Good vs. Evil--A Philosophical Question...

rainmaker

Hi Everyone--

I've had a burning question on my mind lately that bears discussing. The question is really two-fold in a sense.

Firstly, do good and evil truly exsit or is everything merely a product of circumstances?

For instance, a man kills another man out of rage. Can we really label him "evil" since his dislike for the other person was brought on by the given situation? Had his fate been different, the murder might not have taken place, after all.

Secondly, can we even define good and evil? In our modern context, do these concepts really exist as we believe? Or, like many other things, are they simply theoretical concepts set on a continuum?

Any of your thoughts on this matter are certainly welcomed.

--rainmaker

scotty

Welcome to Frihost. You pose a very deep question which would get a better response in the Philosophy and Religion forum. Also you might wish to look at some of the similar threads in that forum.

Rako

I think good and evil is just a concept almost brainwashed into you from berth we can't really define good or evil. we just get told that and eventually start to believe it. having saying this other people may think like me so that is why they could have made GOD because a Devin being would Definitely know what is right and wrong, good or evil. but I still do believe in god or at least i believe a person named Jesus existed.

Liambaby

In my opinion (and Nietzsche's), there can be no good and evil, as both are concepts created by man. Therefore, it is just one persons opinion over another. For instance, Saddam Hussein; how quick the world is to condemn him, but who are we to say what is right and wrong? Everyone has their own beliefs and moral system, so what may be evil for one person, may be good for another. Law is the most ridiculous example of this. Not only are they judging people, but administering their own justice based on their view of what is right. The only person to judge should be oneself, because only you know what is right and wrong for you.

ocalhoun

lordfrikk

Firstly, I'd like to say that good & evil is black & white point of view, and as such it cannot exist in the real world. Nothing is stricly black or white. At least I believe it.

I kinda agree with what Liambaby said, but on the contrary, there would be anarchism if everyone's opinion was right and moral... Law isn't perfect, of course, but at least in some cases it gives us guidelines of how to act in certain situations.

I think in most cases our intentions make us act beyond good & evil.

Liambaby

But my point is, who is to say these guidelines are right or wrong? Again it boils down to one persons opinion over another. If you believe what you're doing is morally right, who is anyone to condemn you, as they would just be forcing their particular moral standards upon you.
If someone did steal my car, and did believe in their view it was morally right, I could not condemn it, as what I believe is morally right might deeply offend them. A law is just something written down, an opinion. It is not absolute fact, as noone can claim absolutely what is right or wrong. It is a basic flaw in humanity that we have free will, and yet rely on the justice system, as free will itself determines what each individual believes in.
It is independant thought which has progressed the human race, not a collective belief, as no collective can ever truly represent every individual 100 per cent.
xx

benjmd

Any good philosophical discussion needs to start with definitions and premises. I would like to begin by suggesting that "good" and "evil" are value terms. That is, they denote something about whatever they describe that is useful to us in decision making. In fact, I would contend that "good" and "evil" are the most basic value terms we have. They represent diametrically opposed parts of what we use in decision making. I would therefore contend that "good" things are those whose selection is most beneficial and "evil" things are the least beneficial. But then what does it mean to be beneficial? I like the following two aspects of dictionary.com's definition: "helpful in the meeting of needs" and "involving the personal enjoyment of proceeds." I think both suggest something we call "happiness."

As many point out though, a simple "black and white" view of things belies the reality of decision making. Decision making is a process of listing and assigning values to consequences. Given that a decision may involve more than two solutions, the matrix of solutions, consequences, and values can become quite extensive for even simple decisions. Despite this complexity, however, it should be acknowledged that if values can properly be assigned that there will be ONE solution that has a maximal cumulative value. I doubt that two solutions could tie in this scenario although it is a possibility.

But how do we assign value appropriately? People assign different values, but the question we are left with is if there is a correct value independent of individual opinions. I think this is a matter of faith, no matter what you think the answer is, because proving it is beyond just about all of us. I would suggest that there is an independent correct value to a number of choices and that our individual differences stem from our inability to fully perceive all the options and consequences available to us.

I would like to provide two illustrations:

A man insults a second man every single day at the workplace, embarassing him in front of coworkers. The second man kills the first man. Why does he kill the first man? He feels hurt and anguish and wishes to displace that emotion onto the person causing him to experience it. He knows that killing this man will stop the insults. Not feeling hurt and not being insulted are both GOOD things. He does not consider the value of human life, his potential imprisonment, the hurt to the first man's family and friends, etc. which are all BAD things. Most of us are willing to think that the consequences we label as bad in this scenario cumulatively outweight the consequence we label as good. Therefore, the decision to kill is overall bad. This was a simple kill or not kill decision in which the overall value of 'kill' is likely to be "bad" but the man making the decision only totalled some of the consequences and their values and reached a sum value of "good."

A very rich man offers another man two choices: The rich man will donate $1000 to a charity or the rich man will donate $5000 to that same charity. The rich man is so rich that his loss of $1000 is indistinguishable from his loss of $5000. Choosing to give $1000 to charity is overall a good value. Choosing to give $5000 to charity is also an overall good value. Things do not appear black and white here. Because only one choice can be made, it must be determined which choice contains more good. That is to say, producing more good than other options is in and of itself a consequence with a positive value. I would therefore contend that it is not "good" and "evil" with which we are concerned by rather mostly the placement of the sum value on the continuum between zero good and an infinite amount of good.

I would like to add that if you consider my assessment reasonable, that the prospect of this continuum having a positive, infinite end is a demonstration of God. Given that value is assigned to decisions and this is done by evaluation of both value and consequences, knowledge is necessary. To be able to always evaluate consequences and values completely, one must have infinite knowledge. A perfect evaluation bolstered by infinite knowledge then produces this maximum, infinite good. Can we as humans do this? No. Quantum physics tells us that we can't know everything. Don't need philosophy for that. However, there exists a best solution for every decision point and therefore, whether any of us should ever experience it, the concept of an infinite good has a very real existence.

Have I proven that there is a Christian God? No. But I think it certainly suggests the existence of infinite knowledge and infinite good. For those of us that do believe in a God, we talk of a meaningful embodiment of those two elements. I think the question "Does God exist?" has much less merit than the question, "What is this 'God'?"

Soulfire

I like to think of "good" and "evil" as generalized, very basic ideas. For instance, most of us believe that killing another human is "evil" - but if we go into why the killing occured, more and more people become seperated and have their own beliefs, thoughts, and opinions.

So I suppose good and evil aren't solid, concrete definitions, but a label placed on circumstance.

cardo71

"..to him who knowingly does wrong, to that man it is sin." - Jesus.

In my opinon, Good and Evil describes a basic sense that exists within us all. That feeling that you get when you are about to do something you consider to be wrong can be classified as evil. The elation that you feel from the gratitude and respect you receive after a good deed can be classified as good. Since everyone has felt both of these at one time or another, as a society we can generalize good and evil by determining the circumstances most of us feel "good" and the circumstances perceive as "evil".

My belief in God gives rise to the rest of my opinion, and opinons vary widely. God has a purpose and plan for each of us, and no two plans are the same. On an individual basis, what is felt as good and evil will vary, and sometimes even be opposing. What is good for one person may not be good for another, and the same for evil. Since His plans and purposes are infinite, the possibilities of the reasons why are infinite. However, one possibility for one person to feel good in the same circumstance that another feels evil is that God wants the first person there, and not the other.

In this sense, good is everything that is good for you. Love, understanding, mercy, compassion, health, honor, respect, etc. And evil is everything that is bad for us, or bent on our destruction. Hate, bitterness, condemnation, disrespect, unhealthy activities, pride arrogance, etc.

So, if you want to know if an act or circumstance is good or evil, just ask yourself, " Does it benefit not only the individual the act or circumstace generated from, but all those who witnessed the act or circumstance as well?" In other words, did everyone walk away filled with a sense of good or evil? The answer may give you the category.

Vidollo

I think before the reality of good and evil can really be debated, the issue of God must be brought up. If you believe in God, then there can be (and most would say is) an outside source that sets the standard for morals, thereby leaving us with true right and wrong. This doesn't necessarily mean that it is all black and white, as one person noted. Many people see killing in war as right/okay because of the beneficial end, yet killing in cold blood is condemned by nearly all. Thus the act of killing itself has no moral value, but instead the morality of the act is determined by the motive behind it. To bring this to home for people who oppose war, if someone was attempting to rape/murder your sister (or mother, girlfriend, etc.) and you killed them simply by trying to save her. You would really be killing out of love, and few people would suggest that the motive of love could ever be morally wrong.

However, if there is no God, there is no outside standard. And if there is no outside standard, then all that is left to determine morality in mankind, as we judge from what nature indicates and what history has proven. Beyond that, there is no source of morality.

Cole

What is good and what is evil are simply opinions.
In WW2 Hitler thought he was good and what he was doing was right.
While your opinion may be against hitlers, it doesn't matter they're opinions.

cardo71