The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Surely evil is just subjective?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by canyou
I mean if it can't be proved by science then it can't be objective.


I agree, but it seems morality can be proved by science once we agree that the aim of morality is the maximisation of well-being and the minimisation of suffering.
Ugh, everything is considered 'subjective' on this site.
Original post by Nirvana1989-1994
Ugh, everything is considered 'subjective' on this site.


Well that's subjective isn't it?
Original post by macromicro
Well that's subjective isn't it?


You tell me.
Original post by Nirvana1989-1994
You tell me.


I was arguing for objectivity.

Assuming we had the neurological means, we could measure precisely how harmful an action is and therefore understand objectively how wrong it is, considering that "harm" is just nerves and chemicals responding to stimuli. Grief, pain, depression, anxiety, suffering... all just electrical impulses and chemical reactions giving rise to those states of feeling. This seems decidedly objective to me.
Original post by macromicro
I was arguing for objectivity.

Assuming we had the neurological means, we could measure precisely how harmful an action is and therefore understand objectively how wrong it is, considering that "harm" is just nerves and chemicals responding to stimuli. Grief, pain, depression, anxiety, suffering... all just electrical impulses and chemical reactions giving rise to those states of feeling. This seems decidedly objective to me.


I wasn't being serious.....
Original post by Nirvana1989-1994
I wasn't being serious.....


I know, but your original post was.
Original post by macromicro
I know, but your original post was.


Nah, I was just ranting.
Original post by Nirvana1989-1994
Nah, I was just ranting.


My mistake, I'll use my telepathy next time.
Original post by macromicro
My mistake, I'll use my telepathy next time.


No need to be rude.:tongue:
I don't think anyone would debate morality is a social construct.

It's just a perspective nothing more.
Original post by BabyLadDarren
I don't think anyone would debate morality is a social construct.

It's just a perspective nothing more.


Read above.
Original post by sleepysnooze
if "evil" is the intention to do harm or inflict personal pain/sadness to others, then surely some acts, given some pretty obvious intentions (like arbitrary torture) will objectively be evil?.

Well yeah but you've immediately started with an assumption.
Original post by macromicro
Read above.


That wouldn't in anyway make it objective to me, I don't see how you would consider that objective but okay.
Original post by BabyLadDarren
That wouldn't in anyway make it objective to me, I don't see how you would consider that objective but okay.


Explain how it's not objective.
Original post by macromicro
Explain how it's not objective.


Because you are assuming harm is 'wrong'?

none of what you said proves the concept of wrong and right exists, we disagree on morality as it is, we evolved as a species to become social creatures and instictively many have empathy in certain situations because that benefits humanity as a whole. But that's just an evolutionary instinct, doesn't mean anything.
Original post by BabyLadDarren
Because you are assuming harm is 'wrong'?


No I'm saying that harm is painful and we would rather not feel pain.

We can then use the word "wrong" to encapsulate that, but there isn't an assumption first and a conclusion second, rather there is a scientific observation first and a classification second (i.e. pain hurts, we don't like it, so let's label it 'wrong').
Original post by macromicro
No I'm saying that harm is painful and we would rather not feel pain.

We can then use the word "wrong" to encapsulate that, but there isn't an assumption first and a conclusion second, rather there is a scientific observation first and a classification second (i.e. pain hurts, we don't like it, so let's label it 'wrong':wink:.


Wouldn't consider that objective.
I think it depends on the intentions; if they're to cause harm then it's evil
Original post by canyou
I honestly don't see how anyone can claim it is completely objective. What you consider evil all depend on your personal opinions and the way you were brought up.

Just look at society. It did many things hundreds of years ago that were completely acceptable/ was the norm but now would be considered evil. There is also potential for some of the things that society find acceptable today to be considered evil in the future.

Firstly, I think you are mixing up two different things. The first is cultural development society has undergone. The second is morality.
Mixing up the two is a common mistake. People claim that because we've come a long way culturally, that must be because morality has changed/improved. Not necessarily. It only means our culture has changed. People in the Western world don't walk around in long garbs anymore (=cultural change), as did Abraham, and neither do theiy sacrifice their sons in the way he attempted (=moral change). Is this cause and effect? In this case, I very much doubt it.
This is why it is important to make this distinction.

Secondly, I think we must examine the definition of evil. The easiest way to do so is to think of the antonyms, which are righteous, or good. These are objective definitions which are completely based on subjective situations. To explain: take the axiom: murder is bad. Add to the equation that it's law-abiding people who are murdering terrorists. Is murder still bad? As a society, we claim that it's universally legitimate. Thus, we reach a conclusion: in a specific, subjective circumstance (in this case, good people killing bad people) there is one objective truth - it is good. Therefore, I agree with your conclusion that evil is subjective, i.e., that in subjective situations there is one true answer, which can be that a person's actions are evil. However, as mentioned above, I think the methodology you used to reach this conclusion is flawed.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you