I don't believe in good or evil.

Good and evil are human, they don't truly exist as the universe doesn't care, its more a question of function than choice. Arguing its inception again concludes human invention which by judgement of all human bore endeavours it comes down to survival. Good and evil helps humans contextualise the world so that the reactively new psyche (in time terms) can cope as well as maintaining the species. With such a high intellect the human mind can't deal with the harshness of its environment or (for most) the complexity; although this may seem contradictory the logic is there will never be an intellect that can emulate the universe without itself being a universe.
On a grand scale 'good and evil' are trivial as in most cases they are purely emotionally/culture specific thus are devoid of consensus, which is needed for fact.
 
detectivepope said:
Good and evil are human, they don't truly exist as the universe doesn't care, its more a question of function than choice. Arguing its inception again concludes human invention which by judgement of all human bore endeavours it comes down to survival. Good and evil helps humans contextualise the world so that the reactively new psyche (in time terms) can cope as well as maintaining the species. With such a high intellect the human mind can't deal with the harshness of its environment or (for most) the complexity; although this may seem contradictory the logic is there will never be an intellect that can emulate the universe without itself being a universe.
On a grand scale 'good and evil' are trivial as in most cases they are purely emotionally/culture specific thus are devoid of consensus, which is needed for fact.
Click to expand...

The majority of cultures/societies come to a consensus on certain things though, for example, the raping and killing of children is bad (or evil). We don't need one hundred percent agreement to discern "good" from "evil"... The same way we don't need such agreement in laws of mathematics, most of us would agree that 2 + 2 = 4, but there are is a small minority who would disagree - does that make this law/ fact flawed? ...and If everything is subjective than no proposed belief is "true".
 
Peace said:
Those concepts seem so strange to me. The concepts of "good" or "evil" tend to be relative to your culture or personal values. I don't really see any absolute standard for either idea. Why do people believe they exist?
Click to expand...

I think you summed it up. I agree. If it's something that you do not like it's evil. Ever notice how once you set a standard then that is the only standard you judge things by unless you expand your thinking to other standards that is the standard. I would think that we should set a baseline for just what evil is. My question to you is what is evil to you. If I killed or raped you would that be evil? Or if I gave money or helped you in some way is that good? What if the money I gave you actually destroyed you? Like when a parent spoils a child with love. Ever notice how the child turns out? To me they seem to realize their behavior is wrong or upsetting to others. But then again what is wrong? Society sets the tone for what is acceptable. So if society dictates that killing is okay then we kill. At one time society decided that slavery was a good thing. And now it's deemed evil. It seems that good and evil contradict one another and balance each other too....
 
efromm said:
I think you summed it up. I agree. If it's something that you do not like it's evil. Ever notice how once you set a standard then that is the only standard you judge things by unless you expand your thinking to other standards that is the standard. I would think that we should set a baseline for just what evil is. My question to you is what is evil to you. If I killed or raped you would that be evil? Or if I gave money or helped you in some way is that good? What if the money I gave you actually destroyed you? Like when a parent spoils a child with love. Ever notice how the child turns out? To me they seem to realize their behavior is wrong or upsetting to others. But then again what is wrong? Society sets the tone for what is acceptable. So if society dictates that killing is okay then we kill. At one time society decided that slavery was a good thing. And now it's deemed evil. It seems that good and evil contradict one another and balance each other too....
Click to expand...

I think history allows us to look back and figure out what is - "right" and what is "wrong", even if (bad/evil - ideologies) were the consensus at the time - we seem to be intelligent enough to figure out that (some) of these things should not be repeated. That doesn't mean that everyone comes to these conclusions; just the majority. Society can come to accept new moral terms/boundaries as it evolves (even ones we deem evil), but that doesn't make the new terms "right". Gaining morality from society itself is questionable, because of how many influences exist within society; parenting, school, role models, peers, etc. There were German civilians under Nazi Germany who tried to save captured Jewish prisoners in Nazi death camps - why would they do this if society had deemed it acceptable (even good) to kill/dehumanize Jews. - In the study I read, the majority of these people were raised differently - less authoritarian parents, a lot more free thinking/learning.

I think those who understand "good" (and evil), understand that our societies (and other social influences) can't alone dictate what is "good" or "right", for that we need to look "further" (understand ourselves/and our nature better). We need the agreement of a majority (an incorruptible one), but the majority can certainly be wrong... so how do we know who is right??? - We don't always... but we have inherent capabilities to show compassion for other people regardless of the circumstances/societal pressures we are under - I've seen/read about this in more than a few occasions (throughout history) ... blatant brutality, torture, dehumanization - there's always a few who don't go with the flow (a "bad" flow at that) - I think there's something more than societal pressures/pulls that makes us "good" or "evil".(but) I don't think our understanding of human nature is comprehensive enough, nor do I think it ever will be - we are intelligent enough to contradict and go against our nature (and even persuade others to follow us).
 
Endersgone said:
The majority of cultures/societies come to a consensus on certain things though, for example, the raping and killing of children is bad (or evil). We don't need one hundred percent agreement to discern "good" from "evil"... The same way we don't need such agreement in laws of mathematics, most of us would agree that 2 + 2 = 4, but there are is a small minority who would disagree - does that make this law/ fact flawed? ...and If everything is subjective than no proposed belief is "true".
Click to expand...

It seems you are looking at my post as my opinion rather than looking at the facts or theories brought forth. In order to look at life, you have to emulate existence without life of which clearly most of the universe doesn't contain a glimmer of organic matter. Bringing up moral outrages adds nothing to the debate of 'good and evil' so please refrain from it. I will agree cultures give vague consensus however this is not consistent with most of humanity any look into complex deviant sexual practices of successful societies will show this contradicts any notion of a 'civilised' system.

However if we talk of this in a existential context 'good and evil' still stumble as 'good and evil' doesn't follow entropy. By this I mean that 'good and evil' is usually determined on a initial analyse and doesn't bring into the factor of universal 'gain and loss' over a complex systematic structure based in time. A quick example is say (now I know this is going to sound bad but grow up its debate) a person external to a group saves a child from infant mortality (through medicine etc...), this a 'good' act by regular consensus but the child is in a system (this system isn't necessarily society, it could be a small family for example) that can't support its longevity without massively compromising the rest. For the group the act of good (saving) has become a evil one. This is because in order to be good the child's existence has jeopardised the group through the naive view of external interference.

I have to state that 'good and evil' as a concept is vital to humanities survival, access to so called philosophies that state anything but are kept under control because the on slew of chaos would tear the world apart. This alone is why I say the internet has nothing, the control of information didn't stop the second the internet was invented, if anything its more guarded.
 
I agree with your post. I would also add that there will always be the few who go against the grain. So on one side you have those who believe that they are doing good. The Nazis believed that they were doing the right thing. If they did not then why bother? Unless in the end they were just bad. There was a justification for their actions. The Salem witch hunts were thought to be good at the time too. Running the American Indians off of their land was seen as a good thing also. Mans brutality for another man knows no bounds. With justification anything is possible. No matter what we do good or bad there is an opposite event happening at the same time. What is good for one person turns out bad for another. There is this balance to life. A positive and negative charge. It seems to me that it has to be that way. You may be doing what you think is good in one moment and in hindsight find that you were very wrong. We believe that killing is a bad thing. And yet we endorse killing in our culture. Our own government kills those that it cannot reason with. And to us that is good. Since we are the ones not getting killed. But what about those who were just in the way? Can we justify that what we are doing is good if one innocent person dies? How are we any different than those who initially did the killing? Because now we too are killing innocent people? I have no idea what the real answer is. I have no clue. I do not think that peace will ever happen. It can't happen. If we look at ourselves as animals only the strong survive. So maybe killing is good from an evolutionary point of view. Who is really to say what or if any standard really applies? In the end we do I guess. But even then it seems that we on some level are still hurting others with our good. And at times we are being helped when things go bad for others.

Take prison. People are getting rich off of others misfortunes. On the one hand you have people who we say are bad going to jail. On the other hand we have officers who work in the prisons who are making money off of guys being in jail. Not to mention the corporations that get rich off of people getting put behind bars. Now if these corporations lobby to get stricter laws in place to put more people in jail they make more money in the end. So on the one hand it's good for some and on the other it's bad for the prisoners. And in the end the only people that jail is really good for is the corporations. The inmates come out worse than they went in. It's these paradoxes that seem to be a part of the human experience. It's always a two sided situation. And yet I wonder if maybe the answer is to be neither good or evil but just to be somewhere in the middle?
 
GracieRuth said:
Are you ready for my J to express? Okay...

I think it's foolishly and dangerously naive not to recognize that things like raping, torturing, and killing small children is evil.
Click to expand...

And how are you defining "evil"? Why is it that people can only define it with examples?
 
HUH? somehow I created a duplicate post.
 
There is a good time and place for semantical discussions. However, when people use semantics as a game to avoid uncomfortable judgments, well, let's just say THAT is NOT the time and place. Good and evil are not "whatever I define them as." You either recognize good and evil when you see them, OR... you have a broken moral compass and need to go back to the basics to repair yourself.

Whatever is hateful to you, don't do that to other people. That is the Torah, the WHOLE Torah, all the rest is commentary. Now go study the commentary. (R. Hillel)
 
swing said:
Nice post. I took "evil" as posted by the OP as "evil" in the sense of an absolute force that is thoroughly destructive/bad/negative, as in the nature of the devil (by the way, does "devil" come "evil"?). And I understood "bad" as an attribute of people that deviates form the norm of the collective, or the technical term, respectively.

I think the earliest point in history where I've read about a concept of evil was in the religion of Zoroastrianism in the ancient Middle East. If I understood it correctly, that religion held the view that there's good and evil fighting in the world for supremacy. I assume that idea somehow diffused into Europe and into Christianity in the later centuries. So it really existed before Christianity, but not in Europe.

As for moral, I think moral does not necessarily need a concept of evil. I've read somewhere that in certain African cultures they have theologies that don't have a concept of evil, but only of good.
Click to expand...
The dualistic conception of evil is not a particularly Christian one. It was much more pronounced in various Gnostic sects (many of which claimed to be Christian but rejected the faith's most fundamental tenants and drew much more heavily from Greek philosophy, and somewhat from Zoroastrianism), and often criticized by more orthodox Christians. It may have become more popular in the church due to the influence of Augustine of Hippo, who was a convert from the extremely dualistic religion of Manichaeism and did not rid himself of that influence very quickly. Later in life though he rejected that view and endorsed the position that evil is merely a privation of good, evil is finite while good is infinite, and the devil is not much of a rival to God as he cannot act without permission.

The word Devil is completely unrelated to the word evil. It comes from the Greek Diabolos, meaning Accuser or Slanderer. That comes from roots dia, meaning across, and ballein, meaning to throw, and is used in the sense of someone who just keeps hurling wild accusations at someone.

(Demon is from the Greek Daemon, meaning Spirit or Minor Divinity. The ultimate roots of the word mean something like divider or provider of fortune or destiny. Christians followed Jewish practice of using the word to denote an evil unclean spirit or false god, but the Pagan Greeks considered them more like guardian angels that were more often benevolent than malevolent, although potentially quite dangerous if provoked or disrespected.

Satan is from the Hebrew, meaning Adversary.)
 
Last edited:
GracieRuth said:
There is a good time and place for semantical discussions. However, when people use semantics as a game to avoid uncomfortable judgments, well, let's just say THAT is NOT the time and place. Good and evil are not "whatever I define them as." You either recognize good and evil when you see them, OR... you have a broken moral compass and need to go back to the basics to repair yourself.

Whatever is hateful to you, don't do that to other people. That is the Torah, the WHOLE Torah, all the rest is commentary. Now go study the commentary. (R. Hillel)
Click to expand...

They are inherently flawed concepts. Why should I let long dead people who lived centuries ago determine my moral compass?
 
I always feel that these sort of discussions lead nowhere. It's like you're trying to dig a hole trying to reach to the bottom, but the more you dig the more lost and disoriented you become until you're so deep in it that you can no longer distinguish the surface.

Good and evil are just concepts, yes. But perhaps people believe in them because they serve a utility the same way that the concept of green means to go, and red means to stop. Morals provide structure and order to the world. We are playing our game, and as such, we need rules to make it more fun.
 
Peace said:
Absolutely true. Just because you choose to believe in something does not make it real.
Click to expand...

...nor does believing in something make it unreal. I suppose there are many people that believe in things that are real....and not real.

In the realm of one's own mind, certain beliefs can become quite real; evidence can even be produced in that realm of understanding. It may be possible some people have their own realities; yet, universal realities may exist even the majorities of peoples cannot comprehend.
 
Peace said:
Why should I let long dead people who lived centuries ago determine my moral compass?
Click to expand...
Do you really want to reinvent the wheel every generation? The reason certain literary works of wisdom have survived and been interpreted for millenia is because they have been found to be highly useful to people concerned with morality and wisdom. Generally speaking, the writings of idiots don't survive. I don't know about you, but I consider myself to be a flawed person with imperfect information, and that it is to my benefit to be humble and learn from the Greats that have come before me. Standing on their shoulders, maybe I can see a little farther. Standing on the ground, my vision is pretty limited. I would never want to be my own pope.
 
Peace said:
Those concepts seem so strange to me. The concepts of "good" or "evil" tend to be relative to your culture or personal values. I don't really see any absolute standard for either idea. Why do people believe they exist?
Click to expand...
the only standard is the one in your conscience. surely YOU dont believe raping children is alright, or taking what you want when you want is right. i see you dont think its right because you dont do it. you know, as most know, that certain things are wrong. is wrong evil? there is your definition of evil. universal evil? thats a stretch, but as a people, we have one thing in common: consciousness. we are conscious, above our subconscious animal level, making a collective consciousness by which we exchange information over ages of time. that is how we record history, and make the future, in a creative way. it is above the dna, subconscious level that animals work on to survive and adapt and pass on instincts.
@GracieRuth @Peace

identifying with consciousness instead of our animal bodies will be what brings us closer as a species. when we see each other as the same, instead of different, we will express love freely and rise above the 'evil' we see now.
 
Last edited:
Kmal said:
the only standard is the one in your conscience. surely YOU dont believe raping children is alright, or taking what you want when you want is right. i see you dont think its right because you dont do it. you know, as most know, that certain things are wrong. is wrong evil? there is your definition of evil. universal evil? thats a stretch, but as a people, we have one thing in common: consciousness. we are conscious, above our subconscious animal level, making a collective consciousness by which we exchange information over ages of time. that is how we record history, and make the future, in a creative way. it is above the dna, subconscious level that animals work on to survive and adapt and pass on instincts.
Click to expand...

If I am to be completely honest with myself, then I don't know what I am capable of doing. If circumstances were to change, then I could be capable of many horrible things.

There is one particular scene in an anime called High School of the Dead, which I find particularly gleeful. It is of two girls running down a hallway trying to get away from zombies. As they are running, they remark to one another how they will be fine as long as they stick together because they are best friends forever. Suddenly one of them trips and is grabbed by a handful of zombies coming up a flight of stairs. She grasps desperately at her friend who then turns around and kicks her square in the face while shouting, "Let go you bitch."

It is a rather beautiful depiction of how things can change in instant given different circumstances. While this is a fictional accounting of it, I have no doubt that it occurs in real life in wars and in stressful situations. Many of us would turn on each other in an instant.
 
Peace said:
If I am to be completely honest with myself, then I don't know what I am capable of doing. If circumstances were to change, then I could be capable of many horrible things.

Many of us would turn on each other in an instant.
Click to expand...

If people try hard enough to suppress their conscience they will succeed.

Free will allows us this choice. We are only responsible for our own actions.
 
myself said:
If people try hard enough to suppress their conscience they will succeed.

Free will allows us this choice. We are only responsible for our own actions.
Click to expand...

I'll have to do some research on conscience. It's interesting, because two different people could be driven by their conscience to completely different ends.

I'm curious, what do you think the Milgram experiment tells us about the human conscience? How about the Standford experiment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top