Good and evil... do they exist?

[zabu of nΩd]

I was debating Christianity with someone over in the Opeth subforum, and the thread got locked for having gone beyond the original topic, so I thought I'd attempt to recreate things somewhat over here. It would be rather tedious to reproduce the last posts from where I was (especially with the 'quote' button gone in a locked thread), so what follows is what I considered to be the most interesting and/or central idea we'd been debating over there.

The concept of good versus evil is key to many belief systems. Obviously in Christianity you have the struggle to resist temptation towards evil, and to strive for good by loving God. Plenty of other religions make use of the good/evil dichotomy as well.

Even in unreligious terms, there are many people in the world who view some acts as being inherently good, and others as being bad. On the other hand, if you take a naturalistic view of the world, there's little need to refer to an action as "good" or "evil", since people's behavior can be explained as simply acting on their desires and instincts.

Another way to get around the good/evil concept is through determinism (the idea that every event in the universe has a specific set of causes, and thus can be predicted perfectly if you know all the circumstances behind an event). If the world is deterministic, there's no real point in calling someone's actions "good" or "evil" since their actions are completely controlled by how they were raised, how their brain is structured, and what their general disposition is at this moment.

I'm curious to hear what people's views are regarding good and evil. Do they really exist? Can they explain why people do the things they do? Or are they simply a figment of people's imaginations?

 

[Seditious]

I believe in an ontological equality---no human is innately 'bad'. I never use demonistic terms like 'evil' either. The 'good and evil' dichotomy just doesn't achieve anything.

Even aristotle realised what is considered a fundamental principle in todays Neurolinguistic Programming, no one is 'evil' acting on some evil destructive intention, we all have 'positive intentions'---we behave in such a way we see as benefiting ourselves. (As Aristotle put it, ". . . every action and pursuit, is considered to aim at some good.") All behavior, even things which harm others, are not done -to- harm others but are done to improve things for ourselves. There is no need to employ concepts like 'evil' even if we want to discuss 'good and -bad-'.Saying something is 'evil' doesn't reveal anything, it doesn't tell us anything new, we can't achieve anything with it, all it says is 'we think it was bad'.

Determinism wouldn't change anything in either---'you're determined to be evil' they could say, or vice versa. We'd still say (or at least, they who already believe it would say) Mother Therea's acts were 'good' even if they thought she was biologically 'determined' to do those good things. Spinoza brought up an interesting point, arguing God can have no free will (for otherwise he isn't omnipotent---free will implies a desire to act and only imperfect things have desires for desire implies a lacking, which consequently means either God is free and doesn't deserve worship, or God is all powerful, not free and thus not deserving worship as he no more intends good will on us than the sun does in maintaining the solar system). This means still we can say things are good, our ontology will always have us favor pleasure over pain, it's innately good to us to some extent (avoiding a discussion of excess as irrelevant), but that -the way things are- is good for us does not mean anything deserves praise for that things are good.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Good post!

Hm... I'm definitely a fan of the idea that people simply act in a way which will benefit themselves. It always seemed to me that the only reason people act kindly to one another is because that action reflects on how they'd want others to treat them. We'd like our world to be orderly, so we contribute to the level of order in it.

And yeah, I can see how "good" and "evil" would still have meaning in a deterministic world... It's just that these terms imply there being some worth in judging people as such. ...Of course, I guess you can say that all you need in order to give "good" and "evil" meaning is just to define a set of traits/actions as good, and another set as evil. But, then, that makes the terms seem pretty arbitrary.

The Spinoza argument is a cool one indeed; I don't recall having heard that before (although I'm not very scholarly in my philosophy interests). It does seem like quite a leap, though, to claim that free will and omnipotence are mutually exclusive. I can accept that desire implies a lack of something, but who says God has desire? Couldn't he still have a 'will' or a 'plan' without desire? To me, 'free will' implies a justification for acting, not necessarily a desire to act.

Admittedly, it's really hard to avoid a deterministic conclusion if we assume that there is some form of perfection in the universe. To say that something is perfect (i.e. God) naturally leads one to the conclusion that it could only exist in one specific way. In order for God to have free will, we need him to be able to exist in more than one way.

To sum up my ramblings:
- Actions which are perceived as "good" can be shown to break down to self-serving motivations.
- In a deterministic world, "good" and "evil" become arbitrary designations with no value in judging people.
- Free will could operate through something other than desire.
- Perfection implies a static, invariable existence seemingly incompatible with free will.

 

[Black Core]

here's my view on it:

Good and evil are a mixed in everyone. Without good there would not be evil and vise-versa since they would have no meaning. I as a Satanist believe that one cannot fully love another (doing good) witout venting your anger (the evil) onto something or someone else since they are mixed. So once in a while you need to release the evil inside you to be able to keep on loving someone.

So what is good and evil?
There is no pure evil and no pure good. The terms are very abstract and are only used to clarify someones behaviour but in my following explenation. I think that if you are well raised by your parents and you watch the news, I think you can determine for yourself what decent and non-decent behaviour is.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Based on observation of the laws of Nature: the ultimate good is that which benefits your gene pool and the ultimate evil (and insanity) is that which harms your gene pool. Everyone has their own perceptions about what their gene pool is, and also on what might benefit it or harm it. But only by being conscious of this concept can we have any hope of judging what is good or evil.

 

[hibernal_dream]

Norsemaiden - We could classify any plant or animal as good because all their actions are directed towards advancing their gene pool, isn't that rather absurd? How can an action cannot be classified as either good or evil if the agent has no choice? I don't think we can't call an unintentional (instinctual) action morally "good" without good will, and not all actions would justify the benefit to the gene pool. Indeed, why are we able to think and reason at all?

For as reason is not competent to guide the will with certainty in
regard to its objects and the satisfaction of all our wants (which
it to some extent even multiplies), this being an end to which an
implanted instinct would have led with much greater certainty; and
since, nevertheless, reason is imparted to us as a practical
faculty, i.e., as one which is to have influence on the will,
therefore, admitting that nature generally in the distribution of
her capacities has adapted the means to the end, its true
destination must be to produce a will, not merely good as a means to
something else, but good in itself, for which reason was absolutely
necessary. This will then, though not indeed the sole and complete
good, must be the supreme good and the condition of every other,
even of the desire of happiness. Under these circumstances, there is
nothing inconsistent with the wisdom of nature in the fact that the
cultivation of the reason, which is requisite for the first and
unconditional purpose, does in many ways interfere, at least in this
life, with the attainment of the second, which is always
conditional, namely, happiness.

Of course everyone has different circumstances, levels of knowledge of what is a good action. And concerning determinism - even if one's actions are predetermined, if we can still reason whether we will perform a good or evil one then we can classify our actions, even if we're unable to choose an outcome. Unless our thinking is also predetermined, and i'm sure there's a biological argument against this.

 

[Cythraul]

Even aristotle realised what is considered a fundamental principle in todays Neurolinguistic Programming, no one is 'evil' acting on some evil destructive intention, we all have 'positive intentions'---we behave in such a way we see as benefiting ourselves. (As Aristotle put it, ". . . every action and pursuit, is considered to aim at some good.") All behavior, even things which harm others, are not done -to- harm others but are done to improve things for ourselves.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see how this point defends your position. I don't see why it's necessary to posit some kind of evil intentions in order to hold on to a concept like evil. The fact that so-called evil individuals only behave in a way which benefits themselves while harming others as a means to that end is precisely what's "evil" about such people.

Determinism wouldn't change anything in either---'you're determined to be evil' they could say, or vice versa. We'd still say (or at least, they who already believe it would say) Mother Therea's acts were 'good' even if they thought she was biologically 'determined' to do those good things.

It seems pretty clear to me that choice is not a prerequisite for an action's outcome to be valued, but it's not clear at all that choice is not a prerequisite for moral responsibility, and moral responsibility seems to bring a whole lot of stuff with it which would seem to pretty much go out the window if there is no such thing as free will.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I've been thinking about this good and evil stuff quite a bit over the past few months, seeing as how I'm taking a philosophy class on morality. The more I think about it... the more I realize that I often criticize the ideas of good and evil on the grounds of their having some kind of metaphysical significance. When I hear these words, I immediately start thinking about free will - about someone in control of their destiny making some decision which will forever alter the course of history, etc. etc.

I guess I could just accept the terms in the context of "what is best for the society one lives in", or "what benefits oneself without hurting others in equal or greater proportions". This, of course, has the danger of making "good" and "evil" relative terms, and merely a label of judgment made by someone who represents only their respective society.

The attraction of believing in "good" and "evil", of course, is that there often seems to be a correct answer to any moral question, regardless of how much disagreement there is. Perhaps someday, when our society achieves some sort of utopic liberation from bias and intolerance, we can arrive at a rational, universally-accepted set of moral truths. After all, who doesn't consider things like pointless murder, destruction, and causing of pain to be wrong?

I'll have to wait for the "normative ethics" part of my philosophy class before I can be more certain, I guess.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Good and evil are a mixed in everyone. Without good there would not be evil and vise-versa since they would have no meaning. I as a Satanist believe that one cannot fully love another (doing good) witout venting your anger (the evil) onto something or someone else since they are mixed. So once in a while you need to release the evil inside you to be able to keep on loving someone.

...I'm pretty sure someone can do good without having to do an equivalent amount of evil. If I find someone drowning in a lake and I save their life, I can't imagine having to go find someone else to kill in order to make up for that. In fact, I think it's more likely that I'd feel really good about saving a life, and that I would be more encouraged to save further lives in the future. Feel free to critique my example, or give a counter-example, if you wish.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

It seems pretty clear to me that choice is not a prerequisite for an action's outcome to be valued, but it's not clear at all that choice is not a prerequisite for moral responsibility, and moral responsibility seems to bring a whole lot of stuff with it which would seem to pretty much go out the window if there is no such thing as free will.

Pretty much what I think. Sure, we can hold people responsible for their actions (that's what laws are for, after all), and punish people for 'doing wrong', but all this does is condition people to act a certain way. You could just as soon program a robot to act in accordance with "good", and it would amount to the same thing. The actions of a robot with 'moral programming' would be just as valued as the actions of the socially-conditioned human. Moral responsibility (in the free will sense) does not have to figure in anywhere here.

 

[Black Core]

...I'm pretty sure someone can do good without having to do an equivalent amount of evil. If I find someone drowning in a lake and I save their life, I can't imagine having to go find someone else to kill in order to make up for that. In fact, I think it's more likely that I'd feel really good about saving a life, and that I would be more encouraged to save further lives in the future. Feel free to critique my example, or give a counter-example, if you wish.

key words were once in a while.
Of course you will good about it, no question about that but what I meant was real love towards a person. If you don't get your frustrations (and you have them, no doubt about that) out, you will vent that towards everyone and cannot free your deepest love for someone.

 

[Seditious]

harming others as a means to that end is precisely what's "evil" about such people.

The the government is evil for numerous reasons, including caging people as a means for protecting themselves. I'm happy to call that evil, but when even the most 'moral' acts are 'evil' there seems no more sense in using the word under that definition.

It seems pretty clear to me that choice is not a prerequisite for an action's outcome to be valued,

so why would we value a rapists act any less negatively because he was determined to do it?

but it's not clear at all that choice is not a prerequisite for moral responsibility, and moral responsibility seems to bring a whole lot of stuff with it which would seem to pretty much go out the window if there is no such thing as free will.

so if someone is determined to rape child after child anyone who believes in determinism is going to let him go because they believe in determinism? that doesn't sound true to me.

 

[Scourge of God]

This seems like a fairly unproductive line of discussion. It should be obvious to anyone with a functioning intellect that, whatever the ultimate status of 'good' and 'evil' in an absolute sense, when people actually speak of them in practice, they're talking about values positioned relatively within various discursive frameworks - symbols about symbols about symbols. Whatever. I can't be bothered. Let's talk about something with a tangible connection to the real world, no?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

This seems like a fairly unproductive line of discussion. It should be obvious to anyone with a functioning intellect that, whatever the ultimate status of 'good' and 'evil' in an absolute sense, when people actually speak of them in practice, they're talking about values positioned relatively within various discursive frameworks - symbols about symbols about symbols. Whatever. I can't be bothered. Let's talk about something with a tangible connection to the real world, no?

...Or you could quit trolling. Just because you have nothing to contribute to a discussion on good and evil doesn't mean that others aren't getting anything out of the discussion. Since when does philosophy only concern itself with a 'tangible connection to the real world' anyway? Ever hear of metaphysics?

 

[Scourge of God]

The great metaphyicians - from Plato to Nietzche - were in large measure concerned with making the leap from the conceptual, non-corporeal, metaphysical etc. to the tangibly useful (and the reverse as well, of course). They weren't dicking around with masturbatory questions for the sake of masturbatory questions, they were trying to find a means of developing values to apply to living.

Determining whether abstract symbols 'exist' doesn't get us any closer to achiving any useful result, so why waste the fucking time?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

so if someone is determined to rape child after child anyone who believes in determinism is going to let him go because they believe in determinism? that doesn't sound true to me.

This is taking determinism at face value. People can still be held responsible for their actions even if they're not in control of them. There are many influences on people's decisions. Let's consider two for now: criminal laws, and personal desire for pleasure. These both exert an influence on people. Many people would do harm to others for their own pleasure if they could get away with it, but these people also understand that if they're caught harming others, there will be highly-unpleasant consequences. For most of us, obeying the law is more beneficial than going out and raping someone. This shows that, even in a deterministic world, moral expectations are successful in controlling people's actions.

I personally believe wholeheartedly that the world is deterministic, but that does not exempt me from taking responsibility for my actions. I still have a desire for my life to turn out a certain way, and my actions are going to reflect my desires regardless of whether I perceive myself as 'in control of my fate'.

 

[speed]

...Or you could quit trolling. Just because you have nothing to contribute to a discussion on good and evil doesn't mean that others aren't getting anything out of the discussion. Since when does philosophy only concern itself with a 'tangible connection to the real world' anyway? Ever hear of metaphysics?

Hey, hey now, I actually think Scourge has made some fantastic comments.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The great metaphyicians - from Plato to Nietzche - were in large measure concerned with making the leap from the conceptual, non-corporeal, metaphysical etc. to the tangibly useful (and the reverse as well, of course). They weren't dicking around with masturbatory questions for the sake of masturbatory questions, they were trying to find a means of developing values to apply to living.

Determining whether abstract symbols 'exist' doesn't get us any closer to achiving any useful result, so why waste the fucking time?

The meaning of "good" and "evil" is a central question in ethical inquiry. They're not just symbols - they reflect the universal human capacity for moral evaluation. Quit obsessing over the fact that they're symbols, and try actually reading the discussion we're having. If you see no value in a discussion on the nature of morality, then I feel quite sorry for you.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Hey, hey now, I actually think Scourge has made some fantastic comments.

His comments thus far have been primarily focused on belittling the thread and looking for ways to bicker. If I'm not mistaken, that's the definition of trolling. I don't doubt that he could introduce some good ideas into the discussion, but so far I've seen no indication that he's even looked at what we're talking about.

 

[Justin S.]

...so far I've seen no indication that he's even looked at what we're talking about.

Oh, I think he has. And yes, hes combative, often trollish, but thats his style and we tolerate it because its more amusing than the bullshit most post here... and because he only respawns when banned