Good and Evil are black and white? (moral, grace, choice)

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by MoonWoman

If you start thinking: Moral and ethical questions are usually black and white and only made into fuzzy shades of gray by hand-wringing, bleeding-heart types

This quote from another thread got me thinking.

I honestly do feel that good and evil are purely black and white concepts, and that they only appear grey because if all the different viewpoints people have.

For example. We all know that killing a person is wrong. If i were to kill Phil because he looked at me funny, i think everyone would agree that i had committed an evil act. Is there anyone who disagrees with this statement?

If Phil contracted rabies and tried to kill me with a big butchers knife, and i shot him in self defense, then i think most people would agree that although its a regrettable act, it was not an evil act as it was a case of kill or be killed. Anyone disagree?

The act is the same, but the intent behind the act is different - one was motivated by hate and malice. The other an instinctual reaction to preserve my own life. I think the evil is in the intent, and i think that evil is either present or it is not.

For the other side of the coin, if i were a criminal on community service and were helping out at a soup kitchen i would be doing a good thing, but i would not want to be there and i would be being forced to help out.
If after my community service had been completed i returned to the soup kitchen to help out of my own free will, i would be doing a kind act unforced.
One is motivated by goodness and love, the other has no motivation as it is a forced act. The act is the same, but good is either present in the intent or it is not.

And that's why i think good and evil are black and white, it's all in the intent of the act.

People could come up with the arguement, 'What if you had to kill an innocent man to save 100 other innocent people'.
Firstly, when is that ever going to happen in real life?
Secondly, if a situation like this occured there is almost always another way around the situation.

If it was a case of leaving a man behind to face certain death in order to save 100 others, and if you did everything you possibly could to save the one man, but couldn't without risking the others, then it is not evil to leave him behind, you're not doing it out of malice or hate. It would be evil to put the 100 at risk to save one man.

Thoughts?

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

I honestly do feel that good and evil are purely black and white concepts, and that they only appear grey because if all the different viewpoints people have.

For example. We all know that killing a person is wrong. If i were to kill Phil because he looked at me funny, i think everyone would agree that i had committed an evil act. Is there anyone who disagrees with this statement?

If they did, their "disagreement" would fall under the "differing viewpoints" bit, not the black and white bit. There are two perspectives at work in any issue about people (and I don't mean yours and his).

Originally Posted by Halcyon

If Phil contracted rabies and tried to kill me with a big butchers knife, and i shot him in self defense, then i think most people would agree that although its a regrettable act, it was not an evil act as it was a case of kill or be killed. Anyone disagree?

The act is the same, but the intent behind the act is different - one was motivated by hate and malice. The other an instinctual reaction to preserve my own life. I think the evil is in the intent, and i think that evil is either present or it is not.

Arbitrary definitions of evil aside, my definition of "good" is what is beneficial to life, life-forms and the quality of life, so yes, preserving your life against an attacker is "good" while deliberately wastefully taking a life, as in the previous example, is "bad." Now, if you ate Phil...

Originally Posted by Halcyon

For the other side of the coin, if i were a criminal on community service and were helping out at a soup kitchen i would be doing a good thing, but i would not want to be there and i would be being forced to help out.
If after my community service had been completed i returned to the soup kitchen to help out of my own free will, i would be doing a kind act unforced.
One is motivated by goodness and love, the other has no motivation as it is a forced act. The act is the same, but good is either present in the intent or it is not.

Oops! There is no reason to assume that the person helping out in the soup kitchen doesn't want to be there just because he is a criminal. That's not logical, at least; the one thing has nothing to do with the other. But, taking your example at face value, you are talking about two different things here: an act that is "good", and a "good person" who is motivated.

In my opinion, "good" is not something in the person but a judgement of things, like people and actions. Yes, there are good people, but those are people who *do* good. This is especially so as we cannot see into their souls. "Objective good" is a universal judgement that we compare our own judgement against to determine what is "good" and what isn't, and that happens with feeling so I cannot say from where it comes. Our judgement motivates us, produces things like "grace" and "charity", but (as you point out) a good act doesn't produce a "good person". Similarly, a bad act doesn't produce a "bad person". That is why there is no reason to assume that a criminal wouldn't want to work in the charity kitchen: crime is an action.
PS: Sorry if it doesn't make sense, it's eary in the morning. I'm trying to make a distinction between a good person and a "good person" (people who do good vs. people who are inherently good).

Originally Posted by Halcyon

And that's why i think good and evil are black and white, it's all in the intent of the act.

People could come up with the arguement, 'What if you had to kill an innocent man to save 100 other innocent people'.
Firstly, when is that ever going to happen in real life?

Heehee. Good debate point for a hypothetical issue (not).

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Secondly, if a situation like this occured there is almost always another way around the situation.

If it was a case of leaving a man behind to face certain death in order to save 100 others, and if you did everything you possibly could to save the one man, but couldn't without risking the others, then it is not evil to leave him behind, you're not doing it out of malice or hate. It would be evil to put the 100 at risk to save one man.

If that is posed as a leadership issue, then it is always a good thing to sacrifice the one to save the many. That is the role of a good leader.

[Ozzie]

The hypothetical to sacrifice one to save a hundred is utilitarian. It does not recognise the rights of the man who is sacrificed. A similar argument could be made here: do you think it would be proper to allow torture of the child of a terrorist planning to bomb a stadium if that torture would possible result in information preventing the terrorist from succeeding. The idea is that once the rights of the individual are forsaken, we enter a slippery slope of morality where good and evil become truly blurred rather than black and white.

[michel]

I agree with you Halcyon; While personally I am at my most comfortable with just black and white, I realize that I adopt that stance because I can't trust myself to delve in the 'greys'. But there must be greys, and the examples you gave are good ones.

[Kay]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

The hypothetical to sacrifice one to save a hundred is utilitarian. It does not recognise the rights of the man who is sacrificed. A similar argument could be made here: do you think it would be proper to allow torture of the child of a terrorist planning to bomb a stadium if that torture would possible result in information preventing the terrorist from succeeding. The idea is that once the rights of the individual are forsaken, we enter a slippery slope of morality where good and evil become truly blurred rather than black and white.

That was my thought as well. I could "intend" good by killing a man to save 100 others, but does my intent justify the action? Does the end justify the means?

Great thread Halcyon.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Ozzie

The hypothetical to sacrifice one to save a hundred is utilitarian. It does not recognise the rights of the man who is sacrificed. A similar argument could be made here: do you think it would be proper to allow torture of the child of a terrorist planning to bomb a stadium if that torture would possible result in information preventing the terrorist from succeeding. The idea is that once the rights of the individual are forsaken, we enter a slippery slope of morality where good and evil become truly blurred rather than black and white.

Torturing the child would be evil, simple. The way around it would be to convince the terrorist you were torturing his child, when in fact you weren't.

The simple fact of the matter is that, there would almost always be an alternative in such a situation.
The only examples i can think of where there would not be is with a sinking ship, or a group of soldiers in wartime, or a group of tourists in a jungle. Where there is a situation when one man is stuck or injured or trapped and to rescue him would risk many other innocent people.
In this case you would do everything possible to save the man, to the point of putting your own life in danger, if there is no way to save him and you risk killing the others leaving him behind is not evil, you don't do it out of malice or hate for the man - you do it because to stay would be sacrificing many more lives - the man in danger should realise this and in fact, if he were to insist you help him at the risk of the entire group, then he would be the one committing the evil act.

Originally Posted by Willamena

If they did, their "disagreement" would fall under the "differing viewpoints" bit, not the black and white bit. There are two perspectives at work in any issue about people (and I don't mean yours and his).

Could you expand on this? The way i see it, if i killed Phil for no reason other than vengeance for a dirty look, and other people didn't see this as an evil act, then i'd say they themselves were evil.

Oops! There is no reason to assume that the person helping out in the soup kitchen doesn't want to be there just because he is a criminal. That's not logical, at least; the one thing has nothing to do with the other. But, taking your example at face value, you are talking about two different things here: an act that is "good", and a "good person" who is motivated.

In my opinion, "good" is not something in the person but a judgement of things, like people and actions. Yes, there are good people, but those are people who *do* good. This is especially so as we cannot see into their souls. "Objective good" is a universal judgement that we compare our own judgement against to determine what is "good" and what isn't, and that happens with feeling so I cannot say from where it comes. Our judgement motivates us, produces things like "grace" and "charity", but (as you point out) a good act doesn't produce a "good person". Similarly, a bad act doesn't produce a "bad person". That is why there is no reason to assume that a criminal wouldn't want to work in the charity kitchen: crime is an action.
PS: Sorry if it doesn't make sense, it's eary in the morning. I'm trying to make a distinction between a good person and a "good person" (people who do good vs. people who are inherently good).

Take it that in this case the criminal would rather not be at the soup kitchen, in fact he hates doing it.
And i disagree, i think good comes from within. A good person will do good acts when the opportunity arises and will not do bad acts, doing acts that are good but with ulterior motives are not good, but selfish.

Originally Posted by Neosnoia

That was my thought as well. I could "intend" good by killing a man to save 100 others, but does my intent justify the action? Does the end justify the means?

See, this could appear a grey area, but it depends on the situation.

If a gunman had hostages and forced one of them to kill another, or the whole group died - the gunman is evil, but the killer is not - he is being forced to do something against his will. The hostage could refuse, and the whole group could die, the hostage could try to kill the gunman and the whole group could die. Or the hostage could kill an innocent and save the whole group. Does the end justify the means? Yes, yes it does.
The hostage is not evil, he has no malevolent intent, he is being forced to do something evil by an external evil force. The evil exists, but it is not in the killer.

To sacrifice a wounded soldier to save the rest of the unit from certain death is not evil. In nature we are constantly confronted by difficult decisions, but it is the intent behind the decision we make that defines it as good or evil.

I think i've learnt something from this thread though. There can be good acts, evil acts and natural acts. Good and evil are black and white, they exist whenever a man has a choice between doing something benevolent or malevolent.
A natural act is where a man has no choice, nature or an outside force is making that choice for him. Nature is not good nor evil, and it is not the grey area in between but something entirely different.
Thoughts?

[Ulver]

As Nietzsche well enough showed, Good and Evil are Illusion. The truely great move Beyond such realms of thought.

Another interesting point to make is that the whole Kantian conception of morality really gets put in an odd spot once you are aware of the unconscious and what Freud & Jung discovered.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

And that's why i think good and evil are black and white, it's all in the intent of the act.

Thoughts?

The problem with basing good and evil on intent, is that we human beings are capable of intending more than one thing at a time, and these are often contradictory. If I were the criminal, doing community service, it is likely that part of me would want to be there doing the community service because I'd know it's both good for me to do it and good for those the soup kitchen is feeding. But part of me would also really like to be free to do as I pleased. And in fact this duality of will exists in me almost all the time. And in everyone else, too. That's why when one person kills another, it's often very difficult to decide what exactly was their intent. And most of the time we can't figure that out. Most of the time, the killer doesn't know, himself, what exactly was his intent.

I think when people try to paint "good and evil" as absolutes (black and white) they do a grave injustice to their fellow human beings, because human beings are not absolutely good or absolutely evil, ever. We are very complicated creatures who are capable of more than one thought or feeling at any given time, and these are often simultaneously contradictory. Pretending that we are two-dimensional beings just so we can feel comfortable judging and condemning each other while ignoring all the mitigating factors is really quite deplorable, and has nothing at all to do with seeking justice. It's just taking the easy way out at the expense of everyone else.