Evil

[Norsemaiden]

How can there possibly be "an objective scale of good->evil" that can exist without anyone seeing it? It can only ever be an idea, and ideas can only ever be subjective. It makes even less sense than saying that the Christian God may exist even if no one ever sees, hears, smells or touches it. It is like an idea that no one has ever thought. What about an objective scale of pleasant/unpleasant? That's another thing that can only ever be subjective, because some people enjoy pain and hate donuts, but there would be fewer differences of opinion on that than on good/evil.

Imagine the thread was about: what is funny?
We would agree that what is funny is what makes us amused, but that it is different for each individual. For some what is amusing may be profoundly upsetting.
So, what is funny is what makes us go "ha ha, that's funny!!!"
And what is evil makes us go "ooooh!!! That's evil!!!"
What is it other than an emotional reaction?

 

[Horus]

How can there possibly be "an objective scale of good->evil" that can exist without anyone seeing it? It can only ever be an idea, and ideas can only ever be subjective. It makes even less sense than saying that the Christian God may exist even if no one ever sees, hears, smells or touches it. It is like an idea that no one has ever thought. What about an objective scale of pleasant/unpleasant? That's another thing that can only ever be subjective, because some people enjoy pain and hate donuts, but there would be fewer differences of opinion on that than on good/evil.

Imagine the thread was about: what is funny?
We would agree that what is funny is what makes us amused, but that it is different for each individual. For some what is amusing may be profoundly upsetting.
So, what is funny is what makes us go "ha ha, that's funny!!!"
And what is evil makes us go "ooooh!!! That's evil!!!"
What is it other than an emotional reaction?

I agree with the way I interpreted Norsemaiden's post. Anything that involves an emotional reaction of some sort is completely circumstacial. It differs with every single person. That's why it's very very hard to make a scale of some sort of Good or Evil for EVERYONE. It's like humor, as Norsemaiden said above. Everybody has a different sense of humor. Some people find gore and blood rediculously funny, while other people find it to be disturbing and disgusting. And some people think that making live animal sacrifices is evil, while others find it to be normal. (Yes, I know that's a bad example, but it still helps me prove my point.)

 

[SoundMaster]

Nothing new being added, but:

As I see it, the terms 'good' and 'evil' are literally without meaning….as others have stated, nothing is either intrinsically good or evil, but only are from one’s own perspective (regardless of how much this detracts from one’s concept of order or civilization).

Surely through the eyes of most Americans, 9/11 was pure evil. Of course, through the eyes of others, it was a Holy act necessary to fight evil (as seen through the eyes of the radical Islamist).

I’m fairly certain that the average survivor of the 1945 a-bomb attacks views their use as one of the most evil acts in history; of course, another people view it as a life-saver (as we’ve discussed here).

And I think it’s easy to fight ‘relativism’ but, again, I think that’s entirely ignorant.

In this case, the simplest viewpoint is really the most accurate one:
No one in this world questions that 2+2 will always equal 4 (regardless of what name you assign to the value we call 4). Conversely, very few people will ever agree completely on the definition of evil and good. That simple truth tells us all we need to know, really.

 

[fah-q]

Nothing new being added, but:

As I see it, the terms 'good' and 'evil' are literally without meaning….as others have stated, nothing is either intrinsically good or evil, but only are from one’s own perspective (regardless of how much this detracts from one’s concept of order or civilization).

Surely through the eyes of most Americans, 9/11 was pure evil. Of course, through the eyes of others, it was a Holy act necessary to fight evil (as seen through the eyes of the radical Islamist).

I’m fairly certain that the average survivor of the 1945 a-bomb attacks views their use as one of the most evil acts in history; of course, another people view it as a life-saver (as we’ve discussed here).

And I think it’s easy to fight ‘relativism’ but, again, I think that’s entirely ignorant.

In this case, the simplest viewpoint is really the most accurate one:
No one in this world questions that 2+2 will always equal 4 (regardless of what name you assign to the value we call 4). Conversely, very few people will ever agree completely on the definition of evil and good. That simple truth tells us all we need to know, really.

I agree with the meat of what you have written above, with the exception of the the example using 9/11. Sure, in their minds they were right. According to their religion (at least how they interpreted it) this was not just an acceptable act but, a commendable one. What troubles me is the cloudiness surrounding where acting on behalf of ones principals and beliefs end and objectionable (murdurous) behavior begins. Maybe this is wishful thinking on my part more than anything but, I just wish that there were a handful of basic ideals that man shared and honored.

 

[derek]

I'm not sure the terms really require any subjective emotional input to have meaning. If it is possible to imagine an objective scale, that requires no subjective input to give it a form (which I believe it is) then your criticism fails.

Our personal input to the scales of good->evil, and your own funny->unfunny, is beside the point. My argument is that an objective scale may exist, and the fact that we apply emotion or taste to it is arbitrary, because we may indeed have it wrong.

 

[Frank the tank]

i heard an old eastern proverb. it read " the only knowledge is good , and the only evil is ignorace." - somethin like that

 

[Alter]

evil-is not black metal and does not lie in your everyday person. Evil lies with in a socity. Roman was evil. I belive that a socity has a whole becomes evil. Evil made with lust greed and hate. So basicly 90% if the worlds socitys

 

[Justin S.]

Yes, I think that is the answer!

 

[speed]

Yes, I think that is the answer!

Hey, he's on to something there! Personally, I think to mirror Romes collapse, we really must start up some wild orgies and banquets--where is the damn debauchery I ask, in this evil American Empire!

 

[Horus]

Is it safe to say that somebody coming on the tv, saying "Convert to Islam or Die" is evil?

 

[MURAI]

I am guessing it easier to have an idea of good and evil if you are in a dualist religion that defines the two for you (i.e Christianity).

But, in the modern western world, a serious belief in any good and evil is blurred. The Christian church does not have as much strength anymore. Life is subjective and based on relative values which makes things really complex. For example, a serial killer may have his sentence to be lighter if found to be mentally ill. It is assumed he didn't have any control of the act, so he is not to be blamed. Does this mean some destructive acts done by some does not mean they are evil but they are just suffering mental problems?

This goes a little off topic, but one Buddhists stated there is such thing as good and evil and compares it to the immune system of the body. The universe allows good to flourish, while the evil ones are meant to suffer and eventually eliminated. Like one's body combating against harmful agents in the body. I do not believe in this, but it is a good metaphor for the good/evil dualism. The example above can be related to the belief in the Christian hell where evil souls are punished. Anybody with thoughts on the following?