ARe their no evil moral principles? Hitler could be seen as following moral principals. I am sure he thought so.

ARe their no evil moral principles? Hitler could be seen as following moral principals. I am sure he thought so — Coben

Isn't that like asking "are there no bad good people?

A contradiction in terms.


As for Hitler, he can be "explained" not by a moral philosophy but a morally deficient ideology - racial supremacism. Even then he was "good" to the Aryans.

ARe their no evil moral principles? Hitler could be seen as following moral principals. — Coben

This is an interesting point. My feelings about morals are that they are inherent and that they contributed towards our successful evolution and consequently those morals were carried through with us. But if a moral is a way of behaving that contributes to the success of a group, that throws it forward into the future so that it thrives even further, then does it have to be moral in the sense of being good, or right, as we understand it?

It does seem that the societies or communities that have this concept of morals are the most successful. But what if, for instance, it becomes necessary to reduce the world population in order to survive, does that become the right moral decision?

But if a moral is a way of behaving that contributes to the success of a group, that throws it forward into the future so that it thrives even further, then does it have to be moral in the sense of being good, or right, as we understand it? — Brett

And how do we evaluate how well something like a moral is working? what's the time frame? and isn't that a moral value in itself, that the good will make things better for the group? This would mean for example that the group would never,jeapordize its survival in a moral cause. I think many would say that could be immoral. Of course everyone thinks that their morals are good, though they often think other people's are not. In fact, usually they do. If there is difference, the others are wrong, unless it is something fairly trivial.

It does seem that the societies or communities that have this concept of morals are the most successful. But what if, for instance, it becomes necessary to reduce the world population in order to survive, does that become the right moral decision? — Brett

Some would certainly think so. And on the individual level, simply working from the idea of survival is generally seen as at best limited morally and usually as selfish. Also your model is consquentialist. Good actions lead to X consequences. But much of the world, in fact all of us on some things are deontologists. X is wrong regardless. Would it be ok to rape a child to save one's tribe?

I didn't quite get this, but I will respond as if I did. Keep in mind I am not quite sure what you meant.

Isn't that like asking "are there no bad good people? — TheMadFool

No. I am arguing that saying someone has moral principles is a descriptive statement. Psychopaths do not have moral codes. They do what they want and if they act morally it is simply to avoid certain consequences. Hitler had very strong morals. That is descriptive. He thought X was good and Y. And he tried very hard to be good and to make others good and punish the bad.

To say someone has morals should not be a value judgment.

Now this gets into equivocations because to say someone is a moral person, means they are a good person. But that's everyday speech.

Hitler was not a psychopath. I think he actually meant to do good by his evaluation of good. A psychopath is not trying to do good things.

This doesn't mean Hitler was good. this depends on the morals of those evaluating him. I think we need to make it clear that there is a difference between saying someone is a good person: this means we evaluate someone according to some moral system that we believe in - and saying someone had morals. IOW they thought some things were bad, others good and evaluated behavior and actions along those lines. I think we would be remiss to think that Hitler did not care about Germany and Germans and Aryans and dogs and children (aryan ones), and that he really just liked destruction.

As for Hitler, he can be "explained" not by a moral philosophy but a morally deficient ideology - racial supremacism. Even then he was "good" to the Aryans. — TheMadFool

To me that's as if you have access to objective morality. Which of course most people believe, as did Hitler. He has a moral philosophy, a very rigid one in fact. Other people with other moral philosophies judge his as evil. Even between republicans and democrats there is tremendous difference between ideas of what a good person is and should do. I think it's problematic if we just assume 'we' have the objectively morality and can say, that person has no morals. We can certainly say their morals are bad ones.

It's a bit like when conservatives, a few years back, in the US, often said that liberals have no values. Of course they have values and of course they have morals. They just differ from the conservative ones. (underneath this is deontologists judging consequentialists, and also more flexible morals being judged by more rigid ones, at least on the surface. It's changed since that period, because now the left has come out extremely rigid on moral condemnation, in a way i am more used to the right being)

And how do we evaluate how well something like a moral is working? what's the time frame? and isn't that a moral value in itself, that the good will make things better for the group? This would mean for example that the group would never,jeapordize its survival in a moral cause. I think many would say that could be immoral. — Coben

It seems to me that morals have a function, otherwise they would disappear over time with the tribe/community they didn’t serve well. The morals that we live by are the inherent morals that contributed to a successful society. They bound us together and served as the basis for what was best for the community, what was regarded as “ good” and “ right” and from which our values and ethics sprung from, that acted out those morals

I don’t know what the timeframe is to determine whether a moral is working. But if it wasn’t working I imagine trouble would be apparent within one generation which would lead to slow deterioration. The moral value isn’t that the “ good’ will make things better for the group, it’s that what makes things better for the group becomes the moral value. Time will decide if the morals they live by were the most advantageous. I’m not suggesting that a community can simply decide on a set of morals in a relativist manner. The Stalinists and the Nazis chose a set of morals on that basis and lost very quickly. It may take awhile for a set of morals to evolve, but they will continue to evolve if they serve the community well, as opposed to the quick end if there are no advantageous.

Would any group jeopardise it’s survival in a moral cause? On the basis of what I’ve suggested that would be immoral, which is not what you meant, I think.

It seems to me that morals have a function, otherwise they would disappear over time with the tribe/community they didn’t serve well. — Brett

I would tend to agree. But we have to also notice that contradictory morals have lasted a long time in different groups and even sometimes inside more complicated groups. Tribes, for example tend to have the same morals throughout, but larger groups, like those in what gets called civilization, may have different moral centers - government and religion or even various religious groups, as one more obvious example - with differing moralities.

The moral value isn’t that the “ good’ will make things better for the group, it’s that what makes things better for the group becomes the moral value. — Brett

In times of crisis or scarcity a certain moral or set of them may be more useful that others. I don't think a generation is enough. Nor does it work if broader changes - brought about by technology or even societal successes or by increases in population, or changes in neighboring populations or changes in climate or whatever - changes the needs and processes of a society. Think of the changes in the US under the few generations between founding in the late 1700s and the end of the 1800s. What 'works' is going to change. Also different people and subgroups are going to have different opinions about what 'working' means.

Would any group jeopardise it’s survival in a moral cause? — Brett

I would think some would. We know this happens at the individual level.

But we have to also notice that contradictory morals have lasted a long time in different groups — Coben

larger groups, like those in what gets called civilization, may have different moral centers - government and religion or even various religious groups, as one more obvious example - with differing moralities. — Coben

Is that really true? Are their moral centres that are different?

I don't think a generation is enough. — Coben

I meant that a set of morals could deteriorate in a generation, an evolving set of morals would take longer, but only if they served the community well.

Would any group jeopardise it’s survival in a moral cause?
— Brett
I would think some would. We know this happens at the individual level. — Coben

I think this is true, but not in the numbers to be considered as human nature. This is more of a sacrifice. It could be said that Britain risked its survival fighting against Naziism in the name freedom. But it had no choice, it’s survival was under threat. It did not purposely risk its survival.

Is that really true? Are their moral centres that are different? — Brett

Large portions of fundamentalist protestantism consider Catholicism to be evil. I would guess that most members are fairly decent to individual Catholics they meet. There are huge differences on the ideas of who get to represent the ideas of God and must they be celibate. Can women be intermediary experts with God. There are huge disagreements on abortion, with the liberal protestant churches having values quite opposed to conservative P churches and C churches. I am not even bringing Islam in, where there are vastly more traditional values about the role, intelligence, veracity and morals of women. Then, since I mentioned government and religions, we have incredibly different ideas about sexual mores, drug taking mores, parenting mores. There is an incredibly battle around the rights to free speech. How about the new laws and school and organizational rules related to transpersons? I could go into huge differences regarding foreign policy between interventionist factions and those against it. Tulsi Gabbard has been implicitly accused of being evil by both dems and republicans for taking non-interventionist stances. There the arts, and what is acceptable to be in an art work. How about firearms?

I meant that a set of morals could deteriorate in a generation, an evolving set of morals would take longer, but only if they served the community well. — Brett

...served the community well in a certain period of time, but perhaps not after that. IOW an moral approach to free speech or privacy might work fine until the internet is used by most people. And then a shift in those morals in response to a technological change or a political change - say the Patriot act changes after 9/11 - might take hundreds of years to be shown to be disastrous. It might take only a much shorter time. But i can't see setting any threshold where we decide 'it's been working for X years, so it is beneficial'.

I think this is true, but not in the numbers to be considered as human nature. This is more of a sacrifice. It could be said that Britain risked its survival fighting against Naziism in the name freedom. But it had no choice, it’s survival was under threat. It did not purposely risk its survival. — Brett

Perhaps, perhaps not. Hitler would have been able to focus on the USSR. Perhaps in the end it would have gone for Britain, perhaps not. Hitler considered them closely related race wise to germans. They were not particularly communist. I think we can say Britain took a moral stand which its leaders knew was taking a direct and immediate risk regarding their countries sovreignty. Yes, a longer term risk was certainly there and Germany might have been in a much stronger position later. But I think that is not quite seeing the types of decisions even large groups are capable of making.

That's a bit of the whole point with most moral systems. Doing things because they are (considered) right, even if they are against one's own self-interest. Or one wouldn't need these morals.

I am not sure one can even call it a moral, ultimately, if it is only a heuristic designed to maintain group survival. You could also just call that a survival tactic.

Also this is at the national level. Nations are highly complicated amassings of many groups. And recent in history.

I think we can say Britain took a moral stand which its leaders knew was taking a direct and immediate risk regarding their countries sovreignty. — Coben

Countries can explain and justify made decisions by a moral stand, but that justification hardly is the reason why they would do something that puts them into peril. With something that isn't as dangerous, isn't very risky, one can indeed put what is morally right on a pedestal on go with that because of domestic politics.

In 1940 it was truly about existential questions, not a moral question that Chuchill took. At hindsight it's totally obvious that you could not trust someone like Hitler. Just look what trusting Hitler gave Stalin.

Countries can explain and justify made decisions by a moral stand, but that justification hardly is the reason why they would do something that puts them into peril. — ssu

Of course. I just don't think we can rule out countries and certainly not groups choosing to put themselves at risk for a higher value. Higher according to them. It seems to me deontology for sure and even many consequentialist value systems implicitly demand this. The do of individuals.

In 1940 it was truly about existential questions, not a moral question that Chuchill took. At hindsight it's totally obvious that you could not trust someone like Hitler. Just look what trusting Hitler gave Stalin. — ssu

I wasn't arguing that anyone should trust Hitler.

And I am not arguing that it must be a moral stand when governments claim it is, as they always do. I think politicians lie about this all the time. I do think however that groups are willling to fight what they consider evil, even if given the option not to. Otherwise this means we are deciding that groups never oppose evil except for selfish reasons. They would never risk themselves for what they consider good. Honor and morals are really just self-interest. And note, I am not saying these morals or the sense of honor need be good. Do gooding has perpetuated all sorts of horrible things.

I just think it's confused to argue that morals are really only about self-interest and people only do things to further their group's survivability.

Of course. I just don't think we can rule out countries and certainly not groups choosing to put themselves at risk for a higher value. Higher according to them. — Coben

The existence of national sovereignty or the existence of the state is usually that "higher value". After all, extremely seldom does the enemy literally think of genocidal extermination of the people and to make an "artificial desert" of the area. (Even if that has happened in history, unfortunately)

I do think however that groups are willling to fight what they consider evil, even if given the option not to. — Coben

And the most evil things people can do is when opposing 'evil'. Evil in itself implies that one cannot understand it, one cannot reason it. Otherwise one oneself would be evil too. Fighting evil means that you have a firm view that you are right and that your opponent is wrong. Not wrong in the way that his objective as bad, but that they are wrong also in moral terms. This goes to the heart to the issue how you face "an enemy": is your opponent a person fighting on the other side, following his or her flag and people, is your opponent just an advocate of an ideology you don't believe in or is he or she truly evil.

And the most evil things people can do is when opposing 'evil'. — ssu

As I said myself...

And note, I am not saying these morals or the sense of honor need be good. Do gooding has perpetuated all sorts of horrible things. — Coben

Fighting evil means that you have a firm view that you are right and that your opponent is wrong. — ssu

I am not saying that people should fight what they consider to be evil. I am not saying that evil exists. (And then note that this statement does not fit well with the other one.....

And the most evil things people can do is when opposing 'evil'. — ssu

)

I am saying that people do not do things just for their own survivability. Push them to the wall on certain moral issues, they will put themselves at risk. Even at the group level.

I said above that the shift to discussing morals at the nation level is problematic since these are not groups with a single set of morals. These are fairly artificial conglomerates of various groups with various moralities. That said,I think some nations have gone to war at least in part for moral reasons. This is not to say this is good or bad. AS it happens I don't believe in objective morals.

I think it is a mistake to view morals as, really, just self-interest. That's where I came into the argument. This is now being taken as me advocating for moral crusades. If I say something exists it doesn't mean I am advocating for it.

I think part of any morality is precisely a being willing to risk self-interest or, heck, you don't need a morality.

Now this gets tricky at the sociological level. Since individuals follow moral laws that sometimes or often go against individual self-interest can be good for group self-interest.

However I still think groups will take risks and even become groups to fight what they think is immoral even if this puts the group itself as risk.

I think people, in general, might fight a war against an alien advanced civilization that wanted to control us and protect us, but didn't respect any freedoms or local cultures and wanted us to live in some kind or alien run fascism.

Now the group might be convinced it would survive as kind of pets or zoo animals, but they might be willing to put survivability of the entire species at risk, because of values they hold dear.

The person I was arguing with seemed to think only things which enhance group survivability become morals.

I don't think that's the case.

And smaller groups with cohesive monocultures have been willing to fight to the death, to risk extermination, because of their other values.

I assume that countries much smaller than Russia and China might declare war on the US if we started stealing some, but not all of third nations' babies for food. Or if the US became the nation of pedophilia promoting child rape worldwide. Even if a war with the US would likely be one sided and devastating. I think there are morals that when crossed individuals - certainly, there can be no doubt of this - but even groups will put their own existence at risk for moral reasons.

I said above that the shift to discussing morals at the nation level is problematic since these are not groups with a single set of morals. — Coben

I fully agree. The whole notion of talk at the 'national level' is difficult. After all, the whole idea of nationhood is invented, yet however 'artificial' people say it is, it is quite real. And a functioning idea of a nation joins together quite different views on just what that nation is about.

I think it is a mistake to view morals as, really, just self-interest. That's where I came into the argument. This is now being taken as me advocating for moral crusades. — Coben

At least I'm not saying that. The vast majority of people will make sacrifices that cannot be said to be done in self-interest, and there you can observe just how complex humans interacting in societies are to compared to anything else.

Even if a war with the US would likely be one sided and devastating. — Coben

Not actually.

You see countries with nuclear weapons will restrain from using those weapons, hence weaker states can call their bluff.

One perfect example is the Argentinian Junta invading the Falklands: here a smaller and far poorer state attacked a Great Power with a nuclear weapons arsenal. For the UK the war was indeed a close call, one aircraft carrier sank by an Argentinian submarine and the British fleet would have had to sail back and Thatcher would have lost the next elections.

And we may see this playing out just now when the US and Iran have come quite close to a conflict.