See, well, from my point of view this shouldn’t be an argument to begin with.
Yes, but math isn’t something based on opinions and experiences as the concepts of good and evil are, so you kind of went on a null tangent.
Why?
What?
Because of a simple fact, and that is one who has murdered before is capable of doing it again. There is a certain psychological boundary that is crossed whenever a crime is committed (you can look at my definition of crime again if you want) that is capable of being crossed again after a crime is committed. Thus, in order to prevent such a crime from occurring again, punishment is instituted.
Furthermore, it is not actually possible to prove the statement:
Simply because conditions can always rearise.
Because it is actually based on the two statements you just made.
Let’s make a hypothetical example.
A man kills another because they killed his wife. You might think “well the chance of recidivism is low is it not? Why does this man get executed/imprisoned anyways, if he’s killed someone with at least 0 value?” The answer is that because he has killed already, he is likely to do so again.
Historically, such a case would actually likely merit a lesser punishment, if any, due to the old principle of “an eye for an eye”. This falls in line with the utilitarian framework.
In modern society, we understand that it is hard to draw the line at when such a revenge is suitable. Furthermore, we recognize that it is easy for individuals to go overboard in taking revenge. Thus, we replace the individual with an organization and system that is capable of enacting revenge, which we now label justice. This system has innate checks and balances that prevent it from becoming corrupt or going overboard, or any of the other failings that individuals may show. It furthermore must prevent the old idea of “revenge” from reappearing, else it invalidates it’s own purpose for existence.
That’s why the system then rejects the claim of revenge as a suitable reason for lesser punishment. Because it’s possible for “revenge” to happen again, and because it undermines the system itself, which would allow future chaos, which is not beneficial to the total greater good.
See, the problem is it doesn’t mean committing crime. It means, literally, doing bad. Lowering their value. As I stated, you’re dividing while I’m adding. You think that my example is invalid because you can split it up into countless parts. I reject that on the basis that I can put those parts together to make a logical whole. All those details you mention: felonies, misdemeanors, both, pardoning, etc. can be added up into a single value, that is, the value of wrongness.
Oh but it is:
This encompasses all the following little details: the number of people saved, the number of people lost, the resources expended, the values of the number of people saved, etc.
This encompasses all the little details mentioned above.
This encompasses all the details of the number of people lost, the resources expended, the values of the people, etc.
However, I do see a flaw here and that is that I claim “all people involved are lost”. It should actually read “people are lost”, but that still means there’s a net loss, whether half the people are lost, most of the people are lost, etc.
This is because of the simple fact that more often than not, it would have been better globally for us to not have invaded or expanded. Take for example, British actions in the invasion of China. China was a backwards country (at the time) in which most of its people were peasant farmers in extreme poverty. Yet upon the British entering the country and a few things known as the Opium Wars, China was thrown into an absolute mess, the peasants didn’t find their lives getting better at all, and China would not be restored to even a shell of its former glory until after the Second World War, and this is not even including all the suffering acquired during the Maoist period, all the current problems of China, etc.
Same with the Americas. You can argue that they’re living better, they have plumbing, they have homes with modern supplies and modern medicines. But at the same time we see poverty, we see lack of access to those modern medicines, we see divides and conflict and wars and more that can all be partially traced back to that colonial history.
People decry the expansion on lying theft and coercion simply because those values easily show that we did not have utilitarian goals in mind when we invaded, and thus it was bad for everyone involved.
…I mean like it really shouldn’t, because if you take the view that nothing has value, then nothing is good and nothing is evil since there’s nothing you value and everything is pointless and we’re all gonna die one day.
Bargain, this also answers your question:
And as for
Well, if the statement nothing has value is false (for the sake of argument), doesn’t that mean that some things have value is true? And if we state that some things have value, then that means that either the statements some things have no value or nothing has no value are true?
And the thing is, we can quantify “no value”. We call it 0. Thus, the statement everything has a value, and some things have a value of 0 must be true.
I… guess?
Alright we’ll look at this again.
Firstly, I note that you have not provided any proven facts.
Second, I note that nothing I said is theoretical.
It’s sort of like setting a variable x. If I say every atom has a value of 1x, then everything else has a value of ax, where a is a constant, because everything is either made up of atoms or makes up atoms. I can then compare how many x’s there are and the sign of a.
I never said nothing has value, I said it’s subjective. Meaning the value depends entirely on the person’s experiences, knowledge, and ideals (among countless other variables that play into one another)
People disagree on instances that can be good an evil. Take a member of an extremis lt group versus someone fighting in the army and you will see what I mean. That is a proven fact: people disagree. And people have biases.
See, but how does this relate to good and evil being objective and/or subjective? What, because the atoms are how you quantify value of good and evil? All right, but do you expect other to follow that logic? No, in fact I’d say it’s impossible for anything short of a computer to adhere to such principles. It’s simply how you value good and evil.
…that’s what I was responding to. I said that “if you state nothing has value, the entire argument is pointless” to which you respond “this shouldn’t be an argument at all”, which I interpreted to mean that you stated that nothing had value.
This is true. But it does not disprove the idea that good and evil can be objectively measured, so long as you use a tool that cannot be subjectively disputed, i.e. math.
I’m going to agree with this statement, however I disagree with the following:
The unfortunate truth is that this is the true value of good and evil. If you created the world’s most powerful computing device with all the knowledge of the universe at its disposal, this would be the answer it would give you. If you asked it to compute the true amount of good and evil in a person, it would give you a value. This value would be free of bias, free of subjectivity, and one would be able to quantify this value. It does not get much more objective than that.
Does the answer mean anything? No, not really. Does it matter? No, not really. But does it prove that Good and Evil are, on some level, purely objective? Yes.
Side note:
I actually don’t care either way I’m just arguing that this is true.
I personally agree with @UnitVector. Everything is subjective.
This ties into the basic concepts of (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#:~:text=Existentialism%20(%2Fˌɛɡz,thinking%2C%20feeling%2C%20acting%20individual.), which I personally subscribe partially to. I think that there is one undeniable truth, and that is that we exist. We exist, and we define our existence ourselves. Thus, what we believe is true, and if others beliefs clash with our beliefs, then they’re beliefs are evidently false. However, one can change what they believe, and thus our reality changes.
But if I argued that then we’d all agree and that would ruin the fun, wouldn’t it?
URL broken moment.
I always argue at the root, so I hardly ever find arguments such as this to be necessary or valid debates. This, however, does not mean I won’t respect your opinion and see such as valid. That’s a personal bias I don’t care to elaborate on. It simply means I understand there’s no point in debate, but I enjoy playing like this.
Yes, but the issue here is that people don’t value such things so objectively and because humans determine good and evil, not some neat equation, good and evil are subjective as determined by those that constructed them.
Again, there is no omnipotent being confirming this of you. This is your biases determining how you value good and evil as quantifiable and objectives. The only thing it does is serve as a neat equation on how you would mathematically quantify good and evil, when, again, it’s based out of your biases that it was constructed. There is most likely an equally valid equation that I also won’t bother to look at that differs in few or numerous ways.
No, I don’t think I do either, but this
is a tad unconvincing
Entirely based on a biased belief and thus not objective. You even say that our beliefs change our reality. Our beliefs determine what is good and evil, no?
I agree but the point is that it is possible to determine good and evil using a “neat equation”.
I will write it down here:
x - y = z
Where x is the total good of a system, the total amount of times a system prevented an existence from disappearing, accounting for the value of each existence, i.e. a person, nation, atom, etc. and y is the total evil, using the same method but with the number of times a system has destroyed an existence, accounting for value. z is thus how good a system is.
There is no equally valid equation. This is the sole and only equation that can calculate good and evil. This is because good and evil are simple things, that can be resolved into positive and negative values.
I don’t need confirmation. I literally do not. All I need is a frame of reference, something which I can set the value of to be equal to a variable x, where x is the object’s value. From there, I can extrapolate the value of everything else in the universe.
It is not a biased equation at all. It’s simple.
Things that maintain existence are positive. Things that destroy it are negative. From there, we define everything to have a value.
The question is “Are Good and Evil Subjective?”.
The affirmation (you) must prove that yes, Good and Evil are subjective.
In order for something to be “subjective” it must be completely impossible to observe it objectively.
Thus, my responsibility is to prove that it is possible to objectively measure good and evil, which then shows that Good and Evil are not subjective.
As I said this is me talking outside of the argument. Please refrain from using my own words against me when I literally say “personally”.
It’s me just saying “honestly I don’t agree with what I’m arguing for but I want to argue for it”.
Yes, but a fatal flaw in this equation is how you measure the value of certain good and evil. How evil is it to steal candy as opposed to manslaughter? For what reasons are you doing either? These complications and the numerous variables within them make objectively quantifying good and evil impossible and thus subjective, as the value of said variables will never be consistent among people. The ones who determine good and evil.
Again, your determination of the values of such acts are made out of bias.
Sorry, didn’t know we were assigned roles. I argue to be convinced of something in hopes that I’m wrong (I’m rather pessimistic). But in any case, don’t feel burdened to do anything because I don’t care.
So you don’t agree that good and evil are objective? Good, because I’m starting to get bored since everything is the same from you.
I have stolen the 190th reply
1 Like
This is still going? My goodness.
1 Like
indeed it is ;-;
both sides have good points but i personally don’t really think about it as i stand by the morality side of things and stand by if it’s demonic very likely to be evil and if it’s angelic very likely to be good
bruh why it auto delete the quote ;-;
2 Likes
I haven’t read a single thing, I am here to steal the major mile stones
Unrelated to the topic of debate, but I would really refrain from making essays. They bore, ramble, and turn people off.
This is what I mean.
If you can deflect/disprove however much is thrown at you with a minimal amount of complicated points, theories, and ideas then you’re golden. Only bring it up if necessary. Thanks for reading my argument TEDtalk. I don’t care if you didn’t.
Also, theoreticals appear to be the most common cause of this, which is especially important given that they are arguably the weakest form of evidence.
Jesus christ
That’s easy enough.
What does the act of stealing candy cost in terms of existences? How much went into the making of the candy? How much does it matter to the people who owned the candy? What value should thus be subtracted from the total good?
On the other hand, we have manslaughter. How much is the value of the person’s life who was lost? How much is the value of the person who killed the other? Subtract the first from the second, and you get the total good/evil done. Then compare the two, and you have your answer.
The equation gives the answer to everything.
No, it isn’t. I can’t have any bias, simply because I started from values that cannot have any possible bias. The single assumption I make is that existence has value.
It’s not that we were assigned roles, we chose them. In order to have a conclusive result, both sides (subjective vs. objective) must prove something.
The burden has to be defined otherwise the argument is unfair. If I say “you have to prove that good and evil are always subjective”, then it’s unfair since all I have to do is provide a single case where good and evil are objective.
…alright then. If you can’t prove that I’m wrong, then off you go.
I see you don’t like my habit of defining things before I start talking.
But you have to define things you see. Some people think that “subjective” means that people see things differently and act accordingly. Some people think it means that it does not have an objective value.
What’s more, if you have written so little that your entire argument boils down to:
“People see good and evil as different so it’s subjective.”
Then you can’t exactly disprove the statement:
“Good and evil have objective values.”
Since you haven’t defined the meaning of the words “subjective” “objective” and “different”.
Is this too complicated?
I’ll simplify.
Every argument is made of building blocks. One cannot argue with nothing to argue on. One must define terms, must show burdens of proof, must take clear and distinct sides to argue from.
If all you want to do is argue black or white, you’re going to get nowhere.
And if you think that “theoreticals are the weakest form of evidence” you have to a) define theoretical
and b) you have to provide evidence that overrides said theoretical. If you can provide an example which disproves the theory, then the theoretical is false. But if you can’t, there’s no point saying that “it’s weak so it doesn’t matter”.
Yo mate if you believe in some sort of omniscient being yet that beings existence can not be validated, doesn’t that make your point entirely subjective? I am not against your belief of using a theoretical system of judgement but refusing to believe that a theory is objective just astonishes me. And if you tell me about how it will be objective if put into practice then tell me has it been put to practice? Was there an omniscient being? Unless you can bring forward evidence that an omniscient being exists or what good and evil truly means then it will remain subjective.
Tl;dr - A theory will remain subjective unless valid evidence to prove your point has been presented. Good and evil is a human concept and to use happiness as a measure of good is a faulty argument as people can have twisted ways to enjoy life.
2 Likes
Again, the value of the two will always be made based on biases, completely negating the purpose of the equation
You determine the values, not some omniscent being. And the assumption that existence has value is not wrong. However, that value is determined by bias and preference. Subjective beliefs.
Always does not seem to align with only being proven of a single case. Were you to say “sometimes” then you would be right.
You can make clarifications and definitions, but yours are too long. Again, precision is key.
I agree there must be something to argue upon, however needless complications clutter the ideas you’re atrempting to convey, which muddies the argument and prevents actual progress.
The only evidence I need to combat your theoreticals (which you’ve so kindly defined) is that it’s factual that people disagree on gooda nd evil based on their biases (information, context, experience, etc.), which makes it impossible for people to be objective. Given that these concepts (good and evil) are created by such unobjective beings, it’s hopeless to try to make an objective lens that quakifies something as good and evil.
If you’re making an argument to convince people, it’s everything. People won’t follow theoreticals closely (“well, you don’t know if ___ will happen”), and they don’t relate/empathize to pure statistics. Anecdotes are extremely potent, but often laced with bias in of itself. Throw in credibility for your sources and points, statistics to prove and support such, and anectdotes for that especially effective punch, and you’ve youreself a good argument.
1 Like
Ok another example this one is better. 2 Countries are at war for fair reasons. It’s not like one country is run by a phsycotic dictator and the other by a good saint so it’s not like they’re trying to free the people.
Country A’s people sees Country B as evil and itself as a hero Country B’s people sees Country A as evil and itself as a hero
4 Likes
What a good and concise way to express a situation which represents a subjective belief.
1 Like