Regarding Good and Evil

[Mister Emu]

In this specific case, I believe there's a certain well-known phrase for it:
"The lesser of two evils"

That would mean it is still an evil though, no?

If you won't call rape "wrong", or "evil" what do you call it? Do you not believe rape to be morally repugnant?

But that would suggest that there is indeed no real intrinsic value to any "right"- or "wrong"-ness of an action.

Could you rephrase this? I'm not sure why, but I can't understand it Sorry...

The perspective of the rapist must also be considered, as he is part of it

Why should the perspective of the rapist be considered in my evaluation of the act? The fact that he or she could be mentally ill or something does not change the act itself, only its motivation...

The concept itself exists as our own personal creation - merely judgements made by us in response to an action - not as a value of the acts themselves.

But it is an evalutation of the act itself to say it is "wrong"...

If you feel something is a wrong/harmful to you, then it is evil in your eyes. If you feel something is a benefit to you, then it is most probably good in your eyes. The only reason the broader concept of "good and evil" exists is because there are certain extreme conditions that the vast majority of humanity agrees on as beneficial or detrimental - for instance murder classified as "evil", or beneficence classified as "good". Otherwise, the benefit or detriment of a thing is completely subjective.

That is a rather simplistic understanding of morality...

 

[methylatedghosts]

That would mean it is still an evil though, no?

If you won't call rape "wrong", or "evil" what do you call it? Do you not believe rape to be morally repugnant?

Well.. it's only for want of a better phrase, really. The "lesser evil" would perhaps in that case be "good"

Could you rephrase this? I'm not sure why, but I can't understand it Sorry...

I was having trouble phrasing it in the first place

basically, I'm saying that because no-one can really agree on what exact things are "right" and what things are "wrong" - that there are many instances where it's questionable - that THAT would suggest that intrinsically there is no "right" or "wrong" in any action. That it's only perspective and the various viewpoints that label them as such.

Why should the perspective of the rapist be considered in my evaluation of the act? The fact that he or she could be mentally ill or something does not change the act itself, only its motivation...

Because, far as I understand it and I may be wrong about this, you're only considering the perspective of the victim. All points must be considered to make a full evaluation, no?

But it is an evalutation of the act itself to say it is "wrong"...

Indeed it is. It is your or my evaluation, not an aspect of the act itself.

Just a note here, I do label things as right or wrong, but with the understanding that it's my perspective that brings me to that conclusion. It is not the act that brings me to the conclusion of whether it's right or wrong, it's my own judgement, my own thoughts. It's my own creation.

 

[Charity]

Taking a walk in the sunlight, watching the light shine on the strands of your child's hair as they play in a field of wildflowers. Watching your child eat their first ice cream cone, having someone you love tell you they love you this is "good".
A child molester, a person shooting someone so they can steal their money. Drug dealers ruining the lives of our youth. Terrorists on 9/11. If this isn't "evil" then what would you call it?....

 

[methylatedghosts]

Taking a walk in the sunlight, watching the light shine on the strands of your child's hair as they play in a field of wildflowers. Watching your child eat their first ice cream cone, having someone you love tell you they love you this is "good".
A child molester, a person shooting someone so they can steal their money. Drug dealers ruining the lives of our youth. Terrorists on 9/11. If this isn't "evil" then what would you call it?....

People doing the best they can do with their understanding of the world.

 

[Mister Emu]

I'm saying that because no-one can really agree on what exact things are "right" and what things are "wrong" - that there are many instances where it's questionable - that THAT would suggest that intrinsically there is no "right" or "wrong" in any action. That it's only perspective and the various viewpoints that label them as such.

Ok, what I meant by intriniscally wrong was that there is something inherent in the action that makes me label it wrong(that it by the very nature of the act, I could never call it good)...

Because, far as I understand it and I may be wrong about this, you're only considering the perspective of the victim. All points must be considered to make a full evaluation, no?

It is the act that I am considering...

I do label things as right or wrong

Ok

 

[methylatedghosts]

Ok, what I meant by intriniscally wrong was that there is something inherent in the action that makes me label it wrong(that it by the very nature of the act, I could never call it good)...

oh, ok! So now we've cleared all that up!

Though, would you agree that in some cases, an act you would normally consider wrong could be considered right?

It is the act that I am considering...

Indeed, but it is an act involving people, and I feel the various points of view must be considered to make a proper judgement. (i.e. people killing people might be considered wrong, only because it involves people, but when a lion becomes the dominant male, he kills all the newborns from the previous father lion, which, because it doesn't involve people, wouldn't be considered "wrong")

 

[GiantHouseKey]

A child molester, a person shooting someone so they can steal their money. Drug dealers ruining the lives of our youth. Terrorists on 9/11. If this isn't "evil" then what would you call it?....

Are you suggesting that, not only acts are good or evil, but that people are good or evil? A lot of Terrorists are doctors, and have helped many people to survive or be cured of their illness. From what you've said, this would be considered to be 'good', right? I understand that you consider suicide bombing to be 'evil', but just because a person kills others does that make them an evil person? Are drug dealers evil just because they sell drugs?

So, as to reasons why I oppose the aforementioned:
Child Molestation (NOT Child Molesters): Because it is done without the consent of the child, or if it is consentual, it's through brainwashing or 'grooming'.
Shooting somebody to take their money (NOT Muggers): Again, my rule of 'An' Ye Harm None...' comes into effect. Also because I promote life.
Drug Dealing and Drug Dealers I personally have no problem with, unless Drugs are literally being forced upon somebody or dangerous or forceful methods of smuggling are being used, in which case, it's against consent.
Terrorists obviously don't think it's evil, so why would it be certain to be an evil act? Terrorism (NOT Terrorists), in my opinion, is the murder or others, and therefore against consent and against life and against 'An Ye Harm None'.

But none of the above acts would I call 'evil'. I just think the term is far too vague for me to catagorise, even if I fully understood what I consider to be 'good' and 'evil', which I still don't.

GhK.

 

[Mister Emu]

Though, would you agree that in some cases, an act you would normally consider wrong could be considered right?

I do not subscribe to "the ends justify the means"...

 

[Comicaze247]

basically, I'm saying that because no-one can really agree on what exact things are "right" and what things are "wrong" - that there are many instances where it's questionable - that THAT would suggest that intrinsically there is no "right" or "wrong" in any action. That it's only perspective and the various viewpoints that label them as such.

What about incest? Everywhere it's pretty much forbidden, even in the animal kingdom (with the exception of the deep south).

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I do not subscribe to "the ends justify the means"...

Absolutely and in every case? Genuinely? I'm very interested...

GhK.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

What about incest? Everywhere it's pretty much forbidden, even in the animal kingdom (with the exception of the deep south).

Ok, you can think that, but why would you consider it to be 'evil' or 'wrong' and why would you describe it as such?

GhK.

 

[ranjana]

T

I like what you say here, but I don't fully understand it. Are saying that good is anything that is not intended to uphold the piety of life? I guess from this statement it is clear that good and evil are terms you can understand, then?

hi GHK,

sorry, missed your question! If i understand you correctly, i would say the opposite, that good is intending to uphold the piety of life. All life is sacred, to live with this knowledge and attempt to align our actions with that is 'good'. Not to divide life into sacred and not worthy.

I only use 'good' and 'evil' because it is built into our language, and we give it meaning, even where it doesnt really exist. So yes, I might say something is 'evil' but that is from a dualistic, very human reference point. Ultimately evil is a word we use when we cant understand the totality of existence.

 

[Comicaze247]

Ok, you can think that, but why would you consider it to be 'evil' or 'wrong' and why would you describe it as such?

GhK.

I wouldn't say "evil", just wrong. It's all biology. As I said, it's even in the animal kingdom. Say if a parent has a weak gene and by chance, their offspring have that same gene. If those offspring mate, they increase the likelihood of the continuation of that weak gene. It's hardwired into every species (by nature) to avoid that.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

I wouldn't say "evil", just wrong. It's all biology. As I said, it's even in the animal kingdom. Say if a parent has a weak gene and by chance, their offspring have that same gene. If those offspring mate, they increase the likelihood of the continuation of that weak gene. It's hardwired into every species (by nature) to avoid that.

So you're saying that 2 people with a weak gene should be unable to reproduce, regardless of whether they are family or not, rather than actually incest.

Natural selection has been discontinued in the human race due to humanity losing or prohibiting some of our primal instincts, and so even people with weak genes can still survive. By the way, dogs and cats, to name 2 common examples, are prone to incest (Trust me xD). That said, cats and dogs can be homosexual too (Really). That said, it is not usually the case, and both these animals know that incest and homosexuality, in terms of the survival of their species are, 'not helpful'.

I don't really like the idea of incest either. However, this is a debate about Good and Evil, and it seems neither of us believe it to be 'evil'.

GhK

 

[Comicaze247]

So you're saying that 2 people with a weak gene should be unable to reproduce, regardless of whether they are family or not, rather than actually incest.

The thing is, siblings are more likely to share the same bad gene. If only one parent has the bad gene, it reduces the likelihood of it being passed, hence the avoidance of incest.

Natural selection has been discontinued in the human race due to humanity losing or prohibiting some of our primal instincts, and so even people with weak genes can still survive.

I agree. We stopped evolving a long time ago because of it.

By the way, dogs and cats, to name 2 common examples, are prone to incest (Trust me xD). That said, cats and dogs can be homosexual too (Really). That said, it is not usually the case, and both these animals know that incest and homosexuality, in terms of the survival of their species are, 'not helpful'.

That, I know of. I was speaking of the majority That's why purebreds have shorter life expectancies.

 

[singing6]

Greetings

Regarding the concepts of 'Good' and 'Evil'... I don't get it. I don't believe that Good and Evil exist. Not just that they are not actual things that exist in the form of God and The Devil, but that the conceptual ideas behind Good and Evil are non-existant.

So I ask 3 main questions:

1) What are Good and Evil? Definitive? Subjective? Can all acts be put into the catagories of Good or Evil?
2) So therefore what make's any thing, act or belief 'Good' or 'Evil'? What are the criteria? Is a Good action to one an Evil action to another, and who's viewpoint does the burden of definition lie on?
3) If Good and Evil are obvious natural instincts that all men should possess then why do I not possess them?

I apologise if this sounds like a set of infantile questions, but I genuinely don't get it and I would be interested to know what people have to say on this...Atheists, Theists and Deists alike.

Thank you.

GhK.

1) Good and evil are subjective and difinitive to the God of Christianity. He is the one true God and created us in His image to glorify Him. Everything isn't good because God wanted us to want to worship and love Him, not be forced to. He gave us the right of choosing good with him, and choosing evil with the devil. No, not everything is good or evil, like the decision of eating an apple or an orange. But some things are obviously good and some are obviously evil. For instance: murder is evil, i'm pretty sure most people know that. Helping a widow or poor person is good, or giving money to a charity is good. There is an obvious difference between the two.

2) What makes one action good or evil? God does. But, also, like i stated before, some actions are obviously good or evil to everyone. That is called our conscience.

3) Everyone has a sense of good and evil to some degree, in their conscience. But, when one accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit lives in them and guides them in the direction of good. The distinction between good and evil becomes much clearer when this is the case.

 

[GiantHouseKey]

1) Good and evil are subjective and difinitive to the God of Christianity. He is the one true God and created us in His image to glorify Him. Everything isn't good because God wanted us to want to worship and love Him, not be forced to. He gave us the right of choosing good with him, and choosing evil with the devil. No, not everything is good or evil, like the decision of eating an apple or an orange. But some things are obviously good and some are obviously evil. For instance: murder is evil, i'm pretty sure most people know that. Helping a widow or poor person is good, or giving money to a charity is good. There is an obvious difference between the two.

2) What makes one action good or evil? God does. But, also, like i stated before, some actions are obviously good or evil to everyone. That is called our conscience.

3) Everyone has a sense of good and evil to some degree, in their conscience. But, when one accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit lives in them and guides them in the direction of good. The distinction between good and evil becomes much clearer when this is the case.

We can basically shorten your post to 2 statements:
Because God says so
Because it's obvious

So, regarding statement 1, why does God say so? I guess most people don't question it but why? Murder, for instance, I would never commit due to it being illegal and being a destruction of life which I believe to be equal in importance to mine, which is not something I believe in doing. As for saying that it is evil, I still don't get it. Your post doesn't explain what evil is and why it is evil. I suppose you haven't questioned it much, but that's a blatent assumption on my part.

As for the latter, is it? Obviously it isn't, because I genuinely don't believe in the concepts of Good and Evil. I find it very difficult to catagorise, but I suppose the closest I would go is 'Things I want to do' and 'Things I don't want to do'. How does God have any part in this, assuming you are correct in saying I have free will? If God instilled me with the intrinstic knowlege of Good and Evil (This is ignoring Genesis, I would imagine) then why do I not possess what you describe to be something so obvious.

Welcome to RF by the way. I don't bite to kill, I just like sharpening my teeth

GhK.

 

[singing6]

Evil is the abscence of good. There is nothing good about murder. So, therefore shouldn't it be considered evil?
Sometimes it is hard to categorize good and evil, and if we choose good we will be rewarded by God, and if we choose evil, God will allow us to be punished.
As far as "because God says so"...yes i believe wholly in that statement. I mean look around you. All that nature just screams that there is a God that rules over everything. And everything includes us as human beings.
Well i guess my main question would be, are you a Christian? Because that would change this whole arguement.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Evil is the abscence of good. There is nothing good about murder. So, therefore shouldn't it be considered evil?

What if you murder a rapist who molests children.

 

[singing6]

What if you murder a rapist who molests children.

well then that's definitely evil!