Hacker News Reader

Comment by bsder | Hacker News Reader

> I'll probably maintain for all my days that there is no good or evil, just acts. Yes, cry "moral relativism!", but morals are social constructs, whether you like it or not - there is no universal law of morality, even if your name is Kant.

Actually, "do unto others as you would have done unto you" is a pretty damn near universal law of morality. It doesn't encompass things like when to punish bad actors, but it covers a huge range of situations that we encounter every day.

However, what most people never recognize is that apathy is the mechanism that allows small evils to persist long enough to turn into great evils. Often even a few individuals standing up at the beginning can thwart a rising tide that will be impossible to resist once it gets going.

View on HN

It's a reasonable seeming law, yes, just as the categorical imperative is - but what if your culture says that the more skulls you collect, the better a person you are? It's easy to define a law in isolation from social pressures which defy that law. Take the inquisition - by burning hereticks you saved their souls, and this was therefore good - so do as you would be done by applies, even if it comprises an auto da fé.

With re: apathy - "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing" - sure, but this still relies on a fixed idea of good and evil, and that you can recognise "evil" at its inception. The issue there is that tragic consequences tend to only become apparent in hindsight.

I do personally agree with "do as you would be done by", but you can't apply it as a universal law without the complete homogenisation of global culture - and even then folks will develop their own ideas of what constitutes good and evil.

Ultimately, it's all about societal consensus, which these days (since bernays in particular) is media led.

> It's a reasonable seeming law, yes, just as the categorical imperative is - but what if your culture says that the more skulls you collect, the better a person you are? It's easy to define a law in isolation from social pressures which defy that law. Take the inquisition - by burning hereticks you saved their souls, and this was therefore good - so do as you would be done by applies, even if it comprises an auto da fé.

I think the point is this--if the skull collector became the source of a skull, or the burner became a heretic, they would probably stop thinking those were "good" practices (due to the suffering and death and such), so those acts wouldn't satisfy the "do as you would be done by" rule. Even when those deemed heretics were part of the culture at the time, it's doubtful they thought "oh well, I guess this is the right thing to do".

If Hitler and his followers had been more apathetic, they wouldn't have displayed the zeal that they did in trying to change the world according to their ideals.

The problem with it is that you don't know whether you are the brave person speaking out against injustice or the lunatic that stands against obvious progress.

"do unto others as you would have done unto you" is a pretty damn near universal law of morality

It's insidiously evil. Many of the root versions (and in particular, the early Zoroastrian version, which I think might predate others and was influential in religions that followed) were to not do to others that which is abhorrent to you, but this corruption of it turns it into something else entirely.

Would you elaborate? I'd like to understand why you see it as evil.

It suggests that what you like having done to you is the correct thing to like, and that you're doing good works by forcing it on other people. It doesn't allow for the possibility that other people have different preferences; your preferences are the correct preferences and you are morally correct in applying them on others. Take this to extremes and you end up taking people's children away because they're being raised in the wrong culture, for example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com