Good and evil equal?

[dreamwalker007]

I was thinking about good and evil and God and all that and I was wondering if, for some reason, the good and evil things that happen in the universe had to be equal on some scale. That could be the reason why God sent Jesus down to Earth to save us. Because the good that saving all our souls from sin would be such a good thing, an equally bad thing had to happen i.e. Jesus being crucified. Then I thought, but we, as humans, have the free will to be good or evil. Maybe, God saw a loophole in the system and gave us free will so that we could choose and the price of evil didn't have to be paid. So we were here and he started talking about all the good things about being good and put the one restriction on Adam and Eve to not eat from the tree of knowlege. But since God came to talk to us Satan got to talk to us and told us to disobey God. This could be the reason why God doesn't completely destroy evil in one swift motion. Because by destroying all evil, he would be destroying all good. Any thoughts?

[Joseph_Stalin]

Physcologically, good and evil are subjective, open to interpretation, and all that crap that is needed to be said before the discussion can continue. *phew* Okay now, onto your discussion. Seems you're comming from a religious point of view, so I'll try to go with this. Good/evil from religious law is simple enough if obeyed with reasoning for your century/era (ie, don't call someone a sinner for doing something that would apply about a few thousand years ago), and with this, we turn your though that good would be destroyed if evil would be destroyed. Now, if there was no evil, everyone and everything, and every action would become good, and likewise, good would turn from an adjective to a law of nature. Everything must be good. We lose free will, not because we do not sin, but because it is impossible to. We don't know what sin or evil is. There is no concept of it. [Replace above concepts with evil for opposite idea]. Now, up until now there has been a disporportionate amount of "evil" recorded than "good". This doesn't mean that it is not balanced as you said, but it's just what we have now. By your arguments though, you make it sound like there is always a balance. In a religious pretext this is just untrue. Revelations says that God will eventually conquer evil, and peace will prevail. However, by then we'll all have been judged, etc, etc, and free will does not exist because we are in heaven. In a physical sense though, evil will exists just as good does, unless, you change the social meanings, in which good deeds still exist of course, but are labled as bad ones...but that's something else that goes into the "don't do something you wouldn't do to yourself naturally"(ie, slit your wrists as prayer to Satan, because it's "Good" in this crazy-new-society-that doesn't exist). You just don't do it because it hurts and can kill you (you may, however, do it up to a point, but at that point you'll basically be insane enough to kill yourself anyway). Somethings to clear up: Jesus didn't die because Satan and God have a "1 for 1" deal. He died to free us of eternal suffering and lead us into heaven. Same thing with the Adam and Eve story (more figurative than anything by the way), the reason the devil appears is again, not for a "1 for 1" deal. God just does not tamper with the devil's free will, nor any creation (think about some good/evil points here, about God being able to do anything and all that too). His existance here is more symbolic too.

[bradybaker]

Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div> We lose free will, not because we do not sin, but because it is impossible to. We don't know what sin or evil is. There is no concept of it.[/b] You're assuming that we have free will in the first place. Also, you are characterizing free will as a desirable property to have, why is that? <!--QuoteBegin-Joseph_Stalin Now, up until now there has been a disporportionate amount of \"evil\" recorded than \"good\". This doesn't mean that it is not balanced as you said, but it's just what we have now. This simply illustrates that people are more apt to record negative experiences rather than positive ones. For whatever reason, humanity is captivated by death, destruction and bad news. Think of 9/11 or the recent tsunami, people who rarely watch TV were glued to the news reports for weeks. Troubled times are when stations like CNN get their best ratings. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that throughout history the same pattern has manifested itself. People record great floods and plagues, but overlook the good things that people experience everday (ie. a nice smile from your neighbour, a stranger stopping to help someone on the side of the road, etc.). Originally posted by Joseph_Stain+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stain)</div> Revelations says that God will eventually conquer evil, and peace will prevail.[/b] Can't God conquer evil whenever he wants? He is all-powerful after all...if he is, then why hasn't he conquered evil already? Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin@ However, by then we'll all have been judged, etc, etc, and free will does not exist because we are in heaven. So on earth you have free will...but in heaven you don't? Weird. <!--QuoteBegin-Joseph_Stalin In a physical sense though, evil will exists just as good does, unless, you change the social meanings, in which good deeds still exist of course, but are labled as bad ones...but that's something else that goes into the \"don't do something you wouldn't do to yourself naturally\"(ie, slit your wrists as prayer to Satan, because it's \"Good\" in this crazy-new-society-that doesn't exist). You just don't do it because it hurts and can kill you (you may, however, do it up to a point, but at that point you'll basically be insane enough to kill yourself anyway). Huh? I view good and evil as meaningless terms. Words created by the selfishness of humanity to describe various situations: i) You wouldn't like to be murdered, raped or stolen from. Therefore you consider murder, rape and theft are "evil". ii) You would like to recieve things for free, be loved and be treated fairly. Therefore you consider generosity, love and fairness are "good". Why do people sometime commit acts considered "evil"? Because at the time it probably benefits them. (Helps them financially, releases frustration, satifies a desire, etc.). Everyone has the capacity to commit an evil act, and I'm sure that most people have done something "evil" at some point in their life. Look at the animal kingdom. Certain types of wasps don't kill their prey, they injure it enough so it can't move, then lay eggs inside of it and when the eggs hatch, the larvae feed on the living tissue of the dying insect. Is that good? evil? does it matter? If the world were destroyed tomorrow, the concepts of good and evil would be destroyed along with it.

[Joseph_Stalin]

Originally posted by bradybaker You're assuming that we have free will in the first place. Also, you are characterizing free will as a desirable property to have, why is that? Actually, I never made any opinioned remarks on the concept. I simply stated how societies would exist without free will. I would get into the whole concept of having/not having free will, but that's another discussion entirely. This simply illustrates that people are more apt to record negative experiences rather than positive ones. For whatever reason, humanity is captivated by death, destruction and bad news. Think of 9/11 or the recent tsunami, people who rarely watch TV were glued to the news reports for weeks. Troubled times are when stations like CNN get their best ratings. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that throughout history the same pattern has manifested itself. People record great floods and plagues, but overlook the good things that people experience everday (ie. a nice smile from your neighbour, a stranger stopping to help someone on the side of the road, etc.).[/b] Yes, I know exactly what you mean. This is why I said recorded, too (by the way, I realize you saw that I said \"recorded\"), because even back a thousand/two thousand years ago, news was given usually with the troubling items first. Can't God conquer evil whenever he wants? He is all-powerful after all...if he is, then why hasn't he conquered evil already?[/b] I cannot answer that. God, be in his intentions (strictly speaking theologically here), if they even exist, has let evil continue. So on earth you have free will...but in heaven you don't? Weird.[/b] Not quite in the manner you may be thinking. Since heaven is supposed to be a perfectly good place, there cannot be the choice of evil by pure law and principle alone. Huh?[/b] Simply put, you will not do actions that will cause harm to yourself by human nature. I find it difficult to imagine that even with such severe brainwashing (in the backwards good-is-evil society I mentioned), people will hurt themselves. If they're told repeatedly that to get into heaven one must kill his brothers, thyself, etc, etc, I still cannot see this working (remember, try not to think of any inconstencies like social disorder--this is purely philosophical). You went on to say: I view good and evil as meaningless terms. Words created by the selfishness of humanity to describe various situations: i) You wouldn't like to be murdered, raped or stolen from. Therefore you consider murder, rape and theft are \"evil\". ii) You would like to recieve things for free, be loved and be treated fairly. Therefore you consider generosity, love and fairness are \"good\". Why do people sometime commit acts considered \"evil\"? Because at the time it probably benefits them. (Helps them financially, releases frustration, satifies a desire, etc.). Everyone has the capacity to commit an evil act, and I'm sure that most people have done something \"evil\" at some point in their life.[/b] This justifies the principles of what humanity has created and views as good and evil. I hardly call getting angry and emotionally unstable at something like rape a selfish emotion of a situation. You can't view such a thing as being misintepreted as \"evil\". If billions, even those without contact from contaminated and evolved societies, use reason to call rape an \"Evil\", I don't see how it cannot be (set aside from changing the meanings of words, of course). Even a woman in a obscure and remote place on a 'primitive' area, who is grown up in a society where rape is accepted, I doubt she'll want to be raped anyway (fetishes aside). Look at the animal kingdom. Certain types of wasps don't kill their prey, they injure it enough so it can't move, then lay eggs inside of it and when the eggs hatch, the larvae feed on the living tissue of the dying insect. Is that good? evil? does it matter? If the world were destroyed tomorrow, the concepts of good and evil would be destroyed along with it.[/b] That's because it does not have an ability to reason as humans do. It doesn't think as humans do. It doesn't label catepillars as "another insect", it instinctively knows that it a device necessary to mating. Your animal analogy doesn't have much merit for, as far as we know, animals do not perceive feelings in ways humans do--set aside some reactions to being harmed (but this too is more instinctive). The way our brains work adds much more complexity to how good and evil are perceived, and this also reacts with societies as well. Overall, nice discussion so far.

[bradybaker]

Actually, I never made any opinioned remarks on the concept.[/b] I know that you never directly stated your opinion, I was simply illustrating the implications of your statement. (ie. when you say \"We lose free will\", that implies that we had free will in the first place). But you're right, that is an entirely different discussion. Simply put, you will not do actions that will cause harm to yourself by human nature. I find it difficult to imagine that even with such severe brainwashing (in the backwards good-is-evil society I mentioned), people will hurt themselves. If they're told repeatedly that to get into heaven one must kill his brothers, thyself, etc, etc, I still cannot see this working (remember, try not to think of any inconstencies like social disorder--this is purely philosophical).[/b] What about the suicide bombers in Jerusalem? or the terrorists that flew passenger jets into the World Trade Centre? If you consider those instances examples of \"social disorder\" then the only reason that I can think of why someone would be motivated to harm themselves or \"kill their brother\" would be some sort psychological or social disorder. So your argument is exactly like the argument \"Excluding people who eat donuts, it's impossible for someone to eat a donut, even if they're brainwashed to do so.\" I hardly call getting angry and emotionally unstable at something like rape a selfish emotion of a situation. You can't view such a thing as being misintepreted as \"evil\". [/b] Whoa, whoa, whoa. I never said that rape is \"misinterpreted as evil\", what are you trying to make me out to be here? I would say, however, that rape is interpreted as evil. That was my very point. If billions, even those without contact from contaminated and evolved societies, use reason to call rape an \"Evil\", I don't see how it cannot be (set aside from changing the meanings of words, of course).[/b] I wasn't trying to imply that rape isn't evil, I think rape is evil. I was just explaining why we think it's evil. Even a woman in a obscure and remote place on a 'primitive' area, who is grown up in a society where rape is accepted, I doubt she'll want to be raped anyway (fetishes aside).[/b] Ok, that mythical society doesn't exist. So unless you can provide an example of a society where rape is accepted, that argument is invalid. In fact, I would argue that if rape is \"accepted\", then it isn't rape at all....it's just sex. That's because it does not have an ability to reason as humans do. It doesn't think as humans do. It doesn't label catepillars as \"another insect\", it instinctively knows that it a device necessary to mating. Your animal analogy doesn't have much merit for, as far as we know, animals do not perceive feelings in ways humans do--set aside some reactions to being harmed (but this too is more instinctive). The way our brains work adds much more complexity to how good and evil are perceived, and this also reacts with societies as well.[/b] Why do people feel the need to put humans up on a pedestal where discussing issues of moral, feeling and reasoning? Humans are animals. Are we smart animals? Yes. But still just animals. There are 6 or 7 billion humans on this planet, wanna take a stab at how many bacteria are on this planet? I'm not even sure that we have a name for a number that big. Do you think that they care about good and evil? Do you think the magnesium atoms orbiting stars that 2000 light years away from Earth care about good and evil? Anyways....that's kinda off topic. My point is that we think in the same way as that wasp, and that catepillar and all other animals. We operate on instinct. Is it a bit more complex that other examples in the animal kingdom? Yes, much more complex. But it's the same basic thought process. Also, you seem to separate society from mind. Is society not simply the interaction of minds?

[Joseph_Stalin]

What about the suicide bombers in Jerusalem? or the terrorists that flew passenger jets into the World Trade Centre? If you consider those instances examples of \"social disorder\" then the only reason that I can think of why someone would be motivated to harm themselves or \"kill their brother\" would be some sort psychological or social disorder. So your argument is exactly like the argument \"Excluding people who eat donuts, it's impossible for someone to eat a donut, even if they're brainwashed to do so.\"[/b] Yeah, just leave that at a poor choice of words. I actually do want to include those things, and I probably meant something else while I was writing that. But anyway, basically the terrorists were subjected to severe physcological conditioning. Past the point of actually being able to kill someone without thinking of consequence. To those people, this wasn't good/evil, it was a necessary action to protect. I doubt they were enlightened about anything else in their lives, simply walking machines sent on a mission. Basically, picture the perception of good and evil based on a card deck. You can't have a reasonable card game without the full deck. In this case, they were only dealt the cards that were seen as fit. They don't have the full picture, really. I'm not saying everyone has a supreme knowledge compared to these kinds of people, but we're playing with a lot more \"cards\" then them. We can see the reprecussions of our actions because we're handed more: how people have reacted in history to violent things, how people today react to such things. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I never said that rape is \"misinterpreted as evil\", what are you trying to make me out to be here? I would say, however, that rape is interpreted as evil. That was my very point.[/b] I never said that you stated that. But from what you stated, there is an association between certain actions to lable them good/evil. This can lead to interpretation of the subject matter. Ok, that mythical society doesn't exist. So unless you can provide an example of a society where rape is accepted, that argument is invalid. In fact, I would argue that if rape is \"accepted\", then it isn't rape at all....it's just sex.[/b] There's a difference between a label and a concept. While the name or label can be replaced, the concept still exists. \"Rape\" won't come into the woman's mind, but a feeling of unwantness of the actions would sure surface. But as always, there's the social upbringing, so there's always good argument in that. Why do people feel the need to put humans up on a pedestal where discussing issues of moral, feeling and reasoning? Humans are animals. Are we smart animals? Yes. But still just animals. There are 6 or 7 billion humans on this planet, wanna take a stab at how many bacteria are on this planet? I'm not even sure that we have a name for a number that big. Do you think that they care about good and evil? Do you think the magnesium atoms orbiting stars that 2000 light years away from Earth care about good and evil? Anyways....that's kinda off topic. My point is that we think in the same way as that wasp, and that catepillar and all other animals. We operate on instinct. Is it a bit more complex that other examples in the animal kingdom? Yes, much more complex. But it's the same basic thought process.[/b] Yes, but realize that the basis of this topic was in a religious context, and was moved to a less theological setting, but nonetheless the point is, we are discuss the existance of good and evil. Sure we think the same way at the basic level, but the complexity adds the existance of such matter. Bringing animals into the discussion creates this drift from philosophizing about good and evil to something else. You complicate the discussion by bringing animals into this, because the intent of the discussion is not focused on animals. While this does support your argument, we lose sight of the initial subject material. I do believe a lot of what you're saying, but realize, I work on many ends of the spectrum. After all, what is the point of philosophy when one doesn't look both ways? And, by the way, I believe in no way whatsoever that humans are better in any ways. On several discussions of evolution I have made comments to our inherent simplicity, yet underlying complexity. Also, you seem to separate society from mind. Is society not simply the interaction of minds?[/b] The mind, however, is a projection and expression rooting from the physical stimulus. Society, thus, is a representation of millions of years of natural responses to our environment, that evolves naturally. Do I contradict myself? Yes. But that's not the reason I argue and discuss. I do it for the simple learning experience of talking to others, and discovering my own mental strengths and weaknesses.

[imported_Berserk_Exodus]

Both "good" and "evil" serve a purpose and function. Without one, the other would not exist.

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Although "good" is essentially intangible, it is commonly the absence of Evil or the act of combatting it. Evil, the entity as we know it, was created by an accidental merging of the benign Yetzer Hara "Evil Impulse", designed to tempt, and the conscious Mists of Darkness, born in the Void from a corruption of light which eminated from The Source of All Life (TSOAL), determined to destroy. When the two entities collided, they formed Evil, the entity that roams endlessly, meaning to tempt and destroy. Evil's tangible opposite is Light (pure energy), which every living being has, although different beings have different amounts. Humans have just enough to be alive, though lacking enough to grant them "super" abilites.

[spoon]

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka Although \"good\" is essentially intangible, it is commonly the absence of Evil or the act of combatting it. Evil, the entity as we know it, was created by an accidental merging of the benign Yetzer Hara \"Evil Impulse\", designed to tempt, and the conscious Mists of Darkness, born in the Void from a corruption of light which eminated from The Source of All Life (TSOAL), determined to destroy. * When the two entities collided, they formed Evil, the entity that roams endlessly, meaning to tempt and destroy. Evil's tangible opposite is Light (pure energy), which every living being has, although different beings have different amounts. Humans have just enough to be alive, though lacking enough to grant them \"super\" abilites. What religion is that?

[bradybaker]

A pretty comical one if you ask me. Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin But anyway, basically the terrorists were subjected to severe physcological conditioning. Past the point of actually being able to kill someone without thinking of consequence. To those people, this wasn't good/evil, it was a necessary action to protect. I doubt they were enlightened about anything else in their lives, simply walking machines sent on a mission. Basically, picture the perception of good and evil based on a card deck. You can't have a reasonable card game without the full deck. In this case, they were only dealt the cards that were seen as fit. They don't have the full picture, really. I'm not saying everyone has a supreme knowledge compared to these kinds of people, but we're playing with a lot more \"cards\" then them. We can see the reprecussions of our actions because we're handed more: how people have reacted in history to violent things, how people today react to such things. I would disagree somewhat, just because they view the world differently than you doesn't mean that they are psychologically conditioned or have been dealt cards from a fixed deck. In their eyes, you are the one who has been psychologically conditioned and you are the one who has been dealt cards from a fixed deck. In their eyes, what they are doing (whether it be flying planes into buildings or strapping some TNT to their chest and blowing the hell out of a city block) is an act of good, an act that will assure their passage into whatever they believe is \"heaven\". And you might think to yourself, \"well their religion is insane! how can they kill people in the name of their God?\". Well what about the Crusades or Inquisitions? But that's kinda off topic. Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin But from what you stated, there is an association between certain actions to lable them good/evil. Yes, I agree. As I previously stated, you wouldn't like to be killed, raped, or stolen from, so you consider murder, rape and theft to be \"evil acts\". That's the association. Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin There's a difference between a label and a concept. While the name or label can be replaced, the concept still exists. \"Rape\" won't come into the woman's mind, but a feeling of unwantness of the actions would sure surface. But as always, there's the social upbringing, so there's always good argument in that. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you weren't trying to imply that this mythical society accepts the \"label\" of rape (obviously if you call rape baseball instead of rape, then baseball would be considered evil). You were saying that it accepts the \"concept\" of rape. So call it whatever you want, the society (every member of the society) would accept this \"feeling of unwantness\" and it would cease to become unwanted. But really, this society doesn't exist, so I fail to see the point. Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div> But as always, there's the social upbringing, so there's always good argument in that.[/b] Ah, nature vs. nurture, one of my favorite topics. I think you would be astounded to learn how much our genetics influence our behaviour as opposed to social upbringing. But that's a topic for another discussion. <!--QuoteBegin-Joseph_Stalin While this does support your argument, we lose sight of the initial subject material. A decent cop-out, I'll give it a B+. If you remain restricted by the \"initial subject material\" then you leave little room for intellectual growth and will never find truth. Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Joseph_Stalin)</div> And, by the way, I believe in no way whatsoever that humans are better in any ways. On several discussions of evolution I have made comments to our inherent simplicity, yet underlying complexity.[/b] Excellent. Originally posted by Joseph_Stalin@ The mind, however, is a projection and expression rooting from the physical stimulus. Society, thus, is a representation of millions of years of natural responses to our environment, that evolves naturally. And the mind is exempt from evolution? It doesn't evolve naturally? The mind is simply what the brain does, it's an information processing machine. Next time you're at the library pick up a book by Stephen Pinker called How The Mind Works, its a pretty good read...a bit slow at the beginning, but interesting. <!--QuoteBegin-Joseph_Stalin Do I contradict myself? Yes. But that's not the reason I argue and discuss. I do it for the simple learning experience of talking to others, and discovering my own mental strengths and weaknesses. That's no fun. Take a stand, I guarantee you'll learn more.

[Rakkantekimusouka]

Originally posted by spoon What religion is that? Mine -- sort of. PM me for a longer explanation.

[Joseph_Stalin]

Originally posted by bradybaker I would disagree somewhat, just because they view the world differently than you doesn't mean that they are psychologically conditioned or have been dealt cards from a fixed deck. In their eyes, you are the one who has been psychologically conditioned and you are the one who has been dealt cards from a fixed deck. In their eyes, what they are doing (whether it be flying planes into buildings or strapping some TNT to their chest and blowing the hell out of a city block) is an act of good, an act that will assure their passage into whatever they believe is \"heaven\". And you might think to yourself, \"well their religion is insane! how can they kill people in the name of their God?\". Well what about the Crusades or Inquisitions? But that's kinda off topic. Yes, I see what you mean. But the only thing I have a problem with is your mention of the Crusades. The Crusades did involve more than a fair share of propaganda, but what these extremist terrorists do is way beyond that...The Crusades main purpose was for political gain, money, and power. I find it hard to believe that these terrorists are even thinking about gains like that. The physcological conditioning given to them is unbelievabley deep(yes it still is conditioning, as they have been fed to believe that we are the ones who are conditioned). But I get you what you're saying about, and I know exactly why they kill in the game of their God. I don't think their religion is insane (I also understand that you said that in a more 'out-loud' manner, and not personally, but I'll continue), because I have read a lot about the Islamic history and the Koran(which gets me angry when I see people generalize muslims, or any other religions). Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you weren't trying to imply that this mythical society accepts the \"label\" of rape (obviously if you call rape baseball instead of rape, then baseball would be considered evil). You were saying that it accepts the \"concept\" of rape. So call it whatever you want, the society (every member of the society) would accept this \"feeling of unwantness\" and it would cease to become unwanted. But really, this society doesn't exist, so I fail to see the point.[/b] Well, the point is to anaylize culture and society, but...I've already complication that example quite a bit. When I stated about labels, it wasn't in a literal sense in my example. Sorry for the confusion. Ah, nature vs. nurture, one of my favorite topics. I think you would be astounded to learn how much our genetics influence our behaviour as opposed to social upbringing. But that's a topic for another discussion.[/b] Quite an interesting discussion...but another time, perhaps. A decent cop-out, I'll give it a B+. If you remain restricted by the \"initial subject material\" then you leave little room for intellectual growth and will never find truth.[/b] Yes, it was a bit of a cop-out, but more of way of simplifying things for me. You'd be laughing if you knew how bad my short-term memory is compared to my long-term (example, I forget about things said to me a few seconds ago...but usually because I am thinking of something that's distracting me). Excellent.[/b] Yes, don't confuse me with a religious zealot. I'm quite the opposite [quote]And the mind is exempt from evolution? It doesn't evolve naturally? The mind is simply what the brain does, it's an information processing machine. Next time you're at the library pick up a book by Stephen Pinker called How The Mind Works, its a pretty good read...a bit slow at the beginning, but interesting.] I actually meant that as an understood concept (sorry about that, I usually have a lot to say, and I must spend more time eloborating on certain points). And thank's for the reading suggestion, I'll have to check that out sometime. Sometimes I'll take a real definite stand. But being the "bipolar philosopher" can be quite a learning experience in itself (hmm, I might just be entering a new debate, one on efficient methods of learning...that would be really interesting).[/u]

[sephiroth clock]

Good and Evil are concepts of the Human Mind. The human soul, however, has no judgement on good an evil. God does not sit in judgement of our actions. What is right and what is wrong is only relative to who we choose to be and our perception of the world. When you die god will not judge you of your sins but accept you into heaven no matter what: Firstly, because hell does not exist. Secondly, because nobody does anything wrong according to who they choose to be and what their perception of the world is. It's like the Ying and the Yang, the contradiction of life. The opposites. This does not mean that either is more evil or good than the other. Just remember that good and evil are made from the mind, not the soul.