Is there really evil, or just the absence of good?

[gorcorps]

I got an email from my mom, which is a pretty hokey religious story but I pulled something interesting out of it that may spark a discussion.

We talk about cold like it's something we can measure. How cold is it? Has it gotten colder? etc... but really cold is just the absence of heat. Heat can be measured as it's just energy, but cold can't be measured. It's just a term we use to describe the absence of heat.

The same can be said for darkness. Nothing is really 'dark', rather is just has an absence of light. Light involves photons and can be measured, and the absence of it we call 'dark'.

So the question for everybody: is evil the same type of thing? Is evil just the absence of good, or is evil an entirely different feeling unto itself?

Personally I think there's two sides to this. Being 'evil' is definitely tied to what you're brought up to think is bad. If you aren't told what's bad, then you may act bad in other people's minds even though you never thought of it that way. And there are those who know what's bad, and do it anyways.

 

[Brigandier]

It's time for you to progress beyond good and evil.

 

[Jeff7]

It's all relative. When does something become "cold?" Outside might feel "cold" to someone if it's 40°F. Or if you want to say it another way, that's around 277.6 Kelvin. Pretty toasty, as far as the rest of the Universe is concerned, or even just as far as Antarctica.

Good and evil are simply terms created by humans, and assigned to certain actions which we deem to be beneficial or harmful. They vary from culture to culture.
And in this case, good can be called the absence of evil, and evil can be called the absence of good. Neither property is truly inherent to anything in existence, until someone assigns it that value, and that value persists only so long as there are people (or extraterrestrial life forms with a similar value system) to continue assigning that value.

Maybe that answers nothing, and really, this is just an amusing thought exercise in semantics. 🙂

 

[moonbit]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Personally I think there's two sides to this. Being 'evil' is definitely tied to what you're brought up to think is bad. If you aren't told what's bad, then you may act bad in other people's minds even though you never thought of it that way. And there are those who know what's bad, and do it anyways.

This is a great start. "Evil" is relative across personal perceptions, and across cultures. The debate is in whether or not there is such a thing as an evil that is universally evil. Then there's the personal dimension of the motivation to choose to do bad rather than do good.

That's all I got. I'm running on reduced brainpower.

 

[gorcorps]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's all relative. When does something become "cold?" Outside might feel "cold" to someone if it's 40°F. Or if you want to say it another way, that's around 277.6 Kelvin. Pretty toasty, as far as the rest of the Universe is concerned, or even just as far as Antarctica.

Good and evil are simply terms created by humans, and assigned to certain actions which we deem to be beneficial or harmful. They vary from culture to culture.
And in this case, good can be called the absence of evil, and evil can be called the absence of good. Neither property is truly inherent to anything in existence, until someone assigns it that value, and that value persists only so long as there are people (or extraterrestrial life forms with a similar value system) to continue assigning that value.

Maybe that answers nothing, and really, this is just an amusing thought exercise in semantics. 🙂

Good stuff... so personally, what would you consider your 'zero point' so to speak? What I mean is would you, in your own thinking, consider somebody 'normal' to be good, and doing bad things would be abnormal? Or is it 'normal' to be bad, and by being good you're going outside the norm?

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: gorcorps


So the question for everybody: is evil the same type of thing? Is evil just the absence of good, or is evil an entirely different feeling unto itself?

It's just a state of mind, there is no such thing. If you want to know the value of good there has to be evil and vice-versa.

 

[AccruedExpenditure]

Absence of human empathy
-AE

 

[Kadarin]

I would posit that there is no such thing as absolute "good" and absolute "evil", and then challenge you to show otherwise. My belief is that the concepts are both relative and abstract, and really depend on the culture within which someone exists.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Originally posted by: moonbit

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Personally I think there's two sides to this. Being 'evil' is definitely tied to what you're brought up to think is bad. If you aren't told what's bad, then you may act bad in other people's minds even though you never thought of it that way. And there are those who know what's bad, and do it anyways.

This is a great start. "Evil" is relative across personal perceptions, and across cultures. The debate is in whether or not there is such a thing as an evil that is universally evil. Then there's the personal dimension of the motivation to choose to do bad rather than do good.

That's all I got. I'm running on reduced brainpower.

Murder is universally evil. There ya go.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: AccruedExpenditure
Absence of human empathy
-AE

That doesn't make you evil. Purposefully doing "evil" things makes you evil. If I go on a killing spree because I have brain damage then I'm not evil. I deserve to die, but I'm not evil. If however, I go on a killing spree, knowing full well how evil it is, then yes I am evil.

 

[Brigandier]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Murder is universally evil. There ya go.

What constitutes a murder?

 

[Whitecloak]

'I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people,' said the man. 'You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.'

 

[Cancer12]

All seemingly altruistic acts fulfill self esteem. No truly altruistic acts are possible.

 

[IGBT]

..secular progressives say child murders and rapists just need treatment. secular progressives are the epitome of evil.

 

[mjrpes3]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
I would posit that there is no such thing as absolute "good" and absolute "evil", and then challenge you to show otherwise. My belief is that the concepts are both relative and abstract, and really depend on the culture within which someone exists.

Inflicting intense pain on an innocent person for the sole reason of deriving pleasure from their suffering is a universal evil.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: IGBT
..secular progressives say child murders and rapists just need treatment. secular progressives are the epitome of evil.

And in an ideal world, where it is possible to repair the mental aberrations which cause these individuals to perform these acts, yes, they could receive treatment. Our medical science is currently too primitive to allow such a thing to take place.
Oh well, I guess I'm evil. :laugh:

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Good stuff... so personally, what would you consider your 'zero point' so to speak? What I mean is would you, in your own thinking, consider somebody 'normal' to be good, and doing bad things would be abnormal? Or is it 'normal' to be bad, and by being good you're going outside the norm?

A "zero point" for me is rather meaningless though. The aggregate ideals of good and evil found within a society are what others are ultimately going to be judged by. Such is the fickle nature of the ideas of good and evil. SparkyJJO says that murder is universally evil. Really? What if you were to murder an evildoer? Is it evil to remove from existence that which is evil?
Absolute values just don't work, unless you find a universe which does itself function on absolutes. This Universe we inhabit is not such a place. (Well, until you get down to the quantum level. Quantum Morality is not yet a major field of philosophical study. Planck Good and Evil, anyone?)

Things in nature can have zero points or limits. Absolute zero is one such limit - you can't get any colder than that. The speed of light is another natural limit. These things are measurable, and the person or creature making the observation is irrelevant, the values will still be the same.

Good and evil are metaphysical things, they are ideas. There can exist no absolute values for them, as there are no "zero points" or calibration points for them. Many systems exist which attempt to create absolutes, but these systems are often in conflict with one another, and also have conflicts within themselves.



And I feel that if I continue, some inmate is going to call me "Red" and say I'm talking out of my ass. 😉

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: IGBT
..secular progressives say child murders and rapists just need treatment. secular progressives are the epitome of evil.

And in an ideal world, where it is possible to repair the mental aberrations which cause these individuals to perform these acts, yes, they could receive treatment. Our medical science is currently too primitive to allow such a thing to take place.
Oh well, I guess I'm evil. :laugh:

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Good stuff... so personally, what would you consider your 'zero point' so to speak? What I mean is would you, in your own thinking, consider somebody 'normal' to be good, and doing bad things would be abnormal? Or is it 'normal' to be bad, and by being good you're going outside the norm?

A "zero point" for me is rather meaningless though. The aggregate ideals of good and evil found within a society are what others are ultimately going to be judged by. Such is the fickle nature of the ideas of good and evil. SparkyJJO says that murder is universally evil. Really? What if you were to murder an evildoer? Is it evil to remove from existence that which is evil?
Absolute values just don't work, unless you find a universe which does itself function on absolutes. This Universe we inhabit is not such a place. (Well, until you get down to the quantum level. Quantum Morality is not yet a major field of philosophical study. Planck Good and Evil, anyone?)

Things in nature can have zero points or limits. Absolute zero is one such limit - you can't get any colder than that. The speed of light is another natural limit. These things are measurable, and the person or creature making the observation is irrelevant, the values will still be the same.

Good and evil are metaphysical things, they are ideas. There can exist no absolute values for them, as there are no "zero points" or calibration points for them. Many systems exist which attempt to create absolutes, but these systems are often in conflict with one another, and also have conflicts within themselves.



And I feel that if I continue, some inmate is going to call me "Red" and say I'm talking out of my ass. 😉

..your fatal flaw is the concept of an "ideal world". It is and always will be shades of gray.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: SparkyJJO

Originally posted by: moonbit

Originally posted by: gorcorps
Personally I think there's two sides to this. Being 'evil' is definitely tied to what you're brought up to think is bad. If you aren't told what's bad, then you may act bad in other people's minds even though you never thought of it that way. And there are those who know what's bad, and do it anyways.

This is a great start. "Evil" is relative across personal perceptions, and across cultures. The debate is in whether or not there is such a thing as an evil that is universally evil. Then there's the personal dimension of the motivation to choose to do bad rather than do good.

That's all I got. I'm running on reduced brainpower.

Murder is universally evil. There ya go.

If there is not enough food for the community, is killing weaker ones to keep the rest from dying evil? Several species of animals (including humans!) have chosen to keep the majority from starving as option.

If you can stop a murderer or rapist by killing him, is the act of killing him evil?

'Evil' and 'good' depends on who is looking at the situation, and in many cases is more a matter of selfishness or selflessness. Killing for no reason is evil in that it serves no purpose except maybe to entertain the killer. But then, that makes hunting and fishing evil too, unless you do it because you need the food. And if you need food, is hunting other humans evil in all circumstances?

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: gorcorps
I got an email from my mom, which is a pretty hokey religious story but I pulled something interesting out of it that may spark a discussion.

We talk about cold like it's something we can measure. How cold is it? Has it gotten colder? etc... but really cold is just the absence of heat. Heat can be measured as it's just energy, but cold can't be measured. It's just a term we use to describe the absence of heat.

The same can be said for darkness. Nothing is really 'dark', rather is just has an absence of light. Light involves photons and can be measured, and the absence of it we call 'dark'.

So the question for everybody: is evil the same type of thing? Is evil just the absence of good, or is evil an entirely different feeling unto itself?

Personally I think there's two sides to this. Being 'evil' is definitely tied to what you're brought up to think is bad. If you aren't told what's bad, then you may act bad in other people's minds even though you never thought of it that way. And there are those who know what's bad, and do it anyways.

all people are inherently evil, in that they exist to better themselves and their own situation disregarding the cost on everyone else. this is the basis of capitalism as economists see it, and realism as machiavelli sees it.

society (rules, law) exists to curtail that behavior, or give it a less destructive out. a framework in which that behavior can be expressed in order for the "benefit" of all.

there is no such thing as "good", or in true sense, "evil". there is only self-interest.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: Kadarin
I would posit that there is no such thing as absolute "good" and absolute "evil", and then challenge you to show otherwise. My belief is that the concepts are both relative and abstract, and really depend on the culture within which someone exists.

Inflicting intense pain on an innocent person for the sole reason of deriving pleasure from their suffering is a universal evil.

I would agree that it's wrong, but not that such wrong is absolute. Just because I don't know of a society where that is acceptable does not mean that such a society isn't possible.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: Kadarin
I would posit that there is no such thing as absolute "good" and absolute "evil", and then challenge you to show otherwise. My belief is that the concepts are both relative and abstract, and really depend on the culture within which someone exists.

Inflicting intense pain on an innocent person for the sole reason of deriving pleasure from their suffering is a universal evil.

Is a masochist innocent or guilty?

 

[theflyingpig]

Evil is the natural state of things. It is what makes this world beautiful. Humans must learn to embrace evil in all of its forms. Only when we can accept our evil nature will we be complete.

 

[mjrpes3]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: Kadarin
I would posit that there is no such thing as absolute "good" and absolute "evil", and then challenge you to show otherwise. My belief is that the concepts are both relative and abstract, and really depend on the culture within which someone exists.

Inflicting intense pain on an innocent person for the sole reason of deriving pleasure from their suffering is a universal evil.

Is a masochist innocent or guilty?

A masochist is not inflicting pain upon an innocent victim who, given the option, would wish not to be afflicted.

 

[mjrpes3]

Originally posted by: Kadarin

Originally posted by: mjrpes3

Originally posted by: Kadarin
I would posit that there is no such thing as absolute "good" and absolute "evil", and then challenge you to show otherwise. My belief is that the concepts are both relative and abstract, and really depend on the culture within which someone exists.

Inflicting intense pain on an innocent person for the sole reason of deriving pleasure from their suffering is a universal evil.

I would agree that it's wrong, but not that such wrong is absolute. Just because I don't know of a society where that is acceptable does not mean that such a society isn't possible.

We could turn this into a categorical imperative by asking: is society even possible in a world where all people derive pleasure from inflicting pain unto death upon other members of society. If the answer is no, then we are left with a logical absurdity: we posit the existence of a hypothetical society that, in reality, could not exist.

 

[AlienCraft]

Yes, there is evil and yes, there is the absence of good. They are noeith mutually inclusive nor exclusive.
Hate is not the opposite of love, apathy is.
In this same way, Evil is not the absence of good, but actual, overt, negative acts. Like torturing animals on video camera and posting on an Internet site.