Metaphorically, a scenario where one is breaking the sound barrier and then being pinned by a few-several distinct pressures in tract of sound relapsing over you- which you either submit to the petty force, or try to escape it.
If you submit, you are in the realm of evil.
Jedi and Sith are good examples of good and bad done properly: it’s okay to use trickery to persuade, push or other simple stuff, and you can use a severe amount of pain, like electrocution, aiming for a quick kill of prey.
However it’s not ok to torture someone for a lifetime, or using too wicked techniques for your pain-giving.
(This whole point taken as metaphor; should provide a comfortable image).
The opposite of a “good meal” is “a bad meal”, not “an evil meal”. Evil has a moral connotation. Bad does not. If someone has a “bad game” in the World Cup, it means he played in an unskilled manner, not that he is wicked. Good sometimes has a moral connotation, sometimes it does not.
We have two types of good, good opposite to evil, and good opposite to bad. Good in the first sense, like good people who prefer pleasure, love others, etc. That is the opposite of evil people who prefer pain, hate others, etc. Good in the second sense, like good health, opposite to bad health.
That is not true given my definition of evil.
Evil people are not essentially immoral if they respect people’s personal rights and relational rights.
My argument is that we don’t have a second opposite to good, evil, and that evil is being forced into the situation.
It shouldn’t really be included in morality.
You can play with language all you like, but it is true that evil is con-good, and that’s where it is opposed, rather than legitimately being an opposite of good, like bad.
Morality is interrupted by evil, whereas bad is a consequence of trying to be moral and failing.
Evil: is immoral purposely(interrupting good-doers ideally).
Bad: a mistake or under-performance.
Should we really include evil in moral-theory? Doesn’t it undermine the whole premise?
You’re trying to increase performance by implementing moral theory; yet MoK has an idea- we throw people at our population who are trying to reduce their performance.
(It’s truthfully much worse than this- we’re talking abominations and social-mutations, etc)
I am so sorry for the misunderstanding. I should have written, “that is the meaning of wanting a relationship” instead of “that is the meaning of a relationship”. By the first statement, I mean that if you want a relationship, then you have to respect relational rights.
Surely legal rights and relational rights are different. Relational rights are those types of rights that should be respected as long as you want to stay in a relationship.
No, the non-consensual relation is not allowed since it violates personal rights. Personal rights should be respected always, and given this, one can argue that consent is important. We didn’t have the opportunity to discuss the importance of personal rights until now. Their importance is discussed in the OP, though.
No, that is an argument for if you want a relationship, then you need to be nice.
No, as I said, coercion and exploitation are not allowed because they violate personal rights.
That is a description of what the goal of morality is.
The “Is” must be the set of descriptive statements, not prescriptive ones. Reducing unnecessary suffering is right is a prescriptive statement. You need to start from descriptive statements and arrive at a prescriptive statement. Saying that reducing unnecessary suffering is the goal of morality is like assuming something that you want to prove, so it is not a good starting point if you want to move from is to ought.
Universality is very important when it comes to morality. As I mentioned, goal-oriented morality is not a good approach since what is right for someone could be wrong for another person.
Youre getting mixed up, the is/ought point I made is about is/ought and the actual way it functions regardless of morality. It is a point about the nature of is/ought. You asked for elaboration so I offered an example based off of my question to you “what is morality” in order to clarify the logic of my is/ought claims.
So, “ought” requires a goal. Not stating a goal means no ought can be provided.
Ergo when you ask what one “ought” to do morally, the next necessary question is “what is the goal of morality”. Once that question is answered the is/ought problem is revealed to be a big fat non problem.
Addressed above, its not “goal oriented morality”. Im describing goals as it relates to is/ought. The context of morality doesnt change how is/ought works. Ought requires a goal.
We have two types of goods, as I explained. And you didn’t offer an argument against what I said. What I said is, in fact, definitions of goods, evil, and bad. I gave examples for different cases as well.
We have evil people, given my definition of evil. We cannot just ignore their existence. Therefore, morality should include them as well.
Why is reducing suffering a moral goal? You need to provide an argument for it. Saying that that is true because people don’t like suffering is a prescriptive statement.
Reducing suffering is just an example of a goal for morality, I didn’t say it was true because people do not like suffering. You had asked me to elaborate so offered an example of what I am talking about.I offered other examples of goals for morality (Balancing justice or human flourishing) to further illustrate my point about the is\ought non-problem. I am not making any claims about the goal of morality, I’m not attached to any particular claim about it hence I asked you to tell me what you think the goal of morality is. We disagree about whether or not you actually answered that question.
…is a description of morality with “the goal of” put at the beginning. If that is all you have, then we can agree to disagree on that point. Thanks for the discussion.
Is ought becomes a problem in the counter factual sense. Like one is a liar, and ought be honest. The world is such a way, but ought to be this other way. There is little in the way of logical entailment. However, words are not neutral. “Liar” does carry with it the connotation that it is bad, and detestable. Honesty upright, and laudable, and social pressure will abound. If the lying is more defensible, one may wish to frame it more softly, as subterfuge, or such. Or qualify it as mainly inconsequential, like a white-lie. The kind of thing we would say it is implies whether it is more or less bad or good to do.
I am sorry to say that I am lost. I read all your posts, and I could not find a post where you explain how we can reach from is to ought. Do you mind explaining it again, or giving a reference to the post?
I don’t think it is like that. The is-ought problem simply states that you cannot derive a prescriptive statement like you should be kind to your partner from the descriptive statement, such as if you want a relationship.
“If you want a relationship”, or the form “if you want x, you ought do y” is what they call a hypothetical imperative. Not what I was saying. I was suggesting that identities include behavioral logical entailments. One cannot be said to be an honest person if they say untrue things on purpose all the time, and never strive to say true things ever. It isn’t if you want to be honest you have to say true things to the best of your ability. It is that being honest logically entails that you do that. “If you want to be” means you aren’t already, meaning it is a counter factual in the way I described.