Good vs. Evil

[Hegel]

Is there such a thing as good? Is there such a thing as evil? If so who has the right to say what is what? Does one culture have the right to judge another culture's values?

I would claim that there is no definative good and evil. The terms are relative to the enviroment and culture you are refering to. No one has the right to judge anyone else's beliefs or values, except as they affect you. For (an extreme) example, say someone feels that rape is acceptable. If that person goes and rapes someone, it is up to the person who is raped, and NO ONE ELSE to say whether that was right or wrong, because it was they who got affected. For a less extreme example say someone insults someone else. The one who gets insulted gets to deside whether it was evil. No one else has the right to be able to decide that. After all if the event didn't affect them, then how could they possible be well informed enough to be able to make a moral judgement about it?

Those are my thoughts. What do you think?

 

[Upchurch]

What do you think?

I consider good and evil to be man-made constructs. They are relative based on the moral system by which you use to make a value call and are not absolute.

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Good vs. Evil

I consider good and evil to be man-made constructs. They are relative based on the moral system by which you use to make a value call and are not absolute.

I agree completely. Morality is subjective. And for this reason, a huge branch of Philosophy was born, its name is Ethics.

Some people base their morality on what they are offended by (whether it be hurting others, taking advantage of others... its the concept of "play fair"...). If someone is offended (or disgusted as the case seems to be most of the time) by consentual homosexual sex, they will have "moral" objections to it. Of course, there is no way to justify a "moral objection" if you cant provide reasoning to support your justification ("icky" isnt reasoning). Of course, to get passed this problem, some people have suggest that morality doesnt require any more reasoning than one's willingness to accept that it is a moral objection.

But, morality just doesnt exist inside one's head, "society" puts forth moral principles as well. Some people see morality itself from being seperate from law and etiquette.

On to the subject of evil... evil is a very abstract term. Evil doesnt exist in concrete form.

If we use the bible as a reference (its a valid reference in this example), then we know anything done that violates any of the 10 commandments is morally wrong (Note: I have no idea what morals are implied with the first 3 commandments). People commit adultery, and covet, and kill others all the time. Therefore, (with the bible as the reference) we can logically conclude evil exists. If God is morally perfect (or to say the least, omnibenevolent), then God would be morally obligated to remove all evil. Of course, this would imply he would have to remove the ability of humans to have free will. Or, if you make a more Yahwehesque analysis, you can conclude that God is not able to remove evil (therefore not omnipotent), or he does not have the desire to remove evil (therefore not morally perfect... yeah, thats right, GOD IS NOT PERFECT), or perhaps God doesnt even recognize that evil exist (therefore not omniscient). If God is either omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or omniscient, but allows evil to exist, it is a reasonable assumption to conclude that god does not exist.

As far as I know, evil is (loosely) defined by the laws governing a country. A government uses rationalism and reasoning to determine what is evil, therefore breaking laws is evil. There are a such thing as "natural laws" such as the Big Three (the right to life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness) which apply to all people, violate any of those laws without a just (or judicial) cause, then it is evil.

 

[Hegel]

Re: Re: Re: Good vs. Evil

There are a such thing as "natural laws" such as the Big Three (the right to life, freedom, and pursuit of happiness) which apply to all people, violate any of those laws without a just (or judicial) cause, then it is evil.

Just to get thee thinking, what if someone doesn't want to live anymore? Is it morally acceptable to kill them then? What if they don't WANT freedom, and they want someone else to make all of thier choices for them? Is it morally acceptable to take thier freedom away then? What if they don't want to be happy, or own property (Locke's version), after all some people like being sad, it gives them a feeling that they are being appropriatly punished for thier sins, and others feel that property really causes more problems then good (eg Communists)? Is it morally acceptable to remove those rights then? Is it morally acceptable to force someone to live, be free, and pursue happiness and/or property?

 

[Azathoth]

Is there such a thing as good? Is there such a thing as evil?

Nope. They do not exist as objective quantities.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Is there such a thing as good? Is there such a thing as evil?

I have read a lot of people claiming that Good and Evil are moral constructs and as such are abstract.


They could not be more wrong.

Good is a 2 year old boarder collie (Name is prounced Goad, but spelled Good) that my wife and I adopted as a pup.

Evil (Pronounce AYveel) is the name of my mother's siamese cat.

Hence, Good and Evil are absolutes and totally quatifiable.


And hairy.

 

[c4ts]

Those who are evil do harm to themselves and others, those who are good do the opposite.

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

Those who are evil do harm to themselves and others, those who are good do the opposite.

So, you're saying that those who are good have harm done to themselves and others?


Would that mean that it is good to be into paying someone for S and M?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yin and yang. Good and bad (and any other complementary opposite) are completely relative.

I think if someone names a bad thing, that someone can always explain how that thing could be viewed as good, and vice versa.

 

[EdipisReks]

Re: Re: Good vs. Evil

I consider good and evil to be man-made constructs. They are relative based on the moral system by which you use to make a value call and are not absolute.

DING DING DING *applause*

 

[justsaygnosis]

(IMO,for what it's worth) Organic capability is natural license.
It's up to us to analyze the results of attitudes and the actions that stem from them and form body politiques and laws from our conclusions. The more we learn the more we learn what to retain and what to discard.
It's the attempt to define an irrefutable maxim rather than paradigms built on the consensus of existing knowledge that cause us so much trouble.
Of course I can get as irritated as the next person when someone steps on my toes so all the admonitions of restraint prior to investigation can get clouded by emotional and physical pain.

 

[Yahzi]

Morality is as objective as mathematics. Good and evil are as objective as positive and negative numbers.

The first thing to understand is that "survival" is a universal good. By definition, living organisms "desire" to live. It is observed that all living organisms exert effort to remain living.

Given that survival is the goal, then things that lead to non-survival are objectively not desirable.

Some people, it is true, wish to die. They are acknowledged to be broken, abnormal, or non-typical. One can hardly assert that the existance of a single broken car means that the function of cars cannot be to drive.

Some people who aren't broken also choose to die. But they do so for reasons that ultimately trace back to survival. This does not counter the argument, anymore than the fact that some cells in your body choose death so that you can be healthier means you are suicidal. Humans often define "survival" in ways other than mere surival of the body, because humans often define their self-identity in terms other than just the body (think patriotism or parenthood).

Morality is simply the product of self-conciousness and social existance. The only reason it's so complex is because people are. We know that the immune system defends us against disease: but nobody suggest that our inablity to map it out completely while sitting in a philosopher's chair implies that it isn't objective.

The broad general basis of morality is the golden rule: the notion of reciprocity. You do me and I'll do you. It is possible for us to concieve of this notion because we are sentient entities: and it is absolutly certain that any other sentient entity will be able to comprehend this maxim, just as they understand 2+2=4 or gravity. It is not necessarily the case that every organism will desire to follow it: some creatures might not require social support to exist, and hence would not be particularly concerned. But those creatures aren't us. And if we met them, we'd probably kill them all before they could organize and effectively resist us. So we don't need to worry about them.

 

[c4ts]

So, you're saying that those who are good have harm done to themselves and others?

No, that has nothing to do with it, although it can happen anyway. The opposite of harm is not recieving harm, it's pretty close to pleasure (but I want to avoid saying "pleasure" because certian kinds of pleasure are harmful).

Would that mean that it is good to be into paying someone for S and M?

What's S and M?

 

[Mercutio]

"...there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so."

Ham. II.ii.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Hmm.. Evil can easily be defined as a concious decision to do wrong/harm. Good can easily be defined as a concious decision to do the opposite. Subjectivity only comes into play when we attempt to define harm.