Does Morality Presuppose Good and Evil?

[Puppycow]

Nowadays it seems a bit old-fashioned to say that someone is evil.
If someone commits mass murder, we say that they have a "personality disorder," or some other form of mental illness.

However, it occurs to me that, if we eliminate the concept of good and evil entirely, would that undercut the foundations for morality? Instead of "morality" in the traditional sense of the word, is there another substitute?

What about justice? Doesn't the concept of justice also presuppose good and evil?

[qayak]

Nowadays it seems a bit old-fashioned to say that someone is evil.
If someone commits mass murder, we say that they have a "personality disorder," or some other form of mental illness.

However, it occurs to me that, if we eliminate the concept of good and evil entirely, would that undercut the foundations for morality? Instead of "morality" in the traditional sense of the word, is there another substitute?

What about justice? Doesn't the concept of justice also presuppose good and evil?

By definition morality is concerned with good and bad, or right and wrong, in human behaviour.

It is tough to say that any individual is good or evil because we are all both. We have the capacity to do great good or great evil. The trend is moving towards greater acceptance of this and instead of labelling the person, we label the specific action(s).

A great book to read on the subject is Michael Shermer's The Science of Good & Evil.

[UserGoogol]

I don't see why. Morality simply means that some things you should do and some things you shouldn't do. (If you ignore virtue ethics, which concerns itself more directly with good and evil on the personal level) morality concerns itself with making judgments of actions. Thus, the fact that people commit good or bad actions merely because they have something wrong with their brain does not change the fact that the actions are good or bad. In the utilitarian system (which I like) an action's goodness is simply how much happiness it causes minus how much suffering it causes, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether good or evil exists.

Some moral codes, of course, depend on the good old fashioned concept of good and evil, and those would be strained by dropping good and evil, but not morality as a general thing.

[Puppycow]

I don't see why. Morality simply means that some things you should do and some things you shouldn't do. (If you ignore virtue ethics, which concerns itself more directly with good and evil on the personal level) morality concerns itself with making judgments of actions. Thus, the fact that people commit good or bad actions merely because they have something wrong with their brain does not change the fact that the actions are good or bad. In the utilitarian system (which I like) an action's goodness is simply how much happiness it causes minus how much suffering it causes, which has absolutely nothing to do with whether good or evil exists.

Some moral codes, of course, depend on the good old fashioned concept of good and evil, and those would be strained by dropping good and evil, but not morality as a general thing.

OK, thanks. I think I am attracted to utilitarianism myself. What about justice I wonder? Is that also simply a matter of maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness? Or do we need to have good and evil for justice to have any meaning as a concept?

Religions like Christianity claim that God ultimately metes out justice, punishing evildoers and rewarding dogooders. As an atheist, I wish that were true (although not in binary way such as eternal punishment or eternal reward, but rather exactly in proportion to the actual total amount of good and evil) but I don't believe that it is true. So in reality, I believe that justice is the exception rather than the rule. I don't believe in karma either (at least I am not aware of any evidence for it.)

Should we then simply have a justice system based totally on practical considerations such as deterrance and public safety, or is it also important to punish evildoers because we can't rely on God to "sort 'em out"?

[Tobermory]

Basically, without attaching it to a set of fixed rules, morality is a fairly nebulous concept. And yet, even without the specter of religion, most of us can still tell right from wrong -- most of the time.

Also, let's not forget that religion is not the only source of so-called socially proper/moral behavior. The law (often steeped in Christian dogma) is supposed to serve that purpose as well -- how well it does this, however, is a debatable proposition.

But morality and religion are not intertwined. Throughout history, the church has taken actions that could be considered immoral under almost any definition of the concept. Fortunately, hypocrisy is a lot easier to define than morality.

[Puppycow]

Basically, without attaching it to a set of fixed rules, morality is a fairly nebulous concept. And yet, even without the specter of religion, most of us can still tell right from wrong -- most of the time.

Also, let's not forget that religion is not the only source of so-called socially proper/moral behavior. The law (often steeped in Christian dogma) is supposed to serve that purpose as well -- how well it does this, however, is a debatable proposition.

But morality and religion are not intertwined. Throughout history, the church has taken actions that could be considered immoral under almost any definition of the concept. Fortunately, hypocrisy is a lot easier to define than morality.

I agree religion is not necessary for morality, but my question is whether we need good and evil to have morality, or if instead we should simply think in terms of mental health.

[RandFan]

I agree religion is not necessary for morality, but my question is whether we need good and evil to have morality, or if instead we should simply think in terms of mental health. First you will need to tell us what you mean by evil (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=define%3Aevil).

I think I understand your point. In the past it was believed that "evil spirits" would inhabit people's bodies and cause them to do "evil" or that the devil, and "evil" person would tempt people to do evil.

Now we know that there are schizophrenics who harm others and they are mentally ill.
We know that socio paths do not have a dminished or non existant ability to feel empathy for another person.
We understand that long term stress and trauma can cause an otherwise moral person to act in an immoral or amoral fashion.
We understand that brain damage can cause otherwise moral people to also act in such a way.I think we are better off when we avoid simple answers to complex problems. Labeling someone evil doesn't tell us much.

That said, BTK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader) was one evil prick.

It's a good question IMO.

[Mangafranga]

I'd say it presupposes good and not good. If evil is something other than not good, then I see not why it is necessary.

edit-actually I'd say it presupposes good or evil, and not necessarily both.

[plumjam]

Yeah, I still think there's a place for good and evil.
Sure, there are some psychos who are just mentally ill, have had damage to their prefrontal lobes etc..

But I think we all know from our own experience that good and evil exist, because we all know we're capable of both.

Sometimes, of my own free will I do acts that I know to be good.. and I take some joy in that fact.
Sometimes, as a kid, of my own free will I did acts I knew to be wrong, and took some joy in performing them (e.g. pulling the wings off flies). This, in it's own way was evil.

I think this taking joy in freely choosing to inflict suffering on others means that it's legitimate to use a word like evil.
And the converse for good.

[Wolfman]

I don't think that morality presupposes a need for "good" and "evil". This is a philosophical dichotomy that is common in Western culture, but many Eastern cultures view it entirely differently.

Take the concept of Yin and Yang. That is, "positive" and "negative" forces. Westerners tend to translate "positive" as "good" and "negative" as "bad"; but that is far from the truth. "Good" and "evil" require a concept of battle or conflict between two opposing sides, with one side eventually/ultimately defeating the other. The concept of Yin and Yang, on the other hand, requires a concept of balance, where there is no conflict or battle for one to defeat the other, but rather an ongoing effort to keep both in equal balance.

Most Eastern religions preach morality without teaching anything about "good" or "evil". So yes, it is quite possible to have morality without them.

[qayak]

I'd say it presupposes good and not good. If evil is something other than not good, then I see not why it is necessary.

edit-actually I'd say it presupposes good or evil, and not necessarily both.

You can't have one without the other. They are the opposite ends of the same thing, in the case, human behaviour. If you only had good, what would you call something that was not good?

Good and evil are decided in relation to each other just like hard and soft. You take and action that the majority decide is good or bad and you call it whichever is appropriate and then you plot other actions in relation to that one.

[RandFan]

You can't have one without the other. They are the opposite ends of the same thing, in the case, human behaviour. If you only had good, what would you call something that was not good?

Good and evil are decided in relation to each other just like hard and soft. You take and action that the majority decide is good or bad and you call it whichever is appropriate and then you plot other actions in relation to that one.This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white.

[LBN]

Nature is beyond good and evil.

[uruk]

good and evil are value judgments based on givin circumstances.
I think that morality only presuposses that some actions are better than others.
What determins what actions are better than others are the circumstances and the prevailing social standards.

[qayak]

This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white.

Not at all. Good and evil are simply labels to make discussion and understanding easier. Both have infinite degrees to them and it is only a fool who would see everything as one or the other.

Labelling a Nazi as evil is wrong simply because they were in fact very patriotic, which most people see as a good thing, and many of them were great family men, which is another good thing. That's the trouble with demonizing people instead of condemning the specific action that is bad.

So Nazism is evil and many of the acts performed in its name were were evil but not all the people involved were. And certainly each individual was not completely evil.

[ksbluesfan]

Objective truths are a slippery slope.

[Puppycow]

Labelling a Nazi as evil is wrong simply because they were in fact very patriotic, which most people see as a good thing, and many of them were great family men, which is another good thing. That's the trouble with demonizing people instead of condemning the specific action that is bad.


Boy. But if we separate the act from the person who commits it, how do we punish the evildoers? You can condemn an act, but you can't punish it. You can only punish the person who committed the act.

[qayak]

Boy. But if we separate the act from the person who commits it, how do we punish the evildoers? You can condemn an act, but you can't punish it. You can only punish the person who committed the act.

If you label a person as evil then you cannot complain when they do terrible things because that is what evil people do.

When someone commits an evil act they are charged for it. They are not charged for being evil. If you label a person as evil and charge them with being evil, what would you do with a lifeguard who, after saving 10 lives, went out and murdered 5 people. They are still a +5 good person.

We don't do that. We charge them with the five murders and then, during sentencing, the rest of their life maybe brought up to help decide the punishment.

[RandFan]

Not at all. "Not at all"? What do you mean?

Good and evil are simply labels to make discussion and understanding easier. Ok.

Both have infinite degrees to them and it is only a fool who would see everything as one or the other. Ok.

Labelling a Nazi as evil is wrong simply because they were in fact very patriotic, which most people see as a good thing, and many of them were great family men, which is another good thing. Ok.

That's the trouble with demonizing people instead of condemning the specific action that is bad. ?

Ok.

So Nazism is evil and many of the acts performed in its name were were evil but not all the people involved were. And certainly each individual was not completely evil.Not a clue dude. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. It's a perception.

How you say "not at all" to the premise is beyond me. What your premises are supposed to demonstrate or what they have to do with mine I can't say.

[omegablue]

Every moral code, as far as i know, presuppose indeed, what is commonly labeled as good and evil. It is primarily involved with labeling what is "good and honorable" and what is "not good/Evil and dishonorable". It is a tool or process, on the natural evolution of our known universe towards complexity, such as building human societies. In order to make life more complex, human beings naturally crave for organization. And there it goes, what is good is what fuels this craving, and as expected, evil are acts that primarily goes against the edification of what the moral code is about. This is a rough sketch of what i think. I think human suffering or happiness are not the primary goals of any moral code, sometimes it aims at avoiding some suffering but only the kind of which would help damaging the structure that the moral code is edified to make possible to persist. An example of well being and happiness not being taken as primary goal of a moral code, is the suffering of Africa with poverty and famine. It is the long stand result of war, domination, barbarism, and bad wealth distribution plus any horrors that for example, a system like capitalism and free-market can cause on one of the parts involved in the process, the sucked part, or the weaker part. The moral system of a capitalist society is built upon making sure capitalism can be practiced with almost no restrictions. Well being and suffering in this case for example are being left behind secondarily. This is only an example, im not preaching socialism here, for i know that it is as dangerous as capitalism, but just the other way around. So in my opinion, moral codes are about:

-First and most important: edifying a society, making progressive complexity possible;
-Second and less important: happiness and well being.

As someone said before, nature is beyond good and evil. And as i´m inclined to call everything nature, morals and ethics are not left out nature´s scope. Good and evil are just human judgements. I think even in morals or ethics, nature shows this "beyond good and evil" trait. That´s why no one can explain why humans are always craving domination, expansion and power , in known detriment of the well being of the sucked part. It is clearly craving unbalance. Even if every single human bit of the whole humanity knows that it does generate a huge abyss or unbalance involving suffering, the whole is acting this chaotic way. It is perhaps beyond our control and Will. It simply occurs cuzz it is the process of nature, or the cosmos. Perhaps!

[qayak]

"Not at all"? What do you mean?

You said: "This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white."

And I said, "Not at all."

[ And then I went on to explaion why what I had said was not like saying every colour is black or white.

Ok.

OKAY

Ok.

Okay

Ok.

Okay

?

Ok.

So, are you questioning what I said or agreeing again?

If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you demonize people you are not making a moral judgement about their action. You are making a false statement about the person specifically so you do not have to THINK.

For instance, let's for one minute pretend that Einstein was a Nazi. If you were to demonize Nazis, then eveything about them is bad. That would mean that you would see Einstein's theory of relativity as being evil and wrong. But it isn't.

You must seperate the actions so that each of his activities can be seen for what they are. His nazi activity would indeed be bad but his theory of relativity would still be good and correct. He himself would be like the rest of us, capable of good and evil.

Not a clue dude. Evil is in the eye of the beholder. It's a perception.

Well, that doesn't really hold up anymore but many people still cling to it. It is as silly as those who still believe that you can't drink seawater to stay alive in an emergency situation.

How you say "not at all" to the premise is beyond me. What your premises are supposed to demonstrate or what they have to do with mine I can't say.

I say "not at all" because you are mistaken to see what I said as black and white thinking. The rest of your premises, based on the mistaken mistaken premise are, therefore, all mistaken.

[RandFan]

You said: "This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white."

And I said, "Not at all." Yes, I said that. Thanks.

And then I went on to explain why what I had said was not like saying every colour is black or white. I never said any such thing.

So, are you questioning what I said or agreeing again? "Again"?

I'm agreeing with your premises. They don't in any way contradict the false dichotomy of good and evil.

If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you sermonize people you are not making a moral judgment about their action. Couldn't be more beside the point.

You are making a false statement about the person specifically so you do not have to THINK. I don't know what this means or what it has to do with anything.

For instance, let's for one minute pretend that Einstein was a Nazi. If you were to sermonize Nazis, then everything about them is bad. That would mean that you would see Einstein's theory of relativity as being evil and wrong. But it isn't. What? I just don't get where you are going.

I have specifically taken a position that everything about Nazis ISN'T bad.
Thinking everything about Nazis is bad is black and white thinking.
I'm against black and white thinking. That's my point.
Well, that doesn't really hold up anymore but many people still cling to it.
What?

I'm sorry but I have no idea where you get this. Where did you get such a notion?

It is as silly as those who still believe that you can't drink seawater to stay alive in an emergency situation. ???

Asserting something is silly and bringing in another point is not helping your case.

I say "not at all" because you are mistaken to see what I said as black and white thinking. No, I did not. I'm pointing out that morality is simply perception. I go on to explain that the range of human behavior is dynamic and complex.

The rest of your premises, based on the mistaken mistaken premise are, therefore, all mistaken. Huh?

qayak, I'm reasonably certain you don't even know what I'm talking about.

Look, slow down, I'm not attacking you. I was just making a point.

[qayak]

Yes, I said that. Thanks.

I never said any such thing.

"It's like saying that every color is black or white." (Randfan)

You said exactly that.

[qayak]

Couldn't be more beside the point.

First off, you changed my words when you quoted me. I did not say sermonize, I said demonize.

Second, if it is beside the point then I don't know why you responded to it. It was a point I made originally and that you responded to. Now you are saying it isn't the point.

In this instance, you don't get to decide what my point is, you can agree or dispute it but it remains the point.

[RandFan]

{snipped}

[RandFan]

qayak,

I'm sorry, I'm having a fight on another thread and I'm letting my emotions get the best of me.

Let me start from the beginning. I did go off the track here.

[RandFan]

This is simply perception and the simplistic notion that an act is either good or bad is fraught with dilemmas. It's useful but it it's not very good at modeling the very complex array of human responses to other humans and the natural world. It's like saying that every color is black or white.

First, let me say that I might not have any idea what you are saying.

Saying that you cannot have one without the other is just a perception. I will stand by that.

Now, if you are not engaging in black and white thinking then I appologize. You are not making your point very clear.

To say you can't have one without the other is to create a dichotomy. Black and white thinking.

Second, I did not change demonize to sermonize. In 20,000+ posts I've never been accused of such a thing. I have no idea why it's changed. I did run spell check but I don't remember that word comming up.

[RandFan]

In this instance, you don't get to decide what my point is, you can agree or dispute it but it remains the point.If you are responding to me then you are responding to my points. I can decide if it is beside my point.

[UserGoogol]

Boy. But if we separate the act from the person who commits it, how do we punish the evildoers? You can condemn an act, but you can't punish it. You can only punish the person who committed the act.

If you justify punishment by saying that bad people deserve bad things to be done to them, then yes, it sort of falls apart. But the way I see it, punishment is just a form of social engineering. When a machine or whatever acts in a way that's "bad," we try to stop that. We don't think fires are evil for killing people, but we still put them out. Similarly for humans. (Although I am not, as a general thing, a fan of "putting out" humans.) Because our knowledge of how human beings work is still fairly primitive, we're limiting to "slapping the machine on the side" in most ethical situations.

(Of course, in practice, punishment has less rational and less ethical justifications for it, in that people just like avenging what they deem to be misdeeds, but I think that's a good reason for it.)

[qayak]

I don't know what this means or what it has to do with anything.

You are the one that picks one sentence, quotes it out of context and then claims to not understand. If you put it back into context and read the sentences before and after, the meaning becomes clear.

What? I just don't get where you are going.

Then ask a question about it so that it can be clarified. Just repeating the single word "what" makes it perfectly clear that you have no idea what the topic is.

You quoted me and then said that what I had said was black and white thinking. If that is not what you meant then please clarify.

I'm sorry but I have no idea where you get this. Where did you get such a notion?

I get it from reading modern theories and studies that show what you say is not true. Evil is not in the eye of the beholder. The concept of good and evil can be show to be a universal human trait and exactly what actions are seen as good or bad are also universal, or at least a large number of them are.

???

Asserting something is silly and bringing in another point is not helping your case.

Well, it is done with the assumption that the other people in the discussion have a well rounded education. That is not always the case.

My point is to demonstrate how long a false idea will linger and the lengths people will go to when holding onto that idea. In the case of drinking salt water to stay alive, most people still believe it can't be done and they will allow themselves to die to prove it.

That, is as silly as holding onto the claim that evil is in the eye of the beholder. This was proven false in several studies quite some time ago and yet many people still cling to it. There is universal human agreement on what actions are evil.

This would mean that your assertion that evil is in the eye of the beholder, is only true if the beholder is humankind.

Look, slow down, I'm not attacking you. I was just making a point.

Once again: You quoted me and then said that what I had said was black and white thinking. In a discussion, that is an attack.

Now, if you had agreed with me, it would have been clearer if you had said something to the effect that the belief that Nazis are all evil was black and white thinking but you didn't. My post, in which I made the point that nazis were not all evil was the subject you were calling black and white thinking.

If the issue is simply my misunderstanding of the subject of your response, no problem.

[qayak]

If you are responding to me then you are responding to my points. I can decide if it is beside my point.

But I didn't. You responded to me and I clarified my point.

[qayak]

Saying that you cannot have one without the other is just a perception. I will stand by that.

Can you clear up what "one" and the "other " are?

The only thing I have said that about is good and evil. That was in another post long ago and not quoted by you. That post simply stated that good and evil define each other just as hard and soft do. In morality, good and evil mean absolutley nothing until they are applied to a specific action and its context.

Second, I did not change demonize to sermonize. In 20,000+ posts I've never been accused of such a thing. I have no idea why it's changed. I did run spell check but I don't remember that word comming up.

Well, you look at my post, you can see that it has not been edited, and you will see the word demonize. Then look at your quote, which I cannot edit, and the word has mysteriously changed to sermonize.

Not a big deal, except that you then say that my words are beside the point, which is annoying because they aren't my words. :)

My post: If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you demonize people you are not making a moral judgement about their action.

Your quote of my post: If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you sermonize people you are not making a moral judgment about their action.

I noticed it right away because sermonize is not a word I have ever used in my entire life. Running spell check could cause the change though. Demonize might not be a word in ithe system.

[qayak]

qayak,

I'm sorry, I'm having a fight on another thread and I'm letting my emotions get the best of me.

Let me start from the beginning. I did go off the track here.

Not to worry. Remember, I enjoy our heated discussions. Makes me sit up and go "Hmmmmmmmmmm!" :D

ETA: Plus it gets my post count up. I'm trying to catch you!

[RandFan]

I think we've moved beyond much of this so I'm going to skip parts of it. If there is something that you found important let me know and I will revisit it.

I get it from reading modern theories and studies that show what you say is not true.I've been studying Morality for the last couple of years now and I've been reading everything I can get my hands on from Aristotle to Kant to Hume to Singer and please forgive me but I honestly don't have a clue what you are talking about. I really don't.

Evil is not in the eye of the beholder. I don't know of a single secular philosopher that shares this view. I dare say that many theology based philosophers don't either.

Is it evil for a cat to cruelly play with and kill a mouse? Where is this evil for which you speak?

The concept of good and evil can be show to be a universal human trait and exactly what actions are seen as good or bad are also universal, or at least a large number of them are. Humans have justified slavery, murder, infanticide, filicide, you name it. Many societies that we think of fondly were brutal, cruel and engaged in practices that most of us would consider immoral. The Spartans left lame children to die on the side of a mountain. The Inuit and other Native Americans would leave older individuals out in the elements to die when they could no longer contribute. I could give you a dozen examples of where you are wrong.

In the Mayan society young girls happily gave themselves to be sacrificed. A mother and father thought it a great honor.

Most of us today would find that immoral.

It is true that the underpinnings, the genetics of our morals are to a large degree universal but you need to understand the relationship of nature and nurture. It is accepted that many phenotypes are not guaranteed to be expressed. It depends in large part on the environment.

It's late and I'm tired but I've got a lot of great links and information regarding morality if you are interested.

That, is as silly as holding onto the claim that evil is in the eye of the beholder. This is a non-sequitur. My proposition must stand or fall on its own and not in comparison to some other one. I will stipulate that humans hold onto false assumptions. Fair enough?

There is universal human agreement on what actions are evil. Actually there is not. Slavery is practiced in Africa to this day. Many people believe abortion is evil. Many do not. In China many people kill their infant child because it is of the wrong sex. In many Muslim countries it is considered evil for a girl to have a vulva. It's considered evil for a girl to show her hair, face, ankles, wrists and arms.

Women are, to this day, murdered if they commit fornication in many Muslim countries. I can find you YouTube videos if you don't believe me. The killing is called an honor killing. The adultery is called evil.

Do you consider honor killings moral? Do you consider sexual relations between unmarried individuals immoral?

Qayak, with all due respect, most of the world does not share your morality. I don't know where or how I would find such a morality. Looking in our genes can only tell us what is possible not what is right.

To find morality in our genes is to make a naturalistic fallacy.

This would mean that your assertion that evil is in the eye of the beholder, is only true if the beholder is humankind. I was only talking about humans.

[RandFan]

Can you clear up what "one" and the "other " are?

The only thing I have said that about is good and evil. That was in another post long ago and not quoted by you. That post simply stated that good and evil define each other just as hard and soft do. In morality, good and evil mean absolutley nothing until they are applied to a specific action and its context.

Well, you look at my post, you can see that it has not been edited, and you will see the word demonize. Then look at your quote, which I cannot edit, and the word has mysteriously changed to sermonize.

Not a big deal, except that you then say that my words are beside the point, which is annoying because they aren't my words. :)

My post: If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you demonize people you are not making a moral judgement about their action.

Your quote of my post: If you are questioning it, I am saying that when you sermonize people you are not making a moral judgment about their action.

I noticed it right away because sermonize is not a word I have ever used in my entire life. Running spell check could cause the change though. Demonize might not be a word in ithe system. Fair enough. I appreciate you giving me the benifit of the doubt on the sermonize thing. Yes, I noted right away that you didn't edit. Of course one has a couple of minutes to edit without it being documented but I don't think that happened here. I have no idea about the sermonize word.

Thanks.

[Tobermory]

This is way too long a thread to follow carefully, with much too much argument over very little. I believe that whoever said the concepts of good and evil are not black or white, and are subject to the eye of the beholder is right. At the same time, even without religion, we are programmed from childhood to think of certain things as good, and others as evil/bad.

Going back to one of the original questions in this thread, how can we consider a mentally-ill psychopath to be evil? To me, that's much the same as the cat playing with its prey. It is natural to the psychopath to be exactly as s/he is.

For some reason, this thread reminds me on an old song -- No New Tale to Tell. There's a line that runs through my head again and again, from time to time: "Going against nature is part of nature too."

Good, evil, morality, justice -- these are all human constructs that we impose on the natural world. Why? Because to some degree it improves how our society functions. But there is no such thing as good and evil per se. (Although there is definitely evidence to support the existence of the colors black and white, which are not necessarily opposites at all.)

[RandFan]

This is way too long a thread to follow carefully, with much too much argument over very little. I believe that whoever said the concepts of good and evil are not black or white, and are subject to the eye of the beholder is right. At the same time, even without religion, we are programmed from childhood to think of certain things as good, and others as evil/bad.

Going back to one of the original questions in this thread, how can we consider a mentally-ill psychopath to be evil? To me, that's much the same as the cat playing with its prey. It is natural to the psychopath to be exactly as s/he is.

For some reason, this thread reminds me on an old song -- No New Tale to Tell. There's a line that runs through my head again and again, from time to time: "Going against nature is part of nature too."

Good, evil, morality, justice -- these are all human constructs that we impose on the natural world. Why? Because to some degree it improves how our society functions. But there is no such thing as good and evil per se. (Although there is definitely evidence to support the existence of the colors black and white, which are not necessarily opposites at all.) Don't forget to mention the sociopath. The psychopath has an organic problem that is a bit easier to understand. A psychopath is irrational.

A sociopath on the other hand is rational, they just feel little or not empathy. It seems that if there is no empathy then there is no morality. What is empathy? See mirror neurons (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran06/ramachandran06_index.html).

BTW, I higly recomend Ramachandran's book, A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Tour-Human-Consciousness-Impostor/dp/0131486861).

Any way, it turns out that we don't all have identical sets of mirror neurons. This is a good explanation for why we don't all view the same things as right and wrong, at least in part that is. We still can't rule out environment. A person might be born with mirror neurons for feeling emapthy toward pain but if that person suffered trauma in an early life through neglect and abuse he might not grow up to experience empathy for pain in others. It just might turn him or her on.

[RandFan]

(Although there is definitely evidence to support the existence of the colors black and white, which are not necessarily opposites at all.) You will have to show me this evidence. I'm confident to say though that there is no such thing as black and white. Only shades of grey.

[Tobermory]

You will have to show me this evidence. I'm confident to say though that there is no such thing as black and white. Only shades of grey.

In life, I would tend to agree. I am a relativist at heart.

But in science, black simply reflects no light, while white reflects all colors. In effect, black and white are exactly the same color, one is just brighter than the other. So I suppose that in a sense, your "shades of gray" analogy works in science too, though black and white do indeed exist as concepts.

[RandFan]

In life, I would tend to agree. I am a relativist at heart.

But in science, black simply reflects no light, while white reflects all colors. In effect, black and white are exactly the same color, one is just brighter than the other. So I suppose that in a sense, your "shades of gray" analogy works in science too, though black and white do indeed exist as concepts.Yes, and to put a fine point on it, color is only a perception. To make matters worse the color that we percieve isn't the color that we see. Our eyes lie about the color. On top of that our brains then further monkey with the data.

Perception: Color & Luminosity -- Part III The Eye and the Brain (http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/color-perception-3/perception-3.htm)

[Tobermory]

Funny, I always used to wonder about these things as a very little girl: Is my green the same as your green? My mother thought I was just being silly, of course.

But it's also funny that I wonder about them still at the age that I am.

[RandFan]

Funny, I always used to wonder about these things as a very little girl: Is my green the same as your green? My mother thought I was just being silly, of course.

But it's also funny that I wonder about them still at the age that I am. This was my first lesson to my kids about critical thinking and skepticism. How do we know that what we see (percieve) is the same for everyone. It took a bit to get the idea across but once I did they were fascinated. BTW, discussing color blindness is a good way to make the point.

It's a very good question. It turns out that there is some good science to suppose why we do but we can't absolutely prove that we do.

[Z]

In the end, though, it's not a very useful question to ask. The important issue concerning color isn't about how we perceive colors, but whether the relationships between colors, objects, etc. are the same or not. For most people, the answer is yes - even if you and I see two different things when we see red, as long as the relationship between red and blue, red and green, red and stop signs, etc. remains the same, we are for all practical purposes seeing the same thing.

[RandFan]

In the end, though, it's not a very useful question to ask. Sure it is. It's a very significant thing to ask. See Ramachandran's A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Tour-Human-Consciousness-Impostor/dp/0131486861).

The important issue concerning color isn't about how we perceive colors, but whether the relationships between colors, objects, etc.
You are free to decide for yourself what is important. There was a time when the internal combustion engine was considered a silly hobby.

Just because you don't think something is significant doesn't mean that it isn't.

If we did perceive things differently then why do we? Can we test for it?

Important scientific questions that neuroscientists are working on at this very moment.

[kmortis]

You are free to decide for yourself what is important. There was a time when the internal combustion engine was considered a silly hobby.
And, when it was invented in the 1400's, nth order differential equations were nothing but a theoretical curiosity. Stayed that way until Lorenz found a use for them.

RandFan,
Take a listen to Radiolab's show on Morality (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28). The second(?) sotry is about universal morality. The whole fat man v. train bit.

[qayak]

Qayak, with all due respect, most of the world does not share your morality. I don't know where or how I would find such a morality. Looking in our genes can only tell us what is possible not what is right.

I never said they did but humans share many basic concepts of morality. Donald E. Brown identified 373 human moral universals.

To find morality in our genes is to make a naturalistic fallacy.

Really? Are you saying that morality has nothing to do with evolution and genetics? I think it is safe to say that is completely wrong and would make morals as magical as god! Or are you saying god did it?

I was only talking about humans.

So was I but I was talking about the whole of human kind, not just an individual or small group.

Read Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil and you will better understand what I am talking about.

[Z]

Sure it is. It's a very significant thing to ask. See Ramachandran's A Brief Tour of Human Consciousness: From Impostor Poodles to Purple Numbers (http://www.amazon.com/Brief-Tour-Human-Consciousness-Impostor/dp/0131486861).

You are free to decide for yourself what is important. There was a time when the internal combustion engine was considered a silly hobby.

Just because you don't think something is significant doesn't mean that it isn't.

If we did perceive things differently then why do we? Can we test for it?

Important scientific questions that neuroscientists are working on at this very moment.

Why is it important? Why is it significant? If you can't even demonstrate what it is we perceive, how does that affect anything? Isn't it the relationships between perceptions that matter, and not the perceptions itself?

Think VERY CAREFULLY about that.

Otherwise, you're about to admit that the search for a deistic, intangible, non-material God is also significant...

[RandFan]

Why is it important? For the very same reasons knock out mice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_mouse) are important. It is in the differences that we learn things.

Why is it significant? For many, many important reasons. See Ramachandran's book. But that aside, scientific knowledge is intrinsically important even when we don't have practical applications.

If you can't even demonstrate what it is we perceive, how does that affect anything? But there is every reason to believe that we can.

Isn't it the relationships between perceptions that matter, and not the perceptions itself? Depends on what you mean. If you mean that the there is a difference between the color blue and read to both person A and B then I would say that is important but not the only important thing.

Think VERY CAREFULLY about that.:eek: :D

Otherwise, you're about to admit that the search for a deistic, intangible, non-material God is also significant...Non Sequitur.

Neuroscience is making enormous strides in understanding perception. We can make inferences as to why we might perceive green the same. It's not as amorphous as you would suggest. We can't prove it absolutely but we can be reasonable certain for more and more reasons all of the time.

[RandFan]

I never said they did but humans share many basic concepts of morality. Donald E. Brown identified 373 human moral universals. Nothing is absolutely universal but I largely agree with this. I don't for a moment understand how it supports your thesis. It doesn't establish what is right and wrong only why so many of us perceive the same things as right and wrong. The problem is that I've already given you many examples of how this fails. Nature is only half the story. Morality is a product of nature AND nurture.

Are you saying that morality has nothing to do with evolution and genetics? Of course not. I've been saying over and over that morality is linked to genetics. That's silly.

I'm saying you can't derive an ought from an is.

I think it is safe to say that is completely wrong and would make morals as magical as god!

Your premise is wrong so your conclusion is also wrong.

So was I but I was talking about the whole of human kind, not just an individual or small group. "Small groups"? The Mayans were not small groups. Muslims are not a small group. There are no absolute monolithic codes among humans.

Read Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil and you will better understand what I am talking about. I own the book. I've read it many times. I think you should re-read it.

Shermers thesis is that "morals are the result of our natural existence, the culture that we live in and the exigencies of our daily lives".

[Z]

For the very same reasons knock out mice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knockout_mouse) are important. It is in the differences that we learn things.

Evasion noted.

For many, many important reasons. See Ramachandran's book. But that aside, scientific knowledge is intrinsically important even when we don't have practical applications.

I agree; yet unless the relationships themselves are different, we won't even begin to be able to know if the perceptions themselves are different.

But there is every reason to believe that we can.

Please list some of them.

Depends on what you mean. If you mean that the there is a difference between the color blue and read to both person A and B then I would say that is important but not the only important thing.

Those differences are the only important things, regarding perceptions.

When you first see something red, and your mom tells you that its color is red, and you label it as such, you form a relationship between two things that you perceived. It doesn't matter if what you saw, other people see as green or blue or fuschia; if they saw something that color and were told it was red, then it's red, regardless.

It's only in the relationships between perceptions that problems arise - when what you perceive as green is the same as what you perceive as red, for example. The problem isn't the perception itself, but the relationship between those perceptions.

:eek: :D
Non Sequitur.

Not at all. Perceptions are our most ephemeral property. Only in their absence, or when the relationships between them are flawed, can we even begin to guess at what's going on.

You have already admitted that we'll never be absolutely sure that what we perceive as 'red' is the same or different for every person, and that's a fact; hence, perception itself is as pointless to pursue as a deistic, non-involved deity. It isn't the perception that matters, but the relationships between perceptions, just as it isn't the deity that matters, but how people react thinking such a deity exists.

Neuroscience is making enormous strides in understanding perception. We can make inferences as to why we might perceive green the same. It's not as amorphous as you would suggest. We can't prove it absolutely but we can be reasonable certain for more and more reasons all of the time.

And one day you'll be able to write down what green looks like to you, I suppose, without referring to the relationships between other things? :eek:

I doubt it.

[RandFan]

Evasion noted.Asserting something is an evasion doesn't make it so.

I agree; yet unless the relationships themselves are different, we won't even begin to be able to know if the perceptions themselves are different. Not true.

Please list some of them. I think Ramachandran does it better than I ever could. I'm not a neuroscientist and I would be clunky on detailing the reasons. However, it provides insight on how and why we percive at all.

It doesn't matter if what you saw, other people see as green or blue or fuschia; if they saw something that color and were told it was red, then it's red, regardless.

John: Mom, what color is this?
Mom: It's an orange, the color is orange.
John: Is this also an orange?
Mom: No that is an apple.
John: Oh, it's the same color as the orange.

[RandFan]

Not at all. Perceptions are our most ephemeral property. Only in their absence, or when the relationships between them are flawed, can we even begin to guess at what's going on. Bingo. And we can learn so much from these flaws. We can also understand why there is perception at all and what causes it and therefore make many important inferences as to why we perceive the same.

You have already admitted that we'll never be absolutely sure that what we perceive as 'red' is the same or different for every person... We will never absolutely know anything. Not much of a point there.

...perception itself is as pointless to pursue...Faulty premise, wrong inference, wrong conclusion.

And one day you'll be able to write down what green looks like to you, I suppose, without referring to the relationships between other things? No, I'll let neuroscientists explain the physics of it and why we can draw such inferences.

[qayak]

Nothing is absolutely universal but I largely agree with this. I don't for a moment understand how it supports your thesis. It doesn't establish what is right and wrong only why so many of us perceive the same things as right and wrong. The problem is that I've already given you many examples of how this fails. Nature is only half the story. Morality is a product of nature AND nurture.

[QUOTE]Of course not. I've been saying over and over that morality is linked to genetics. That's silly.

I know it is silly which is why I couldn't believe you wrote it.

I'm saying you can't derive an ought from an is.

You are wrong about that. Humans have the ability to see how things are and to see how they could be made better. That is making an ought out of an is. Happens all the time.

Your premise is wrong so your conclusion is also wrong.

???????????? You are the one that made the silly statement, I just pointed out the silliness.

"Small groups"? The Mayans were not small groups. Muslims are not a small group. There are no absolute monolithic codes among humans.

Irrelevent to what I said.

I own the book. I've read it many times. I think you should re-read it.

Shermers thesis is that "morals are the result of our natural existence, the culture that we live in and the exigencies of our daily lives".

Seems to me Shermer discarded much of the moral relativism that you suibscribe to.

[RandFan]

You are wrong about that. Humans have the ability to see how things are and to see how they could be made better.


How is that deriving an oght from an is? That doesn't make sense.
Who is to say what is better?I know it is silly which is why I couldn't believe you wrote it.This does not make any sense from the context of what I said.

???????????? You are the one that made the silly statement, I just pointed out the silliness. What silly statement?

Seems to me Shermer discarded much of the moral relativism that you suibscribe to. "Seems to you"? I really think you need to read his book again.

ETA: Here's a hint of what you should be looking for. "Provisional morality"? What does Shermer mean by that? Is it that there are fundamentals but no absolutes? Why does sherm talk about culture if culture is not relevant? Why does Shermer discuss the exigencies of our daily lives."

Those are all meaningless of morality is ONLY a product of genetics.

Read it again, you will find that is neither a complete moral relativist and neither is he an absolutist.

[LBN]

In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.

[qayak]

ETA: Here's a hint of what you should be looking for. "Provisional morality"? What does Shermer mean by that? Is it that there are fundamentals but no absolutes? Why does sherm talk about culture if culture is not relevant? Why does Shermer discuss the exigencies of our daily lives."

Those are all meaningless of morality is ONLY a product of genetics.

Nonsense. No one said it is only a product of genetics. I only argued against your claim that it had no basis in genetics.

Read it again, you will find that is neither a complete moral relativist and neither is he an absolutist.

Shermer discards moral relativism, which means he discards a lot of the allowances made for culture. In his way of thinking, it is just as wrong top kill another person, no matter which culture you belong to. He cites several principles that he bases his ideas on:

1- The Ask God Principle
2- The Ask First Principle
3- The Happiness Principle
4-The Liberty Principle
5- The Moderation Principle

Shermer doesn't ever say that slavery is right. Based on his principles, it is always wrong. Many relativists would say that this is a judgement we are not allowed to make as it may interfere with someone else's cultural beliefs. That is a position that is unjustifiable and cowardly.

And he discards the idea that it is okay for one culture to visit atrocities on another, regardless of the beleifs of the culture they belong to. The closest he comes to allowing this would be if you could show that the other culture was, in fact, a different species which is going to be pretty hard considering our knowledge of genetics.

Shermer also discards absolutism for obvious reasons. Sometimes there are good reasons for immoral acts.

Provisional morality is the result of applying scientific thinking to morality. Something many people say is not possible but seems to work very well.

As he puts it: "In provisional ethics, moral or immoral means confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent."

He then goes on to apply the idea of fuzzy logic to the problem to come up with Fuzzy Provisional Morality.

I think you would agree that his ideas make a lot of sense. It is a position I have held for a long time, one I originally got from Sagan's and Druyan's writings. In fact, it is a postion I have expressed in almost every discussion of morality I have ever gotten into. It is also a position that many people say is impossible to hold. They say science has nothing to say about morality. There have been a whole lot of scientists who seem to disagree.

[Z]

Well, RandFan, you're entitled to your opinions, of course; and there's really no point in arguing with you, since you don't seem to understand that you already agree with me (that relationships are the important part of understanding perception).

For that matter, Ramachandran basically agrees as well. At least, his work on Synesthesia says as much - that it's not the individual perception that matters, as much as the relationship of that perception with other perceptions and data from the brain.

Or, without interaction, perception is irrelevant.

Your own example with the orange illustrates this perfectly - that it is the relationship between the colors that the boy fails to be able to recognize. The example relies entirely on the relationship of apples, oranges, and their respective colors. It doesn't tackle the individual perceptions at all.

But all things considered, I don't blame you. It's apparently not an easy concept for you to grasp. So far, it hasn't been a very easy concept for much of anyone to grasp. Luckily, the people who have grasped it, are the ones who are able to do something with it.

[RandFan]

Nonsense. No one said it is only a product of genetics. I only argued against your claim that it had no basis in genetics.Proof please?

You know, it is this kind of behavior that really bothers me. I won't deny that I've mistaken people's intent or statements in the past. However I've learned that before making such adamant claims I find the basis first.

You have no basis in fact to make such a claim.

So, I would appreciate (a) proving this claim or (b) an acknowledgment that you are wrong.

[RandFan]

Shermer doesn't ever say that slavery is right. Based on his principles, it is always wrong. Many relativists would say that this is a judgment we are not allowed to make as it may interfere with someone else's cultural beliefs. That is a position that is unjustifiable and cowardly.

And he discards the idea that it is okay for one culture to visit atrocities on another, regardless of the beliefs of the culture they belong to. The closest he comes to allowing this would be if you could show that the other culture was, in fact, a different species which is going to be pretty hard considering our knowledge of genetics.

Shermer also discards absolutism for obvious reasons. Sometimes there are good reasons for immoral acts.

Provisional morality is the result of applying scientific thinking to morality. Something many people say is not possible but seems to work very well.

As he puts it: "In provisional ethics, moral or immoral means confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent."

He then goes on to apply the idea of fuzzy logic to the problem to come up with Fuzzy Provisional Morality.

I think you would agree that his ideas make a lot of sense. It is a position I have held for a long time, one I originally got from Sagan's and Druyan's writings. In fact, it is a position I have expressed in almost every discussion of morality I have ever gotten into. It is also a position that many people say is impossible to hold. They say science has nothing to say about morality. There have been a whole lot of scientists who seem to disagree. Science absolutely has something to say about morality.

If you search this forum for RandFan and morality you will find that I have maintained that for a very, very long time. You obviously have no idea whatsoever about my philosophy of morality. Further it is demonstrable that you hold a completely spurious belief about my philosophy (see previous post).

That said,

Shermer demonstrates why reason can and will likely ultimately lead most if not all groups to the same moral fundamentals because we are all mostly wired the same. I agree with this.

However, Shermer concedes that these are his principles. Not everyone shares Shermers principles. We can, using reason, adopt Shermers principles and denounce the Spartans for leaving their lame children to the elements to die. However, given the culture and exigencies of the lives of the Spartans Shermer would conclude that for them their actions were moral.

Now, if our brains were wired to kill lame children, like many animals do then that WOULD be moral by this logic. Saying something is moral simply because it is in our genes is a naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).

Shermer isn't telling us what OUGHT to be moral he is telling us why we ARE moral.

FWIW, my views on morality are very close to Shermer's. That said, Shermer hasn't discovered any immutable laws of morality. He is simply explaining why perceive as moral that which is moral and why, if we use reason rather than superstition we will act, mostly, in universal ways.

[RandFan]

Your own example with the orange illustrates this perfectly - that it is the relationship between the colors that the boy fails to be able to recognize. The example relies entirely on the relationship of apples, oranges, and their respective colors. It doesn't tackle the individual perceptions at all. Actually it does. Why does the boy percieve two colors as the same? The answer to that question goes a long way to help us infer why we would likely all percieve color similarly and not simply see a distinction between the two. Why when I see red and blue and you see red and blue that my perception of red is roughly the same as your perception of red and not simply different than blue.

But all things considered, I don't blame you.
I don't blame you either z. And I sincerly hope that some day you will understand.

Cheers.

[qayak]

Science absolutely has something to say about morality.

If you search this forum for RandFan and morality you will find that I have maintained that for a very, very long time. You obviously have no idea whatsoever about my philosophy of morality. Further it is demonstrable that you hold a completely spurious belief about my philosophy (see previous post).

That said,

Shermer demonstrates why reason can and will likely ultimately lead most if not all groups to the same moral fundamentals because we are all mostly wired the same. I agree with this.

However, Shermer concedes that these are his principles. Not everyone shares Shermers principles. We can, using reason, adopt Shermers principles and denounce the Spartans for leaving their lame children to the elements to die. However, given the culture and exigencies of the lives of the Spartans Shermer would conclude that for them their actions were moral.

Now, if our brains were wired to kill lame children, like many animals do then that WOULD be moral by this logic. Saying something is moral simply because it is in our genes is a naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy).

Shermer isn't telling us what OUGHT to be moral he is telling us why we ARE moral.

FWIW, my views on morality are very close to Shermer's. That said, Shermer hasn't discovered any immutable laws of morality. He is simply explaining why perceive as moral that which is moral and why, if we use reason rather than superstition we will act, mostly, in universal ways.

(Highlighting in your quote, mine.) Shermer tells us not only why we are moral but why we are immoral and then he proposes a better system of morality for us to examine.

"The bright torch of science illuminates the darkness of humanity to reveal a human nature that is both moral and immoral, a product of our evolutionary heritage and our cultural history. We can construct a provisional ethical system that is neither dogmatically absolute nor irrationally relative, a more universal and tolerant morality that enhances the probability of the survival and well-being of all members of the species, and perhaps eventually of all species and even the biosphere, the only home we have ever known or will ever know until science leads us off the planet, out of the solar system and to the stars. Ad astra!" (pg.263)

To say that Shermer says science has little to say about morality is to completely misrepresent him. He uses the newest scientific knowledge to come to conclusions on many, many moral issues, just as Sagan and Druyan did. Have you ever read Sagan's and Druyan's discussion of abortion? That is a prime example of science having a great deal to say on morality.

The entire problem with morality based on religious dogma, is the fact that religions haven't changed in thousands of years. No new saviours, no new prophets, no knew ideas, no new . . . anything. Same old ideas holding back the advancement of human morality.

Science is new. Well, maybe not science but all the things science has discovered are new and Shermer bases his new morality on these discoveries, just as Sagan, Feynman, Dawkins, etc., have done before. If that isn't science having something to say about morality, I don't know what would be.

[RandFan]

To say that Shermer says science has little to say about morality is to completely misrepresent him. Why do you do this? It's dishonest. Please stop it.

ETA: If you continue in this vain then I'm going to put you on ignore.

[Lonewulf]

Why do you do this? It's dishonest. Please stop it.

ETA: If you continue in this vain then I'm going to put you on ignore.
Whoa, Randfan. I'm surprised. I think this is the first time I've witness you threaten to put someone else on ignore, and I've seen you at lengthy debates with more annoying people.

Though witnessing the discussion, I don't entirely blame you...

Either way, from a truly objective, non-human, non-animal viewpoint, morality is meaningless. Humans are to the earth the same as bacteria are for nutrients, or a sun is to the planets when it goes supernova or turns into a gas giant. We're just bits of matter interacting with other bits of matter. Yeah, sure, we're "intelligent" matter, but objectively, that's meaningless. The only things that give meaning to that is this thinking matter, making them automatically biased.

"Morality" means something for humans thanks to human desire and impulses, but nothing written in stone makes any bit of that morality into "true objectivity". Nothing makes one culture automatically right, and the other culture automatically wrong. Claims to the contrary usually just seem to be people trying to justify a claim of, "I'm right, and you're wrong! So there!"

[Ichneumonwasp]

Why do you do this? It's dishonest. Please stop it.



I'm with ya' bro.

[RandFan]

Whoa, Randfan. I'm surprised. I think this is the first time I've witness you threaten to put someone else on ignore, and I've seen you at lengthy debates with more annoying people. I expect more from qayak.

Though witnessing the discussion, I don't entirely blame you...

Either way, from a truly objective, non-human, non-animal viewpoint, morality is meaningless. Humans are to the earth the same as bacteria are for nutrients, or a sun is to the planets when it goes supernova or turns into a gas giant. We're just bits of matter interacting with other bits of matter. Yeah, sure, we're "intelligent" matter, but objectively, that's meaningless. The only things that give meaning to that is this thinking matter, making them automatically biased.

"Morality" means something for humans thanks to human desire and impulses, but nothing written in stone makes any bit of that morality into "true objectivity". Nothing makes one culture automatically right, and the other culture automatically wrong. Claims to the contrary usually just seem to be people trying to justify a claim of, "I'm right, and you're wrong! So there!" Agreed. However we can understand morality from a biological POV. It helps understand why we are moral and gives us reason why we might want to adopt certain moral principles.

[Lonewulf]

Agreed. However we can understand morality from a biological POV. It helps understand why we are moral and gives us reason why we might want to adopt certain moral principles.
I don't disagree at all.

To respond to the OP (considering that I want to answer the core question): I wouldn't call people "evil" or "good". And one person's "evil" is another person's "good". I mean, some people are disgusted at vigilantism. Personally, I think there's times where vigilantism is a good thing (notably, when there is no law to settle disputes), but only to a certain point. And I would rather there be law than be vigilantism. So I consider it the worse of the choices, but I wouldn't consider vigilantism to be "evil".

I would avoid "evil" and "good", honestly. If I use those terms, it's because I want to use a very very simple word to explain something very very complex. I mean, I could say "The universe is big", which is true, but a simple statement explaining something complex; but in normal conversation, that's perfectly fine. I think that there are multiple things that make an individual what they are; genetics (nature), mixed with nurture. Not all of us are born the same, and not all of us have the same make-up or background. Thus, someone that does something that we would consider "evil" are usually coming from a totally different viewpoint and background than we do; so judgment is hard to make without actual bias.

Now, to respond to your post, yes, of course there's a reason for Morality, as we see it, to exist. It exists, and almost everything seems to have a cause, so therefore, I can conclude that morality stems from something. All cultures have a sense of morality, and I can't think of a single truly "immoral" culture in existance; it's just that one culture's "morality" doesn't always jive with another culture's. Thus, of course there's an explanation out there.

Exploring those reasons are perfectly fine.

I'd say more, but I'm getting to be very tired. Really late here.

I'm going to bed. Night. :)