So are you given over to satisfying short term impulses, rather than long term planning (my definition of evil)?

Perhaps you could describe what makes you so evil so I can see if it fits in with my idea?

Yes, but what is it obfuscating?

Why would an Irish hero be stuck in an afterlife with murderers sowing a shroud and singing with a bird like voice? Certainly the poet seems to have some apprehension over the after life.

But what are the motivations of humans/animals? They seek physical/emotional pleasure and shun physical/emotional pain. There are no other motives.

More specifically, emotional reaction absolutely is not the only base for decision making for all people and animals — NotesOfAMan

We have a mental reaction to events as well, but it simply is a mental calculation we do to maximise physical/emotional pleasure and minimise pain.

We pay a price for beauty; it's a constant battle against the 2nd law of thermodynamics keeping stuff clean and tidy. I'm a bit lazy around the house; I exchange beauty for free time. Works for me.

I assume we are evolutionary programmed to value beauty for reproductive reasons and the appeal of symmetry, simplicity etc... seems to then somehow transcend the sexual domain and causes us to value beauty, symmetry in objects as well.

Treat all others, as you wish to be treated!!! — NotesOfAMan

Jesus said much the same. It's such a simple rule but if everyone in society followed it, the world would be a much happier place.

I think that you cannot justify the step of going from pain to evil and pleasure to good. Pain and pleasure refer to feelings/sensations whereas good and evil are more conceptual and evaluative — Andrew4Handel

I'm including emotional pain and pleasure in my definition of good and evil.

How do we judge if an action is good or evil? It has to be its impact on people/animals that we use to judge it. The only way to judge that impact is emotional/physical pain/pleasure. These sensations/emotions are the only way people/animals react to an action.

What about an evil act against the environment? That would cause emotional and physical pain for people/animals so it still fits with my definition.

Another example is that people including Michael J Fox claim that a serious illness turned them into a better person. Hedonism can be seen as selfish and debauched or shallow — Andrew4Handel

A serious illness turning someone into a better person fits with the pattern of good/right. Short term pain followed by long term pleasure. The period of adversity has benefited them in the long term.

There are two types of hedonism. If you are not harming anyone else whilst enjoying yourself, its a good/right action. If you are harming others its a evil/wrong action and you will regret it in the long term.

I take the point that obfuscation is OK for poetry.

Elsewhere though information is the live blood of human progress. Its free, unpolluted flow is vital to continued progress. Think of the human race as a giant supercomputer with each node working in parallel to process information and solve problems. Obfuscating information means nodes take longer to assimilate the information and may not assimilate the information at all.

I've read some the French big-shots themselves confessing that making things difficult is sort of game they play to be respected. So intention obfuscation is out there — macrosoft

The value of a piece of information in part relates to the % of the population who can understand that piece of information. We should strive for Occam's razor-like communication of ideas. Deliberate obfuscation is a crime.

Capitalism is very short term focused at the moment. All about making a quick buck and with little thought for the long term. But long term > short term so it's all mistaken thinking - long term planning is required.

If we had a 10 year share ownership rule (IE once you buy, you have to hold for 10 years and collect dividend) that would encourage share holders to think long term and companies would have to start to plan and execute better for the long term.

Something is right or good if net pleasure is positive:

net pleasure = pleasure - pain

Or wrong/bad if net pleasure is negative (same calculation obviously).

A moral act is net pleasurable for the individual. If its net pleasurable for the individual its net pleasurable for the group.

An immoral act is net painful for the individual. If its net painful for the individual its net painful for the group.

Group dynamics reenforce the above. If you do something popular in the group, you feel pleasure. If you do something unpopular in the group you feel pain. So the presence of the group encourages individuals to act in the right way for the entire group.

Aside from that, pleasure and pain don't by conventional definition pertain to moral good and bad — Terrapin Station

Moral good/bad is about whether we inflict emotional or physical pain on ourselves and each other. So morality is fundamentally about pleasure/pain.

The way the individual or group views pain/pleasure while perhaps not quite arbitrary will be different between individuals and groups (and with individuals within a group) and in the sense that the differences in how pain/pleasure is viewed — DingoJones

Humans are quite similar in most respects and the pain/pleasure experienced by the individual can be summed to give the corresponding pain/pleasure for the group. I'll give two examples:

Exercise is good for the individual. Its painful in the short term but gives pleasure in the long term so there is net pleasure for the individual so it is good/right. It makes the group stronger having a heathy individual so the group also benefits in the long term (net pleasure good/right).

Murder is bad for the individual. In the short term it maybe 'convenient' and possibly a sadist would derive some pleasure from it. In the long term, the individual will be shunned from the group and maybe punished. So it is net pain for the individual. It is also net pain for the group having lost an individual and his ideas and capabilities.

So most fundamental decisions can be analysed as above. I don't see anything arbitrary about this type of analysis?

I would not consider a painful injury evil and I would certainly not call all pleasure good such as the pleasures Nazi's or slave owners experienced — Andrew4Handel

You would certainly not call a painful injury good so by process of elimination it must be evil?

Nazi's were punished for what they did so it was net pain, hence evil for them.

Slave owners became fat and decadent. They where hated. Some where punished for what they did. So it was net pain, hence evil for them also.

There are some difficult to call situations. China I think sanctions would cause more pain than pleasure so it would be evil. It would cripple the world economy I mean.

Good is pleasure > pain for individual and groups.
Evil is pleasure < pain for individual and groups.

I see nothing arbitrary about the above definitions?

I don't see what other metric apart from pleasure/pain that could be used?

IE you can't demonstrate any circularity.

Explain what is circular...

You cannot read.

I think another area the free market fails us is that it gives us what we want rather than what we need. The confection and tobacco industries are examples of where the free market is killing us through misplaced demand.

I'm a fan of industry specific taxation rates. Most countries do this to a degree but it could be widened to include:

- Higher taxes for confectionary, cosmetics, luxury items
- Lower taxes for internet, education related, biotech

I look forward to an age where machines do all the dull work and we are employed 3 days a week in interesting and creative arts and crafts roles. Some serious modifications to the free market are needed to get there though.

The free market is stunningly wasteful. For example, there are about 200 UK insurance companies. Life insurance is pretty much the same whoever you buy it from, but 200 duplicated payroll, policy administration, human resources, IT, claims, etc... departments and systems. Thats just one country and one vertical; looking at global capitalism as a whole, it's a huge mess of duplication. Maybe the world is running at 5% of peak efficiency with all this duplication.

Basically, if an action that could cause betterment to the majority of people in the future though it causes the detriment of many people in the present, is that action good? — NuncAmissa

If the was really no other option but the button then technically it would be a good action as it benefits more people. But in a real situation, there would be better options and you would choose the optimal (most right) option.

P.S. I keep on defining good and evil as moral terms. Is that what this discussion is about? — NuncAmissa

I've defined right and wrong in mathematical terms. I think right=good and wrong=evil.

Right, wrong not defined. The OP is thus an exercise in nonsense, with a nonsense conclusion — tim wood

Right, wrong are defined here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1

Right is pleasure>pain. Wrong is pleasure<pain. We all feel pleasure and pain in similar ways. Thus any decision is optimised using the following rule:

net pleasure = pleasure - pain

So eating sweets for example, short term pleasure but long term pain (tooth decay, overweight), so net pleasure comes out negative (its the wrong thing to do).

Or exercise, short-term pain, but long term pleasure from being fit. Long>short so net pleasure comes out positive (its the right thing to do).

What could be more depressing than Oblivion? And then spreading this depressing message the way people like Dawkins and the cosmologists do creates depression in the general population.

Atheism is wrong and outdated. Science has moved on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Please do not quote the Anthropic principle; its (to use your favourite word) bullshit:

- The Weak Anthropic explains the universe must be compatible with life for us to be here. It does not explain why the universe is compatible with life
- The Strong Anthropic explains that the existence of multiple universes with different properties account for our existence. But other universes are statistically likely to be like this one (Life supporting) so the SAP does not explain why the multiverse is fined-tuned for life.

Normal, well-adjusted humans are different in small ways but similar on all the important issues. So it's possible to define right and wrong in mathematical terms and apply it to all humans.

Discussed further on this thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4395/defining-good-and-evil/p1

Ahem...bullshit — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You are quite brilliant.

I speak from personal experience; I was one.

So willpower is an ability we use to deny ourselves things we (think we) want or need? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Doing the right thing often hurts in the short term (exercise, study, helping people) and pays off in the long term. Willpower is needed to get over that initial pain.

Doing the wrong thing is often pleasurable in the short term (laziness, sweets), but leads to long term pain. Again willpower is needed to avoid the short term temptations.

Would pain sensitivity make someone more or less “effectively intelligence”? — I like sushi

I think over-sensitivity to pain is likely indicative of low willpower (excepting the Hyperalgesia condition). Abstinence might be another way to test for willpower.

Is cowardice part fo this dynamic? — I like sushi

Cowardice is low willpower.

Of course it's possible. But is it useful? — Pattern-chaser

If you can measure willpower, you can assess what improves it. High willpower is key to getting the most from life.

Willpower can be measured by pain tolerance. A traditional way is walking on hot coal. Exercise can be used as well.

Epinephrine (aka adrenaline) is not necessarily damaging long term — I like sushi

Are you saying stress is not a killer? It leads to high blood pressure and heart disease.

Sometimes you are forced into doing the wrong thing. But it's still the wrong thing. Anything that is not optimal is technically wrong. War is about as far from optimal as is imaginable.

You could’ve simply said “life is hard.” — I like sushi

Life is hard because people make the wrong decisions; they optimise for the short term rather than the long term. Much of life is about short term sacrifice for long term gain. A clear definition of right and wrong would help people live better lives.

I think you get individuals with high IQ and low willpower. For example an intelligent person who overeats and is overweight.

Then you also get people with low IQ and high willpower. These are nice people who do the right thing but struggle with complex situations.

IQ tests exist. There are various ways of measuring willpower (walking on hot coal for example). So its possible to separate the two.

How are you measuring my “effective intelligence”? You’ve presented an opinion of me not a means of measuring my “correctness.” — I like sushi

I would measure correctness as the tendency to use willpower in order to exchange short term pain for long term pleasure. Being rude and unhelpful may give you a short term kick, but it is counter productive in the long term.

Adrenaline is a stress hormone and it's damaging to the system in the long term (which is what matters). It's the fight/flight response, a danger signal. It does help cognition but only in the short term.

Distinguishing intelligence, wisdom, understanding, and so on, is somewhat dependent on these things actually being distinct in the first place, and I don't think they are — Pattern-chaser

I think IQ and willpower are distinct enough. Willpower is required to make the 'correct' decisions. IQ is required to understand complex situations.

War is wrong? Can you prove this to be correct? — I like sushi

War is not the optimal solution to any problem, so it is always wrong.

An obvious example would be either fascism or communism — I like sushi

These are both extreme viewpoints; extremism is generally wrong.

Why do you call it “right squared”? Saying that good can lead to bad or good, and that bad can led to good or bad is not really worth mentioning as far as I can tell. What am I missing? — I like sushi

Most things that are right are painful in the short term. Being pleasurable in both short and long term is unusual so I call it right squared.

Most things that are wrong are pleasurable in the short term. Being painful in both short and long term is unusual so I call it wrong squared.

1) A person was given 2 choices, 1 choice would give him pleasure and happiness in the long term, but the other will bring displeasure to a group of random people. Knowing that, People will choose the first choice! — diesynyang

Can you give a specific example?

2) A Person was given a choice, to save 1 disabled person that he love, or to save 3 healthy, smart person that could bring good to the world and him in the long run. Knowing this fact, he would still choose number 1 — diesynyang

It's clearly wrong to save 1 person rather than 3.

We are dominant, because through evolution, we are STRONG — diesynyang

We are dominant because of our ability to work as a team; for which a natural understanding of right and wrong is required.

Human without proper education are Evil, a person that lives in the natural state are Evil — diesynyang

But it's not natural for a human to have no upbringing. So humans are naturally good.

Maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain are only positive when someone feels that that's the best course of action — Terrapin Station

These are the bodies signals of right and wrong. Someone would have to be seriously maladjusted if they did not seek to maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Such a person needs help.

It was the way you dismissed my OP because it was different from the research you'd read. As I pointed out, its a new idea and its incorrect to dismiss it out of hand without mentioning any specific problem with my argument.

Let us say that someone starts a war because they believe it will benefit humanity and that by bringing about this war billions of people will die, but in the aftermath a better society rises from teh ashes — I like sushi

War is wrong. There are better ways to change a government than war.

One person’s utopia is often hell for many other — I like sushi

Can you give an example?

Also, in the OP you’ve left out the possibility of short-term good causing long-term good. Do you think that is possible? If not why not mention it? — I like sushi

Yes, I call that right squared.

Does the group behave in an optimal manner that maximises pleasure and minimises pain for the individuals.

If the group sticks to what is right (pleasure>pain) for individuals, the group will be right as a whole.

Human beings have small differences but on the important stuff, right thinking people all agree (and wrong thinking people need to change).

Correctness is more about willpower than IQ. The right thing is often painful in the short term.

Someone with low willpower but high IQ will make mistakes like eating sweets; they are attracted to the short term pleasure.

Someone with high willpower but low IQ will not make the same basic mistakes. They have the willpower to cope with short term pain in exchange for long term pleasure.