Are you...

[JamesSavik]

Good? Evil? How do we define it?

[Krista]

I believe social norms and laws do come into play when we think of Good vs. Evil, but we have our own views and morals set for ourselves as well.

[AFriendlyFace]

What an AWESOME thread!

 

Thanks, James!

 

 

 

For the first question of "Are you Good or Evil?" I selected 'Good' because I do think I lean more good than evil, 'Everyone is a mixture of good and evil' which I definitely believe, and 'A black and white definition is too simplistic', it definitely is. A black and white definition is too simplistic to define almost everything, but particularly something this complicated and multi-faceted. I was tempted to also pick "Good and evil are meaningless labels created to enslave us" because I do think they're practically meaningless labels and they're definitely extremely relative, but I don't think they're completely meaningless; they do serve some purpose. Also, while they often do hinder people, I don't think that's what they were created to do and I don't think they always hinder people.

 

 

 

For "How to you define good?" and "How do you define evil" (my answers were the same) I selected 'my own thoughts/reasoning' which is definitely the big one and I think everyone has a responsibility to do this. I also selected 'Philosophy' because I think those two answers are highly inter-related and my thoughts and reasoning have a firm foundation in my life philosophy (which really I think is true of practically everyone even if they aren't 'into' philosophy per se). I also personally really love philosophy.

 

On a side note I rejected 'Religion/Religious Teachings' because while they supply a good foundation for morality in the majority of cases I don't think that that absolves people of their responsibility to work out right and wrong for themselves and I think that a lot of harm has been done by people simply accepting what has been given to them by religion - which often does get it wrong and which must be looked at within its context - rather than working it out for themselves.

 

I firmly rejected 'that which is natural' and that would have been the answer I was least inclined to pick. I think by implying that something is 'natural' you devoid it of humanity. I think the thing which sets people apart from nature is that they have a greater capacity for thought, reason, and morality. Very often things in nature are 'good' in simple terms but by their definition I don't think they can be 'Good' in complex moral terms because I think there's an inherent contradiction. That's not to say that I don't think very often the two could coincide and a person could achieve 'Good' by doing something similar to that which is done in nature, but I think it must still be reasoned out and arrived at more or less independently.

 

'Social Consensus' and 'Laws' I rejected for pretty much the exact same reasons and on the same grounds as 'Religion/Religious Teachings'. Primarily I think all three to far too easy 'short cuts' and that while they're often good they often miss the point completely and do a lot of harm. There's still that primary belief in me that people should come to their own conclusions and not believe what religion, laws, or other people tell them without questioning it.

 

I do have a slightly different negative reaction to each. I see complete and total blind acceptance of any of the three as a form of weakness, but I see them as deferent sorts of weakness (though all inter-related). People who blindly accept religious teachings are actually being morally weak. People who blindly accept social consensus are being socially weak. People who blindly accept laws are being weak in that they lack a certain amount of courage and integrity.

 

 

 

 

For "Does the Law effect your definition of good and evil?" I've pretty much already talked about this but I selected 'legal and moral are two very different concepts.' However really that is, IMO, highly related to 'Sometimes the difference is very clear, sometimes its not'. There is definitely some overlap, but it isn't perfect and they are very different concepts. Breaking the law is not immoral, and following the law doesn't make someone moral. However, very often the same acts which are immoral are also illegal. To that extent I'm also affected by the laws (so 'yes' wouldn't have been totally inappropriate), but I'm comfortable separating the two (so 'no' also wouldn't have been inappropriate).

 

 

 

 

As I said, awesome thread!

 

-Kevin

Edited September 7, 2008 by AFriendlyFace

[old bob]

In the definition used here, God and Evil are distinct concepts. For me, they are two sides of the same Power. The best proof : the Book of Job !

[Benji]

In the definition used here, God and Evil are distinct concepts. For me, they are two sides of the same Power. The best proof : the Book of Job !

 

 

...........Not sure how to answer, everyone has good & evil in them, it is how you treat others that defines what you are.

[W_L]

A God of great compassion and great destruction has been interesting in dichotomy of Abrahamic religions, but the question really should be to look for a common or real perceived good and evil.

 

What is ultimately Good or Evil depends on many things beyond a single perspective or point in time. If taken together the collective history of the universe, then there are no absolute forms of pure good or pure evil, but if you take a singular point in time, then there are forces of creation and destruction that constitutes good and evil.

[AFriendlyFace]

A God of great compassion and great destruction has been interesting in dichotomy of Abrahamic religions, but the question really should be to look for a common or real perceived good and evil.

 

What is ultimately Good or Evil depends on many things beyond a single perspective or point in time. If taken together the collective history of the universe, then there are no absolute forms of pure good or pure evil, but if you take a singular point in time, then there are forces of creation and destruction that constitutes good and evil.

So then your perspective on Good or Evil is strongly based in Creation or Destruction?

 

That's logical and a very common perspective. I think there is often a lot of merit to it, but I by no means think that all creation is good or all destruction is bad.

 

I agree that there really isn't any pure good or pure evil in human existence.

Edited September 7, 2008 by AFriendlyFace

[Benji]

So then your perspective on Good or Evil is strongly based in Creation or Destruction?

 

That's logical and a very common perspective. I think there is often a lot of merit to it, but I by no means think that all creation is good or all destruction is bad.

 

I agree that there really isn't any pure good or pure evil in human existence.

 

 

..........Ahem, Hitler??

[W_L]

Well, 30 years of world wide industrial growth and 60 years of relative peace between major nations after Hitler!

 

I think destruction can be good as well as evil depending on your moment in time. Creation in hitler's case was evil, since he wanted to create a world that eliminated all those that he felt were under-developed to create his new world order. Points of history change the perspective of good and evil. However, in its entirety, good and evil become background noise to a complex dynamic, which represents existence.

 

The absolutist definition of good and evil can not exist, but a relative definition of good and evil could with a certain relative movement.

Edited September 7, 2008 by W.L.

[AFriendlyFace]

..........Ahem, Hitler??

Well, 30 years of world wide industrial growth and 60 years of relative peace between major nations after Hitler!

 

I think destruction can be good as well as evil depending on your moment in time. Creation in hitler's case was evil, since he wanted to create a world that eliminated all those that he felt were under-developed to create his new world order. Points of history change the perspective of good and evil. However, in its entirety, good and evil become background noise to a complex dynamic, which represents existence.

 

The absolutist definition of good and evil can not exist, but a relative definition of good and evil could with a certain relative movement.

 

Right, I agree. Hitler didn't have a purely evil affect on the world because there were positive consequences as well. I don't think that by exerting evil one necessarily has a wholly evil overall impact. There's often a 'backlash' or some other positive response to the evil which off-sets the evil to some extent.

 

That deals with the net result of Hitler's actions; however, I would also be hesitant to describe Hitler himself as completely evil. I don't doubt that there was some good in him or that he occasionally did meritorious things as well. 'Total evil', or for that matter 'total good', are impossible ideal to live up to. Remember that one purely nice remark to someone - anyone - or one random benevolent action in his entire life would disqualify him from 'pure evil'. Similarly you can be a 'saint' and an all around awesome person, but chances are there was some mean remark or malicious action somewhere in your past which disqualifies you from 'pure good'.

 

 

 

 

On a separate note, W.L., you bring up a good point about creation and destruction. Really I think creation and destruction are themselves relative. I think pretty much any act of creation is simultaneously an act of destruction and visa versa. In many ways it's the conservation of matter. No totally spontaneous creation or destruction is actually possible, only an altering which 'destroys' something in one state but 'creates' it in another. Of course science isn't all that important to me in and of itself, but I tend to agree with this concept in philosophical and moral terms as well.

 

 

I knew I would enjoy this thread

-Kevin

Edited September 7, 2008 by AFriendlyFace

[Benji]

Right, I agree. Hitler didn't have a purely evil affect on the world because there were positive consequences as well. I don't think that by exerting evil one necessarily has a wholly evil overall impact. There's often a 'backlash' or some other positive response to the evil which off-sets the evil to some extent.

 

........Eradicating people isn't evil? There was no positive off-set

 

That deals with the net result of Hitler's actions; however, I would also be hesitant to describe Hitler himself as completely evil. I don't doubt that there was some good in him or that he occasionally did meritorious things as well. 'Total evil', or for that matter 'total good', are impossible ideal to live up to. Remember that one purely nice remark to someone - anyone - or one random benevolent action in his entire life would disqualify him from 'pure evil'. Similarly you can be a 'saint' and an all around awesome person, but chances are there was some mean remark or malicious action somewhere in your past which disqualifies you from 'pure good'.

 

....Difference between a mass murderer and a serial killer, the serial killer can be 'nice' to society and get away with it. How many times have you heard neighbors say "How nice he was!'

Stalin was a mass murderer, so was Pol Pot and Hitler where is the redeeming feature here? I doubt if you were in a concentration camp as my relatives were, you could find a redeeming feature.

 

On a separate note, W.L., you bring up a good point about creation and destruction. Really I think creation and destruction are themselves relative. I think pretty much any act of creation is simultaneously an act of destruction and visa versa. In many ways it's the conservation of matter. No totally spontaneous creation or destruction is actually possible, only an altering which 'destroys' something in one state but 'creates' it in another. Of course science isn't all that important to me in and of itself, but I tend to agree with this concept in philosophical and moral terms as well.

 

Creationism is by itself a fundamental part of life, how each of us handles that is what is defined as chaos resulting in destruction.

 

I knew I would enjoy this thread

-Kevin

[AFriendlyFace]

Right, I agree. Hitler didn't have a purely evil affect on the world because there were positive consequences as well. I don't think that by exerting evil one necessarily has a wholly evil overall impact. There's often a 'backlash' or some other positive response to the evil which off-sets the evil to some extent.

 

........Eradicating people isn't evil? There was no positive off-set

Of course eradicating people is evil! But as W.L. intimated WWII also resulted in major economic expansion and widespread diplomatic efforts. It probably played a major role in the eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union (which most people in Western Civilization consider a good thing), it lifted the U.S. out of a depression, and did a lot to unite Europe against the Nazis.

 

A great deal of the world's technological advances were directly or indirectly a result of WWII and frankly given how radically different the world would be I doubt any of us born post WWII would even be alive.

 

Of course there were many other indirect results as well, some of which most assuredly weren't good. Much of the trouble in the Middle East can directly or indirectly be traced back to WWII. Obviously it was extremely costly in terms of lives and resources as well.

 

So no, I didn't mean to imply that the actual eradicating itself was a good thing, but the entire world would be radically different had WWII not occurred in the way that it did, which it definitely wouldn't have done without Hitler. So if you find any good in the world as it stands today it is my belief that it can be indirectly traced back to WWII (and WWI, and a great many other major events both good and bad).

 

That deals with the net result of Hitler's actions; however, I would also be hesitant to describe Hitler himself as completely evil. I don't doubt that there was some good in him or that he occasionally did meritorious things as well. 'Total evil', or for that matter 'total good', are impossible ideal to live up to. Remember that one purely nice remark to someone - anyone - or one random benevolent action in his entire life would disqualify him from 'pure evil'. Similarly you can be a 'saint' and an all around awesome person, but chances are there was some mean remark or malicious action somewhere in your past which disqualifies you from 'pure good'.

 

....Difference between a mass murderer and a serial killer, the serial killer can be 'nice' to society and get away with it. How many times have you heard neighbors say "How nice he was!'

 

Stalin was a mass murderer, so was Pol Pot and Hitler where is the redeeming feature here? I doubt if you were in a concentration camp as my relatives were, you could find a redeeming feature.

 

I think it's especially important for the victims, and families of the victims, of something horrific to look for a redeeming feature in the whole thing.

 

Look at the good which has come out of the Matthew Shepard incident. Or the Stonewall riots. Vicious murder and riots aren't generally considered good things either, but they did have overall very positive results in some ways in the way in which they unified the gay community and brought awareness to gay issues. The same can actually be said about AIDs/HIV.

 

To go back to this, think of all the stories we've all heard of people falling in love as a result of the war? Or the heartwarming stories we've all heard of love and endurance which the Jewish people managed in the most extreme and desolate of circumstances.

 

Events cannot happen within a vacuum. 'Bad' things inevitably spawn both more bad things and some good things. 'Good' things inevitably spawn both more good things and some bad things. The bigger and more major the event the more intense the resulting 'good' and 'bad' can be.

 

Hasn't there been some good to the 9/11 incident? Or hurricane Katrina? I certainly think there has.

 

Didn't Christopher Reeve inspire countless people as a result of his accident? What about Michael J. Fox and Parkinson's?

 

I don't think that trying to find good in a bad event is dishonourable to the victims at all. If something terrible happened to me, or my family, I'd certainly be delighted if people were able to find some good in it. Going back to our examples, isn't that the reason for the Holocaust Museum? Or for the work Matthew Shepard's mother does?

 

 

I'm not saying I'm glad these bad things happened to these people, but I am saying that some good can be found in these incidents, and I think that's a wonderful thing to take from it all.

 

 

-Kevin

[kitten]

In the last question, isn't choosing the answer 'No' essentially the same as choosing the last answer, that laws and morals are two differentr things?

 

Kit

[Razor]

Good and evil are constructs.

 

People call the things that make them feel good, good.

The things that make them feel bad are evil.

 

The problem with this is that people start getting confused about what's really going on, and end up doing more harm to themselves and others than helping them. I think it might be sort of a blame shifting idea, too. Like if there's good and evil, then you aren't good or evil, but the act itself or whatever made you do it was good or evil... makes a convenient escape from responsibility for some people.

 

People also start playing at asceticism, especially as a result of religious convictions, and that's the dumbest shit ever. You should never, ever deprive yourself of something pleasurable unless it's going to hurt another person. Life is meant to be enjoyed, and guilt/shame are caused by other people, not acts themselves.

 

Basically I just don't think there is evil or good. People fool themselves into thinking in these two constructed categories and end up missing out on a lot of life or unintentionally hurting themselves or others.

 

Maybe that just works for me though.

[Graeme]

In the last question, isn't choosing the answer 'No' essentially the same as choosing the last answer, that laws and morals are two differentr things?

Not necessarily. I answered "Yes" and "laws and morals are two different things".

 

A law against something doesn't make doing that thing evil. There are many stupid laws.... So, laws and morals are definitely (to me) different things. However, I have to admit that the law influences society in what is right and wrong, so I answer "Yes" to that question -- it does have an influence on my thinking, because it has an influence on society. The law doesn't determine what I consider to be good or evil, but it's certainly a factor.

[rknapp]

Whether or not I am good or evil, how I define good and evil, and how others define them can be best explained by my avatar. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

 

Do I think I am good? Of course I do. Does an evangelical priest or a right-wing whack-job think I'm good? Absolutely not. I share my bed with men, am pro-choice, believe in equality for all, etc. etc., so by that, the priest and the whack-job consider me evil. Yet, I am sweet, honest, helpful to those are helpful to me (golden rule), etc., so I consider myself to be good.

 

To determine whether something is good I rely fully on my own thought processes. Religion, philosophy, natural order, and the law have absolutely ZERO effect on what I perceive to be good or evil. I don't need God to tell me not to sleep around, kill, steal, or lie. I don't need the law to tell me not to drive backwards, kidnap children, etc.

 

The same is true of how I determine something be evil, plus whether or not it maliciously harms someone else. This can be physical or mental harm. For example, the thread I started about John being harassed at school by a prick he doesn't even know. The scumbag is maliciously harming John, who did nothing to warrant such harm. This makes the piece of shit evil. However, going back to my previous quote in my avatar, an evangelical priest might consider the dirtbag to be good because he is "trying to save John from his path of destruction". Pure, manipulative, bullshit to me, but gospel to others.

[AFriendlyFace]

Good and evil are constructs.

 

People call the things that make them feel good, good.

The things that make them feel bad are evil.

 

The problem with this is that people start getting confused about what's really going on, and end up doing more harm to themselves and others than helping them. I think it might be sort of a blame shifting idea, too. Like if there's good and evil, then you aren't good or evil, but the act itself or whatever made you do it was good or evil... makes a convenient escape from responsibility for some people.

 

People also start playing at asceticism, especially as a result of religious convictions, and that's the dumbest shit ever. You should never, ever deprive yourself of something pleasurable unless it's going to hurt another person. Life is meant to be enjoyed, and guilt/shame are caused by other people, not acts themselves.

 

Basically I just don't think there is evil or good. People fool themselves into thinking in these two constructed categories and end up missing out on a lot of life or unintentionally hurting themselves or others.

 

Maybe that just works for me though.

That's an extremely insightful analysis to which I personally strongly agree

 

 

Whether or not I am good or evil, how I define good and evil, and how others define them can be best explained by my avatar. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

 

Do I think I am good? Of course I do. Does an evangelical priest or a right-wing whack-job think I'm good? Absolutely not. I share my bed with men, am pro-choice, believe in equality for all, etc. etc., so by that, the priest and the whack-job consider me evil. Yet, I am sweet, honest, helpful to those are helpful to me (golden rule), etc., so I consider myself to be good.

But aren't sharing, equality, and having more choices 'good' things in anyone's book?

 

 

To determine whether something is good I rely fully on my own thought processes. Religion, philosophy, natural order, and the law have absolutely ZERO effect on what I perceive to be good or evil. I don't need God to tell me not to sleep around, kill, steal, or lie. I don't need the law to tell me not to drive backwards, kidnap children, etc.

I think this raises the issue of whether or not some form of 'morality' or simple 'right and wrong' is instinctive or not.

 

You may not think you need those things to make your decisions - personally I like to think that too - but your thought processes and decisions must be shaped by something mustn't they? Unless they are some how instinctual. You may no longer need religion, philosophy, natural order, or law to 'keep you in line' so to speak, because you've already determined what their underlying point was, but I think merely thinking about that has influenced you to some extent. I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I like to think as you do too, and really I'm just analyzing my own thoughts on this.

 

Speaking for myself I'm comfortable with not following all the prescriptions of my religion or the law because I try to take everything in context and look at the underlying rationale and motives. For example I would never consider it immoral to cross a street against a light, be it on foot or in/on some vehicle. However, prohibitions against running red lights, jay walking, and crossing illegally make a lot of sense. They keep people from getting hurt and they prevent the flow of traffic from being interrupted while people are forced to wait on the illegal crosser. So in that way the laws make sense, I agree with them, and I support them. However, it's very clear to me that their function is for safety and efficiency. If I come to an intersection (again either by foot, in a car, or any other mode of transportation) and it's completely empty, and I can clearly see that it's completely empty then it is not dangerous or inefficient in the greater scheme of things for me to cross illegally and it does not make sense for me to wait under these circumstances. Of course they can't make such provisions in the law itself because it would get too convoluted and nuanced to be effective, but I don't feel any guilt or shame for violating the law in such a way that clearly makes sense and does not go against its sensible underlying cause.

 

Anyway, the point is that I'm making my own complex, sophisticated decision regardless of the law itself. However, I've still reflected on these points because of the law. At some point I may not have been able to see the deeper underlying factors (perhaps due to a genuine inability or maybe just because I was in a hurry and wouldn't have stopped to consider the ramifications) and simply needed to be told 'don't go'. So the law did have a bearing on my thought process, even if it eventually got me to the point where I might chose to ignore it.

 

The same is true of how I determine something be evil, plus whether or not it maliciously harms someone else. This can be physical or mental harm. For example, the thread I started about John being harassed at school by a prick he doesn't even know. The scumbag is maliciously harming John, who did nothing to warrant such harm. This makes the piece of shit evil. However, going back to my previous quote in my avatar, an evangelical priest might consider the dirtbag to be good because he is "trying to save John from his path of destruction". Pure, manipulative, bullshit to me, but gospel to others.

I'm tempted to start a thread just to discuss whether or not one can ever truly 'warrant harm'.

 

 

 

 

Anyway, good points

 

 

 

Take care all and have a great day!

Kevin

[JamesSavik]

A few comments:

 

I have to admit to some natural philosophy tendencies. Although I loathe PETA and think most environmentalists are stupid hippies, I am very Green. I respect nature and won't have anything to do with capriciously harming it. That being said, I believe that there is no good reason why we can use nature's bounty without trashing the planet.

 

 

Good and evil are constructs.

 

People call the things that make them feel good, good.

The things that make them feel bad are evil.

 

Well said Razor. Yes- they are constructs but I contend that they are more culturally derived than psychologically.

 

 

Religion, philosophy, natural order, and the law have absolutely ZERO effect on what I perceive to be good or evil.

 

Which is sort of what I was looking for in this exercise. Most people are thinking for themselves and, as Matha Stewart would say, It's a good thing.

 

 

Legal vs moral: is a struggle that has gone on since the beginnings of government. Of all unlikely places, the old role-playing game D&D LAWFUL EVIL alignment illustrates this point best. Someone with this alignment is EVIL but behaves within the framework of the law. Played well, lawful evil villains can be some of the toughest enemies that you will ever face. They are organized, smart and have the law on their side.

 

The difficulty with law is that it is a blunt instrument: a sort of one size fits all absolute. We see this in zero-tolerance policies with school administrators, police and prosecutors who are simply using these policies to push their own agendas.

[Razor]

Good and evil are psychological constructs influenced by culture, so yeah, James. I mean, I wouldn't say they're derived from culture. I would say that they're shaped by culture.

 

I just think it's silly. Anyone with a brain will obviously come to the conclusion, even if totally isolated from cultural influences, that some things are okay and some aren't. Generally speaking, the most logical and straightforward way to state this okay versus not okay idea is to make labels for complex sets of ideas, so you're left with good and evil.

 

Now, this is where the psychological component interests me. Good and evil are labels. People, especially little people, learn by watching. If you see someone do something and something bad happens to them, or you sense any sort of strife, then generally you'll avoid repeating the action.

 

However, since this is a very inexact method of learning, but totally necessary for complex behavioral methodologies (how's that for some random jargon bullshit?), misunderstandings arise. Good and evil are no longer okay and not okay. They become what people are taught or perceive as good and evil directly.

 

I probably am not making much sense, sorry. Basically I think that people don't reason out why good is good and evil is evil, and instead take them as conventions that everyone learns automatically when in fact they're not, they're reasoned out. If you never do the reasoning for yourself, then you start taking society's, culture's, miscommunications and adding them to your definitions of the labels good and evil.

 

The best example is us. We're evil because we're attracted to the same sex. What is not okay about attraction in any form? Acting on certain attractions might not be okay, but consensual acts shouldn't be bad. No one is being harmed. Why is it evil? It's not. Certain people think it's bad/evil/not okay because they've let their definitions of these labels be shaped by a force other than internal reasoning. That, I contend, is actually what is evil.

 

Socrates said it, and I'll echo him. There is only one good, knowledge, and only one evil, ignorance.

[Tiger]

Good and evil have evolved over time. Some tend to think that there is no such thing. That is called moral relativism. I do not buy into that particular philosophy. I happen to look at two things. The first is whether or not actions are more harmful or good for other people. The second is utility. If the utility outweighs the evil, then it is justified. However, that is a rarity. Also, I think some moral wrongs, as defined by law, are accurate. Lying, killing, and stealing are bad. All are considered unlawful. (Remember that perjury is a form of lying.) However, there are times when lying and killing are permissible. Stealing appears to be the ultimate social wrong. There are many people out there who do not care at all about other people. They will go by the "ends justify the means" philosophy. If it's good for them, there's nothing to stop them except for time behind bars.

 

I would say that my own thoughts and reasoning are the major factors in whether or not something is good or evil. Harming other people is wrong according to most philosophies except Machiavellianism. Despite the fact that I have many attributes of a Machiavellian (as in I know how to pull strings), I find taking advantage of people as being wrong. I could go on and on forever about what is wrong with such backward thinking.

 

I happen to disagree with many about law. Laws are there for a reason. They are meant to guard against the worst of social wrongs like child molestation, murder, rape, and armed robbery. Is it the only influence? I certainly hope not. There are plenty of bad things you can do without breaking the law. For example, someone might decide that it is okay to cheat on your partner even though doing so is perfectly legal.

 

Good to me is anything that benefits people, both individually and collectively. I don't expect anyone to do as the Bible says, because I find religion irrelevant for judging what is morally wrong. In their short-sited vision, religious folks have historically had a tendency to do what is wrong. The Christians have improved dramatically while Muslims have not. However, stating that what they do is always right is far from accurate. Smear campaigns against the GLBT community are unacceptable. While there are others, they are too political for me to mention. Evil, on the other hand, is something that harms just as defined in the poll. Harm does not have to be physical. Emotional pain can be just as bad or worse than physical pain.

[Razor]

Good and evil have evolved over time. Some tend to think that there is no such thing. That is called moral relativism.

 

 

That's not moral relativism. Moral relativism is accepting a set of morals relative to something. Individual and cultural relativism are the most common forms, and in either one there will still be wrong and right. Wrong and right are just affected, and actually defined, by something in relation to the entity accepting the morals.

 

People thinking there's no such thing as good and evil are more along the lines of nihilism. Also, modified versions of other things could assert the same thing I guess, but it'd be impossible to assert that in moral relativism based upon your definition of good and evil as helpful and harmful.

[AFriendlyFace]

The best example is us. We're evil because we're attracted to the same sex. What is not okay about attraction in any form? Acting on certain attractions might not be okay, but consensual acts shouldn't be bad. No one is being harmed. Why is it evil? It's not. Certain people think it's bad/evil/not okay because they've let their definitions of these labels be shaped by a force other than internal reasoning. That, I contend, is actually what is evil.

Wow! So then do you mean to say that no one could independently arrive at homophobia through strictly internal processes?

 

What an interesting idea! I think that's heavily contingent on the concept that people have an innate, natural inclination toward acceptance or effective internal reasoning. I personally don't think that's the case. I think that many people will naturally conclude that different = bad. In that way I think homophobia, racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. may indeed be innate for some people.

 

The classic refuting argument is that very young children and babies don't have such feelings. That just isn't quite enough to convince me. Children have lots of natural inclinations that, while often very cute, are completely fallacious and stupid. I'd like to think that it was the case that these babies had a sophisticated innate system of meritorious values, but it seems more likely to me that they simply haven't thought about such things and are incapable of so doing.

 

I think what it really comes down to is whether or not children learn to embrace differences and diversity or whether or not they are taught that different = inferior or dangerous. If they aren't 'taught' anything I think there's a good chance they'll conclude that diversity is fine, but I think there's also a good chance that they'll conclude that it isn't. I think it'll depend on other experiences and the way they rationalize and process them. (I like peanut butter. I always eat peanut butter. One day I tried jelly. It was good. So different = good. OR I like peanut butter. I always eat peanut butter. One day I tried apple sauce. It was nasty. So different = bad. But really a sum of many such experiences which may be more meaningful and significant.)

 

Personally, although I grew up in a very homogeneous environment I always received a very strong message that it was okay to be different and that diversity was a good thing. So I very easily carried that over to concluding that homosexuality was a good thing. Undoubtedly this is also why I'm accepting on virtually all over points as well, and probably why I'm also something of a moral relativist myself. Having a different opinion or set of values from me doesn't make someone 'wrong' or a bad person. It just makes them different which is fine. Thus I tend to be very opinionated about my own beliefs and values, but readily tolerate other peoples' even if they conflict with my own.

 

 

So yeah, I think this all comes down to how someone comes to view 'different'.

[Razor]

I really don't think that you could conclude those sorts of things with only internal reasoning. The environment is doing the shaping/changing, and you're letting yourself be fooled by conclusions made from things that aren't necessarily representative of the real issues.

 

What was his name... hm... was it Skinner that made the claim that if you gave him a child, he could turn it into whatever he wanted, be that bum, alcoholic, doctor, or whatever? Well it's really complex to attempt something like that, but he had a valid point.

 

Maybe I should add to that sentence. Internal reasoning that is INVALID leads to these false definitions. Usually, though, the invalid reasoning is caused by something outside the individual. That computer phrase says it pretty well I guess. Garbage in, garbage out.

[corvus]

Is the attraction between an electron and a proton good or evil?

 

I believe that the terms 'good' and 'evil' have meaning, but not the absolutism most people seem to confer. The actions of a particular individual to another individual at a specific point in time can seem either good or evil (or both) -- in that sense, these words have meaning. Beyond that, it's all rhetoric.

 

Was Hitler evil? If the Nazis had won, most of the world would certainly not think him as evil. If he'd become an artist and stayed completely uninvolved with politics, would he still be evil? Is one's innate nature or one's deeds -- or potential deeds -- the determinate for evil or good? Each one of us is capable, if put in certain unforeseeable circumstances, of great destruction and great creation, of tremendous "good" and "evil." They mean nothing. The electron will still move to the proton, and that's all.

 

[Cynical Romantic]

This is one of my favourite topics, and is really relevant to writing as well. I'm sure it could be a whole separate topic in the writer's discussion forum.

 

Anyway, I happen to believe that there are no such things as "good people" or "evil people". There are only "good deeds" and "evil deeds". And if you can look at the sum total of all the deeds done by people, and judge them by some sort of criteria, then you can weigh whether the person was overall good in general, or overall evil, or - as most of us are - somewhere in between.

 

My problem with cardboard cutout "evil" characters is that, in real life, the warlord with the evil Muhahaha laugh and the world domination or destruction plans isn't sitting around cackling about how he's so evil. Us human beings have an endless capacity to rationalize, make excuses, and justify just about anything to ourselves. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people who do bad things really, truly believe, in their minds, that they are justified. Most of them even believe they are doing good. Good stories get us inside the heads of the so-called villains, and show us why they are not just two-dimensional evil characters, but why they really, truly believe that they are the heroes. Everyone believes, in their own life, that they're the star and everyone else is the supporting cast, anyway.

 

Conflict between us happens not because a good person encounters an evil one, but because two people, each with different concepts of what is "right" or "good", encounter one another and clash.

 

Take, for example, the devoutly religious kid who outs his gay friend to his parents, in hopes he'll be "saved". An evil thing to do, right? But in this kid's mind, not doing it will be even more evil, because he'd be condemning his friend to hell or whatever it is he believes. (Religious fervour isn't something I understand too well, but I get the concept that those who believe it truly do believe it...)

 

Politics, wars, conflicts, just about every chapter in history is all just aggregation of this basic concept. People clash because they are at odds in their religious beliefs, in their beliefs about what is right in terms of social systems, because they are competing over the same land or water or money or god. Capitalism versus Communism, fundamentalism versus liberty, left versus right... all a bunch of self-righteous assholes who believe they are, for whatever reason, justified in their behaviour in order to achieve power or some goal that they think is right. Although most people - thankfully - have a conscience, and many will express some guilt over the means that they employ to achieve their ends, most will maintain forever that their ends are inherently good and justified.

 

And, if you take it down a notch from war and strife, you can find the roots of pretty much any petty interpersonal conflict we have. In a relationship. He said / she said. He was justified in yelling at her because she forgot to take out the garbage. She was justified in yelling back because he was mean. The boss was justified in firing the employee for the good of the company because the employee was embezzling. The employee was justified in embezzling because the company was screwing its shareholders anyway, and better the money in his pocket than in some fat cat VP's.

 

And so on. And so forth. We're masters of rationalization, and just about all of us will claim to be good people, if asked. Even those of us who aren't.

 

So it's not about nature. Good people can do bad things under certain circumstances. Bad people can do good things. Jezebel's hands and feet were spared because she danced with joy in front of a bride. Good kids are turned into killers by an army that gives them a uniform, a gun, and a cause.

 

Life isn't about being good or bad. That's just passing the buck, abdicating responsibility. Life is about decisions. Each day, each time we're encountered with a choice, trying to make the right one, the one that will have the best effect on the people who matter. Sometimes getting it wrong. Sometimes fumbling through, making mistakes. But trying to do what we think is right, whatever that means based on our own world views. That's all any of us can do. Inevitably, we'll clash because of it, because there are too many versions of what's right, and none is right for all of us. But that's just part of being human.

Edited September 16, 2008 by Cynical Romantic