Good and evil

So masochism is evil?

no one commits in knowingly

yes?
your body, similar to your life, are not merely your own to do with as you please

This is an opinion.

Evil is selfishness

bro, the idea that evil EXISTS is technically an opinion
what do you want from me?

What is love?

Attached: 1521239005953.jpg (210x209, 14K)

Negative utilitarianism

Good
Hitler

Evil
Jews

>your body, similar to your life, are not merely your own to do with as you please
Prove this categorically. If you base this proof on God on would have you answer the Kantian objection to whatever proof you employ.

fair enough
as biological entities implicit in our existence is the necesity of preserving life and doing as little necesary harm to life as such
masochism is definitionally doing harm, the only reason one could say it ISN'T evil is because the victim is also the willing perpetrator
this is only relevant in terms of justice/punishment which is not what I am concerned with, ultimately, in identifying evil

keep in mind, just because I classify it as "evil" doesn't mean it is something I feel a serious impetus to stop in all its forms, just that I wouldn't advise it, as it is evil

Whatever the collective you reside in decides is harmful.

Eating your dead relations is a sign of respect in some cultures, not so much in others.

Good and evil are both relative.

this

>as biological entities implicit in our existence is the necesity of preserving life and doing as little necesary harm to life
This assumes that life is a good for living things, simply because they fall under this certain heading, or so it seems. This is something else you have to prove.

no, good is posteriori justification of life
the need to continue existence is a-priori to something being a lifeform (hence the word life form)
good is just the word we use for things that are pro-life, and you may advocate for anti-life if you want, but you don't live that way, because otherwise youd be plotting global demise, which I assume you aren't

>the need to continue existence is a-priori to something being a lifeform (hence the word life form)
Not the case. The only thing that can be determined a priori of a life form is that it is alive, not that it must, or even must attempt, to continue living. If a duty to live could be determined a priori of a specific living thing, this would conflict with the duty to preserve the species at the expense of its own life, while in the converse case, the individual is put in opposition to the species, and must destroy the well being of its species in order to save its own, specific life. Can you resolve this antinomy?

the individual favors the species
the idea that one would annhihlate the entire human race to presrve its own life is a hypthetical and could not actually happen just because someone can't prove it wouldn't
sorry if that doesn't adhere to your philosophy, but I see no reasonable justification for why it isn't the actual truth

It's not a question of absolutely eradicating the entire race, that's rather drastic, but more a question of doing something as an individual that isn't to the benefit of the collective, which happens all the time. For instance, if it better pleases me to spend my time in isolation writing philosophical tracts, I provide no benefit to the species and will not "continue life" in the form of children, but in spite of this I live my life and benefit it in the way I like.

but then you've benefitted life
in your actions you recognize some aspect of our existence that ought to be perpetuated or appreciated, and maybe procreation isnt for you, but as an intellectually complex being you understand life in more than just the physical and therefore have found a different way. this would bea different story if you were trying to spread lies or in some way use your interests to harm the forward progresion (however you see that progression) of our species
I'm also not going so far as to say willingly witholding potential benefits from the collective is a form of anti-life and therefore evil
to commit evil one must have the capacity to do so: you have to have trust to break it, someone must be present to be hurt, and so on
to betray reason (logos) is a willful and (obviously) unreasonable action, to do so with the awareness of harm is evil as far as i can see it

>this would bea different story if you were trying to spread lies or in some way use your interests to harm the forward progresion (however you see that progression) of our species
Ok, what if I "spread lies" that materially benefited me but harmed the species?

you'd be evil

Yes? That's a pretty bad sin.

It's a pretty bad sign of the times that people want to be so prideful.

Angra Mainyu

Ok, so the propagation of the species, or at least its freedom from harm, is the main thing. You still have yet to prove why it is wrong for the individual to do this ostensible harm. Just because we're living things? Sponges are living things, so are cattle, and wolves, yet we harm and almost eradicate some of these for our own benefit.

fpbp

Attached: AyyQuinas.jpg (1200x1200, 180K)

they aren't our species
it is implicit in the existence of a lifeform that it perpetuate its life and by necesity those of the same species
good and evil are just words we acribe to things that either benefit or betray life, I don't have much more for you then that

>it is implicit in the existence of a lifeform that it perpetuate its life and by necesity those of the same species
No, this is not implicit, no matter how much you say it. It does not follow from the fact that something is alive that it must benefit its species. "Life" as a concept contains no notion of the species of life possessing it.

you keep saying that but i see no evidence for it
the circumstances of your birth and death are out of your control and (at least in birth) is also dependent on the operations of others
I keep saying its impicit because its true, and again, if you think it isn't point me to the person we consider good who actively goes against the continued existence of humanity
ultimately, if what you want is some higher validation of my morals, youre looking for religion, sorry but thats basically the conundrum the rest of us are facing

For humanity, good and evil is based on morality. The true question is how we born knowing simple morals, and how it came about, whether it be divinity or evolution

The evidence is in the assertion you are making, in that it is logically invalid. If I saying, "I am alive, therefore I must benefit my species," is akin to saying "I am a carpenter, therefore I must benefit cabinet makers." Just because cabinet making falls under the heading of carpentry, this does not mean that all carpenters must work for the good of cabinet makers. I could just as well say that because I am alive, I must benefit my genus, my phylum, my class, my order, my family (in the biological sense), or my kingdom (animalia).

cabinet making is a craft
existence is inevitable, you either exist (and benefit humanity, or actively try not to) or you don't
I'm taking your eery action as a statement to the fact that you approve of life, otherwise youd be trying to kill yourself

>cabinet making is a craft
This undercuts your argument more strongly than the generous example I gave. You may as well say "I am a craftsman, therefore I must benefit carpenters." And if you're trying to say something along the lines of "every craftsman must benefit his craft," this is perforce tautology by the definition of a craftsman. Life will "benefit" life as long as it is living by the very fact of being alive. But this, again, says nothing about the species.
>I'm taking your eery action as a statement to the fact that you approve of life, otherwise youd be trying to kill yourself
But what if the act of us conversing here on Veeky Forums shows that the two of us don't approve of living life, but rather approve of consuming art (however fatuous) to the end of effacing the knowledge of ourselves that life confronts us with?

youve inferred more than I've said
I've given a definition for evil and you're upset because I don't have a comprehensive definition of a human
I'm telling you I know that a human is a life form with a consciousness and it attributes the categories of good and evil to things that either benefit or hurt it, I can't say it any more clearly

Also you could make a good argument gen that we are evil, again, you've overinterpreted my initial answer, im telling you that evil is a category of willful action, some thingns apply some don't, you can figure it out

>I'm telling you I know that a human is a life form with a consciousness and it attributes the categories of good and evil to things that either benefit or hurt it, I can't say it any more clearly
I wish you would try, because as far as I can tell this contradicts your assertion that what is good for the species is the good. The species itself does not have consciousness.

The species does have a consciousness

It only contradicts it because youve inferred too much

"The species" in the sense of each individual member, but not "the species" in the signification of the category.

Exactly where have I inferred too much? In which sense do you mean "the species"?

The species as a category is capable of conscious action, why isn't it conscious? You've inferred a definition of human

A category, as a concept which designates a thing, is not capable of action, conscious or otherwise. Again, if you mean the things to which the category applies (humans), they are certainly so capable. But a category is a mere name used to group certain like things, not an actual conscious thing which can choose to act or not act.

Evil is error.

Inversion of life

>XD