This seems to imply there is some optimal psychology, or at least a vector in which psychology “ought” to point; in other words, it has a dependency on a notion of “goodness”. If there is goodness, then there is at least the possibility of evil.
-
-
Replying to @0x49fa98
Yes, I am willing to define evil as "coordination problems with broadly negative outcomes" or else as something one can apply to an egregore. What I specifically reject is the notion that "some people are just evil" and maybe certain theological notions.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism
I will grant that most people mean to do good, but two people may have irreconcilable notions of goodness, or disagree about priorities, or may simply be wrong. Some errors are unrecoverable, and some people are irredeemable You don’t need a metaphysical notion of evil, per se
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @0x49fa98
I totally agree. The questions this raises are interesting: * how can an authority arbitrate between two differing notions of goodness? * what is the border b/w "I disagree with your ethics" and "you are evil"? * what does it mean to "recover from an error" sans metaphysics?
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @simpolism @0x49fa98
To elaborate, I see most claims of "X is evil" as saying something like "I think X is bad", but then attributing that judgment to God. I'm not against one holding a notion of badness or evil, but I think people should own their moral judgments.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @simpolism
Every moral claim has an implicit parameter: the agent for whom the claim is true. Using god as that param makes morality “absolute” If no ultimate authority, then no objective evil, but moral relativism is clearly a mistake. Being correct > being consistent
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @0x49fa98
A question this raises is: who has the authority to claim that they have access to universal morality? Does everyone have immediate access, or are moral facts somehow inaccessible, and, while we can stumble upon them here and there, we cannot be certain when we've found one?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism @0x49fa98
My other claim was calling the agent evil vs. calling the action evil, which still permits most notions of universal morality.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @simpolism
I don’t really care if “actions” or “agents” are evil. I don’t find it useful to distinguish between “what a person is” and “what a person does”. If you do evil things, then you are evil; how much evil have you done? That’s how evil you are. But this is quibbling over words
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @0x49fa98
No, I actually think this is an important line of inquiry!! Because this points to divergent notions of "self"! Let me ask this: consider a person who has done evil but undergoes a recovery program where they repent and come out transformed. Could this reverse their "evilness"?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
God only knows. Nevertheless a judge has to make a choice... Is this where lawful/neutral/chaotic comes in?
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.