Where do ideas of good and evil come from?

[Sepsis]

discuss.

My take -
It seems that the ideas humans have of good and evil are so very universal that it'd be foolish to deny their existence.
I have thought about it a great deal and the only conclusion that I can come to is that morality was endowed (or imposed, however you wanna look at it) by God, and that good and evil can be seen as how well we're serving the purpose for which we were created (which, as far as I can tell, is to love and serve God, and our fellow man).
I've spent many an hour trying to come up with a morality outside of God and it has come to naught.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i'd agree to that on most every form, but a small degree of it i think comes from what we've been taught by older generations and what we have come to see through experience

 

[no country for old wainds]

This society's moral value system came from Christianity, the idea of "right" and "wrong" has been very different in other (often more successful, I might add) societies. It's insane to suggest that the currently recognised "good" and "evil" is in any way objective, as it completely discards the history of humanity, but it's not particularly unexpected...

 

[Kenneth R.]

i love how you always try to discount anything remotely christian with big wordy statements that make what you're saying sound more intelligent, though it is just another point of view. please show the proof that these other societies have been "more successful" and define what you mean by "success"

and by "this society" what society are you talking about? there are many societies in the world and they certainly are not all Christians. i was referring to my own thoughts on where i think -I- got these guidelines

 

[MasterOLightning]

The roots of "good" and "evil" come from the human ability to empathize, not from god. A human can see a unjustified brutal beating, place himself in the position of the one beaten, and thus be able to condemn the action on the grounds of it being "evil" since he himself would not desire to be beaten. When someone does a friendly action, it is received as good because others desire such actions.

Good and evil are completely motivated by self interest, and their definitions change based on position in society.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i disagree that it is based on self interest. many times people have difficult times making decisions, because what they desire to do (self interest) contradicts what they believe is "right". therefore this is not the origin of such ideas.

as for empathy, i do agree there. it falls under what i vaguely said about some of these things coming from our experiences and teachings of elders.

 

[Darth Kur]

The roots of "good" and "evil" come from the human ability to empathize, not from god. A human can see a unjustified brutal beating, place himself in the position of the one beaten, and thus be able to condemn the action on the grounds of it being "evil" since he himself would not desire to be beaten. When someone does a friendly action, it is received as good because others desire such actions.

Good and evil are completely motivated by self interest, and their definitions change based on position in society.

I must concur with you on this. Human existence has been and always will be at it's very center the sense of self preservation. If not then we never would have had the chance to crawl down from the trees and into caves and from there into made constructs, ect. Other than protecting a loved one, family member or what-not it is not in mankind's instinct to "stick his neck out". We've always been a pack of selfish bastards and apparently always will be.
Of coarse traditions and various teachings are passed down from or ancestors. So we are also taught what is a good action verses a bad one. For instance it's a good thing to feed and pet your puppy. It's a bad thing to bind up your cat and deposit into a boiling pot of water.
Being a devout atheist I completely reject any sort of divinely inspired rubbish being passed down from a silvery cloud to the groveling masses.
This, as with everything else, can be explained scientifically.

 

[no country for old wainds]

By "successful" or "healthy" or whatever other positive words I use, I mean "based around adaptation to nature - evolution - reality".

The success factor is irrelevant to the topic however, my main point was that our concept of "good" and "evil" seem no more universal in our society than all the other value systems in other societies, so suggesting that ours is objective has no basis.

 

[Zack]

i disagree that it is based on self interest. many times people have difficult times making decisions, because what they desire to do (self interest) contradicts what they believe is "right". therefore this is not the origin of such ideas.

as for empathy, i do agree there. it falls under what i vaguely said about some of these things coming from our experiences and teachings of elders.

I would have to agree with you to an extent on this. I think that earlier years are based on what your elders teach, because there is relatively no life expirience. But once you become more mature, you can formulate your own opinions based on your own expirience. For instance, when I was 7 or so, I asked my parents what the worst drug was, and they said all of them. But now that I have learned more about drugs, I can coclude that more addictive ones may be worse. I also can say that marijuana may be one of the least harmful illegal drugs, and maybe less than cigarettes. On the other hand, marijuana can be used in medical purposes, thus it can be seen as good thing. So can many other drugs. So it really depends on what your opinion is.
Another example is light and dark. Most people associate light with good, and dark with evil. I would have to disagree with this statement, because dark can be quite beautiful at times. Again, this is just my opinion. Also if you look at us, metalheads have essentially been labeled high school dropouts and druggies who aren't doing this world any good. From the outsiders perspective, they would probably agree with that, but from ours it goes without saying that we are much more intelligent beings and can hold meaningful discussions (look at this forum).
On the topic of Christianity labeling things good and bad, you can use the simile of the faith being the parents, and the followers being the kids. The faith must set an example for the people, so they define good and bad. This gives the illusion that the whole world follows these guidlines because Christianity has 1 billion followers, wich is 1 sixth of our population. I personally don't think there is anything wrong with Christianity, except for when they go on crusades killing many people and doing what god "said" to do. Fortunately the religion has evolved over the years and it isn't as unreasonable or brutal. Just my .02
-Zack

 

[Kenneth R.]

This, as with everything else, can be explained scientifically.

do it then. and while you're at it, explain, scientifically, the concept of "love". everything is not explainable by science. it can explain many things, but "everything" is taking a step too far.

@GoD: if success is irrelevant, then why mention it?
if our society is "more or less no different" than others, how can you argue other societies have been more successful? you imply that this society (i assume you mean that associated with modern western popular thinking) which you attribute to following "Christian values" has been less successful than (implying non christian) societies, how is it that they have been more successful if we also have "no more universally" accepted values of what is good and what is bad? your argument is contradictory and makes no sense to me.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Another example is light and dark. Most people associate light with good, and dark with evil. I would have to disagree with this statement, because dark can be quite beautiful at times.
-Zack

i agree. also colors white vs black. both have positive and negative aspects. neither is in my opinion "better" so when, in the course of conversation or anything really, someone alludes to the light, the whiteness, all that as "good" and black and darkness always "bad", that bothers me. its simply not true. even if it were, how would one be able to tell what white was without its negative to illustrate its boundary?

 

[Zack]

do it then. and while you're at it, explain, scientifically, the concept of "love". everything is not explainable by science. it can explain many things, but "everything" is taking a step too far.

Science can explain many things, but when it does explain those things most of the time it makes our knowledge of the subject doubtful. If you open one door to a house, there will be many more in it.
-Zack

 

[milkman]

With more research, I think in the future science will be able to explain love. It's already known that chemically, certain people are simply more attracted to other certain people. Pheremones, hormones, etc all contribute.

On topic... I think the answer is a comination of many ideas already stated. Self interest, ancestory, and environmental factors likely contribute to ones definition of good / evil but there will always be grey areas.

 

[cthulufhtagn]

Ideas of good and evil have been shaped by our experience as a species throughout our evolution. As was stated before, if one sees a person getting robbed or beaten up for no reason, one feels empathy for that person and views the actions of the aggressor as bad. It is that feeling, along with the instinct for self-preservation, which have allowed humanity to survive and evolve. People strike a balance between the two extremes; some are capable of greater empathy and others look out for number one.

 

[Demiurge]

Pragmatism: we do what is best for us as natural creatures. We form civilizations which increase our efficiency and in general, our ability to survive. Murder, robbery, and other such actions are self-defeating for the community, so they're not tolerated.

Problems arise when there's a dearth of capable individuals who understand the basis of ethical systems. This is the point at which we come to uncomprehendingly follow our symbols without knowledge of purpose. We embrace values which are counterproductive because the abstract has lost its connection with the practical.

 

[Rvnning Wild]

By "successful" or "healthy" or whatever other positive words I use, I mean "based around adaptation to nature - evolution - reality".

The success factor is irrelevant to the topic however, my main point was that our concept of "good" and "evil" seem no more universal in our society than all the other value systems in other societies, so suggesting that ours is objective has no basis.

Name a few of these societies, and what their values are.

My take: There is ethics and there is subjectivity. The highest ethical good is universal (Plato said that), and people shouldn't deny that, but individuality is crucial. So, in essence, the world is bound by rules that are meant to be interpreted and used to justify our own personal existences. If you take interest in Christianity, the sacrifice of Christ illustrates that perfectly. I'm not a theist by any means, but I think Christian philosophy is flawless.

So I do think the knowledge of what is good and what is evil is built into all of us. And when I see someone argue that the generally acknowledged evil (in a given situation) can be beneficial to someone or some group of people.. and can therefore be interpreted as the good.. I shit my pants. Just because evil can be beneficial doesn't mean you can redefine anything. If you're a dirty lying bastard, you're a dirty lying bastard. It doesn't matter if your dishonesty has made you a fortune and made you a perfectly happy person. I don't deny that cheating and killing and stealing could make someone content in life.. but that doesn't prove anything.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I'll re-word the post I made originally in relevance to the topic: that other societies believed just as universally in their own values, yet those values weren't always similar to ours. I hope none of you are actually contesting this. Hell, different societies have different values even in modern times... Of course, there are always a few which have existed in virtually all of humanity, but that's due to their blatant productivity in all contexts as opposed to them having some sort of externally-decided worth.

There's always going to be a value system, it's the values themselves in our own system that I oppose.

The only "knowledge of what's good and evil" that's "built into all of us" is evolutionary, it serves to make us adapt to our surroundings for the purposes of survival. Unfortunately, things have become so individualistic that the whole suffers (and in turn the individual).

 

[Kenneth R.]

actually GoD, when worded that way i would agree. except that, if the "built in" knowledge of good and evil is evolutionary, where did it arise from? our experiences? that could be true, to an extent. personally i believe some portion of it is dictated by belief

i'd also agree with what rvnning wild said, but although the philosophy of christianty may be "flawless", we humans are not... and no human has ever perfectly adhered to it though some of us try.

 

[Sepsis]

Okay, here's my reply from what I see as a distillation of all the arguments -

1 - Good and evil are basically extensions of pleasure and pain and we feel empathy.
First pain isn't a bad thing. I daresay it's a good thing. If you put your hand on a hot stove, sure it'll hurt like hell, but I'll bet you pull your hand off real quick instead of letting it get destroyed. Second, pleasure and pain don't necessarily factor into good and evil, and are neither good nor evil by themselves.

2 - Ideas of good and evil evolve as we evolve
If they are products of evolution, then our ideas of good and evil cannot be considered objective, yet it seems undeniable that an objective morality exists. Otherwise none of us arguing would have any leg to stand on. Also, it seems to me that good and evil are above us, not within us, and that what societies do is try to match it. That's why we can say that America was more moral than Nazi Germany - we have this idea of a perfect society (which we haven't seen) with which we weigh human societies.

I didn't expect much else, really...

Also, GoD, morality really hasn't changed all that much, methinks. It's always been wrong to steal, murder, etc. What's changed is who you're allowed (by man, mind you) to steal from, who you're allowed to murder, and so forth.

 

[Demiurge]

If they are products of evolution, then our ideas of good and evil cannot be considered objective, yet it seems undeniable that an objective morality exists.

Right, because humans maximize their capabilities by banding together, so often ethics are largely universal(the most essential features, at least). This doesn't say they come from a spiritual realm; it merely indicates that these values are most functional for us.