Character Theory 'Good' characters, 'Evil' characters: what do labels mean to you?

[Noon]

Since the majority today believes murder to be evil, it is morally abhorrent, and you would be free to doubt such a thing as it being legal would exist.
But on the same note, abortion used to be considered abhorrently evil. Nowadays, the majority, or at least the loud minority, believes it's at least tolerable, and so it's considered morally acceptable. So it does happen.

Yeah. And this can be applied to everything. Culture is a big part of what's generally deemed 'good' or 'bad' - that is, if you agree with law.

What happens when humans make contact with an alien race? For all we know, any intelligent race similar enough to our own could be active cannibals, murderers, rapists or similar - and to them, that would be fine. We might even be disgusting to them for using anti-septic wipes to sterilise our eating spaces, because that counts as harming living creatures.

 

[missbrightside]

My compliments to the original poster as well as everyone else that has contributed here. Fantastic reading material. Hopefully I'll be able to add something here.

Firstly, I think that moral terms like "good" and "evil" are useful to us because they, like someone else has already said, are a simple way to define a complex human experience. They remind me a lot of colors, which don't really exist outside the context of human perception. Yet we need a word for "red" anyway, because it is a universal experience that humans share. Or at least as universal as possible. There are some people that don't experience things like right and wrong, but we would define them as (not meaning to sound too harsh) a deficient person, someone who is lacking in some way and maybe not "complete" and the same goes for someone who doesn't observe color. We even have terms to describe both: psychopath and color-blind, respectively.

I think that moral terms and colors both become less useful as you consider whether they are - in actuality - universal. As one considers all the different aspects of a person that can contribute to them experiencing good and evil differently, the utility of that term is decreased in the process. It's similar to an experience where you and a friend both look at the same object, but one of you labels it "forest green" and the other "army green." Before, the phrase "forest green" was a great communication tool for you because you believed that you were able to convey a precise meaning using it, but after that you realize that the term is very subjective and possibly not communicating what you want it to at all.

I'll admit that I have a hard time seeing the case for moral absolutes. To me, it all just flies out the window as soon as you consider the multitude of human perspectives and the varying circumstances those humans can find themselves perceiving.

 

[Count Gensokyo]

I'll admit that I have a hard time seeing the case for moral absolutes. To me, it all just flies out the window as soon as you consider the multitude of human perspectives and the varying circumstances those humans can find themselves perceiving.

Like mentioned before, deontological morality simply falls apart when not grounded in anything objective, much like you're saying. This is why a moral code grounded in objectivity is needed. Otherwise, every man can only do what is right in his own eyes.

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

Here's something that ought to boggle the mind a wee bit. Why is it in this world we have "necessary evil" but no necessary good?What conforms to societal norms versus what is so subjective these days there's some mental and psychological default that most people in general perceive from. I find it a little naivety on most people to think the world is mostly gray. While mostly true they often forget that the extremes on the black or white spectrum of morality can also influence those in the gray area. Which side of the spectrum has the most influence can define how high or low the moral standards are and this fluctuates between cultures and something I like to call "normality creep." There are two wolves, one is black and one is white. Depending on the one you feed will be the strongest and how we feed is according to what level of conduct or lack there of is tolerated by the socially accepted norms.

These things really do not have what can be considered a constant unless you bring religion into it and that is a whole separate kettle of fish.

 

[Hall Kervean]

I find it a little naivety on most people to think the world is mostly gray. While mostly true they often forget that the extremes on the black or white spectrum of morality can also influence those in the gray area. Which side of the spectrum has the most influence can define how high or low the moral standards are and this fluctuates between cultures and something I like to call "normality creep." There are two wolves, one is black and one is white. Depending on the one you feed will be the strongest and how we feed is according to what level of conduct or lack there of is tolerated by the socially accepted norms.

Unless we're feeding then child, the grey wolf.
Um.
Moving on from that, since everyone's viewpoint is relative, what is black and white obvious morality to you may be white and black obvious morality to me.
Because of that, the world looks on and believes that since it's not white or black, it had to be grey.

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

Gray wolves are the food for either black or white wolf. Figuratively speaking.

The world is gray alright. A very dark gray with little light gray splotched here and there. I know this sounds very pessimistic but like said before, everyone's morality is different. Mine has a very fine line between white and black. The black wolf is the strongest when people have moral ambiguities and when "good" people do nothing in the face of evil. It's like mixing paint, when you pour more black in a mixture it gets darker and that translates into there are more gray wolves feeding the black wolf than the white wolf either intentionally or inadvertently.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Mhm.
But again, since it's relative, everyone's wolf to wolf ratio is different.
So objectively, when most people's white or black align on an issue, it's the majority opinion.

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

Mhm.
But again, since it's relative, everyone's wolf to wolf ratio is different.
So objectively, when most people's white or black align on an issue, it's the majority opinion.

More or less.

 

[Hall Kervean]

And when they're about equal in ratio, people tend to call it a ____ area in morality.