01-15-2019, 10:29 AM
I agree that there are no absolute standards for right and wrong. However...
A majority of people could decide that seeing homosexual couples in public makes them feel bad and decide to prohibit it. Now you could say that whether we allow people to act in accordance with their sexual orientation or not is an arbitrary decision that has nothing to do with good or evil, but I would argue that prohibiting this is in fact morally unacceptable, as it causes pointless suffering while not serving the public good in any meaningful way. I don't think you can justify abuses of human rights on the grounds that there's no universal standard that applies in every situation.
True, but this does not mean that evil does not exist, just that what constitues evil varies depending on the circumstances. There are an enormous variety of different harms that can befall a person, whether that constitutes injury, humiliation, financial loss or death, and there's no reason why we should allow people to inflict these harms on each other without good cause. I don't accept that any person can decide that it's fine for them to hurt whoever they want, just because there isn't an absolute standard of evil that you can point to like it's one of the laws of physics.
Quote:If a large percentage or the majority of the people in a society agree that particular actions make them feel positive, then they will probably characterize those actions as good and structure their laws accordingly - if they agree that the actions make them feel negative, they will probably characterize those actions as 'bad' and structure their laws accordingly.
A majority of people could decide that seeing homosexual couples in public makes them feel bad and decide to prohibit it. Now you could say that whether we allow people to act in accordance with their sexual orientation or not is an arbitrary decision that has nothing to do with good or evil, but I would argue that prohibiting this is in fact morally unacceptable, as it causes pointless suffering while not serving the public good in any meaningful way. I don't think you can justify abuses of human rights on the grounds that there's no universal standard that applies in every situation.
Quote:None of this tells us anything substantive about the nature of the actions themselves or whether or not they have/will have a positive or negative impact on the society in any objective sense. And none of it matters in the slightest to the universe in any objective sense.
True, but this does not mean that evil does not exist, just that what constitues evil varies depending on the circumstances. There are an enormous variety of different harms that can befall a person, whether that constitutes injury, humiliation, financial loss or death, and there's no reason why we should allow people to inflict these harms on each other without good cause. I don't accept that any person can decide that it's fine for them to hurt whoever they want, just because there isn't an absolute standard of evil that you can point to like it's one of the laws of physics.