Evil/MoralRelativism

I'm no philosopher, but I do think about stuff. One thing that I have pondered is that the majority of the parent document starts off with the postulate that there are such things as Good and Evil. As this is very much in contradiction with my personal worldview, I'd like to stick my oar in.

Imagine a universe with no God, which came to exist as a result of natural causes. Imagine that, in this universe, a world forms from congealing dust clouds. Imagine that, on this world, molecules come to group in quite complex patterns. Imagine that the behaviour of one of these molecular patterns is to make more like itself...

Apply evolution and fast-forward a bit. Now there are whole organisms wandering around, and a major feature of them is that they try to remain in a state capable of walking around. One way they do this is to gang up on the world. What would these creatures consider to be good and bad? Start from the simplest possible case.

My belief is that one creature, the only one of its kind (say all the others died out the moment it was born and yet it somehow survived), would have no grasp of good and bad in other organisms, or as compared to some ideal behaviour pattern. It would only consider whether events were good or bad for it. For example, an unexpected crop of fruit would be good; a volcano would be bad. It is interesting to note that there is already a bifurication between behaviour that leads to good things and the good things themselves.

Two creatures are very different from one creature. Now there is a fine balance of power messing up the situation - one creature will end up dominant, and the other creature will have to do as it wishes to an extent, or suffer the consequences (a useful model of human interactions). However, we find that we can still define "good" and "bad" in terms of the interests of the creatures - there is no way another definition can arise. We could take the intersection of the two primitive moralities, but there is no third party to judge on the remainder of opinions held. In any case, the definitions will presumably not differ much and will be limited to "fruit good; volcano bad; other creature strong so disobedience bad".

(Note: this definition is dependent on some sort of communication method existing. We can assume this to exist.)

So how can Good and Evil arise from such primitive relationships? There is one thing these creatures lack: a context.

Scale the model up a bit. Now we have a whole swarm of creatures, each given birth to by a parent organism or two. These parents can be assumed to have a natural drive to look after their young, courtesy of evolution. We can also assume that creatures do not come into the world equipped with everything they need to know - they have to learn practically all of it (not sure how this interlocks with the statement about looking after young being instinctive - any thoughts?). One major feature of this parent-child relationship is that, when a child does something that pleases the parent, they will tend to be rewarded. Likewise, behaviour that displeases the parent results in punishment.

Everything has to be learned. The organisms are hard-wired such that certain things will trigger pleasure and others pain, and natural selection has optimised things in such a way that a number of the triggers happen to be good for child rearing, for instance, but the organisms still need to learn which ones, and they're all wired slightly differently anyway. That help? - MoonShadow

: That makes sense - CorkScrew

This provides a mechanism for assuring the 'good' behaviour of the offspring above and beyond what is in its immediate interest. The effect can be predicted to be a kind of vague fear associated with any action that they unconsciously feel will get their bottom smacked (we are of course making certain assumptions about the psyche of the creatures in question). We can label this tendency to behave in a socially acceptable way "conscience". A creature with conscience is self-limiting - the act of avoiding immediate, or even long-term, gain because it goes against what the creature's conscience tells it can be seen as a means of fitting in with a community - avoiding repercussions arising from behaving in such a way that other members of the group consider it dangerous. Viewed this way, the ability to be part of a community is a result of the rest of the community trusting the creature to be "moral" - consistent and beneficial to the community - in its actions.

The view of moral relativists is that the above model is an effective one for the human population.

Please tear into this - I haven't expressed it fully before so it will undoubtedly have logical gaps. - CorkScrew

: Well, we could probably do with an officialish definition here. Otherwise seems about right. --Vitenka

: It's not something that you can really find in a dictionary. http://www.moral-relativism.com gives it as:
: Moral Relativism is the theory that morality, or standards of right and wrong, are culturally based and therefore become a matter of individual choice. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it."
: I'm not sure half of what I'm saying is really moral relativism, but it does provide a viable context for it. - CorkScrew

Just to point out - the postulate on the parent page is just that - a postulate. It is meaningless ot talk of Good and Evil unless you first assume that they exist. Whilst moral relativism is reasonable (why should my definition of evil be better than yours?) and probably true - it's also pretty much useless for any kind of actual judgement. Also, it is inherently Evil, since it denies inherent evilness to evil things :) --Vitenka

: I wouldn't say it is completely useless. The above model gives you a framework using which you can try to understand peoples' and animals' behaviour. You can also use it to construct a moral system if you add other assumptions. It also suggests a few things like it makes sense to help those who helped you in the past or may help you in the future and that it makes sense not to trust those who betrayed you in the past. Not exactly groundbreaking stuff admittedly. The whole thing about the need to get along and that cooperation being better than continuous conflict (for the individual) allows you to make simple "moral" statements.--King DJ

ThingsThatMatter
See Also: Evil/MoralRelativism, Evil, Good, Altruism, TheProblemOfEvil, CreationScience