Good & Evil non-existent as it is currently

Ookami

Ookami

Community Member
MBTI
ENTP
Direct Quote from MSN:

Ookami Says:
Anyways, the concept of Good & Evil is broken. Most people believe that Good & Evil would be a set of rules. You can't do this, or This because it's evil. You should do this, or this because it's good. However, they believe that their rules are mantained by everyone. "You can't steal from someone because it's evil" "I can steal from that evil man and it will be good" People have different theories on what is good and what is bad, and there lays the problem. Now, I hate to call it a problem because all it really is, is free will, and nothing is wrong with freewill. That is why I believe that the current defination should be earsed and rewrote as "Good & Evil are personal concepts of morality."
Click to expand...

She wouldn't help by allowing me to bounce my idea's off her, thus I'm bringing it to the forum D:

and Goooo...
 
*Humbly Bows to Nietzsche's*
 
What do you know? Good and evil are subjective that most people think are absolute.

There is, of course, the categorical imperative. It also becomes more complicated and leaning towards absolutes if you get really into eastern mysticism and people like Jiddu Khrishnamurti. So I wouldn't say it isn't absolute (I'd say I don't know) but rather that most people are shallow.
 
Good & Evil are personal concepts of morality.
Click to expand...
Or, more succinctly, moral relativism.

There are many arguments regarding whether or not an objective moral code can exist without a higher authority (God). Those who say it can generally argue from an anthropological position. That is, morality evolved because it aids in the survival of our species which is why we are inclined towards co-operation, for example.

Personally, I find this argument a bit lacking and one need only observe a daycare full of infants for a few hours to see morality has more to do with socialization than genetics. Acting out of pure self-interest is inherent to humans and, without an authority, any attempts to curb it are irrational.
 
Last edited:
Korg said:
Or, more succinctly, moral relativism.

There are many arguments regarding whether or not an objective moral code can exist without a higher authority (God). Those who say it can generally argue from an anthropological position. That is, morality evolved because it aids in the survival of our species which is why we are inclined towards co-operation, for example.

Personally, I find this argument a bit lacking and one need only observe a daycare full of infants for a few hours to see morality has more to do with socialization than genetics. Acting out of pure self-interest is inherent to humans and, without an authority, any attempts to curb it are irrational.
Click to expand...



This reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend over the phone once. I was trying to explain to him that children, even smart children, need to be taught basic things, and disciplined in a way to help them survive in the society we as humans have created for ourselves. Such as my one year old daughter at the time. It was obvious that she was bright early on, but even though she started developing a speech early, and remembering things quickly, I still had to tell her not to eat food off of the floor. And at the time, chances were if I didn't watch her properly, she'd have a mouth full of whatever she might find lying around.

Granted, if left alone she might eventually learn that eating dirt isn't such a great idea, because of taste. If she got sick, she might put two and two together and decide that eating things off of the floor isn't good. But we had teachers who had teachers, whose teachers had teachers of what is a general outline of good and evil/bad, to keep us from making the same mistake of eating off the freaking floor. I would agree it has to do more with relativism, and socialism. Morals are something that evolved with us due to time and circumstance. I feel like the morals we stick most closely to however are the ones that we have tried ourselves or seen in action in some way or another.

Are there any arguments to good and evil/bad being a more concrete issue? I was taught there are no grey areas.. but I've lived and learned otherwise. I'd still like to hear others thoughts.
 
Last edited:
Good and evil = right and wrong, and that's irrelevant.

There isn't a right or a wrong. Only choices.
 
Actually good and evil is not relative to ones perception. An evil act is an evil act. By evil I mean acts that purposely inflicts suffering upon others including animals and whatnot.
 
....but not everyone would agree with that, would they? So it isn't a universal 'wrong' therefore it isn't a 'wrong', only a 'wrong' in someone's personal moral code.
 
Even though people have different perceptions and limits to what can be considered good and evil, I think one basic principle in the matter that is pretty much universal, is that the differece between good and evil decisions, lies in the intentions behind the act in question.
IE: If you steal from a baby just to see it cry, then that could be (in my book) considered evil.
 
what if you hit someone just to hear them scream and they like it?
 
slant said:
....but not everyone would agree with that, would they? So it isn't a universal 'wrong' therefore it isn't a 'wrong', only a 'wrong' in someone's personal moral code.
Click to expand...

As long as the act inflicts suffering upon others with that intent it is evil. If the act inflicts suffering for a higher purpose that benefits others then that's another discussion.

If the person isn't aware of his/hers actions consequenses it can't be regarded as evil, for instant someone with mental issues. If it isn't on purpose it isn't evil, i.e a car accident.

If it is done for personal, selfish gains, it is evil.
 
pogo_<3 said:
Even though people have different perceptions and limits to what can be considered good and evil, I think one basic principle in the matter that is pretty much universal, is that the differece between good and evil decisions, lies in the intentions behind the act in question.
IE: If you steal from a baby just to see it cry, then that could be (in my book) considered evil.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
slant said:
what if you hit someone just to hear them scream and they like it?
Click to expand...

If you know that they like it, then the intent is obviously not evil. If you don't know it, the action is still evil as it was your intention to inflict suffering, just because you failed does not make it not evil. (yes bad grammar, shoot me :D )
 
You didn't really address the question I asked. I didn't ask what you defined as evil. I asked,

would everyone in the world agree (universally) that "acts that purposely inflicts suffering upon others including animals and whatnot" is wrong, or evil. I've heard of religious sacrafices, but you're probably going to justify that as for a higher purpose. But it doesn't matter- we're not talking about what makes it okay or not okay- just that it's what you think and cannot be applied to anyone else because it isn't exactly universal.

Something that would be universal is, sex for example. Everyone has a sex. It's male or female or both. But not everyone has a moral code.
 
Good and evil are abstract concepts that never truly "were" in the first part. The most fundamental use for good and evil is to keep society as conflict-free as possible -- it's relative to that society, though, and relative to what matters to the individual.

In other words, good and evil are pretty useful in a societal context, but beyond that, there's not much point to it.
 
slant said:
You didn't really address the question I asked. I didn't ask what you defined as evil. I asked,

would everyone in the world agree (universally) that "acts that purposely inflicts suffering upon others including animals and whatnot" is wrong, or evil. I've heard of religious sacrafices, but you're probably going to justify that as for a higher purpose. But it doesn't matter- we're not talking about what makes it okay or not okay- just that it's what you think and cannot be applied to anyone else because it isn't exactly universal.

Something that would be universal is, sex for example. Everyone has a sex. It's male or female or both. But not everyone has a moral code.
Click to expand...

Obviously some will argue that there are no evil acts, as yourself, that doesn't mean that certain acts aren't evil. Some people might not comprehend that some individuals deliberately does evil acts, they enjoy the suffering of others. And yes these individuals exists, to the highest degree, infact I almost walked that path myself. And we're not talking about giving someone a wedgy, we're talking about ending someones life for the sake of hate, suffering and personal enjoyment.

These individuals have other sides aswell ofc, but once you encounter what some experience every day, you'll certainly not say evil is subjective...
 
Last edited:
I think I'm going to go breathe some nitrogen gas now out of the frustration of not getting my point across. You can join me if you want.
 
I would if it were helium; that shit's funny
 
slant said:
I think I'm going to go breathe some nitrogen gas now out of the frustration of not getting my point across. You can join me if you want.
Click to expand...
whip-its?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top