Yeah, but you're using relative terms for other relative terms, that's still not an objective definition (more of a practical one). Objective definitions don't contain the words hot or cold, rather they would say "Object A contains 'x' amount of thermal energy, which is 'y' less than Object B's thermal energy," even explain how that's the case up to everything that we know (molecules vibrating, etc.). We interpret from this that Object A is hotter than Object B, but what makes my assertion true is the statement before it. If anyone questions my assertion (as they should, cause I could be wrong), I only need to point to the fact that "Object A contains 'x' amount of thermal energy, which is 'y' less than Object B's thermal energy". That statement, supposedly measured and quantified, doesn't need my opinion to be true and it's a verifiable fact.
We can do this (measure the exact amount of energy)
now, but for most of human history that would have been impossible. Yet even without the ability to perfectly measure the energy level's involved, the concepts of hot and cold still existed, and what they refered to was still objectively real, it's just the level of
precision was lower. It's absurd to say that, without a system of measurement, the statement that "A pan of boiling water is hotter than a pan of ice" would be untrue, or subjective. The statement is obviously true, and any sane person will agree with it - regardless of culture or time period. In the same way, some actions have
always been viewed as evil, and are obviously so, to the extent that any sane person will agree that yes, that's evil. The lack of a system of measurement in no way disputes this. Likewise, it's only very recently that we've gained the ability to measure the degree of electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum that's present, yet the concepts of "light" and "dark" are literally prehistoric. The ability to perfectly measure something in no way determines objectivity. As long as we can make relative determinations (object A is hotter than object B; room C is darker than room D) which are clearly true to any right thinking individual, one can claim that a degree of objectivity exists.
I guess another way to say it is that there's always some impartial, verifiable, objective, real, factual, truths that can be used to prove or disprove whatever statement you make. By these facts we can make a lot of inferences from which to posit that "Object A as hotter than Object B". This being factual as well only when proven to be based on other facts, but not factual by itself. I think it was David Hume who said that the truth of things lies in the description, not on our interpretations of them.
Hume also said something along the lines of even if you drop a coin a hundred times and it falls to the floor, you never now what it will do the next time you drop it; it
might fall to the floor, but it might float up to the ceailing or something. Past events can never predict future occurances. Likewise he seemed to honestly believe that business about how one can only prove one's own existence (and math) and nothing else. While all of this may be technically true, it's the exact opposite of useful to behave as if you actually believed any of it; both our day to day lives and, heck, science are based on ignoring this kind of sillyness.
Your definition of Evil requires a moral code, the definition of a rock doesn't. That's the crux of the problem here. Objective truths do not require human input, they need not be judged or compared, nor do they need to abide by anything, they are by themselves. Since your definition of Evil is based on judgement, then all I need is a single disagreement to disprove it.
All forms of
measurement do require a code, and a measure of both human imput and comparison. I am not claiming that good/evil are physical objects, any more than I'm claiming that "hot" or "dark" are physical objects. In all cases what these terms refer to is real, and the system of measurement doesn't become less real just becuase some crazy person chooses to dispute it. Hence telling a police officer that you weren't speeding because you reject the system of measurement he used to determine your speed probably won't cut it.
Continuing on the examples you made. I think it was Psi who noted that "people don't do Evil for the sake of Evil." Now, this next part is a little unfair since I'm using your words from a previous thread (I don't abide by everything I've said in every single post myself), but you seem to be on the same idea, so I'll go ahead. Feel free to reject this next statement:
Istvan wrote:
Does anyone do evil for the sake of evil? Yes. We label them "insane", because the majority of people don't believe such action to be rational. They're part of the reason I earlier objected to trying to apply a concept of morality to 100% of people. But they do exist.If people who do Evil for the sake of Evil are insane, then they are not doing Evil for the sake of Evil since being insane means to not be able to to recognize what Evil is. If you then exclude crazy people, then by definition, it is not universal.
Ah, sorry. I guess I wasn't clear here. I was using two different definitions of "insane" here. One was the legal definition, those who can't tell the difference between right and wrong, good and evil. The other was a more commonplace definition, for people who act in a radically irrational manner, such as those who believe in evil, understand what it is, and commit evil
simply for the sake of committing it, with no other reason or motivation; such people are rare, but they do exist, and I think it's fare enough to label them as "crazy," even if they don't meet the legel definition of the word.
ultimately is the the motive behind the action, the action its self, or the end result that determines if something/someone is evil?
The first two. Motivation plays a big role, since some actions are basically neutral but canbe shifted either way by intent. In the same way some actions (for example premediated murder) are inherently evil (or good) but can be shifted to less evil/neutral by intent; circumstance may make the action necessary/justifiable, and although that won't make commiting such an action not evil, it is less so. The outcome doesn't play much role, since no one can see the future to always know the outcome of their actions. The
probable outcome may be known, but that falls back under the realm of motivation.
