Wow, Nilrem, someone read their Nietzsche.
Like Nilrem indicates, what makes something "good" or "bad/evil" is very hard to establish. It is still a very hot topic in ethical theories, and in meta-ethics, perhaps the only persistent problem.
Some theories hold that some traits and actions are inherently good or bad (Aristotle's virtues, Immanuel Kant's pre-deontological system); whereas others hold that the value of an action or trait is entirely context-dependent (Utilitarianism, for instance), and something is morally defensible so long as it ensure the good of the majority of those implicated - for instance, killing 1 person in order to save 2 others is justified within this framework.
The general dichotomy here is that between anti-consequentialism and consequentialism, respectively. The core issue that arises from this dichotomy is exactly the claim of "objectively" good or bad things - because consequentialist approaches are plausible, this questions the steadfastness of virtues and the Good with a capital C.
So if the Good is not some "entity" in itself, but merely a subjective ascription, how do we ensure the functionality of society? If it is entirely up to the individual to determine what is the right thing to do, then no-one would essentially be safe from the harm of others, and everyone would be justified in harming others, because the formulation of their ethical guidelines were entirely up to them.
This is why social contracts are important for a given society - even if there is no objectively true Good, humans still need some sense of order and control to feel safe, and to know that someone who violates them cannot do so without consequences.
So, even if it is unclear what exactly makes something "morally just", if there is such a thing in the first place, we still have good reason to claim that there is indeed such a thing, and to set forth some boundaries for what is acceptable behaviour.
|
