Welcome to Gaia! ::

An example of evil in what would be an objective morality definition? Sure. It will require some beating all around the mulberry bush first to get there, but I can definitely give you one.

In a non-religious (because I do agree that religious definitions of morality, among other things, require circular logic and thus don't count for much) morality system which does claim objectivity, it is based first in several things: 1) the way the world works (facts of the physical world and such, like admitting to and working with the fact that you can't simply make something from absolute nothing for example) 2) that morality deals with what is and isn't proper for anyone with enough self-awareness and intelligence to comprehend these things to do with and to those things external to themself (dealings with other people, what they should and shouldn't do for themself too) 3) That since only intelligent enough and self-aware enough creatures (which so far seems only to be humans to our present knowledge) can comprehend morality or think of such a thing existing in the first place, only they have it and it only applies to them (there's no such thing as an "immoral" tornado for example, much as the thing may indeed suck) 4) Self-awareness is a primary for morality as morality deals with interactions (if you do not have the concept of your own existence, you really can't begin to separate yourself from everything and anything else and thus decide what should be done with/for/between you and all else) and so morality not only only applies to only those with enough intelligence and self-awareness to comprehend it, but it is something done FOR those creatures (to sort of make a very quick bastardized combination conclusion explained by examples from a couple philosophers' works here: any thing does what it is by nature, like a baker bakes or they aren't a baker for example, right? And a "good" one of anything does what they do by nature, just well. The difference between a baker and a good baker is that the good baker does what they do as a baker but they excel at it. I'll get back to that in just a second. As I said earlier, morality requires self-awareness, which we know people have -"I think, therefore I am" sums that up pretty quickly even if that isn't exactly what it was intended to answer - and the one other thing that sets us smart self-aware beings apart in and defines us a being different from just other animals is our capacity for rationality and not just going along with whatever just getting by and living an little examined life on mere instinct - though I do think this capacity for rationality grows from increased intelligence and self-awareness in the first place anyway. So, to be human is to be a fairly intelligent and rational creature, as compared with other animals at least anyway for sure, and self-aware. So to be good at being human is to live according to those things to the best of your ability. But also, in our intelligence and knowing we exist as a separate entity and are ourselves, we also do, or at least if your not entirely nuts you should do, everything we do for one primary reason: we think it will make us happier, or at least happier then we would be otherwise if we didn't. Really, that is the ultimate goal everybody has. Some things may be immediate pay offs toward this, others will be a more delayed pay off, some things are very direct in pay off like eating some fruit you enjoy perhaps and others are sort of less direct but still equally to this goal, like donating a kidney to save the life of a friend that is very dear to you. Also, in all of this, you can only do what is possible, so while trying and testing to see just what ARE the limits of what is and what is not possible, you will only hinder your own goals of aiming for being happy if you try to really act as if things are how they are not. Like for a simple obvious example, pretending you didn't seriously mangle and break your reading glasses because they will be expensive to replace and you may have a parent get angry at you for it, you are just going to end up taking a long time trying to read things you have to and possibly get headaches from trying and will probably have to fess up or get caught eventually anyway, so why bother? Again, you can't just poof new ones up without getting caught and the trouble reading can really bite you in the butt in the mean time. ) And in all of that that leads to 5) So if everybody is doing what they can to make themselves happy, there are some limits though on what people can do though to try to make things run smoothly (and assuming we are going with the whole "tableau rasa" nobody is born inherently evil, we're born essentially equal thing, I don't think I need to go over that too, so I won't to save space unless you really want it further justified). While surely not the only part of morality, the most basic things that apply to all human interactions with each other are rights. There are certain things that everybody is entitled to so long as they do not first violate somebody else's rights first. (rights to benefit from your own work and ideas, right to privacy, right to bodily domain/integrity, right to property so long as it was justly acquired and not gotten through force or fraud, right to life, etc...)

AND SO! In conclusion to all that to answer your question now, with all of that said, morally good is that which through human actions and intents furthers the life and happiness of the person themself doing it and does not violate another person's rights and/or involve force or fraud and evil is that which does the opposite. An example of what would be an "objectively" evil thing would be for one person to intentionally kill another person who had done nothing to violate or seriously threaten to violate the rights of themself or somebody else first. (Meaning self defense or killing somebody in the process of stopping them from killing your friend is a-okay though.)

How is murder for revenge more wrong than murder "for fun"? While I agree that if somebody hits you stealing their cookies is not a great way to set things straight again, I can't get how you could really say killing somebody who has not wronged you in any way is somehow less wrong then killing somebody who has wronged you first. Really, at the very least, I should think at the time of killing between non-law enforcement people they should be equally wrong as long as no question of the party being killed immediately threatening your rights or those of another came into play (meaning stuff done for defense when need be.)

I also would think unless the mother was a direct witness with a clear view of the criminal, you wouldn't want the mom of a murdered kid in control of the decisions because they may likely have clouded judgment for just wanting to think that the killer of their child has gotten what they deserved to the point that they may not really pay close enough attention to making sure they really have the right person being charged with the crime. That's why you generally don't want the victims (victims in this case not being just the directly assaulted party) in charge of deciding guilt or innocence and dishing out punishments.

Murdering for vengeance is probably a more selfish reason to murder someone then murdering "for fun." Think about it, people who murder for fun are generally very ill and they have no other means, in their minds, to express themselves. This being said murderers who murder for fun have no control over their actions.

On the contrary, murdering for vengeance is indeed passing a judgment, but it is passing a judgment to help cope with something. A mother of a murder victim goes out and kills her son's murderer, is she making a judgment, or is she getting rid of some self felt emotion? Secondly, people who murder for revenge are the people who are calculated in the approach. They plan how to commit the murder, making it less for the "thrill" or excitement that many spontaneous murders go for but more for themselves.

This being said, I believe your first post about how capital punishment is impartial is correct in that the decision is made by a jury. But does impartial, cold blooded murder mean its better then a confused excited spin of events out of someone's control? Which would be worse?

"Let us confess it: evil strides the world." --Voltaire

A mother who kills her son's murderer with vengeance is doing it to relieve an emotion; so in other words she's doing it to indulge in her primal desires. Doing something to relieve your own emotions or grief does not at all justify your act of vengeance; in fact many murders are fuelled by the desire for relief of whatever inner feeling in the first place. Many murders ARE revenge -- in school shootings often the murderer is said to have shot his peers as a final act of revenge, yet he is not murdering as vengeance for murder. So if you ask me the two scenarios are very similar in nearly every way, especially morally, which is the biggest aspect for me.

The real difference between humans and other animals we know of is our level of intellect and how much more we do by choice as opposed to instinct. We choose to do things and we do so after factoring much wider possible ranges of consequences over a much longer time span than other animals. We've gotten more developed and complex in how we do it, but like other animals we aim for pretty similar things with just a greater understanding of what we're doing and how to get it: We want to secure our survival and as long as we're surviving we want to do things that will occupy and entertain us, in general keep us happy.

So with these goals in mind, why does good and evil need to pertain to things moot to those goals? Why can't good and evil just be what we in our understanding label things that aid or hinder our ability to reach those goals? It doesn't need to be going "outside" real existence for deciding things are good or evil.

(There are limits on what we can apply these moral evaluations to, but if need be that can be gotten into later. I've been reading a nice slightly long article/essay thing presently on that issue actually. Perhaps I could post a link to it if this comes up because it is pretty long and I'm not sure if even though it is posted on a free web page where anybody could see it if I would be within the fair copy-paste rules even if I was to include the author's name giving it credit. But anyway, that which can't be morally judged, but still has an effect on our life span and quality is not good or evil, moral terms, but just good or bad. "Good" in this case not being exactly the same in both sets of terms.)

hurt u