I don't believe in good or evil.
- Thread starter Peace
- Start date
Because people have things that they like and they have things that they don't like. It's entirely subjective. It just so happens that a lot of people don't like a lot of the same things so they become "evil" and a lot of people do like some other things, so they become "good." It's all entirely subjective and apparently the majority rules.
This us because they are not amoral. They exist for people by their use and how they act upon them. In reality the universe doesn't care and all that exists is 'is' and 'isn't' but to act solely on that would create chaos. In order to understand it you must come away from your belief.
Oh, good thread!
So things are just good or evil by consensus? That is kind of depressing. That just means that if you can get enough people to agree with you, then anything that you could think of, no matter how horrible, could be considered "good".
I do that sometimes, but then everything I believe seems absurd and meaningless. Without an ego, I'm just a mindless automaton reacting to the random forces of the universe.
Gain an ego just for the sake of logic if nothing else (too many people do the whole 'having an ego is wrong' thing). Just because something is absurd doesn't mean you can't believe, it it the fun of being alive for fuck sake.
Fact is if everyone went off reality, there would be no humans, and especially not this existentialistic conversation.
That's how it seems to me. I don't know that there are universal concepts of good and evil.. I know that culture, history, etc can account for a lot of different morals that people have. But in my personal opinion, yeah, majority rules and that's what "good" and "evil" are based on. Human beings have this uncanny ability to impose their own personal morals on others for the greater good and sometimes have to contradict their own morals in order to make it happen. We're silly things.
[MENTION=4700]Peace[/MENTION] Do the concepts of "better" and "worse" make sense to you? Or are those relative also and everything just "is"?
Last edited:
"Better" and "worse" are concepts that can ONLY exist relative to other things
Futhermore, what we attach those concepts to is based on subjective opinion
I think people who don't believe in evil are people who think evil is some supernatural force beyond mere human intentions.
There's also the issue where people reject it because their definition of evil is implied to be absolute. There are things that hurt individuals, but not necessarily everyone else. But this fact does not negate that things can hurt humanity, or most people.
There's also the issue where people reject it because their definition of evil is implied to be absolute. There are things that hurt individuals, but not necessarily everyone else. But this fact does not negate that things can hurt humanity, or most people.
Last edited:
Morality is a tool, not the end. Philosophically, good and evil do not exist because they are relative to the beholder; however, you cannot practically apply this concept to human civilization, because order of some kind is necessary for it to function. Using the cliched case of Adolf Hitler, would anyone have preferred he fulfill his dream of an Aryan race & world domination? Do the ends - he thought he was creating the perfect world, after all - justify the millions, or potentially billions, dead? If not, where do you draw the line between self-preservation and free will ? That is what @uberrogo was referring to with "better" and "worse", I think (?).
For the sake of practicality and achievement, good and evil "exist". (The trick, I think, is making them flexible enough to be comprehensive and as fair as possible.) If they did not exist, then no one would do anything because there would be no guiding compass. That is a rather serious survival issue, wouldn't you say?
(If anything in this post does not makes sense, ask for clarity. My brain is tired and shutting off.)
P.S This thread parallels Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and Lord of the Flies by somebody.
For the sake of practicality and achievement, good and evil "exist". (The trick, I think, is making them flexible enough to be comprehensive and as fair as possible.) If they did not exist, then no one would do anything because there would be no guiding compass. That is a rather serious survival issue, wouldn't you say?
(If anything in this post does not makes sense, ask for clarity. My brain is tired and shutting off.)
P.S This thread parallels Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad and Lord of the Flies by somebody.
Last edited:
Relative evil exists, and certain ideas are relatively evil from MOST points of view, hence the perception of an absolute scale.
Last edited:
-Sorry if this seems like an advertisement... don't really have the energy to debate/discuss right now.
A book that serves to introduce people to meta-ethics & the ideas of "good" and "evil"/ possibility for moral objective truths.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195168739/?tag=infjs-20
If you're at all interested in the different moral theories it's a good place to start; even if you don't agree with the author.
A book that serves to introduce people to meta-ethics & the ideas of "good" and "evil"/ possibility for moral objective truths.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0195168739/?tag=infjs-20
If you're at all interested in the different moral theories it's a good place to start; even if you don't agree with the author.
I see. Then that which is inherently "good" would be that which enables us to survive, and that which is inherently "bad" would be that which inhibits our survival.
That would explain a great deal. For example, many religions are typically focused on reproduction and social cohesion, which would be essential tools for a tribe to survive.
That would also explain why morality can change so drastically depending upon the situation. During a crisis, such as a natural disaster, the terms of morality change considerably. Or when involved in a gang or locked up in prison, people need an entirely different morality in order to survive.