Why do you say the number of truth statements is limited? — matt

In my opinion truth can be either qualitative (color, shape, emotion, beauty, etc.) or quantitative. Under both types there are categories (red, round, happy, sad, ugly, 1, 100, etc.).

Of each category there can be only one truth. Take your example of Trump. Under the category ''president'' only Trump makes for truth at present. Under the category ''race'' only white makes for truth, so on and so forth.

However, under each category described above, a larger number of falsehoods exist. For instance in the category ''present president'', Jane, John, etc. are all false.

I agree that our desires, which we are not necessarily in control of, can influence our actions, and even our decision making. That said, while these can remove our ability to act, they cannot remove our intentions to act. E.g. If I had an addiction so strong that I cannot control myself and I don't have the ability get rid of it, I can still have the intention to get rid of it.

As you said, "Willing deals with motivating factors of which we are not in full control of and at times wish we could be free of". This 'wishing' is tied in with our intentions. I.e, we would not be wishing to be free of these factors if we did not intend to be free of these factors. Thus these factors cannot influence our intentions.

You replied to my answer by saying that my answer was the repetition of the same thing.

That may be true.

On the other hand, the same thing is true of your example.

Your example, which was "2+2=696845" and an infinite number of other wrong answers, is a repetition of the same falsehood.

If you say that your falsehood is different each time, I reply that my counter example is different each time.

In QUALITATIVE form, my example is the same as yours. You provided an infinite number of false answers, and I provided an infinite number of good answers.

In essence, a decision must be made which is more powerfully indicative.

You say your example is more powerfully indicative.

I say our oppostionary examples are equally indicative.

How can we differentiate lies/truths?

1. Obama is the current president
2. Bush is the current president

1 and 2 are both lies but they're about different people. So, they're different lies.

Similarly,

3. Everest is the tallest mountain
4. Pacific is the largest ocean

3 and 4 are both truths but they're different because they're about different things.

Your example:

5. Person A claims Trump is the current president.
6. Person B claims Trump is the current president.

5 and 6 are NOT different truths because they both claim the same thing about the same person. Who claims is irrelevant to truth. Truth is based on how the world is and not on who claims it.

So, it's more likely that someone will tell you a lie than the truth. Evil wins. Good loses. — TheMadFool

As you very aptly pointed out, this statement is is evil if you superimpose a morality on it, namely, "lying is bad".

However, morality is a "moving target". It is not a fixed entity and not fixed quality. Some may argue, that morality is completely arbitrary.

I shan't argue that. I will accept that lying is bad.

But I shall expand this acceptance of standards by saying that what is bad for one party, may not be bad for another party. Lying is a superimposed morality, that is, it is dictated by society, by authority. Lying is not an innately moral evil. If lying was an innate moral command, nobody would lie. We lie, because the mechanism of the lying process assumes that advantage is gained, and the lie shall go undiscovered.

We all lie. Why do we lie? Many reasons for it, and I shan't go into that. My point is that all interpersonal evil, morally judged or not, is evil for one party, and good for the other. Be it senseless Sadism that makes one lie, or a conniving attempt for undue advantage, or stupidity, all lies favour one party, and work toward the detriment of the other party.

I reject therefore the notion that all lies are always evil for all concerned. First of all, I reject that lying (not telling the truth on purpose) is immoral. It is immoral in some interpersonal sense of judgement, but in and by itself lying is not immoral, and many examples are extant to prove that exceptions to "all lies are evil" exist. Second of all, if a lie is evil, then it is necessarily good for some other party, at the same time. Lies can't be all bad (evl) for all parties at any given time.

This can be shown to be similarly true for the value couplets of (love, hate), (truth, lies), (kindness, meanness), (selfless, selfish), etc.

Therefore good will not be defeated by evil via acting immorally.

Now, you may talk about fair play, ethical expectations, and telling the truth. But to be fair, you must admit that telling the truth hurts the teller once in a while. You say telling lies hurts someone (the teller or the hearer of the lie). One is ethical, the other, is un-. So if they both hurt someone, and favour someone else, then I don't see how you can declare that lying causes more hurt than telling the truth.

Moral relativism doesn't save the situation. In fact, it supports my case. If morality is relative, then it implies there will be confusion - a particular act, x, will be good in one culture and bad in another. So, not only do the possibilities of bad multiply, it also stymies all attempts to come to a consensus on what is good and what is bad; thereby perpetuating evil.

Moral relativism doesn't save the situation. In fact, it supports my case. If morality is relative, then it implies there will be confusion - a particular act, x, will be good in one culture and bad in another. So, not only do the possibilities of bad multiply, it also stymies all attempts to come to a consensus on what is good and what is bad; thereby perpetuating evil. — TheMadFool

The Mad Fool, You forgot to allow for the flipsidedness of evil. If it is good for one, it is bad for the other; if it is bad for one, it is good for the other; it can be good for both. You did not address this reasoning.

Instead, you declared that reversing good and evil increases bad (evil) across the board. That is not a solid argument, as good reverses to bad, and bad reverses to good; and you originally declared that there is more bad than good. If you are right, then reversing good to bad and vice versa (in relativistic morality, as you called it) increases the good. I don't see a line of reasoning in your argument in this last quote that refutes that.

I think the mad fool made the "given" that lying is bad, or evil, and saying the truth is good.

That is a condition, to which we must stick if we are to follow through with the arguments.

I think that there are potentially more lies than true statements, but they are not all uttered. For instance, there are about seven quatrillion names for the POTUS, but only one is right. But nobody says that the POTUS is Hank Smithy or Jane Rubinstein, or Ivan Gorcsev. No, everyone says "Prez Trump".

So there are more utterances of the truth than utterances of lies, while admitting that there are potentially more lies that could be generated than true statements.

But these lies are hardly ever generated, so good prevails.

My position is simple.

1. There are more ways of being evil than good. The surest proof of the above statement, in agreement to your theory that something can be both good and bad, is the old adage ''you can't make everyone happy''.

2. Current moral theory is imperfect. God-based morality, Consequentialism, Deontic theory, are all flawed.

Given 1 and 2 are true, it is necessary that suffering will multiply and happiness will diminish. It's like a ship, with food in short supply and only a broken compass to aid you in the voyage. The ship and the people on it are doomed.

Dear Mad Fool, given in your newer, revised wording, your 1. is true. But it is not the same as your proposition. Your proposition says that there are more lies than true statements. That is not the same as to say there are more ways to lie. Szardosszemagad has shot down your "More lies than true statements", so you had to revise your wording.

I don't even have to accept your new wording, but I do. It does not change the situation: There are fewer lies than truths uttered. Period. The amount of ways to lie, as per Szardosszemagad's reasoning, is staggering; but nobody utters them.

So you minced some words, but it does not change the position you are in.

Your alleged proof, "You can't make everyone happy" may or may not be true; but it is certainly not untrue that you can make many people happy, and leave only a very few unhappy. In fact, in Western societies, the living conditions that people only could enjoy as kings and princes, are now suprassed in quality even by paupers.

2. is also true, when viewed from your point of view. Moralilty is not flawed; moral theory is. You mixed the two terms or concepts up. The theory to explain morality is in shambles. But basic, innate, human morality is as straight as it was from time immemorial.

However, there is a moral theory that seems to have gotten the truth; it's based on evolutionary theory. Morality has been shaped by evolutionary forces, to aid survival of the individual and of the group. Once you can accept that, moral theory is clear as the azure sky in the deepest summer.

However, I accept that you can't accept my explanation of moral theory via evolutionary theory. I blame the intellectual shackles of dogmatic religionism for your inability to accept that, I am not blaming you personally or think less of you because of a possible inability.

So it's not moral theory that drives moralilty. Most everyone, other than us on the forums and very few people out there who deal with philosophy, are unaware of moral theory. Yet they by-and-large do not act immorally. If moral theory was the driving force of morality, then there would be mayhem on the streets (and in the buildings.) But there is no mayhem. So morality stands, it is working, we ("we" meaning those who can't accept evolution-based moral theory), however, don't know why or how it's working, because our moral theories are flawed.

Still, the flaw in your reasoning remains. Morality is given; it is not changing. It is the moral theory that can't put its thumb on innate, human ethics.

It is the moral theory that can't put its thumb on innate, human ethics. — szemi

It seems fairly straightforward to me that humans take whatever action they deem to produce a greater good for themselves and the people of importance to them, even if it is an evil action (idk if that counts as a moral theory).

No longer do we live in small villages, where it is part of the culture to inherently fear the end of the whole rather than the individual. Morality might have changed a little since the evolutionary times, so it might be a little easier to do harm unto others. We see in animals its beneficial as a species to have cooperative traits but perhaps the cultural effect on our egos and then our egos effect on itself, might have more responsibility than an evolutionary standpoint.

1. There are more ways of being evil than good. The surest proof of the above statement, in agreement to your theory that something can be both good and bad, is the old adage ''you can't make everyone happy''. — TheMadFool

Agreed; (might be irrelevant) following this assumption, we then must be confronted by the fact that every action we take in our lives is an inherently evil enterprise. What then, is the moral, virtuous young man to do? Do the world and the people around him Good by ending his butterfly effect. Or live under a moral bending of one's ethics simply doing the least harm as is available, due to what? Cowardice? And, if not cowardice, I'd love to hear what.

2. Current moral theory is imperfect. God-based morality, Consequentialism, Deontic theory, are all flawed. — TheMadFool

I think its incorrect to assume there is a unanimous "current moral theory". Or idk, what is it?

it must be that Evil will, inevitably, win and Good lose. — TheMadFool

Ultimately or personally?

What then, is the moral, virtuous young man to do? — Frank Barroso

A virtuous man, to me, should hold morality as the highest goal. So, predictably, such a man will continue along the path of goodness, however ill defined it may be, to the end. What this end is depends on the people around him. Jesus didn't survive his company but the Buddha was well respected and lived to be 80.

Or live under a moral bending of one's ethics simply doing the least harm as is available, due to what? Cowardice? And, if not cowardice, I'd love to hear what. — Frank Barroso

Cowardice? One could say that religious morals depend a lot on the fear factor. Hell is a sure way to make people behave. That's the stick. But we do have a carrot too - heaven. Irregligious morality has tried, very hard I think, to rid its foundations of fear - one should be good for goodness is an end in itself, not out of fear.

Ultimately or personally? — MountainDwarf

Ultimately.

A little bit of science will help to clarify my view.

Entropy, disorder, is always increasing. Order is necessary for any moral system. So, if science is true, disorder is the ultimate end of all things, including moral systems.

1. There are more ways of being evil than good. The surest proof of the above statement, in agreement to your theory that something can be both good and bad, is the old adage ''you can't make everyone happy''.

2. Current moral theory is imperfect. God-based morality, Consequentialism, Deontic theory, are all flawed.

Given 1 and 2 are true, it is necessary that suffering will multiply and happiness will diminish. It's like a ship, with food in short supply and only a broken compass to aid you in the voyage. The ship and the people on it are doomed. — TheMadFool

If we change the moral theory, the virtuous man can do good?
or
If the current moral theory remains and like before the virtuous man continues down his path, does he actually do any good? Are we still ultimately guided by a broken compass?

every action we take in our lives is an inherently evil enterprise — Frank Barroso

A virtuous man, to me, should hold morality as the highest goal. So, predictably, such a man will continue along the path of goodness, however ill defined it may be, to the end. — TheMadFool

Even with more ways of being evil than good, you believe he can do good?

Entropy, disorder, is always increasing. Order is necessary for any moral system. — TheMadFool

Entropy is increasing in the physical world, but that doesn't mean it's increasing in a moral sphere (or system). If so, this, then, doesn't follow:

So, if science is true, disorder is the ultimate end of all things, including moral systems. — TheMadFool

There are more ways of being evil than good. The surest proof of the above statement, in agreement to your theory that something can be both good and bad, is the old adage ''you can't make everyone happy''. — TheMadFool

Oops. Mad Fool, you have established, very firmly, in two separate places in this debate, that:
1. Good = Truth
2. Evil = Lie

And yet,
Yes, you can make everyone happy with a lie.
In other words, your adage proves against your favour, as evil can make everyone happy. (As per your definition of evil.)

Agreed; (might be irrelevant) following this assumption, we then must be confronted by the fact that every action we take in our lives is an inherently evil enterprise. What then, is the moral, virtuous young man to do? Do the world and the people around him Good by ending his butterfly effect. Or live under a moral bending of one's ethics simply doing the least harm as is available, due to what? Cowardice? And, if not cowardice, I'd love to hear what. — Frank Barroso

Dear Frank, Darf and Dust, and AND ALL OTHERS WHO ARE JOINING THE DEBATE IN THIS LATTER STAGE, I am not sure if you had a chance to read all posts in this thread. The idea is that evil is not used in its normative meaning; it is used to denote nothing more and nothing less than a lie. The thread's creator willed it this way, and corrected some of us to keep to this definition.

So the whole debate is a directed type of equivocation.

We must not give in to the lure that we imagine that "evil" means actual bad, vile, will or deed. It means, simply, "lie". The thread's creator built his or her entire opening argument on this condition.

Let's respect this condition, and not be fooled to think that "evil" or "bad" in this thread means anything other than "lie" or "falsehood".

This is not my idea; the thread's creator asked us to observed evil in this capacity only.

IF I am wrong in this assessment, then I ask the Mad Fool to please correct me and to please lay down the foundation of what word means what. We can't keep on arguing on a terrain of semantic quagmire where words change their meanings. I don't mind what rule you lay down, but I ask you, please, to stay consistent after the rule-laying.

To me, you, Mad Fool, have said "good=truth, falshood/lies = bad." Then I took the liberty to understand "evil" as an equivalent to "bad". So far this is the situation in this thread. Please correct me or yourself, and then stay consistent with that correction.

So, it's more likely that someone will tell you a lie than the truth. Evil wins. Good loses. — TheMadFool

I have to correct myself: It is not I who took the liberty to equate "bad" with "evil". The structure of the argument and latter definitions, both by Mad Fool, the creator of this thread, begged for taking this equivalency as given.

I think its incorrect to assume there is a unanimous "current moral theory". Or idk, what is it? — Frank Barroso

That's my point. There is no single moral theory. Each has its own flaws - the ''broken compass''. Given that, no one can even dream of finding the path to goodness, whatever that means, in this world as it is.

Combine that with evil = disorder/chaos and the inevitable conclusion is the failure of the good. Of course, the existence of chaos is debatable. Nature seems to be arranged in patterns but the chaos = evil equivalence is an ancient one e.g. war, riots, situations where the rule of law breaks down are equated with chaos, and these are evil.

Entropy is increasing in the physical world, but that doesn't mean it's increasing in a moral sphere (or system). — Noble Dust

Are we not physical and does that not matter for anything we do, including morality? You raise a good point though. Entropy may be exclusively physical. Anyway, I didn't mean it quite so literally. I was merely referring to the numerical advantage evil has over good.

Everything doesn't make a person happy. Every person has a specific, finite set of wants. They try to satisfy them through planning which are, again, finite and specific. Compare that to the multititude of ways in which even the best plans can backfire. Murphy's law: if something can go wrong, it will.

So, evil wins and good loses.

Yes, you can make everyone happy with a lie.
In other words, your adage proves against your favour, as evil can make everyone happy. (As per your definition of evil.) — szemi

Yes, but is that real happiness?

So, evil wins and good loses.

Yes, you can make everyone happy with a lie.
In other words, your adage proves against your favour, as evil can make everyone happy. (As per your definition of evil.)
— szemi

Yes, but is that real happiness? — TheMadFool

That is not part of the thread. If you like, open a new thread with that theme. But this question of yours is not a retort of merit in this thread.

But if you insist: yes, it's real happiness. Happiness is a feeling, and not a relationship to reality or to truth. Whether happiness is induced artificially or substantially, the happy person has no different experience in one way or the other.

Happiness is a feeling, and not a relationship to reality or to truth. Whether happiness is induced artificially or substantially, the happy person has no different experience in one way or the other. — szemi

You have a point. For instance when we watch a tragic movie we feel sad. There doesn't seem to be a requirement of factuality/truth for emotions. A lie and a truth both can elicit emotions of the same quality and degree.

But, what do you make of this: Experience Machine?