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

[Revan]

I was listening to a commentary on a program the other day, and one guy commented on what a famous actor once said to the question:

"Do you enjoy playing evil or good characters more?"

Actor: "There is no difference, everyone believes they're righteous."

Which is very true, in my opinion... no-one believes themselves evil. Hitler, Stalin, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam, any people which most people would consider "evil"; you'll find they don't consider themselves in the wrong..

And as painful and disgusting you'll find this concept, many people considered, and in Osama's, and even Saddam's case, still do, consider the policies and actions to be correct. Someone like Hitler couldn't have gotten that much power if he didn't have loads of supporters, being who consider his policies to be correct.

So good and evil are essenitally points of view; if we look outside the box, where you have no opinion or views on morals, there is only actions, and consequence; nothing is evil or good.

And also there is this, what another person consider good, another person would consider it selfish... what one person considers bad, another person would view that as the right action.

So this the question I pose to you: This taken into account, how can anything be truly and utterly good? Or absolutely and completely evil?

[Plissken]

If you're looking for a person who is completely evil, or completely good, you're going to be disappointed.

However, that does not mean that, just because "no man is evil in his own mind," that evil doesn't exist. We are defined by our action, not our justifications. Hitler thought he was doing good for his country - but he's still evil, no matter what he thinks.

I've said this before, and been argued with, so I'll try it another way: The the more pure someone's self-obsession is, the greater their evil will be. The greater someone's outward view, the greater their capacity for good.

[Cail]

The other, and I think more important, question is....Is there such a thing as an absolute moral compass? All sorts of atrocities have been committed by just about every nation, religion, and ethinc group, and all were considered acceptable at the time. We look back now and condemn those actions, but we're doing that with the wisdom of hindsight and our current moral framework.

[Plissken]

On the one hand, context is everything - but pogroms to stop the plague are still pogroms. It makes no more sense to celebrate pogroms because of the justifications for them than it does to celebrate the plague that ended up keeping Britian from being completely defoliated.

[Cail]

Context is important now, granted, but you can't apply today's standards to yesterday's policies. For example, 50 years ago in the US, homosexuals were the moral equivalent of child molesters. Now there's a national dialogue about giving gays marital rights and privlidges. It may be (I hope not) that 50 years from now people will be talking about the "dark days" when adults were ostracized if they wanted to sleep with minors. The context changes (and sometimes really needs to).

[Plissken]

That kind of argument only holds water if you think it's possible that getting to know a child molester as a person will lead you to the realization that they aren't perverted, dangerous people.

Personally I'm hoping that, 20 years from now, we'll remember the fact that homosexuals weren't allowed to marry with the same kind of embarrasment we reserve for the memory of the prohibition of interracial marriage.

EDIT: It is both interesting and heartening to realize that each advance in our morality has been brought about by those who have crazy liberal-progressive ideas in their heads.

[Cail]

You're attaching today's morals and standards Pliss. Who's to say that the public's opinion of child molesters doesn't soften in the same way it did for interracial relationships or homosexual relationships 50 years ago?

What we're talking about here is a definative "good" and "evil".

50 years ago, a black man bedding a white woman would be looked at the same as a 40-year-old bedding a 12-year-old today.

[Plissken]

I really don't think so: The difference is that children are harmed by what child molestors do. No one is harmed by gay sex, and probably the first step towards interracial marriage had more to do with our advance away from the idea that white women weren't shrinking violets who had to be protected for their own good (like we do children), than a change in perception about black men.

Unless we decide that children are adults, the pedophilia argument is a red-herring. Protection of children is an absolute.

[Cail]

I don't think it's a red herring. People were trying to protect their race earlier, and you forget that according to American values, women were being harmed by black men in those relationships.

We can remove pedophilia from the argument entirely if you like. There was a huge push worldwide for eugenics 100 years ago. We wouldn't consider that now, would we?

[[Syl]]

Good and evil are universals of a highly subjective kind. I have no answer except that, to me, they do exist, but the thing itself must take precedence.

[lucimay]

good article/essay Syl...will have to print it out and read it. i'm taking philosophy this coming semester so i'm interested. particularly interested in Kant. thanks for the link.

no comment on the good/evil thing as yet. will think about it some more, read Syl's article and get back to youse, Revan.

[Cail]

I think the concept of good and evil are universal, but what actually constitutes good and evil are not.

We find cannibalism abhorrent, but were the football players from the book Alive arrested when they told their story? Likewise, there are cultures in the world that still practice cannibalism. Do you think they think they're evil?

[The Laughing Man]

I bet we ALL would, if they were eating US, heh!

[ur-bane]

I think the concept of good and evil are universal, but what actually constitutes good and evil are not.

We find cannibalism abhorrent, but were the football players from the book Alive arrested when they told their story? Likewise, there are cultures in the world that still practice cannibalism. Do you think they think they're evil?

That's where motivation comes into play. The act itself may not necessarily be evil, but the circumstances in which it is committed, and reasons why it is undertaken may make it so.
In the case of Alive, I don't see cannibalism as evil. I see it as a means of survival where no other food source was available. Had they killed each other for food, then that's a different story. But those that were eaten were already dead.

For hundreds of years, sailors on the high seas resorted to cannibalism as a means for survival, and in some circumstances, a victim was chosen to sacrifice himself so that others may survive. Even that is not evil, but I certainly wouldn't classify it as good, either.

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

To me it's a matter of perception. What I believe is bad or good may be different from what others consider bad or good. When a whole bunch of us agree that something is bad, then as a society we start to consider it bad, evil, etc.

Look at it this way: An alien race thrives on death. To them, death is the ultimate - spiritually, biologically, etc. Say we land on the alien planet and declare, "You can't kill because death is evil!" We then proceed to stop all the killing that's going on. We are actually being "evil" to them by infringing on (or destroying) a necessary part of their existence. What is evil for us and what is evil for them are diametrically opposed.

Here, good and evil do not exist as any sort of absolutes. It matters only how we perceive events.

Is it evil to kill someone who is in pain, has no hope of recovery, and begs to die? Or is it evil to let them suffer? To end suffering or to end life, which is worse?

On a biological level, humanity tends to equate evil with harm. Harm to self, harm to offspring, harm to the social fabric, etc. If there is an absolute evil for humanity, it is absolute destruction. Absolute good would, it follows, be absolute preservation - which is impossible. Absolute destruction of the human race (unlikely but theoretically possible) is nearly absolute evil (I say nearly because of my own perceptions), but you can't absolutely preserve humanity... so evil always has the upper hand.

What I've left out is intent. It matters to some people, but not to others. Total destruction without intent is not evil (in my opinion), but with intent it becomes evil. Again, perception. Some people may see total destruction without intent as evil, or be unable to cope with the concept of indifferent destruction and try to deal with it by attributing intent (say, to Satan or to demons, etc.).

Well, that's my take on things.

[Plissken]

I think that the Book of Genesis is instructive here. Adam and Eve weren't originally perfect because they were giants of morality and ethics. They were considered "without sin" because they were moral imbeciles. It was only after learning about the concepts of good and evil that they had a standard to fall short of.

Later on, the first murder (a fratricide) is committed over a temper tamtrum regarding the smells of burning fruit vs burning meat, and so the story of man advancing the concepts of good and evil begins.

From there, through the teachings of various prophets and finally through the teachings of Christ the definition of good slowly advances. Throughout human history, it advances - always pushing forward the boundries of good as the inclusion of the Other as the the defining factor of the current good.

At some point in the future, we may come to the logical conclusion of this moral advance through the ages: That every person is family, that every man is a brother, and that every murder is fratricide.

As Jesus (that crazy liberal radical-for his-times) taught, the expression of love is the sublimation of one's own needs in the needs of the loved ("Greater love hath no man than this..."). That is, selflessness is the defining measure of Good. Conversely, selfishness must be the defining measure of Evil.

The fact that we continue, as a society, to learn and refine this ideal doesn't mean that the concept of Good has changed - it just means that we're learning more about it.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

That's what we'd like to hope for, sure. But when you're talking about the subjectivity of good and evil, especially how it changes over time...like the 50 yr ago example, it just seems like we're putting forward the idea that it's all some kind of dialectic pattern that's centering closer and closer to the Form of the Good. Plato would be right next to you, backing you up...but really, I just don't think it's that obvious that we move towards progress over time. Naturally I'm going to think that as a Progressive person in this Progressive time, we're getting it right. But everyone always thinks they're getting it right.

[Avatar]

Aah, one of my favourite topics, and long past time for a re-think.

I think that Cail is right in asking about an absolute moral compass, and, as you may know, I'm against absolutes. Alynna's take pretty much sums it up for me. The concepts exist subjectively...we are the people who choose what to call good or evil.

Context is everything, and evil, like beauty, is in the eye of the victim. We can all think of things that we'd hate to have done to us...that's evil. And by including those "others" as Plissken mentions, we can expand that view. But as Darth so eloquently put it, "outside the box of morality, there is only action and consequence."

That's not to say that definitions of good and evil have no place...on the contrary, they are all-important in the formation and running of any society. But we need to remember that we defined it, and that, as Cail said, definitions change.

Evil is as malleable as good...

I've said before, the only sin is in hurting others unnecessarily. But that's only because I believe it's better not to hurt others. Why? Because I wouldn't like to be hurt.

If there are, as I suspect, no consequences other than temporal ones to any "evil" act, it becomes even more important that we be aware of these things, because there is only us.

But it is only important to us, for our own improvement, because we believe it's better. Because of the harm that it does, and which we try to avoid out of fear of the same harm, now, but which once sprang from the neccessities of keeping a functioning society viable.

There's no "good" or "evil" as objective forces in the universe. There's only us, and we're a subjective force indeed.

--A

[Cail]

Well put Av and Alynna.

[Revan]

I think that the Book of Genesis is instructive here. Adam and Eve weren't originally perfect because they were giants of morality and ethics. They were considered "without sin" because they were moral imbeciles. It was only after learning about the concepts of good and evil that they had a standard to fall short of.

Later on, the first murder (a fratricide) is committed over a temper tamtrum regarding the smells of burning fruit vs burning meat, and so the story of man advancing the concepts of good and evil begins.

From there, through the teachings of various prophets and finally through the teachings of Christ the definition of good slowly advances. Throughout human history, it advances - always pushing forward the boundries of good as the inclusion of the Other as the the defining factor of the current good.

At some point in the future, we may come to the logical conclusion of this moral advance through the ages: That every person is family, that every man is a brother, and that every murder is fratricide.

As Jesus (that crazy liberal radical-for his-times) taught, the expression of love is the sublimation of one's own needs in the needs of the loved ("Greater love hath no man than this..."). That is, selflessness is the defining measure of Good. Conversely, selfishness must be the defining measure of Evil.

The fact that we continue, as a society, to learn and refine this ideal doesn't mean that the concept of Good has changed - it just means that we're learning more about it.

As a strong athiest... I'm afraid I can't agree. Adam and Eve didn't even exist. Everyone is selfish to some degree or other. There is no-one on this earth, nor has there been anyone, that has performed no action of selfishness... look at the world around you, listen to people, and you can here the selfishness... oh, most people won't call it that, but it's true. There's a lot of good out there too.

Alynna said:

Is it evil to kill someone who is in pain, has no hope of recovery, and begs to die? Or is it evil to let them suffer? To end suffering or to end life, which is worse?

Really, if you think outside the box, there is no difference. You've killed that person, whether out of mercy or cruelty... it has the same end as it would if you killed out of malice.

got to go... to be continued...