(01-15-2019, 07:44 PM)extherian Wrote: I suspect this is another one of those cases where we don't disagree as much as we think we do and are actually talking past each other.
Could be - although I haven't really been clear on just what my position on these things is (beyond that good, evil, morality, rights, etc.) beyond that they are just made up concepts used to influence people's behavior - rather like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
Let me clarify:
In my view, enlightened self-interest and cost-benefit analysis are sufficient to achieve any and all of the supposed effects of the concepts most people call 'good' and 'evil'. To use the case of seeing same-sex couples in public:
As a gay man, it is in my self-interest for homosexuality and same-sex couples to be accepted in society. Since efforts to privilege any particular group over others in terms of what behaviors they can and can't engage in tend to generate feelings of 'unfairness' and discontent (that can translate into social unrest that can end up causing me more problems than I feel like dealing with) it is also in my self-interest to support the idea that other people should also not be persecuted or bothered for their behaviors or relationships as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Taken to it's logical limit this can be summed up as 'Do what thou wilt - as long as you don't hurt anybody'. There are some nitpicks around what constitutes 'harm' and some specific situations but in general I find this a useful foundation to start from.
Speaking more broadly still, organizations and societies that are supportive of diversity and freedom of expression/action seem to generally be more peaceful, have a higher standard of living, and are generally more interesting (to me) than those that don't do these things. A side effect of such diversity being encouraged can also be a wider range of new ideas and potential solutions to problems that can improve my existence either proactively (new and better ways to do things) or after the fact (reducing or eliminating pre-existing problems).
Cost-benefit analysis comes into picture in that I deem that the benefits I receive from living in an inclusive and diverse society outweigh whatever 'costs' (negative experiences, inconveniences, etc.) that arise out of such as society. Examples of such potential costs include not being able to understand people who don't speak my language or having to extend my own principles to people I don't like or would prefer not to exist (racists, bigots, etc.).
At the end of the day, my two issues with the position it seems to me that you are taking are:
a) You are making assertions rather than arguments. You assert that something is good or evil, right or wrong, without actually attempting to prove your thesis. As such, anyone who wants to counter you can simply make a countervailing assertion without any supporting arguments, at which point the debate simply devolves to stating assertions at each other.
b) I think my approach gets me to an outcome at least as good as your approach and with less unnecessary emotion and less chance of someone being able to produce countervailing effects (Which I would consider negative) simply by asserting loudly enough.
(01-15-2019, 07:44 PM)extherian Wrote: It's the fact that suffering is possible at all, and that we can choose to contribute towards the suffering of others. Denying the existience of evil as a concept seems to me that you're either not acknowledging that you can harm others, or not acknowledging that this is in any way undesirable.
I'm quite aware that I can harm others. There was a time when I could cripple, maim, or kill others if I so chose (but that training is quite rusty now).
As to whether hurting others is undesirable - as a general guideline I would say that it is in most social situations, up to and including large societies. But the concept of evil is irrelevant to the consideration. It's really much more a matter of enlightened self-interest and cost-benefit analysis. See above.
(01-15-2019, 07:44 PM)extherian Wrote: Replace the word 'negative' with 'evil' and you basically have the sense in which I am using the word. It goes beyond consequences, though. If a forum member began bullying and harrassing another member who wasn't very popular, you could argue that the consequences are minor enough that it doesn't really matter, since no one likes them. But most people would feel that such behaviour is wrong in and of itself.
Actually I wouldn't argue that for various reasons:
a) Part of the reason I enjoy OA so much is the high level of polite and mutually respectful conversation we have here. If someone starts bullying a member than that is going to reduce my enjoyment of the OA experience.
b) Part of the reason I enjoy OA is the great diversity of ideas that get presented here, which I believe to be at least in part due to how friendly we are - we try to make people comfortable being here. If we were to allow bullying and such, then some members would leave and other potential members would stay away and the overall quality and productivity of the OA project would drop - in turn reducing my enjoyment of the project.
c) As a member of 'the management' I am committed to upholding the policies and goals of the OA project and in the estimation of 'the management' OA works better as a friendly place for people to discuss and share ideas and build the OA setting as a group. We have seen the result of an online community that encourages (or at least allows) trolling and abuse of individual members and allows things to devolve into never ending flamewars and we both don't like it and don't see it as being conducive to the ongoing development of the OA project. As such we manage the forums accordingly. Allowing someone to be bullied here would go against all of that and therefore I wouldn't do it regardless of what I might personally think of the individual in question.
Again, no need to invoke issues of good, evil, right, wrong, or morality. My perception of my self-interest and cost-benefit analysis are sufficient.
Hope this better explains my position,
Todd
