Banality of Evil / Lucifer Effect

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
526
Lucifer Effect
Does it by any chance cover the fact that "good" and "evil" are completely subjective or does it subscribe to something which dictates X as "evil and Y as "good"?

Asking for a friend :p
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,917
Does it by any chance cover the fact that "good" and "evil" are completely subjective or does it subscribe to something which dictates X as "evil and Y as "good"?

Asking for a friend :p
Good and evil are not subjective. They are objective and discoverable, not invented. This can be known by discovering the nature or substantial form of the thing being examined. For example, it is part of the substantial form of a dog to have four legs and two working eyes. Anything else is less-than-good, ie it is missing something that should be there if it were healthy and normal. The classical definition of evil is "the privation (absence) of a due good". So, a dog with a blind eye or a lame/missing leg is suffering an evil. The exact same reasoning applies to humans. And human action, because they involve intentionality, can also have the absence of a due good, and so have the added dimension of agency for good or evil. This is knowable by reason alone, without appealing to any "beyond". This insight is almost universal. It is also developed to a fine degree by the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Moderns with their miseducation and ignorance are the first people in history to not get this.
 

ekske1

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2017
Messages
5,073
Good and evil are not subjective. They are objective and discoverable, not invented. This can be known by discovering the nature or substantial form of the thing being examined. For example, it is part of the substantial form of a dog to have four legs and two working eyes. Anything else is less-than-good, ie it is missing something that should be there if it were healthy and normal. The classical definition of evil is "the privation (absence) of a due good". So, a dog with a blind eye or a lame/missing leg is suffering an evil. The exact same reasoning applies to humans. And human action, because they involve intentionality, can also have the absence of a due good, and so have the added dimension of agency for good or evil. This is knowable by reason alone, without appealing to any "beyond". This insight is almost universal. It is also developed to a fine degree by the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Moderns with their miseducation and ignorance are the first people in history to not get this.
While this is quite true; I think he meant something like that it is subjective with a limited approach:

Not everyone, if not most of all people are simply unable to experience an event in its true and base form without adding to it their interpretation and attachments. Then they think it was for example a bad thing or even what I think is good for you might actually quite bad.

On this level it might seem subjective as you lack either the ability to discover or simply don't have [or can't] have the information.

(Seems to be bordering on what is just as to what is good. However we all know the life of a philosopher is the best mode for any human. haha)
 

Prawnapple

Senior Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Messages
526
Good and evil are not subjective. They are objective and discoverable, not invented. This can be known by discovering the nature or substantial form of the thing being examined. For example, it is part of the substantial form of a dog to have four legs and two working eyes. Anything else is less-than-good, ie it is missing something that should be there if it were healthy and normal. The classical definition of evil is "the privation (absence) of a due good". So, a dog with a blind eye or a lame/missing leg is suffering an evil. The exact same reasoning applies to humans. And human action, because they involve intentionality, can also have the absence of a due good, and so have the added dimension of agency for good or evil. This is knowable by reason alone, without appealing to any "beyond". This insight is almost universal. It is also developed to a fine degree by the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Moderns with their miseducation and ignorance are the first people in history to not get this.
Well we'd have to define good and evil within a specific context. If you're talking about "good" and "evil" with regard to morality, example, what is morality correct and incorrect to do, think, feel, say, then there is no "good" and "evil" as we know that morality is completely subjective.

It sounds like what you're doing is taking something, for example a dog and saying, "because of what we know about dogs and how they are most efficient, a dog without a leg is not as sufficient or efficient as a dog with a leg and as such this dog is suffering an evil. I guess you could say that, if you wanted. I would just say the dog is "without a leg", "inefficient" or "unable to perform dog tasks adequately". Personally I prefer to shy away from using words like good and evil, heaven and hell, god and satan etc. What's chaos for the fly is heaven for the spider.

This feels similar to somebody saying, "God is love" - which is confusing in and of itself. God is God and Love is Love. We already have words to describe love and god etc, we don't need poisoning of the well when it comes to words and their meanings. Just my 2 cents.
 
Top