Good and Evil

[Indian Summer]

What is good? What is evil? Does evil really exist? Are 'good' and 'evil' really useful and fruitful terms in this day and age?

In the Christian tradition, immediate happiness is sacrifised in the hope of a reward in the afterlife. The meek shall inherit the earth! Typical ideals are ascetism, giving money to charity and turning the other cheek. Thus we have:
Good: Disinterest in power and earthly posessions. Meekness. Celibacy or monogamy.
Evil: The love of wealth. The will to power. Luxuries. Sexual promiscuity

But are these simply moral prejudices? Is this very Christian attitude simply a surrogate for taking revenge on the strong and powerful?

An opposing view is that the word 'evil' is just a Christian invention, and that the true negative of 'good' is 'bad'. Everything that is life-affirming is good and the true nature of being human is the will to power. Thus we get:

Good: The love of wealth. The will to power. Luxuries. Sexual promiscuity.
Bad: Disinterest in power and earthly posessions. Meekness. Celibacy and monogamy

Discuss!

[Rahkoon]

Like you said, I think it's not "evil" to be wealthy etc for that religion, moreso "what you want to avoid".

Diderot defined good as something with more advantages than drawbacks, and the other way around for bad.

[Savannah]

i might be stealing Sevenseas' idea, but evil can be defined as Justin Timberlake grabbing a microphone, while absolute evil is Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears slaughtering a duet :dizzy:

[Rahkoon]

i might be stealing Sevenseas' idea, but evil can be defined as Justin Timberlake grabbing a microphone, while absolute evil is Justin Timberlake and Britney Spears slaughtering a duet :dizzy:

I'll have to agree with that haha

[Beancounter]

Good and evil are purely human constructs.

Nothing more.

[eggplant]

I don't believe in evil as some sort of cosmic force. I think that people do things that most of us consider evil for reasons. For instance, a serial killer kills either because his life experiences have been so horrible that he hates a certain type of person so much that he feels compelled to kill them, or because his brain chemistry has predisposed him to lacking a conscience and lacking impulse control, or because of some complex combination of these factors. That doesn't mean he's not responsible for his actions, but that there are reasons for his actions that do not include "the devil made him do it."

Same goes for goodness. People do what most of us would consider good things because they were brought up by loving, healthy people, or because their brain chemistry predisposes them to niceness, or some complex combination of these factors.

What behaviors we consider to be good or bad are also, I think, determined partly by biology, and partly by culture. Again, a complex combination of factors.

[IamJen]

For me, it's much easier to dismiss the concept of evil, whereas "good" is something that I'd cling to. However, the existence of one without the other...I'm not sure that's possible. :confused:

[Sevenseas]

I think some actions are good and some are bad, meaning justified/moral and unjustified/immoral. I don't believe, on a theoretical level, on people themselves being good or evil.

The meaning of good is simply "what ought to be done". But its extension is another matter and subject to discussion.

And I agree about Timberlake *shiver*

[Seusomon]

I think that any group's notions of good and evil come out of a variety of sources: visceral revulsion, desire to be accepted by a group, sense of fairness, desire to have others behave in the way we prefer, empathy and compassion, need for rules and structure in life, pain/pleasure responses, deference to authority, etc.

Some of these basic roots of good/evil thinking are ingrained in us biologically, to some degree. Others are more circumstantial or learned. They all get tangled together in very complicated ways as a culture evolves. That is why there are many cross-culture similarities in beliefs about good or evil, but no absolutes that all agree on.

On a personal level, I try to evluate my own actions on two levels:

1. What are the consequences for myself and others? Will this choice or behavior lead to healthier, more productive, happier lives for those concerned, or will it cause suffering, disconnection, and expend effort counterproductively?

2. What is my motive in making this choice or doing this thing? Am I coming from a place of compassion, clarity, and wisdom, or am I motivated by fear, anger, or insecurity?

That's how I work with good/evil on a personal level. I also respect social conventions by default in most areas, up to the point where my personal moral compass rebels.

[Vegan Joe]

I am good and you are evil, that's all you need to know.

[Seusomon]

Oh, I should add one thing, since religion was mentioned.

As a Pagan, I basically reject the God/Satan dichotomy and the concepts of good and evil attached to that. However, after careful thought, I decided that there are still a couple situations where refering to God and the Devil makes sense:

1. If you are having an orgasm, "Oh God! Don't stop!" is a suitable invocation of deity.

2. The behavior of plastic wrap cannot be explained without acknowledging the reality of Satan. There is no other agency in the known universe that can accopunt for my experiences in this area.

[Sevenseas]

Cheezly is good :hungry:

[Indian Summer]

Like you said, I think it's not "evil" to be wealthy etc for that religion, moreso "what you want to avoid".
Well, wealth is definately a valid reason for St. Peter to deny a person entrance to Heaven. So ergo, it must be a sin, right? And isn't a sin an act of evil? At least, this is how I understand some Christians, but I might be wrong.

Diderot defined good as something with more advantages than drawbacks, and the other way around for bad.Would you say this should be actual drawbacks and advantages? (As opposed to simply intended drawbacks and advantages.) And drawbacks and advantages for who?

[Indian Summer]

For me, it's much easier to dismiss the concept of evil, whereas "good" is something that I'd cling to. However, the existence of one without the other...I'm not sure that's possible. :confused:
I think it's logically o.k. to define evil as the lack of good.

[Indian Summer]

On a personal level, I try to evluate my own actions on two levels:

1. What are the consequences for myself and others? Will this choice or behavior lead to healthier, more productive, happier lives for those concerned, or will it cause suffering, disconnection, and expend effort counterproductively?

2. What is my motive in making this choice or doing this thing? Am I coming from a place of compassion, clarity, and wisdom, or am I motivated by fear, anger, or insecurity?

That's how I work with good/evil on a personal level. I also respect social conventions by default in most areas, up to the point where my personal moral compass rebels.Which wins if 1 and 2 (consequentialism vs virtue ethics) conflict? I'd put my money on the consequentialism.

[Indian Summer]

The meaning of good is simply "what ought to be done". But its extension is another matter and subject to discussion.
Total cop-out! :p

[Sevenseas]

Total cop-out! :pSo are you asking people for their (normative) moral views?

[Sevenseas]

I'll have to rephrase what I said earlier, though. I don't believe in people being good or evil in the sense of guilt. I do, however, believe in the notions of goodness and badness, even as the kind of comprehensive personal characteristics. And they cannot be defined via each other: badness/"evil" is simply not the absence of good, but an independently existing quality like goodness.

[Vegan Joe]

So are you asking people for their (normative) moral views?
Normative is beyond the scope of this board.

[Sevenseas]

Normative is beyond the scope of this board.Huh?

[Vegan Joe]

Huh?

I am good, you are evil, that "Huh" enough for you.

[Savannah]

I am good and you are evil, that's all you need to know.

you know i make u evil Joey :trick:

[Marie]

~sings~

Am I evil?

Yes I am..

[Scythe]

I am good and you are evil, that's all you need to know.

Well I think you're picking the lame side, but oh well, works for me.

[Idhan]

I'd say neutrality's best as a cleric. You can cast spells with all alignment descriptors, from animate dead to protection from evil and there are no "special" weapons dedicated to killing people of your alignment (holy, unholy, axiomatic, anarchic). Also, if you have a laid back neutral god, you don't have to worry about getting in trouble with your god for not helping (good) or sacrificing (evil) enough orphans.