>Yes, the good/bad binary is about control, and this is a good thing. Theology is about control. Ideology is about control.

I disagree, assuming good and bad to be words that originated to communicate involuntary experience. One should not expect to be able to plunder, violate, or rape without incurring upon a victim some involuntary experience that we cannot fault the victim for describing as an evil. Control, on the other hand, might be useful in mitigating said consequences or for other means.

>Laws, politics, government are all about control.

If it is only about control, then what good purpose does it serve?

That the concepts good and evil exist for the purpose of control can be a confusion of purpose. If we want to assume that these concepts emerged in societies for practical reasons, it's doubtful that primitive peoples jumped to an abstract idea for the purpose of establishing a control structure. What is this new concept that the boss calls "evil" and why should we believe him? More likely it originated for a different purpose and was appropriated for other motives.

Both problems can simultaneously exist. Yes when it comes to societal problems, it would be too chaotic to entertain nuance, a binary system is practical and achieves more order than the alternative.

However, that way of thinking does not necessarily need to extend to the way we think on an individual level. "Good" and "bad" should and is helpful to constantly requestion and reevaluate.

Agreed 100%. I will add it should be kept in mind that one can use that as a defense for morally objectionable actions. As others have mentioned Nietzsche said very much the same about the complexity of morality and dangers of viewing it in a lense of simple good and bad, and the Nazi party, playing with the context, used those words to justify their actions to a lot of people.

Not at all saying that means the alternative is better, and binary morality has led to likely more horrors in the past done it the name of an objective "good", just more a reminder of how most ideas can be twisted to justify horrible actions and how it's important to stay vigilant on the topic of understanding morality in every case. Yes, probably something that doesn't need to be said for most of you and certainly not something that hasn't been said before, but someone might need to hear it. The idea of morality being a gray scale can and has been used to justify horrible actions like most ideas can, and when someone makes sweeping statements about the nature of morality as if they have an objective and clear understanding of it, one way or the other, it's usually a good idea to take a close look at what they're doing. Solid chance of fuckery about

Not being able to reach a truth is better than reaching a false truth

And if everything is subjective, then there's no truth, then why bother searching for answers?

Pretty sure that the argument is that by defining singular actions as one or the other we reduce our chance to learn from them.

Not saying that there are things without an obvious dichotomy, but rather the space between each is huge.

Stealing is bad.

But when you steal from a corporation that increases their prices bc of theft, who are you directly hurting.

Point is to increase discourse over issues in order find truth buried in right and wrong.

This is exactly it. Instead of asking whether good/evil binaries are objectively valid categories, we should consider their use in pragmatic terms. Structure and order are part and parcel of being a human amongst humans. I think parenting has given me quite a bit of insight into the correctness of your point of view.

"Whether the dichotomy of good and evil does more harm than good."

The debate is using the stones to destroy the stones, it seems.

Always relevant. Some good people being called evil lately, everyone turns into a chihuahua barking because others are.

There's this little work called "beyond good and evil" by friedrich nietzsche, that seems to touch on this topic a bit. Might be worth checking out sometime

There can be no compromise on moral principles. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. When you deny that morality is binary, when you deny the good as a standalone achievable thing, only evil will benefit from this.

[removed]

Your post was removed for violating the following rule:

>All posts must develop and defend a substantive philosophical thesis.

>Posts must not only have a philosophical subject matter, but must also present this subject matter in a developed manner. At a minimum, this includes: stating the problem being addressed; stating the thesis; stating how the thesis contributes to the problem; outlining some alternative answers to the same problem; saying something about why the stated thesis is preferable to the alternatives; anticipating some objections to the stated thesis and giving responses to them. These are just the minimum requirements. Posts about well-trod issues (e.g. free will) require more development.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Well stated. Also good and bad/evil are used a metrics for value. How do you ascribe morals without defining the value of them?

And a lesson most misunderstood, for falling to temptation and desire wasn't the original sin. It was thinking they knew better, with pride.

Unless that baby is Hitler of course. /s

I agree. The binary morality rubric is detrimental to the basic humane condition and is only supported by the flawed civilization concept and the traditional way of life. A constant embracement and development of the system might lead to supererogation and the forbidden being the defining aspects which might cause a utopian and dystopian view of the human condition.

Nietzsche is calling; from a century ago.

Meh, it's a mix of a matter of perspective+individual situations+certain absolute goods/evils.

Punching a sinless newborn baby will always be morally, unequivocally wrong and that's a fact.

Brass tacks: Yes, the good/bad binary is about control, and this is a good thing. Theology is about control. Ideology is about control. Laws, politics, government are all about control. All the words that we say to each other are arguments that seek to control the way that the other views the world, behaves, and acts. And as Nietzsche remarked about 140 years ago, "God is dead", western countries no longer operate on the basis of Good vs Evil in this implicit Christian sense that we all understand it to mean. To speak though as if this is the case, that 21st century Anglophone countries operate on a Good vs Evil basis, is absurd.

Practical and pragmatic rules of society are sacralized into totalistic Good and Evil binary because simply having a good argument as to why someone should or should not do something isn't enough to compel some people. Try using persuasive rhetoric on the criminal as he is mugging you. Perhaps he will or won't be convinced by you alone. Maybe the criminal wouldn't even be deterred by the prospect of eternal damnation, which is what sacralization of the law (morality) seeks to imbue within its adherents (or subjects). But if that is the case then perhaps the criminal wouldn't have been moved by anything at all. There are many possibilities to consider.

It is true, good men don't need laws to be good, and bad men will break laws regardless. Adding a moralizing aspect to these pragmatic, positive reciprocal feedback loops is the attempt to really hammer home, on top of the text of law and all of the punishments found therein, that you shouldn't do x y or z.

And again, there is this refrain of demonstrating that there exists nuances, or other modes of morality, in order to demonstrate the limitedness/incorrectness of the Western Good/Evil binary. What if we stop calling these heinous acts of rape and murder evil? Does that stop those things from occurring in the world? No, they persist. Focusing on changing the words describing these heinous actions, instead of seeking limit these actions, is just cope. Often times we get more upset at each other for the words we use to describe criminals and transgressors than at the criminals and transgressors themselves.

"Good/Evil binary has been used to perverse ends" and so has every other belief system of historical importance. All things are vectors through which violence enters this world, the one constant being man himself. I am not moved by this line of rhetoric, and neither should you be.

These observations would seem to be in agreement with the Genesis story in the Old Testament, wherein Adam and Eve were expelled from paradise for presuming to attempt to take the knowledge of good and evil to themselves, that knowledge being reserved to God, and beyond humanity's ability to comprehend...one of the first lessons from the Bible, and one much ignored.

No. There are possible dichotomies. Not just all of them are good. It is like a capitalist putting out a false dichotomy and then his lackeys concluding "philosophically" that the whole articulation/categorisation is wrong, making a way to nonmoral/naturalistic capitalism and laissez faire.

You don't need to throw off the baby and keep the bathwater.

This whole community is 100% anti-philosophical propaganda.

Inb4 AI made article about the propaganda used in Reddit communities within 24 hours.

[deleted]

This debate focuses on whether the dichotomy of good and evil in Western morality does more harm than good. Tommy Curry argues that the terms good and evil have been
used as a form of control throughout history by the dominant ethno group to
impose norms and structures on other groups. This has significance in the
modern world where what we think constitutes good and evil influences economics
and use military force.  Massimo
Pigliucci adds that the categories of good and evil are unhelpful because they
create a sharp distinction where there is actually a lot of nuance. They are
also pernicious because they encourage us to think of ourselves as good and
write off our opposition as evil, prompting us to act in a way that is uncharitable
and uncaring. Joanna Kavenna notes that the language of good and evil has
practical origins rather than some absolute transcendent source. She concurs
that reference to good and evil is increasingly used as a means of control
through an evocation of this absolute moral realm that cannot be challenged.
This is a corrupt use of the good and evil terminology is a trap that must be
avoided.  

This is idealism.

Start with the realities of life, and then derive principles from it, and then those principles may guide the couse, but they are not nor ever have been the starting point of social being. And, as a result, these built principles are not eternal truths, but ultimately, contingent to the society which produced us, our biological evolution, our state of development. Superstructure atop the base.

If you want a reason to do well, nothing external can provide that. It's an axiomatic assumption to do right by people. That gets the job done much faster. We take axiomatic assumptions to do math. We take axiomatic assumptions to do science. We use them because they get the job done, nothing more, nothing less.

If someone wants to act to harm people, they may be reminded they live in a sea of people, and that this person is dependent upon those people, and they can either respect that, and be respected by us all as our social whole, or they don't, and society owes them no kindness. Our interdependence is a far stronger basis for moral arguments. By starting with the isolated "free" individual, the brain in the cloud, you start with someone who does not exist and who we do not meet. Whatever this imaginary person is compelled to accept will hardly be influential upon the real people.

But otherwise it was a good essay!