Thread: Define "Good" and "Evil"

Originally Posted by kingdaddy

Easy from my POV. This person did an evil act and is guilty murder even without completing his intent. If I am only waiting for an opportunity to murder someone in a way that I don’t think I would be caught, I am still a murderer at heart. The person who has a heart to commit this act is dangerous and evil because only timing or some other circumstance is stopping him, if he gets the chance he will commit the act and intent tells who he really is.

I think you're exactly right here. IMO, intent and not results is the decisive factor. Still, there might be interesting arguments from the other side - not the least of which would be "how can curing cancer be evil..."

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

To what do we apply these descriptions? Are people good/evil, or are acts good/evil?

Given that we cannot prosecute for "thought crimes" (or truly know some person's interior motives except by their own representations), I think it prudent to limit ourselves to "acts" (which may be objectively observed).

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Is good/evil a measure of intent, or of outcome? As an example, if I try to kill my neighbor, but inadvertently cure cancer instead, is my act evil (because of my malicious intent) or is it good (because of the fortuitous result)?

I should expect this to be the 'meat & potatoes' of this thread. I'm inclined to dismiss "intent" as irrelevant, judging only acts.

I suppose that only reveals my subjective bias here - I'm interested in society. One who is interested in the self (or one's own salvation) might discount the 'acts' and concern themselves entirely with 'intents'.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I realize that these seem like arcane technicalities, but I would ask the posters here to bear with me, as I believe these questions will have great importance as definitions emerge and are discussed.

Arcane technicalities? This is the most important aspect of the issue!!!

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Kingdaddy, if I'm reading correctly, you're mistaking the term "someone" for "someone else". If an action need only benefit "someone" in order to be a good action, then selfish actions can be good if they don't harm others. This is because the doer of the action falls under the classification of "someone". Donkey may have intended to say the words that you put in his mouth, but he didn't say them. This is the importance of semantics, which is often dismissed as unimportant - generally incorrectly. The inclusion or exclusion of one small word (i.e. "else") drastically alters the meaning of the statement.

I might be wrong about his intent, but I don’t think I was, we will see if he posts a reply to clear this up.

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I'll need some time to ponder - going home for a celebratory dinner with the fiancee, as of last night... so, I might not be on this evening.

It's about damn time! Congratulations!!!

D'oh, I would have preferred "the origins of good and evil". I don't like definitions a lot.

In any case, here I go: Good refers to a person who acts in order to respect/follow a set of values/recommendations. These values/recommendations are:
# seeking the maximum benefit for the maximum of persons. Benefit would include physical and spiritual pleasure; freedom.
# seeking justice ( I see you coming. "define justice". Now that would be hard.)


notes:
I can NOT justify these values/recommendations.
I believe that referring to an act as being "good" doesn't make much sense. An act just happens. Its consequences might be beneficial or not. Only a person can be good or evil.
And yes, I think that an egoist action is good, given it respects justice. That makes all actions that someone makes and that do not imply others "good".

I hope I didn't forgot anything... But I think I did. Show me where, please


PS: I missed this:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

To what do we apply these descriptions? Are people good/evil, or are acts good/evil?

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Given that we cannot prosecute for "thought crimes" (or truly know some person's interior motives except by their own representations), I think it prudent to limit ourselves to "acts" (which may be objectively observed).

Well, I don't see justice as seeking a maximum of good-willing persons; I see it as trying to force a maximum of beneficial behaviors. And I don't think an act can be good or evil, just beneficial or annoying. (I'm not happy with my choice of words here. I don't have a dictionnary at hand; I hope you will understand the meaning anyway).

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

It's about damn time! Congratulations!!!

Why thank you...

I think the early consensus is that people are not explicitly "good" or "evil" but that we must categorize acts as "good" or "evil". I agree with this - the wisdom of a trite cliche tells us that even a blind squirrel finds a nut, and the same logic applies to an "evil" person who may occasionally do something "good" (or vice-versa).

OK, then something is good as long as it is useful in promoting:
# the maximum benefit for the maximum of persons. Benefit would include physical and spiritual pleasure; freedom.
# justice.
Then again, I can not prove this, and I don't think anybody can. Values are a matter of belief, in my opinion; but that's another discussion.


Said with other words:
Since we said that intent doesn't matter, I suppose that we can only say that a good act is useful act. "Useful"'s exact meaning depends on one's beliefs.

Originally Posted by IIIX

OK, then something is good as long as it is useful in promoting:
# the maximum benefit for the maximum of persons. Benefit would include physical and spiritual pleasure; freedom.
# justice.
Then again, I can not prove this, and I don't think anybody can. Values are a matter of belief, in my opinion; but that's another discussion.

But if we are physical creatures we can study ourselves to determine empirically what is and how to maximize the benefit for the maximum# of persons. It would not always be pleasure, but it would always be in promotion of our well-being.

It is a long historical process in which we have to learn from history.

In this sense, values do not have to be a matter of belief, they can be a matter of the natural understanding of who we are.

Andrew

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

I think the early consensus is that people are not explicitly "good" or "evil" but that we must categorize acts as "good" or "evil". I agree with this - the wisdom of a trite cliche tells us that even a blind squirrel finds a nut, and the same logic applies to an "evil" person who may occasionally do something "good" (or vice-versa).

If we measure good and evil in units than the goal would be to have more good units than evil. This ultimate goal would be to eliminate all the evil units.

A persons status as a good or evil person would look like a balance sheet of good and evil units.

Andrew