The true nature of good and evil . . .?

[Toporik]

Good and evil are both subjective, depending on each person. Religion, society, culture, friends, family, these all are factors that influence a persons conception of right and wrong. It is difficult to view the world in a "right/wrong mode". Not everything is black or white, there is a multitude of colors all around you. Lets take this situation, for example: A man with a knife attacks you. You, fearing for your life, fight back. Accidentally, during the fight you kill the person. Who's guilty, and who's not? The attacker - guilty for attacking you. You - guilty for killing him. Even if you were fighting for your own life, even if it was an accident, you killed a person, another human being, therefore you are a killer-GUILTY. A judge who gives a death penalty is also guilty (according to this concept).

In other words, what I consider right, others may consider wrong, what I consider evil, others may consider good. it is as simple as this and still too complicate to be put in words.

 

[razoredge]

Its actually much simpler than that. Anyone that wants to understand what improper treatment of another person is, come see me, I will have you crying "evil" and telling me all about wrongness in no time flat. But alas its so much easier to just use common sense and stop trying to stand up for people that do fucked up things to other.

You example of how law is forced to deal with everything as its cut and dry is about the only strong arguement pertaining to telling the difference. But then the law is all political isnt it ? So it fails in its self servant, job protectionism. Outside of that its very simple, would you want someone to do what you are about to do, to you ? Would it be fun for you ? Everybody that goes ahead and does such things knows damn well inside their petty little brain that its not right, denial of that is nothing more than conscience devious self preservation and promotion.

 

[Toporik]

Treat the others the same way you want to be treated, huh? It is kind of limited don't ya think? If i punch someone, does that mean that I want to be punched too? You know what? I do want to be punched back! Sometimes I treat others bad with the hope that they will treat me the same way. Does that mean that I am Evil? No. I am simply mentally deranged.

 

[razoredge]

No more like a little twitter bug

 

[hexwind]

A man with a knife attacks you. You, fearing for your life, fight back. Accidentally, during the fight you kill the person. Who's guilty, and who's not? The attacker - guilty for attacking you. You - guilty for killing him. Even if you were fighting for your own life, even if it was an accident, you killed a person, another human being, therefore you are a killer-GUILTY. A judge who gives a death penalty is also guilty (according to this concept).

What if you don't defend yourself? you will be killed? won't you be guilty for "not saving yourself" which led to your death? so here, it's like seeing someone who's about to be killed by someone,and you didn't bother to save him, aren't you guilty here? so it's bad isn't it?
Don't you guys think that Evil is different from Bad?
dunno how to explain that but, dunno... if I insult you, that's bad, but if i rip off your spine and cut your fucking throat , so that evil !

 

[razoredge]

Don't you guys think that Evil is different from Bad?

You raise good point Hex but in reality evil is just another word for bad actions. Steming from the Church probably, but in todays world who cares where the term was first derived. Its all about negative actions, negative forces. Bad/evil... potato/potato

Those trying desperatly to cling to nonexistance and open to opinion diversions, simply have not lived enough life and if they feel they have, have never been on the recieving end. Well proven fact that those finally dished what they have fed cry the loudest, because it suddenly becomes all to unfantomable to them.

 

[Einherjar86]

Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.

From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy.

Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell

 

[razoredge]

Without Contraries is no progression. Attraction and Repulsion, Reason and Energy, Love and Hate, are necessary to Human existence.

From these contraries spring what the religious call Good & Evil. Good is the passive that obeys Reason. Evil is the active springing from Energy.

Good is Heaven. Evil is Hell

Sounds good in concept but I have found much energy, power, passion in rightousness, so I think that blows that theory "all to hell"

Good and bad are in any dialect so again the "religion" creating (calling) the words is a lame escape. I havent felt an ounce of heaven, closest thing is aspects of this beautiful planet, including some people. So I for one have been good (most of the time) without any heaven being involved, again a theory that doesnt wash with me.

 

[Einherjar86]

It wasn't much of a theory really. It's a famous quote from William Blake. Basically, he's saying that good and evil are both necessary to human existence.

 

[razoredge]

I suspected it was a quote. It simply could be that people just dont come without good and bad, I'd favor human flaw and various dispositions for this fact, not necessity (I'll avoid the term "good and evil" so it doesnt become the religion made me do it kind of thing... "If it werent for religious terminology I wouldnt be bad" kind of thing)

 

[hexwind]

been thinking about it last night.. and i thought that Good and Bad are just a product of our imagination ! I was reading a book lately and it says that when we receive an information there is a part called " the story telling process", it's the story that you tell to yourself to analyze the information or whatever your brain has received, and i think it might be the way that we tell ourselves the story that matters to determine whether the others told/did a bad/evil thing or not ! so this has a huge influence on the way we judge things.

 

[XxSNAPxX]

I believe anything that helps you is good, anything that hinders you is evil, simple as that.

 

[bleakrose]

I think good and evil is hard to define.It goes beyond what's considered moral or legal in a determinated society.
I wouln't know how to specify them exactly,but i like Freud's take on the subject.
I think evil is the act of harming someone of your own species consciously.(And good is the opposite,but then again it's hard to define,for example, Kant tought that some actions are not moraly good but moraly neutral).

 

[hexwind]

I think good and evil is hard to define.It goes beyond what's considered moral or legal in a determinated society.

Moral and legal "laws" are derived from someone or a group of people's definition of good & bad, aren't they?

 

[bleakrose]

Moral and legal "laws" are derived from someone or a group of people's definition of good & bad, aren't they?

Yes,that's why,for the spartans it was moraly good to throw "weak" baby from the top of a mountain.But that to my point of view is evil,bad,wrong,etc.I intend to define good and bad as something that doesn't change (i think is necesary to define a point of reference,a concept that remains static).

Laws are what a certain group of individuals consider moral.But they don't make a perfect sistem because what one group considers fine to the other group might be wrong.

 

[hexwind]

I intend to define good and bad as something that doesn't change (i think is necesary to define a point of reference,a concept that remains static).

You can't define it as something static because history shows that this concept is different from era to another and even from culture to culture of the same era.
I don't know if the the brain has been functioning in different ways throughout the human history to produce such concepts, but it sounds logic to me although I'm not an expert in this

Laws are what a certain group of individuals consider moral.

I don't agree that laws are based on morals, but on what is just. So laws are what a certain group of individuals consider just.

But they don't make a perfect sistem because what one group considers fine to the other group might be wrong.

I intend to define good and bad as something that doesn't change (i think is necesary to define a point of reference,a concept that remains static).

You seem to realize that you can't define good and bad as something that doesn't change

 

[bleakrose]

You can't define it as something static because history shows that this concept is different from era to another and even from culture to culture of the same era.
I don't know if the the brain has been functioning in different ways throughout the human history to produce such concepts, but it sounds logic to me although I'm not an expert in this

Then...Should we accept the killing of thiefs and killers as good if the society decides to make it legal?

I don't agree that laws are based on morals, but on what is just. So laws are what a certain group of individuals consider just.

I think you need to clear this up.
What is to you the difference between "just" and "moral" and "good".

You seem to realize that you can't define good and bad as something that doesn't change

Nope,i actually think that they are hard to define.But that we can't define them as variable wich changes acording to the popple's perception. =D

Let me explain myself.I consider bad everything that hurts a being of your own species.Also,i believe that kiling another human being for example will allways be bad.Why? because you are cusing harm to a member of your own species.You are extralimitating yourself,because you have no right over the life of others.But for example causing psychologicall damage to another person is something that varies,but the intention is what counts in that case.The fact that some peopple can consider something good doesn't make it good.

Supposing you could travel 200 hundred years in the future and in that time it has became legal to kill criminals...Would you consider it good?

Hard to define as something static doesn't mean "impossible".

 

[hexwind]

Then...Should we accept the killing of thiefs and killers as good if the society decides to make it legal?

Of course not.

I think you need to clear this up.
What is to you the difference between "just" and "moral" and "good".

I will give you an example :
I cheated in an exam, it helped me to have the best grades, it's good then. But the teacher was my friend and he/she didn't want to punish me, that is not juste although it's good.

Nope,i actually think that they are hard to define.But that we can't define them as variable wich changes acording to the popple's perception. =D

Let me explain myself.I consider bad everything that hurts a being of your own species.Also,i believe that kiling another human being for example will allways be bad.Why? because you are cusing harm to a member of your own species.You are extralimitating yourself,because you have no right over the life of others.But for example causing psychologicall damage to another person is something that varies,but the intention is what counts in that case.The fact that some peopple can consider something good doesn't make it good.

Supposing you could travel 200 hundred years in the future and in that time it has became legal to kill criminals...Would you consider it good?

Hard to define as something static doesn't mean "impossible".

This applies only on healthy people, and what about those who have psychological disorders, how should we treat them? If a psycho kills someone they don't treat him as a normal person,so this crime is considered legal?

Overall, i agree with you

 

[bleakrose]

I will give you an example :
I cheated in an exam, it helped me to have the best grades, it's good then. But the teacher was my friend and he/she didn't want to punish me, that is not juste although it's good.

That makes sense =D.

This applies only on healthy people, and what about those who have psychological disorders, how should we treat them? If a psycho kills someone they don't treat him as a normal person,so this crime is considered legal?

Overall, i agree with you

Hmm no,i wouldn't think any crime should be legal or allowed.But in that case the person didn't had full control of himself.It was his fault but he has no conscience of good and evil (right or wrong,for some because he/she harmed another human being).
That's part of my definition i think bad is wathever harms another human being,good is anything that benefits him/her.Of course there are things that are neither good,nor bad,they are neutral.

 

[Blowtus]

Of course not.

So, murder is always evil, but evil cannot be defined in any static matter?