Good/Evil

[aliantha]

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

And a whole bunch of shades of gray in between. That's my real objection to thinking in dichotomies, I think: the danger of applying if/then thinking, i.e., "if not good, then evil; if not white, then black". That's what leads to self-castigation in situations similar to what I originally cited -- you were being "good" and staying on your diet, but then you had 6 cookies instead of 2, therefore you were "bad", so, since you're already a "bad" person, you end up sitting down with a pint of Ben & Jerry's and a spoon. Clearly there's a continuum for diet-blowing, and 4 extra cookies isn't nearly as far along it as a bucket of KFC.

I do agree with you, Av, that it's important to establish endpoints on the continuum. But it's also important to know that being a little bit off the mark doesn't mean you're "pegging the needle" on the bad side.

(Hmm, I like the visual image of the continuum. I may bring this up at our next meeting...)

[Avatar]

I certainly agree that there are many many shades of grey. In fact, I tend to think of most of it as shades of grey. I'm not convinced that there is a line. Not one that exists out of a shared social context in any case.

--A

[Earthwalker]

Hmmm.....
touchy subject for some....hope I don't piss anyone off here....

I think TCTC truly touches on this subject in the story of the Creator. When the creation of the rainbow somehow contains a flaw.

Thus we have the elixer of LIFE, the Yen and the Yang, positive & negative, dark & light, good & evil, and so on. /

So the perameters are set.
There is a blight in beauty. There can be no light without darkness, you have NO point of reference to distiguish one from one another....,and the peoples now must choose.

It is the energy force we label as good/evil...as well as others named above, plus more....that gives the universe - whichever universe - it's motion into existance. The BIG BANG as it were.

At an atomic level, in the universe, even the protons, nuetrons, electrons, nuetrinos, protiens, amminos, etc. are attempting to align themselves with one another for a myriad of purposes. Such as creating planets, water, nebulas, suns, beings, and so on, including those things that blow-up and scatter the atoms, to once again regroup as.....something.

** The amazing thing in that point is that these elements can form together in an unlimited number of 'things'. Including 'things' who's existance we don't even know....yet. **

But on their journey to complete-ness, they must contend with expansion, dark matter, black holes, and other unseen-unknown energy forces that share space, and oppose. The Blight...?

But energy particles themselves have no sentient worries about there life cycle, that we know of. We do know that WE can neither create nor destroy energy, we can only affect it, change it, split it up or put particles together....but we have not figured out how to make or destroy it.

It is our sentience that creates the desparate need to choose quickly and often since our life spans are so short....comparitavely.
We create good & evil so that we can choose. It is not necessary, we could live our lives without choosing any position on this good/evil issue.
But we have so little time to affect the future, for our posterity (haha, a microcosim of not being able to create or destroy even our own energies)....which is why I believe we choose to choose.

And then we make judgements on others for their positions, which begats another level to this thought process, namely what's Bad and what's GOOD. This helps to guide us to align with that which stands the best chance of thriving and surviving.

And there ya go, the rant of a crazy person.....or am I?

[Avatar]

I strongly suspect we can't have one without the other anyway. Or at least, wouldn't be able to recognise it.

--A

[Cybrweez]

That's true in a relative world. But maybe not in an absolute? In other words, if there is a standard of good, then evil does not have to exist. I guess the potential is there, but the action doesn't have to be.

[Cagliostro]

It seems odd to me that a discussion of good and evil would take place on a Donaldson website, as it seems like it would be pretty one-sided. Donaldson is the king of "shades of grey." That's why I generally prefer him to Tolkien. Tolkien is especially black & white, while Donaldson gives us someone that we are supposed to feel something for who is quite a jerk. I do think Lord Foul is pretty black & white though, or rather, just black. The only bit of greyness in him is that he wants to get out of the prison he is in, but not so he can go hand out flowers or anything. Same problem I had with Voldemort, really.

[Earthwalker]

A 'Donaldson website' is the perfect forum to discuss this subject.

There's a famous quote by whom....I forget...maybe Emerson, or Payne...whatever.......
"If there is creative writing, then there is also creative reading".

Using that principle of thought, I see the entire purpose of Donaldson telling this story is to educate us and inspire us to CHOOSE between good & evil.
To show that even in the most devastating of circumstances, with little or no tools available to work with, one can rise to the occasion.

Poor Thomas, as if his own life wasn't a reason to not believe....being stuck in the middle of a world where each and every choice he makes affects someone, in often the worst of ways.
To have expectations of you be so lofty, hopeful and powerful, and produce little more than ruin at every turn?
How much worse can it get.....yet he finds a way to excercise freedom of choice and love to ultimately be victorious amidst his un-belief.

If that isn't the human story then......what is?
We can build skyscrapers to the heavens, bridges to somewhere over impossible expanses.....but to believe is tantemount to Death.

[rusmeister]

I imagine my reply would be among the more unpopular ones, but I would just point out that the views people hold on good and evil are based on their ultimate philosophy, which is the single most important thing about us (life philosophy, world view, religion...)

First, the traditional understanding presented of evil (judeo-Christian) as "self-flagellation" is not completely accurate, although where it is, it is certainly a product of western (Roman) Christianity and the reaction to it (Protestantism). Of course, this kind of leaves eastern Christianity completely off the radar screen, even though it is the second largest Christian faith after the Roman Catholic Church. In orthodoxy, sin is described as "amartia" (missing the mark, and it means falling short of what we should be - so sin is more of a disease that we either voluntarily participate in/encourage or fight. It allows for an acknowledgement that we are not where we should be. Everything - the Sacraments, the practices, are designed around this - and it is very much NOT the western "punishment/and pay for your sins" view seen in the west. I think, Aliantha, you would find that Orthodox Christianity views evil in a way rather different from the "Judeo-Christian" you are used to (and it seems,you would be more inclined to agree with it). Sin is indeed an illness, a virus - a cancer.

This view largely contradicts Wayfriend's, however - neutral means choosing self, which is the nature of 'the original sin'; that of placing self first. Lucifer's sin was one of pride and saying "I don't need God; I'll make myself a god, and this is what Adam and Eve fell for, too - it wasn't sex or eating apples that constituted the Fall.

However, I would say that WF is right insofar as indifference is indeed a true opposite of love.

Oh, and Avatar is very, very right that in order to recognize good, there must be an absolute standard to measure it against. If anyone doubts that, then they are forbidden to ever use the words "better" or "worse" until such time as they realize that a comparison implies a standard. A standard implies a superlative. It is expressed by the concepts 'good', 'better' , and 'the best'.

Agree with LM on Lucasfilms, too. His (Lucas's) philosophy is rather muddled. Of course, I'll challenge the idea that good and evil are simplistic and silly.

[Earthwalker]

rusmeister...your reply is correct actually, when trying to get to the point thru understanding a persons POV.
I think I may be thinking too generally but...,
I'm not sure the concept or origin or basis for Good & Evil is religious in nature at all.

My guess is that religion simply capitalized on the idea, effectively, mostly because it was a fully understood thought process by the time the church came about....assuming, of course, your beliefs allow you to think of life existing prior to Biblical times.
Good & Evil really just are.

A concept that children get when they are very young. Who's the good guy who's the bad guy? And which is their favorite, Spiderman.....Green Goblin? (side note: kids don't need to be told which one is which)

The Sumarians got it, the Greeks got it, the Romans got it, Early/Primative native peoples, in every corner of the globe acknowledge the existence of Good/Evil in their legends and lore.
2 ways of living which will you aspire to?

The nuances and the shades of grey are sophisticated tools of those seeking NOT to choose. Which may be neither good nor evil necessarily. Perhaps there is purpose to a hard-working SwampWitch, as opposed to a fence walker that can't decide and therefore does nothing?

[rusmeister]

rusmeister...your reply is correct actually, when trying to get to the point thru understanding a persons POV.
I think I may be thinking too generally but...,
I'm not sure the concept or origin or basis for Good & Evil is religious in nature at all.

My guess is that religion simply capitalized on the idea, effectively, mostly because it was a fully understood thought process by the time the church came about....assuming, of course, your beliefs allow you to think of life existing prior to Biblical times.
Good & Evil really just are.

It's fine to not be sure of the basis of good and evil. I would question hidden assumptions in saying that "religion capitalized on the idea...", though, and what precisely that means. When you say "the church", I presume you mean "the Christian Church" (ie, 33AD)? Also, since "Biblical times" go back to the very beginning of Creation, and speak of the "7 days" (however they are interpreted), it's hard to imagine life existing before that.
I think where you are right is that certainly moral law (good and evil) was well known from the very beginning of human history. There has been disagreement in the specifics, but not in the generalities. It didn't require "development", either, except as far as application of the concepts goes

Moral Law and Christian Ethics

The idea . . . that Christianity brought a new ethical code into the world is a grave error. If it had done so, then we should have to conclude that all who first preached it wholly misunderstood their own message: for all of them, its Founder, His precursor, His apostles, came demanding repentance and offering forgiveness, a demand and an offer both meaningless except on the assumption of a moral law already known and already broken.
(Christian Reflections, edited by Walter Hooper, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1967 [c.1942], 46, "On Ethics")

A concept that children get when they are very young. Who's the good guy who's the bad guy? And which is their favorite, Spiderman.....Green Goblin? (side note: kids don't need to be told which one is which)

I think it especially telling that children do not need to be taught to do wrong (including selfishness). It comes naturally. It is not a learned trait. Parents spend 100% of their effort on teaching children to do right. This is an indication that we are not dealing with 2 equal and opposite forces, but rather with one which is the original, and the other which is a mere shadow, a copy. Christian (OK, I'll specify Orthodox - to avoid bootless attacks on western punishment theologies) theology fully explains this. The explanation completely fits all of my experience.

I'd segue to Tolkien here to point out that he was NOT black and white (which seems to imply determinism/predestination). Gollum was redeemable, but fell, Sam, Frodo and the others were all in danger of falling, Boromir DID fall yet did repent at the end but they could have chosen differently. They were all at "different shades" at different points, yet had the free will to make choices, with struggles along the way. Sometimes we fall, and if we strive to be good, we get back up again and fight (most often against our own tendencies to selfishness).

The nuances and the shades of grey are sophisticated tools of those seeking NOT to choose. Which may be neither good nor evil necessarily. Perhaps there is purpose to a hard-working SwampWitch, as opposed to a fence walker that can't decide and therefore does nothing?

Change "sophisticated" to "sophistic" and I'll agree. If selfishness a preference for self at the expense of others, then it is not "neutral". It is evil.
I do agree that a person who has made a choice is more hopeful and human than a person who attempts to sit above them all, contemplating all and choosing none. (Ref. Chesterton's turnip, 1st paragraph) www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/heretics/ch20.html

[aliantha]

Wow, and to think this all started with a post about weight loss, and here we are, talking about the origin of good and evil.

Rus, it's good to know that Orthodoxy doesn't go in for self-flagellation.

I think a case can be made for the concepts of good and evil to have been agreed upon as part of the social compact. To a single human, "good" would be whatever allowed you to survive and thrive in a harsh environment, and "bad" would be something that killed you. As people started banding together in groups, "bad" also was something that you did that got somebody else killed. Doing bad things repeatedly could, I suppose, get you labeled as "evil", if the others in the group decided you were doing all these bad things deliberately.

It's a toss-up, I think, whether this "good/evil" concept came first, or whether religion did -- and by "religion" I mean the worship of *any* god/goddess, not just the Judeo-Christian God. We're talking all the way back to when our ancestors lived in huts (or tipis or whatever) and prayed to nature spirits. And yeah, Earthwalker, I can see how a shaman might capitalize on a group's existing concepts of good/evil to, say, exert control over the group.

I don't think that very young children have an inborn concept of good/evil. Babies just want to be fed and changed and cuddled. I suppose you could argue (and I'm sure some philosopher has ) that they eventually associate being warm and dry and not-hungry with "good," and the opposite state with "bad" -- but having raised my own kids, I would say that probably requires a higher level of cognition than a three-month-old, say, can muster. Anyway, once you move past the satisfaction of basic needs (hunger, thirst, clean diaper, affection), then the family group -- the village, if you will -- teaches the child the group's rules and mores, including the concept of good/evil *and* any religious beliefs. I mean, a toddler had to be *told* that it's bad to bop his playmate on the head and swipe his toy. A whole lot of childrearing, in the early years, is just this kind of stuff. So when you say that a kid can tell the difference between the good guy and the bad guy without being told, I'd respond that it's because the kid has been trained to tell the difference.

If you're going to bring fantasy fiction into the discussion, we would probably have to lay some groundwork first, along the lines that classic epic fantasy is always about good v. evil (see, for a very early example, Beowulf). In classic fantasy, the evil one must be pure evil, pretty much; the hero can have feet of clay (otherwise there's no dramatic tension), but his inherent goodness must be obvious. So: Bilbo and Frodo both struggle to overcome their desire for the ring. Covenant certainly has feet (and several other limbs ) of clay, and his inherent goodness is hard for us to see. But we stick with the story, partly because the people he meets in the Land obviously see goodness in him, and we want to find out whether he will live up to their expectations.

[Earthwalker]

Yeah, I am thinking way too generally for you 2.

But, if we parse this subject out to specific 'faith-based' organizations, it tends to loose some of it's allure, for me.
rusmiester your objective intellect, I like..., you have your '7 day' theory.
I'll stick with the geological time scale (ie: eons, eras, periods, epochs, and ages; and the corresponding chronostratigraphic units, which measure "rock-time", are eonothems, erathems, systems, series, and stages of evolution). We see things differently but all are relevant.

As Ali points out, thank you btw for seeing..., 'the church', religion, indeed refers to any type of spiritual leadership that holds itself above the followers. No preference to attacking Christianity will be given by me.
I will amend my words and say, that I do not believe the concept of Good/Evil is religious in nature, basis or origin.
Let's just say any social-economic-political-religious-corporate faction can, and has used this concept to their benefit.

I'm still stayin' with my 'kid theory'. I have 8 of them at all ages from 3 to 23, and still I am no expert...sigh...but I have seen boy and girl alike know the differences without benefit of an explaination or theory. I really think it is, in principle, such a simple truism. Good HARMS none, Evil harms. But there the generalities end...,

The most important thing is that we choose. For foundational purposes we must decide so that we have a moral basis to live, and judge our own lives and worth by.

TCTC give us great examples of why this is important. For instance, just because you murder someone or something does not automatically make you evil. Adversly just because you hide dangerous knowledge for 'good reasons' and send away friends to avoid danger (Kevin), doesn't make you a good guy. And beating yourself up, or judging yourself out of proportion to how you see/judge others, over these choices and happenings leads to despair, which helps nothing.

Hmm...This is an ongoing struggle for me. A quandry over, "doing what should be done, and doing what I think is right".
Tuff call sometimes, and as usual, you don't find out until 2 minutes till midnite.

[Avatar]

Good post Earthwalker.

--A

[rusmeister]

Wow, and to think this all started with a post about weight loss, and here we are, talking about the origin of good and evil.

Rus, it's good to know that Orthodoxy doesn't go in for self-flagellation.

I think a case can be made for the concepts of good and evil to have been agreed upon as part of the social compact. To a single human, "good" would be whatever allowed you to survive and thrive in a harsh environment, and "bad" would be something that killed you. As people started banding together in groups, "bad" also was something that you did that got somebody else killed. Doing bad things repeatedly could, I suppose, get you labeled as "evil", if the others in the group decided you were doing all these bad things deliberately.

It's a toss-up, I think, whether this "good/evil" concept came first, or whether religion did -- and by "religion" I mean the worship of *any* god/goddess, not just the Judeo-Christian God. We're talking all the way back to when our ancestors lived in huts (or tipis or whatever) and prayed to nature spirits. And yeah, Earthwalker, I can see how a shaman might capitalize on a group's existing concepts of good/evil to, say, exert control over the group.

I don't think that very young children have an inborn concept of good/evil. Babies just want to be fed and changed and cuddled. I suppose you could argue (and I'm sure some philosopher has ) that they eventually associate being warm and dry and not-hungry with "good," and the opposite state with "bad" -- but having raised my own kids, I would say that probably requires a higher level of cognition than a three-month-old, say, can muster. Anyway, once you move past the satisfaction of basic needs (hunger, thirst, clean diaper, affection), then the family group -- the village, if you will -- teaches the child the group's rules and mores, including the concept of good/evil *and* any religious beliefs. I mean, a toddler had to be *told* that it's bad to bop his playmate on the head and swipe his toy. A whole lot of childrearing, in the early years, is just this kind of stuff. So when you say that a kid can tell the difference between the good guy and the bad guy without being told, I'd respond that it's because the kid has been trained to tell the difference.

If you're going to bring fantasy fiction into the discussion, we would probably have to lay some groundwork first, along the lines that classic epic fantasy is always about good v. evil (see, for a very early example, Beowulf). In classic fantasy, the evil one must be pure evil, pretty much; the hero can have feet of clay (otherwise there's no dramatic tension), but his inherent goodness must be obvious. So: Bilbo and Frodo both struggle to overcome their desire for the ring. Covenant certainly has feet (and several other limbs ) of clay, and his inherent goodness is hard for us to see. But we stick with the story, partly because the people he meets in the Land obviously see goodness in him, and we want to find out whether he will live up to their expectations.

I've been wanting to respond to this for some time - finding time for more serious and lengthier online conversations is getting more difficult.
First of all, I should probably caveat the Orthodox view, which is that self-flagellation is a no-no, but we are to be sorry for and repent of our sins. The one thing we are not to be is merely OK with our current state, which may be (and is) likened to seeing a glass in a darkened room. It looks fine. The more light we admit the more flaws and dirt become apparent. Lewis put it that "the better you become, the more you become aware of how bad you really are". The saint says that he is the worst of sinners, and he is not joking or exaggerating. He is merely more fully aware of his true state. Conversely, the worse you are, the more you think that you are "all right". The person in the darkened room excuses, or is simply unaware all of their sins, all of their anger, snappiness, pride, or whatever. The 'bad' person, who never resists temptation, who always gives in, has never experienced struggle with evil. It is the person who resists, who struggles, who refuses to give in, who, when they do fall down get up again to fight on that are far more aware of just how low they are.

On your post - I think it's obvious that religion is a thing that developed, but good and evil have existed for all of history - Christianity fixes it from the Fall.

On babies, it is simple. They are selfish. We all are. It is a recognition of the needs and desires of others that must be taught. There is no need to teach a baby his own. I would express it that selfishness IS the basis of evil. The basis of good is "otherness". Now I don't mean that babies are 'evil'. But I do mean that their natural tendencies are toward that which adds up to evil, and that is why we must teach them otherness.

On teaching a child that something is bad:
I would say that you are right that a toddler must be taught that otherness will not tolerate selfishness (swiping another kid on the head). I think it would be better to say that the child does not need to be taught badness - he doesn't care about the other kid. It is precisely goodness that must be taught, and that is why they can (later) tell a difference between good guys and bad guys (although yes, it must be a result of training). (Not sure if we have a disagreement there or not.)

On Tolkien - Mostly agree on classic fantasy, except perhaps in the necessity of heroes having flaws for there to be dramatic tension - but LOTR makes departures from the genre in that sense, and Gollum and Wormtongue are all clear departures from it. Yes, they are basically evil - but unlike classic evil, they do experience a struggle (yes, for Wormtongue it doesn't last long) and really see an opportunity to be good, to make a choice. And Frodo does choose evil at the last, and only force saves him from destruction. And what are we to make of Boromir, who was good, if proud (clearly not a virtue), fell and repented?

[aliantha]

I can tell you've got kids, Rus. Yes, kids are born selfish. And I agree that we have to teach them how to be good. So I think we're in agreement there.

On LOTR: the Evil Incarnate is Sauron, of course. Gollum (hmm, don't really remember Wormtongue) is just a pawn. Yeah, Frodo was saved by a miracle -- Tolkien was a Christian, right? Ditto on Boromir -- his pride caused his fall, but then he repented, which is the classic Christian formula.

[rusmeister]

As Ali points out, thank you btw for seeing..., 'the church', religion, indeed refers to any type of spiritual leadership that holds itself above the followers. No preference to attacking Christianity will be given by me.
I will amend my words and say, that I do not believe the concept of Good/Evil is religious in nature, basis or origin.
Let's just say any social-economic-political-religious-corporate faction can, and has used this concept to their benefit.

This is a common rug to beat, and most often, I think the beating is justified. I do have a major objection, though, and that is to what adds up to an assumption that all spiritual leadership is necessarily corrupt and this becomes the "organized religion" bogey. I think that in an atheistic context the assumption is understandable and would be true. I reject atheism, though. If Christianity is true, then one the one hand its teaching that all men are sinners and therefore subject to corruption is true; on the other hand, then there IS a Church established by Christ which is a divine institution filled with non-divine people.

Even from an atheistic standpoint it is possible to acknowledge the possibility of an organization where most, if not all of the adherents, even in the spiritual leadership, actually believe what they preach and therefore, do not (in the sense intended above) use these concepts for their benefit, for such people see material benefit to actually be destruction.

It all comes back to the question, "Is a given faith true or not?".

I'm still stayin' with my 'kid theory'. I have 8 of them at all ages from 3 to 23, and still I am no expert...sigh...but I have seen boy and girl alike know the differences without benefit of an explaination or theory. I really think it is, in principle, such a simple truism. Good HARMS none, Evil harms. But there the generalities end...,

The most important thing is that we choose. For foundational purposes we must decide so that we have a moral basis to live, and judge our own lives and worth by.

Largely agree. I would differ in that good is more than merely not doing harm. Good (generally speaking) is specifically in doing good to others, not merely in leaving them alone. Evil is the thing which does nothing, and is indifferent to others.

TCTC give us great examples of why this is important. For instance, just because you murder someone or something does not automatically make you evil. Adversly just because you hide dangerous knowledge for 'good reasons' and send away friends to avoid danger (Kevin), doesn't make you a good guy. And beating yourself up, or judging yourself out of proportion to how you see/judge others, over these choices and happenings leads to despair, which helps nothing.

Hmm...This is an ongoing struggle for me. A quandry over, "doing what should be done, and doing what I think is right".
Tuff call sometimes, and as usual, you don't find out until 2 minutes till midnite.

ON TCoTC
We differ first of all in language expression - Here I would be more careful about describing a person as evil (and perhaps I should go over my tracks and eliminate such forms of expression). I would describe the act as evil. If it remained unrepented, we could say that the person ultimately chose evil. So questions like Foul and the ravers asking "Are you not evil?" are already misleading. I agree on despair, except that despair is born of lack of faith. Faith is the response to despair. Christian faith is in Someone who is not a fallible human or questionable truth. So faith enables us to see ourselves as flawed, and even allows us to see ourselves as more flawed than others, because our faith is not in us or in them. (Believing in oneself is actually an awful thing for a Christian to do. We know that we fail. That's what fallible means.)

[rusmeister]

I can tell you've got kids, Rus. Yes, kids are born selfish. And I agree that we have to teach them how to be good. So I think we're in agreement there.

On LOTR: the Evil Incarnate is Sauron, of course. Gollum (hmm, don't really remember Wormtongue) is just a pawn. Yeah, Frodo was saved by a miracle -- Tolkien was a Christian, right? Ditto on Boromir -- his pride caused his fall, but then he repented, which is the classic Christian formula.

Yes, Tolkien was a devout Catholic. His bio on that is fascinating - what his mother went through with her Anglican family, her early death (his father died when he was just a toddler), being raised by a priest, his courtship with Edith and obedience to Fr Francis's forbidding him to have contact with her for 5 years (until he was 21) and the rich reward of his happy and lifelong marriage for his obedience - something that today's cult of the individual wouldn't understand at all - we are proud of doing what we want and can't even hold marriages together 7 years, let alone 60. But I digress...

On Sauron - "Nothing was evil in its beginning. Even Sauron was not so." The doctrine of the Fall is implicit in LOTR, and explicit in the Silmarillion. A big difference between Lewis and Tolkien was that Lewis believed in the use of allegory in his fairy tales, while Tolkien strongly objected to allegory as such - Tolkien actually snubbed Lewis's Chronicles of Narnia, despite their friendship. (We still find it in Tolkien's works, but I'd say that it seeped through despite his best efforts.

[Avatar]

Since he categorically denied that it contained anything allegorical, I tend to the idea that we find whatever we want to in things like that. And I also tend to take the author's word when it comes to his intent.

--A

[rusmeister]

Since he categorically denied that it contained anything allegorical, I tend to the idea that we find whatever we want to in things like that. And I also tend to take the author's word when it comes to his intent.

--A

Of course. But an author can hardly help having what he really believes seep in there, can he?

[Avatar]

Maybe not. But I think we have to accept his interpretation of what it means rather than substitute our own, however much more we like it.

--A