Thread: Good and Evil

I think it depends. I don't like the term "evil", though, it implies some all-pervading force for bad in the world, much as "righteous" implies an all-pervading force for good ("God"). There are good and bad actions, though. Murder is unquestionably wrong. (Note, though, that I used the term "Murder" not "killing". I suppose the definition's a bit of a gray area, but murder's the term human society's attached to unjust or unrationalized killing, as opposed to killing in self-defense, or killing to stop extreme suffering)
Basically, it falls back to whether you believe in subjective or objective morality.

I think there are obviously things that are good and evil. You can get into semantics all you want but if you just randomly walk up to someone and kill them, thats clearly not a nice thing to do. If someone isn't mentally ill, I find it hard to believe that someone could harm someone without feeling anything. A lot of times they may rationalize it but deep down even they know its wrong.

Good and evil is pretty black and white and I think everyone can tell the difference. The only grey area that comes into the picture is when you either do not know the full truth of a situation or when your trying to rationalize something you know is wrong.

It's all about intention and how you view that intention. Some people belive that even if your intention is good you are evil as you have someting to gain from this (e.g feel good about your self for giving someone money)

I think true evil is self centerd egoism. NRG vampires or what ever you want to call them...

I think that trying to deny that we are all one collective on earth is evil (or rather stupid). We are all on the same boat in the ocean we call the universe.

When you think of us all as one you will get +itive egoism and help your self 1st and then everybody that is within your power to help. All meterial things are mearly toys to help us learn, be creative and enjoy life.

Some try to seperate us from nature (or the other way around) and I think that is a unhealthy atitude as in the end we are al very natural.

Experiance what this ocean we call earth has to offer. Have good intention with all your actions and good things will come to you...

"Respect all (life)
or take a deep fall
in to the abyss
of your own shit and piss"

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Never again...

I dont believe that people are born good or evil, i believe that the way they are brought up and the choices they make determine which of the two they are...

Originally Posted by King

Good and Evil, also known as Right and Wrong. Do you believe in Good and Evil? State why you do or why you do not.

Personally, I think there is no such thing as Good or Evil; what is Good and what's Evil can be different to different people. It is all relative.

If a murderer kills a victim and do not feel any guilt, it was not an Evil action according to his own mind, and if he/she regrets it, he/she cannot be Evil due to that.

As for what is generally seen as Good, we do it because it please ourselves, aswell as some people do 'Evil' actions to please themselves. If it makes oneself happy to give another person a gift, one will do so, and if it makes oneself happy to cut someone's throat, one will do so.

I would say that everything is based on selfishness, as we please others to please ourselves and kill others to please ourselves.
[/b]

Someone needs to steal your car... just after they rape you. that way you might begin to get a sense for the actualities of Evil.

It does not matter if someone enjoys stealing your car... and sticking it up your butt. Your appreciation of such things, and Civilization's appraisal would be that such things are wrong... bad... evil.

Yes, expressed Materialistically, in the Modern Language of Barbarism's Renaissance, one can gloss over Good and Evil as entirely arbitrary and non-existent. Jeez, you should be a speech writer for George Bush!

But EVERY Civilization has found it as a primary principle to differentiate between Good and Evil -- to encourage the Good and to set up deterrents and preventions to Evil -- Great Walls or institutions of punishment, execution, exile.

Anyway, with such arguments as yours, I hope none of your friends allow you to be alone with their daughters, or with their silverware.

Originally Posted by Leo

Someone needs to steal your car... just after they rape you. that way you might begin to get a sense for the actualities of Evil.

It does not matter if someone enjoys stealing your car... and sticking it up your butt. Your appreciation of such things, and Civilization's appraisal would be that such things are wrong... bad... evil.

Yes, expressed Materialistically, in the Modern Language of Barbarism's Renaissance, one can gloss over Good and Evil as entirely arbitrary and non-existent. Jeez, you should be a speech writer for George Bush!

But EVERY Civilization has found it as a primary principle to differentiate between Good and Evil -- to encourage the Good and to set up deterrents and preventions to Evil -- Great Walls or institutions of punishment, execution, exile.

Anyway, with such arguments as yours, I hope none of your friends allow you to be alone with their daughters, or with their silverware.
[/b]

There's an easier and more positive path towards a "wholesome" life, actually. All King and God, as well as every conscious being, needs to do is realize that evil is a double-edged sword. All "evil" men die lonely, sad, and depressed because the evil they commit against others hurt themselves equally, if not more-so. The only exception would be the extremely rare case of a mental patient who feels absolutely nothing from human interaction. But, there aren't very many people like that.

That response was extremely aggressive and probably hurtful, I know you just want good to prevail; however, don't attack others' opinions, teach them to understand your position instead.

We're all open-minded dreamers here and we all understand the potential of cooperative thinking.

Good night!
Matt

Originally Posted by odds

... All "evil" men die lonely, sad, and depressed because the evil they commit against others hurt themselves equally, if not more-so. ...

[/b]

Actually not. It would nice to think that Crime and Evil never paid, but when we actually look around... in many cases INDIVIDUALS couldn't be happier then with their successfully predatory lives.

Someone once asked Genghis Khan what made him happiest. The Greatest Barbarian in History replied that "Pillaging an enemy's home and raping his wives and daughters while the enemy watched, and then killing that enemy was indeed what made him happiest of all things". And he was good at it. Genghis Khan had the combined moveable wealth of three defeated Civilizations. Thousand of wives. Hundreds of thousands of obedient soldiers. The best horses. the finest swords.

He was a happy man.

This is why the focus for determining Morality must be aimed toward appraising the Collective. Individual Happiness can be found just as easily, or more easily through Evil. Ask Faust. Ask any Republican.

Morality only has an Application when one is concerned for the viability of a Civilization. Any Society whose survival is predicated upon the ordered distribution of Surplus Wealth must have some institutionalized plan for Morality, or the system of Distribution will end up being challenged and disputed by those who are happy in their Selfishness. and Civilization perishes... as it has often done. History is the Chronicle of 21 Civilizations, all dead and buried, but the Last, our own.

Good, evil, it doesnt exist in an individuals mind, it is merley the play rules, of the colective, that wich seperates what we aught to do, with what we augh not, yes, it should garantee safe play, in this wonderfull game called colective life, (or sociable life whatever) but the thuth is something is good or wrong, only when the most powerfull person at the time being says it is *eck* ghenghis kan said raping wives and doughters was cool, and all of his folowers said YIPEE! bet ya he had hanged anyone who did it, it would be considered wrong, so actually good and bad is the perception of the colective torward the individual, BUT, sometimes( most of the time) its the perception of the individual torwards the colective, a guy kills a girl, he says he is ill, i say kill him, BUT , as Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye will make the world blind", so just give him life sentence, so he can have enough time to think about it... Isnt it cool (actually it aint cool) to think that humans are the only animals that can choose to be evil, or bad, our blessing, wich is our concience, is our curse, damn that apple. I say respect life, murder is truly EVIL look it how you look at it.

Originally Posted by existentialist

Good, evil, it doesnt exist in an individuals mind, it is merley the play rules, of the colective, that wich seperates what we aught to do, with what we augh not, yes, it should garantee safe play, in this wonderfull game called colective life, (or sociable life whatever) but the thuth is something is good or wrong, only when the most powerfull person at the time being says it is *eck* ghenghis kan said raping wives and doughters was cool, and all of his folowers said YIPEE! bet ya he had hanged anyone who did it, it would be considered wrong, so actually good and bad is the perception of the colective torward the individual, BUT, sometimes( most of the time) its the perception of the individual torwards the colective, a guy kills a girl, he says he is ill, i say kill him, BUT , as Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye will make the world blind", so just give him life sentence, so he can have enough time to think about it... Isnt it cool (actually it aint cool) to think that humans are the only animals that can choose to be evil, or bad, our blessing, wich is our concience, is our curse, damn that apple. I say respect life, murder is truly EVIL look it how you look at it.
[/b]

You have no insight at all into Evil or into Barbarism. Gheghis Khan would not have relied upon Moral Constraints to keep his subordinates in line.. from raping his own wives and daughters. Barbarians rely entirely upon Dominance. Leaders must exert enough personal power over their immediate subordinates so that they will not rebel, but they must also be given enough lattitude so that they will assume they have a free hand in cruelty and ruthlessness themselves. After all, the Power of any Tyrant, Dictator or Barbarian Chieftan rests upon his ability to exert ruthless cruelty through his subordinates. While he sleeps or while he is elsewhere, his Subordinates must act in his place, being just as intimidating and dreadful as the Boss himself. They could not do this if they themselves were whipped like little puppies. To some extent their Loyalty and Enthusiasm must be purchased with some degree of indulgence. A good example of this is Hitler, who was moderate and even abstemious himself, but tolerated the most grotesque behaviors in his subordinates -- a Leader is nobody unless he has a core group ruthless henchmen willing to obey any order, and perhaps more importantly, to use their own witts and influences to establish a Reign of Terror.

So Ghenghis would have been permitted his men to do anything they wanted, wherever they wanted, but just not against Ghengis's himself and his own stuff. You must consider WHY was Ghenghis Khan able to assemble complete armies of over a half a million men, who were obviously enthusiastic about conquering the World. These were no reluctant draftees. They all 'joined up' so that they could share in the 'fun'. Ghenghis Khan was their Mocho Ideal, and it would have been silly for him to discourage such transference. What did Ghenghis Khan care that his men should rape and pillage as long as he himself would eventually get his percentage in the traditional tributes of War. It was conducted much like Captitalism -- Greed where everybody gets their cut except for the primary victims that nobody needs to concern themselves about.

And as for your dismissing evil. Well, I hope you become well acquainted with Evil, and that Evil will not leave you alone until you finally choose to acknowledge its Reality.

Someone needs to steal your car... just after they rape you. that way you might begin to get a sense for the actualities of Evil. [/b]

There is a chance it would make my view on it biased. So perhaps I would change my mind regarding this if such a thing happened.

It does not matter if someone enjoys stealing your car... and sticking it up your butt. Your appreciation of such things, and Civilization's appraisal would be that such things are wrong... bad... evil. [/b]

In my eyes, yes, but probably not in the person commiting it.

Yes, expressed Materialistically, in the Modern Language of Barbarism's Renaissance, one can gloss over Good and Evil as entirely arbitrary and non-existent. Jeez, you should be a speech writer for George Bush![/b]

Thanks for the compliment!

But EVERY Civilization has found it as a primary principle to differentiate between Good and Evil -- to encourage the Good and to set up deterrents and preventions to Evil -- Great Walls or institutions of punishment, execution, exile.[/b]

I understand that. I would have about the same laws and morals if I controlled a nation, altough I do not believe in Good and Evil.

Anyway, with such arguments as yours, I hope none of your friends allow you to be alone with their daughters, or with their silverware.[/b]

In my eyes, murder and/or rape on innocents is wrong. I would only kill/rape for revenge, or if being under attack or threatened.

As for stealing, my views on that is a bit different: I would not feel bad if I stole from a very wealthy man I did not know of. A friend or unknown poor person I would not steal from, however.

Originally Posted by King

...I would have about the same laws and morals if I controlled a nation, altough I do not believe in Good and Evil.


[/b]

But simple Law is so inadequately equipped to influence actual behavior. Law depends upon Enforcement. Law requires a policeman on every corner, a policeman in every office, club, store, home or flat. Simply look at the most Materialist of Regimes -- the Communists. They believed with all their hearts that Law could only be effective through total enforcement and the adoption of a all-blanketting Police State. and it helped to bankrupt them. So many Police and not enough Doctors, Engineers and Workers.

Voltaire, atheism's historic hero, knew this. he would say that Morality is cheaper then Law because the Law required so many police, but that morality was self-enforcing. And when people enforce their own Morality, they don't feel so imposed upon as when Police are beating them over the head, no?

If it has no existential significance or detriment to the soul if one should cheat, steal, enter into secret corruptions, then this is what will occur. If it doesn't matter, then people will do it. Only if Good and Evil are perceived as real Things -- that Good is a benediction and Evil is a pollution, then there could be some hope that people would willingly play along with the Requirements for a Civilization.

I believe right and wrong are subjective but that doesn't mean I don't believe in right and wrong, it just means I understand I draw the lines at different places than other people and I don't believe where I draw the line is better than where they draw the line. However, part of my beliefs are that inaction is action in the support of the action that would take place anyway. That is to say, if you do not work to fight injustice you work for injustice. Therefore, even though I don't think my definition of justice is better than the next person's (well technically I do, otherwise I would believe in their definition), I would still fight till my bones broke to protect my definition of justice.

Leo, re-read what I said; I said laws and morals.

Just because I see Good and Evil in the way I do, it does not mean I want everyone else to see it the same way.

Originally Posted by King

Leo, re-read what I said; I said laws and morals.

Just because I see Good and Evil in the way I do, it does not mean I want everyone else to see it the same way.
[/b]

I understood your point but didn't think you were entirely serious about asserting that you are better than everybody else and deserve to live by a different set of rules.

Maybe you should consider converting to Judaism. You certainly have the attitude.

Maybe you should consider converting to Judaism. You certainly have the attitude.[/b]

I will worship no one/nothing. So no thanks, I would rather not join a religion and give up my soul to another God.

By the way, I'm not a Republican or Bush-supporter. Infact, I don't have any politic stance I feel loyal to at all; I want the system that benefits me the most, which is Socialism at this point (and Totalitarian sometime in the future). So you can drop those political comments.

Funny, you're kind of going in the opposite direction by going from socialism to totalitarianism.

Originally Posted by King

I will worship no one/nothing. So no thanks, I would rather not join a religion and give up my soul to another God.

By the way, I'm not a Republican or Bush-supporter. Infact, I don't have any politic stance I feel loyal to at all; I want the system that benefits me the most, which is Socialism at this point (and Totalitarian sometime in the future). So you can drop those political comments.
[/b]

Try using some insight. Do you know any Jew that "has given up his soul to a God". No, that is not how Judaism works at all, not for the Zionists. To them God has turned into a kind of powerful Jin or Familiar Spirit whose soul job is to support the Jewish People in their ambitions, wars, usury and business venture. Their Primary Religious Belief is that they are better than everyone else. It would be quite looked down upon if any group of White People were to adopt the same view. But your arrogance reminded me of that whole sense of Religion of Entitlement. But while you are arrogant, you are not intelligent enough to pick up on these things without a great deal of explanation, if you even yet understand what I am talking about.

Which brings me back to what I learn everyday, that people who don't agree with me are probably less intelligent and so I should be charitable and patient with them.

So you are once arrogant and pathetic... depending on whether it is you looking at yourself, or myself looking at you.

Worshipping any God is the same as placing oneself under him, resulting in giving him control of one's soul, no matter what is written in religious books.

Originally Posted by DoomedOne

Funny, you're kind of going in the opposite direction by going from socialism to totalitarianism.
[/b]

It may seem a bit comical, but note that I do not share many views with Socialist politicans. I only prefer the Socialists due to the higher taxes, nothing else.

Currently I live in a family with not so high incomes. Therefore, Socialism will benefit me here as I will be able to go to hospital, dentist and school for free. If we had conservatives in power, taxes would be lower and these things would cost money sooner or later, resulting in losing more incomes for myself and my family than we gain through the lower taxes, if anyone of us needs to go to the hospital or dentist for instance.

I think you have catched my drift about why I prefer Socialism right now.

Originally Posted by King

Worshipping any God is the same as placing oneself under him, resulting in giving him control of one's soul, no matter what is written in religious books.
It may seem a bit comical, but note that I do not share many views with Socialist politicans. I only prefer the Socialists due to the higher taxes, nothing else.

Currently I live in a family with not so high incomes. Therefore, Socialism will benefit me here as I will be able to go to hospital, dentist and school for free. If we had conservatives in power, taxes would be lower and these things would cost money sooner or later, resulting in losing more incomes for myself and my family than we gain through the lower taxes, if anyone of us needs to go to the hospital or dentist for instance.

I think you have catched my drift about why I prefer Socialism right now.
[/b]

So, while rejecting any moral imperative to provide for your family's poverty, you still expect those who are better off than you to carry you all along. Charity without Morality. Hmmmm. How long do you think that will last?

Without a solid sense of Good and Evil, your fellow Taxpayers, or rather those who actually pay a great deal of taxes, will see that they themselves would be far better off if your family was not provided for. Why should they care? Only Morality can guarantee Charity.

What you have is a cyclic form of Democracy where when 51% of the people are self-acknowledged to be better off raiding the Collective Wealth, then taxes are imposed. But just as soon as the balance shifts and 51% of the people think they would be better off with less taxes then with less services, then taxes are strangled and all services curtailed. Its inherently unstable, and sets up a Class Warfare paradigm.

From other thread. Quoted post by Leo.

You essential center from which all of your personal philosophies rise up is that you suppose you are better than everybody else. Everybody must serve your ends. Everyone must live, and go on living, for your sake.[/b]

My philosophies are not based on that, altough I do value myself higher than others. Morality is based on selfishness. Just think about it.

Everyone do everything the way they do because it makes them feel good, or because it makes them avoid feeling bad. Let's say a man saves a child from getting run over by a bus. He did it because: A) It makes him feel good about himself, or B) He would have felt bad about himself if he did not do it. There may be other reasons, but everything regarding right and wrong is based on selfishness.

It is the same about rich people giving money: they do it because it makes them feel good, or they feel bad if they don't do it.

You can argue that you stand to gain something from every good or bad deed, which is true, you feel good for doing good and bad for doing bad. But that does not make it the motivation for committing such an act, the motivation, in fact, may be selfless just because it feels good to be selfless does not mean it requires selfishness to act selfless, it can just be a benefit.

The fact is most people act based on how they feel about the situation, even if they act based on how they think about it, their thoughts then have an effect on their feelings, but humans act of out of feeling, it's just the idea that every action, including something as minimal as getting up in the morning, requires hope, it requires a feeling.

I don't know what I'm trying to say, I mean I'm trying to say that jsut because it feels good doesn't mean you're being selfish but I can't figure out how to argue that exactly.

I understand. Good point.

Wow, this is quite a heated discussion for a concept that most (atheists) would associate with works of fiction.

I don't really think that good or evil could exist in the sense that it's popularized as, whether or not it exists at all aside. For evil to exist on a significant level, there has to be some kind of force which is detrimental to reality itself. Or, if you just want evil to exist on an interpersonal level, detrimental to humanity could work, but only if humanity (individual or "collective") is not arbitrary, and you can't say it isn't easily. The same statements can be applied to good.

On an ontological (existence-based) level, I'd say that one possible standard would be "order" vs. "chaos" (who thought this up, I wonder? I know it's very present in rogue-likes) and on an anthropological level, identity/individuality vcould be part of how a standard would operate.

Originally Posted by King

Morality is based on selfishness. Just think about it.

[/b]

Yes, Morality works better than Evil. But it works indirectly and through convolution. When people are willing to place the good of others before their own, then the security of Universal Peace becomes a Universal Benefit which all can enjoy. But it is indirect. It is a two step process. It requires Intelligence and the capacity for people to practice delayed gratification.

But Evil is direct. Evil requires no intelligence, no delayed gratification. Barbarism is direct. Take what you want when you want it. Might makes right.

If you think Morality is Selfish, then what is Evil. Think about it.

Oh, wait... that would take intelligence.