transportation. you don't consider yourself a mass of atoms as your chair or rug and therefore neglect your needs of survival. water is a substance, not separated hydrogen and oxygen.

sorry, without context nothing can be defined here except for the periodic table so to speak. even using your logic and definition or understanding of "objective" is technically subjective as everything is defined by the laws of the universe and the elements that comprise it. without that structure, it wouldn't exist. you are being literally obtuse.

nothing i have said has anything to do with religion. morality is not borne from religion, i would say it's the reverse. religion does not have a monopoly on ethics or morality. even atheistic countries have similar ethical laws as religious ones.

 

A pluralistic society is one in which the members of the society are offered more than one norm of moral behavior. Such a situation presents the individual with the problem of not merely trying to do what is right, but of having to decide what is right in the first place. Expressing the same thing in the form of question:

who has the right to do what?
What should morality be based on?
Which source of morality is the right one to follow?

The following incident should help illustrate the nature of the problem.

James is faced with the predicament often described as "damned if you do, and damned if you don't". His problem arises from his parents, as two sources of morality, telling him to do two contradictory things at the same time. On a much broader scale, this is the plight of modern day youth who are often besieged with not two but many contradictory answers as to what is the right thing to do in any given situation. It is not as though the proabortionists, for example, came out and said they realized they were wrong, but were pushing abortion all the same. On the contrary, they strongly assert that Catholics are wrong and they are right. It is not hard to see why such a situation is the cause of moral confusion and uncertainty.

The following will hopefully help to further clarify this point. The following positions are held and fostered by different groups in our society today. Each of the position listed is considered to be immoral by the Church.

1. Marriage should be abolished so people could move on to another partner when they wished.
2. A woman should be allowed to have an abortion on demand.
3. We should painlessly kill the very old and the retarded because they are no longer useful to the society.
4. It is a waste of time to go to church. Besides, religion is no more than a superstitious hangover from the past.
5. The only worthwhile goal in life is to amass as much material wealth as possible. Nothing else matter.

The sharp contrast between the Church's teaching and the ideas expressed above is but a small indication of the widely divergent and often contradictory answers given for moral questions. The question that automatically emerges is: "whom are you to believe?" When your faith comes up against the thinking of others, how are you to arrive at the right answer to the problem? Surely the Church is not saying that everyone is wrong except those who follow the Church's way of seeing things. Surely the Church does not ask you not to think for yourself. The picture presented is a confusing one. It seems at times as though everyone were walking on jello, and the only certain thing that can be said about any moral question is that the answer will always be certain. In this day and age, even the simplest statement is followed by a question mark. We appear to have lost our compass in a world that constatly offers to new problems.

The sharp contrast between the Church's teaching and the ideas

Now that we have made clear some of the moral problems that arise from living in a pluralistic society, we can begin by stating a few principles that may help to clarify things.

The first point is that each person and idea with which you come in contact is only a possible source of morality. Nothing is actual source of morality until you internalize it by believing in it. As soon as we believe in someone or something, we let that idea into ourselves and are changed in the process. We see this in a child's growth and development. A child spontaneously believes, that it is internalizes, all that it is taught by its parents. This deep faith in the parents is what makes the parents such as overwhelmingly significant force in a child's life.

But as we grow into adulthood, we should no longer blindly believe everything we are told. We are not meant to be sponges that spontaneously absorb every idea that is presented to us. Rather, we have both the power and the responsibility to judge for ourselves what we will believe or not believe. The following example will illustrate what is being said here. Imagine two students who are studying communism. The first student gains much knowledge about communism but his study in no way directly affects his thinking. The second student, however, actually becomes the source that changes his whole life. So, too, with any other reality of life. They remain only possible sources of morality as long as we do not believe in them. They do not become actual sources of morality until we internalize them in an act of faith. It is one thing to learn about abortion. It is something else to believe in it. One can know about atheism and remain a Catholic. But one cannot believe in atheism and be a Catholic. One of the problems of living in a pluralistic society is that we often internalizes values we see on television and elsewhere without realizing we have done so. Living in a pluralistic society calls for clear thinking and awareness of ourselves.

The second point to keep in mind is that we must be very careful to distinguish between "the world" and "evil in the world." In other words, we must recognize that the Church has no monopoly on goodness. It is obvious that there is much good in the world, even though it is no way associated with the visible Church. For example, research projects that try to overcome diseases such as cancer, or the CARE or Red Cross programs that help the poor and underdeveloped nations. Being a good Catholic in a pluralistic society does not mean shutting one's eyes to the goodness in the world. On the contrary, a Catholic should be willing and ready to take an active part in all activities that work toward the betterment of mankind.

The third point is that the world is not only a place of goodness but also of evil actions and ideas that lead people away from their dignity as children of God. Here the Catholic must be able to rely on his or her own convictions that flow from faith in Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Church.

One well-known thinker once said, "Distinguished in order to unite." That is, just as the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle must each be perfectly shaped in order to fit together into a whole, so, too, the different groups in a pluralistic society must each try to be true to their own convictions if they are truly unite and form a living society. Catholics must take their active place in the community by being true to Christ. This cannot be done if Catholics yield to every force in society, so they become invisible by becoming no different from those who are not Christians.

 

There are two possible sources of morality.

1. Friends as a possible source of morality.
It is good and necessary part of friendship that we let our friends affect us by seriously considering their attitudes and opinions. This is especially true in adolescence, when peer relationships play such an important role in growth and development. In order to make an important point, however, we will examine a situation in which a person uses friends as a source of morality in a bad sense. That is, friends are used as the only source of morality. In other words, the person purposely avoids referring to his or her parents, to a priest or counselor as people who could help them make moral decision.

For example, your only two accepted sources of morality are your two friends. (let say that all other possible sources of morality are rejected). Take note of the fact that:

Friend A = gives you a "no" reply to your question because of the sources of morality he or she accepted.
Friend B = it is for the same reason that gives you a "yes" reply.

The above example brings out the point that, although you can and should be open to the judgment of your friends, you at the same time, must know your own convictions. Perhaps your friend has rejected a source of morality which you yourself strongly believe in. For a person to blindly follow the will of another in this way is not that person's friend but rather a mindless puppet. True friendship always respect differences, and helps each partner to feel more secure with his or her own convictions. Jesus' warning that if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch is easily applied in turning solely to friends as your source of morality.

2. Emotions as a possible source of morality.
Young people also frequently depend on their emotions or feelings in trying to make a moral decision. With regard to the emotions, two extremes are to be avoided:

First, we must avoid a stoic denial of the emotions as though cold, hard logic was the only worthwhile measuring stick of life's decision. We are not computers, nor are moral decisions made in an abstract vacuum. Feelings of love, sympathy or concern are often powerful forces to move us to good actions.

The second extreme is to conclude an action is morally right simply because it feels right. The first extreme is wrong because it isn't human enough. This second extreme is wrong because it isn't realistic. It fails to take into account the mysterious and often irrational force with which our emotions can express themselves.

Our feelings can be compared to clouds overhead: They may be bright and cherry, or dark and foreboding. They are real part of our world, yet you would not want to try to ride home on one. Ignoring our feelings can make us inhuman, yet letting ourselves be led by our feelings alone is like trying to walk on smoke. In short, we must both master and respect our feelings at the same time. They may often indicate what is the right thing to do, but they must never be our only guide in the face of serious moral questions.

If you should happen to wake up tomorrow morning feeling sad and depressed, that doesn't mean that life itself is sad and depressing. Your course of action would hopefully not be to go out and shoot yourself, but rather to do something positive to get back in a good mood. The same with moral problems: Simply because you feel a certain act is right does not mean it is actually right. You will hopefully try to find out if your feelings are valid or not.

There are two possible sources of morality.

1. Friends as a possible source of morality.
It is good and necessary part of friendship that we let our friends affect us by seriously considering their attitudes and opinions. This is especially true in adolescence, when peer relationships play such an important role in growth and development. In order to make an important point, however, we will examine a situation in which a person uses friends as a source of morality in a bad sense. That is, friends are used as the only source of morality. In other words, the person purposely avoids referring to his or her parents, to a priest or counselor as people who could help them make moral decision.

For example, your only two accepted sources of morality are your two friends. (let say that all other possible sources of morality are rejected). Take note of the fact that:

Friend A = gives you a "no" reply to your question because of the sources of morality he or she accepted.
Friend B = it is for the same reason that gives you a "yes" reply.

The above example brings out the point that, although you can and should be open to the judgment of your friends, you at the same time, must know your own convictions. Perhaps your friend has rejected a source of morality which you yourself strongly believe in. For a person to blindly follow the will of another in this way is not that person's friend but rather a mindless puppet. True friendship always respect differences, and helps each partner to feel more secure with his or her own convictions. Jesus' warning that if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch is easily applied in turning solely to friends as your source of morality.

2. Emotions as a possible source of morality.
Young people also frequently depend on their emotions or feelings in trying to make a moral decision. With regard to the emotions, two extremes are to be avoided:

First, we must avoid a stoic denial of the emotions as though cold, hard logic was the only worthwhile measuring stick of life's decision. We are not computers, nor are moral decisions made in an abstract vacuum. Feelings of love, sympathy or concern are often powerful forces to move us to good actions.

The second extreme is to conclude an action is morally right simply because it feels right. The first extreme is wrong because it isn't human enough. This second extreme is wrong because it isn't realistic. It fails to take into account the mysterious and often irrational force with which our emotions can express themselves.

Our feelings can be compared to clouds overhead: They may be bright and cherry, or dark and foreboding. They are real part of our world, yet you would not want to try to ride home on one. Ignoring our feelings can make us inhuman, yet letting ourselves be led by our feelings alone is like trying to walk on smoke. In short, we must both master and respect our feelings at the same time. They may often indicate what is the right thing to do, but they must never be our only guide in the face of serious moral questions.

If you should happen to wake up tomorrow morning feeling sad and depressed, that doesn't mean that life itself is sad and depressing. Your course of action would hopefully not be to go out and shoot yourself, but rather to do something positive to get back in a good mood. The same with moral problems: Simply because you feel a certain act is right does not mean it is actually right. You will hopefully try to find out if your feelings are valid or not.