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?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 39 by Bust Nak]



[center]
Morality? Meh.. merely an opinion.
Me.. I think it's not merely that.[/center]

What I am actually arguing for, is that the claim that "the action of the touturer is not evil" is an opinion.

AND some people might say it's a conclusion based on sound reasoning.

[William]

What does it even mean to say an action is an opinion?

Actions are not merely opinions. They may be motivated by opinion, but they are not opinions in and of themselves.

What I am actually arguing for, is that the claim that "the action of the touturer is not evil" is an opinion.

That would be correct, as well as if one were to argue the opposite. Arguing what the action is does not diminish the severity of the action of the torturer in any way. If the opinion is that the action is not evil, then the one holding such opinion is morally deficient.
Opinions about actions do not make the action merely an opinion. Actions may be extensions of opinions, but as they are made real through activating them into the world (as in the case of the torturer) the opinion has become real through the action and is therefore not just opinion anymore.

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.

Well I gave an example re the torturers actions. I also gave a link re: "Good and evil are not opinions, they are real actions."

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

That's just an opinion.

It is an opinion about an action which I can justifiably regard as an evil action. My opinion about that is justified, not through opinion, but through observation of cause and effect and understanding the human ability of moral compass and empathy.

All actions are real. Some actions are good and some are evil thus good and evil are made real through actions.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

If through his actions the torturer uncovers a murderous plot which is then thwarted, saving thousands or even millions of lives, were the actions of the torturer evil, or warranted? This is a moral conflict were are currently undergoing today. The actions taken were physical. Whether they were good or evil is an opinion weighed against the outcome by individuals attempting to advance opposing purposes. The universe itself is vested with NO purpose. Things either physically occur, or they do not occur.

I am not suggesting that opinions are bad things. I have plenty of opinions. I am suggesting that whether an opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, is in the eye of the beholder. Inevitably what will prevail is might. Majority opinion can be a mighty force.

[marco]

[Replying to post 39 by Bust Nak]



[center]
Morality? Meh.. merely an opinion.
Me.. I think it's not merely that.[/center]

What I am actually arguing for, is that the claim that "the action of the touturer is not evil" is an opinion.

AND some people might say it's a conclusion based on sound reasoning.

And others come to a different conclusion, based on what they see as sound reasoning. These conclusions are what is called "opinion." There are (and were) people who believed that in torturing they are doing good. Those in the Inquisition sincerely believed they were working in the service of God; that was their OPINION. They reasoned that if they had God's truth then only evil people could seek to deny that truth and God would want them destroyed. The Bible didn't exactly oppose this view.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 44 by marco]



[center]
When an argument is said to be sound, it would be true for everyone who takes a look at it. True premises, valid reasoning.. conclusion true.[/center]

And others come to a different conclusion, based on what they see as sound reasoning.

Do you think that the conclusion to sound reasoning is a matter of opinion?
I think not.

Not the way that I use logic.

There are (and were) people who believed that in torturing they are doing good. Those in the Inquisition sincerely believed they were working in the service of God; that was their OPINION. They reasoned that if they had God's truth then only evil people could seek to deny that truth and God would want them destroyed. The Bible didn't exactly oppose this view.

I wouldn't call THAT sound reasoning.

What are their premises?
What are their facts?

Are their premises CORRECT?
Or are their premises merely OPINIONS?

Remember, that opinions are not facts.
The conclusion to a sound argument is true for everyone, not just a few.

[marco]

[Replying to post 45 by Blastcat]

You are moving the goal posts to a discussion of soundness and validity. They don't really apply here, but if you think they do, demonstrate how by giving the statement and its sound conclusion. You will probably find the statement is NOT a true statement but one that may or may not be true so the conclusion is not sound.

What we are discussing goes like this:

Statement: Torturing people is always evil.
This can be debated since some would opine that torture is sometimes good when it saves lives.

Therefore: "the action of the torturer is not evil" is an opinion based on the view that some may suffer that many may be saved.

We might condemn that view but nonetheless it is an opinion.

[Bust Nak]

AND some people might say it's a conclusion based on sound reasoning.

Unless you are suggesting that opinions and well reasoned conclusions are some how mutually exclusive, I don't see what your point is. Are your opinions not the result of sound reasoning?

Actions are not merely opinions. They may be motivated by opinion, but they are not opinions in and of themselves... Opinions about actions do not make the action merely an opinion.

Okay? I don't see why you thought you needed to bring that up, given that no one has implied that actions are opinions.

...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. You seems to be referring to the opinion of the torturer here, not the opinion of the judge. What action have you taken as you concluded that tourture is evil?

Well I gave an example re the torturers actions. I also gave a link re: "Good and evil are not opinions, they are real actions."

Tourture is a real action, sure, but how does that make your opinion on whether it is evil or not, something other than your opinion?

It is an opinion about an action which I can justifiably regard as an evil action. My opinion about that is justified, not through opinion, but through observation of cause and effect and understanding the human ability of moral compass and empathy.

You seems to be equating harm with evil. Your observations of cause and effect can only get you as far as harm, how are you jumping from harm to evil?

All actions are real. Some actions are good and some are evil thus good and evil are made real through actions.

You say that like opinions are not real.

[William]

[Replying to post 43 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I am not suggesting that opinions are bad things. I have plenty of opinions. I am suggesting that whether an opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, is in the eye of the beholder. Inevitably what will prevail is might. Majority opinion can be a mighty force.

This may or may not prove to be true. Potentially yes, it certainly is, and can be shown to be the case historically, and not always for the purpose of good either.

The future might show that climate change does not factor majority opinion into the equation because it is just something that happens as a part of the universe itself which is vested with NO purpose.

Purpose comes directly from the conscious aspect of the universe, which can be seen to be active within the biological forms on the planet and thus, if now "real purpose" can be agreed upon by a majority then the default purpose setting is always "business as usual", which of itself may be overridden by the climate.

Or it may work out that scientific discovery will come to the rescue and develop some type of way of counteracting the natural changes in order that business as usual can continue. More often as not, scientific discovery in relation to business as usual has resulted in the problems now being faced.

Often it is disaster rather than impending disaster which amalgamates people to drop their opinions as to 'good and evil' because of more pressing needs. After all we cannot continue endlessly debating, if there is no sturdy platform in order for us to do so.

Complacency becomes the norm in relation to business as usual. Many are of the opinion that a purge of humanity is overdue in relation to the complacency and its accompanying reflex of the inability to see the wood for the trees, and this basic stupidity is better off being dealt with through natural disaster..or failing that...war will do.

Because, 'the majority' are distracted by their own opinions, and frankly, the opinions are not anything which take into account any definite purpose the universe might have in relation to the consciousness experiencing it.

[Replying to post 44 by marco]

And others come to a different conclusion, based on what they see as sound reasoning. These conclusions are what is called "opinion." There are (and were) people who believed that in torturing they are doing good. Those in the Inquisition sincerely believed they were working in the service of God; that was their OPINION. They reasoned that if they had God's truth then only evil people could seek to deny that truth and God would want them destroyed. The Bible didn't exactly oppose this view.

The bible is a collection of variable opinions, some of which seem to contradict others, and thus cannot be taken as gospel.

I would say though, that the actions of these ones you example would be considered evil in relation to what Jesus is said to have spoken of, as his underlying message to humanity.
It is easy enough for evil personalities to do evil actions in the name of good, or for that matter - to 'sincerely believe they are doing good' but they are not, and if they had been, there would not be the opportunity to show and tell.

There are opinions and then there are actions.

[William]

[Replying to post 47 by Bust Nak]

Okay? I don't see why you thought you needed to bring that up, given that no one has implied that actions are opinions.

It has been brought up as a matter of necessity because the OP implies that there is no such thing as good or evil as they are just 'opinions'.

You need to justify this claim. You seems to be referring to the opinion of the torturer here, not the opinion of the judge. What action have you taken as you concluded that tourture is evil?

I was specific as to the torturers motives and subsequent actions. Here is a link to that post to refresh ones memory. [LINK]

Tourture is a real action, sure, but how does that make your opinion on whether it is evil or not, something other than your opinion?

That is not what I am arguing here. I am arguing that the action is real and is evil and anyone who has the opinion that it is not evil is without moral compass.

Why? Because actions are real. Opinions about those actions are also real, but may not be truthful.

You seems to be equating harm with evil. Your observations of cause and effect can only get you as far as harm, how are you jumping from harm to evil?

In the example I gave, the harm is done purposefully to make a point about something the torturer has an opinion on.

If you want an answer to your question here, ask an atheist who consistently argues that the biblical idea of GOD is 'evil' because of the harm he has caused. How do those atheists jump from harm to evil?

Oft it can be shown that harm does equate to evil in the opinions of those experiencing it, especially if the harm is purposeful and done by human agency.

You say that like opinions are not real.

The OP implies that much in stating that good and evil are opinions because there is no absolute or universal 'good' or 'evil'. The implication is clear in the OP that good and evil are not real.

But as can be shown, something does not have to be 'universal' and 'absolute' in order for it to be real.

Consciousness, in an otherwise mindless universe, is the deciding factor on such things.

This is where The Golden Rule is helpful. If someone is purposefully hurting someone else, and this is considered to be an evil act, such consideration can act as a preventative, in a self disciplined manner.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 43 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I am not suggesting that opinions are bad things. I have plenty of opinions. I am suggesting that whether an opinion is good or bad, right or wrong, is in the eye of the beholder. Inevitably what will prevail is might. Majority opinion can be a mighty force.

This may or may not prove to be true. Potentially yes, it certainly is, and can be shown to be the case historically, and not always for the purpose of good either.

The future might show that climate change does not factor majority opinion into the equation because it is just something that happens as a part of the universe itself which is vested with NO purpose.

Purpose comes directly from the conscious aspect of the universe, which can be seen to be active within the biological forms on the planet and thus, if now "real purpose" can be agreed upon by a majority then the default purpose setting is always "business as usual", which of itself may be overridden by the climate.

Or it may work out that scientific discovery will come to the rescue and develop some type of way of counteracting the natural changes in order that business as usual can continue. More often as not, scientific discovery in relation to business as usual has resulted in the problems now being faced.

Often it is disaster rather than impending disaster which amalgamates people to drop their opinions as to 'good and evil' because of more pressing needs. After all we cannot continue endlessly debating, if there is no sturdy platform in order for us to do so.

Complacency becomes the norm in relation to business as usual. Many are of the opinion that a purge of humanity is overdue in relation to the complacency and its accompanying reflex of the inability to see the wood for the trees, and this basic stupidity is better off being dealt with through natural disaster..or failing that...war will do.

Because, 'the majority' are distracted by their own opinions, and frankly, the opinions are not anything which take into account any definite purpose the universe might have in relation to the consciousness experiencing it.

[Replying to post 44 by marco]

And others come to a different conclusion, based on what they see as sound reasoning. These conclusions are what is called "opinion." There are (and were) people who believed that in torturing they are doing good. Those in the Inquisition sincerely believed they were working in the service of God; that was their OPINION. They reasoned that if they had God's truth then only evil people could seek to deny that truth and God would want them destroyed. The Bible didn't exactly oppose this view.

The bible is a collection of variable opinions, some of which seem to contradict others, and thus cannot be taken as gospel.

I would say though, that the actions of these ones you example would be considered evil in relation to what Jesus is said to have spoken of, as his underlying message to humanity.
It is easy enough for evil personalities to do evil actions in the name of good, or for that matter - to 'sincerely believe they are doing good' but they are not, and if they had been, there would not be the opportunity to show and tell.

There are opinions and then there are actions.

Because, 'the majority' are distracted by their own opinions, and frankly, the opinions are not anything which take into account any definite purpose the universe might have in relation to the consciousness experiencing it.

That the universe expresses any "definite purpose" is yet another opinion. The closest thing to a "definite purpose" for living things that can be observed is the need to survive long enough to propagate and sustain the species. Beyond this point there is nothing but opinion.