Within every human being lies a capability for good and evil. This is something which seemingly cannot be argued... right?
That's pretty obvious.
Considering that "good" and "evil" are merely value judgement of certain actions.
And on top of that, it's also context related. What is "good" in situation A, might be very evil in situation B.
But why are certain actions defined as good or evil? Is what I find good similar to what you find good? Is how I define good perhaps what you define as evil?
I'ld say we can consider different "levels" of morality here. Level 1 being something that every culture/society would agree on, Level X being things that are very cultural related and even beyond that level, another level where things are actually rather personal.
Level 1 morals would cover things that we see in every human civilisation / society. From the small tribes in the jungle to the big empires stretching accross the globe.
These are things like unjustified killing (murder), stealing, etc.
And sure, in the higher levels, we most certainly will find things that are considered moral (or neutral) while in other cultures those same things are considered immoral.
In one culture, it is considered for example polite/respectfull to NOT look your boss/authority in the eye while talking to him/her, while in another culture the opposite is true.
In one culture, it is considered polite to shake hands, while in another culture that is considered a vile habbit.
These are small things, but they illustrate well how certain practices can be perceived in complete opposites as we go from culture to culture.
In general, I think we need to take a step back from our cultural background and preconceived notions and need to dare question the status quo.
My "moral theory" comes very close to what Sam Harris describes in his book The Moral Landscape.
In a nutshell, he asks to imagine 2 hypothetical worlds:
- world 1: a world with the best possible well-being for
all sentient beings
- world 2: a world with the worst possible suffering for
all sentient beings
World 1 is the most possible "good", while world 2 is the worst possible "bad".
Now, whenever one needs to make a value judgement about an action or decision, one can simply analyse if such behaviour gets us closer to world 1 or closer to world 2.
If 1, then it is moral.
If 2, then it is immoral.
And off course, there are gradations in there. And it's not as simple as it is written here. There's also the issue of moral dilemma's etc.
But basically, in a nutshell, that's how I view morality in general.
For most religious people who worship a benevolent god, it is a bit simpler as they have an 'ultimate good' to compare everything to. Anything of their god, and to the benefit of mankind as a whole, could be seen as good. While the polar opposite is evil.
This is what is commonly refered to as "Divine Command Theory". And, honestly, it is a completely morally bankrupt system. It is not a moral system. It is not a system of ethics. It is not a moral compass. What it is, essentially, is nothing but
obedience to a perceived authority.
"Befehl ist befehl" is what that boils down to.
It is the "morality" of psychopaths.
Whenever this comes up, I feel compelled to refer to the social experiment in a class of 6-year olds. It goes like this...
Kids aren't allowed to drink in class. It's a general rule. However, on a very hot day, the teacher tells the children that it is okay to drink in class, cause it's so hot outside.
The children are asked if it is fine to drink in class in that situation (with the teacher giving permission). Children answer that with a clear and convinced "yes".
Next, they move on to another rule of the school: no fighting.
The children are asked if it is fine to punch one of their classmates on the nose,
if the teacher gives permission to do so.
Children immediatly realise that no, it's not okay - not even if the teacher allows it. However,
some kids don't see it that way.
Some kids will say that if the teacher says that it's okay - then it is okay.
These are the children with psychopathic tendencies. These are children that aren't able to work out moral judgements through their own reasoning. These are children that have to rely on a
perceived authority to tell them what they can and cannot do. If the authority says that raping is wrong, then raping is wrong. But if the authority says that raping is okay, then raping is okay.
And that is
exactly what "divine command theory" is. The perceived authority, in that case, is the god of the religion in question.
What if your god and my god are that polar opposite of eachother?
Jihad, or something similar, I guess.
However, how would you define good and evil in an atheistic world?
See above.
In the primal carnage of animalistic society, is it evil to kill a fellow creature?
Is it evil to eat them?
Is it good to give up your family's food for another?
Humans are social creatures. We depend on cooperative societies to prosper.
That's exactly why we developed "rules of conduct" and "social contracts" and whatnot.
Our personal "succes" in life, is directly dependend on the "succes" of the group/society we belong to. A society where stealing isn't wrong, isn't going to prosper like a society where it is. In fact, without such "rules of conduct", society as a whole would simply not survive.
What is it that makes us cringe at a bloody murder, and smile at the happiness of another?
Our instinctive social nature. Empathy.
What is it that causes us to indulge in satisfaction of the death of a criminal, while feeling angry when they are released?
Tribe mentality. We care about "the group". A criminal is a danger to "the group".
Why are these feelings two-fold when the victim is someone we hold dear?
Because it hurst extra at the personal level, obviously.
In the case of a planet given life by the sun, where did darkness come from?
I disagree that this is a proper analogy. Light and dark are not the same kind of thing as good and evil.
Light is physical thing caused by photons. Darkness is what you have by default if the photons aren't there.
Good and evil... those aren't physical things. Those are value judgements. Labels invented by and applied by humans.
For what reason do those who hold seperate beliefs in a deity, and those that believe in none, come to a distinct crossroads of defining the ethics and morality of the human race?
Because our social nature is older then our religions.