Evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
Smashing a mosquito can produce such a sense of satisfaction—joy even—that we’ve rid the world of a blood-sucking, disease-carrying demon. Of course, to the mosquito, we’re the demon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Yes, probably SOMEBODY loved that mosquito, even if it was only his mother...
Stumbled on an interesting site the other day that listed the most good and evil people in history. What was most interesting was the author’s correspondence with someone from Romania, home of Vlad the Impaler. I had heard of Vlad but had no idea how seriously twisted this guy was. Makes Hitler seem like an angel. But apparently many if not most of the people in Romania do not think he was a bad guy. They are able to justify his unimaginable evil deeds quite easily.
That is the frightening thing about us humans. We can all justify evils of all kinds and perhaps even worse, we are usually oblivious to it and are participants in it without even realizing it.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/good.html
I understand what you are saying here, but I'm curious about something.
If Janet looks at a tree and calls it beautiful, you look at the same tree from the exact same vantage point and call it ugly, who is right?
You can't both be right at the same time and in the same way. God can't exist and not exist at the same time in the same way.
This violates the law of non-contradiction. Relativism self defeats.
I think we have to differentiate between objective and subjective truth here. We both can certainly look at the tree and think differently about it-one seeing it as ugly, the other as beautiful. There is no “correct” subjective interpretation of the tree in that regard. That is simply an aesthetic judgement not a judgement about truth.
Now if we were to disagree about whether or not the tree actually “existed” then you are right about the impossibility of us both being right. One of us would hold an idea that would not correspond with reality and be wrong. The atheist simply says invisible trees and invisible beings look very muck like non-existent trees and beings and do not correspond to reality.
I would like to add that I think there is objective truth when it comes to morality. I do not need the bible to tell me what is moral and what is not - I would say the opposite is true for me.
But to me, it is objectively true that causing people to suffer is morally repugnant. I believe this to be true whether it is "god" doing it, Hitler, or our good friend Vlad the Impaler. I think everyone instinctively knows this. How, then, do we get used to things like god's excessive violence in the bible, or become guards in Hitler's concentration camps?
Our brains are organic and are thus malleable. To survive, we have the ability to change our brains to the point where we can endure a great deal. An example of this is "Stockholm Syndrome". I think it might be like the frog in the water. You put a frog in cold water; he's happy, in his element. What he doesn't realize is that he is actually ON the element - of your stove. The water heats up, but it's so gradual that it is not noticeable. Just a little bit warmer - that's not so bad, right?
Then all of a sudden the frog is in boiling water and he's toast.
I think we have to always listen to that little voice we ALL have inside to keep us on the right track. We certainly cannot depend on external sources to keep us on the right track. But other than sociopaths, we are born with a sense of morality; maybe we evolved this way to help our tribes survive, or maybe it is something "spiritual" within us. I don't know.
But I do know that if I live my life trying to speak the truth as I see it; call bull*hit where I see it, show kindness and generosity, and look at the world positively, I find I stay on course pretty well. When I get lost in my own anger, or start feeling excessively sorry for myself, or otherwise do not deal with my feelings in an appropriate way, then things fall apart. To me, morality is what makes both individuals and society run smoothly. I think this is objectively true.
As comforting as it would be to believe there are particular objective moral truths I do not think there are. Where are they?
We as individuals and societies determine what is morally good or repugnant and these truths change as our perspectives do. For me personally, a person who eats a chicken sandwich is participating in an industry of manufactured suffering that is quite evil. To most people they are simply having lunch. And a much more delicious lunch than my sorry salad!
Yes, we have a natural evolved sense of empathy which manifests itself as laws and ideas about morality but as i said these are not objective things in reality like a tree. Merely ideas about how to live together.
Janet, you said “To me, morality is what makes both individuals and society run smoothly. I think this is objectively true.” I agree that that definition is objectively true but do not think you can say morality itself is objectively true. Does that make sense?
I agree that many things are shades of grey - not clearly moral or immoral. This does change as our perspective changes. However, I would further add that I think we become more SENSITIVE to many things as we personally evolve as individuals. I now realize many things that I did not know even a year or two ago. But it is because my awareness of how certain things cause suffering, to either humans or animals (or damage to the earth) that makes me decide that for me these things are now immoral. Eating red meat is that way for me; the DNA of mammals is so similar to ours, and I love and respect animals so much. I look into their eyes and see so much depth and emotion. So I would still say that causing suffering is objectively immoral; it is just that we as humans have so many blind spots to overcome in our realization of what are the causes of suffering. I'm not sure how well I explained myself here - hope this makes sense to you!
Homesick, like other christians I encountered you do not like the idea of relativism. You belief that there is objective truth, probably as stated in the bible. However, if this is really the case, why do christians pick and choose the passages that they follow? Why are there so many denominations and sects of christianity, each one believing that only they hold the truth? Why have christians changed their ideas over time? For example, there was a time when it was considered extremely sinful for women to vote. Obviously, nobody thinks this anymore. And most people would say they follow the 10commandments, but who really keeps the sabbath holy? Does that not seem as relative a belief system as any?
Maybe I am just not understanding your use of the phrase “objective morality” but no matter how strongly I personally feel that something is moral or immoral I cannot see how it can be anything but subjective.
I think one reason why many people hold so tight to belief in gods and their revelations/commandments is that it provides a framework for behavior that transcends subjectivity. They basically do not trust themselves or others to behave well without a god telling them how to behave and promising rewards for obedience and threatening punishments for disobedience.
Maybe I'm being stubborn about this, but I believe that there is objective morality. This is difficult for me sometimes when it comes to other cultures. I want to be open and accepting of other belief systems, as I expect others to do for me. But when cultures oppress or abuse women and/or children, for example, to me that is a universal immorality. "Female circumcision" is one extreme example. I don't care what the beliefs are (and usually the foundation is religion of some kind); I believe that to be WRONG because it causes terrible suffering to women. I think this obvious morality only becomes muddy when we are exposed to irrational beliefs that reset our standards to match the zeitgeist or belief system of the time and place. This is what I mean by the statement that morality is objective to me (once people are able to think clearly - even though I know we are all biased in some way).
My head is starting to hurt! I am not at all sure I have a very good grasp on my own thoughts about these things.
But I know what you are saying. lt seems so wimpy and wrong to say something like “well I believe female mutilation is immoral but I understand you do not so I guess it is just your opinion against mine.”
In no way am I suggesting that just because we differ in opinion with someone we should accept their actions, their sense of morality. I believe female genital mutilation should be outlawed in every nation while at the same time realize this is simply my subjective view.
You say you don’t eat red meat and that’s great. What about chickens, turkeys, fish? Does your objective morality spare cows but not turkeys?
I am still evolving! Haven't reached the "transformative state" or whatever the new-age gurus call it! Translated, I love turkey. Xmas, thanksgiving, gotta have turkey. I think you have a video about chickens or something on your website (?) but I haven't watched it - I'm probably afraid I won't be able to eat chicken or turkey anymore if I do! (Denial can be a very tasty place to live). I have been thinking about cutting foul out; the way it happened with red meat was very organic for me so I'm waiting for the same thing to happen with chicken. I started feeling sick at the smell of red meat, and couldn't eat it because of the thought that I would be eating flesh. It became revolting to me. If I can bring myself to watch your video, I would not be surprised if that happened also. But I don't think that chickens and turkeys have the level of consciousness that mammals have, which means to me that they suffer less. To me, eating mammals is more morally repugnant than eating birds. Your thoughts?
I agree that mammals likely suffer more than birds but no doubt birds suffer too and to me, causing another creature unnecessary suffering is evil. I like your thought that “Denial can be a very tasty place to live”—very funny! Reminds me of the Saturday Night Live skit with Stuart Smalley and Michael Jordan who is chastised by Stuart that “denial aint just a river in Egypt!”
I do agree you are approaching any change in eating habits the right way- If it doesn’t happen organically it isn’t very true and won’t last.
But what I was getting at in my original question about eating other animals is that you say you think there is such thing as objective morality and yet you seem to make some rather subjective distinctions. Why spare a cow suffering but not a turkey and isn’t causing needless suffering of a sentient creature wrong no matter if it is a cow, a turkey or a girl?
Because for my specific "objective morality", my measure is "suffering". The more a creature has the ability to suffer, the more unconscionable it is to create that suffering. To me, it makes sense to use level of consciousness to determine capacity to suffer. So even if I do quit eating foul, which will probably happen at some point, I will probably never consider it to be as bad as eating mammals.
On the other hand, this is not the only measure. Or, you could say it gets a lot more complicate than this. I see the whole universe as connected; we are connected to the rocks, lakes, plants, mosquitos, and the planet Mars. So when we hurt any part of the earth, we hurt ourselves. This can be taken to a ridiculous extreme, I realize, but it's a general theme I try to live by.
These two concepts, the concept of consciousness / degree-of-suffering, as well as the concept of connectedness, I would say would be two of my main moral codes. It has resulted in a profoundly different life than I had before. For example, I am embarrassed to say that I used to litter (in my christian days). This earth didn't really matter then; the rapture was coming soon anyway and the whole earth would be destroyed. My true future was in heaven, and this was just the physical world. What difference would a Subway package on the ground make? Now, I see is so differently. I don't "not litter" because I could be fined. I don't litter because it offends me - it hurts mother earth, who nurtures me - provides me with air, water, food, beauty, and more. My conscience DEVELOPED when I became an atheist. When we live by any external rule, we fail to develop our internal moral code. Others may disagree with mine, but at this point on my journey I find it works pretty well. Of course, I'm always changing, growing I hope, so a year from now I may say something completely different.
I think I wandered off the path here a bit! I tend to meander quite a bit. I think aloud on this blog!
As with everything you post, (aside from the one quibble I have with your idea of “objective” morality) I totally agree with you. I just wish I could say things half as well as you do! You really should write a book. And as easily and fluently as your ideas flow it should only take you an afternoon to complete a masterpiece!
First of all John, your comment means more to me than you realize. As those close to me know, I am a "closet author". My dream is to write, write, write! And to write so that others can read it. This is having a VOICE which I feel I didn't have until very recently. What stops me? Fear. Fear that I don't want to see the raw truth on the page as I write. Fear that I will hurt (terribly) people that I love. It feels like there is no way out of this. Anything I say will be hurtful to, at the very least, my parents. While they are alive, I don't want to cause them this agony. After they are gone, I don't want to trash their legacy. They have spent their entire LIVES preaching god's word. They sacrificed their family to do this, in fact (dad always said his ministry was a higher calling than his family - I don't think he still believes this though).
So, I post under a pseudonem so nobody who reads this knows who I am.
One more thing John about SNL / Stuart Smalley. I was going to say "denial is not just a river in egypt" but thought that was too cliche! But I miss Stuart - "I am good enough, I'm smart enough, and darnit, people like me!" Gotta luv it!
Well, I am no expert but I know when someone is gifted at something and you undoubtedly are. And from what little I know you have quite a story to tell.
You talk big about making decisions based on weighing the amount of suffering induced. Clearly the good you could do for others suffering through the things you have would far outweigh hurting the feelings of a few. And of course you could always write under the name Janet Greene.
Post a Comment