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?

[Bust Nak]

They are real actions. Opinions are not.

Just think of something you regard to be evil - I am sure you can think of many.

Now imagine that this evil became an actuality in your life.

Are you going to claim that it is simply someone's opinion?

Yes, of course I am.

You are going to refer to it as evil, and you are going to see it as an injustice and you are going to want justice.

That too, you seem to be under the misconception that wanting justice over evil actions, is somehow mutually exclusive/incompatible with calling it an opinion.

You are not going to have the opinion that the evil done to you is just 'opinion.'

Incorrect, I would do exactly that.

[William]

[Replying to post 31 by Bust Nak]

I think the whole 'good and evil are just opinions' argument has more to do with the aversion to the religious stories which focus on human knowledge of good and evil than anything worthwhile as relevant argument.

Just because human beings cannot altogether decide what is actually good or evil does not mean therefore that good and evil are simply opinions.


What kind of a world would we live in if humans had no knowledge of good and evil?

Another thing worth mentioning is that the GOD of the bible is often referred to as being evil by many anti-theists because of 'this' or 'that' action attributed to said GOD.

Are we to thus acknowledge that such expression against that GOD is just opinion?

[Bust Nak]

I think the whole 'good and evil are just opinions' argument has more to do with the aversion to the religious stories which focus on human knowledge of good and evil than anything worthwhile as relevant argument.

Maybe for some but not for me, even if I was to become a Christian, I would still be a subjectist. The two issues aren't linked.

Just because human beings cannot altogether decide what is actually good or evil does not mean therefore that good and evil are simply opinions.

I can grant you that much, but the incoherence of objectivism, does mean that good and evil are simply opinions.

Are we to thus acknowledge that such expression against that GOD is just opinion?

Yes.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by Bust Nak]

Yes

And if the expression were to become actions which hurt others...lets say, a person is asked to provide evidence that GOD is good while being tortured, and is told that GOD must be evil because if GOD was good, GOD would not allow the believer to be tortured.

So the opinion has been - through an action, made into something which is real. If you are going to argue that the action of the torturer is just opinion and not evil, you are without moral compass.

Now someone can have the opinion that (as in this case) 'GOD is evil', and the opinion may not be 'good' or 'evil', (although we can accept that it will be seen as either/or by some, depending on their positions) but once opinion takes on any kind of action to reinforce the opinion, the actions can be regarded as 'good' or 'evil' on account of the action itself, and this is not then just an 'opinion'.

In the case of the torturer, the actions are evil.

Good and evil are not opinions, they are real actions.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 7 by JehovahsWitness]

[center]

Some people INSIST that they talk to God on a regular basis.[/center]

Since I believe in God* and believe he has absolute access to all knowledge and is absolute goodness, I believe He can establish (and communicate if he so wish) absolute standards of good and bad.

Too bad his wishing of it is so spotty.
Ain't been communicating to ME.

And yes, I have a moral code, ANYWAY. It's that NO GODS are required at all.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 9 by Divine Insight]

Who said that there couldn't be an absolute standard?

Well, for one thing, we would have to DECIDE what that even MEANS.

I sure don't.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 25 by 1213]



[center]
ISIS at Nuremberg[/center]

Do you know any person who disagrees with that they should be free to do what they want?

Some fundamentalists believe that they are SLAVES for Christ or some such nonsense like that. In any case, the idea with fundamentalism is that they pretend to be following ORDERS ( The Nuremberg Defense )

Tell the nice fellahs at ISIS that you just want to do what you like.
Remember to smile a lot.

If not, isn’t that universal good?

If we take away the stupid "absolute" requirement, I think humanity can achieve some kind of "objective" consensus on how we should treat one another for the better good of everyone on the planet ( as much as is possible )

The whole "Absolute morality" debate is "absolutely" ridiculous, of course. That stems from the extraordinary success of Christian apologetics.

OR call it "Christian marketing" or "Indoctrination", or better yet "Constantly preaching the same message over and over and over again".


But I rather like Sam Harris' "Moral arc" towards personal freedom.
I don't seem to find a problem with that "universal good".

( might be.. just don't know of any )

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 33 by Bust Nak]




[center]Define your terms[/center]

I think the whole 'good and evil are just opinions' argument has more to do with the aversion to the religious stories which focus on human knowledge of good and evil than anything worthwhile as relevant argument.

Maybe for some but not for me, even if I was to become a Christian, I would still be a subjectist. The two issues aren't linked.

One of first extremely excruciating debates I had when I was just starting out in here was about this topic. I recall at the time we gave up on each other because I kept INSISTING that your definition of "subjective" was incomprehensible to me.

Were you able to come up with something better in the last few years?

[Bust Nak]

So the opinion has been - through an action, made into something which is real. If you are going to argue that the action of the torturer is just opinion and not evil, you are without moral compass.

What does it even mean to say an action is an opinion? What I am actually arguing for, is that the claim that "the action of the touturer is not evil" is an opinion.

Now someone can have the opinion that (as in this case) 'GOD is evil', and the opinion may not be 'good' or 'evil', (although we can accept that it will be seen as either/or by some, depending on their positions) but once opinion takes on any kind of action to reinforce the opinion, the actions can be regarded as 'good' or 'evil' on account of the action itself, and this is not then just an 'opinion'.

You need to justify this claim.

In the case of the torturer, the actions are evil.

That's just an opinion.

[Bust Nak]

Were you able to come up with something better in the last few years?

No, the original one I provided, along the lines of "moral statements are statements about the attitude the speaker," was adequate.