Right, Wrong, Good, Bad, Evil are OPINIONS

[Zzyzx]

.
There is no absolute or universally accepted standard for right, wrong, good, bad, evil.

Some societies do NOT regard as evil or bad such things as: cannibalism, infanticide, premarital sex, theft and lying (at least as applied to 'others'), etc.

Some societies DO regard as evil such things as: homosexuality, interracial marriage, speaking against religious or secular leaders, drawing cartoons of 'prophets', women appearing in public without complete coverage or driving automobiles, etc.

Where is the 'absolute' or 'universal' in the above?

Some Religionists claim that their 'god' set a universal or absolute standard – however, they cannot agree among themselves exactly what the 'god' supposedly decreed. Different religions have VERY different ideas about what 'god has said'. Even denominations within the major religions teach different standards.

If I say that homosexuality is NOT 'wrong' or 'evil' and you (generic term) say that it IS 'wrong' and 'evil', we have both expressed OPINIONS. I can cite US law that clearly states that homosexuality is NOT illegal. You can cite Bible stories that say that it is a 'sin'. NEITHER of those establishes any absolute or universal 'right and wrong'

Can anyone justify a claim that ANY 'right and wrong' etc is absolute or universal?

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Can anyone justify a claim that ANY 'right and wrong' etc is absolute or universal?

Not possible, especially when you ask more than 2 people.
Even when saying 2+2=4 is right/correct some may say it's wrong for some reason that only they may accept.
Best we can hope for is acceptance of one side saying they know what the other side 'says'.

[Bust Nak]

And judging something does not make the action(s) being judged, good or evil. They are good or evil even if you are not aware that they even exist.

Okay, but what does make the action(s) being judged, good or evil, if not the judgement itself?

No, I am not saying that.
The torturers actions are evil regardless of opinion.

That sounded very much like the typical objectivist stance.

You appear to be saying that an evil action is not evil until it is declared so by others.

Close enough. More accurately I am saying an evil action is not evil until it is judged so by me, with or without me declaring it; and that includes my own actions - i.e. the judge and the perpetrator need not be different people.

My opinion that torture is bad, is what makes torture bad. That is what is meant by the phrase "good and evil are opinions." It's not that the opinion itself is good or evil, it is the opinion that makes an action good or evil.

Do you understand what I am saying? There seemed to have been a case of miscommunication of what "good and evil are opinions" means.

Well why shift to another example?

The example I gave, was the one in which it clearly cannot be argued that the torturer was doing a good act.

Right, hence the problem of evil cannot be answered by pointing to some "greater good."

I have not as yet argued for the existence of an objective morality. I have argued that good and evil are not simply OPINIONS.

What is the distinction between "good and evil are not simply OPINIONS" and objective morality?

The OP implies that good and evil are OPINIONS and thus, that somehow equals "There is no objective morality' as if the first proves the second.

The first is an errant observation anyway, and that is what I am arguing.

But "good and evil are OPINIONS" does logically imply "There is no objective morality." Whether the observation is errant or not is a different matter.

I clearly said that opinion which is not activated is not of itself 'good or evil'.

The opinion of whom? Perhaps you could rephrase your contention, in light of what I said about what is meant by "good and evil are opinions."

If it is the case that OPINION is good or evil, it can only be seen to be the case through action. Inaction is also a form of action.
Thus, if opinion IS good or evil, it is due to some kind of action. *If there is no distinction between opinion and actions, then yes, opinion can be seen to be good or evil, but then such a declaration isn't in itself news, or so controversial that it even requires a thread in which to debate it.

The declaration in itself would be pointless. Obviously the OP author thinks otherwise.

Pretty sure there is miscommunication here.

No. I clearly said that ripple is relevant no matter how much popular support it receives.

But you also said a ripple effect which peters out doesn't mean it was 'less real.'

I am not switching position on the fly. I am responding to what you have brought into the debate...

The pertinent aspect of this argument is that the opinions require activation in order to be deemed good, evil or neither. Thus Right, Wrong, Good, Bad, Evil are NOT opinions - *unless the idea of opinions is, that they are not opinions unless they are activated, which doesn't appear to be what the OP is saying.

Right, the OP is saying what makes an action evil, is the opinion of a judge.

[zjsd26]

It's all based on how the person responded to it. Of course.. murder, lying, and stealing is bad, is because it has caused harm and discomfort on other people. Opinions are something that we reevaluate, all of us are able to have different opinions, but some things are just common sense, we all can agree on a universal perceptive. Maybe on certain things we can differ, but actions that cause a negative affect on our society can be considered horrible, and actions that are good are considered to be more positive, uplifting and peaceful. You just have to look at the world with an opened mind.

[William]

[Replying to post 62 by Bust Nak]

Okay, but what does make the action(s) being judged, good or evil, if not the judgement itself?

Essentially the judgement is in itself, an action.

That sounded very much like the typical objectivist stance.

Not sure the relevance there.

Close enough. More accurately I am saying an evil action is not evil until it is judged so by me, with or without me declaring it; and that includes my own actions - i.e. the judge and the perpetrator need not be different people.

My opinion that torture is bad, is what makes torture bad. That is what is meant by the phrase "good and evil are opinions." It's not that the opinion itself is good or evil, it is the opinion that makes an action good or evil.

Do you understand what I am saying? There seemed to have been a case of miscommunication of what "good and evil are opinions" means.

Sure I understand. That is why I say the thread topic is nothing so contravention as to require debate.

It is like saying 'the sky is blue on a sunny day' etc.

That is also why I say that stating opinions are what constitute Right, Wrong, Good, Bad, Evil does not equate to "therefore there is no absolute good or evil which can be shown to exist" because the opinions of what good and evil are can be shown to at least be shared across the human spectrum, even that the particulars may not be agreed upon due to lack of empathy and existence of hypocrisy.

Even given lack of across-the-board empathy and the presence of hypocrisy in the mix, remove those from the equation and it would most likely amount to a type of absoluteness at least in relation to humanity.

Which is why I mentioned war as an evil thing in post #58 Humans are essentially more alike than not in regard to what is evil and what is good, which is at least potentially, a GOOD thing, I think.

Right, hence the problem of evil cannot be answered by pointing to some "greater good."

If the victim remains true to his/her understanding that a greater good does exist despite the attempts of evil to undermine that, then that alone can be said to be an act of greater good.
There may even be historical examples of this which might even be traced to having a good effect in relation to the one perpetrating evil action abandoning that way in favor of good, because the example of good withstanding evil won the day, so to speak.

What is the distinction between "good and evil are not simply OPINIONS" and objective morality?

We can understand that good and evil are not simply opinions. We cannot (as yet) understand what objective morality might consist of.
The main reason for this has to do with humanity not recognizing anything which can be absolutely agreed to be good or evil.

My example of the torturer is me declaring that in that case, the torturers actions are evil, and anyone who argues that the actions are good or niether good nor evil, has a wonky moral compass.

Is my example one which is absolute in and of itself? If so, then therein is an example of what might be considered an act of absolute evil.

But you also said a ripple effect which peters out doesn't mean it was 'less real.'

Yes. No matter that the ripple gains popularity or peters out, both are real, while they are real. That is what I am saying.

Right, the OP is saying what makes an action evil, is the opinion of a judge.

In that case, the opinion of a judge has become an action. As I said, if that is all the OP is saying, then 'wow the sky is blue on a sunny day!' How about that!