# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Does Good & Evil Exist

## [email protected]

All human being in this world are exist, but only good person are exist. It is because good people delights by God. We know that if we are we going good, people surrounds you are doing good also. Everything that we do in this world, there is a feedback. If you are doing good, your feedback is good also. Evil are not exist in this world it is because God hate people who are doing bad or harm to his surroundings. God will help only people who do good in his society. Whatever you do in your life you cannot exist if your self are not in God. People that delights from God and achieve his or her goal or success, he or she must pray and give thanks to God for the blessings that have.

Ronald A. Tadem
BSN-2B
TTH 4:00-5:30pm
Instructor: Leonardo Go

----------


## Redzeppelin

Your comments, friend, directly contradict the Bible, which tells us the "the rain [i.e. calamitiy] falls on the good and bad alike" (rough paraphrase). God loves all - whether they do good or bad, because Jesus died for everybody - not just the "good." And, ultimately, without God in our hearts, no one is capable of being "good" in any way, shape, or form.

Welcome to Lit Net, by the way.

----------


## bibliophile190

I second what Red said, and welcome.

----------


## rosillo

Good and evil are relative terms,one of which cannot exist without the other. The good depends upon the existence of what we call evil, and evil exist only in relation to good.They are human construct. We created evil so we could experience good.

Good and evil exist in our minds. The one that fulfills our interest is what we call good, and that brings to us in missery or anything which we do not, is called evil. Since they are relative,it is impossible to find anything absolutely good,and absolutely evil. If we examine ourlives, we will notice that good often comes of evil. 

God Words says." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."



ROSILLO,RIANN M.
BSIT-4
TTH- 4:00-5:30pm

Mr. Leonardo Go

----------


## comon

Yes..,because if you take a human lifethe good and bad is part of our life and its fulfils to our mind that exist. in the midst of our daily routine we often fail to engage our minds in what we've doing, but sometimes it success to engage to make bad things that commet a sin.when we catch a glimpse of our lord's greatness and glory, we see more clearly our sinfulness that make our mind. Evil push to our mind to easily shed many of the sins, that have weighed us down. the give dramatic testimonials about being freed from addictive behaviour,the attention shifts to another new believer, and jealousy, resentment,and anger drop away. it happen if we loose under to our mind but if not the good in our heart make a plan that to evade the bad minds.God is working all things together for the good of those who love him. I believe that everything in this world will be alright by leads of good. Evil will always loser all the time..

----------


## rose07

Good and evil doesn’t exist! It’s just based on our way of thinking. It’s a thought! Our experiences give us an idea on how we define good and evil. We have made some good choices that were beneficial for both ourselves and for others, we have also, probably, made some mistakes that did nobody any good.
In Biblical terms, God created man with moral freedom, with the ability to choose between good and evil. Evil was not being created; it is very much clear that God created us with free will.
We experience evil things such as depression, frustration, sadness, and have been immoral because we choose too. We did not pay attention to the outcomes of our actions. But if we just listen on what was God is telling us, such as “Do everything without complaining or arguing”. So that you maybe innocent and pure as God’s perfect children! If it goes like this, maybe until now we are innocent with the definition of good and evil.
The best example of this is Satan. Satan was not being created by God, rather He created Satan as an angelic being as the “seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty”, but he developed pride in his beauty. He was proud of being handsome and his fame made him act like a fool. God did not put the evil in their minds, nor did He introduce to Lucifer. Lucifer was free to follow God’s way of love, or to consider the alternative. God didn’t force him to go his way. He permitted him to ponderand finally choose the way of evil.
Referring to my first statement, Good and Evil are made up of our thoughts. Be careful how you think; your life is shape by your thoughts. 





*Jessica Rose C. Espenido
BSCS-4
TTH 4:00-5:30* 


To: Leonardo Go

----------


## hack3m

Good and Evil are just in our thoughts. It's our reflection of our ideas to others who define "whats right or wrong". It could be moral or self-indulgent to anyone. 




Gerald L. Peruda
BSIT-4
TTH 4:00-5:30 



To: Mr. Leonardo Go 
<alter-native>

----------


## rose07

Good and evil doesnt exist! Its just based on our way of thinking. Its a thought! Our experiences give us an idea on how we define good and evil. We have made some good choices that were beneficial for both ourselves and for others, we have also, probably, made some mistakes that did nobody any good.
In Biblical terms, God created man with moral freedom, with the ability to choose between good and evil. Evil was not being created; it is very much clear that God created us with free will.
We experience evil things such as depression, frustration, sadness, and have been immoral because we choose too. We did not pay attention to the outcomes of our actions. But if we just listen on what was God is telling us, such as Do everything without complaining or arguing. So that you maybe innocent and pure as Gods perfect children! If it goes like this, maybe until now we are innocent with the definition of good and evil.
The best example of this is Satan. Satan was not being created by God, rather He created Satan as an angelic being as the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, but he developed pride in his beauty. He was proud of being handsome and his fame made him act like a fool. God did not put the evil in their minds, nor did He introduce to Lucifer. Lucifer was free to follow Gods way of love, or to consider the alternative. God didnt force him to go his way. He permitted him to ponderand finally choose the way of evil.
Referring to my first statement, Good and Evil are made up of our thoughts. Be careful how you think; *your life is shape by your thoughts.* 




Jessica Rose C. Espenido
BSCS-4
TTH 4:00-5:30 



To: Leonardo Go <alter-native>

----------


## limbaga

DOES GOD AND EVIL EXIST?

Volunteer my time for something I believe in. Good and Evil existence, hard to believe? I dont think so. Indeed hard to convince others about the existence of good and evil. When I write this I cant help but mirror the things I might write on who I am and on what I believe, when I decide or act on something I always remember my parents litany Do it for good and avoid bad ones. But I doubt I always follow them, maybe for sometime. I admit! Its hard, really hard for an adolescent like me to do good where I benefited less from it. To differentiate good is very far from evil. It is in our attitudes where we can picture of what really is it. Evil actions for good intentions wont change the fact that it is still bad. So why keep on dong it when we know its wrong? I dont know if you will agree with me but I guess doing evil for good reasons is always easy than doing good when you doubt the possibilities of success on it. Let me take an example of an overused lies of adolescent that is the relationship of the opposite sex issue. Most of us lie to our parents in order to protect ourselves. But I guess theres nothing to protect to. We are just afraid that they wont understand if we tell them the truth, we deny the possibilities that we might get what we are going through for they have been there. As children, we all heard that honesty is the best policy, but as we grow into adults, that simple truths seems to get clouded. We become master of half-truths, innuendo, and justification. It is not easy to live with integrity by always telling the truth, but if we want to make a lasting difference for good in lives of others, we must try. Begin by searching your heart and being honesty with yourself, ourselves. Havent you notice that one lie leads to another and as we master ourselves with our own lie we will soon be poisoned by this. We cheat ourselves and become losers. But of course no one will admit they have been through this feelings. Remember as we grow up we mature and part of maturity is to take the responsibility of our actions and be accountable of whatever outcome it may bring. But we are idiots! We always want to live life easily as we wish even though we know that what we done no good in the past to have a bad present. Changing what we are and what we believe is not hard if do in our own purity. For its hard to be happy on our own fulfillments achieved through evil ways, and the sad thing is we make a lots of excuses to hide our bad actions. For some people, making excuses has become a bad habit. They drift through life, never quite getting there act together, leaving messes everywhere they go. They are experts of deflecting blame and consequently never correct the thinking that cause them to use poor judgment in the first place. They may be saving face temporarily, but in the end, they become big losers. How can we avoid this? Simple as increasing our faith through prayer. They say that the prayer of righteous man is powerful and effective. If we pray not only for ourselves but also for others, we make it! Doing something good. We pray because it requires us to place our faith in something more than we can comprehend, many people discount prayer as an effective means to positively impact their lives and the lives of those around them. Even for those who appreciate its many benefits, prayer is nature, a mystery, a step out in the dark, also a step in the right direction. Have you tried? Praying with all your heart and mind with good intention? By all means God will answer you. Aside from prayer also be the first to say Im sorry, that you really are sorry to those whom you done no good. Not much to say but hard to utter because of our egos not to accept our own mistakes. It takes courage to be the first to apologize in any situation. But if we apologize specifically and with sincerity, it can bring great healing. Hard to be good isnt it? But if we want to live a peaceful life, those hardships doesnt matter. It is in what I and you believe in. lets learn from what we experience and work it out. I believe in the existence of good in my life and I live with it. How about you?

LIMBAGA, Jan C
TTh 4-5:30

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

It happens I don't share your belief in God, but I do salute you for asking these earnest, searching questions. It is possible that you or I won't always be able to demonstrate the good in this or that act that we intended, but if we continue to be true about our hearts, we may hope that in the majority of times our intentions will have been good and so will be the results of them.

THe American psychologist, Abraham Maslow wrote: "We cannot be more honest with others than we are with ourselves."

----------


## RichardHresko

Two things to think about based on the responses:

1) What has "existence"? Are there levels of existence? Are some levels fuller than others? Platonists argue that _only_ thoughts are truly real. (In the Middle Ages Platonists were often referred to as 'Realists' though later they are called 'Idealists'.) Others have been persuaded that only sensible objects (objects that can be experienced by the senses, which is expanded to include instrumentation) are real. Some allow for both (most prominent being Aristotle and his hylomorphism).

2) It seems that "good" and "evil" can be conceptualized in a number of ways. A good football player may, for example, be an evil dog owner. I would argue that the goodness of his playing is not a contradiction of his evil elsewhere. So if we are to discuss whether there is an "ultimate" good or evil as someone suggested, we need to know on what basis we would recognize such a thing.

I agree with PrinceMyshkin that these questions are important regardless of one's stance on the "God question."

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Good and evil doesnt exist! Its just based on our way of thinking. Its a thought! Our experiences give us an idea on how we define good and evil.


There are numerous examples of human behavior present and past that absolutely contradict what you've said - unless you're willing to risk saying that something like the Holocaust was only "evil" from a certain perspective. Are you willing to say that? Because the minute you make an evaluative statement like "that's wrong" or "that's obviously evil" you have contradicted your position.





> We experience evil things such as depression, frustration, sadness, and have been immoral because we choose too. We did not pay attention to the outcomes of our actions. But if we just listen on what was God is telling us, such as Do everything without complaining or arguing. So that you maybe innocent and pure as Gods perfect children! If it goes like this, maybe until now we are innocent with the definition of good and evil.


Didn't you just say above that "good and evil don't exist"?




> The best example of this is Satan. Satan was not being created by God, rather He created Satan as an angelic being as the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty, but he developed pride in his beauty. He was proud of being handsome and his fame made him act like a fool. God did not put the evil in their minds, nor did He introduce to Lucifer. Lucifer was free to follow Gods way of love, or to consider the alternative. God didnt force him to go his way. He permitted him to ponderand finally choose the way of evil.
> Referring to my first statement, Good and Evil are made up of our thoughts. Be careful how you think; your life is shape by your thoughts.


Again: you continue to contradict yourself by giving examples of evil and then saying that it doesn't exist. Huh? 





*Jessica Rose C. Espenido
BSCS-4
TTH 4:00-5:30* 


To: Leonardo Go[/QUOTE]

----------


## blazeofglory

What we call good and bad do not exist, and as a matter of fact, it is a matter of perception, and our perception of things make good or bad in point fact and at a deeper level all converge into the same state.

----------


## jgweed

"There are no moral phenomena, only moral_ interpretations_ of phenomena."

----------


## blazeofglory

> "There are no moral phenomena, only moral_ interpretations_ of phenomena."


This is true, and there is no what we call morals and immorals in nature and we simply try to interpret them up to our likings and dislikings only.

----------


## RichardHresko

> "There are no moral phenomena, only moral_ interpretations_ of phenomena."


(For the sake of the argument let's accept the hidden premise here that existence precedes essence.)

But isn't that a very big "only?"

After all, phenomena without interpretation are meaningless.

----------


## The Atheist

> "There are no moral phenomena, only moral_ interpretations_ of phenomena."


Mate, you make some excellent posts. That's another.

----------


## The Atheist

> After all, phenomena without interpretation are meaningless.


No.

The tree does fall, regardless of anyone watching.

----------


## jgweed

"After all, phenomena without interpretation are meaningless."

And if meaning is provided only by humans? And are not good and evil _meanings_?

Pursue for a moment what seems to be the case: that we apply moral terms only to human actions.

----------


## Jozanny

Perhaps for good and evil to exist in the abstract, an intelligence needs to exist to perceive it. Richard mentioned Michael Vick, which at first glance looks like a decent example, except that, as observers of carnivore behavior, we tend not to blame lions for being lions, and lion behavior includes:

1. killing other lions, inclusive of lion cubs, males killing other males to take over a pride, and even females being killed off by other pride members.

2. killing off the competition--all high end carnivores do this. I've seen video of wolves killing coyotes and orchestrating attacks against bears, even, and as we do not attribute other species with moral responsibility, I am not sure why we attribute it to ourselves as the one member of the great ape family who made it, and that making it involved a good deal of slaughter amongst ourselves and against other higher end mammals.

Sure, I feel *bad* that Vick's underside associates were cruel to dogs, but apes can be aggressors as well as peace loving over-sexed primates--and I am not sure evolutionary constructs of any sort can be assigned moral value.

The Catholic Church asserts that certain diseases are evil. This is convenient for continuing prejudice against vulnerable members in a group, but is otherwise patently absurd. Diseases aren't conscious. They are processes which mimic the processes of living functions.

----------


## blazeofglory

As a matter of fact what we call good is an assimilation or fabrication or projection of our own ideas and as a matter of fact there is no such things good and evil. 

Go to a jungle and observe all natural phenomena all your borders or lines between good and bad get blurred and all you will see is simply a natural course and it has nothing to do with good or bad, and both are nonexistential in a natural state. 

When a tiger pounces upon a victim and it does with a desire, a primeval desire of satisfying its hunger and there are no other motivations at all than filling his stomach and of course it is simply a phenomenon that has nothing to do with our sense of good and bad at all. 

Man projects ideas, and most of them are nonsensical and meaningless and he taking into consideration his convenience invents or spins ideas and all these ideas of Christian moralities are baseless and not holistic at all. I decry all these baseless ideas.

Man has to at times be cruel and his cruelties are rooted in the fact that it was necessary for survival.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Originally Posted by RichardHresko 
> After all, phenomena without interpretation are meaningless.
> 
> No.
> 
> The tree does fall, regardless of anyone watching.


Your post does not address my statement. I did not deny that there are phenomena in the absence of interpretation. I denied that there was _meaning_ without interpretation which is something entirely different.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Perhaps for good and evil to exist in the abstract, an intelligence needs to exist to perceive it. Richard mentioned Michael Vick, which at first glance looks like a decent example, except that, as observers of carnivore behavior, we tend not to blame lions for being lions, and lion behavior includes:
> 
> 1. killing other lions, inclusive of lion cubs, males killing other males to take over a pride, and even females being killed off by other pride members.
> 
> 2. killing off the competition--all high end carnivores do this. I've seen video of wolves killing coyotes and orchestrating attacks against bears, even, and as we do not attribute other species with moral responsibility, I am not sure why we attribute it to ourselves as the one member of the great ape family who made it, and that making it involved a good deal of slaughter amongst ourselves and against other higher end mammals.
> 
> Sure, I feel *bad* that Vick's underside associates were cruel to dogs, but apes can be aggressors as well as peace loving over-sexed primates--and I am not sure evolutionary constructs of any sort can be assigned moral value.
> 
> The Catholic Church asserts that certain diseases are evil. This is convenient for continuing prejudice against vulnerable members in a group, but is otherwise patently absurd. Diseases aren't conscious. They are processes which mimic the processes of living functions.


The distinction between Mr. Vick and a lion (or Falcon) is that Vick is a rational animal with free choice. Without rationality and free choice there can be no moral behavior.

The Catholic Church does not condemn anything it recognizes as a disease to be morally evil. It does not condemn people who have what it recognizes as diseases as being evil because they have the disease. I will point out that the RC Church ran asylums for lepers for centuries even though leprosy renders a person ritually unclean according to the Old Testament. The Roman Church also has set up many hospices for victims of AIDS.

If there is a specific Papal Bull that you are thinking of, please let me know and I would be happy to research it.

----------


## RichardHresko

> "After all, phenomena without interpretation are meaningless."
> 
> And if meaning is provided only by humans? And are not good and evil _meanings_?
> 
> Pursue for a moment what seems to be the case: that we apply moral terms only to human actions.


Those are exactly the questions I am struggling with. With any luck I will be able to avail myself of your help to clear this in my own mind.

Three possibilities:

1) If the meaning is provided only by humans and has no corresponding reality exterior to human conception then would it not be incredibly fortuitous that any meanings ever seem to work at all? How would science be possible if there was not some logic to the exterior world?

2) If the meaning provided by humans is an APPROXIMATION of an order (whether order can be linked to meaning isn't certain, but certainly appears to be a necessary condition for meaning, even if not a sufficient one) that exists exterior to humans is a possibility. 

3) I do not think effort need be expended on considering whether humans grasp the universe completely. I would reject this out of hand.

Good and evil are interpretations of phenomena (including intention, which is an interesting case). The question of the independent existence of good and evil would, I think, be tied to these three options.

----------


## The Atheist

> Your post does not address my statement. I did not deny that there are phenomena in the absence of interpretation. I denied that there was _meaning_ without interpretation which is something entirely different.


Meaning to who? What? The universe? The statement works the same whichever way you look at it - "meaning" is as subjective as morality.

----------


## Jozanny

> The distinction between Mr. Vick and a lion (or Falcon) is that Vick is a rational animal with free choice. Without rationality and free choice there can be no moral behavior.


I am not sure it is all as neat and pat as that. Biologists are making enormous strides in the areas of cognition and intelligence; even houseflies have central processing units designed to make it difficult to crush them to death. I grant you Vick is not a housefly, and not a lion, but this *Enlightment* notion of human exceptionalism has been gradually giving way. Those of us "down here" looked at Vick "up there", and the reaction to his dog fighting clubs was visceral, but the man was as much a product of the culture he came from as he was of the NFL which groomed and insulated him.

Now, I love my cats, even though they nag me and have destroyed a decent portion of 20 years worth of research while I was recuperating from graft surgery. I would not deliberately be an agent to cause these creatures suffering, because I perceive them as surrogate children, but I am not exactly sanguine on the matter of free agency when it comes to animal exploitation or animal as a family relation.

Free will is very problematic against biological determinism, and I mean that on the genetic level.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Meaning to who? What? The universe? The statement works the same whichever way you look at it - "meaning" is as subjective as morality.


That is a bit better. At least the comment addresses my post now.

To recap:
Jgweed posted a quote, "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena."

I responded, 
"After all, phenomena without interpretation are meaningless."

Your relevant comment is,
"Meaning to who? What?"

My response:

Meaning is something that can be grasped by a sentient being. That leads to the question whether meaning is external to the sentient being.

The question appears open. The existence of workable science and mathematics (in the sense that they produce predictions in accord with subsequent observations) at least implies that the universe is not a blooming buzzing chaos. There is some structure to the universe that humans are capable of grasping. On the other hand it is not at all clear where the limits to the ability to explain lie. Therefore it is not clear whether morality has an element that is somehow exterior to humanity.




> I am not sure it is all as neat and pat as that. Biologists are making enormous strides in the areas of cognition and intelligence; even houseflies have central processing units designed to make it difficult to crush them to death. I grant you Vick is not a housefly, and not a lion, but this *Enlightment* notion of human exceptionalism has been gradually giving way. Those of us "down here" looked at Vick "up there", and the reaction to his dog fighting clubs was visceral, but the man was as much a product of the culture he came from as he was of the NFL which groomed and insulated him.
> 
> Now, I love my cats, even though they nag me and have destroyed a decent portion of 20 years worth of research while I was recuperating from graft surgery. I would not deliberately be an agent to cause these creatures suffering, because I perceive them as surrogate children, but I am not exactly sanguine on the matter of free agency when it comes to animal exploitation or animal as a family relation.
> 
> Free will is very problematic against biological determinism, and I mean that on the genetic level.


Any being that can conceive of future contingencies and weigh those contingencies and then freely choose among them is capable of moral choice. Human beings have it. Should we find a non-human being that can do likewise that being would also be a moral being.

Biological determinism has certainly not been proven for human beings on any level. I doubt that there is a scientist who seriously suggests that it will be. Not even B. F. Skinner went that far.

----------


## jgweed

"1) If the meaning is provided only by humans and has no corresponding reality exterior to human conception then would it not be incredibly fortuitous that any meanings ever seem to work at all? How would science be possible if there was not some logic to the exterior world?"

What if there are many kinds (levels, perspectives, horizons) of meanings. Should we demand of these that they operate in exactly the same way, or all "correspond"---for lack of a better word---to reality with the same strength and precision?

Another path of thinking opens up when we ask, are their private meanings, or are all of them linked to and shared with, Others, but in different ways. One opens an old book and finds a flower pressed between two pages. The flower _obviously_ was put there for a reason by Another, and it had a special and private meaning for that person, but at the same time, this meaning (or meanings because I can imagine many interesting stories about it being there) is shared by me.

We sometimes think of science as one way in which we interpret the world as meaningful. It is a very complicated---even for some a specialised--- way that provides meaning to our (shared) world. Yet to call it, loosely speaking, an interpretation need not relegate it to the status of personal preference or (shudder) opinion; that would be to completely misunderstand how it works to provide meaning. We don't "_make up_meanings willy-nilly; we find them "ready made."

Wittgenstein argued that a private language was an impossibility; perhaps this applies to meanings as well. [Or at least insofar as meaning itself is tied to language, a path of thinking I mention without wanting to lead to a digression].

We find all sorts of meanings which in fact do seem to work, and have worked in the past and have worked for untold and countless Others.

----------


## blazeofglory

If you are really confused about what is good or bad go directly to nature and observe natural phenomena you will see that there is nothing called good or bad and things happen their with the same theory of cause and effect.
In the wilderness they live with primeval motives and there is nothing called good and bad. 

They do things not good or bad and there is no judgment at all in nature. We use our judgment here and we value insubstantial things in society.

----------


## Sooperfly

if you have the inner strength to overcome your unnecessary and hurtfull desires then you will be truly just. man's weakness makes him his own worst enemy. focus not on money or honor,instead on attainment of wisdom and inner peace and you will not fear evil. man creates evil with wicked actions due to lack of self control

----------


## RichardHresko

> "1) If the meaning is provided only by humans and has no corresponding reality exterior to human conception then would it not be incredibly fortuitous that any meanings ever seem to work at all? How would science be possible if there was not some logic to the exterior world?"
> 
> What if there are many kinds (levels, perspectives, horizons) of meanings. Should we demand of these that they operate in exactly the same way, or all "correspond"---for lack of a better word---to reality with the same strength and precision?
> 
> Another path of thinking opens up when we ask, are their private meanings, or are all of them linked to and shared with, Others, but in different ways. One opens an old book and finds a flower pressed between two pages. The flower _obviously_ was put there for a reason by Another, and it had a special and private meaning for that person, but at the same time, this meaning (or meanings because I can imagine many interesting stories about it being there) is shared by me.
> 
> We sometimes think of science as one way in which we interpret the world as meaningful. It is a very complicated---even for some a specialised--- way that provides meaning to our (shared) world. Yet to call it, loosely speaking, an interpretation need not relegate it to the status of personal preference or (shudder) opinion; that would be to completely misunderstand how it works to provide meaning. We don't "_make up_meanings willy-nilly; we find them "ready made."
> 
> Wittgenstein argued that a private language was an impossibility; perhaps this applies to meanings as well. [Or at least insofar as meaning itself is tied to language, a path of thinking I mention without wanting to lead to a digression].
> ...


I agree. Which is why I was struck by the "only" in your original quote. Interpretation covers quite a lot of ground.

While I agree that meanings are not derived or made-up willy-nilly, I don't entirely agree that we find meanings ready-made either. Consider the Ptolemaic versus the Copernican models. Both systems 'work' (on a purely predictive level the Ptolemaic was superior to Copernicus), and in fact since there is no privileged center in our current understanding of space, we could in fact choose either model, or even another center. _Cattus multifarium deglubitur_

My point is that it appears that meaning is not solely the construction of the sentient observer, nor is it entirely "out there," but may arise from the interplay of the two.

----------


## Jozanny

There are certainly some parts of this discussion which really lead to an intellectual challenge, indeed, only, I do not have the time right now to torture my own thought processes toward a premise of either/or.

We have the contemporary example of Michael Vick, but there is another as well. The microwave baby story. Here is a digg url, out of hundreds on the incident:

http://digg.com/world_news/Prosecuto...ave_on_purpose

The crime was apparently so heinous that the defendant chose to hear the judge's verdict on video camera. Everytime I think I know the worst of what the fine citizens of my country are capable, there is a new incident to defy comprehension, but even with that caveat, I am not entirely comfortable with abstract absolutes.

I hope I'll be able to return to this, by and by.

Let me ask a specific question, however, before returning to more theoretical complications. Let us say, for sake of argument, that the murder case against the mother holds, and the evidence remains solid--was the jury wrong in not giving this woman the death penalty, especially if she doesn't have the moral development to realize the horror of her crime?

Infanticide is a fairly common occurrence in our species, as it is for most great apes, but usually, the pregnant women guilty in such cases are traumatized in some manner, and not entirely rational on the issue of vulnerability, and if it is a man, again, it falls under domestic abuse and lack of impulse control.

This death is greatly different in degree, and I wonder if execution here would protect society from such brutality?

----------


## blazeofglory

They exist side by side, coexisting

----------


## kristian

> If you are really confused about what is good or bad go directly to nature and observe natural phenomena you will see that there is nothing called good or bad and things happen their with the same theory of cause and effect.
> In the wilderness they live with primeval motives and there is nothing called good and bad. 
> 
> They do things not good or bad and there is no judgment at all in nature. We use our judgment here and we value insubstantial things in society.







> They exist side by side, coexisting


These two posts looks contradicting. 

Let me pitch in some idea here,  :Smile:  

I think that it is true that everything happens in cause and effect. And from this cause and effect, human mind perceive good and evil. Evil and good are being perceived by human mind, a rational being so I dont get the point why we need to apply it on non-rational beings such as animals. ( I think animals act on instincts not on any rational grounds)

With good and evil existing through the human minds, and yes they dont actually contradict. 

Let me give an example, if an old woman is going to cross the street and you accompany her, you do good but doing otherwise does not do evil.

----------


## blazeofglory

It is human perception and in substance they are two sides of the same coin.

----------


## kristian

so does it mean that good and evil exist because of human perception?

Well I agree about that one but I dont think that the analogy you used (coin) suits well for this argument. 

good and evil does coexists without eliminating the other.  :Smile:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> What we call good and bad do not exist, and as a matter of fact, it is a matter of perception, and our perception of things make good or bad in point fact and at a deeper level all converge into the same state.


Nice in theory - how does this play out in reality? Which part of child rape, female genital mutilation, genocide and torture is merely a "matter of perception," and at what deeper level will these things converge into the same "state" as sacrificial love, charity giving, commitment and loyalty?

I'm sorry - but this abstract idea that things are merely due to our perception creates an unstable world where reality is all self-referential - a dangerous relativism to indulge in because I then get to claim that my morality is based upon my perception - and if I'm stronger than you, my perception "wins."

What?

----------


## JBI

The Bible's distinction isn't as clear in translation from the Hebraic sections. Good is more Righteous, and seems to follow the Rabbi Akiba Maxim of Treat thy neighbor as you would treat thyself. In truth, the Torah seems to make distinctions between Man to Man, Man to God, and Man to the earth. Good exists in a moral sense, being that social responsibility is central to the tradition, yet bad isn't manifested in the way we see it, that is more a Christian creation. The theory of a negative rival to God isn't even apparent in the tradition, as god is All Powerful in every sense of the word, and can do, see, and be everywhere at once. In truth, the morality therefore stems from the canonization of Mosaic law, and not from a clear line of distinction.

The Christian sense of morality is different, because there is the fear of the devil mixed in, and there you get a clear line between what is right, and what is satanic. In Christianity they exist, but as absolutes, being that one is either right or wrong.

Personally, I don't believe in Good or Evil. I think it is all subject to point of view, and anything that does not effect others should not even be viewed by others. Philosophers try to codify ethics, but really, time has proved that ethics are relative to the society, and will constantly be changing as the world has changed. Attempts like Utilitarianism seem the closest, but even they are ideologically driven, and subject to corruption and subjectivity, which causes there faults.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Nice in theory - how does this play out in reality? Which part of child rape, female genital mutilation, genocide and torture is merely a "matter of perception," and at what deeper level will these things converge into the same "state" as sacrificial love, charity giving, commitment and loyalty?
> 
> I'm sorry - but this abstract idea that things are merely due to our perception creates an unstable world where reality is all self-referential - a dangerous relativism to indulge in because I then get to claim that my morality is based upon my perception - and if I'm stronger than you, my perception "wins."
> 
> What?


GOOD point!!

----------


## Redzeppelin

> GOOD point!!


Thank you, my friend. It's been a long time since we exchanged posts.

----------


## blazeofglory

> if I'm stronger than you, my perception "wins."
> 
> What?


See in nature all observable phenomena. In nature the mighty subdue the weaker ones and weaker beings have to always keep themselves from the aggressions of the mightier ones as a matter of fact. 

Survival of the fittest is the theory that applies in nature and human beings have to succumb to the the theory ultimately.

Is not there the mighty are not ruling over the weak here notwithstanding the fact that there are signs of compassion and love prevailing at times?

----------


## kristian

i think good and evil is being imposed to us.

By what?
~ By the the strong. ( Here I mean, the strong in physique, able to harass the weak to swallow what he calls good; the strong in influence and rhetorics able to persuade the weaker ones.)

Through what?
~ Through our conscience, or through our fears.

I may say that good and evil exist. But our true conception of good and evil must be relative, since we are all unique and with different lived experiences. However, if one calls an act as good such as euthanasia, he should not only regard his concept of good since the act of euthanasia involves other human being, at least the person who will be mercy-killed, which also may have a different conception of good and evil.

----------


## blazeofglory

> i think good and evil is being imposed to us.
> 
> By what?
> ~ By the the strong. ( Here I mean, the strong in physique, able to harass the weak to swallow what he calls good; the strong in influence and rhetorics able to persuade the weaker ones.)
> 
> Through what?
> ~ Through our conscience, or through our fears.
> 
> I may say that good and evil exist. But our true conception of good and evil must be relative, since we are all unique and with different lived experiences. However, if one calls an act as good such as euthanasia, he should not only regard his concept of good since the act of euthanasia involves other human being, at least the person who will be mercy-killed, which also may have a different conception of good and evil.


The history of ethics and morality in point of fact has episodes the mighty always force the weak ones to accept lies. That is why both good and white are not absolutes they are relatives.

----------


## kristian

> The history of ethics and morality in point of fact has episodes the mighty always force the weak ones to accept lies. That is why both good and white are not absolutes they are relatives.


yes, thats exactly my point  :Wink:

----------


## Nyx's Child

I agree on some level with rose07 that " Its just based on our way of thinking"
good and evil are terms which humans create to help them get their minds around what they cant understand our concepts of good or evil differ form person to person, obviously, so it is such a complex thing to explain what one person deems evil can be a perfectly reasonable act to someone with a different way of thinking and what two people have exactly the same way of thinking? so good and evil cant be clearly explained only generalised to the way majority think about certain acts

----------


## blazeofglory

In point of fact this is all what we call good and bad are responses. People respond to stimuli and they respond differently to different stimuli. In one situation he behaves in one way and in another that way. When he becomes sad he frowns and when he is happy he smiles, and indeed both internal and external conditions. 

All who commit crimes and all those involving themselves in altruism are ssimply reactive, not proactive, and of course particular circumstances force him to react him the way has to. 

Justification of crimes has roots in its own domains. For example when a thief sees depravity and poverty in one circumstance thinks the other is rich and he sees in the other's house even a dog lives luxuraintly and in his own whereas even a baby has nothing to eat and as such he justifies it and it so happens and the habit of theft grows and with that habit he is likely to commit bigger and higher crimes in life. He must not be subjected to the penalities and of course the society he lives in also accounts for all his acts.


Indeed our socioeconomic conditions account for immensely as to why man becomes a criminal. No body is a born criminal and maybe he is born to a cirminal parent or community, but he is pure while born and indeed it is in the course of making the reactions he makes to many external factors, and that ultimately leads him to be the ciriminal he is deemed socailly in point of fact.

----------


## skasian

Yes, of course it exists. God emits good where as the devil emits bad. It is either one of them that influences mankind to act good or bad.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Yes, of course it exists. God emits good where as the devil emits bad. It is either one of them that influences mankind to act good or bad.


And skasian, both God and Devil are within us, our own states. externalization of it is an illusion.

----------


## skasian

> And skasian, both God and Devil are within us, our own states. externalization of it is an illusion.


Maybe. However it depends on whether we sway towards one of them than the other when we act good or evil.

----------


## Jozanny

> Personally, I don't believe in Good or Evil. I think it is all subject to point of view, and anything that does not effect others should not even be viewed by others. Philosophers try to codify ethics, but really, time has proved that ethics are relative to the society, and will constantly be changing as the world has changed. Attempts like Utilitarianism seem the closest, but even they are ideologically driven, and subject to corruption and subjectivity, which causes there faults.


Perhaps JBI. I think mouthing platitudes on the basis of one's religious faith is a tad ad hoc, and lessens discussion rather than makes it interesting, but I also think Good and Evil as both relative and absolute values are more complicated than the issue of divine existence. Maybe the example of a mother microwaving her child is too difficult for most of us to wrap our heads around--but it seems an intrinsically evil act because it was gratuitous in the most horrifying sense. Infant death is one thing, but microwaving? It causes recoil, disgust, much like Vick's questionable conduct.

If it was up to me, I'd execute the mother--not torture her, in as far as killing her makes that possible, but certainly kill her, because I have no ability to conceive how, or why, she would do such a thing. I can conceive of why mothers and fathers kill newborns in a panic, or in denial--and those situations may call for mercy, but to use something like microwave technology to cook a child to death, this seems to call for the removal of such an actor who'd be capable of it--even though I grant you that such conceptual values as good and evil are difficult to define and may exist only as a cognitive self-interest. Metaphysics may be an occasional impatient field of inquiry, but I don't think it can be dismissed entirely, even if one is careful to stay secular, or struggles to do so--as Kant came up with his own version of the golden rule despite all that brainwork. :Crash: 

Somewhat dissatisfied with my pre-bedtime laziness, let me rephrase in a more discursive manner: Is it a question of *believing in* good and evil, or asking whether universal values can stand independently of behavior? Kant's categorical imperative is a universal conclusion, of a sort, and Levi-Strauss makes one of the most towering cases for universal valuation in _The Raw and The Cooked_. Have you read this JBI? If not I'd recommend it as a boost to analytical reasoning.

Foucault, otoh, eschews universal concerns, and I think he has a valid point in his strategic reasons for doing so.

That is the tension, essentially, whether a value has universal application, or specific instances simply engage the self-interest of a particular time and place. For me, at least, murder has shadings, with sadistic torture being a line I am unwilling to tolerate.

----------


## 0=2

hahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha

You guys are... really... ...

funny.

Do good or bad exist? Is existence... of itself?

Yes, they exist if you say so. But really people, independently of you? Of us?

They are variables.

But really, this thread is awesome.

People die. You reasoning why doesn't change this fact.

----------


## Jozanny

> People die. You reasoning why doesn't change this fact.


Of course people die. Most living things die, but that does not mean discursive argument is not a valid way to examine morality, in both its positive and negative aspects.

The argument, 0=2, is all we have. Now, a few of my philosophy e-list friends balk at that assertion, but what else is there for language to do? We do not need the minds we evolved. Ants and other social insects are still, to this day, humans only real rivals, which proves the mind as luxury. But the mind is our luxury, and so why not apply it? Or is serious discussion another of those things you mistrust to the masses? :Rolleyes:

----------


## 0=2

Apply it as long as it remains luxury. By all means, go ahead, and do not let my reactive application have any effect on yours.

But, for many, the mind becomes a trap, a trick. It has the power to trap an individual so completely that their very understanding of "freedom" becomes another self imposed box.

Philosophy is a great example. Most of this chit-chat? Dead. No application. Most people talk, and because talk is thought and thought it God they leave the walking to the cripples... A philosophy not acting upon is a dead philosophy.

But I can assure you I am by no means supporting any of you in acting morally justified. Some philosophies are better left to the junkyards of our minds.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In point of fact this is all what we call good and bad are responses. People respond to stimuli and they respond differently to different stimuli. In one situation he behaves in one way and in another that way. When he becomes sad he frowns and when he is happy he smiles, and indeed both internal and external conditions.


But we would judge someone as having some sort of emotional/mental problem if he chose to smile at the sight of a baby being tortured; similarly, we might wonder about the sanity of someone who frowns when given a sincere compliment. Certain truths persist - good and evil cannot be mere abstractions - once those terms become meaningless, we cut from beneath our feet the moral prerogative to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an act; at that point, we become paralyzed.

----------


## skasian

> But we would judge someone as having some sort of emotional/mental problem if he chose to smile at the sight of a baby being tortured; similarly, we might wonder about the sanity of someone who frowns when given a sincere compliment. Certain truths persist - good and evil cannot be mere abstractions - once those terms become meaningless, we cut from beneath our feet the moral prerogative to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an act; at that point, we become paralyzed.


I see you bring up the subject of the state of sanity and truth.
Some one who is insane do not have the sense of right or wrong, therefore they cannot judge whether something is good or evil. Therefore their acts for us can be recognised as neutral, neither good or evil as they cannot distinguish between the two.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I see you bring up the subject of the state of sanity and truth.
> Some one who is insane do not have the sense of right or wrong, therefore they cannot judge whether something is good or evil. Therefore their acts for us can be recognised as neutral, neither good or evil as they cannot distinguish between the two.



Well, kind of; what I'm focusing on is the idea that there are certain aspects of reality that are "stable" in terms of agreed meaning - especially in connection to things we perceive as "good" and "bad." Smiling at the torture of a baby would be interpreted as being either a) emotionally disfunctional (which suggests a "normal" response) or b) insanity (a response that does not accord with our shared sense of reality).

----------


## skasian

> Well, kind of; what I'm focusing on is the idea that there are certain aspects of reality that are "stable" in terms of agreed meaning - especially in connection to things we perceive as "good" and "bad." Smiling at the torture of a baby would be interpreted as being either a) emotionally disfunctional (which suggests a "normal" response) or b) insanity (a response that does not accord with our shared sense of reality).


Ah, nice to bring a new context to link morality. But I have to ask, why is emotionally disfunctional suggest a normal response? Sorry, but I do not understand the word "normal", how can we put a borderline between the normal and the abnormal? For example smiling at the tortured baby in my point of view is abnormal response while you think that it is a normal response. And if you suggest that this is a normal response, this person should have a correct sense of good and evil as their response is a normal. But this person cant. But again it depends on what this normal is, in my view, normal means someone that is capable of distinguishing good and evil correctly.

----------


## OhReally?

The question - does good and evil exist?
Yes. But think about this - if there is no good, does that mean there is evil? It's like light and dark - if you've lived in the dark all your life and you've never seen light, you would not think that you lived in the dark. Because 'good'and 'evil'are so subjective, they almost (ALMOST, not completely) define each other. 
Responding to previous posts on how primitive animals in the jungle have no morals and do whatever they like: Ok then. Are you an animal living in the jungle? No. That's demeaning everything anyone has ever discovered, knowledge, hopes, dreams, sorrows and pain into muscle,tissue and atoms. Personally, I cannot come to terms with that, because we are much more than instinct: we have a concience. If, for example, I hurt my friends feelings, I would feel guilty and not do it again. Do animals do that? I don't think so.
Good and evil are always tied with happiness and sadness. The Ancient Greeks believed that the point in life was to acheive the ultimate goodness, which was happiness. But I can't agree to that, because what if it makes you happy at the expense of someone else? That's not goodness.
By saying that good and evil don't exist - well, the impression that I got was that you may as well agree that since charity isn't good, then we don't have to donate, and let the people starve. Obviously good and evil exist, but they need each other. For instance, if there was no starvation in the first place (which is evil) then people wouldn't donate, and then no one would appreciate or be grateful to what they have. 
That's what I think anyway  :Smile:

----------


## hoope

Yea .. ! they do exist.. just like how there is good ppl .. u can also say they r bad ppl .. 
Evil is there around us inside ppl too.. 
And God Doesn't like evil.. but tis created to test human being.. in what way he want to chose .. in how he wants to live. ... 

Thats what i believe...

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The question - does good and evil exist?
> Yes. But think about this - if there is no good, does that mean there is evil? It's like light and dark - if you've lived in the dark all your life and you've never seen light, you would not think that you lived in the dark. Because 'good'and 'evil'are so subjective, they almost (ALMOST, not completely) define each other.


I will have to disagree. Dark is the absence of light - it is not an entity unto itself. In the same way, evil is the absence or the distortion of good. It does not have an equal existence. Good and evil are not subjective - they cannot define each other because they are opposites and evil is parasitic - it can only "exist" in relation to good. Good, however, can exist on its own.




> . Obviously good and evil exist, but they need each other. For instance, if there was no starvation in the first place (which is evil) then people wouldn't donate, and then no one would appreciate or be grateful to what they have. 
> That's what I think anyway


Good does not need evil. It can exist on its own. I have never starved and do not need to do so to appreciate the taste of food. I do not need to be slapped to understand the beauty of a hug.

----------


## billyjack

> I will have to disagree. Dark is the absence of light - it is not an entity unto itself. In the same way, evil is the absence or the distortion of good. It does not have an equal existence. Good and evil are not subjective - they cannot define each other because they are opposites and evil is parasitic - it can only "exist" in relation to good. Good, however, can exist on its own.


excuse my interjection fellas, but i have a challenge for red. show me a good that exists without evil. no bible verses and no appeals to the supernatural allowed for now please. 

personally, i think you're idealizing good. terrible events have produced some great things. here's an example that a theist could appreciate: without the heinous crucifixion of christ there would be no christianity.

----------


## Equality72521

Good and Evil definately flow together. Dark is the absense of light, that is true but I don't really think that it applys very much here. "Good" and "bad" are both inherent in human nature. I think that it is how one can even interperet the eating of the forbidden fruit in the bible. Inherently, if you do not take it literally, and perhaps use it to live by a code of morality of sorts (its up to interpretation), its a sign that everyone possesses sin, what makes it different is the way one utilizes it. 

Good and evil exist within actions, words, the pure existance of human being. Everything has its opposite, dark and light, good and evil...etc....either way....that how it went down in my head...

----------


## NikolaiI

> excuse my interjection fellas, but i have a challenge for red. show me a good that exists without evil. no bible verses and no appeals to the supernatural allowed for now please. 
> 
> personally, i think you're idealizing good. terrible events have produced some great things. here's an example that a theist could appreciate: without the heinous crucifixion of christ there would be no christianity.


You give an example how bad was turned into good. This is also applicable in life. Crises do not need to shut us down, they can be cornerstones for new phases and for growth. I don't know there is anything wrong or contradictory with idealizing good. Actually everything within language and thought is also idealizing good. 

Your valuation that good can come from bad circles back to good again. It doesn't change the fact that you value good also; you are still measuring according to the good something can create. In other words, good is still predominately valued as the measurement by which anything is judged, idealized in that it is the universal standard.


The universe might be considered any of these: good, neutral or bad. Or - friendly, neutral, or hostile. 

But it might be said that if we remember the good, then things are easy (even difficult things become easy), while if we forget the good, even easy things become difficult.

Or as Henry Ford said - if you think you Can or if you think you Can't - either way you are correct.

This seems like nonsense to pessimists!  :Smile:  But there is very strong evidence for it.

There is also evidence for the efficacy both of positive thinking in positive results, and pessmistic thinking in undesireable results. Or another way - just consider the power of the placebo!!

Now consider what effect that knowledge of the placebo effect has on different types. For the pessmist, and this is strange - somehow it has a negative effect. "Ah, things are fake, another fact which reinforces [my] world view." But this is clearly subjective and in a bad way. Placebo effect shows us we have a great power within us over our physical health - simply, our faith. 

It shows the world is subjective, but why should that affect anyone negatively? Hearing something said - how could that possibly affect us in a bad way? How do we know what we know, or what do we know? By our experiences, etc. And everything we "know," is not changed immediately. But for the pessimist, any little thing can trigger a reinforcement for their view - even something as the placebo effect, which shouldn't really have that effect. Our view, or our perception, affects reality, because reality and perception are not separate but they have a relationship.

So the idea that things are at least somewhat subjective should not _really_ affect us; unless we think it's true, which won't happen unless we experience it and realize what we experienced. And once again we come back to the fact that we can utilize good and bad things for good or bad.

So how does this affect the idea - can there be good independently? Well, clearly for one who has complete faith in good - good exists completely independently (or almost). Just as the opposite can be true; for one who is completely a pessimist, good, neutral, or bad things can all reinforce their view.

Lastly; here is a very good, rational, reason as to at least partly explain the power of thinking. Thinking is the first step to bringing any result into fruition. Action is necessary but action is guided by thinking. It's why our consciousness has the greatest effect on our lives, both positively and negatively. It's not to say that consciousness is everything, but it does reflect how preventing oneself from negative thoughts (not just one passing by, but dwelling on them and developing a negative thought pattern) will also prevent a great deal of misery and suffering.

I know that suffering / peace/fulfillment are not the same as bad / good (just as what is good now does not mean good always). But if we include the word harmony, then we might say if all are in harmony and not suffering, then this is absolutely good, so we can say our own suffering as well as the sufferings of others is certainly bad; although if we have to weigh one's suffering vs. anothers, then it is clearly not simply that suffering = bad, and it becomes complex again.

So as our perception affects reality, we should take this into account when deciding if there can be good independently from evil. It doesn't mean that perception trumps reality, I wouldn't say that. The relationship is there but not 100% understood. But it is clear that it is at least partly subjective to say that nature or the universe is good or bad, and it's also fairly apparent that good thinking along with good actions produces good results which further reinforce the causes for optimistic thinking, as well as the opposite. Negative thinking and negative acts produce negative results, which reinforce a pessimistic view. Just consider how someone doubting someone in a relationship can begin a whole chain of events which will later end it.


I know some of this gets cliched but there seems to be some truth in the idea that good produces good while evil defeats itself. An example from something from Taoism is that a bandit might gain wealth or power but other bandits would steal it; this was part of an argument that that is not really wealth, or an individual's wealth is not really wealth; wealth is when a whole community is not lacking anything.

----------


## PoeticPassions

All I want to say is that Blake had it right in his MARRIAGE OF HEAVEN AND HELL. Good and Evil, Heaven and Hell must exist, for they are contraries but not mutually exclusive. Good is the absence of action, it is the passive, and Evil is energy, the active. In order for Good to exist, Evil must exist as well, and vice-versa. If we do not know what sorrow and suffering are, we cannot know what happiness and pleasure are. 

Here are some Blake thoughts...

"Every harlot was a virgin once."

"What is a wife and what is a harlot? What is a church and what is a theatre? are they two and not one? Can they exist separate? Are not religion and politics the same thing? Brotherhood is religion. O demonstrations of reason dividing families in cruelty and pride!"

*"Without contraries is no progression. Attraction and repulsion, reason and energy, love and hate, are necessary to human existence."
*

"You cannot have Liberty in this world without what you call Moral Virtue, and you cannot have Moral Virtue without the slavery of that half of the human race who hate what you call Moral Virtue."

----------


## billyjack

NikolaI. 

yeah, i agree with a lot of what you stated. the subjective "goes with" the objective just as good "goes with" bad. niether can be known independently bc there can be no knowledge of a "thing in and of itself." but some claim to know to know the "thing in itself", such as, say, good, and then apply this knowledge to moral theory or metaphysics when in fact, that knowledge is complete hogwash, nonsensical rub that cannot be known and must be left as an unknown. we might think of things as independents, that's the nature of thought, but not the nature of reality

Kant



> "...though we cannot know these objects as things in themselves, we must yet be in a position at least to think them as things in themselves; otherwise we should be landed in the absurd conclusion that there can be appearance without anything that appears.

----------


## mono

Because I do not feel like typing it all out again, I wrote this in another thread minutes ago - basically a whole synopsis of _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_ by David Hume, _Beyond Good and Evil_ by Friedrich Nietzsche, and a bit of 'Self-Reliance' by Ralph Waldo Emerson.
In my opinion, and you will read why in that linked post, no, I consider the 'good and evil' debate absurd.
One more thing, has anyone else realized that when something seemingly 'bad' happens, people ask "How could God have let this happen," when, on the contrary, something 'good' happens, no one ever asks "How could Satan have let this happen"?
 :FRlol:

----------


## billyjack

> Because I do not feel like typing it all out again, I wrote this in another thread minutes ago - basically a whole synopsis of _Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion_ by David Hume, _Beyond Good and Evil_ by Friedrich Nietzsche, and a bit of 'Self-Reliance' by Ralph Waldo Emerson.
> In my opinion, and you will read why in that linked post, no, I consider the 'good and evil' debate absurd.
> One more thing, has anyone else realized that when something seemingly 'bad' happens, people ask "How could God have let this happen," when, on the contrary, something 'good' happens, no one ever asks "How could Satan have let this happen"?


we share a similar taste in authors. oh and quoting yourself, nice, very nietzschean.

and yeah i noticed that. just once i am waiting for a well known athlete to blame god when his team loses.

----------


## Schecter85

> Your comments, friend, directly contradict the Bible, which tells us the "the rain [i.e. calamitiy] falls on the good and bad alike" (rough paraphrase). God loves all - whether they do good or bad, because Jesus died for everybody - not just the "good." And, ultimately, without God in our hearts, no one is capable of being "good" in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> Welcome to Lit Net, by the way.


First I'd like to say, with no disrespect to your religion, that your last sentence shows great closed mindedness. Good and evil are relative terms, which is determined by one's views, such as yours. You might find killing a man in revenge for the murder of a family member as an evil deed, whereas another would see this as a justified action, and fully support this person.

I do find it disappointing, though, to see that religion is capable of singling out an entire point of view, proposing that it is quite unforgivable.

----------


## PoeticPassions

> I do find it disappointing, though, to see that religion is capable of singling out an entire point of view, proposing that it is quite unforgivable.


I agree fully. Everything is relative, and it is awful that a person that believes that Jesus died for our sins, and that he loves us equally, and is forgiving, would then preach the opposite of what Jesus stands for... 

So people like the Dalai Lama and such cannot in any way be good??? JUst because he does not have "Jesus in his heart"? How silly. And how silly to think that an atheist cannot be good... I have met many more "bad" people that claim to be religious, and many more hypocrites that worship Jesus, than I have met non-religious or purely spiritual people... 

ahh, but this is not an attack on religiosity or anyone's faith. I am merely saying that one has to be open-minded and accepting, otherwise one can be blinded... and in this blindness commit atrocious acts.

----------


## skasian

Just look at a simple aspect, child A loves his fish and feeds with care, child B feels bored and kills his own fish. One child's act is good while the other is bad. 

If good and evil doesnt exist, no one can perceive which child's act is good/bad.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> excuse my interjection fellas, but i have a challenge for red. show me a good that exists without evil. no bible verses and no appeals to the supernatural allowed for now please.


Do I need to be hit with a two-by-four to appreciate a hug? Do I need to eat moldy cheese to love chocolate? Do I need to starve to appreciate the taste of good food? I think not.




> personally, i think you're idealizing good. terrible events have produced some great things. here's an example that a theist could appreciate: without the heinous crucifixion of christ there would be no christianity.


I am, because the author of good is God. That God can take something bad and use it for good doesn't negate the badness of the bad thing. It also doesn't make bad necessary. The crucifixion was necessary because God needed to solve a problem we created and that problem was so serious that there was no easy "good" way out of it.





> First I'd like to say, with no disrespect to your religion, that your last sentence shows great closed mindedness. Good and evil are relative terms, which is determined by one's views, such as yours. You might find killing a man in revenge for the murder of a family member as an evil deed, whereas another would see this as a justified action, and fully support this person.


My last sentence is "Welcome to Lit Net, by the way."

Forgive me if I come across a litte testy here, but I'm really, really tired of being called "close-minded" because, frankly, it implies that you consider yourself "open-minded" enough to sit in judgment of my intellect and that strikes me as clearly arrogant. You know next to nothing about me and how I view the world, yet you condescend to tell me the construction of my mind? Puh-leez. If you wish to say my world-view if flawed, go ahead. If you wish to say you disagree with me and here's why - go ahead. But please spare me the tired cliche of telling me I'm "closed minded" simply because I have a view you disagree with. Thanks.

Why on earth should I take your relativistic subjectification of good and bad as some sort of "open minded" and authoritative opinion? Can't I just fire back that you're being "close-minded" by denying that my view could be correct? Isn't that the heart of being so-called "open-minded" (which you must be because only an open-minded person could judge whether someone was close-minded or not - right?) - that you are "open" to multiple views and perspectives?

That someone might feel "justified" in committing a certain act doesn't make it right, my friend. Surely that's obvious. Certain things are flat-out wrong. Telling me that "good" and "bad" are simply our determinations is absurd because sooner or later, you'll say "that's bad" and simply by saying that you're appealing to some sort of standard that I'm supposed to agree with.

----------


## seanlol

I agree with redzeppelin. You don't need evil to see good but alot of the time they go together.

----------


## The Comedian

Redzeppelin -- Nice post. 

Here's what I've never understood in this debate: most people essentially argue that good & evil don't exist because they are perceptions. There's a lot of fancy arguments that make this point, but most of them boil down to something like that. 

Okay, so good and evil are perceptions. Perceptions exist, right? Kind of how "love" exists; it's a perception. Do the people who say good & evil don't exist tell their girl (boy)friends: "I feel objectively neutral about you because feelings are perceptions, and perceptions don't exist". There's not a lot of _action_ in that statement, if you know what I mean.

 :Smile:

----------


## joseph90ie

.....

----------


## NikolaiI

Nobody so far who has been arguing about moral relativity has really mentioned disagreements on specific moral issues. Probably there are certain moral issues which we would disagree on, but those are more superficial than what we all agree on. I don't see why we would argue so much about whether morality is relative or not, especially when, if I am correct in my suspicion, almost everyone involved agrees on basic things - Killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, things like this. And again, it's quite simple, the reason for it is that no one likes to be stolen from. These things just follow natural to be necessarily enforced for the harmony in society. Other wise we would have the rule of warlords or what not, which almost always comes from anarchy.

Here's the argument for moral relativity. Up and down exist on earth, but in outer space they have no meaning. Similarly, humanity's right and wrong exist here on earth, but in an ultimate or cosmic sense they do not matter. But that's almost an insane argument. If you hurt someone, they will hurt, and that hurt is very real. There's not an argument which can prove this wrong. That is the reason for morality. The reason for moral relativity or subjectivity is that everyone has their own view, and no one's is really invalid, or what's the use of fighting over it? It's subjective. I think we fight over things that don't matter, and it's a cause of suffering. When actually, all of us here, we are intelligent, and we would agree on things like, "It's wrong to be disrespectful" etc.

There's enough suffering in the world that we should actually be mature enough not to be stupidly rebellious against morality, but actually realize that suffering is the issue here, empathize with that suffering, realizing that helping those who suffer is a worthy goal.

----------


## j.k.taylor

friend, i believe that what you are saying contradicts what the bible says. human beings are actually sinful. Romans 6:23- for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

----------


## billyjack

> Do I need to be hit with a two-by-four to appreciate a hug? Do I need to eat moldy cheese to love chocolate? Do I need to starve to appreciate the taste of good food? I think not.


as far as hugs go, no 2x4 needed, but surely you've felt loneliness (you're pigeon holing "bad", lots of things are polar to "good"). no moldy cheese needed, but i bet you've had uncooked broccoli (if you're a masochist that enjoys broccoli, replace it with anything that grosses you out, head cheese maybe) . no need to starve, but you can't deny that a meal is flavored by a good hunger. you seem to be saying that your past experiences are isolated from your idea of what is good. since there is no knowledge without experience, i completely disagree and i still dont think you've shown me a good that is known without a bad




> I am, because the author of good is God. That God can take something bad and use it for good doesn't negate the badness of the bad thing. *It also doesn't make bad necessary. The crucifixion was necessary* because God needed to solve a problem we created and that problem was so serious that there was no easy "good" way out of it.


bolding mine...and its basically saying:

a does not equal b, but a equals b.

----------


## Schecter85

> Just look at a simple aspect, child A loves his fish and feeds with care, child B feels bored and kills his own fish. One child's act is good while the other is bad. 
> 
> If good and evil doesnt exist, no one can perceive which child's act is good/bad.


But what tells us that killing the fish is bad.

... I'll answer that

religion

----------


## Schecter85

> I agree fully. Everything is relative, and it is awful that a person that believes that Jesus died for our sins, and that he loves us equally, and is forgiving, would then preach the opposite of what Jesus stands for... 
> 
> So people like the Dalai Lama and such cannot in any way be good??? JUst because he does not have "Jesus in his heart"? How silly. And how silly to think that an atheist cannot be good... I have met many more "bad" people that claim to be religious, and many more hypocrites that worship Jesus, than I have met non-religious or purely spiritual people... 
> 
> ahh, but this is not an attack on religiosity or anyone's faith. I am merely saying that one has to be open-minded and accepting, otherwise one can be blinded... and in this blindness commit atrocious acts.




nice....


*claps*

----------


## NikolaiI

> I agree fully. Everything is relative, and it is awful that a person that believes that Jesus died for our sins, and that he loves us equally, and is forgiving, would then preach the opposite of what Jesus stands for... 
> 
> So people like the Dalai Lama and such cannot in any way be good??? JUst because he does not have "Jesus in his heart"? How silly. And how silly to think that an atheist cannot be good... I have met many more "bad" people that claim to be religious, and many more hypocrites that worship Jesus, than I have met non-religious or purely spiritual people... 
> 
> ahh, but this is not an attack on religiosity or anyone's faith. I am merely saying that one has to be open-minded and accepting, otherwise one can be blinded... and in this blindness commit atrocious acts.


Personally I don't hold the Dalai Lama to be the embodiment of the best of what Buddhism teaches. I'm not studied greatly about him, but I have studied other Buddhist lamas, some things they teach, and it's very good. I disagree with the impersonalist nature of Buddhism, but they are still doing good things: teaching ahimsa, practicing virtue, etc. The main gist of mysticism from all religions is that there are states of being which cannot be described by words, which are beyond words. Actually we ourselves do not fit into dualistic categories, such as a body that is separate from the currents of life. 

Christians teach to see Christ's face in all people. There is a book called _Siddartha_ by Herman Hesse in which he describes the enlightenment of an individual. Not the Buddha but symbolically the same as the Buddha, even though the Buddha was another individual in that book. Anyhow, one part of it, and I am not doing it justice by truncating it and putting it into less able words than Hesse's, but one point of it is that he saw all faces in one. I think if we strive to see Christ in everyone's face, and in everyone's heart, we will always become better able to understand the divine Christ.

The idea of the divine seems impossible and people become emotional when the subject of religion or God comes up, and being emotional they stop thinking. In general our minds, if they are not well developed in knowledge or wisdom; in other words, if they are focused on material or external objects _always_ and if they _never_ seek peace or enlightenment; then they will be agitated or unhappy when things change. If our minds are attached or clinging to external objects, then whenever those objects change, we'll experience agitation in our minds. The mind gets jerked around. 

Now what about meditation and action? The only real criticism of meditation is that it is not action. But that is a very shallow one. We can't be in action 100% of the time, we should not be. But we don't have to only resort to intoxications or stimulation to try to divert our attention. We should check ourselves and become more acquainted with our mind. It's a progress and a path, and we all need it in some form or another. It's the only way we can have healthy bodies and wise minds. What is the goal? In Chinese Daoism the word Taiping means Great Peace. That occurs when all is acting harmoniously, indiviudals, the state; Heaven and Earth. So that's the goal. We can't really ever get there without self-reflection.

----------


## The Comedian

> But what tells us that killing the fish is bad.
> 
> ... I'll answer that
> 
> religion


What religion is against killing fish? I'd very much like to hear some details on this.

----------


## weltanschauung

> *Good is the absence of action, it is the passive, and Evil is energy, the active*. In order for Good to exist, Evil must exist as well, and vice-versa.
> 
> "Without contraries is no progression. Attraction and repulsion, reason and energy, love and hate, are necessary to human existence."


YES!
but you do see that good and bad dont exist until you classify them as such...

for example:
the evil muslim folk nuked the babylon twin towers in sodom and then saint bush won the elections by holy fraud, amen. then good amerika went to bad middle east and nuked waste desert petrol heaven into the land of milk, honey and starving orphans! see how good and evil are nitid?
its pretty simple, really.

another example:
good elegant white folk met the lazy evil black savages in africa and brought them back to civilization to educate them and as a punishment they gave us rap music!

the justice of god is unmistakeable!

----------


## The Comedian

> YES!
> but you do see that good and bad dont exist until you classify them as such...
> 
> for example:
> the evil muslim folk nuked the babylon twin towers in sodom and then saint bush won the elections by holy fraud, amen. then good amerika went to bad middle east and nuked waste desert petrol heaven into the land of milk, honey and starving orphans! see how good and evil are nitid?
> its pretty simple, really.
> 
> another example:
> good elegant white folk met the lazy evil black savages in africa and brought them back to civilization to educate them and as a punishment they gave us rap music!
> ...


So you exist, right? Is there, then, an opposite of you out there to make you a reality? 

 :Smile:

----------


## subterranean

> What religion is against killing fish? I'd very much like to hear some details on this.


Veganism





> One more thing, has anyone else realized that when something seemingly 'bad' happens, people ask "How could God have let this happen," when, on the contrary, something 'good' happens, no one ever asks "How could Satan have let this happen"?


Cheers, mate!

----------


## NikolaiI

> What religion is against killing fish? I'd very much like to hear some details on this.


Buddhism and Hinduism both prohibit the killing of any animal, including fish.

----------


## subterranean

> Buddhism and Hinduism both prohibit the killing of any animal, including fish.


Is this mean someone who embrace Buddhism/Hinduism, yet having meat as one of his/her diet, can be considered somewhat a non-practicing Buddhist/Hindu?

----------


## mono

> Do I need to be hit with a two-by-four to appreciate a hug? Do I need to eat moldy cheese to love chocolate? Do I need to starve to appreciate the taste of good food? I think not.


In my opinion, with all due respect, yes, yes, and yes, but perhaps not with such examples of intensity. So-called 'good' and 'evil' do not, however, always have to attribute to Hedonism. I suppose I believe in more of a continuum, a dimensional rather than categorical approach; in other words, something can feel better than good, or worse than bad - I could not say that stepping on a rusty nail has the same intense 'badness' than the death of a loved one, nor does the taste of well-made tiramisu have the same 'goodness' as reading a good novel.
A lot of human thinking, I believe, functions by comparisons. What judges if you slept well last night bases itself on previous experiences - you slept better than you did while the neighbors threw a loud party, but not as well as you did in infancy.
In my opinion, the same goes between 'good' and 'evil.' For Believers, nothing beats the ultimate goodness of God, and nothing has more evil than Satan - polar opposites. Would we consider fire and brimstone unpleasurable if we could imagine heaven? It would probably feel relatively uncomfortable, but even if I burned amid fire and brimstone, getting burned on my bare feet and legs would probably not feel as bad as my face getting burned - a simple comparison of bad and worse even where all believers dread, hell.

----------


## The Comedian

> Buddhism and Hinduism both prohibit the killing of any animal, including fish.


I should have guessed the Hinduism -- I have a couple of Hindu friends. I didn't know that Buddhists had the same feelings. 

So are they against swatting mosquitoes too? I know very little of the Eastern religions.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Is this mean someone who embrace Buddhism/Hinduism, yet having meat as one of his/her diet, can be considered somewhat a non-practicing Buddhist/Hindu?


What I know is this. Buddhists, when they take their meals, sit down to eat, and they meditate and say a prayer before taking their meal. Then they visualize their food as taking medicine - just like they are always assaying to practice healing thoughts, words, and actions, they are also meditating that their food is medicine. Now I am taking this picture from a monastery I visited. I'm not an authority to say whether someone who would eat fish would or could be considered practicing or not. Actually there is a precedent for it. There was a great yogi, Tilopa, who lived in extreme conditions and actually for a number of years he subsisted only on fish from the river by which he lived. However the general rule is to not eat meals where animals, even fish, even poultry, were killed to make it.

In this monastery the Buddhists also only ate food which was offered. This was part of making it medicine, although I am not greatly knolwedged about that aspect of it. In Vedic religion, brahmanas offer all their food to Visnu before eating it, and they eat the remains of the food. After suitable food has been offered, it becomes _prasadam_, or the Lord's mercy. Prasadam is very similar to Buddhist's food, when Buddhists eat what has been offered to the Medicine Buddha, and when they visualize it as medicine. Prasadam is also medicine, and these brahmanas do not eat anything not offered to Visnu. In fact in Bhagavad-Gita Krishna says anything which is not offered to Him is considered to be sinful. The reason for this is since everything is given by the Lord, it should all be offered back. Also, everything belongs to the Lord, and to say that it doesn't is considered theft, thus sinful. In Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna says that if one offers with devotion a leaf, flower, fruit or water it will be accepted, so we understand by this that these things are suitable to offer. Krishna doesn't say, slaughter an animal and then offer it.

In fact, in the Bible in Christianity animal sacrifice is also condemned. I've read the verses but I do not remember exactly what they are. You'd have to ask a scholarly Christian to find out.

----------


## weltanschauung

> So you exist, right? Is there, then, an opposite of you out there to make you a reality?


yes, of course. but in case we ever meet, the universe will collapse, duh.
 :Wink:

----------


## The Comedian

> yes, of course. but in case we ever meet, the universe will collapse, duh.


Nice!  :Smile:

----------


## subterranean

> What I know is this. Buddhists, when they take their meals, sit down to eat, and they meditate and say a prayer before taking their meal. Then they visualize their food as taking medicine - just like they are always assaying to practice healing thoughts, words, and actions, they are also meditating that their food is medicine. Now I am taking this picture from a monastery I visited. I'm not an authority to say whether someone who would eat fish would or could be considered practicing or not. Actually there is a precedent for it. There was a great yogi, Tilopa, who lived in extreme conditions and actually for a number of years he subsisted only on fish from the river by which he lived. However the general rule is to not eat meals where animals, even fish, even poultry, were killed to make it.
> 
> In this monastery the Buddhists also only ate food which was offered. This was part of making it medicine, although I am not greatly knolwedged about that aspect of it. In Vedic religion, brahmanas offer all their food to Visnu before eating it, and they eat the remains of the food. After suitable food has been offered, it becomes _prasadam_, or the Lord's mercy. Prasadam is very similar to Buddhist's food, when Buddhists eat what has been offered to the Medicine Buddha, and when they visualize it as medicine. Prasadam is also medicine, and these brahmanas do not eat anything not offered to Visnu. In fact in Bhagavad-Gita Krishna says anything which is not offered to Him is considered to be sinful. The reason for this is since everything is given by the Lord, it should all be offered back. Also, everything belongs to the Lord, and to say that it doesn't is considered theft, thus sinful. In Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna says that if one offers with devotion a leaf, flower, fruit or water it will be accepted, so we understand by this that these things are suitable to offer. Krishna doesn't say, slaughter an animal and then offer it.
> 
> In fact, in the Bible in Christianity animal sacrifice is also condemned. I've read the verses but I do not remember exactly what they are. You'd have to ask a scholarly Christian to find out.


Thanks for the explanation. I have a good friend back in college, who is a Hindu. She eats chicken, fish, pork, but not cow as it is considered as holy. I was just thinking whether the Buddhist/Hindu teaching about not eating animal at all, in your case, is something that is taken literally.

----------


## NikolaiI

> Thanks for the explanation. I have a good friend back in college, who is a Hindu. She eats chicken, fish, pork, but not cow as it is considered as holy. I was just thinking whether the Buddhist/Hindu teaching about not eating animal at all, in your case, is something that is taken literally.


Yes the cow is very sacred. The Vedic explanation that she is our mother because she provides us with milk.

The cow is sacred but all life is sacred.

----------


## Eugenie

Well, unless one has lived in a coma since birth, I think we all know or at least sense by our senses that evil certainly exists, as well as good.

----------


## blazeofglory

All that I feel is God rises over and above all these attributes. For, he is something like the sun that shines over all equally. And of course good and evil are social attributes or our social ethics, and God remains untouched by our social ethics, and he sees all, whether they are evil persons or good persons by worldly standards are equal thru Gods lens. 

Circumstances circumscribe your movements in society. Our social systems are not necessarily apposite or suitable. In point of fact most of our social customs, manners and codes were framed by our rulers and modeling and molding them to their interests. The very lack of good distribution caused many to take to pilferage. When a dog refuses to drink milk at your house, man children die of hunger. This dilemma has led to thievery. There are some lands that are virgin and unused while some people have no piece of farm to toil on. This disparity has led to variety of social ills.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In my opinion, with all due respect, yes, yes, and yes, but perhaps not with such examples of intensity. So-called 'good' and 'evil' do not, however, always have to attribute to Hedonism. I suppose I believe in more of a continuum, a dimensional rather than categorical approach; in other words, something can feel better than good, or worse than bad - I could not say that stepping on a rusty nail has the same intense 'badness' than the death of a loved one, nor does the taste of well-made tiramisu have the same 'goodness' as reading a good novel.
> A lot of human thinking, I believe, functions by comparisons. What judges if you slept well last night bases itself on previous experiences - you slept better than you did while the neighbors threw a loud party, but not as well as you did in infancy.


While bad/evil may function to _underscore_ the goodness of good, I do not think it functions to _define_ it. I cannot believe that you would actually suggest that my appreciation of pleasure requires the existence of pain. I fully disagree - a kiss is clearly pleasurable - I need not feel a slap to appreciate it.





> In my opinion, the same goes between 'good' and 'evil.' For Believers, nothing beats the ultimate goodness of God, and nothing has more evil than Satan - polar opposites. Would we consider fire and brimstone unpleasurable if we could imagine heaven? It would probably feel relatively uncomfortable, but even if I burned amid fire and brimstone, getting burned on my bare feet and legs would probably not feel as bad as my face getting burned - a simple comparison of bad and worse even where all believers dread, hell.


But we're not talking about degrees of goodness and badness here (so far as I can tell); we're talking about the idea that both NEED to exist. I suggest that evil/bad is _parasitic_ and need not exist at all. That it does exist and that it does (via contrast) heighten our awareness of good does not suggest to me that I should believe its existence is equal to (and therefore valid in and of itself) to good.

----------


## blazeofglory

Good and bad. If our capacity for thinking deepens we will arrive at a stage where there is no good and bad. All will thaw and submerges. This stage is very subtle in point of fact. 

Good and bad is a relative idea. When you make comparisons it is bad or good.

All are relatively good and relatively bad and no one under the sun is absolutely good or absolutely bad. This is simply our sense perception but there is no element in this.

----------


## mono

> While bad/evil may function to underscore the goodness of good, I do not think it functions to define it. I cannot believe that you would actually suggest that my appreciation of pleasure requires the existence of pain. I fully disagree - a kiss is clearly pleasurable - I need not feel a slap to appreciate it.
> . . .
> But we're not talking about degrees of goodness and badness here (so far as I can tell); we're talking about the idea that both NEED to exist. I suggest that evil/bad is parasitic and need not exist at all. That it does exist and that it does (via contrast) heighten our awareness of good does not suggest to me that I should believe its existence is equal to (and therefore valid in and of itself) to good.


I do, actually. You may think David Hume and I insane, but I think the mind functions greatly upon comparisons and previous experiences. We have two "matters" of our brains - white and gray matter, made up of microscopic neurons; newborns have white, but gray builds over time. Steven Pinker demonstrates that babies, when first born, have an insignificant amount of gray matter, and this contributes to the reason why we often have little to no memory of infancy; a lot of things occur during infancy, what Erik Erikson calls the life stage of developing trust. Trust ends up from a series of experiences in which we learn to either trust or mistrust; certainly more happens in infancy other than what we deem Hedonistically comfortable and uncomfortable, but we learn to trust what we feel comfortable with (one's mother, for example), and vice versa, yet we create this continuum of good vs. bad solely by comparisons, and more gray matter grows from other things, besides affirming what feels good vs. bad, and everything in between. We commit these sensations to memory.
In my medical field of practice, I have sadly encountered many elderly individuals with chronic dementia in both its early and late stages. Besides, as in Alzheimer's disease where sections of the brain can develop plaque, dementia will cause generalized atrophy and a dilapidation of the gray matter. Among other things, they lose their memory, and, with that, forget what feels good and bad; I have had more than a few inflict injury upon themselves, then wonder why they hurt so terribly. They have lost the basis of both memory and sound judgment to discern good and bad, but can relearn, in a way, similar to children, the comparisons of good and bad, and what feels better than good and worse than bad.
Again, we need not take things to such extremes as kisses and slaps, but certainly a kiss often feels better than a slap, with the exception of masochists; we have that comparison. Personally, I like the taste of milk, but I would prefer a kiss over a glass of milk anyday; before encountering my first intimate kiss as a teenager, I did not know the pleasure of it, nor of my preference of it over, as a simple example, milk, which I have drank all my life, even as a newborn - hence, the gray matter of my brain from infancy formed a greater affinity for a kiss (as a teenager) than milk (something I tasted early on, as a newborn) - a continuum, comparisons.
Babies soil themselves on a regular basis, and, personally, I dislike the smell of fecal matter; for as long as I remember, I have disliked the smell, and this probably started in infancy, when the olfactory sense strengthens. I would strongly prefer a moment of smelling the odor, however, than, as you said in your analogy, receiving a slap to the face. I have not gotten slapped many times, but the first serious time in my memory occurred also as a teenager; the growing gray matter in my brain, from infancy, deemed the smell of fecal matter revolting, but it deemed it not as badly as a slap to my face over a decade later - another continuum, comparison.
While we have good and bad, we have different degrees of good and bad; not only do we require a source of comparisons, which begins from birth, to judge what feels good and bad, we also highly require it to what feels better than good and worse than bad. In my opinion, in an extreme case, a slap in the face will make one appreciate a kiss even more, because it heightens our senses; we can build a tolerance to good and bad, but there will always exist a better and worse.

----------


## kingoflombards

I think that good and evil exist. There will always be a sort of conflict in which a side will be labeled as 'evil' and a side as 'good'. However, in a lot of cases, the 'good' and 'evil' are as seen by a third party outside of the argument. 


Look at it this way. Without evil, there wouldn't be good, and vice versa. They are a sort of ideological motivators of each other; the 'good' will work to be stronger than the 'evil' and the 'evil' will work to be stronger than the 'good'.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Good and bad. If our capacity for thinking deepens we will arrive at a stage where there is no good and bad. All will thaw and submerges. This stage is very subtle in point of fact. 
> 
> Good and bad is a relative idea. When you make comparisons it is bad or good.
> 
> All are relatively good and relatively bad and no one under the sun is absolutely good or absolutely bad. This is simply our sense perception but there is no element in this.


Excellent points...
They are different degrees of the same... If there is no Good, then that is Bad. If there is no Bad, then that is Good. By definition, the absence of Good is Evil. You have heard the question, "If God made everything, then did He make Evil?" The answer is no, but He made the possibility of Evil by being Good.

If God made Light, did He also make Darkness? No...because before Light existed, all was Dark. If God made Heat, did He make Coldness? No. Without the element of Heat, things are automatically Cold...by definition.

I believe that God is all Good (the word even comes from the word 'god') and that He is eternal...meaning that He has always been...and He has always been Good. As soon as God made something that had the ability to make a choice, and when that choice that was made was opposed to God's nature, then Evil came about.

----------


## kingoflombards

I think that everyone is inherently good but as people learn and grow how to do things differently, a line is crossed while trying to achieve what the 'evil' person perceives to be the just and good thing to do. It becomes a situation where they can justify anything that they do by saying that the ends justify the means. No evil ever started out purely evil, or no one would follow them. Like if I said,"hey, me and a bunch of buddies of mine are going to go cut some people up, wanna join even if we're going to Hell for this?" no, a person would give a mission statement first, even one that sounds pure and peaceful. The road to Hell is paved in good intentions they say. How far could one go to achieve those intentions before going too far and paying too much for too little?

----------


## WizzFizz

(I feel absolutely rotten for cutting in on argument and not reading the last...6 pages, so if anything has been covered tell me.)

I don't believe there is inherent good nor evil, the key tool if there is evil is justification, as even though somebody did murder a handful of people they did it for just cause (in somebody's eyes) and so if something is just, can it also be evil. What it all comes down to is where you draw the lines of what is 'righteous' and what isn't.

----------


## Drkshadow03

Of course there is evil. Mwahahahaha!

----------


## The Uncertain

> What we call good and bad do not exist, and as a matter of fact, it is a matter of perception, and our perception of things make good or bad in point fact and at a deeper level all converge into the same state.


I agree, Evil is unexistent. It is a little more complex, it is all about perception. No one who doesn't suffer from madness does evil deeds because they are evil. (Now this is a harsh and controversial example but ill use it) Can we really say Hitler was an evil man? Mad or insane yes, but evil? He truly believed he was doing the right thing by killing millions of people. Evil? No. Insane? Yes.

----------


## Neo_Sephiroth

Everything must have its opposite. Good and Evil exists, I believe.

----------

