Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Now my thoughts:
Right and Wrong, AND Good and Evil are dictated by society and us. Right and Wrong revolve around an intellectual sense of justice and responsibility. Wrong is to let one scale slip off balance.
He killed someone, so he deserves to die.
He saved someone's life, so deserves better care than some other guy when he is danger.
Very finite, and while relative, more absolute.
Good and Evil revolve around empathy.
Evil is selfishness.
Good is unselfishness.
Religion, IMO, tries to solidify these into actions. Following the rules is good, breaking them evil, and likely sinful.
While Right and Wrong are similar to Good and Evil, Good and Evil are usually put into a religious context to control others (Divine monarchy, anyone?), as helping someone in need or ignoring them will follow you beyond the grave. However, it never quite works out right, because there are enough people who have true convictions, and turn it back around into what they believe it should be.
Good and Evil are the Right and the Wrong before we start trying to make rules to please everyone. Our gut feelings about things are that they are good or evil, and our intellectual feelings are the right and wrong.
My beliefs surrounding the religious issue, since it is at the heart of these arguments, can and probably will skew your and my views about this:
1) I don't believe in a God. Not that I heartily disbelieve, but I realized, at one point, that I had just been going by rote, and never had any faith.
2) I believe we, as humans, have far more than we know, and either by outside interference of some kind or [and farmore likely than the spirits/aliens theory
] by our own ability to shoot ourselves in the foot, have lost some key bits of what we are and should be.
3) I have always thought that the alternative medicines, psychics and the like are little bits and pieces of something or some things that we should all know, and that we have lost, but we are missing some key chunks of information and understanding. I seriously doubt that 90% of our brain that isn't used is there for nothing...we just decided to forgot it one millenia.
...but if there is a god that decides good and evil, it made cats and dogs. And we all know that dogs are good; cats are evil.
Right and Wrong, AND Good and Evil are dictated by society and us. Right and Wrong revolve around an intellectual sense of justice and responsibility. Wrong is to let one scale slip off balance.
He killed someone, so he deserves to die.
He saved someone's life, so deserves better care than some other guy when he is danger.
Very finite, and while relative, more absolute.
Good and Evil revolve around empathy.
Evil is selfishness.
Good is unselfishness.
Religion, IMO, tries to solidify these into actions. Following the rules is good, breaking them evil, and likely sinful.
While Right and Wrong are similar to Good and Evil, Good and Evil are usually put into a religious context to control others (Divine monarchy, anyone?), as helping someone in need or ignoring them will follow you beyond the grave. However, it never quite works out right, because there are enough people who have true convictions, and turn it back around into what they believe it should be.
Good and Evil are the Right and the Wrong before we start trying to make rules to please everyone. Our gut feelings about things are that they are good or evil, and our intellectual feelings are the right and wrong.
My beliefs surrounding the religious issue, since it is at the heart of these arguments, can and probably will skew your and my views about this:
1) I don't believe in a God. Not that I heartily disbelieve, but I realized, at one point, that I had just been going by rote, and never had any faith.
2) I believe we, as humans, have far more than we know, and either by outside interference of some kind or [and farmore likely than the spirits/aliens theory
] by our own ability to shoot ourselves in the foot, have lost some key bits of what we are and should be.3) I have always thought that the alternative medicines, psychics and the like are little bits and pieces of something or some things that we should all know, and that we have lost, but we are missing some key chunks of information and understanding. I seriously doubt that 90% of our brain that isn't used is there for nothing...we just decided to forgot it one millenia.
...but if there is a god that decides good and evil, it made cats and dogs. And we all know that dogs are good; cats are evil
.DARN! How come I see the good threads late in the game!
We are just going to keep going in circles here because we have two or three different definitions/interpretations of what "good" and "evil" are. Some have already pointed this fact out, but from what I can see not everyone understands the difference.
For my part, I always thought it was pretty hypocritical for an atheist to speak of good and evil.... but then I was also using my theistic definition. If an atheist defines "good and evil" as synonomous with morals, then they are correct in saying the "good and evil" exist. Morals are just modes of conduct defined by a society and thus good and evil would just be measurements of where certain actions fall on that moral scale. In actuallity, this isn't even true because an atheist could disagree with something that society has said is moral (good) and hence that thing would be measured as immoral (evil) by the atheist's standard and yet at the same time be judged as moral (good) by the society of that same atheist.
For the theist, it is quite different. Good and evil are things which are not definitions that change. Good are those things which are in alignment with the perfect will of God. Biblical Evil are those things which are the result of sin (outside the Perfect Will of God). From this perspective, Good and Evil are absolutes, but not absolutes defined by the action involved so much as God's stated view of the action.
If we remove God from the equation, then using the secular definition of "Good and Evil" being equal to "morals", the concept of good and evil is really no different from "chocolate tastes better than vanilla" or "yellow is prettier than blue". It's all just personal opinion and nothing more. An act may be said to be "evil" by one person but be considered "good" by another. Some Iraqi's feel that America getting rid of Saddam was a "Good" thing... others feel it was "evil"... there was only one thing done but it is defined as both good and evil from man's viewpoint.
In atheism, I feel that the concepts of "Good and Evil" should be removed and even the words should not be used. MUCH MORE ACCURATE would be for an atheist to say "I don't like that" or "That's acceptable to me" ... because that would convey the truth. To me, in a true atheistic universe where everything is just a chaotic jumble and life was just a temporary fluke... NOTHING is good or evil. If someone wanted to kill someone, SO WHAT? All of us are just a bunch of temporarily animate and self-aware matter that is going to cease functioning and return to inanimate matter in a cosmic blink of an eye. At a universal level, what is the difference between me blowing up a person or a rock with dynamite? Both are just a bunch of particles, nothing more and nothing less.
Many atheists will be angered by what I just said, and I appologize for angering you, but I would like you to tell me exactly where my reasoning is wrong? Any "value" we see in things is just us setting up pretend scales of importance. In truth, which has more universal value... 200 pounds of cosmic gas or those same exact particles millions of years later making up the body of a human? In a senseless and chaotic universe, they are just the same particles temporarily rearranged, nothing more and nothing less. And in short term they'll be absorbed back into the eco system and just be random particles again. For someone to ascribe special value to something based on it's arrangement of particles is purely subjective and meaningless.
I've already written enough to get flamed pretty well done... guess I'll stop here for the moment.
Joe
PS I just realized that I used the word "value" which is also purely subjective and meaningless at a universal level!
We are just going to keep going in circles here because we have two or three different definitions/interpretations of what "good" and "evil" are. Some have already pointed this fact out, but from what I can see not everyone understands the difference.
For my part, I always thought it was pretty hypocritical for an atheist to speak of good and evil.... but then I was also using my theistic definition. If an atheist defines "good and evil" as synonomous with morals, then they are correct in saying the "good and evil" exist. Morals are just modes of conduct defined by a society and thus good and evil would just be measurements of where certain actions fall on that moral scale. In actuallity, this isn't even true because an atheist could disagree with something that society has said is moral (good) and hence that thing would be measured as immoral (evil) by the atheist's standard and yet at the same time be judged as moral (good) by the society of that same atheist.
For the theist, it is quite different. Good and evil are things which are not definitions that change. Good are those things which are in alignment with the perfect will of God. Biblical Evil are those things which are the result of sin (outside the Perfect Will of God). From this perspective, Good and Evil are absolutes, but not absolutes defined by the action involved so much as God's stated view of the action.
If we remove God from the equation, then using the secular definition of "Good and Evil" being equal to "morals", the concept of good and evil is really no different from "chocolate tastes better than vanilla" or "yellow is prettier than blue". It's all just personal opinion and nothing more. An act may be said to be "evil" by one person but be considered "good" by another. Some Iraqi's feel that America getting rid of Saddam was a "Good" thing... others feel it was "evil"... there was only one thing done but it is defined as both good and evil from man's viewpoint.
In atheism, I feel that the concepts of "Good and Evil" should be removed and even the words should not be used. MUCH MORE ACCURATE would be for an atheist to say "I don't like that" or "That's acceptable to me" ... because that would convey the truth. To me, in a true atheistic universe where everything is just a chaotic jumble and life was just a temporary fluke... NOTHING is good or evil. If someone wanted to kill someone, SO WHAT? All of us are just a bunch of temporarily animate and self-aware matter that is going to cease functioning and return to inanimate matter in a cosmic blink of an eye. At a universal level, what is the difference between me blowing up a person or a rock with dynamite? Both are just a bunch of particles, nothing more and nothing less.
Many atheists will be angered by what I just said, and I appologize for angering you, but I would like you to tell me exactly where my reasoning is wrong? Any "value" we see in things is just us setting up pretend scales of importance. In truth, which has more universal value... 200 pounds of cosmic gas or those same exact particles millions of years later making up the body of a human? In a senseless and chaotic universe, they are just the same particles temporarily rearranged, nothing more and nothing less. And in short term they'll be absorbed back into the eco system and just be random particles again. For someone to ascribe special value to something based on it's arrangement of particles is purely subjective and meaningless.
I've already written enough to get flamed pretty well done... guess I'll stop here for the moment.
Joe
PS I just realized that I used the word "value" which is also purely subjective and meaningless at a universal level!
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Seems to me that Glen is closest to right here.
Let's do this...
IF God exists, then Good and Evil (note capitalization) MAY exist. It is possible that a God may not have these concepts in which case they are arbitrary.
IF God does not exist, then Good and Evil do not exist. No Good or Evil force, or field or particle has ever been seriously postulated.
Anything else you bring is your own baggage.
Let's do this...
IF God exists, then Good and Evil (note capitalization) MAY exist. It is possible that a God may not have these concepts in which case they are arbitrary.
IF God does not exist, then Good and Evil do not exist. No Good or Evil force, or field or particle has ever been seriously postulated.
Anything else you bring is your own baggage.
Nope... not true. There are "intelligent" people to this day who think that he was a brilliant genius.... I'm not one of them, but they exist. Again, if used in the atheistic sense, you can only say something like "in my opinion and the opinions of many others, Hitler was evil". But someone else could say the exact opposite and they would also be right.
From a theistic point of view it doesn't matter what any human thinks, it is God's determination as to what is evil and what is not.... He is the definer.
Joe
good and evil has nothing to do with religion. good and evil isnt a definite thing imo. no one is born with an innate sense of good and bad - a sense of morality. its instilled in you. its how you're brought up, and what kind of society you life in etc. eg for certain iraqis, good would be saddam. evil would be bush. for americans, its the other way around.
To answer the origian question:
The bible thumpers deteremine what is good and evil for atheists.
The bible thumpers deteremine what is good and evil for atheists.
Sigh...here we go again.
My opinion is simple. It is very easy to have an ethical system of good and evil based on utilitarian ethics, for example - God or whatever doesn't have to come into the picture at all. Please note that I don't necessarily believe in pure utilitarianism. Even if you decide to take elements of religious values into your own definition of ethical good/evil, most moral precepts taught in religion are pretty self-explanatory and are basic fundamental social values which have been passed down from generation to generation for years anyway - i.e. do not kill - not because God commands it but rather because it is socially destructive - you cannot have a civil society existing where people are permitted to wantonly kill each other.
I am one of those who thinks Hitler WAS a brilliant man: obviously, horrifically misguided and far TOO fanatical (you'd be an idiot not to admit this), but he was a brilliant orator and political genius who knew exactly how to manipulate people to his own will and take advantage of a desperate and highly anti-semitic European population to further his own socio-political agenda. These elements of his personality/character make him out to be one of those geniuses who simply went down the wrong path and used his genius for destruction rather than creation and productivity.
I am an atheist. When I do something or think something that feels bad it must be evil or wrong. When something makes me happy it must be good. Take this as my view on it.
Divine command is only one among several prominent ethical systems. You can be an atheist and believe in any number of these:
Utilitarian ethics
Categorical Imperative
Stoicism
Deontological ethics (the intent determines goodness)
Teleological ethics (the result determines goodness)
In fact, Plato's age-old question is still a relevant one: Is an act good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good?
Utilitarian ethics
Categorical Imperative
Stoicism
Deontological ethics (the intent determines goodness)
Teleological ethics (the result determines goodness)
In fact, Plato's age-old question is still a relevant one: Is an act good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is good?
Originally posted by: Netopia
DARN! How come I see the good threads late in the game!
We are just going to keep going in circles here because we...
---snip---
...orarily rearranged, nothing more and nothing less. And in short term they'll be absorbed back into the eco system and just be random particles again. For someone to ascribe special value to something based on it's arrangement of particles is purely subjective and meaningless.
I've already written enough to get flamed pretty well done... guess I'll stop here for the moment.
Joe
PS I just realized that I used the word "value" which is also purely subjective and meaningless at a universal level!
brilliant Netopia
altho since athiesm is fashion de jour, I can see offense taken at the zero value since we all possess an ego
<detour>summarily that "little voice" we all have from whence it comes? it seems to 'hold the reins'.. even at my most drunkest/highest/wigged moment that little voice held clarity and morality...</detour>
You forgot Karma.
Actually, Karma is part of Hinduism, which is a religion, which more or less precludes atheism.
But karmic philosophy is an elemental part of various schools of Buddhism, which is acknowledged as a philosophy, not a religion - as it lacks the primary feature of any religion: an all-powerful deity.
While it may be argued that Buddha is raised to the status of god, there is a difference, as Buddha was human and therefore could best be equated to a Christian Saint, whereas God is god - never human, always all-powerful...correct me if I'm wrong.
While it may be argued that Buddha is raised to the status of god, there is a difference, as Buddha was human and therefore could best be equated to a Christian Saint, whereas God is god - never human, always all-powerful...correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not qualified to speak as an expert on Buddhism, but I know in my studies that Buddhism is very much a religion. It is not simply a philosophy. Once again, I am no expert, however.
Regardless, you have a point, if you consider Karma just some sort of equalizing force in the universe. It's certainly possible to believe that while still being an atheist.
Regardless, you have a point, if you consider Karma just some sort of equalizing force in the universe. It's certainly possible to believe that while still being an atheist.
Purpose vs. Function:
We might clear a bit of the argument by definin purpose and function. It seems to me that most of the theists are correct by saying that there is no purpose of life/the universe in an atheist universe. As many have pointed out, purpose requires sentience and "guidance".
Some theists have argued against this saying that our "purpose" is to propagate the species. By the definitions of the english language, you cannot have a purpose without a "purposer" (sic). I propose you use the term "function" instead; for FUNCTION can arise without previous design and carries the meaning a lot of atheists are proposing.
Existance of good/evil (g/e):
Absolute standards (i.e. applicable to everything and everyone at all times) of g/e can either:
a) exist
i. exist and be absolute on their own
y. god does not exist
z. god exists, knows of the existance of absolute g/e and tells us about them
ii. exist only becasue they are determined by something superior to them
-- assumes god exists and defines g/e
b) not exist
i. god exists
ii. god does not exist
Let's handle the easier cases first:
(B.ii.)
If god does not exist and absolute g/e do not exist, g/e can only be relative terms decided by individuals. A lot of the time, these definitions are agreeable to many individuals and these become part of our social contract. We pass these down to our children and these concepts endure as-is, modified, or die off eventually.
(B.i.)
same case as before, but god has suggested relative g/e definitions that might/might not be heeded by man.
(A.ii.)
Assuming god exists and determines absolute g/e, then some laws/societies are right and some are wrong. end of story.
-- this case has some fun implications. namely that since there is no absolute g/e, and god decides which is which with nothing to guide him as to what is the proper way to go about it, his choices are arbitrary. in effect, he could have chosen murder to be good OR bad. one way is just as good as the other since he had no basis on which to make that judgement.
(A.i.y)
Very similar to A.ii. but man is not disobeying god, he is at times not following absolute g/e. and sometimes wrong. end of story.
(A.i.z)
this case assumes that absolute g/e are not mutable by god. hence, implies that god is not absolute, but maybe a concept of equal absolutness as good and evil.
We might clear a bit of the argument by definin purpose and function. It seems to me that most of the theists are correct by saying that there is no purpose of life/the universe in an atheist universe. As many have pointed out, purpose requires sentience and "guidance".
Some theists have argued against this saying that our "purpose" is to propagate the species. By the definitions of the english language, you cannot have a purpose without a "purposer" (sic). I propose you use the term "function" instead; for FUNCTION can arise without previous design and carries the meaning a lot of atheists are proposing.
Existance of good/evil (g/e):
Absolute standards (i.e. applicable to everything and everyone at all times) of g/e can either:
a) exist
i. exist and be absolute on their own
y. god does not exist
z. god exists, knows of the existance of absolute g/e and tells us about them
ii. exist only becasue they are determined by something superior to them
-- assumes god exists and defines g/e
b) not exist
i. god exists
ii. god does not exist
Let's handle the easier cases first:
(B.ii.)
If god does not exist and absolute g/e do not exist, g/e can only be relative terms decided by individuals. A lot of the time, these definitions are agreeable to many individuals and these become part of our social contract. We pass these down to our children and these concepts endure as-is, modified, or die off eventually.
(B.i.)
same case as before, but god has suggested relative g/e definitions that might/might not be heeded by man.
(A.ii.)
Assuming god exists and determines absolute g/e, then some laws/societies are right and some are wrong. end of story.
-- this case has some fun implications. namely that since there is no absolute g/e, and god decides which is which with nothing to guide him as to what is the proper way to go about it, his choices are arbitrary. in effect, he could have chosen murder to be good OR bad. one way is just as good as the other since he had no basis on which to make that judgement.
(A.i.y)
Very similar to A.ii. but man is not disobeying god, he is at times not following absolute g/e. and sometimes wrong. end of story.
(A.i.z)
this case assumes that absolute g/e are not mutable by god. hence, implies that god is not absolute, but maybe a concept of equal absolutness as good and evil.
This is close to what I said already on the previous page (Of course no one ever listens to me). As I said, Evil is that which "Doing otherwise will harm ME." Not others, not humankind, but the subject of the act. Any other way you want to look at it, it boils down to simple selfishness. We don't want to be made to suffer, so rules are set up
Well, I would like to ask a question of my own here... you want to be the appetizer or the entree, Bober?
Declaring something Evil is just the most pragmatic way to try and ensure that people don't do it to you. The same with Good.
-- Jack
... But we've only fondled the surface of that subject.
-- Virginia Masters
The title for this thread is asinine I'm an athiest and have no problems distinguishing between good and evil, and have many thoughts on the subject, but rather than babbling I'm sure you could do plenty of research into philosophy yourself and find out more than I could ever tell you. Nietzsche's The Gay Science iis a fun place to start.
I'm an athiest and have no problems distinguishing between good and evil, and have many thoughts on the subject, but rather than babbling I'm sure you could do plenty of research into philosophy yourself and find out more than I could ever tell you. Nietzsche's The Gay Science iis a fun place to start.Many philosophers take the question seriously. But then, I'm sure you know much more than they do. They must be asinine.
If you truly suggest he read Nietszche, why not "Beyond Good and Evil", "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", or "The Geneology of Morals"?
If you truly suggest he read Nietszche, why not "Beyond Good and Evil", "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", or "The Geneology of Morals"?
Geekbabe
Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Good and evil,interesting constructs when one stops to consider that even though man is a social animal that altruism isn't our most notable quality.You scratch my back I'll scratch yours, a wary system of mutality of interest would be a more apt description of how mankind operates.A person could garner the bad person label simply because he/she is honest about being their goals being motivated primarily by what serves them best.
As far as "evil" goes you can't even have the discussion without also discussing mental illness.Many who commit horrific acts beyond human understanding do so because they are crippled by illness that total warps and distorts their thinking.Is that the act of some chess playing God or an unfortunate by product of illness ?
As far as "evil" goes you can't even have the discussion without also discussing mental illness.Many who commit horrific acts beyond human understanding do so because they are crippled by illness that total warps and distorts their thinking.Is that the act of some chess playing God or an unfortunate by product of illness ?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 407
-
Facebook
Twitter