Thread: The Definition of "Good" and "Evil"

So, I'm resurrecting this thread from the archives....

Define "Good" and "Evil" - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

New takers are welcome to define "Good" and "evil" in any way you see fit. I think that, perhaps, it's about time to pick up where and old discussion left off. I'll be back to offer my thoughts when I'm a little less... uh.. drunk

just reading back through that... posted it the day I got engaged... If I only knew how badly that would go...

Wow... I just read through that entire thread and, MM, I came to three conclusions...

(1) Thank "God" (no pun intended) that jester and kingdaddy aren't here for this thread.
(2) It's a damned shame that JSMILL doesn't post here any more - he was clearly, far and away, the most interesting and eloquent dedicated theist ever to grace USPO.
and
(3) Mad_Michael is singlehandedly responsible for introducing me to Nietzsche and basically selling me on moral relativism (and the fact that only acts matter).

I'll have to collect my thoughts for a few days before I allow the "ostensible wisdom" of the last six months or so to give me the courage to forumlate a theory that won't be embarrassing. And, in the meantime, would that JSMILL were here - one of the biggest losses on this board, IMO.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

So, I'm resurrecting this thread from the archives....

Define "Good" and "Evil" - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum Archives

New takers are welcome to define "Good" and "evil" in any way you see fit. I think that, perhaps, it's about time to pick up where and old discussion left off. I'll be back to offer my thoughts when I'm a little less... uh.. drunk

Your other avatar made you look more... uh.. sober

Originally Posted by MareTranquility

Your other avatar made you look more... uh.. sober

Curse that inaccurate devil!

Reading my old posts in this thread made me feel stupid... It seems that I dislike my own debating style .

But it's only true for the style as I have not changed my mind regarding the substance: acts are not the only thing that matters. The argument I had presented in the old thread was that, if only acts matters,then even the acts we see as the worsts today might end up being good if they have unexpected results.

Here is an example: tomorow, an alien race attacks our planet. We manage to fight and kill the aliens using the chemical and nuclear weapons developped in Irak by Saddam Hussein, who wanted to use them to kill kurds and destroy Israel. (this example is very imaginary). Here is another example: Hitler's mother just gave birth to a lovely little baby with a mustache and a deep hatred for jews. But the baby is very ill! The nurses and doctors at the hospital do their best and manage to save this baby. Later, the grown-up baby starts a war that kills a few dozens of millions of people.

The first example shows how an act that looks evil turns out to be useful. The second example shows how an act that looks good turns out to be damaging. My conclusion is that acts can be judged regarding how good they are as facts. If we want to judge an act as a thing, we'd say that Saddam Hussein's weapons were useful and that saving baby Hitler was damaging; much like we'd say that the air that we breath is not "good", but useful. If we want to judge an act as the realisation of an intent, then we'll call it good or evil. In this case, we would only call this act good if the intent behind it was good; we would only call this act evil if this it was the realisation of an evil intent.

The paradox is solved: Saddam Hussein, by building WMDs, made an evil AND useful action. The doctors and nurses, by saving baby Hitler, did a good AND damaging thing.

Originally Posted by IIIX

Reading my old posts in this thread made me feel stupid... It seems that I dislike my own debating style .

But it's only true for the style as I have not changed my mind regarding the substance: acts are not the only thing that matters. The argument I had presented in the old thread was that, if only acts matters,then even the acts we see as the worsts today might end up being good if they have unexpected results.

Here is an example: tomorow, an alien race attacks our planet. We manage to fight and kill the aliens using the chemical and nuclear weapons developped in Irak by Saddam Hussein, who wanted to use them to kill kurds and destroy Israel. (this example is very imaginary). Here is another example: Hitler's mother just gave birth to a lovely little baby with a mustache and a deep hatred for jews. But the baby is very ill! The nurses and doctors at the hospital do their best and manage to save this baby. Later, the grown-up baby starts a war that kills a few dozens of millions of people.

The first example shows how an act that looks evil turns out to be useful. The second example shows how an act that looks good turns out to be damaging. My conclusion is that acts can be judged regarding how good they are as facts. If we want to judge an act as a thing, we'd say that Saddam Hussein's weapons were useful and that saving baby Hitler was damaging; much like we'd say that the air that we breath is not "good", but useful. If we want to judge an act as the realisation of an intent, then we'll call it good or evil. In this case, we would only call this act good if the intent behind it was good; we would only call this act evil if this it was the realisation of an evil intent.

The paradox is solved: Saddam Hussein, by building WMDs, made an evil AND useful action. The doctors and nurses, by saving baby Hitler, did a good AND damaging thing.

Well spoken

It is all just a means to an end and every stick has two ends

Originally Posted by IIIX

The first example shows how an act that looks evil turns out to be useful. The second example shows how an act that looks good turns out to be damaging. My conclusion is that acts can be judged regarding how good they are as facts. If we want to judge an act as a thing, we'd say that Saddam Hussein's weapons were useful and that saving baby Hitler was damaging; much like we'd say that the air that we breath is not "good", but useful. If we want to judge an act as the realisation of an intent, then we'll call it good or evil. In this case, we would only call this act good if the intent behind it was good; we would only call this act evil if this it was the realisation of an evil intent.

The paradox is solved: Saddam Hussein, by building WMDs, made an evil AND useful action. The doctors and nurses, by saving baby Hitler, did a good AND damaging thing.

I would isolate the cases - saving a baby from death is never wrong. Wheter the baby would become Hitler or a drug addict doesn't mind, because the baby isn't yet evil/terrible. Your Hitler-baby might just've been a bad example though... but I don't think it's fair that something that might happen to someone in the future is relevant. It's like "Minority Report" - catching people before they do the crimes...

The act of saving the baby is in itself good. It's like not saving the babies of christian fundamentalists if they get sick... so no more fundamentalists would spawn. Those babies are about to be brainwashed.

I tend to agree with this idea.

I don’t think good and evil are disconnected entities.

And actions do not have intrinsic qualities

Actions are the progression of thoughts and words, and they originate in the human mind. The attributes of actions are open to interpretation.

In each of us, there is the potential to do good and to do evil.

For as long as humans have the capacity to think and act, I believe good and evil will continue to exist.

Tethys

Having had the advantage of reading previous posts, which I found very informative, is it then that "good" and "evil" are nothing but shorthand descriptions for various contexts of action?