Good and evil don't matter. Punishing all the unworthy, ruling the world and dancing the macarena matter.
“People aren’t either wicked or noble. They’re like chef’s salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict.â€
I don't think they exist in an organized, defined sense, but I do think there are some obvious, (relatively) objectively "good" and "bad" things - at least relative to our species' viewpoint.
i.e. being mean to people: bad
dumping toxic waste into the rivers: bad
volunteering at the soup kitchen: good
adopting orphans: good
and so on.
(and obviously, a whooooole lot of grey zone where thigns are defined as good or bad by various people, or mixed, or neither)
I said relative to our species-specific viewpoint. By that viewpoint, a tiger killing and stealing is perfectly fine. By that viewpoint, us killing animals for food is perfectly fine (no, I'm not a vegetarian).Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and rain on your parade and say that I don't think there are objectively good or bad things.
For instance, a tiger needs to eat. In order for a tiger to eat, it generally needs to kill, which is [bad]. If it doesn't kill, then it steals, which is [bad]. But the killing or stealing is inevitable--it's in the tiger's nature to kill or steal, so is the tiger [bad]? But the tiger can't act against its own nature, so it's doomed from the start. There is no redeeming a tiger. Also: A tiger is the product of nature, so should we extrapolate and assume that nature is therefore [bad] for creating a [bad] creature, like a tiger?
Yes, obviously you have to be flexible with the words and go with the "sense" of the situation rather than the letter. My examples were simplistic of course, and I would never call myself qualified to actually make an exhaustive list of good and bad things. But, after knowing a situation completely, I think you can say some actions are "good" or "bad" in the context of our species, and the vast majority of sane humans would agree - at least until you learn conflicting information. The vast majority of actions, of course, are going to be a bit of both or conficted.I would take the position, that based upon what is observable in nature, that there is no such thing as morality or good or evil, and that actions have no inherent trait for goodness or badness. I'll take it a step further and say that for an objective good/morality to exist, each standard of good/bad should be universal and stretch across the board no matter the situation. So, for example: Adopting an orphan is automatically good? What if you're a meth-head who's just going to wind up harming or scarring the child? If the adoption is no longer a "good" thing, then I assert that adopting orphans is not an objectively good act.
I think the situational aspect is very important, and limiting yourself to firmly defined rules is a recipe for misunderstanding. Our justice system has to do that in many ways, for better or (usually) worse.If you were to observe someone just being punched in the face without prior context, what could you surmise? Is it automatically a bad act because it's violent? Well, what if the person who's punching the other in the face was doing it to protect the life of another? What if it was self defense? It shouldn't matter if something is objectively good or bad. Our positions/biases shouldn't influence whether we think something is good or bad. It's either always good, always bad, or neither good/bad.