Thread: Define "Good" and "Evil"

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

I was referring to the bible. If that's not your Book, then I was indeed projecting.

I don’t believe in any books or writings of man, I form my own opinion based on my observation and what is in my soul, that doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy reading about what others think though, I just don’t indoctrinate them into my beliefs, I either agree or I don’t agree, but I never lean on the understanding of others to answer what I cant understand on my own. And to confirm your statement, no, the bible, is not my book.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Who defines and judges these "sins" to be "sinful"?

Pick any theism you want.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

So a bunch of religious fanatics decide some given thing is a "sin". I'm doing that thing (oblivous to their religion) and yet I'm committing a "sin" here?

That sounds rather arbitrary... and authoritarian.

I don't think you can find a less arbitrary and more authoritarian system than religion.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

No law is valid without the consent of the governed.

True. Hence the submission called faith. Although, personally, I hesitate to call it law.

Originally Posted by SMadsen

Pick any theism you want.


I don't think you can find a less arbitrary and more authoritarian system than religion.


True. Hence the submission called faith. Although, personally, I hesitate to call it law.

Whatever.

My point cited, and was addressed to, your comment about society's role, not religion.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Indeed, precisely what we have.


Indeed, I agree. A socially agreed definition is desirable.

And that brings us back to a point I've raised here a few times - legislation is morality (ipso post facto).

In other words, the laws that we pass in our legislatures and the decisions of our law courts - ipso post facto - establish common morality (in the absence of God).

So... "good" and "evil" are defined as "legal" and "illegal"? I don't think that the two are as tightly coupled as that. "Legal" and "illegal" are very rarely decided by any sort of consensus, which means that "legal" and "illegal" infrequently line up directly with most people's "good" and "evil".

As an aside, if we assume the existence of God, then we have the necessary conflict between conforming (for the common good) to society's "good" and "evil" and doing what is necessary to obtain heavenly reward (or avoid retribution). What is the believer to do?

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

So... "good" and "evil" are defined as "legal" and "illegal"? I don't think that the two are as tightly coupled as that. "Legal" and "illegal" are very rarely decided by any sort of consensus, which means that "legal" and "illegal" infrequently line up directly with most people's "good" and "evil".

We've already established that "most people's good and evil" is nothing more than pure subjective caprice - ergo, NOTHING is going to match up with that. Ergo, your critique here is unreasonable and unfathomable.

My point here is that "legal" and "illegal" line up closer to "moral" and "immoral" as well as "good" and "evil" better than anything else one might suggest. And it is further asserted that a significant majority of people do treat the law as a statement of morality. Lawbreakers are deemed to be 'evil' and 'immoral' by definition (from a social perspective).

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

As an aside, if we assume the existence of God, then we have the necessary conflict between conforming (for the common good) to society's "good" and "evil" and doing what is necessary to obtain heavenly reward (or avoid retribution). What is the believer to do?

Give up on that silly book?

I don't think it is reasonable or rational to "assume the existence of God".

However, if you insist (as humans are indeed inclined towards irrational behaviour), then methinks the religious types ought to push hard to demand that the laws conform to their theology. That is reasonable and rational (and a recipe for civil war, but what the heck, God & Government always gives you war - war against the infidel or the immoral, what's the difference?).

Now if I were a believer and 'disturbed' by the implications of the above, I'd take refuge in the old "render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's..." and a healthy dose of "turning the other cheek..." as a way of proving ones morality and not starting a war.

[QUOTE=drgoodtrips]

6 billion different concepts of good and evil.

I would not agree with this. There is far more agreement about the existence of a moral law, acknowledging the existence of an objective good, and the corresponding failure of human beings to successfully measure up to or live by that standard than our comment here suggests. Certainly there are psychopaths and people who refuse to accept the existence of the law, but the existence of such exceptions only provides further confirmation of the law itself.

My answer would that in order to avoid the mess we assign more importance to agreeing on a societal standard of "good" and "evil" than attempting to deduce God's opinions on the matter (especially since God's "opinions" might be completely beyond our ability to comprehend). IOW "good" and "evil" are (or at least should be) defined by societal compromise.

This is a rather confusing statement. You seem to suggest that we agree on a generally acceptable societal standard of good and evil (surely a laudable goal in itself) without reference to an objective standard of good and evil (which I do not believe is possible). Using Biblical language here, the moral law written on our hearts is available to everyone, and some form of it is acknowledged in every religion. It is an intuitive understanding of the existence of good and the corruption, or hatred, or rebellion against that good, which is evil. The revealed religiions do indeed say that we can know God's opinion on the issue. That is the whole point of Christianity.

I have read through this thread and I am again impressed by the infatutation with trendy relativism and the disregard for truth common to several of the posts. Good and evil cannot be understoood in terms of abstract argument alone, regardless of the level of eloquence of the writer or speaker. Goodness and evil are lived and experienced; they reflect great and terrible spiritual realities that transcend our full understanding. Humility and wisdom are necessary. The attempt to reduce this question to mere relativism results in a fatuous and dangerous nihilism: an absolute zero. When nihilism is embraced, all of the rapier wit and amused condescension of a well-stocked mind cannot hide the essential negation of all that is good and all that makes life worth living. It is a refusal to accept the responsibility of acknowledging reality.

Originally Posted by Tim

This is a rather confusing statement. You seem to suggest that we agree on a generally acceptable societal standard of good and evil (surely a laudable goal in itself) without reference to an objective standard of good and evil (which I do not believe is possible). Using Biblical language here, the moral law written on our hearts is available to everyone, and some form of it is acknowledged in every religion. It is an intuitive understanding of the existence of good and the corruption, or hatred, or rebellion against that good, which is evil. The revealed religiions do indeed say that we can know God's opinion on the issue. That is the whole point of Christianity.

I have read through this thread and I am again impressed by the infatutation with trendy relativism and the disregard for truth common to several of the posts. Good and evil cannot be understoood in terms of abstract argument alone, regardless of the level of eloquence of the writer or speaker. Goodness and evil are lived and experienced; they reflect great and terrible spiritual realities that transcend our full understanding. Humility and wisdom are necessary. The attempt to reduce this question to mere relativism results in a fatuous and dangerous nihilism: an absolute zero. When nihilism is embraced, all of the rapier wit and amused condescension of a well-stocked mind cannot hide the essential negation of all that is good and all that makes life worth living. It is a refusal to accept the responsibility of acknowledging reality.

Although not directly addressed to me, I feel targeted by your writing. Let him who fits the shoe...
I'd like to make two points:
First, what is this moral standard you're referring to ? I don't see it in history, I don't see it geographically. Literally everything has at one point or place been considered moral and at another point in time and space considered immoral. There simply is nothing that is considered by all to be either of the two all of the time.
One cannot even take the teachings of Chistianity to be such. I probably don't have to point out all the schisms in this religion to you, leading to a total confusion over what Christianity is supposed to stand for.
Not even within Christianity is there a standard of morality. Many of the Catholics consider the latest pope a nutcase, as he attempts to annihilate the influence of the 2nd Vatican Council.
The American extremist flavour of Christianity that includes anti-abortionism, anti-gay rigths, creationism, etc. is viewed by European christians as ridiculous and dangerous. To an outsider, Christianity is hopelessly divided.

Secondly, why should morality be a monopoly of religion ? Do you really think all non-believers in whatever god spend their days burning, looting, raping and killing ? I don't believe in any god, great architect, deity, supernatural being, creator or whatever. Yet I don't kill, steal, rape or whatever.
You might be inclined to ask : Why not ? But that would be the wrong question. The right question is : Why should I ? People that only refrain from these acts because of their fear of retribution in some afterlife are dangerous people. What happens if they loose their faith ?
Nothing more than simple respect of fellow humans is necessary for leading a 'moral' life, that and the concept of reversibility. It's a relative morality indeed, as it can be different from person to person and towards this or that person.

If the absence of christian beliefs equates to nihilism, then the large majority of people worldwide are nihilists. Today, with the world having become 'a village', this is a crucial issue. How are we to deal with the diversity in morality ? Both the extreme christians and the extreme muslims are taking the wrong road IMHO. The approach of the absolutists (my way or no way), will lead to war. World war.

The only rational, and yes, moral way to deal with this diversity is to accept it.

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Although not directly addressed to me, I feel targeted by your writing. Let him who fits the shoe...

Indeed, a forum user policy that I've always abided by - all posts are theoretically addressed to the forum in general - this is not some chat channel. And I do thank you WOI for quoting back that passage in your post. I should think I would have missed it without your help.

And your points in reply are fairly good ones, though I'd hesitate to say it, bland ones. They are conventional. Though, to be perfectly honest, the critical post that you quoted back in reply to was equally conventional in the critique. Both the quoted critique and your reply represent the standard opposing positions on the great epistemological game that seems to be represented as a 'stalemate' these days. You both listed the standard argument/critiques common to both sides. Passionately and politely I might add, which is always nice to see.

And of course, both constitute appeals to the other to just 'give it up' and come on over to the 'better' side - which is an absurd contention given the studied eloquence and rhetoric of the given arguments - such an ability to represent the arguments so pursuasively indicates a long familiarity with them. Ergo, the two posters of the exchange are the two least likely themselves, to change with the argument of the other. They have each both long rejected the position of the other.

Anyway, the primary point of my post is to address the issue of nihilism since that is an interesting topic in itself, and as one who has long defended the principle of 'relativism' in this particular sub-forum (not to mention expressing a wee bit of amused condescension from time to time), I feel it appropriate to address that implied critique as it is the most notable one (in my opinion).

First and foremost, I should like to say that nihilism is not the default and/or absolute 'endpoint' of relativism. It is only one possible result or interpretation of relativism. Nothing of the doctrine of 'relativism' requires or suggests nihilism.

To put it in simple logical terms, nihilism is neither necessary nor sufficient cause for relativism. Relativism may be sufficient cause for nihilism, but is certainly not a necessary cause for nihilism.

Ergo, nihilism is not inherent to relativism.

That may be simple enough, but I shall go the next step and point out that there is another way of framing the old issue of biblical morality vs secular relativism that avoids nihilism entirely - indeed, expresses precisely the opposite view.

It is my thesis that man-made law, ipso facto makes morality. With the principle of democratic legislated law, the individual in society can be morally sovereign.

This interpretation is relativist and emphatically non-nihilist. It is also emphatically moralistic, though from a humanist perspective, rather than a biblical one.

Ergo, relativism, can build a coherent a functional system of morality. Indeed, I shall argue that it already has done so.

In this respect, if the believers want to legislate in the name of God, Bible, Jesus or Scripture, go for it - I'll meet you at the ballot box (figuratively speaking). The winner gets to legislate morality. That's the way our game is ultimately played.

Originally Posted by WOI

The only rational, and yes, moral way to deal with this diversity is to accept it.

Not true - it is not the "only rational" way. There are other possible rational ways to deal with diversity and 'diversity' itself is not the chief theoretical problem for the 'absolute-truth' proponents on the issue so your proposed solution is not a particularly good one in all respects. (ie. if there was only 'one' different theoretical viewpoint from absolute Truth, that is enough to be a problem, a bunch of them doesn't make any substantial difference).

Originally Posted by Tim

I would not agree with this. There is far more agreement about the existence of a moral law, acknowledging the existence of an objective good, and the corresponding failure of human beings to successfully measure up to or live by that standard than our comment here suggests. Certainly there are psychopaths and people who refuse to accept the existence of the law, but the existence of such exceptions only provides further confirmation of the law itself.



This is a rather confusing statement. You seem to suggest that we agree on a generally acceptable societal standard of good and evil (surely a laudable goal in itself) without reference to an objective standard of good and evil (which I do not believe is possible). Using Biblical language here, the moral law written on our hearts is available to everyone, and some form of it is acknowledged in every religion. It is an intuitive understanding of the existence of good and the corruption, or hatred, or rebellion against that good, which is evil. The revealed religiions do indeed say that we can know God's opinion on the issue. That is the whole point of Christianity.

I have read through this thread and I am again impressed by the infatutation with trendy relativism and the disregard for truth common to several of the posts. Good and evil cannot be understoood in terms of abstract argument alone, regardless of the level of eloquence of the writer or speaker. Goodness and evil are lived and experienced; they reflect great and terrible spiritual realities that transcend our full understanding. Humility and wisdom are necessary. The attempt to reduce this question to mere relativism results in a fatuous and dangerous nihilism: an absolute zero. When nihilism is embraced, all of the rapier wit and amused condescension of a well-stocked mind cannot hide the essential negation of all that is good and all that makes life worth living. It is a refusal to accept the responsibility of acknowledging reality.

That entire line of discussion was an excercise in 'relativism' - defining good and evil without God.

If you define "good" and "evil" according to 'absolutism', then there is no discussion. These things mean whatever God pleases and really mean nothing until "Judgement Day", at which time there is a lottery to reward whoever guessed right (you mean I wasn't supposed to eat pork, and I was allowed to shave with a straight razor?!?). I know that sounds callous, but what else is there? If you were born a Christian, you accept Christianity on faith and thus its definition of good/evil. Likewise for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. I realize that a lot of these overlap on the "biggies" like murder and theft, but they get lost in the minutia of where to bow and why and what to eat and when and what to cut and what to plant and who to marry... man - it's rough being an absolutist because there is no margin for error. Eating your toast butter-side-up is surely a sin the way murder is a sin. There is no relative sin.

I believe in God, and I believe that He has a concept of good and evil. But when push comes to shove, we can really only hazard what we perceive to be educated guesses at what He might want.