Good and Evil: How do you know the difference?

retrorich said:

I think:

Something is good if it helps others;

something is evil if it hurts others;

something is neutral if it neither helps nor hurts others.

Click to expand...

Hi Retrorich, thanks for the post.

What about the self? Can something be good if it helps yourself, or evil if it hurts yourself?

Peace

bartdanr said:

Hi Retrorich, thanks for the post.

What about the self? Can something be good if it helps yourself, or evil if it hurts yourself?

Peace

Click to expand...

In my opinion:

What one does to, for or against oneself is one's own business, and does not need to be classified as good or evil--up to and including suicide.

bartdanr said:

Hi Retrorich, thanks for the post.

What about the self? Can something be good if it helps yourself, or evil if it hurts yourself?

Peace

Click to expand...

Hi bartdanr,

Sorry to but in, I have an aversion to words like 'good' and 'bad' and even the use of 'hurts' as a measure of evil - I have a vaccination against influenza every year; the injection 'hurts' - does that mean the vaccination is evil?

I honestly am not just playing semantics here; Catholics in Spain (I know about this and can therefore cite it) believe that, if they crawl up the steps of a chuch on their knees, and find their way to the altar that way, that this 'show of homage' will help God look at their sins in a more favourable way. Are they 'wrong' ? I am sure we both would say yes, without a doubt - yet they and their priests would say a resounding 'no'.

retrorich said:

In my opinion:

What one does to, for or against oneself is one's own business, and does not need to be classified as good or evil--up to and including suicide.

Click to expand...

Hi Retrorich, thanks for the post.

I'd like to make two clarifications: (1) my question was not just about one doing something against one's self (although it included it); it also included others doing something against you. This may be a trivial destinction, and probably your original post implied that when "others" act against yourself as an "other" (relative to them), it would also be considered evil. (2) On acting against one's self: could doing certain actions against one's self also be doing evil against others? For example, let's say someone who is the sole means of support of another person (let's say a minor child) decides to kill themself, and thus abandon the other person to starvation? Could this also be considered evil?

Peace

michel said:

Hi bartdanr,

Sorry to but in, I have an aversion to words like 'good' and 'bad' and even the use of 'hurts' as a measure of evil - I have a vaccination against influenza every year; the injection 'hurts' - does that mean the vaccination is evil?

I honestly am not just playing semantics here; Catholics in Spain (I know about this and can therefore cite it) believe that, if they crawl up the steps of a chuch on their knees, and find their way to the altar that way, that this 'show of homage' will help God look at their sins in a more favourable way. Are they 'wrong' ? I am sure we both would say yes, without a doubt - yet they and their priests would say a resounding 'no'.

Click to expand...

Hi Michel, thanks for your post. And this is an open thread--don't fear "butting in."

I would agree; pain is not the best sole measure of "bad" (or "evil"). And often "bad" can simply mean "bad for you" (for example, not getting the flu shot might be bad for you, but good for the flu viruses that now can find a nice environment in which to breed.

Peace

bartdanr said:

Hi Michel, thanks for your post. And this is an open thread--don't fear "butting in."

I would agree; pain is not the best sole measure of "bad" (or "evil"). And often "bad" can simply mean "bad for you" (for example, not getting the flu shot might be bad for you, but good for the flu viruses that now can find a nice environment in which to breed.

Peace

Click to expand...

So then, how do you know the difference?

How can you tell the difference between good and evil?

Click to expand...

I have a personal morality that usually has a clear opinion on a given topic.

Are there any moral absolutes?

Click to expand...

There are no objective morals. I'm not sure if there are any subjective absolutes for me.

how do you personally view something as "good" or "evil" (or do you not use those categories at all?)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the question.

JerryL said:

I have a personal morality that usually has a clear opinion on a given topic.

There are no objective morals. I'm not sure if there are any subjective absolutes for me.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Click to expand...

Those would probably be the answers that I would give (albeit that my moral codes are tempered somewhat by my faith). I agree with your not understanding the 'good and bad' angle - that is the point I have been trying to make.

michel said:

So then, how do you know the difference?

Click to expand...

Thanks for the post, Michel.

Personally, I believe that "good" and "evil" exist in my mind that has been tempered by my experience. I believe that this moral code in my mind ultimately has a certain objectivity, in that there are certain standards that are essential for the existence of society--or even the survival of the human species. For example, "women and children first!" is clearly a survival trait--you don't preserve your progeny and their care givers, and your species will die out.

Now, does this moral code have an existence beyond survival? (Note I don't say "mere" survival--survival is not a mere matter!) Possibly, though it isn't necessary to believe in a higher being or divine force in order to believe that there is a code of morals that are necessary. (Now, some might argue that there is no moral necessity for the continued existence of the human species; that well might be, but as a member of that species I'm happy to continue its existence...but those who believe otherwise will be selected out of existence, so I don't foresee it as a problem--unless they try to take the rest of us with them. )

Peace

bartdanr said:

Hi Hazel, thanks for your post.

I don't necessarily think it is contradictory to claim that there is no "right or wrong", if that person is just refering to the moral realm. You can still believe that there are "right" and "wrong" meaning "true" and "false", but not necessarily believe that the moral categories of "right" and "wrong" are objective realities.

And refering to "right" and "wrong" (or "good" and "evil" as in my OP) as subjective is not saying that they don't exist. Dreams are subjective, and they have an existence--in the mind of the dreamer. My love for my wife is subjective, but it truly exists nonetheless. When something is "subjective" it merely means that it is dependent upon the subject. I love my wife, but others might not even know her. (Some might even dislike her, but of course, they're just crazy. )

Do you believe, as a Christian, that something is "good" because God commands it, and "evil" if God is against it? Does this mean that the categories of "good" and "evil" exist only as subjective judgments of God, and not as objective realities?

Peace

Click to expand...

It is hard for me to answer because I can't avoid using my relationship with Christ as the reason for everything I believe. I believe that good and evil exist as objective realities because they were instituted and implanted in the hearts of humans by our Creator, God. Of course if you are not a Christian this reason will make little sense.

I also believe that morality was instituted by God for our own well-being. They aren't the killjoy laws everyone claims. If you look at the ten commandments you see very basic, fundamental laws...do not murder, do not commit adultery etc. Some people call human's revulsion to evil our "instincts" but I believe they are the result of a soul patterned after God.

It is hard for me to answer because I can't avoid using my relationship with Christ as the reason for everything I believe. I believe that good and evil exist as objective realities because they were instituted and implanted in the hearts of humans by our Creator, God. Of course if you are not a Christian this reason will make little sense.

Click to expand...

Does it apply to God? Is God evil if he does the thing identified as evil in your heart? Is a plant evil if it does it? Is a rock?

If no people existed, would there still be evil?

Hazel said:

It is hard for me to answer because I can't avoid using my relationship with Christ as the reason for everything I believe. I believe that good and evil exist as objective realities because they were instituted and implanted in the hearts of humans by our Creator, God. Of course if you are not a Christian this reason will make little sense.

I also believe that morality was instituted by God for our own well-being. They aren't the killjoy laws everyone claims. If you look at the ten commandments you see very basic, fundamental laws...do not murder, do not commit adultery etc. Some people call human's revulsion to evil our "instincts" but I believe they are the result of a soul patterned after God.

Click to expand...

Hi Hazel, thanks for your post.

Now, perhaps this is just semantic, but are "good" and "evil" objective, existing in and of themselves, or subjective, existing only in the mind of God? In other words, are things good because God says that they are good, and evil because s/he says that they are evil? Or are "good" and "evil" objective standards that God could, theoretically at least, sometimes do "good" and sometimes do "evil"?

If God, for example, said "take the life of this infant", would that be good because by definition all that comes from God is good? Or could it be (at least theoretically) an evil command? (Keep in mind that in the Bible God did, in fact, command this very thing.)

As to if morality was instituted for our well-being: I think that ultimately a system of morality has to produce more good results than bad in order for it to survive. A system of morality that said, for example, that murder was good, would be ultimately unworkable in a society. So I don't necessarily think of morality as "killjoy", although sometimes irrational labels of "good" and "evil" sneak in an otherwise rational moral system.

Peace

Hazel said:

Those who say there are no rights or wrong are taking the easy way out. What about murder, rape etc. ? Some will tell you it might be right for the person taking that action but seem offensive to us, I don't buy it.

If someone makes the definitive statement that there is no wrong or right they have just contradicted themselves. They have said there is a definative rule, they have said there is a correct/right rule that states there is no wrong or right.

Click to expand...

Nobody is saying there is no right or wrong.
They are simply saying that right and/or wrong are not objective and written in stone.
You mention murder, can you think of no instance where killing can be seen if not "right" at least not "wrong".
I suppose it would depend upon your definition of "murder".
But that is what makes it relative and not absolute.

retrorich said:

In my opinion:

What one does to, for or against oneself is one's own business, and does not need to be classified as good or evil--up to and including suicide.

Click to expand...

I agree insofar as it only affecting yourself. I don't think suicide falls into this category unless you have no family and noone else who relies upon you.

While I feel for those who do feel it's not worth living, I believe suicide to be the most selfish act a human can commit. (without using the worlds water supply as a lunar hydroslide.)

This is because you leave your family and friends behind. When they need to talk things over, you're not there. When they seek your company, they are lonely. When you kill yourself, they miss you and spend their lives wondering how they didn't know. Questioning what, if anything, could have been done to prevent someone they loved from ending this sometimes uncomfortable experience called life.

linwood said:

Nobody is saying there is no right or wrong.
They are simply saying that right and/or wrong are not objective and written in stone.
You mention murder, can you think of no instance where killing can be seen if not "right" at least not "wrong".
I suppose it would depend upon your definition of "murder".
But that is what makes it relative and not absolute.

Click to expand...

I agree, all things are relative and if the few must be taken from to save the many, that is a difficult but necessary action.

However selfishness, to me, is what evil is all about. Cruelty with a selfish motivation even more so.

Retrorich said:

I think:

Something is good if it helps others;

something is evil if it hurts others;

something is neutral if it neither helps nor hurts others.

Click to expand...

what is it when something can both help and hurt the individual or others?

i believe that good and bad are circumstantial. what may be good for one person, or country might also be bad for them, or another person or country. such as the war in afghanistan. it had both positive and negative effects on that country and ours. to list a few of each type. the positive was that it gave our country a more secure position in that part of the world, and it changed their government to one that allowed certain liberties for its people. the negative effects were that a lot of people died, a lot of infrastructure was destroyed, and it sent the terrorist that had been operating exclusively in afghanistan to other countries to effect them as well. what is good for one, is bad for another. have to look at the big picture of things happening.

EnhancedSpirit said:

God's definition of goodness is total giving, total service, and absolute unselfishness. We are to live for others. You live for others and others live for you. God lives for man and man lives for God. The husband lives for his wife and the wife lives for her husband. This is goodness. And here unity, harmony, and prosperity abound.

Evil is the emergence of selfishness into this world. God's principle of unselfish giving was twisted into an ungodly principle of selfish taking. The ungodly position of desiring to be served rather than to serve was thereby established. The origin of evil is Satan. He was in the position to serve God, but instead he posed as another god and subjugated man for his own benefit.... His motivation was selfishness. Out of his selfishness comes the origin of evil and sin.

But we are not suppossed to judge what is evil or what is good. We can only decide what is right or wrong for our self, it's not up to us to decide what is right or wrong for another person.

Click to expand...

then is not god, evil as well? does he not demand unquestioning servitude and worship from his creations? perhaps satan was tired of being told what to do and how to do it, perhaps he merely felt he had some good ideas on how things could be done better or more tactfully than god. imagine if white people still held the idea that they were better than black people in america.

i dont think good and evil in the biblical sense actually exist. there are too many views out there that change whether an action is good or evil according to a religion.

i also dont believe that the concept of good should even exist at all. its just varying degrees of bad, because even if something doesn't have a negative effect at this time, it could just be having a delayed reaction.


yes, i am the eternal pessimist.:banghead3

Drekmed

Right and wrong on entirely subjective to your worldview and you can't claim that your views are "better" or more right than anyone elses because you have no proof

However selfishness, to me, is what evil is all about. Cruelty with a selfish motivation even more so.

Click to expand...

Is not God's priority himself? Was man not made because God wanted worshippers? Did God not harden Pharoh's heart because he wanted to show his power? Did not God allow the torture of Job to prove a point to Satan? Did not God kill the first-born babies of Egypt for his own ends?

God is nothing but selfish.

JerryL said:

Is not God's priority himself? Was man not made because God wanted worshippers? Did God not harden Pharoh's heart because he wanted to show his power? Did not God allow the torture of Job to prove a point to Satan? Did not God kill the first-born babies of Egypt for his own ends?

God is nothing but selfish.

Click to expand...

I'm making the assumption that you're speaking of the christian God.

Biblically (and this is the only record of the events you've mentioned that I've seen):

We don't know why the Christian God decided to create man. All we know is that he has love for all mankind and wishes salvation for us

Could you please provide chapter:verse for the Hardening of Pharoah's heart. Couldn't find it sorry.

God was showing Satan that Job could not be tempted, and that people would want to follow god regardless of Satan's manipulations. (as I understand it Satan induced the suffering but I could be wrong having not read the bible in years). God allowed it to show satan that his disciples were stronger than Satan thought, thereby saving others the extremity of this testing by Satan.

Finally God killed the first born children of Egypt after Moses had given Pharoah a final warning from god to realease the Hebrew nation from slavery and allow them to return home.

John 3:16 explains that God is not selfish.

I'm making the assumption that you're speaking of the christian God.

Click to expand...

A good assumption and, indeed, correct. I'm referring to the Christian version of Jehovia.

God was showing Satan that Job could not be tempted, and that people would want to follow god regardless of Satan's manipulations. (as I understand it Satan induced the suffering but I could be wrong having not read the bible in years). God allowed it to show satan that his disciples were stronger than Satan thought, thereby saving others the extremity of this testing by Satan.

Click to expand...

That doesn't jibe. If Satan could choose to test without God's consent, then he did not need to ask for God's consent to tormet Job. If, on the other hand, he needed God's consent, then there was nothing gained by giving consent ever (except to win a bet with Satan, who bet that he could conver Job if given carte' blanche).

Finally God killed the first born children of Egypt after Moses had given Pharoah a final warning from god to realease the Hebrew nation from slavery and allow them to return home.

Click to expand...

But he was the one who had hardened Pharoh's heart. He could have simply changed Pharoh's mind (or, more pointedly, killed pharoah, or teleported the Jews away, or made the Egyptians unable to resist them leaving). But that's not the actions of Jehovia. He want's his people impressed with him. He tortures them to save them so that they remember to tell him what a great guy he is.

He stopped pharoah from letting the jews go then proceeded to kill a bunch of entirely innocent kids and set to grieving their parents who (by and large) had no say in the matter.