Is 'good' or 'evil' a constant or is it just a point of view?

Binomate

Is what is good and what is evil something that remains a constant. For example, is murder only evil because society and religion tells us it's bad? Would murder be a good thing in a society that allows and accepts murder? Do you believe there are a set of defined laws which define what is good and what is evil outside of what society says?

Playboy

It's all relative imo .. there are countless examples across different cultures where this is shown to be true.

no good no evil no forms

Zombrex

Binomate wrote:

For example, is murder only evil because society and religion tells us it's bad?

Well you are starting from too different starting points

You say "only evil", but then that implies you are assume "evil" is something that actually exists. that can be quantified. But then you say is it only evil because we say it is evil.

But really (in my view) the concept of "evil" itself only exists because we say it exists. So then when we say something is evil we are still only talking about fitting something into a category that we invented in the first place.

So when you say is murder only evil because we say it is evil, yes it is, but then the concept of evil only exists because we say it exists, so naturally something can only be evil if we say it is evil.

the real ramon

I think the old Sumerian/biblical story of the garden of eden where we eat from the tree of knowledge and thus got a knowledge of good and evil has a ring of truth to it. It is IMO a human contruct, though in my opinion what differs one from the other is intent: various laws, social taboos etc are just a way of codifying that. In some societies human sacrifice was practiced, not because they were evil b***ards but because they had come to believe in some way that that was necessary for various reasons, and to be chosen for sacrifice was a great honour and afforded you a special place in the hereafter. This was the case anyway in ancient Peru, and possibly/probably with the Celts, also Shang-era China

Dave3x

Evil, such as murder, is evil because if murder were allowed with free reign, it would rapidly diminish the population. In this respect, the construction of things as 'evil' is a survival tool (for the species as a whole, not individuals). In war, murder is not evil, because murder is neccessary for survival. Likewise, 'good' is mostly what helps the species as a whole prosper- cooperation, etc. Obviously, I cannot explain everything termed 'good' and 'evil in this way, as things in modern society are far too complicated and mulit-layered, with conflicting values and judgement calls (the lesser of two evils, for example), but it's a reasonable theory for the original foundation of 'evil' as a socially inaaceptable act or concept.

My two cents, anyway. I know I've got no way to back this up, it just seems likely.

the real ramon

Dave3x wrote:

it's a reasonable theory for the original foundation of 'evil' as a socially inaaceptable act or concept.

Thats it isn't it, its a human construct based whats socially unacceptable, which changes from culture to culture.

Another possibility, which I don't believe is the Chinese philosophy based on the Tao (the 'way') which states that there's equal opposites making up a whole, in this case a force of good and a force of evil which always cancel each other out.

Third possibilty, which also I don't believe: God has written laws which are constant over time.

Any biters out there for those two theories?

McGinty

Simple question, would you like to be murdered? If no, then thats your answer, it is evil. However if discussing evil, there are far worse ways of committing evil rather than murder, sometimes a quick death is the easy way out, a slow, very prolonged tortuous life is far worse. And does evil exist, whether it is human construction, yes it does, look around and wake up to it.

Binomate

McGinty wrote:

Simple question, would you like to be murdered? If no, then thats your answer, it is evil. However if discussing evil, there are far worse ways of committing evil rather than murder, sometimes a quick death is the easy way out, a slow, very prolonged tortuous life is far worse. And does evil exist, whether it is human construction, yes it does, look around and wake up to it.

Yes, but some people would like to win the lotto, others wouldn't. It doesn't make winning the lotto evil.

McGinty

Lol, ah the red herring theory, throw in something totally unrelated to the question 'is murder evil' and throw in an inane subject. I'm sorry but the analogy of 'some people would like to win the lotto, others wouldn't. It doesn't make winning the lotto evil' is a weak one, you cannot equate murder with playing the lotto. Also you did not answer my question, would you like to be murdered?

Binomate

McGinty wrote:

Lol, ah the red herring theory, throw in something totally unrelated to the question 'is murder evil' and throw in an inane subject. I'm sorry but the analogy of 'some people would like to win the lotto, others wouldn't. It doesn't make winning the lotto evil' is a weak one, you cannot equate murder with playing the lotto. Also you did not answer my question, would you like to be murdered?

Nope, I wouldn't. Someone who feels strongly about being sacraficed to what ever God they believe in wouldn't mind being murdered or someone who is suicidal. Sure it was a the analagy with the lotto was crappy, but the point remains that there are always people who think differently or who want the opposite of mainstream society.

Laplandman

I don't think so. What if 'society' (a rather dubious designation but one which I will use anyway because I can) isn't mainstream anyway? What if it is multi-streamed?

Demetrius

If humans werent around, there wouldnt be good or evil. Its a neccessary constraint to restrain certain unstable elements. Greatest survival of the greatest number of humans depends on abiding to rules. Whilst humans are around it is a constant. Even if you were forced by circumstance, say, to steal, it would still be "wrong."

pbsuxok1znja4r

I believe, and with good reason, that there is a loose (but easily contaminable) idea of what is 'good'. (Perhaps evil does not exist as an idea on it's own, but rather the perversion/inversion of this 'good').

Contrary to what Playboy is spouting, there are countless examples across cultures and societies to prove that there is a universal idea of good and possibly bad or evil also.

Read up on the Confucian definition of Tao, as explored by CS Lewis in "The Abolition of Man". (It's a very short text based upon a series of lectures given by CSL not as a Christian apologist but in his capacity as an English professor - where he really knew his shit )

So go read.

Laplandman

there are countless examples across cultures and societies to prove that there is a universal idea of good and possibly bad or evil also.

What about those that don't?

Further q: Are u the ghost of C.S. Lewis?

Sand

There is good and evil, and there is a lot of grey in between. People tend to take the existence of the grey ( steal food to feed your starving family?) as proof that absolute good and evil cant exist. Good and evil isnt so much defined by the results as much as by the motivation imo. Someone can mean well and cause you more harm than your worst enemy. Its not too fashionable to talk in terms of good/evil or right/wrong (gets you associated with various shades of extremism) but its easy enough to pull the rug out from under the feet of "cultural morals" advocates.

Cultural moralists would think that concepts of right and wrong are only shaped by the cultures in which people find themselves, or the needs of that culture. You can probably angle them to agree that Western (European and later American) culture is about the exploitation of others, slavery, colonisation, racism, bigotry, destruction of native societies etc etc (cultural moralists tend to predisposed against western civillisation to begin with - we dont have all the answers etc etc. Its a stereotype but its one for a reason).

Ask them then to explain why western countries stopped slavery (for example) or why they *shouldnt* practise it today without using the words "wrong" or "evil". Abolitionists framed the debate on slavery in terms of right and wrong, good and evil, absolutist terms informed by religion in most cases so its hard to see how they can put together a persuasive argument without those concepts. Everyone views slavery as wrong, is that just a cultural construct? If you were born in a country that practises slavery today would slavery then be right? If Ireland practises instutional racism, does that make racism right, or is it still wrong despite it being a part of the culture/society (institutionalised remember)?

Either way, everyone, even those too hip to believe in right and wrong, would never accept a cultural defence for paedophilia. Neither can the hatred of paedophiles be explained as being "contrary to the survival of the species" like murder. Its seen as wrong, utterly wrong (murderers get more respect than paedophiles) without reducing societys numbers.

Sand

Sand wrote:

There is good and evil, and there is a lot of grey in between. People tend to take the existence of the grey ( steal food to feed your starving family?) as proof that absolute good and evil cant exist. Good and evil isnt so much defined by the results as much as by the motivation imo. Someone can mean well and cause you more harm than your worst enemy. Its not too fashionable to talk in terms of good/evil or right/wrong (gets you associated with various shades of extremism) but its easy enough to pull the rug out from under the feet of "cultural morals" advocates.

Cultural moralists would think that concepts of right and wrong are only shaped by the cultures in which people find themselves, or the needs of that culture. You can probably angle them to agree that Western (European and later American) culture is about the exploitation of others, slavery, colonisation, racism, bigotry, destruction of native societies etc etc (cultural moralists tend to predisposed against western civillisation to begin with - we dont have all the answers etc etc. Its a stereotype but its one for a reason).

Ask them then to explain why western countries stopped slavery (for example) or why they *shouldnt* practise it today without using the words "wrong" or "evil". Abolitionists framed the debate on slavery in terms of right and wrong, good and evil, absolutist terms informed by religion in most cases so its hard to see how they can put together a persuasive argument without those concepts. Everyone views slavery as wrong, is that just a cultural construct? If you were born in a country that practises slavery today would slavery then be right? If Ireland practises instutional racism, does that make racism right, or is it still wrong despite it being a part of the culture/society (institutionalised remember)?

Either way, everyone, even those too hip to believe in right and wrong, would never accept a cultural defence for paedophilia. Neither can the hatred of paedophiles be explained as being "contrary to the survival of the species" like murder. Its seen as wrong, utterly wrong (murderers get more respect than paedophiles) without reducing societys numbers.

If someone's perspective on an illusion changes, are they still not observing an illusion?

Less ad hominems and strawmans btw plz

pbsuxok1znja4r

Laplandman wrote:

What about those that don't?

Further q: Are u the ghost of C.S. Lewis?

Get a job...?

Sand

If someone's perspective on an illusion changes, are they still not observing an illusion?

Firstly I wouldnt accept the assumption that its an illusion.

Secondly, whilst a slave and a masters view of slavery as right and wrong may be dependant on which side of the equation they are currently on, slavery was ended (in the western world at least) because it was recognised as wrong, and its practise as unacceptable. Not because masters and slaves swapped roles. Abolitionists of the era argued successfully in absolutist terms that slavery was morally wrong.

Slavery is still practised in parts of Africa today like Sudan, is that wrong, or is it only wrong if the local culture considers it wrong? If it is only dependant on the local culture, then are we throwing out imperialist doctrines like universal human rights?

Less ad hominems and strawmans btw plz

No strawmen actually, only simple logical extension of the abandonment of moral absolutes outside of the law/local culture...

Playboy

Just becuase the abolitionists argued in absolutist terms doesnt mean that good or evil exists. The was also a moral argument on the other side. Slave owners in the south argued that when you own a piece of property then you are more likely to protect and look after it. In the slaves case this meant providing the slaves with food, shelter, clothing and not overworking them. They accussed the abolitionists of merely wanting to swap the responsibility and cost of owning a slave for the convenience of renting one. I'm not agreeing with that pov but it shows you that there are 2 sides to every coin.
What is Good or Evil depends on your perspective. Unless you bow to an authority like the church or God then you cant say that there is absolute good or evil.

Saying motivation defines what is Good or evil is ridiculous. Ever hear the saying "its just business" or " all is fair in love and war". We have different rules for different circumstances. In one aspect of our life it is fine to have harmful motivations, after all its a dog eat dog world. Your example of slavery means nothing. We think now that slavery is wrong becuase we live in a different world with different values. Ancient societies thought differently .. does that make them evil even if slavery often was practised by both sides?

pbsuxok1znja4r

Laplandman wrote:

What about those that don't?

What about them? Have you got any examples about "those that don't" ? It is my belief that they almost all do. So the onus is on you to find examples of "those that don't". So have you any?

Laplandman

Lots and lots of Buddhists in lots and lots of geographical and historical locales.

Go read

judi

i make my own decisions on good and evil.society can lead us to believe all sorts of crap but it is up to us in our own good judgement how we want to categorise the events of life. i bevlive there are two sides to every event and where i might not see it as evil or good the next person may disagree. no two people have the same minds. and "who" decides what's good or evil anyway....god?? me?? you??

3greenrizla's

the key to this thread is not to look at the extreams but to look to the middle ground, or as another poster said the grey area.

is killing for sport wrong?
is eating meat wrong?
is boxing wrong?
is homosexuality wrong?
not going to mass on a sunday?
or is it greedy to save my money & go on a nice holiday, when there are people starving in the world, is that wrong?

i think its a matter of personal opinion, mine is

if you do anything to harm other living things that is Unnecessary, thats wrong (or evil if you want)

& if the op wants to jump around naked on all fours, their more than welcome to, if you can afford to live like that & you can explain to people that that is the way you want to live, then why not, there are plenty of excentric people around (obviously you would be nicked if you go naked in public)

mariaalice

its hard for humans to jump around on all fours...cause we need to stand up to jump around:) re the other stuff everyone should read Victor Frankl " man's search for meaning"