Good vs Evil

[Leichenhalle]

To start, is there such thing as good and evil?
My answer: Yes - but not as many people would guess it to be.
I believe that good is anyone who means no harm to others, though not necessarily someone who actually is beneficial to society. Therefore, I believe that somebody who sits around and does nothing all day is a good person (of course somebody who dedicates their life to helping others is good as well, though I make no distinction between the two).
An evil person is anyone who has malicious intents toward others. By “malicious intents” I mean any action that would bring unjustified anguish unto another person.
This is where I bring religions into this. Christians believe that their religion is the only one out of countless religions in the world that is correct, and with such a position, they are effectively damning the majority of the world’s population to their hell. This makes Christians evil in my book.
This isn’t restricted only to Christians, every religion that I currently know of thinks that their religion is correct and everyone else is wrong and destined to damnation.
I have much more to say about good and evil, but I would like to hear your feedback first.

[SoylentGreen]

Your definitions are a bit narrow and quite subjective. To a theist a non believer like you is the evil one and some one who sits around and does nothing must be surviving off other peoples efforts which makes him a parasite and could be deemed evil as you define it.

There is no such thing as good or evil as entities in of themselves. They are concepts that are attributed to thought and actions of people and are purely, as you have shown , subjective concepts.

[Leichenhalle]

I base my ideals of good and evil off whether or not somebody is harmed by an action.
For someone who does nothing and is a parasite, then they would be considered evil due to their leaching off the others. However, if that someone could adequately support themselves and do next to nothing, then they are good since they do no evil.

And if a theist believes that a non-believer is evil, then that only proves the ignorance brought upon them by their religion. For what harm does a non-believer do?

[SoylentGreen]

Leichenhalle However, if that someone could adequately support themselves and do next to nothing, then they are good since they do no evil.

There is a saying, I can't remember who said it or exactly how it goes but roughly it says

Evil only flourishes when the good do nothing.

And if he is doing next to nothing then what actual good is he doing?

And if a theist believes that a non-believer is evil, then that only proves the ignorance brought upon them by their religion. For what harm does a non-believer do?

Many theists do no harm in their belief and actually do some good.
In fact I hope you don't mind if I point out that by labeling all theists in the same mold you are guilty of prejudice and bigotry.
How do those two relate in your balance of good and evil.

[Leichenhalle]

I continue to stand by my declaration that if a person does nothing then he is good.

Evil only flourishes when the good do nothing.

First off, I would like to point out that there will always be some good people who do things, and your quote applies only to a small part of a larger group.
Second, If the good were to do nothing, then how exactly can evil flourish? I guess that if some evil were to commit some evil act...but then again, there always have been and always will be people to counteract that.

And if he is doing next to nothing then what actual good is he doing?

The good that he/she does is that he/she does not add to the evil.

In fact I hope you don't mind if I point out that by labeling all theists in the same mold you are guilty of prejudice and bigotry.

For this, I would like to direct your attention to the "if" that begins the statement you were referring to.
By no means do I claim that all theists are the same, which was why I was certain to place that "if" there.

I am most certainly not guilty of any prejudice or bigotry, though if you still want to know how I relate those two to good and evil, then I think that they are evil, since they are likely to invoke malicious actions.

[banko]

I don't think a person can claim any act inherently evil or good. What if a person does nothing to stop a rape or murder? To make claims about what is evil and what is good is to speak about your ideas or morality. And this subject is completely subjective as everyone has different beliefs.

For example there was a court case in Canada where the father killed his daughter because she was severely handicapped and had no hope of having any quality of life, she was in pain and suffering. He was sent to jail for murder. Some call what he did evil, others call what he did compassionate. So was it better to end her suffering life or would it have been better to let her continue to suffer for years?
CBC News Indepth: Robert Latimer

[CoffeeSaint]

Better to end her life, but he should have done it sooner.

I think the disconnect here is in the basic assumption: is the world inherently good, or inherently evil? If good things will generally happen to people without the interference of others (seems to be your position, Leichenhalle, since you were saying that other people would do good things even if the inactive person does not) then inaction is acceptable. If, on the other hand, you think the world is inherently evil or harmful, which seems to be SoylentGreen's argument -- and is the Christian belief -- then inaction is tacit acceptance of the world's evil. "The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." Sir Edmund Burke.

So, does the world give us help, or harm?

[SoylentGreen]

Thank you Coffee the name was on the tip of my tongue, just couldn't quite remember it.
I am probably one of those students you would call evil, bright enough to know it amd to dumb to remember it.
I don't think the world is neccessarily an evil place, there is a lot of good out there to, but it can be a bitch.
I don't believe good and evil is something out there in the world, its something that dwells in each of us and we all have a little bit of it in us. With the potential to do great good or great evil.

[Suburbanite]

Quote by: Leichenhalle To start, is there such thing as good and evil? My answer: Yes - but not as many people would guess it to be. I believe that good is anyone who means no harm to others, though not necessarily someone who actually is beneficial to society. Therefore, I believe that somebody who sits around and does nothing all day is a good person (of course somebody who dedicates their life to helping others is good as well, though I make no distinction between the two). An evil person is anyone who has malicious intents toward others. By “malicious intents” I mean any action that would bring unjustified anguish unto another person. This is where I bring religions into this. Christians believe that their religion is the only one out of countless religions in the world that is correct, and with such a position, they are effectively damning the majority of the world’s population to their hell. This makes Christians evil in my book. This isn’t restricted only to Christians, every religion that I currently know of thinks that their religion is correct and everyone else is wrong and destined to damnation. I have much more to say about good and evil, but I would like to hear your feedback first.

And what about, say, the Minister who risks his life to feed African refugees but also beats his wife? Good or Evil?
Can't people have several contradictory intentions, a public and private life? Does Good and Evil really need to play a role in how we describe HUMANS?

[Leichenhalle]

What if a person does nothing to stop a rape or a murder?

If that is the case, then by doing nothing, they are doing something. Passively allowing a crime to occur is just as bad as committing the crime yourself - the very least you can do is call the police.

...father killed his daughter because she was severely handicapped and had no hope of having any quality of life...

This is a tough one but if the daughter had absolutely no chance of a recover, then I take the father's side.

(all of CoffeeSaint)

I am not saying that the world is either inherently good or evil, merely that the actions performed have a side.

...the minister who risks his life...also beats his wife

The feeding people is good. The beating his wife is bad.
People are not confined to either good or evil. As for good or evil playing a role in how we describe humans, most definitely it does. That is how man's laws are made.

[SoylentGreen]

Leichenhalle I am not saying that the world is either inherently good or evil, merely that the actions performed have a side.

And basically it depends on whose side your on as to whether the action is good or evil.

People are not confined to either good or evil. As for good or evil playing a role in how we describe humans, most definitely it does. That is how man's laws are made.

But as shown people can be both good and evil, actions can have both good and evil consequences depending on the viewpoint you want to take.
You are trying to simplify into black and white what is really only shades of grey.
In story books and your imagination there is Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader. But in the real world neither exist.

Are you saying that it is just that laws are made based on the personal interpretations of a persons view of what is good or evil rather than on objective variables ?

[Leichenhalle]

I am not trying to show that there is only Luke and Vader - I merely want to show that there is an identifiable difference between good and evil. I know that there is no one person who is the epitome of good/evil.

And as for the laws, oh yes I am saying that they are made based off personal interpretations of good and evil.

If they were made off of objective variables, then there would only be one type of murder. However, since they are made off of personal interpretations, there are different degrees of murder based off of how evil the judge believes the crime to be.

[SoylentGreen]

Leichenhalle I merely want to show that there is an identifiable difference between good and evil.

I have no problem with there being a difference between the two, But unless you can show that they are seperate entities in their own right then they are purely subjective and meaningless outside a personal wiew point.

If they were made off of objective variables, then there would only be one type of murder.

Totally disagree, a judge does not and should not be considring such subjrctive concepts when passing sentence. There view is based on how much of a threat a convicted person may have on society and judge accordingly. The degrees of murder from manslaughter to murder are based on an objective view of actions and intent, not on a personal view of evil.

[Leichenhalle]

When the laws were made for the different degrees of murder, attention was paid to just how evil different types of murder were. Which is why we have various forms. While a judge may decide which degree the murder is by objectively studying the evidence, it doesn't alter that the laws were made with consideration to their own subjunctive views of good and evil.

Which brings me to how most people view good and evil. They do not realize the objective truth and instead replace it with their subjunctive imaginings.

[SoylentGreen]

Leichenhalle When the laws were made for the different degrees of murder, attention was paid to just how evil different types of murder were.

I think this is a statement yoiu will have to back up with proof.

In terms of law evil has strong prescriptive elements, evoking the necessity to destroy--or at the very least severely punish--the evildoers.

According to Kant, the phrase "man is evil" means that although man is conscious of the moral law, he has nevertheless adopted into his maxim the occasional deviation there from. This tendency can be called a natural propensity to evil. Kant also thought, that man must be held responsible for it, since it is ultimately self-caused. Which gives justification to lawmakers to punish those they see as evil doers.

But "evil" is mostly used as a term of condemnation rather than an analytical concept,
Serious efforts to define the term evil have found it to be essentially incomprehensible, and has no meaning in terms of legal definition.

They do not realize the objective truth

Well looking back among other posts here it would seem most do hold the view that evil is subjective. So OK i'll bight, lets here it.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Leichenhalle I am not saying that the world is either inherently good or evil, merely that the actions performed have a side.

But doing nothing is either good or evil, depending on what else is happening; in and of itself, it is neutral, and it is only made good or evil by context. You yourself proved this when you said that doing nothing was good, except in the case of doing nothing while a crime was being committed, when it became evil. It's the same non-action, but the context makes it something else. And that is why good and evil are subjective, not objective; the closest we come to objective morality is those moralities that are common enough that all of us, or nearly all of us, share them; but even those are not created by some physical reality outside of our minds, because there are cases of deviance from the norm. In other words, gravity is an objective law of the universe outside of our interpretation, and so it has no exceptions: everything falls down when you drop it. But the morality against killing, and the morality against rape, and the morality against cruelty, etc., etc., etc., are broken all the time, by people who don't actually think they're doing the wrong thing. These are all subjective.

Quote by: Leichenhalle When the laws were made for the different degrees of murder, attention was paid to just how evil different types of murder were. Which is why we have various forms. While a judge may decide which degree the murder is by objectively studying the evidence, it doesn't alter that the laws were made with consideration to their own subjunctive views of good and evil.

This is incorrect. The differing degrees of murder have to do with the potential for the act to be repeated, and thus how long the person should be incarcerated: if the murder was an accident/unintentional, and the person shows remorse (third degree), there is less chance of it happening again, so that person requires less rehabilitation than someone who decided to murder, planned it and carried it out -- that's the "malice aforethought" of murder in the first degree. It isn't a question of how evil the person is, though that certainly gets a lot of play from lawyers trying to convince juries.

[Battig1370]

good vs. evil?

What is good and what is evil is like defining what is moral and what is immoral. What cultural definition are we to use?

Generation after generation 'actions and deeds' have been, and are 'the real teachers' of the children in this world. Then we wonder why we have so much exploition and violence in this world.

The US Pres. has said that certain countries are on the side of evil. Our great leader says we are on the side of good and he says, "We'll teach the side of evil a lesson because of what they have done to us. We'll show them!, and then all the children of the world will know that we are on the side of good!"

Then listen!, to the children cry! Blood and flesh plastered all over the place. Homes, schools, hospitals and etc. destroyed. Than when the side of good has gone home, the crying children came out to play with these metal baseballs that the side of good left behind. <<< BOOM!!!>>> Again, listen to the children cry!

What lesson have these crying children learned from the side of good?

Does an idividual or a nation have to do evil or be evil to defend the side of good?

[knowman]

I'd say to understand good and evil, one would know them by their fruits, no judgement needed, Good reflects good and evil reflects evil, and everything else is Judgement..
<< Knowman >>