Good/Evil

[aliantha]

I took a quick browse through the topics and didn't see this specific one.

Here's my question: Is it possible for us to break away from the good/evil dichotomy?

We here in Western Civilization (and I may be using the term "civilization" loosely ) set great store by either/or thinking: black/white, good/bad, etc. It's hard for us, sometimes, to see gray areas. It's hard for us, sometimes, to accept ourselves and others as simply human -- not good, not bad, just screwed-up humans.

I think a lot of this comes from the Judeo-Christian religious traditions. If you're not good, you're bad; we're all sinners; etc.

What's all the self-flagellation for? Is it possible to move away from the either/or judgments? What would that kind of society look like?

Two reasons I'm bringing this up:

1. We talked about negative self-talk at Weight Watchers just now. If you're sticking to the program, eating what you should, etc., then of course you're "good". But sometimes you're "good" and the scale doesn't show it. Or you don't get the results you want. Or you have a bad week and eat everything in sight. Then of course, you're "bad" -- and with that comes all the self-flagellation ( except you're at both ends of the device ), and before you know it, you've eaten half a package of Oreos and a pint-size serving of Haagen-Dazs. Or -- more commonly -- you eat something that you perceive as "bad" and then proceed with the because, what the hell, you've blown it already anyway -- when if you just added up your points instead of beating yourself up, you'd realize you weren't that far off-track, after all. If we could just get "good/bad" out of the discussion of eating behaviors -- and other behavioral changes, too -- I think it might keep people from derailing themselves. To a degree, anyhow.

2. In the "Random destinies" thread, Rus made a post to the effect of "being alive is good, so death is not-good, or in other words, evil". Again, "good/bad". Why do we put it in those terms? To me, life just *is*. Sometimes my life is good and sometimes it sucks. I think that's pretty common -- and pretty much the human experience. Do we need to bring value judgments into it?

Anyhow -- comments? I'm not looking for a definition of good/evil. I'm asking whether you think it's possible -- or desirable -- to move away from such dichotomies in thinking.

[Zarathustra]

I think you'd like Nietzsche. Try his Beyond Good and Evil.

Of course, I'm entirely on board with your suggestion. But it requires us to give up our idea that absolutes exist.

[Avatar]

Ah, I have such fond memories of the last time we tried this. (Well, to be fair, not this specifically. That was more a "what is good or evil" attempt...but it was great. )

I think a lot of things sometimes just "are." It is possible to move away from the dichotomy, but it's not pleasant. Because that just leads to the inevitable realisation that nobody is right or wrong, that there is no real good or evil. And that, unless you've got a serious megalomaniacal bent, can be tough to take. (Hell...it can be tough even with such a bent. )

But people tend not to think that way...pretty much everybody, (including myself, who really tries for subjectivism), can come up with something they think is evil. And the tendancy is to judge based on your own point of view. Which is why people can't understand people who do what they see as "evil."

Maybe "evil" is too strong a word...but the sense of rightness or wrongness is there...produced socially? Probably pretty much I suspect.

As for what the kind of society in which nobody cast judgements as to good or bad would look like...well...it might be a little messy. Because who would be competent to permit or forbid anything? Everything must be acceptable if there is no value judgement. Everything.

--A

[aliantha]

Yeah, I figured we must have been down this road before...

Malik, I read a little bit of Nietzsche, back in the day. He was kind of a nihilist, yes? Or am I thinking about somebody else? (Freshman seminar was a really long time ago...) I think when you take things to that extreme, that's when you approach that sense of hopelessness among atheists that Rus was talking about.

Av, so this way lies anarchy, huh? I do agree with you guys that trying to move away from absolutes makes a lot of folks profoundly uncomfortable. And I'm not saying, necessarily, that evil doesn't exist -- altho I do tend to make excuses (of the mental-illness variety, if nothing else) for most baddies. ("Batsh*t crazy" really ought to be in the DSM, don't ya think? )

But there's a lot of value in getting away from absolutes, and not just in the realm of personal behaviors. Compromise is virtually impossible once you've demonized the folks on the other side of an issue -- which is part of what has been wrong with American politics over the past generation or so. (OMG, I said "wrong"! I just made a value judgment! What was I thinking? )

And in saying that moving away from the dichotomous (is that a word?) mindset, society would degenerate into anarchy -- hmm, isn't that an absolutist kind of thought? I'm not saying it wouldn't happen; I'm just saying there could be other, less dire, outcomes.

[Avatar]

Well, the other thread died 3 years ago, so I wouldn't worry about retreading it.

There is clearly value in getting away from absolutes. And I think the greatest value does lie in inter-personal relations. Once you can see it from the other point of view, the other perspective, it usually seems a lot more understandable, if nothing else.

And yes, American politics seems a fine example of demonising the opposition, on both sides.

As for the anarchic outcomes...what other option is there? The people who kill for fun or profit are unlikely to stop just because society says it can no longer call them "evil" or "bad." While anarchy might be a little strong, it is unlikely to be a moderating influence in social development.

(Or is it...afterall, it would free us to torture and kill the murderers and rapists too...that might moderate things a little...maybe. Or not.)

--A

[aliantha]

(Or is it...afterall, it would free us to torture and kill the murderers and rapists too...that might moderate things a little...maybe. Or not.)

--A

That's the spirit!

[Cameraman Jenn]

good vs. evil? I think extremes are for extreme situations. Everyone has a bit of both and most life lies in between.

[Avatar]

Yes, but its the extremes that people tend to gravitate toward when pressed, don't you think?

--A

[lucimay]

I think you'd like Nietzsche. Try his Beyond Good and Evil.

Of course, I'm entirely on board with your suggestion. But it requires us to give up our idea that absolutes exist.

wow!! you read my mind!! i was thinking EXACTLY those two things!!!

and i'm sooooo not philosophical minded like you malik!! weird!!!

i have, many times, rallied against the absolute thinking myself!! it drives me insane. but i find that sooooo many people succumb to this type of thinking...either/or, good/bad, right/wrong.

"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." Nietzsche

[Lord Mhoram]

ali,

I should come back to this thread later but your opening post reminds me of Jacques Derrida's monumental work on "binary oppositions" (his phrase). He maintains that the sort of dichotomies you are talking about (good/evil, master/slave, and as he would add: writing/speaking) are pervasive in Western culture, especially Western intellectual culture. A dichotomy is established, and one component of it is always privileged over the other. These structures should also be broken down, according to him. Interesting stuff. Nietzsche is also a good recommendation (and an influence on Derrida). Beyond Good and Evil is a wonderful text. Incidentally, my view on all this is that the "moral anarchism," as I would term it, of Derrida and Nietzsche is rather premature, and would have harmful effects upon society's welfare.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I think it is a relative, imposed sense of urgency (self or externally placed) that motivates humans into what history paints as great acts of good/evil. I find it interesting to wonder where that sense of urgency is sourced. Is it basic (animal) struggle for survival? Defense or propagation of religion, philosophy, patriotism, or the less pure but equally slavish duty in following someone who subscribes to one of those 'greater purposes'?
It's the extremes that have given us the quickenings, or 'plot twists' in our history books. How we view them depends on our own judgments (whether they were self-derived or handed to us by rote). But were those extremes caused by too much good/evil, or too much herd/tribal mentality?
Its funny that we are categorized as Homo sapiens sapiens, literally translated as "thinking thinking man," - when not all of us can be found guilty of such a charge.

dw

[Avatar]

Incidentally, my view on all this is that the "moral anarchism," as I would term it, of Derrida and Nietzsche is rather premature, and would have harmful effects upon society's welfare.

Like Prof De la Paz said...we're not responsible enough. Personally, I'm not sure we ever will be.

--A

[lucimay]

doesn't mean we shouldn't make the attempt.

[lurch]

..Its not Good or Evil...Its The " OR"..as if there are only two choices. The limitation placed on a mind with " OR" and the acceptance of the limitations,is self defeatism.

Existing within the self defeating limitation causes frustration leading to who knows what kind of behavior. So the idea is Use the polarity created by the " Or" to spring board one to a " creative resolution" of the diametrically opposed in conflict. This simplified " Surrealist" perspective is totally to do with the Individual. Basically the Individual,,and potentially Every Individual , is creative and thus some sort of " poet" in the most general of sense. If folks learn of their potential Poet, experience it first hand, then, as a society, many woes , lemons, are turned to lemonade, by the thought process " naturally".

The " Or" existence is not healthy for an individual, and thus, not healthy for Mankind.

[Avatar]

And of course, there's the question of balance as well. Can we know what is good if we don't have some sort of concept to oppose it to? Good/Not Good?

Gotta have contrast to recognise any...quality.

--A

[Loredoctor]

I find the belief in good and evil rather simplistic and silly. Quite why I also think Star Wars movies morality is utter rubbish.

[Avatar]

Elaborate?

--A

[aliantha]

In the absence of Lore's elaboration , I'll say that I tend to agree with him. It seems like the more we know about brain chemistry, the more we find "evil" people are more mentally ill than anything else. Instead of good/evil, then, we end up with normal/abnormal as a more accurate description of what's going on.

Of course, that begs the question of who's in charge of determining what's normal. Back to the DSM4 we go....

And of course, there's the question of balance as well. Can we know what is good if we don't have some sort of concept to oppose it to? Good/Not Good?

Gotta have contrast to recognise any...quality.

Well, sure. But not everything should be reduced to a dichotomy.

[Avatar]

Maybe not, but you have to have a standard of comparison. If "this" is good, then "not-this" must be bad...a confusing but necessary line I think.

--A

[wayfriend]

Maybe not, but you have to have a standard of comparison. If "this" is good, then "not-this" must be bad...a confusing but necessary line I think.

I disagree. The absence of good is not evil, it's just ... indifferent. Neutral, if you will.

If feeding the hungry is good, is not feeding the hungry evil? Stealing food from people and leaving them hungry is evil. Doing nothing is not evil, just ... not good.

(This is not an argument that doing nothing is neither good nor evil in all cases.)

So ... there is good, neutral, and evil. At least, as I see it.

The alternative would be to condemn as evil anyone not doing good.

That's zealotry, among other things. Its not a system conducive to allowing for different interpretations of good and evil, that's for sure.