Thread: Define "Good" and "Evil"

Ignore this post. I read back in the thread and realized that everything it said has been mentioned already. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Simon_D_Jester

Based on the best definition of evil that I've found (47), I would say no.

Who has created this evil?

Originally Posted by Simon_D_Jester

Good is often considered the absence of evil ... just like healthy is the absence of diseased.

But one can function goodly even in the presence of evil ... as one can still retain degrees of health even while sick.

This may suggest that, even in the presence of evil, good can still exist ... and vice versa.

Thus I would posit that there are degrees of good and evil, and that good and evil can coexist (though not optimally for either), even if good uncompromised by evil is our desired and natural state.

Thus, also, good without evil is our optimal and potentially quite reachable state, and thus good can exist witihout evil.

It is entirely possible, however, that evil may not be able to exist without good. ...

Good is our natural state ... just like health is our natural state. We can be good and healthy either without being evil and diseased or with a degree of evil and disease.

If we say exceptionally that someone is "all" good or "all" evil ... we may perhaps be implying that more often than not that good and evil are a matter of degrees.

This being said, I do not believe that a person can "be" good or evil. Good and evil are conditions, conditions with somewhat spiritual connotations. Neither good or evil is what we "are".

If evil did not exist, if we never encounter it, then, understandably, by virtue of the fact that we wouldn't run across it, the capacity to recognize it would be needless.

If we were then left with nothing but the optimal of good without evil, would it really matter if we recognized good or not?

I think that would depend on whether or not the capacity for recognition is integral to the human experience. Could we grow and learn without it?

Originally Posted by Simon_D_Jester

I disagree with your conclusion here.

We are altered by your aforementioned clashes, not all of which involve evil.

If we make a mistake of thought, thinking evil is involved when it isn't, or, if we error in vice versa, thinking evil is not involved when it is, we end up with an erroneous perspective on the matter. Perspectives change over time, and one major factor in such change is the addition and subtraction, in degrees, of the error of mistake.

Evil is evil, by definition, and it cannot be otherwise.

And, there is truly no benefit to experiencing evil.

There is repercussion and adjustment as we fight evil, but the evil we fight and the fight itself leaves us in a less-than-we-were condition than before the evil was encountered.

Keep in mind, that the activity of a virus which is destructive to us, by virtue of my afore-referenced definition of evil, is, rightly, not evil.

Not so, by appeal to definition.

Evil, accurately defined, is simply not necessary.

The perspective you present in this paragraph is usually based, albeit mostly unconsciously, upon the myth of immortality. If good is always to follow like yin-yang, then we will always be "alive" to experience the good that comes from evil followed by the evil that comes from that good, etc.

But when we discard the myth of immortality, and face the reality of our eventual finality, we begin to escape from the paradigmic prison of a forever existent "coin".

Such facing of reality helps us to realize that the contrasts of good and evil are contrasted only for the sake of presentation to the population at large, and that, once examined a little closer and deeper, we find that good and evil are simply not mutually inclusive ... nor perhaps opposites at all.

Perhaps evil is simply spiritual gravity, and were it not to exist, we might find life to be tedious and unchallenging.

Originally Posted by Simon_D_Jester

Imagining that we can flip the coin and have it land "good" an equal number of times as "evil", or even have the coin land frequently on its edge, still oversimplies ( ... ) unto an erroneous understanding of the true nature of the non-oppositeness of good and evil.

Life may be intrinsically good, but death, in and of itself, is not evil.

However, premature death at the hands of another does reflect, by definition, the presence of evil ... which may be why so many who are "religiously" preoccupied with "good and evil" find abortion so repugnant .

Pain is not necessarily evil, and pleasure is not necessarily good ... especially if we mistake pleasure for anti-evil.

If we want to end the cycles, we may wish to first examine whether or not we have an accurate take on reality ... and then discard inaccurately cast dualisms as the error in construct that they are.

Not to flip the coin, but use it to purchase liberation/salvation.

words bring up connotations that are sometimes either too vague or too broad.

Good and evil over history has been used in so many different contexts and perspectives that its hard to really pinpoint a definition. But i'd like to try.

Firstly, its always "good" or effective to hone in a bit, perhaps not on a specific example, but something that can be related to many examples;so why not the phrase "Good intent" and "evil intent". What kind of strings does that pull?

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Cost/Benefit analysis and marginal utility? What is the marginal utility of a human life?

Was this meant to be rhetorical...?

The marginal utility of a human life could, dispassionately, be evaluated with very crude criteria. The most apparent one that comes to mind is "did person X faciliate the propagation of human life, or did he hinder it?" Of course, there are any number of more nuanced ways to evalutate the question - but they certainly (and, IMO, validly) exist.

Originally Posted by Pogo

Not to flip the coin, but use it to purchase liberation/salvation.

Brilliant!!!

Personally, I would use the coin to buy mathematical accuracy...

The question I would ask is, does evil serve some sort of necessary role in the scheme of things? It seems to me that without evil there would be no good, and without good, there would be no evil, at least insofar as our capacity to recognize them is concerned.

This, I feel, is one of the most important questions yet asked in this thread. I will, however, cop-out for the time being, until we establish more concrete definitions of "good/evil". I feel that your 'very appropos' question cannot be adequately addressed without the esablishment of certain benchmarks.

Originally Posted by IIIX

Well, the butterfly effect talks about this. It is impossible to measure the result of acts except for the very short term. Is a person responsible for things that are results of his actions, but were not predicted by him?

Indeed, another good question. If we speak of "intent" - how far and how wide does one trace cause? Or how does one trace cause? This is necessary if one is to predicate 'evil' by intent - unless you be speaking of thought crimes of course (which are entirely different matter).

Originally Posted by IIIX

A balance between life and death? I don't understand.

Simple paradox. Life is full of them.

(Sidenote: I'm beginning to wonder if the existence of a paradox is sufficient to logically prove life exists or as a philosophic benchmark for discerning reality... that is to say, if a logical paradox is not present, it cannot be reality...)

Originally Posted by interested

Good and evil is in the mind of the individual. What I think is evil might be normal to someone else. How do you define it? There is NO WAY to properly define Good and Evil.

Yes there is.

That which is "good" is that which pleases God (or the gods). That which displeases God (or the gods) is "evil". That is the right and only way to truly define these terms. So far, this thread has been an elaborate dance around this giant pink elephant standing in the corner of the room...

And it is in this precise context that Nietzsche concludes that, because God is dead, "good" and "evil" have no absolute meaning anymore. Thus, we are now living beyond good and evil.

On this basis, I approach the topic. The concepts of absolute 'good' and absolute 'evil' are 100% dependent upon God. Without God (or gods), we are left with only ourselves - mere humans. If we are to use the terms 'good' and 'evil' with any real or substantive 'strong' meaning beyond the simple concepts of 'nice' and 'not-nice', then this definition needs to be constructed by human artifice - jointly, or individually.

Originally Posted by Pogo

Perhaps it might be interesting to include the concept of equilibrium in this discussion, meaning a balance of some sort between good and evil, life and death, pleasure and pain. It is in the striking of such, I think, that we might be able to find our way out of the cycles that seem to repeat over and over again.

There ya go with that Zen vs Nietzsche thing again!

Zen seems to go with the flow, Nietzsche counsels personal will against it on principle.

Originally Posted by kingdaddy

Originally Posted by Pogo

The question I would ask is, does evil serve some sort of necessary role in the scheme of things?

Yes of course it does, it is a choice that separates one type of human from another. In the end the separation will be permanent.

This assertion is logically dependent upon a big 'IF' (or an assertion of pure belief).

If God exists, AND, if that which is understood or traditionally represented to be God's word is in fact representative of God's will, then you are very likely to be substantively correct here.

On the other hand...

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Brilliant!!!

Personally, I would use the coin to buy mathematical accuracy...

You would.

I'd probably throw that coin into a fountain for good luck!

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Originally Posted by Pogo

The question I would ask is, does evil serve some sort of necessary role in the scheme of things? It seems to me that without evil there would be no good, and without good, there would be no evil, at least insofar as our capacity to recognize them is concerned.

This, I feel, is one of the most important questions yet asked in this thread. I will, however, cop-out for the time being, until we establish more concrete definitions of "good/evil". I feel that your 'very appropos' question cannot be adequately addressed without the esablishment of certain benchmarks.

Indeed.

Are we all now understood that the real question of this thread is, how do we construct/define a human-based system of morality - theoretically assuming the absence or independence of God's will?

That certainly appears to be Dr Jekyll's plan here...