Fair enough, so far as it goes.

My point might be seen as that the word "subjective" makes the situation more problematic rather than clearing anything up. There is, after all, a truth abut the elephant, that it's tail is like a rope, it's ear like a fan, and so on. It's not that there is no truth as to the description of the elephant; and that truth is not subjective.

My point might be seen as that the word "subjective" makes the situation more problematic rather than clearing anything up. — Banno

The word "subjective" makes the situation more complex but it also makes the situation more realistic. The reality is that people do disagree. I agree that the situation being more complex can make the situation more problematic. But a situation should not be oversimplified.

Mine seems a more useable approach. I have grounds for a reprimand, perhaps even a sanction, while you only have grounds for expressing your disapproval. — Banno

Your approach is certainly more usable. It has been used historically and in recent times to justify starting wars, burning people at the stake, threatening people with eternal damnation, separating children from their parents, persecuting people for having different beliefs, etc.

My approach would hopefully result in more tolerance. But I agree with you that my approach may result in people not taking united action because they disagree (e.g. climate-change/global-warming).

One situation that I find interesting is the question of whether we should eat beef. In the west most people feel that it is okay to eat beef. But most people in India are probably horrified that we eat an animal that is sacred to them, and which they think should be protected and venerated. Who is right and who is wrong?

Some concepts of good and bad may be subjective; most concepts of good and bad may be cultural, but the most basic test of good and bad is whether something causes harm, suffering and destruction or benefit, wellness and improvement — Vera Mont

I like Gergen’s social constructionist take on good and bad. Focusing on the origin of good and bad as specifically moral concepts justifying praise or blame, he connects these affective determinations to the ability of one group to understand another intelligibility within the scope of their traditions. The suffering other can only be acknowledged if they can first be identified and made sense of as a suffering other. What matters to us, what we care about, whose suffering we empathize with, is dependent in the first place on what is intelligible to us from our vantage as nodes within a larger relational matrix.

“…centripetal forces within groups will always operate toward stabilization, the establishment of valued meaning, and thus the exclusion of alterior realities. Groups whose actions are coordinated around given constructions of reality risk their traditions by exposing them to the ravages of the outliers. That is, from their perspective, efforts must be made to protect the boundaries of understanding, to prevent the signifiers from escaping into the free-standing environment where meaning is decried or dissipated. In this sense, unfair or exclusionary practices are not frequently so from the standpoint of the actors. Rather, they may seem altogether fair, just and essential to sustain valued ideals against the infidels at the gates.”

We commonly suppose that suffering is caused by people whose conscience is flawed or who pursue their aims without regard for the consequences to others. From a relational standpoint, we may entertain the opposite hypothesis: in important respects we suffer from a plenitude of good. How so? If relationships-linguistic coordination--are the source of meaning, then they are the source as well of our presumptions about good and evil. Rudimentary understandings of right versus wrong are essential to sustaining patterns of coordination. Deviations from accepted patterns constitute a threat. When we have developed harmonious ways of relating-of speaking and acting--we place a value on this way of life. Whatever encroaches upon, undermines, or destroys this way of life becomes an evil. It is not surprising, then, that the term ethics is derived from the Greek ethos, the customs of the people; or that the term morality draws on the Latin root mos or mores, thus affiliating morality with custom. Is and ought walk hand in hand.”

What matters to us, what we care about, whose suffering we empathize with, is dependent in the first place on what is intelligible to us from our vantage as nodes within a larger relational matrix. — Joshs

How about the matrix of all life? I can as well understand the suffering of a fly in a spider's web or the distress of a swallow whose nest is threatened as the fear of an unknown human prisoner in a Turkish prison. Sop, in fact, can humans generally - or there would be no art or literature, and certainly no animated motion pictures featuring mice in trousers. As living entities, having descended through all of evolution from the first plankton, we are capable of experiencing the feelings and of all sensate creatures. This is evident in the mythology of pre-civilized peoples the world over: they did consider themselves kin to all species. Even though they accepted the fact of predation and that they themselves were predators, they did not objectify their prey or their human enemies.

A feral cat probably doesn't know the distress of a mouse: he is simply playing with his food, whether it's dead or alive. Pets, however, under the auspices of a caring human, show a far greater range of sensitivity to the feelings of other species in the same household: witness the solicitude of dogs toward their feline companions. Whether we care, whether we express sympathy, whether we consider the suffering of another being good or bad, depends partly on our innate proclivities and partly on how we have been taught to regard the world.

I can as well understand the suffering of a fly in a spider's web or the distress of a swallow whose nest is threatened as the fear of an unknown human prisoner in a Turkish prison. Sop, in fact, can humans generally - or there would be no art or literature, and certainly no animated motion pictures featuring mice in trousers. As living entities, having descended through all of evolution from the first plankton, we are capable of experiencing the feelings and of all sensate creatures. This is evident in the mythology of pre-civilized peoples the world over: they did consider themselves kin to all species. — Vera Mont

The capability of experiencing others’ feelings is no
more straightforward than experiencing their thinking, since it relies on culturally embedded interpretation. If one examines carefully, in a genealogical manner , the epistemic basis of cultural treatment of other animals throughout human history, one finds much variation. For instance, in the modern era , the notion that other species have feelings , emotions and cognitions was not accepted widely until recently. The brutal treatment of animals on farms , by pet owners and in laboratories attests to the fact that we didn’t really believe our anthropomorphizing cartoons. Mickey the emoting mouse was no more real than the talking moon and sun behind him.

Do fish feel pain? Many today would say yes, unlike a century ago. But what about insects? Do they have feelings? Or plants? Our schemes of intelligibility are constantly changing. Future cultures may have very different views about such matters.

In human affairs, disagreement generally takes place not over whether the other can be seen as suffering , but what the significance of that suffering is. When Southern slave owners claimed their slaves were happy, was this merely a rationalization to protect their way of life, or the manifestation of a tradition of intelligibility common in the West that viewed certain cultures as simple-minded and incapable of the deeper human feeling that their own cultures supposedly possessed?

When certain gendered categories are labeled pathological or immoral, is this a failure to see the other’s suffering, or a failure to interpret the significance of the suffering as constituting an injustice?

The capability of experiencing others’ feelings is no
more straightforward than experiencing their thinking, since it relies on culturally embedded interpretation. — Joshs

Not in my experience. From body language and facial expression, I can only guess what someone may be thinking (dogs are easier to read than people), but I have no doubt what they're feeling. Our sensations are very much more similar than our thoughts, simply because the human brain is built up of evolutionary layers: the more primitive the brain function, the more life-forms have that function in common. Sensations of heat, cold, pain and hunger are on the most primitive level. The mirror neurons in the cerebrum of more developed brains don't require an interpreter: when we see an expression or gesture, we can feel that expression or gesture or posture - and often imitate it unconsciously. I know how the other feels, not because anyone told me, but because that's how I would feel in their place.

For instance, in the modern era , the notion that other species have feelings , emotions and cognitions was not accepted widely until recently. — Joshs

Denied, you mean. No soul = no feeling; it's okay to treat them like objects created for our use. Yes, objectification of other species and other people has certainly been widespread in human civilizations. It's an entirely self-serving and artificial position: even while vivisection was generally accepted, people had relationships with their pets and working animals, much as we do now. Nor would a bullfight or dog-fight be any fun to watch if the combatants were automata - it is precisely the awareness of the pain, rage and fear that makes these sadistic entertainments pleasurable to some humans. It is the absolute certainty of fear and pain that makes torture a tactic of choice for achieving certain ends.
It's not unawareness that makes us behave cruelly, it's cruelty. That is the cultural component: whether the cruel, domineering impulses are fostered in children or the kind, empathic ones.

But what about insects? Do they have feelings? Or plants? Our schemes of intelligibility are constantly changing. — Joshs

Ever disturb a wasp nest? Wanna try it?
Insects have quite rudimentary brains, but they do have pain receptors and basic emotions.

Charles Darwin once wrote in his book The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals that insects “express anger, terror, jealousy and love.” That was in 1872. Now, nearly 150 years later, researchers have discovered more evidence that Darwin might have been onto something. Bumblebees seem to have a “positive emotionlike state,” according to a study published this week in Science. In other words, they may experience something akin to happiness. To some, the idea is still controversial, however. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/i-ll-bee-there-for-you-do-insects-feel-emotions/

Plants don't have individual brains, but they are linked by a sensory network

Mycelium are incredibly tiny “threads” of the greater fungal organism that wrap around or bore into tree roots. Taken together, myecelium composes what’s called a “mycorrhizal network,” which connects individual plants together to transfer water, nitrogen, carbon and other minerals. German forester Peter Wohlleben dubbed this network the “woodwide web,” as it is through the mycelium that trees “communicate.”https://www.nationalforests.org/blog/underground-mycorrhizal-network

So, that question is still pending.

When Southern slave owners claimed their slaves were happy, was this merely a rationalization to protect their way of life, — Joshs

Of course. They had no problem mating with these 'savages' , or, as in Jefferson's case, keeping a mistress with false promises (a common enough ploy among people of the same 'high' cultural standard). And if they actually believed the cover-story, why would they expect the standard intimidation tactics to keep the slaves compliant? Why would they make it illegal to teach a slave to read? According to that logic, they should have assumed the Africans were incapable of being educated - just as women were banned from university. (See how ignorant they are? How could they be allowed to vote and drive cars?) Why, after abolition, did they feel it necessary to enact miscegenation and segregation laws?
Hypocrisy is also a very human trait that can be fostered or discouraged in early childhood.

When certain gendered categories are labeled pathological or immoral, is this a failure to see the other’s suffering, or a failure to interpret the significance of the suffering as constituting an injustice? — Joshs

It's a rejection, suppression or outright persecution of any minority (their suffering doesn't signify) that threatens a carefully built and maintained structure of power. Part of what holds up the power-structure is an imposed belief-system, such as organized religion, tradition and nationalism.

. Yes, objectification of other species and other people has certainly been widespread in human civilizations. It's an entirely self-serving and artificial position: even while vivisection was generally accepted, people had relationships with their pets and working animals, much as we do now. Nor would a bullfight or dog-fight be any fun to watch if the combatants were automata - it is precisely the awareness of the pain, rage and fear that makes these sadistic entertainments pleasurable to some humans. — Vera Mont

Hypocrisy is also a very human trait that can be fostered or discouraged in early childhood — Vera Mont

It's a rejection, suppression or outright persecution of any minority (their suffering doesn't signify) that threatens a carefully built and maintained structure of power. — Vera Mont

From a social constructionist perspective, you and I are coming from different traditions of intelligibility. The tradition of thought that you participate in is a form of realism in which real biological and social phenomena can be distinguished from , and act as constraints on, discursively constructed meanings. This allows you to believe
that you “have no doubt what they're feeling”, “The mirror neurons in the cerebrum of more developed brains don't require an interpreter”. If the real, non-discursively constructed basis of understanding feeling allows everyone across cultures access to the ‘ true facts’ of feeling and suffering, then according to this tradition of intelligibility the failure of some to care for and empathize with others the way your tradition assumes they should is a function of bad intentions and motives ( hypocrisy , manipulation, power, sadism, self-serving).

By contrast, according to the tradition of radical social constructionism, what you assume as universal, objective or common knowledge belongs to a multiplicity of competing traditions. So it is not a question of bad intent , but a different system of intelligible within which the other believes themselves to be as justified from a moral perspective as you feel.

So it is not a question of bad intent , but a different system of intelligible within which the other believes themselves to be as justified from a moral perspective as you feel. — Joshs

Sure, if that makes you feel good about exploitation and harm....

She has been doing this from infancy, in spite of all attempts by her caregivers and teachers to modify the behaviour? — Vera Mont

From the sound of it, she developed this not as a child, but as a teen.

There's a basic flaw in the assumptions of this thread; actions are what are good or bad, not people, and not genes. — Banno

So, we can eliminate people and let actions happen? lol.

Her ‘dark side’, her ‘evil’ and manipulations are how her behaviors appear to us when we fail to see the world through her eyes , and instead try to force our perspective on her. — Joshs

You can say all the right things, but suffice it to say that her employer and colleagues had always been supportive of her. That did not stop her from taking advantage of them. Like I said, I haven't talked about the really serious issues. But I will no longer talk about it. I just used it as an example that you could stumble upon people who are just truly evil even if no one has harmed them.

Here's a good specimen of humans that might be of interest in relation to the OP:
Search for Robert Tulloch and James Parker murder of two professors.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/the-apocalypse-of-adolescence/302449/

By contrast, according to the tradition of radical social constructionism, what you assume as universal, objective or common knowledge belongs to a multiplicity of competing traditions. So it is not a question of bad intent , but a different system of intelligible within which the other believes themselves to be as justified from a moral perspective as you feel. — Joshs

I think this formulation works for me reasonably well. Over the years, in jail and outside, I have met a lot of people conveniently called 'bad'. This to me seems a metaphysical or theological statement. What I generally see is people behaving in a way which makes sense to them, given experiences and the way the world seems to work to them.

I think this formulation works for me reasonably well. Over the years, in jail and outside, I have met a lot of people conveniently called 'bad'. — Tom Storm

conveniently
Not out of ignorance that they feel and think like other people. Not from a cultural assumption that people only do illegal things if they are bad people. Not because they were given all the same advantages, opportunities and choices as 'good' people, but because they're assigned to a convenient social role.
We know - but it just doesn't suit our current purpose.

The terms ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ are relative. Some could argue that they do not exist so your question is irrelevant.

In a broader sense of the terms used it is clear to me that we are all capable of ‘good and evil’. Some are inevitably more likely to fall into one more than the other because life is like that - due luck/circumstance/experience/opportunity or whatever you wish to frame it as.

Nature vs Nurture is a simplistic means of categorising two different perspectives of human life. They really just the same thing but useful as abstractions to investigate our existence further and open new avenues of investigation. Much like someone claiming to be conservative or liberal, no one is truly a pure form of one or the other because they are organs within the same body of thought.

Good and evil are landmarks on a vast landscape that allows us to navigate better. That is all.

:up:

As @I like sushi just outlined the terms used lack a proper definition. I strive not to judge any human for what they’ve done or how they behave because I’m convinced that everyone tries to make the best out of their situation within their capabilities.

Their capabilities depend on both, nature and nurture: You’re born with a set of features that is then forged by experience. I like the image of a high dimensional vector space where every dimension represents different feature and you start with a certain vector. This vector is altered by experience but some dimensions are more likely to change than others. Thus, we’re wandering through this space as life advances. If you’re lucky you manage to stay in an area that is compatible with the culture in which you live, if not, well…

Since this space is so vast I’m sure there’s a way for any initial vector to be shaped to a “social compatible” one, even if it’s prone to lead to psychopathy or else. Of cause this way is easier for some than for others and might be close to impossible when the environment is already destructive.

I dislike using the terms “good” and “bad” or “evil” as they are judgemental and I don’t dare to judge most things. I’ve been looking for alternative terms for a while now and consider “constructive” and “destructive” in a global sense. By thinking of it, would these terms meet the requirements for a definition of “good” and “evil”?

Some children are bad as soon as they learn how to express badness in a human context. Likewise with some good children. When consciousness loves something beyond the self it becomes light. Inward consciousness, that loves itself only, becomes darkness. Evil is synonymous with ego. Goodness is synonymous with love of something beyond the self.

Be careful not to confuse 'nurtured' with merely learning to express what is already inherent.