I need your help...

Hi guys,


Recently I've been involved in two debates which proved to be much more challenging and complicated than I first anticipated. I'm posting this here to get your opinions because I've thought about the issues and this is all I can do.

MORAL RELATIVISM:

Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

The argument is more for descriptive & meta-ethical moral relativism.
What is morality? If we say morality is what is right or wrong, we hit a snag. While I may be tempted to use Sam Harris' argument, that if we grant happiness and well-being are good most of the time and preferably, we can tweak factors around us to maximize this for all and to ease suffering. But then the question comes unexpectedly, how do you prove that happiness and well-being are good? Because the outcomes of a well-off society is good? Why? What objectively makes this good? Because I'm claiming that happiness and well-being are "good", I have to prove this is the case.

But then failure to address this leads to serious consequences:
If I cannot demonstrate what is good objectively, then something cannot be proven to be good or bad. Then morality is relative. And if I rape you, that cannot be proven to be good or bad either way and is merely subjected to the opinions of people around me, in essence a morality opinion poll. But then that means rape, killing people, torture, these are neither good or bad. Rape causes unwarranted suffering? Prove to me suffering is bad. Because we don't want it? Is that a sufficient reason to say anything we don't want is bad? No, just that things we don't want that doesn't negatively impact others. It goes on and on.

This means I am logically justified to do whatever I want to other people. So now I'm stuck.

Some argue that morality literally changes as time changes and is only an opinion poll. I disagree. Then WTF is the opinion poll about? What is moral. So morality is about what people feel is moral? No, morality is about what IS moral, not what people feel is moral. I am tempted to say, slavery is bad and has always been b ad, us realizing it was bad later on didn't literally make slavery immoral, but rather it was moral the entire time, we just didn't realize it. Now we're back to why slavery is bad instead of why rape is bad, but I'm still not convinced the moral nature literally changes. Unless we're looking at what "good" is, if you argue that good is necessarily an opinion. I want to say that we build on what we know and things are tentative, like science. But that doesn't dodge the core question:

Why is something good?

What does 'good' mean?
To be desired or approved of, first definition from Google. This is solely based on other people's opinion.
Having qualities for a particular role. Nah.
What is morally right. Great, define morality as good, good as morality.
Benefit or advantage. To who and how do we objectively figure out what gives benefit or advantage holistically?
If I consider morality has having a definition that is subjective, I've just made the case for moral relativism. I can have the view that rape is good.

Does morality mean what is good or bad?
I've tried to attack this by attacking its utility: If we are both moral relativists and that is presumed to be the only option, what do we do as a society when I believe A is greatly moral and you believe B is greatly immoral? Now we're at an impasse. You can try to give me reasons for your opinion but I can flat out reject them and by definition I would be justified in holding my position that A is greatly moral because morality is subjective.

Trusting Our Senses

We know that taking things based on no evidence or bad evidence is a bad idea because it does not correlate well with actual truth. Ok, then explain to me how truth is found. By various processes, for example the scientific method where we test things and gather data and see if the data matches our conclusions, etc etc. Ok, example please. Well, if the acceleration of gravity is 9 m/s squared for me and others, then we know this effect is demonstrable. What if others report a result of 100 m/s and your eyes and senses deceive you?

Science is the best set of tools we have figure out how the universe is. You can use an 8 ball, flip a coin, etc but that doesn't correlate with how things are. But what data we obtain boils down to the data received through our senses. How do you verify such a sense is valid? Because I live daily and it has not failed me epicly.

Then you are justifying senses as accurate by using senses.

Is this circular? This is a question, do you think this is?

Because if that is indeed circular, we have no way of proving senses are valid without using our senses because it is all we have.
Then in that case, the world could be in any state right now to my ignorance. Me going up to rape you might actually be me giving you a hug and making you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it's just that my senses tell me I am raping you.

Then how the fuck do we live our lives around this fact?

My main argument I can find is, practically speaking this approach is useless because then we're left with either you use your senses or you don't and sit there and rot and die. Because by living you are using and trust said senses.

--
See, both times I resort to attacking the practicality of such ideas, not whether they are valid in theory. Would it be hypocritical/contradictory to say logic cannot be applied in these scenarios? Then logic, reason, evidence is not applicable for figuring out what is true or not???
Can somebody, please, find a fallacy in the reasoning stated above?

What's so complicated? Morals are human invention - and as such - are relative to time, context and place.
Good or Bad is human invention, nature nor evolution knows no such things.

Nature knows one thing - it supports life and procreation, survival of that species - or not.
All other versions - are just romantication of nature, very common in human. Just like flower - just is trying to attracts/hunts insects by all those colors - not to be romantic for human eye. Just trying to survive. Butterflies are not really joyful or happy etc....

Some such behavours were embedded in human cultures as "morals", but that's basically giving natural evolutionary laws a label, that sometimes easy to trace back to survival laws of individual or a group - and sometimes a bit harder, as it has it's own dynamics when roots of the original law are forgotten...but still.

Then you too believe that there is no way to prove that Hitler was a bad guy? A person can be just as valid as you in thinking that Hitler is was a good guy.

The notion of living in a world where every single action is as moral as the next is mind boggling.

Dark_wizzie wrote:Then you too believe that there is no way to prove that Hitler was a bad guy? A person can be just as valid as you in thinking that Hitler is was a good guy.

I can say Hitler is a bad guy - but I'm aware of the fact that it's just a label invented by humans, "bad" - is not a fact, not on object, not an item - it's a CONCEPT - cognitive choice of our brain to divide and categorize certain events and people for the benefit of survival. I can use it, even like it or find it appopriate in modern culture and times - but I don't extend the concept beyond existence in our minds. This is self-awareness. When I dig a hole - I know I did it. It's self awareness. When I invented a term - I'm aware of the fact it's just my invention, my way to deal with things and put labels of them to keep some of my world's logic. It can be useful, effective, it helps us to bond and communicate. Distunguish enemies and dangers - from friends and benefitial things.
For a rabbit - carrot is "good", as it helps him to survive. Fox is "Bad" for the rabbit - as it threatens his survival. Hitler is bad for me as he hates and kills jews and people in general. Those labels are not morals - just labels to help one person or group to survive and procreate, punishing or banning individuals for threatening that goal.

If a bear would kill millions of other bears - he would be killed or banned by the other bears, even by "bears morals". Not because he did something bad - but because bears want to survive and procreate, and would illiminate someone who acts against this notion.

The notion of living in a world where every single action is as moral as the next is mind boggling.

Well, I didn't say that. There are no good or bad laws or actions - but there are actions that should be supported and encouraged, useful ones - and others should lead to ban or other measure to prevent it from acting and spreading - as they create a danger to peoples or society.
We want to live, procreate safely, with no fears and threats. You are with us on that - or you are a public enemy.

Is killing bad?
If wolf kills a rabbit - it'll killing, but not a murder, and it's ok, we know he needs it to survive.
If wolf kills a wolf - this is a murder within his own species and he is killed or banned.

So it's ok to kill if you do it to survive - and don't kill your own species (and don't torture him).

So what do we have?

1. Rabbit
2. Fox
3. Fox killing a rabbit

1. Is rabbit bad? Obviously no.
2. Is fox bad? It's an animal, it's not good or bad - it just wants to live and procreate.
3. Is fox killing a rabbit - bad? No, as fox needs it to survive and was born to eat rabbits, and as it keeps the natural biological balance of a forest. If rabbits spread too much - forest won't be able to support such large population in resources and food...and rabbits will start eating food of other animals and species and cause their extinction, which can cause even large chain reaction.
4. Is a fox bad for a paricular rabbit it sees? Yes, it's bad for him as he wants to keep living, it's a notion that is good and proper - otherwise species wouldn't have motivation to survive and would go extinct. I can fully understand the rabbit, as fox is "bad" for him - and rabbit's brain uses that useful "bad/danger" label to signal his legs to start running away.
But does the label put on a fox by a particular rabbit in danger - makes fox - bad?

But the example I actually gave was Hitler. Killing Jews wasn't a requirement for survival. And I'm pretty sure there was torture and killing of our own species, ei, fellow humans.

To be a moral relativist because we cannot prove objectively what is good per say is to say Hitler is neither good nor bad. There is no moral position that is superior to any other moral position.

Dark_wizzie wrote:But the example I actually gave was Hitler. Killing Jews wasn't a requirement for survival. And I'm pretty sure there was torture and killing of our own species, ei, fellow humans.

That's why we call Hitler "bad".
This is unique trait to humans - none of other animals torture other animals or it's own species.
None of other animals kills just for fun or for some crazy idea of world domination and racism...not to eat or survive. And no more than it plans to eat and feed it's children. No animal is happy to kill others. They are not angry at their "victim" either.
That's why it's quite hard to apply nature laws to humans...we live in a much more perverted culture of ideas...that can make us kill even own own species...or children, or even parents.

That's why human have some "evil" qualities that animals don't have.
Religious people might blame it on original sin, evil spirits or the Devil....New Age people might blame the fact that we (according to their beliefs) have more chakras (or at least more active) than animals - that complicate things, and "write over" basic animalistic/nature ethics and intuition, they'll say our Muladhara chakra is distorted by itself or by higher chakras that are sensitive to ego, ideas and brainwash...even creativity chakra we have (?) can be turned to greater distorted evil, just at it makes us love art and be creative. Perverted murderer is a creative human of a sort - applied in a wrong direction. It's more complicated to be a human, there is no doubt. With great powers comes great responsibility.

Heh, even we are making mods where the goal is to kill people....

We are born with the right animalistic instincts that are in our nature...but later distorted by violence, ideas, brainwash....to go against our own nature.
Just look at Religion. It's anti-nature, anti-life, anti-moral. It overwrites even such basic instinct of mother to protect their children (of their penis getting cut while people drink and celebrate blood and screams of newborn mutulated baby...I was never attending brith ceremony and hope never will), or basic human morals...it's against all which is natural to us - but we overwrite our instincts by Word of God. True believers would even kill their own child if God through his representatives was saying them to. They have no morals of their own and have their "brain flash drive" totally reformatted by some manipulative interpretation of some old scripture compilations.

Animals don't have ideas....we do.
I think ideas - is distorts us the most....Hitler had one...all great killers had one. nothing killed more people than ideas (religions being just one example)....implanted in us from birth...dominating us. We have more complicated bodies and brains and so more weaknesses to exploit to enslave us to an idea....

To be a moral relativist because we cannot prove objectively what is good per say is to say Hitler is neither good nor bad

Hitler went against his own species and so is "bad" for his own species, a danger, a threat....not anymore though. His ideas are. By keeping Hitler's memory alive we are fighting his legacy, his idea, "Hitler" as an idea, a concept...as humans are different than animals - in animals - you have a crazy bear killing other bears - you kill that bear - threat is over, community can forget the case. In humans the most dangerous are not particular people - but ideas...as ideas is a unique trait humans have, and live much longer than their creators. Not guns kill people - ideas kill people. That's why humans will remember Hitler for long - as a defence mechanism to prevent this from happening again, basic nature survival. Sure his memory also are abused by some to get fame, money etc...
You can't simply delete Hitler's ideas - and you can't delete memory of him (and humans have longer one + external storage), can't kill ones who remember him and not the sources that keep his information for future generations. The only survival thing you can do - is to "mark"/"color" his memory as "Bad" - a language symbols shared between generations of humans as a warning what can happen if you go by that path or an ideas and where it can lead you. Even if you don't remember why it's bad - just remember it was Bad. "Bad" - is inter-generational way of communicating threats and dangers for survival, even long after details of those are remembered..
Hitler was a threat to his own species - and was removed. His ideas are a ongoing threat and so we call Hitler "bad" - to color memory of him in a way that future generation won't revive his idea. "Bad" in this game is a remake from trauma generation to the next ones, a warning... There is no other meaning I can think of for calling "bad" a man who is no longer a threat. Dead people are not bad (not anymore). They WERE bad. Living people can be "bad". Bad is a sign of danger, a threat. Anti-social, violent or egoistic behavour.

doomjedi wrote:

Dark_wizzie wrote:But the example I actually gave was Hitler. Killing Jews wasn't a requirement for survival. And I'm pretty sure there was torture and killing of our own species, ei, fellow humans.

That's why we call Hitler "bad".
This is unique trait to humans - none of other animals torture other animals or it's own species.
None of other animals kills just for fun or for some crazy idea of world domination and racism...not to eat or survive. And no more than it plans to eat and feed it's children. No animal is happy to kill others. They are not angry at their "victim" either.
That's why it's quite hard to apply nature laws to humans...we live in a much more perverted culture of ideas...that can make us kill even own own species...or children, or even parents.

That's why human have some "evil" qualities that animals don't have.
Religious people might blame it on original sin, evil spirits or the Devil....New Age people might blame the fact that we (according to their beliefs) have more chakras (or at least more active) than animals - that complicate things, and "write over" basic animalistic/nature ethics and intuition, they'll say our Muladhara chakra is distorted by itself or by higher chakras that are sensitive to ego, ideas and brainwash...even creativity chakra we have (?) can be turned to greater distorted evil, just at it makes us love art and be creative. Perverted murderer is a creative human of a sort - applied in a wrong direction. It's more complicated to be a human, there is no doubt. With great powers comes great responsibility.

Heh, even we are making mods where the goal is to kill people....

We are born with the right animalistic instincts that are in our nature...but later distorted by violence, ideas, brainwash....to go against our own nature.
Just look at Religion. It's anti-nature, anti-life, anti-moral. It overwrites even such basic instinct of mother to protect their children (of their penis getting cut while people drink and celebrate blood and screams of newborn mutulated baby...I was never attending brith ceremony and hope never will), or basic human morals...it's against all which is natural to us - but we overwrite our instincts by Word of God. True believers would even kill their own child if God through his representatives was saying them to. They have no morals of their own and have their "brain flash drive" totally reformatted by some manipulative interpretation of some old scripture compilations.

Animals don't have ideas....we do.
I think ideas - is distorts us the most....Hitler had one...all great killers had one. nothing killed more people than ideas (religions being just one example)....implanted in us from birth...dominating us. We have more complicated bodies and brains and so more weaknesses to exploit to enslave us to an idea....

To be a moral relativist because we cannot prove objectively what is good per say is to say Hitler is neither good nor bad

Hitler went against his own species and so is "bad" for his own species, a danger, a threat....not anymore though. His ideas are. By keeping Hitler's memory alive we are fighting his legacy, his idea, "Hitler" as an idea, a concept...as humans are different than animals - in animals - you have a crazy bear killing other bears - you kill that bear - threat is over, community can forget the case. In humans the most dangerous are not particular people - but ideas...as ideas is a unique trait humans have, and live much longer than their creators. Not guns kill people - ideas kill people. That's why humans will remember Hitler for long - as a defence mechanism to prevent this from happening again, basic nature survival. Sure his memory also are abused by some to get fame, money etc...
You can't simply delete Hitler's ideas - and you can't delete memory of him (and humans have longer one + external storage), can't kill ones who remember him and not the sources that keep his information for future generations. The only survival thing you can do - is to "mark"/"color" his memory as "Bad" - a language symbols shared between generations of humans as a warning what can happen if you go by that path or an ideas and where it can lead you. Even if you don't remember why it's bad - just remember it was Bad. "Bad" - is inter-generational way of communicating threats and dangers for survival, even long after details of those are remembered..
Hitler was a threat to his own species - and was removed. His ideas are a ongoing threat and so we call Hitler "bad" - to color memory of him in a way that future generation won't revive his idea. "Bad" in this game is a remake from trauma generation to the next ones, a warning... There is no other meaning I can think of for calling "bad" a man who is no longer a threat. Dead people are not bad (not anymore). They WERE bad. Living people can be "bad". Bad is a sign of danger, a threat. Anti-social, violent or egoistic behavour.

I see what you're saying, but some moral relativists feel every action is as moral as any other possible action. Your idea that Hitler was anti-social, violent, or egotistic behavior only applies to your specific culture and viewpoint and others may rightfully disagree. How do you prove that something is "bad" if we can't even prove that needless suffering is bad?

I have a problem with these hardcore philosophical debates because from here is where we draw the shittiest conclusions about how life works, ie, Hitler is as good as you are, we cannot trust anything and guessing is as good as science, etc. it's so far removed from how life actually works...

Dark_wizzie wrote:I see what you're saying, but some moral relativists feel every action is as moral as any other possible action

I never claimed to be a "moral relativist", or any other label. I even didn't know that term before your post.
But "morality" is a label invented by humans to divide "procreational" actions and "anti-procreational"...later to becoming "social" vs. "antisocial"...but social wants to survive and procreate, so it's the same thing. Individual's survival depends on social defence/umbrella he gets, so he wants to keep the social bondage. For his security and support of his kids by social structures. Humans protect themself by living in groups, and it requires some laws to keep the group from breaking apart. We call it social laws or "morals"...but it's just survival strategy. "Animal morals". Sometimes those are even more evil than parallel animal morals...child mutulation and such...
So I understand the "randomless" of some of modern morals. In animal kingdom it's ok to copulate with a female from the point she get's her period, that's why the nature starts it. It's actually even not against procreation and is pro-survival.... we limit our procreation by the "age for sex" limits - artificially, as a choice we made as society. It has some logic to it (especially as we are used to it now, and also strict tabu on sex makes young children and even adults to have trauma from it - if not done in certain particular ways, contexts and times/ages) - but don't try to present it is a moral from God. I think it's part of our issues with sex....issues animals don't have. They don't get it as trauma and don't make an issue out of it, as they were born to procreate by sex. It's part of their life, just like going to a toilet.

Actually, talking about "God" - in jewish writings (Halakha) - sex with a baby before she is 3-year old - is not even considered rape or child molestation - as (they claimed) her virginity re-heals at that age (great anatomy knowledge....), and after a baby is 3 years old - you can have sex with her if you marry her...or marry her by that action.
Not that people follow it...but it's the religious Halacha. Written in very dark and primitive times/ages.

How do you prove that something is "bad" if we can't even prove that needless suffering is bad?

Suffering is not bad...it's uncomfortable...to most people...not all. "Bad" is a label (as "Bad" refers to judgement of action...such is only valid compared to some existing law....and laws are human invention). "Suffering" is a label too. Pain is a medical fact, even though it exists only in our brain. Suffering - it's only our label to describe how we deal or see our pain. Sexual mazohists have sexual joy from pain. They don't "suffer". They enjoy. The same pain other would suffer from. Suffering is an invented term, and relative, depends on a person and situation.
So you can't prove something is bad...especially as we never see the big picture, the greater good. Society needs it's "dark" just as it needs it's "light". Nature has and creates killers...it means they play role in nature...and there are no bad roles in nature...all are part of greater balance and greater good...even if particular individual has to "suffer". Even if we later want and need to punish or kill the criminal - it's ok too. Criminals are part of evolution and nature...as punishing them is part of it too. It's ok for a rabbit to treat the fox that hunts him as "bad" or be glad fox died during the hunt. This doesn't make the fox "bad". It's not the greater good for that particular rabbit - but greater good for all the ecosystem rabbits live in, and rabbit is not aware of that...maybe on subconcious level. Viruses are important... There is so much arrogance in labeling things as "Bad" or "Good"...without seeing the whole picture. As "BaD" in our terms means "Has no purpose in the World's system/ecosystem, and shouldn't exist at all". We can kill bees for biting us - but will we survive in a world without bees? Or moskitos?
What is "greater good" anyway? Sometimes part of a whole needs to sacrifice itself for "greater good" of the whole system...this is even in modern mechanisms....Fuse burns out to save electric circuit (it's part of too) from dying.
Where is "good" and "bad" in that, and are humans in a position to know for sure?
So far humans almost destroyed the planet (and themselves with it) already....by greed, egoism and stupidity. Humans don't see good for them - or the greater good of Earth.... Are humans "good" for Earth - or just a deadly virus?

Another example - in nature, and in humans too - is has been proven by experiments that more varying genes promcie greater chance of survival and evolution.
We're attracted (in experiments) to people who has the most different set of genes from us. We recognize those subconsiously from smell, sweat smell and such (actually deodorants we use are anti-evolutional and anti-survival)

So natually, humans should encourage interracial marriage - for survival of humans and fixing genetic distortions from passing from generation to generation. This is nature morals.
But humans get more survival chance living on groups...and so copulating and breeding within those...so we give up on better survival chances on genetic level - long-term - for short-term social survival and protection of particular individual.
And spend so much money trying to fix our genes by medical research.

doomjedi wrote:

Dark_wizzie wrote:I see what you're saying, but some moral relativists feel every action is as moral as any other possible action

I never claimed to be a "moral relativist", or any other label. I even didn't know that term before your post.
But "morality" is a label invented by humans to divide "procreational" actions and "anti-procreational"...later to becoming "social" vs. "antisocial"...but social wants to survive and procreate, so it's the same thing. Individual's survival depends on social defence/umbrella he gets, so he wants to keep the social bondage. For his security and support of his kids by social structures. Humans protect themself by living in groups, and it requires some laws to keep the group from breaking apart. We call it social laws or "morals"...but it's just survival strategy. "Animal morals". Sometimes those are even more evil than parallel animal morals...child mutulation and such...
So I understand the "randomless" of some of modern morals. In animal kingdom it's ok to copulate with a female from the point she get's her period, that's why the nature starts it. It's actually even not against procreation and is pro-survival.... we limit our procreation by the "age for sex" limits - artificially, as a choice we made as society. It has some logic to it (especially as we are used to it now, and also strict tabu on sex makes young children and even adults to have trauma from it - if not done in certain particular ways, contexts and times/ages) - but don't try to present it is a moral from God. I think it's part of our issues with sex....issues animals don't have. They don't get it as trauma and don't make an issue out of it, as they were born to procreate by sex. It's part of their life, just like going to a toilet.

Actually, talking about "God" - in jewish writings (Halakha) - sex with a baby before she is 3-year old - is not even considered rape or child molestation - as (they claimed) her virginity re-heals at that age (great anatomy knowledge....), and after a baby is 3 years old - you can have sex with her if you marry her...or marry her by that action.
Not that people follow it...but it's the religious Halacha. Written in very dark and primitive times/ages.

How do you prove that something is "bad" if we can't even prove that needless suffering is bad?

Suffering is not bad...it's uncomfortable...to most people...not all. "Bad" is a label (as "Bad" refers to judgement of action...such is only valid compared to some existing law....and laws are human invention). "Suffering" is a label too. Pain is a medical fact, even though it exists only in our brain. Suffering - it's only our label to describe how we deal or see our pain. Sexual mazohists have sexual joy from pain. They don't "suffer". They enjoy. The same pain other would suffer from. Suffering is an invented term, and relative, depends on a person and situation.
So you can't prove something is bad...especially as we never see the big picture, the greater good. Society needs it's "dark" just as it needs it's "light". Nature has and creates killers...it means they play role in nature...and there are no bad roles in nature...all are part of greater balance and greater good...even if particular individual has to "suffer". Even if we later want and need to punish or kill the criminal - it's ok too. Criminals are part of evolution and nature...as punishing them is part of it too. It's ok for a rabbit to treat the fox that hunts him as "bad" or be glad fox died during the hunt. This doesn't make the fox "bad". It's not the greater good for that particular rabbit - but greater good for all the ecosystem rabbits live in, and rabbit is not aware of that...maybe on subconcious level. Viruses are important... There is so much arrogance in labeling things as "Bad" or "Good"...without seeing the whole picture. As "BaD" in our terms means "Has no purpose in the World's system/ecosystem, and shouldn't exist at all". We can kill bees for biting us - but will we survive in a world without bees? Or moskitos?
What is "greater good" anyway? Sometimes part of a whole needs to sacrifice itself for "greater good" of the whole system...this is even in modern mechanisms....Fuse burns out to save electric circuit (it's part of too) from dying.
Where is "good" and "bad" in that, and are humans in a position to know for sure?
So far humans almost destroyed the planet (and themselves with it) already....by greedm egoism and stupidity. Humans don't see good for them - or the greater good of Earth....

I think it depends on the definition of suffering. If you enjoy pain, then you're happy.
I am of course not talking in absolute terms. But in making policies for society, I think we should in general stick to policies that promote "happiness" and try to decrease "sadness". But I'm sitting here reading what you wrote, I see what you're saying but that draws the conclusion that nobody can know for sure whether Hitler was good or bad. So given this, does this mean if you had the opportunity to stop Hitler, you would not? This comes down to a conclusion that's completely against my intuition.

Dark_wizzie wrote:I think it depends on the definition of suffering.

What's to define?
To suffer - is to anti-enjoy pain. Pain is just a pain. Like taste....it's just a taste. Hot pepper is actually pain, not taste. Pain of molecules of your tongue dying. Yet we not only enjoy hot food - we consider it tasty.
Why don't we suffer from hot food (if not over-the-head hot)?

But in making policies for society, I think we should in general stick to policies that promote "happiness" and try to decrease "sadness".

Fully with you on that. Moreso - to lesser suffering, fear, threats, trauma.
Yet even that it's complicated. Is sterile environment good or bad for the baby? It protects it short-term - but not helps his immune system to develop (which it can do only by fighting infections and dirt) - which is greater evil and danger for him long-run, and anti-survival. That's why child intuitively loves and seeks dirt...not for fun - for survival insttinct...he is born to be attracted to dirt, and wider range of experiences, not all we define as "safe" or "positive"...he needs every peice of experience to survive in nature.
So is sick baby - baby getting "bad" done to him? Better be sick from small things - and develop immune system to protect him from greater threats....otherwise medical companies win....and you'll spend your life on treatments and drugs.
So how would we develop as persons and humans - without the need to deal with pain, trauma, fear....Would we be as good people, as empathic, and compassionate? Understanding other's pain by have prior personal experience....his needs...
Fear is to protect us...when not dominating over us. We need fear more than fear needs us. The same minght be valid for trauma and pain....in the same way.
Not to mention that without pain and trauma - none of the greatest culture achievements, inspirations, songs, books, movies, all the artforms - would be created. We'd have no culture, theater - we love so much...no scenarios (as scenarious are based on drama), scripts......sad love songs...ballads....Pain and suffering created more beautiful creations (other can enjoy (!) for centuries!) that Joy. Do we enjoy good drama in theater less that some bad stand up act? No. We love deep....and sad is deep.
Pain is what makes us human....with a big H. Without it we'd stay pimitive stone-age humans.
Pain reminds us what really matters in life - what would we do without such reminders....pain makes love sweeter....and deep....and meaningful.

But I'm sitting here reading what you wrote, I see what you're saying but that draws the conclusion that nobody can know for sure whether Hitler was good or bad.

Related to "greater good", globally? (As sure Hitler seem to be "bad" for those who died from him) For that we'd need to compare 2 scenarious - Hitler winning the war - vs. him losing it. Over a long period of time, long-term. And we obviously cannot do that.
Sure we can't monitor and notice all the subtile and non-direct effects of such history twist. It's truly "butterfly effect". History is like that.

So given this, does this mean if you had the opportunity to stop Hitler, you would not?

I would. I'm that rabbit....who doesn't know what greater good of the forest is...I want to protect myself and people/species I care about, to survive and procreate. That's all I care at that moment. And is all I should care. I'm part of that forest ecosystem too...I should act like it's logical to me...and it gotta make logic for the forest...who created me with that logic - for a purpose.
Still...I'm aware that it doesn't have to be "bad" or "good" on an absolute "forest" level...any of my guess of what such might be as as valid guess as any other. It's "bad" or "good" for me, as a label.

This comes down to a conclusion that's completely against my intuition.

Intuition is tricky thing...that plays games on us. I can show you some simple popular exercises in statistics and probability - that go against our intuition.

Happiness is shallow and stupid. If not balanced by sad and pain.
Think about it for a moment. Remember people you love....loved...girls too.....
Would you fall in love or be interested in a person who has no deepness of sadness or pain to him in the past? Just happy jolly clown jumping all day and grass and smiling? Who had no difficulties and challenges in her life? No need to deal with feelings, situations, to grow up and get complicated and unique character? Who never had a challenge or wide range of emotions? Whose spectrum goes only between happy and joy?
It's fun for 10 minutes. We all look for deep people - and yet expecting people to be all happy. Happy is mindless situation and state...
Would you body muscles be ok if not dealing with hard actions?

What makes as deep, wise, smart and interesting - is not joy. It's pain.
Joy is a nice break between those. But to be all joy - is like eating only chocolate.

doomjedi wrote:What makes as deep, wise, smart and interesting - is not joy. It's pain.
Joy is a nice break between those. But to be all joy - is like eating only chocolate.

Agreed, when enduring pain one always seeks to make it through, and by taking that path you discover strengths you never thought you had. It makes you grow, so to speak.

Here is my latest stance on both optics:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]