What Defines Good & Evil? A discussion of what Good and Evil mean - if anything.

[rob86 2]

Something that's most likely been around since Man began to think about Life, The Universe and Everything (RIP D.A.!) has been the the concept of Good and Evil. The examples of humans and the belief that there is a Good and Evil are endless. Wars, Superhero comics, Movies, Religion. The concept of Good vs Evil has been ingrained in our brains for as long as we can remember. Even in our daily lives, we often use phrases like, "'my ol buddy Joe is a great guy" and "Adolf Hitler is an evil, horrible man".

 

It's so embedded into our subconscious that most people don't even stop to question what Good & Evil even mean.

 

By semantic analysis the common definition seems to be quite simple at first glance:

 

Good: Moral excellence, moral admirability

Evil: Morally objectionable

 

Well that's simple enough, a bad guy is something you don't agree with. I don't believe the slaughter of innocent people is acceptable, so Hitler must be evil, right? That makes sense only if you believe an opinion is the definition of fact. Unfortunately, to someone that actually stops and thinks for a few seconds, it doesn't matter if one person believes Red is the best colour or one million, it's only an opinion. It's the same with the concept of Good and Evil.

 

"It is pleasant, when the sea is high and the winds are dashing the waves about, to watch from the shores the struggles of another" - Lucretius

Being neither American nor Middle Eastern Muslim (the "Jihadists" specifically) I've payed attention to the War in Iraq with a neutral and unbiased perspective. It's common opinion that islamic terrorists are evil. I've talked to a few pro-war Americans who truly believe this war is an epic battle of Good (America) vs Pure Evil (Islamic Terrorists). I have a close friend who runs a large American Republican chatroom. I've seen news of modern jets dropping bombs from above mass killing Iraqis, the "enemy" soldiers and civilians. An event such as this is celebrated in said forum with comments as literal as "that's one for the good guys". I also have witnessed the reaction towards the terrorist suicide bombing killing nato soldiers. This news is received with comments such as "Cowardly terrorists, heartless sick b@stards, drop a nuke on the whole damn country, they aren't even human". I've asked them if they truly believe in the concept that they are good and the enemy is evil and must be destroyed, and they say of course.

 

I ask myself, what the hell is going on here? Dropping bombs and mass killing, some civilians included, is heroic and sacrificing your life in a suicide attack for your cause is cowardly? This is the commonly accepted as common sense? I've talked to people from the eastern side of the world who think America is the most evil country in the modern world. Isn't there some kind of discrepancy going on here?

 

So there are obviously some highly different beliefs as to what good and evil is. A man who kills for reasons that aren't commonly accepted is a murderer, a man that kills for reasons that are commonly accepted is a hero. Am I the only one that sees something wrong here?

 

Despite Adolf Hitler's notoriety -- being one of the most evil people in history -- there were people that actually supported him. His idea for a pure race and that mass extermination was the best thing for the human race. Does that makes him evil? It can't! Many people actually thought he was the good guy! "Huh?" What makes myself and most people ( genocide disagree-ers!) more human than Hitler and his followers? What makes our opinions right and theirs wrong?

 

This isn't necessarily a current political discussion on war either. The concept of Evil is common in other areas. Rape is evil. Child molesters are evil. Racists are evil. Many people even feel homosexuality is evil and sinful.

 

Now don't get me wrong, I definitely don't think racism, rape or child molesting is an acceptable thing, but to call anything evil will only ever be an opinion. Rape was common and accepted back in the day. Black Slavery was legal not very long ago. A child molester in America might be a highly esteemed person in another country (where there are no laws that say a 60 year old man can't marry a 10 year old girl).

 

I would never even think for a second that my opinion alone could determine the morality of any thing. Just because I don't like the colour pink, does that mean it's morally wrong to like pink? What if 99% of the population thought the colour pink was bad, is it morally wrong? An absurd thought isn't it, that a colour could evil. Well that's how it works with other controversial things.

 

The concept of good and evil, is in my opinion, very flawed. I'm not here to define what Good is and what Evil is, who's good and who's bad, I don't even believe there is thing as simple as Good and Evil, I believe there exists only people with varying beliefs. (I believe these beliefs also come from many psychological and possibly biological factors meaning I don't think humans are ever 100% responsible for their actions.) In the words of, uh, me I guess - "Everyone's a little bit crazy".

 

There's an obvious problem with the world. We all can't get along. We'll probably never get along. That's just the way the world is. There will always be someone who thinks abortion is acceptable, and there will always be people who think people who think of abortion should be locked in prison or hung for murder. It's probably impossible to even run a society where there is no punishment for doing "wrong". While the fact is there is no right or wrong, good or evil and never will be. there still must be a way to manage this chaotic situation is the way we've been doing it, democracy I suppose is what we've got.

 

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchill

Will there ever be anything better than democracy in dealing with the chaos of society? What do you think? Is there a clear cut good and evil?

 

 

And there ends another unorganized ramble session......

[truefusion 3]

While the fact is there is no right or wrong, good or evil and never will be.

Logically, you haven't shown (proven) this to be true. That is, merely stating that there are differing minds out there doesn't prove that there is no such thing as (objective or absolute) good and evil.
But to answer the question in the topic title, only an absolute authority can define good and evil.

[LastCause 0]

i personally believe there is no bad or evil :)think about that

[sonesay 7]

Good and Evil are just words we as humans use to try and describe something like everything else in this world. Its left up to the people using the words to interpret its meaning but not everyone will agree all the time where one applies over the other if any at all. I'm sure everyone can all agree though that when presented with both extremes you can distinguish what is what without much confusion. You don't even have to name what it is but you know what it is so in that sense I think it does exist, we just don't know how to describe it in a language where everyone all understands its meaning.

[Baniboy 3]

Nothing defines absolute good or evil. Morality is relative, good can turn into evil and the other way around if you change your viewpoint.Murder is "evil", right? What if you're protecting yourself? What if the person you're going to kill is an "evil" person?Let's imagine I steal Rob's cookie(). You look at what I did and what happened to the "victim". In this case, Rob was left without a cookie. But what if I was starving? What about "Robin Hood"? Driving is bad for the environment, but wouldn't you allow ambulance to be driven to pick up a sick person?There is NO absolute moral laws, only actions and their consequences. If the consequence is damaging, the action is "bad", in extreme cases(not when stealing cookies) it's defined as "evil". The other side of the story matters, you can't call an action good or bad based on the action itself, you have to do the following1) The motive for that action2) The consequences of that action3) Was there any better choice to choose from4) Was there any outside influence making that person like some psychological problem, something that made the person make something he wouldn't normally doThat is the real morality. In some cases, you have to also think that what could've happened if the action wouldn't have taken place. If I wouldn't have stolen Rob's cookie I would've starved. Rob didn't give me (the starving boy ) his cookie, so who was the evil one here?

[webishqiptar 0]

I believe there is good and evil. Because human beings tent to rely over some facts e.g we base on USA to define democracy, or to the born of Jesus to define year 0. So even good and evil come from this logic. Depending on our mentality we define bad and good. But we must not forget that not all things come from comparing..certain people are born to make good and fight evil.

[-Sky- 0]

Wow. Well, for starters (I think) all the Moderators here are evil, and the rest of us are good. Unless there's evil members? :PBasically evilness is nasty. They hate the cross, the...holy spirit or somewhat ever. I don't know much about that, I don't believe in God nor Jesus...however I don't disrespect others beliefs and religions either.

[truefusion 3]

Good and Evil are just words we as humans use to try and describe something like everything else in this world.

Using the same logic, you can say you do not exist, since "you" is merely a word used to describe (or reference) something. Of course, this does not need to be limited to the word "you"—pick any other object and the same logic would apply to it.

 

Nothing defines absolute good or evil. Morality is relative, good can turn into evil and the other way around if you change your viewpoint.

Murder is "evil", right? What if you're protecting yourself? What if the person you're going to kill is an "evil" person?

Those questions don't show that morality is relative, for you'd basically be arguing like rob86 has. Also, you've made a statement in a way that makes it sound absolute. Unless the logic behind it is absolute, then the statement is false or flawed. To say that nothing can define absolute morals is to willingly exclude other considerations. Only subjective morality is relative, and nothing without absolute authority can define absolute morals, for the absolute authority can have you submit to the morals regardless of whether or not you want to; likewise can the absolute authority give you the ability to act on your own (while bearing consequences for your actions)—though they may later have you punished for your evils.

 

There is NO absolute moral laws, only actions and their consequences. If the consequence is damaging, the action is "bad", in extreme cases(not when stealing cookies) it's defined as "evil". The other side of the story matters, you can't call an action good or bad based on the action itself, you have to do the following

1) The motive for that action

2) The consequences of that action

3) Was there any better choice to choose from

4) Was there any outside influence making that person like some psychological problem, something that made the person make something he wouldn't normally do

If there are no absolute morals, then there is no way to judge whether or not an action (and their consequences) is good or bad. Therefore going through the list is futile. However, your statement leaves open for subjective morals, which allows for everything else mentioned in this quote to follow. However, arguing from subjective morals is futile too, since you say there are no absolute morals. For what makes your subjective morals better than the other person's subjective morals? What if they disagree with you? If there are no absolute morals, then no conclusion can be made; no absolute standard can be used. In a court of law, you could use the laws of the country you're in; but these laws would not be absolute since you can avoid them by leaving the country, therefore avoiding any unfavorable consequences. But in the case of an absolute authority, it would be up to that authority to allow you to get away with any evil you may have committed regardless of your location.

 

That is the real morality. In some cases, you have to also think that what could've happened if the action wouldn't have taken place. If I wouldn't have stolen Rob's cookie I would've starved. Rob didn't give me (the starving boy ) his cookie, so who was the evil one here?

This doesn't follow from your previous statements; it contradicts what you previously said. That is, you said there's no such thing as absolute morality, then here you say that what you previously said is the real morality. And the ending question, if we were to assume that there's no such thing as morals would mean that neither you or Rob would be evil or at fault (i.e. at least socially). Indeed, by making statements like "there's no such thing as morals" makes arguing on whether or not someone is at fault or bears social responsibility irrelevant.

[networker 0]

I'm not overtly religious or anything, but I do consider myself a Christian. What I think is a good measurement of evil is theten commandments.Quite simply,if one breaks one of those commandments, one has done something evil.It appears though, that many of these commandments are up for interpretation. For example, my interpretation of keeping Sunday holy(commandment 4) can include working on a sunday for money. Just do it andthank the Lord for your prosperity no matter how small.The way I see it, just do the best you can.

[dangerdan 0]

Good and Evil are definitely not inherently defined by what society view as morally acceptable. If this was the case, issues such as immigration, abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality would simply not be viewed in the same way.

 

The Americans are not the 'good' force and the Iraqis are not 'Evil'. This fallacy that the Americans, as "World Police", are spreading civilization and democracy throughout the Middle East is utterly indefensible. What right do the Americans have to force the governmental system democracy upon another country? What right have they to interfere in the affairs of the Middle East? In my opinion - none. America is laying the groundwork for bitter relations with the Middle East for a long time to come.

 

Western intervention in the Middle East has gone on long enough, especially since the creation of Israel, and it should stop immediately.

 

It is not simply the case that the American soldiers are hand-made by God to fight the infidels, and nor are the extremists (I hate the misleading word Jihadist) sent by Allah to kill the Western infidels.

 

NEITHER OF THE SIDES IN A WAR CAN BE CONSIDERED GOOD. This is the crux of message I am trying to get across. No aggressive side (usually both) in a war could be considered good, and must surely be closed to evil. I am a pacifist and thus would never, ever condone the use of violence, on a micro or macro scale, to solve problems.

[Www.AnthonyLazaroni.Com 0]

In my opinion, there is no difference between Good or Evil, say for example, i ate an apple, Good or Evil? Neither, how does it have any effect on anything?Say i killed a man? is that "Evil"? What if that man had killed hundreds of others brutaly, is it then? What if he helped people? Why is it MORE good or MORE evil for him to live, or die? why is it better for him to continue with life?

[D. Benitez 0]

Something that's most likely been around since Man began to think about Life, The Universe and Everything (RIP D.A.!) has been the the concept of Good and Evil. The examples of humans and the belief that there is a Good and Evil are endless. Wars, Superhero comics, Movies, Religion. The concept of Good vs Evil has been ingrained in our brains for as long as we can remember. Even in our daily lives, we often use phrases like, "'my ol buddy Joe is a great guy" and "Adolf Hitler is an evil, horrible man".

 

It's so embedded into our subconscious that most people don't even stop to question what Good & Evil even mean.

 

By semantic analysis the common definition seems to be quite simple at first glance:

 

Good: Moral excellence, moral admirability

Evil: Morally objectionable

Defining good and evil simply:

 

Good---Only God is good

Evil---"Satan" perverted, bad, untruthful, wicked, deceitful, murder, rape, the world we live in.

 

Human beings natural inclinations are towards evil, but, God has given us a choice of whether to follow him or Satan. The "Apple" as people say in the Garden was not an apple tree. It was called "The Tree of Good and Evil". which was the tree of knowledge. When Adam & Eve ate of the tree of knowledge they knew the difference of good and evil and that's where good and evil began.

[iGuest 3]

Archimedes' principle is named after Archimedes of Syracuse, who first discovered this law in 212 B.C. His treatise, On floating bodies, proposition 5 states:Any floating object displaces its own weight of fluid.This is a "truth". It really doesn't matter how you feel about it, or whether or not you believe it. It just is. The universe is full of absolutes. If laws weren't in place, there would be chaos. Nothing could exist. The only reason lines are blurred is mankind over thinks the truths and laws. People may not like the truth, or not agree with it so they put how they feel about something as their own "truth" and give no absolutes. I submit to you, there is a truth out there and it is absolute, much like Archimedes' principle. Like gravity. You can choose not to believe in it, but it will not change what simply is. Remember, philosophy is not truth. Theology is often times not truth. Mankind cannot be the source of what defines good and evil. Like in an above comment, even the acts of Adolf Hitler can be explained by some philosophical rhetoric. Acts of older men in sodomy with younger boys can be explained as "cultural". In some cultures the sewing shut of a woman's vagina to prevent other men from having sex with them is acceptable. Good and evil cannot be defined by numerous opinions.There are hard lines. Find them.