supernal

Somewhat Nietzschean philosophy, especially the first section. The question is, if evil is the fallback, the laziness that humans can give in to when they're not striving to achieve "goodness" through hard work, then is evil really all that bad? If "evil" is equivalent to "lazy", then why is evil detested while laziness is only frowned upon?

Also, what is hard work? Something that positively contributes to society? Well, Hitler thought he was positively contributing to society. Does that mean he is good? He probably thought so, but the majority of the world views him as being evil. So, doesn't that mean that "good" and "evil" are societal inventions and have no inherent value?

Is it? I just recently finished reading Thus Spake Zarathustra, some time after I wrote this, and I tend to disagree. But then again I've only read that one book of his work, so we may be referencing different works.

Anyway, evil is not the fallback. Evil is just easier to accomplish. It is not the default nature of the human being to be necessarily evil, it is just that evil is the easiest to accomplish, and hence what we see inundating the world the most, specifically because it is so easily to accomplish.

Evil is not equivalent to lazy. Evil is just more often than not lazily accomplished. One can put in a great deal of work into being evil as well, as per your Hitler example, or as per Ted Bundy, Albert Fish, Jim Jones, and any variety of serial killers, cult leaders, and so on and so forth. I'm talking about your man or woman on average, not stellar examples to either end, otherwise I could bring up Buddha, Mother Teresa, Marie Curie and so on and so forth.

It is easier to be selfish than to be selfless, just as a matter of course. If you're eating a sandwich, it's easier to just continue eating that sandwich rather than splitting it in half with a homeless man or what have you.

As to your second paragraph, no. What Hitler did was not made good just because he thought it was okay to do, just like it's not any more okay that Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a great deal of forced female circumcision. Just because they think it's okay or their culture allows it does not make it good.

It's exceedingly easy to tell what is good and what is bad, but more often this needs to be on a case by case basis specifically for the amount of variables one has to take into account. Is it okay to steal? Generally not so. But then compare that notion against Disney's version of Robin Hood, where he robs from the plutocracy to feed the people being heavily and unnecessarily taxed. Now stealing is good.

Check this video out, you might like it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

I'm reading an anthology of works called Existentialism: From Dostoevsky to Sartre by Walter Kaufman for school right now. There's a short section that samples Nietzsche's philosophies, and that's where I got my info. The opening statement for one of his works called "The Challenge of Every Great Philosophy" is:

"A traveler who had seen many countries and peoples and several continents was asked what human traits he had found everywhere; and he answered: men are inclined to laziness. Some will feel that he might have said with greater justice: they are all timorous."

Then, later: "In the vast majority it is the desire for comfort, inertia--in short, that inclination to laziness of which the traveler spoke. He is right: men are even lazier than they are timorous, and what they feat most is the troubles with which any unconditional honesty and nudity would burden them."

You make a lot of good points. Really got me thinking. I also watched the video, which also got me thinking.

There is one thing, though: What Harris was saying in the video seems to contradict the last statement you made, about having to look at it case by case based on context. By the logic you presented here, one could say it's not okay to force women to wear veils in our culture, but it's okay to force women to wear veils in cultures where that belief is widely held. Harris thinks there is a concrete, factual approach towards morality based on what is accepted as being human nature. In other words, he would say it's not okay for women to be forced to wear veils, period. Does that mean you disagree with him on that?

No, I agree with him on that completely.

What I meant by the case by case basis, is our ability to judge. I can't say that this behavior is always good or bad without context. I agree generally that it's no good to force a woman to wear a veil against her will. But what if it's because we're passing through dangerous, unknown territory and it's to protect her from insects that carry malicious disease? Or through a land whose culture kills on sight any woman unveiled? Then forcing her into the veil, at least temporarily, is a good thing. I agree with Sam, and in fact structured the very same arguments he does in the video a few hours before I had even heard of him (I presented an argument to a friend, who asked me if I'd heard of Sam Harris, then proceeded to show me a video where Sam said what I had said just two hours ago, a thousand times more elegantly). But just that when someone is going to ask me whether something is good or bad they can't give me the generalized concept. One needs to get into the nitty gritty of examples, because people tend to qualify.

I say something is bad, or good, and they go "what if this" or "what if that" or "what if wtf", and it's like "okay, under those VERY specific circumstances of this very specific situation that you specifically detailed, the answer can only be invariably what you are qualifying the argument towards" type deal.

I do think there is an objective moralism, but it occurs in much broader strokes. For example, I think it's okay to lie. I lie a lot and liberally and it's pretty fun. I don't think it's okay to deceive with the specific intention to hurt.

I agree with everything you said here. I think generalizations are largely inaccurate and don't take into account any variation. I just wonder, though: How do we fix anything if we don't make generalizations? If we focus too closely on specific cases, then we don't have any time to take care of problems afflicting a larger number of people. So, how do we conquer this then? Find some balance? How do you find a balance between generalizing and disregarding variation, and being case-specific but overlooking larger problems?