Is there such thing as Evil... Or Good?

[duchess of malfi]

While talking to my husband a few nights ago this subject sort of came up in the conversation.

Calibaby (my hub, who does not post here very often) said that in his experience, everyone harms other people every now and then, whether physically or (more likely) emotionally or financially. Sometimes this can be accidental, sometimes it is on purpose.

To him the line is crossed when someone

knowingly and repeatedly


harms others


and feels no remorse

in doing that.

To him that is the definition of evil actions.

[Zarathustra]

knowingly and repeatedly harms others and feels no remorse in doing that. To him that is the definition of evil actions.

That's a perfectly good starting point. I could analyze his position, disagree on a point or two, whatever. The main point, however, is that we all acknowledge that morals and rights are things we define ourselves and upon which we come to agree. The fact that many of us are listing either examples of bad things or definitions of bad things in general is, to me, evidence of this point.

After all, if good and evil were Absolute, then it seems like these sorts of debates wouldn't occur so frequently. The fact that we are arguing about this may be evidence of the subjectivity and relativity of good/evil.

I used to have my own definition of good and evil, too: actions done out of negative emotions (hate, envy, fear, greed, etc.) are evil, while actions done out of positive emotions are good (love, joy, etc.). However, that was the idealistic ramblings of a college freshman. I've since realized that all the passions can be "good," depending on the context, or used for "evil" even though the person committing the act feels pretty good about it.

In the end, I don't think that any formulaic or axiomatic construction can define good and evil. I think they are relative, fluid terms that change from person to person and situation to situation. I can't think of one single action that can't be described as "good," given the proper context. For instance, the death penalty is murdering a murderer. I think it would be perfectly fine for a rapist to be raped. I'd have no problem with Hitler being tortured. And I think that it's okay to steal from people who take advantage of others (corporations who use child labor, etc.). After all, our whole "justice" system is built around violating the rights of those who commit crimes. It really is "an eye for an eye."

If good and evil were Absolute, there could be no Justice. Punishment would make no sense, because it would be using "crime" to justify taking away people's freedom.

Our laws are just complex rationalizations for the "might makes right" position. The government is the mightiest.

[Avatar]

I can't think of one single action that can't be described as "good," given the proper context. For instance, the death penalty is murdering a murderer. I think it would be perfectly fine for a rapist to be raped. I'd have no problem with Hitler being tortured. And I think that it's okay to steal from people who take advantage of others (corporations who use child labor, etc.). After all, our whole "justice" system is built around violating the rights of those who commit crimes. It really is "an eye for an eye."

While I agree with you that it's a question of "might makes right," the important question is whether you think that that is a good thing.

Do we not lessen ourselves by stooping to the levels and methods of those whose methods we deplore?

--A

[sgt.null]

of course we do Av. we can't argue against torture and then use it. too fluid of definitions of good & evil end up harming us all. we expect those in power to act to a common charter. evil is what affects other people, the actual acting out.

[Avatar]

I'm not surprised at that answer from you Sgt, and I agree with you in a sense, although the why of it is more difficult.

I'm interested in is seeing what Malik's take on this is though. (And LoreMasters as well actually, if he's following this.)

From what I gather about Malik's position, I don't think he'd see anything wrong with torturing somebody because they tortured somebody else. OK, an eye for an eye, I'm not totally opposed to that. The punishment should fit the crime and all that.

But by the same reasoning, there's nothing wrong with torturing somebody for nothing, is there? Other than the fact that there is a consensus that it's wrong... I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. Interested though.

--A

[Zarathustra]

While I agree with you that it's a question of "might makes right," the important question is whether you think that that is a good thing.

Do you mean "a good thing" in the absolute sense?

I guess I'm a moral pragmatist. I don't think it matters whether or not it is a good thing, because that is the way it will always be when you have mental beings acting in the world of matter. You will never remove physical power from this issue.

Or to put it another way: even if we all think "might makes right" is wrong, it will only be through our strength that our view will ever be implimented--which will then contradict our view.

[Loredoctor]

Or to put it another way: even if we all think "might makes right" is wrong, it will only be through our strength that our view will ever be implimented--which will then contradict our view.

Good view, and relates to my earlier argument about Che Guevara.

[sgt.null]

non-violence has changed laws. MLK, Ghandi. we can enact legislation without breaking people's legs.

[Zarathustra]

on-violence has changed laws. MLK, Ghandi. we can enact legislation without breaking people's legs.

There is more than one meaning to the word, "might." People exert their power in many ways. Sometimes power is exerted indirectly, through ideological influence; however, ideology is ultimately a subtle way to control bodies, rather than minds. In the end, any right gained by the populace--if it is not gained through overt revolution--is gained to prevent an overt revolution. Superficial freedoms (like our right to vote for the person who will have power over us) are given to pacify us and make us believe we have freedom, when all we really have is a small say in who controls us--and even that is swayed by economic might via campain dollars.

[Avatar]

But enforcing the laws can require violence. They're only enforcable because of our willingness to punish people who defy our laws Sgt.

So if it doesn't matter whether or not something is a good thing, isn't that the same as saying nothing is good? I'm by no means an absolutist, but that doesn't mean that things are neither good nor bad.

The reality that bad things will happen is no reason to give up and say we shouldn't bother then, is it?

--A

[sgt.null]

we may have to cross the line to protect the greater society. but it is a series of steps. and it isn't by our choice, the criminal chooses to resist.

[Avatar]

That's not the point Sgt. We say, "do this or else."

Society uses the threat of violence, or at least punishment, to coerce people into obediance.

--A

[Zarathustra]

Society uses the threat of violence, or at least punishment, to coerce people into obediance.

Yes, behind every law is a gun enforcing it.

[Prebe]

Or there is sgtnull feeding hugely laxative "bread" to nasty inmates.

[sgt.null]

they made us stop feeding bad food.

well we have to enforce the laws to protect the society at large. but it doesn't make law enforcement evil. and the law stops when resistance is stopped.

[Avatar]

No, enforcement stops when resistance stops. "Just obey us and we won't hurt you."

I'm not saying enforcement is evil, but it's based on the same principle that the criminal bases his coercion: "I'll hurt you if you don't do what I say."

--A

[sgt.null]

that's bullshit and you know it. this is why i hate philosophy. the difference is obvious. the criminal is acting against society. the law steps in and removes the lawbreaker for the greater good. while you debate the number of angels on the heads of pins we in this sector protect you from the worst aspects of society. there is no comparison.

[Avatar]

It's not and I don't.

Forget murder and rape for a moment, because I think that it's that which you're thinking about.

Think about the laws against marijuana, which I know you think are not doing anything to protect society.

The law says, "do not smoke marijuana or we will punish you." Right?

The law has the power to force people to do or not do things, on pain of reprisal. What they're forcing people to do or not do is not the issue. Not here anyway.

--A

[sgt.null]

so a bad law is proof that all laws are bad? work to change the law, not by disposing of all laws but that one law. like it or not we all need the police and the prisons. or the cities would be burning.

[Avatar]

I'm not saying laws are bad. I'm saying that all laws are enforced by the threat of punishment.

--A