Conflicting class interests can also lead to rational agents in incompatible formations- their disagreement over the proper course of class society is not confusion, but clarity.

Thank you!

However, if you don't do the work of meta-ethics, normative ethics tends to get sloppy. Terms go undefined and people adopt different normative standards. It's uncommon but necessary to start with first principles before getting into normative and applied ethics. Meta-ethics may be too philosophical and abstract for some, but the current confusion over ethics can be explained by the skipping of this first step.

The other user said no truth at all is better than a false truth. Sounds like you're saying something else. That you'd rather believe partially in something that may be wrong, and change your mind later. That's different than believing in no truth, which I see as offering the subject no thought at all. I guess we just interpreted the other users comment differently.

Any danger that needs to be explained and isn't immediately recognizable isn't a real danger.

People claiming things are dangerous that aren't immediately recognizable as dangerous are only after power and destruction of whatever they claim is dangerous.

Sounds like a nihilist trying to drag down everyone to their level of hopelessness and subjectivity.

I'm not sure how that's related to my comment, I was just making a joke about using the language "more harm than good" when arguing that "good and bad" are misused.

I mean, it made sense and was arguably reasonable for Thanos to use the stones to destroy the stones.

So, it's bad?

Then maybe I misunderstood. I also think the necessity of law is related to the necessity of moral language. I just don't consider it a control structure in a pejorative sense in and of itself, until someone uses to exert control over a society for some purpose other than its original purpose, like repurposing a defense mechanism as a weapon. While I somewhat understand Nietzsche's revulsion to the situation he found himself in and his drive to look backward, ancient greece for me is not comparable to a point of origination for humanity, and in my opinion his master/slave morality dichotomy doesn't go back far enough.

That's just not true at all. Let's say there are two theories for a truth, A and B. I don't necessarily have to commit to believing theory A or theory B, but I can lean more towards believing and being more convinced by either of them. If I happen to believe theory A more, who's not to say that developments in theory B could cause me to shift towards theory B later down the road?

But what happens to the close-minded is that they're either more sold on theory A or B, and henceforth stick to it and cease to keep up with the other theory. Because they've already written it off as "wrong" or "bad" in this case.

Thinking that you have to commit to beliefs is just intellectual laziness. It's more comfortable to assume that you have all the right and correct takes and therefore there is no need to challenge yourself anymore.

Does anyone happen to have any sources (academic or popular media) that they would recommend on the philosophy surrounding the abstract concept of "health" or "being healthy"? I have read The Republic (justice) and Symposium (love) and love these efforts (esp as a Socratic dialogue form) to investigate these abstract concepts, and the more I reflect I feel "health" is a similar thing: Something we all are familiar with/"know what it is" but is actually hard to truly pin down.

I would love to read things interrogating this if anyone has recommendations.

Good v bad/evil is a very simple dichotomy. Things that advance society, or advance an individual without harming society as a whole are "good". Things that harm society as a whole or harm individuals or advance individuals at the cost of society are generally deemed to be "evil".

as a species, and for very good reasons that have to do with not wanting to die, we have learned that certain things are good for the overall health of the group, and certain things are not good for the overall health of the group. Good things for the health of the group are, going to work, helping someone get through a troublesome time, looking out for your neighbor, and, in general, being a decent human being. Things that we have determined to be not good for the health of society are along the lines of committing unprovoked violence against another member of the group, not contributing to the upkeep of the group by working or performing a trade or craft or task necessary for the group to be successful, acting in bad faith to miss guide other members of the group for personal power, doing things that harm the children of the group, Taking things that one has not created or worked for themselves without the permission of the person who did create it or work for it, etc.

The debate comes into play when we start talking in terms of "absolutes". There are exceptions to almost every rule, and special circumstances. For example, it is generally considered "bad" or "evil" for an individual to commit an act of theft. However, is it still "bad" if the act of theft is committed against "evil" situation person? Or if they act was committed in order to feed a starving family, i.e., not an active laziness, but one of self preservation? and, what if the family was starving, not because of the societal oversight or societal evil, but because they failed to do the things that they needed to do to secure their provisions in the standard way?

"Morally relative" situations like this or what spur the debate of absolute morality. Is good always good, is bad always bad, is there any overlap, when is good bad, and when is bad good?

Further spurring this debate is the fact that, as a species, we come from a variety of different locales and circumstances,mand therefore have a variety of different needs and challenges. meeting those needs and overcoming those challenges have their own criteria, which motivates societal opinions on what is considered "good" versus what is considered "bad". This leads to superstitions and traditions of their own kind, but more than that, it ensures that there can be no real global consensus on the absolute make up of good versus evil, As what is good for one group may be detrimental to the overall health and stability of another group.

persons who argue that morality is subjective, undefinable, or inconsequential in of itself, or individuals who lack an understanding of the society in which they live. By simply examining one's capabilities, the goals of the society in which they live, and, to an extent, one's personal desires, A general moral litmus can be created by which ones actions can be measured. To advocate that morality is inconsequential is the same as advocating for the end of society itself, as a society without order and without a common vision and a common means of accomplishment and standard of behavior is a society which cannot stand. History has proven this time and time again, and no amount of philosophical quandary can change this.

In the long run, perhaps a shift towards "advantageous to the survival of the largest percentage of the population" is a shift that's been happening, well, forever. Some ideals that were popular and widely accepted as "good" decades ago are no longer seen as advantageous, so slowly, over time, they've fallen out of fashion. Just look at slavery. It used to be widely popular. Now, it's a fringe behavior, because a large portion of the population finds it barbaric. There's another fringe that believes that owning a pet, regardless of how well cared for the pet, is abusive. That's, pretty much, our current spectrum of beliefs. And that's how evolution works.

But what is good and bad is relative and never concrete.

> 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.

This meme is self-referential, misinformative, and (imho) self-contradicting.

There's no requirements for one's beliefs to be true. And while it is often beneficial, it is not always.

how can you determine if the binary of good and evil does more good or evil?

Subjectivity is perceptual, truth (actual, as opposed to perceived/declared) is not.

When you say that something is a good, it is because the good is what is sought when achieving an end. All voluntary actions are taken to achieve something that is considered to be a good on some level by oneself, thus it is impossible to seek evil in and of itself unless one is insane and views evil itself as a good. It is possible to seek goods that are lesser, detrimental to others, or based on an inaccurate understanding of reality--this is corruption.

My point is that people do not seek to do evil ever, they only seek to do things that are good only for themselves and no one else, or they are deluded as to the reality of a situation. Even people who perversely seek to do acts of pure malice view the pleasure obtained from the malicious act to be a good that is sought by themselves. What we call evil is the choosing of a lesser good over a greater one, so there is a hierarchy of goods, with the best action being at the top and the worst action being the least good. Evil is like an asymptote that can't ever be reached. Pure Evil is like the speed of light: it can be sought, but never obtained, and this is because one simply seeks evil as a good, leaving the tiniest spark of goodness in one's motivations.

There is always some good sought for someone or something in some action, so one should speak about what is the best course of action to achieve worthy goals, acknowledging the hierarchical nature of goods and their complex relationships to people and things rather than fitting them into a binary category. Binaries do not exist in nature, they are a product of simplified human analysis of a situation. What does exist in reality is a complex set of interacting things, and goodness is what one seeks when one performs literally any action--even if it is an inferior good that is accompanied by great destructiveness to others or the world.

Yes, when I say control I mean, "control as a means to an ends", as in control as a means to end malevolent acts. I agree with your point about taking many things into consideration. My original post was more about agreeing and amplifying the lamentations of the panel.

I don't personally take the Nietzsche route on this subject.

Humanity and human experience are ancient -- it stands to reason that it's more ancient than language. We can infer that ancient humans experienced malevolent acts by malevolent actors, and what set of words would they have at their disposal to speak of these experiences? It isn't necessarily "bad" or "evil," obviously, language evolves and there is diversity to take into consideration, but finding some other basis besides human experience to pin this to is a challenge. It's doubtful that the necessity of a control structure was the origin.

Any rationale instead of matter of fact statements? Because you clearly didn’t even hear their points.

I wouldn't say so. If people took that stance on enough topics, they wouldn't really believe in any ideas.

Peak philosophy, the dichotomy between moral dichotomies and moral not-dichotomies

The concept of moral principals presupposes a binary morality (principle vs no principles). If you deny binary morality (principles) there needs to be no compromise.

We can take the Nietzsche route and say that Good vs Evil binary took the place of Good vs Bad binary: Good once meant strong, healthy, having vitality and bad meant weak, impotent while Good now means meek, humble, self-sacrificing and Evil (bad) means selfish, greedy, and condemning the strong for acting upon their strength (among other things ofc).

But most, such as those on the panel, would reject the Good/Bad along with the Good/Evil binary as well because the Good/Bad binary exalts strength and power as virtues and it is quite clear what 21s century western academics think about power structures.

Yet this is just all descontruction with no corresponding construction. Even if there were conscrutction of some kind of moral frame that exists outside previous models the rejoinder will always be, as you said yourself, "why should we believe him?" And around the carousel we go.

I'm cool with calling actions good or evil. It's calling people good or evil that I have a problem with. And even when it comes to actions, I think it's not always clear whether it's good or evil.

But before we talk about good or evil, we have to define it. I'm always entertained when somebody says "good and evil are objective" and then say a bunch of obviously unintuitive and controversial things are right or wrong.