No Exit is a truly interesting work. Supposedly deeply existentialist and relativist, it nevertheless shows three persons who clearly have abandoned traditional morality in Hell, and convincingly shows that hell as an inevitable result of their pursuit of idiosyncratic (i.e. relativist) morality. I've never been able to understand in what sense it was an argument for moral relativism, since the moralities adopted by the various characters (except Satan as the valet) are clearly "false" in the sense of being constructed so that the actions sanctioned by each person's morality brings about results that are totally undesirable to the practicioner.

Nor do I get the point about moral relativism being unfairly persecuted because it "defies" most religions. If you think that God has no say in what is good and evil, then either you are only saying that it is possible to disagree with God on morality (and very few religions dispute that this is indeed possible) or you mean that God has no power unless you agree with Him...which is basically the same as saying that He's not really God and not even on the level with any man or woman you might have to deal with in real life (in other words, He doesn't really exist). If moral relativism does indeed "defy" religion, then it is morally false because it asserts something that is untrue, since God does exist. If it doesn't defy religion, then it is a meaningless game with semantics.

quote:

---

Oliverhouse, the statement "everything you care deeply about is meaningless" is certainly not the same as "false."

---

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I'll take a shot at it. If I parse this according to standard syntax and logical constraints, it translates essentionally as "Oliverhouse, it is certain that everything you care deeply about is meaningless." No matter how I try, I can't figure out what else this could mean.

For the record, I believe that killing babies is probably a good bit more evil than eating them. But eating babies is disgusting. I don't like to eat veal, not because I believe it to be morally wrong, but because I find it repugnant despite my lack of any moral objection. To show an even clearer example, I would find it very distasteful to eat a fertilized egg, even with the embryonic chick still too small to be seen as anything other than a reddish spot. In order to do what I would consider the morally correct thing (removing the yucky bit and eating the egg like a man), I'd have to suppress my revulsion over eating a baby chick. This doesn't make me conflicted, except when I'm confronted with the choice between wasting edible food (which I see as morally suspect) and eating a baby.

Now, if eating that baby would horrify and appall others, then it would count as an act of aggression against them, just as though I were to jump in their face and scream obscenities whilst spitting and urinating on them. That would obviously be worse than wasting food, except in certain extraordinary circumstances. Eating a human baby is probably quite a bit more offensive than that, enough so that I have real difficulty imagining any situation in which it would be morally right. It's also quite disgusting, so I question whether I'd do it even if I were convinced it were the right thing to do.

But then, I don't have a problem with doing things that I admit are morally wrong (or failing to do things that I acknowledge to be morally right). Aside from the aspect of convenience, I don't even feel any restraint about admitting that I do things that are wrong. However, I have come to understand that this is a significant motivator for many humans (perhaps all humans, certainly many who have made serious efforts to overcome this impulse claim it to be universal among humans). Many people desire to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that they themselves are not ever evil. And more than a few construct elaborate delusional architectures to support this belief. Moral relativism is fairly ingenious, in that it cannot be attacked using the standard argument against evil ("How would you like it if someone did that to you?" "Well, morality is basically relative so that question has no meaning"). Unfortunately, it is false in fact because those who follow their own idiosyncratic ideas of "right" and "wrong" usually end up bringing evil to themselves through the actions they define as "good". The actual existence of so many moralities that fail the most basic tests of self-consistency demonstrates that some moralities are objectively worse than others.

In practial terms "moral relativism" boils down to saying "my chosen morality is necessarily right for me." But this statement is objectively false on examination of the evidence. Most humans, given the chance to make up their own moralities, chose moralities that are horribly wrong for themselves. Even if it were only some humans who did this, it would still render the statement "the morality I choose for myself is the best for me" subject to experimental confirmation in each and every case.

quote:

---

Moral relativists hold that morality is subjective, determined by man and not by God or nature.

---

quote:

---

Oliverhouse, the statement "everything you care deeply about is meaningless" is certainly not the same as "false."

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I'll take a shot at it.

---

First, Oliverhouse, "People have no problem seeing this in science." I have a hard time seing this in science and I'm a physics major. You should read about quantum mechanics some time. There are a good half a dozen different philosophical interpretations of it out there and even multiple mathematical interpretations, and all of them work equally well so we still can't tell which one is RIGHT.

If our knowledge can bring us close to the truth, and even if we have find a theory that IS the truth, it is, in in almost every instance, impossible for us to prove that this theory is the truth, because maybe we're all in a matrix and it's just some wacky code.

Of course, quantum mechanics doesn't often delve into probability theory proper - heck, you guys deal with probability amplitudes.

Also, just because there are multiple competing explanations doesn't mean that there's no answer. All of them are right enough to make predictions (the predictions we currently care about), so they must describe truth at some level.

By the way, most of quantum physics only describes necessary limitations on the observer, very little of it describes anything important about reality.

I suppose that means that "Apathyism" then simply means accepting that our current ideas about morality (and everything else) can be mistaken even if we haven't yet discovered an obvious contradiction. Indeed, since the definition of an "obvious" contradiction is entirely dependent on the observer, our status as observers necessarily limits our ability to be certain that we aren't missing a contradiction that would be obvious to a higher intelligence. Reduced to those terms, "Apathyism" is nothing more than what every sentient being must experience by lacking omniscience.

Oliverhouse, I'm glad for that clarification of what was meant. Of course, that should have been phrased, "Oliverhouse, 'meaningless' is certainly not the same as 'false.'"

What we really do not understand is good. A purely good, no evil intent kind of person would be a stranger anywhere. We can only come up with two dimensional stereotypes.

But the best definition of evil (cut and dry definition anyway) goes something like this:

Evil is selfishness at the expense of others or expense of your own good health.

Think of any act of evil from eugenics to adultery and you will see selfishness irregardless of the pain it causes others.

To use the Nazi analogy again- the founders of eugenics felt that the white races (of which they were white) wished to destroy the others races so that they would not have to share the world's resources with anyone else. Basically kill the undesirables so we can keep our stuff and take theirs too. Of course they shrouded it in the "superman" theory, but basically it is about wealth.

Kids do that to ailing parents in countries like Holland, to retain greater amounts of the family resources. It's called euthanasia.

Pimps do that to uncooperative prostitutes, beat them and kill them t take what the girls have.

Suicide- ease your own suffering no matter what your death might do due to your family and friends.

Adultery is to have your hour of fun, no matter that it will destroy the kid's homes, two marriages, careers, and friendships.

So on ad naseum- evil in it's purest form can be seen in the out of control child. The one who throws tantrums, breaks things, spits, bites, lies, curses; not due to emotional problems but rather good old fashioned selfish meaness- it's mine I want it now! But evil in most people is changeable. Although I must admit I beleive there are a few "bad seeds." People who irregardless of environment perform terrible destructive acts for no good except their own gain.

"No, he's saying that truth doesn't exist as an abstract ideal completely independent of reality"
Or that if the truth does exist as an abstract ideal then it doesn't matter.

"By the way, most of quantum physics only describes necessary limitations on the observer, very little of it describes anything important about reality/"
Which is exactly why there are so many interpretations of reality that still work with quantum physics. I'm talking about ideas of what goes on between measurements, what causes wavefunction collapse, etc. There are many interpretations that all work with our experimental data.

"I suppose that means that "Apathyism" then simply means accepting that our current ideas about morality (and everything else) can be mistaken even if we haven't yet discovered an obvious contradiction."
Somewhat. I kind of started from the realization you described, but it's more of an idea that morality and other such philosophical issues are ultimately meaningless. Thus accepting that we could be wrong doesn't really matter because the truth doesn't really matter.

I don't believe that evil can be reduced to selfishness. For one thing, any grossly evil act could be committed by a person who doesn't benefit directly. It isn't usual, but if you say it's okay to wipe out all the Jews as long as you're not benefitting personally is a bit troubling when we come up against the historical fact that many of those who were active in the final solution underwent severe distress, mental, physical, and emotional. I know I mentioned this before, but it is important to remember that many of the Nazies did it at enourmous personal cost because they had been convinced that it was the right thing to do.

In other words, they wouldn't have done it if their morality had been different. Yes, many people became Nazies for personal benefit. Probably most of those who went all the way had to give up more than a bit of their sanity, though. Is it really so hard to believe that they would have liked to remain sane? What does "selfishness" even mean when what you're sacrificing is your own essential good? "Selfish" Germans did individualistic things like joining partisan groups and fighting against the larger society. Most of them had no great love for Jews, they just didn't like what the Nazies were doing to Germany.

[quote]I'm talking about "truths" that we absolutely can never know. That means there must not be any noticeable correlation or we'd notice it and then we'd follow it to the truth.[quote]

I have no idea what this has to do with anything. Indeed, as I read it, that is the intent of the statement. qpk is apparently stating that his comments have no possible application to any conversation we could possibly have. Which raises the question of why he is making them.

For my own part, "evil" is simply consequences that we find undesirable. Any action which leads mainly to consequences which we find undesirable is therefore an "evil" action. We can say that an action led mainly to evil when the negative consequences were unavoidable or highly probable based on that action, while the benefits were merely possible or even "theoretical". We also weigh long term consequences against short term consequences, doing this will be fun for a few moments but will lead to a permanent reduction in quality of life, or something like that. Just because a short term consequence is more immediate, we can't necessarily say it is more probable.

My "good" is selfish, it is based on what I find desirable. True, if an individual's good completely neglects the desires of all other actors, then that individual will probably end up unhappy because everyone else will be working against that "good". So it is highly likely that some element of altruism must be found in the formulation of attainable goals. As I've already stated, if the "good" consequences of an action aren't really possible, that action doesn't qualify as really good.

Relativist: You should believe in relativism!

Me: If you truly belived that then you don't.

(And to Mr. Quantum, If there is no truth then what are you looking for in those quantum physics books? Seriously, if there is no answer then why are you asking the question? Science is about discovering truth, if someone else later disproves your work that doesn't change the goal.)

And as to the original meaning of the thread. Every villain should be a tragedy.

quote:

---

- evil in it's purest form can be seen in the out of control child. The one who throws tantrums, breaks things, spits, bites, lies, curses; not due to emotional problems but rather good old fashioned selfish meaness- it's mine I want it now!

---

I have to disagree. A child young enough to have tantrums doesn't have the ability to see beyond his/her immediate satisfaction. There is no decision making and thus, IMHO, no true evil.

An adult or older child who choses to act in a socially inappropriate manner has made a decision. For me that's the crux of the issue. The conduct and thus the person "becomes" evil based on the filter the person viewing the action puts over it.

Killing other people is generally considered wrong by most people. What makes killing "evil" depends on our background. I suspect most people wouldn't consider a soldier on a battlefield evil but would think an assassin would be "evil." But what if the assassin is sent to kill someone, who if he lives, will destroy thousands of lives? Is that assassin still evil? Do motives matter? Does the fact that the "bad" actor thinks he is justified change the nature of the conduct? I tend to think so.

Virginia, Maryland and DC were the target of the Mohammed/Malvo sniper shootings. Mohammed, the adult, is closer to the "evil" stereotype. He used Malvo's youth and innocence to manipulate him into heinious acts. Is Malvo less evil than Mohammed because he was manipulated? The Virginia jury (with the help of an amazing lawyer) thought so because Malvo was sentanced to life in prison while Mohammed was sentanced to death. The two attorneys involved were some of the best we have in Virginia so it wasn't that Malvo's attorney was "better" or the goverment's case in Mohammed was "stronger." In fact, the Mohammed case was weaker because they couldn't prove who pulled the trigger. However, the jury could sympathize with Malvo and it couldn't with Mohammed because there was no "excuse" he could give. It was a life and death difference in the perception of evil based on the same facts.

NAZIs did not invent eugenics.

If we consider selectivity in mating (i.e. waiting for marriage) as an aspect of eugenics, then one can see the point rather easily. Women who only mate with the highest quality males are exercising a eugenics program, albeit on a small scale.

Then we have Plato's method, described in The Republic. I find several aspects of his program to be utterly appalling, but one has to remember that it is a philosphical discussion rather than a serious proposal. However, it is still a far cry from the genocidal implementation that the Nazies practiced.

I think that the fundamental problem with any eugenics program beyond allowing and encouraging women to be selective about their mating partners is hubris. By what possible right does any human think to dictate the shape of the entire race? Each individual must necessarilly bear some responsibility for direct descendents, and that seems like more than enough of a burden to me. Any human who claims more responsibility than this is clearly unfit to exercise it.

What do you mean by this? Doesn't this make *you*, objectively, a villian?

Moral Relativism is simply, really: "Don't tell me that my feelings are wrong!" It is useful for villians in stories who care to justify their actions, but I disagree that every villian must see themselves as good by *some* measure, or else otherwise deny the validity of measuring. Some people are happy labeling themselves as neutral ("looking out for #1"), finding being good too much effort or as a goal subordinante to some other goals, or even undesireable for some reason.

And while certainly even most of these people who don't necessarily care much about persuing goodness would shun out and out cruelity, Villians who weren't above cruelty and didn't care to justify it wouldn't be unbelievable, imo.\

Also, situational ethics and moral relativism are differnt. Situational ethics is: "These are the principals, in this heirarchy, and so in this context, there is one correct action, but in a differnt context another action is correct, based on the heirarchy of objective values."
Whereas moral relativism is: "In this same situation, I would do x, but if you did y or z or any non-x, I wouldn't presume to say you were wrong!"