Good and Evil

[Revenge]

all discussion on good and evil, good vs. evil, etc. go here.

I myself believe the difference between good and evil is not black and white. However, I find that any true evil comes from the destruction of life. Therefore, killing a living being = evil.

so, go ahead. Share your opinion! don't be shy...

[Tatterdemalion]

I don't believe in good and evil.

[Fat1Fared]

wow indepth there Tatter, lol though someone as smart and artistical as you could come with a millions reasons of how to back that up, the fact you don't only seems to help your point lol

Though I have to say I do think there is good and evil, just there is no set line, everyone has their own line and that is what they base their view of good and evil on

[Tatterdemalion]

wow indepth there Tatter, lol though someone as smart and artistical as you could come with a millions reasons of how to back that up, the fact you don't only seems to help your point lol

You think I'm smart and artistical? Wow, that's so sweet of you. Everything seems to be going so fast. I know we've only known each other a few days, but somehow I feel That there's a connection between us, a bod, if you will, ever binding and inseparable be time and space. Could this be the feeling you humans call love?

No, probably not.

Seriously though, I've actually discussed this in detail in another thread, about there being no such thing as morality because there is no absolute standard against which to judge morality. Good and evil would be that standard, if they were to exist.

So to begin with, what are good and evil? What we're talking about are essentially abstract concepts, one being absolutely positive, and one being absolutely bad. Now, as far as abstract concepts go that's all well and good, but an abstraction is meant to represent something actual, so the question is, can anything in the actual world be purely good or purely bad? If anything can be, I've yet to see it.

Now, I'm not saying that there's not such a thing as right and wrong, when applied to situation, but at the same time, right and wrong are based on judgement and situational evaluation. That is, any action in any situation is going to have some positive effects and some negative effects. That being said, in any situation a person is going to have to weigh these potential positive effects against the negative effects in order to decide for themselves what the best course of action is. Acknowledging that humans must make judgments, however, is to acknowledge that in any situation there are no outcomes that are purely right or purely wrong, and without absolute right and wrong, any particular thing can be neither absolutely good or absolutely bad, and thus cannot be good or evil.

[Omega]

What a bizzare topic.

In reality, good and evil don't exist; it's all relative to the way you think.

[darkarcher]

Good and evil are concepts that are rooted in the belief that there is some sort of figure or idea greater than mankind itself. Therefore if one does not hold to any sort of belief like this, then there isn't any point in believing in good or evil because that person's perception would be based on preference and convenience.

[killshot]

I'm glad someone made this thread because I wanted to go into this subject in more detail. I didn't feel it was appropriate the previous time it was discussed.

While I don't believe in an absolute standard of morality, I do think humans have the ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong." Right and wrong may differ from person to person because of the lack of a universal standard, but all humans (or at least most of them) can feel empathy toward another person. Pain is something that is understood to be "bad" and therefore something to be avoided. Because humans understand pain and can also understand the feelings of others, they can understand that it is "bad" to cause someone else pain.

All that is needed to understand why murder is "wrong" is the knowledge that someone can murder you. Death is something that most people would like to avoid, so it stands to reason that you shouldn't wish death on others. The will to survive is a natural instinct. It also isn't hard to grasp that killing others will increase your chances of being killed. Most can see that killing is wrong, even if it is only because they themselves fear being killed.

Having made this argument before, I know that Tatterdemalion will reply, "But history tells us humans have no trouble killing others as long as it suits there purposes," only he would phrase it much more eloquently and in several paragraphs. My response to the words I just put in his mouth is that the will to survive always triumphs over empathy and compassion. However, just because empathy is easily ignored when survival or even greed come into play, it doesn't mean that humans don't feel anything toward their victim. Even the smallest, weakest impulse to sympathize with another human being would prove my point. Morality, in its most basic form, does exist in humans from birth.

[DarkPhoenix]

Good and Evil in my opinion they balance each other out and you can't have one with out the other and trying to abolish evil is dumb because the world would implode if we somehow successfully destroyed evil it would be like...dividing by zero

[Tatterdemalion]

Having made this argument before, I know that Tatterdemalion will reply, "But history tells us humans have no trouble killing others as long as it suits there purposes," only he would phrase it much more eloquently and in several paragraphs.

You know me too well, killshot. Forget what I said to Fat1Fared, that was just a senseless fling, clearly you are my soulmate.

In any case, moving on to my several paragraphs of response.

While I don't believe in an absolute standard of morality, I do think humans have the ability to distinguish "right" from "wrong." Right and wrong may differ from person to person because of the lack of a universal standard, but all humans (or at least most of them) can feel empathy toward another person.

Yes, but being able to empathize with another is not Morality, and good and evil are universal principles. Simply factoring in compassion in making a judgment isn't anything to do with morality, because you're still deciding for yourself whether or not an action is good or bad. How right or wrong an action is is the result only of your own evaluation of the situation. It's not as though the action itself carries any universal implications of right and wrong.

Pain is something that is understood to be "bad" and therefore something to be avoided. Because humans understand pain and can also understand the feelings of others, they can understand that it is "bad" to cause someone else pain.


We agree that humans can understand that pain is something unpleasant to cause to someone else. That being said, does this mean that humans, as soon as they are aware of this fact, refuse to cause pain to others on the grounds that it is "wrong"? Likewise, is it always wrong to cause pain to others?

This fact is merely something to be considered, and to be factored in to a person's judgment, not something that in and of itself decrees a code of conduct.

For example, let's look at something that causes pain. For example, punching someone. Punching someone hurts, it does indeed. Therefore, by your logic, because humans can recognize this, punching someone would be deemed "bad," or "wrong." But is this always the case? Certainly there are situations in which punching someone is considered acceptable, and not a bad thing.

For example, if someone punches their friend on the arm, even if they do so hard enough to cause pain, is this immoral? If someone is harassing a woman, and you punch that person to defend the honor of the woman in question, is that immoral? If you're boxing, and you end up punching someone, is that immoral? If you're flailing your arms around without paying attention to what you're doing and you end up punching someone, is that immoral? If you're really angre with someone who's being a jerk and you lose it for a minute and punch them, is that immoral?

The answer to these questions is debatable, but the fact that there is even something to debate is proof that none of them can be written off as "immoral." You may feel bad about some of these things afterward, but the fact that you as an individual feel that way is only reflective of your own attitude towards the situation. It doesn't mean that the act was in and of itself a bad thing.

All that is needed to understand why murder is "wrong" is the knowledge that someone can murder you. Death is something that most people would like to avoid, so it stands to reason that you shouldn't wish death on others. The will to survive is a natural instinct. It also isn't hard to grasp that killing others will increase your chances of being killed. Most can see that killing is wrong, even if it is only because they themselves fear being killed.

You know what I'm going to say, so let's move forward.

. My response to the words I just put in his mouth is that the will to survive always triumphs over empathy and compassion. However, just because empathy is easily ignored when survival or even greed come into play, it doesn't mean that humans don't feel anything toward their victim.

Yes, but does the fact that you feel bad about something mean that it is an immoral thing to do? There are plenty of things that we can do that cause pain, physical or emotional, to others, but at the same time we accept that these things are in the end still the best choice to make in a situation. For example, killing someone in self defense is the classic situation. It's something you may indeed feel guilty about doing, but at the same time, is it the wrong thing to do? Is it an immoral thing to do? Is it an evil thing to do? The fact that we may feel guilty about something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, and doesn't mean that it's wrong, it only means that we can recognize the fact that it caused harm to others.

Also, keep in mind that guilt is in many ways a learned trait. I'm not saying that you can't truly empathize with someone, but at the same time things like guilt are tremendously influenced by societal standards. I mean, think about the sorts of things people feel ashamed of in the modern world that have no real rational foundation, for example, things relating to sexuality in a sexually repressed culture. Guilt is felt there by people even when they do no harm, simply because of what they've been taught. Are you saying that the power of cultural teachings has no influence over even bigger cultural issues, like killing? If anything, cultural standards would play an even greater role.

So if, for example, a society's standards say that the gods demand a virgin sacrifice, would you as the high priest really feel guilty for carrying such sacrifice out, or would you instead feel honored to carry out the will of your heavenly masters?

But let''s even ignore that if we must, and get back to this issue of empathy for those we kill. Empathy for those we kill in self defense. We do indeed feel empathy for those we harm, even in situations where we would consider our actions to be the proper, correct course of action, perhaps not only justifiable, but heroic (shooting the terrorist before he can detonate the bomb, for example).

So if we can recognize something as causing harm to others, and we can feel bad about it, but at the same time we can confidently say that it is the right thing to do in a situation, does that really make the thing we are doing immoral? If anything, that would demonstrate that our feelings about an action are not the sole determining factor in whether that action is right or wrong, which would make it a very good argument to the contrary, in favor of moral relativism.

[DarkPhoenix]

You know me too well, killshot. Forget what I said to Fat1Fared, that was just a senseless fling, clearly you are my soulmate.

In any case, moving on to my several paragraphs of response.



Yes, but being able to empathize with another is not Morality, and good and evil are universal principles. Simply factoring in compassion in making a judgment isn't anything to do with morality, because you're still deciding for yourself whether or not an action is good or bad. How right or wrong an action is is the result only of your own evaluation of the situation. It's not as though the action itself carries any universal implications of right and wrong.



We agree that humans can understand that pain is something unpleasant to cause to someone else. That being said, does this mean that humans, as soon as they are aware of this fact, refuse to cause pain to others on the grounds that it is "wrong"? Likewise, is it always wrong to cause pain to others?

This fact is merely something to be considered, and to be factored in to a person's judgment, not something that in and of itself decrees a code of conduct.

For example, let's look at something that causes pain. For example, punching someone. Punching someone hurts, it does indeed. Therefore, by your logic, because humans can recognize this, punching someone would be deemed "bad," or "wrong." But is this always the case? Certainly there are situations in which punching someone is considered acceptable, and not a bad thing.

For example, if someone punches their friend on the arm, even if they do so hard enough to cause pain, is this immoral? If someone is harassing a woman, and you punch that person to defend the honor of the woman in question, is that immoral? If you're boxing, and you end up punching someone, is that immoral? If you're flailing your arms around without paying attention to what you're doing and you end up punching someone, is that immoral? If you're really angre with someone who's being a jerk and you lose it for a minute and punch them, is that immoral?

The answer to these questions is debatable, but the fact that there is even something to debate is proof that none of them can be written off as "immoral." You may feel bad about some of these things afterward, but the fact that you as an individual feel that way is only reflective of your own attitude towards the situation. It doesn't mean that the act was in and of itself a bad thing.



You know what I'm going to say, so let's move forward.



Yes, but does the fact that you feel bad about something mean that it is an immoral thing to do? There are plenty of things that we can do that cause pain, physical or emotional, to others, but at the same time we accept that these things are in the end still the best choice to make in a situation. For example, killing someone in self defense is the classic situation. It's something you may indeed feel guilty about doing, but at the same time, is it the wrong thing to do? Is it an immoral thing to do? Is it an evil thing to do? The fact that we may feel guilty about something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, and doesn't mean that it's wrong, it only means that we can recognize the fact that it caused harm to others.

Also, keep in mind that guilt is in many ways a learned trait. I'm not saying that you can't truly empathize with someone, but at the same time things like guilt are tremendously influenced by societal standards. I mean, think about the sorts of things people feel ashamed of in the modern world that have no real rational foundation, for example, things relating to sexuality in a sexually repressed culture. Guilt is felt there by people even when they do no harm, simply because of what they've been taught. Are you saying that the power of cultural teachings has no influence over even bigger cultural issues, like killing? If anything, cultural standards would play an even greater role.

So if, for example, a society's standards say that the gods demand a virgin sacrifice, would you as the high priest really feel guilty for carrying such sacrifice out, or would you instead feel honored to carry out the will of your heavenly masters?

But let''s even ignore that if we must, and get back to this issue of empathy for those we kill. Empathy for those we kill in self defense. We do indeed feel empathy for those we harm, even in situations where we would consider our actions to be the proper, correct course of action, perhaps not only justifiable, but heroic (shooting the terrorist before he can detonate the bomb, for example).

So if we can recognize something as causing harm to others, and we can feel bad about it, but at the same time we can confidently say that it is the right thing to do in a situation, does that really make the thing we are doing immoral? If anything, that would demonstrate that our feelings about an action are not the sole determining factor in whether that action is right or wrong, which would make it a very good argument to the contrary, in favor of moral relativism.

apparently no one likes you, cause you killed the discussion >_>

[Tatterdemalion]

apparently no one likes you, cause you killed the discussion >_>

I'm sorry, but I think we both must have very different definitions of the word "killed"

And on top of which, killshot and I are soulmates, so he must at least like me...

[darkarcher]

Good and Evil in my opinion they balance each other out and you can't have one with out the other and trying to abolish evil is dumb because the world would implode if we somehow successfully destroyed evil it would be like...dividing by zero

This depends on definition, really. Assuming you believe in some sort of god, then "good" would be whatever aligns with that god, or natural order, and "evil" would be the opposite, or chaos. So if you define it this way it's possible for good to exist without evil, but not in the human sense.

Anyway, enough rambling. If you're not coming from this perspective then it's a useless argument.

[Fat1Fared]

tatter why, I'm lost, I...i...can't go on oh god <cry>

Oh how will I ever go on.....

Anyway back to good and evil talk

Darkacrher, gods are rarely good,

But anyway I think there is something in good and evil, to say they are not real, is like saying nothing is real, if it is hard to define.

There is good and there is evil, and they are simply what one considers right and wrong at it highest level, and for both there is a line which can be crossed, however that line is an personal thing,

IE=a man who kills for money will have a far different line to, a man who is sees himself as a Pacifist but kills someone by mistake

But it is still there, however like most things cannot be genelised because no matter who it is, every humans belief is a right and true as every others humans belief

[Tatterdemalion]

Oh, by the way

Good and Evil in my opinion they balance each other out and you can't have one with out the other and trying to abolish evil is dumb because the world would implode if we somehow successfully destroyed evil it would be like...dividing by zero


It's a common misconception that dividing by zero would cause the world to implode. What people fail to recognize is the fact that numbers are abstract consptes, that have no power or influence on the world. So if someone were to find a way to divide by zero it would simply represent an inconsistency in mathematics, and mathematics alone. It would have no bearing on the physical world, and would instead be contained in the environment in which numbers and functions actually exist.

[Fat1Fared]

tatter i don't think he meant that literilly

[killshot]

You know me too well, killshot. Forget what I said to Fat1Fared, that was just a senseless fling, clearly you are my soulmate.

I'm glad you're having as much fun with our little rivalry as I am.


Yes, but being able to empathize with another is not Morality, and good and evil are universal principles. Simply factoring in compassion in making a judgment isn't anything to do with morality, because you're still deciding for yourself whether or not an action is good or bad. How right or wrong an action is is the result only of your own evaluation of the situation. It's not as though the action itself carries any universal implications of right and wrong.

A person can decide that an action is wrong and still choose to do it anyway. Morality may be objective, but most everyone can agree that causing harm to another is a bad thing to do. Of course there are some circumstances where violence is justified, but at the same time can still be wrong. The "wrongness" of causing suffering comes from empathizing with other people, which I believe can be considered morality. In fact, I think our major disagreement comes from having a different idea of what morality consists of.



I believe we have reached an impasse with this discussion. I think that empathy toward others forms the basis of morality and should not be dismissed just because the choice is still up to the individual. You seem to be taking the position that morality is only a construct of society, and does not truly exist. If we lived in some hypothetical world where there was no society, I would be inclined to agree with you. However, morality can't exist without society so there is really no point in trying to separate the two. I believe that a basic sense of right and wrong can exist in any human society without any prior standards to live up to. It may be a very primitive morality, but I would still consider empathy to have a moral connotation.

[Tatterdemalion]

A person can decide that an action is wrong and still choose to do it anyway. Morality may be objective, but most everyone can agree that causing harm to another is a bad thing to do.

But they can't, can they? I mean, that is to say, causing harm to someone isn't necessarily a pleasant thing to do, but as I've outlined there are still a whole host of situations in which doing so can be considered the appropriate action to take, the right action, or at least not the wrong one. So if causing harm to someone is the thing that, as you suggest, is the defining standard of what is wrong, then how can it in and of itself truly be wrong if there are a myriad situations in which it can be deemed the right thing to do?

Essentially that's saying "X is always wrong, except when it's not."

The "wrongness" of causing suffering comes from empathizing with other people, which I believe can be considered morality. In fact, I think our major disagreement comes from having a different idea of what morality consists of.

Well, the thing is just this, you can empathize with someone else in a situation, yes. You can understand another person's suffering. The problem is that in order to say that this fuels a sort of morality in people you need to accept the axiom that anything that causes suffering is wrong. To begin with, this is not a universal axiom in people, and secondly, it's not even something generally understood by society.

A more accurate representation of general attitudes is that anything that causes suffering is not pleasant, and should be avoided when possible, but may or may not be the appropriate thing to do depending on the situation.

The sense that in a particular situation one action is better than another is one thing, but if there's no authoritative standard against which things can be judged, and instead different things are just factors to be considered, then it's not a matter of right and wrong as universal principles, but rather, it comes down to a matter of reason and decision making, which may be influenced by a wide range of things.

Nothing is always wrong and nothing is always right. Sometimes things are justified, and sometimes things are less justified, but the justifiability of something is a large gray area, and can vary tremendously between people and their perspectives. Naturally, a consensus can often be reached, but this is because there is actually something to be discussed and to be argued, not some standard you can look to to tell you whether or not the action was the right thing to do.

(Oh, and by the way, "morality" refers to standards of right and wrong conduct, or a system of ideas expressing these standards)

I believe we have reached an impasse with this discussion.

Have we? Perhaps we're just not communicating well enough.

I think that empathy toward others forms the basis of morality and should not be dismissed just because the choice is still up to the individual.

And I'd say that empathy for the others forms the basis for compassion, but the fact that we are compassionate towards others and feel empathy towards others is not the key standard against which we determine whether an action in any situation is right or wrong.

You seem to be taking the position that morality is only a construct of society, and does not truly exist.

I'm saying that morals are ideas that are taught to someone, not an inherent standard everyone naturally follows by virtue of their own humanity. So yes.

If we lived in some hypothetical world where there was no society, I would be inclined to agree with you.

Wait, what? So now you agree with me?

However, morality can't exist without society so there is really no point in trying to separate the two.

Hang on, you started this way back when by saying that morality is inherent, and not the product of a system of beliefs/teachings. And you've been supporting that up until this point. Why does it sound as though you're now saying the opposite? Am I misinterpreting something?

I believe that a basic sense of right and wrong can exist in any human society without any prior standards to live up to.

I disagree. I really still don't see the foundtion for this notion. That is, I see it, but I still don't agree with it.

It may be a very primitive morality, but I would still consider empathy to have a moral connotation.


And I would not.

See? We still have stuff to argue about.

[killshot]

Hang on, you started this way back when by saying that morality is inherent, and not the product of a system of beliefs/teachings. And you've been supporting that up until this point. Why does it sound as though you're now saying the opposite? Am I misinterpreting something?

All I meant by this is that in order for human to feel empathy, there must be other humans around to empathize with. Even if it is just a two person society, some sort of society must be present.

Well, the thing is just this, you can empathize with someone else in a situation, yes. You can understand another person's suffering. The problem is that in order to say that this fuels a sort of morality in people you need to accept the axiom that anything that causes suffering is wrong. To begin with, this is not a universal axiom in people, and secondly, it's not even something generally understood by society.

To quote Noam Chomsky, "If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow." Doesn't this sound a lot like what I have been describing? This may be a pretty simplistic way to view morality, but I have never claimed that empathy was anything more than just the basis of a moral system. The groundwork is already there, all humans need to do is develop it into something everyone can agree with.

Nothing is always wrong and nothing is always right. Sometimes things are justified, and sometimes things are less justified, but the justifiability of something is a large gray area, and can vary tremendously between people and their perspectives. Naturally, a consensus can often be reached, but this is because there is actually something to be discussed and to be argued, not some standard you can look to to tell you whether or not the action was the right thing to do.

I would say that causing harm to someone is always wrong. There are certainly situations where the end justifies the means, but it doesn't make a "wrong" action any more "right." Sometimes immortal actions must be done in the name of self preservation or the protection of something valuable, but an immoral action is still an immoral action. This may just be the social conditioning talking, but I do think some things can be viewed in terms of good or bad.

See? We still have stuff to argue about.

We don't seem to be making much progress though. This has been fun and educational for me so by all means let the argument continue.

[Tatterdemalion]

All I meant by this is that in order for human to feel empathy, there must be other humans around to empathize with. Even if it is just a two person society, some sort of society must be present.


Ah, I see. Keep in mind that when I say "society" I'm referring a group with a common community, culture, etc., not just any group of more than one person...but I think i understand what you're saying.

To quote Noam Chomsky, "If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow." Doesn't this sound a lot like what I have been describing? This may be a pretty simplistic way to view morality, but I have never claimed that empathy was anything more than just the basis of a moral system. The groundwork is already there, all humans need to do is develop it into something everyone can agree with.

Yes, if only humans would develop something everyone can agree with. I wonder what's stopping them, eh?

But that's just it, that's talking about a moral code, a moral system, is a set of ideas, a set of rules, rules which must be established by a culture to apply to all those who belong to that culture.

That's what morality is. Standards that determine a culture/society's understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

Now, you're suggesting that somehow a moral code can exist independent of an established cultural standard, that somehow an understanding of "right" and "wrong" is inherent in people, and that there are actions that are themselves "right" and "wrong."

Now, keep in mind that this entire argument, for it to make any sense, is dependent on the idea that somehow "right' and "wrong" are universal consepts, that there are things that are right for everyone, and there are things that are wrong for everyone.

Interestingly enough, you've said that right and wrong are not universal, but that individual people can distinguish "right" from "wrong," yet may do so differently from one another.

Now, this here is confusing, because wouldn't that mean that all in all, if everyone can distinguish from right and wrong, but no one can agree on what right and wrong are, that "right" and "wrong" as abstract concepts have no real meaning beyond the individual, and thus are not well established enough to be guided by a moral code?

Then again, what you said later on seems to contradict that, so I'm unclear on whether you're trying to say that morals are universal and objective, or individual and subjective. Because if they're individual and subjective then they're not really morals, are they? That would just be a vague sense of a loosely defined individual ethical code, which would be something completely different.

But overall what I'm saying is this:

It's possible for people to understand that some things can have positive effects, and some things can have negative effects, on others as well as themselves. No one is disputing that. But at the same time, there is nothing in the world that is purely positive or purely negative, everything is a mixture of the two. So the edict "don't do that which causes suffering" doesn't really work, does it? And likewise "that which causes suffering is wrong" isn't a good foundation for a moral code, because everything causes suffering to some extent.

I mean, in deciding whether or not something is right or wrong requires a great deal of consideration, including all of the effects of a particular action, the positive and negative implications of these effects, who this is going to have an effect on, and how many people it's going to have an effect on, the short and long term implications of the action, how it is going to be received, etc., etc. Likewise, if you change even one factor, the merit of the outcome can change entirely. Considering all of that requires judgment, it requires weighing the odds and deciding what the best decision is.

So are you saying there is a single set of rules dictating what is right and what is wrong, which can not only account for all of those factors in prescribing a standard of moral and immoral behavior, but which is present in all people without it being taught to them?

Because if you aren't then you can't still say that there is an inherent moral code in all people, and if you are then surely there's something with which to support it.

Humans are rational beings. We have the ability to reason, to rationalize and to account for a myriad of variables. A moral code, a simple understanding of things as either right or wrong is irrelevant in a real-world context. It's a two dimentional way of thought in a three dimensional world.

[Fat1Fared]

Just to jump back in here, Tatter I seem to be inbetween you and kill, however I am swinging more to Kills side:

-One, like I said just because something is hard to define, does not mean it is not real

-Two, to develop this, you are basically saying, that because right and wrong is something man (sentient) made, it cannot really be real, however this is wrong mate, as with that view, 30% of the things in our modern world are not real, from the buildings we make to the mathematical theories we follow.

Ok I know this is not quiet what you meant, as you mean it is not real in physical sense, but this could still follow your theory, as even building will only start as an idea in someones mind. Anyway, time is another example of something which is not real in a physical sense, as it is man made and only exists in our minds, however it still has an effect on our lives, meaning it must be there, so maybe something only needs to effect our lives to be real, in at lest some sense of the word "REAL"

Ok this my Law course talking now lol

[Tatterdemalion]

-Two, to develop this, you are basically saying, that because right and wrong is something man (sentient) made, it cannot really be real, however this is wrong mate, as with that view, 30% of the things in our modern world are not real, from the buildings we make to the mathematical theories we follow.

I'm not saying that at all. The fact that right and wrong are abstractions doesn't mean they have no bearing on the world whatsoever. What I'm saying is that because it is impossible to have a definitive standard against which to judge right and wrong, and because no things are purely right or purely wrong, then they must remain abstract concepts, and not mistakenly used to describe real world things in the absolute.

In any two situations, whether or not the same action is seen as right or wrong may vary greatly, and likewise, in a single situation the view of whether a single is action is right or wrong may vary between people.

So while some things may be preferable to others, and in a sense more "right" or "wrong" than one another, right and wrong are not absolute, as in the dase of good and evil, nor are they universal, as in the case of morality.

So while something may be the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do in a particular situation, to say that it itself is right or wrong would be impossible.

[Fat1Fared]

That is my point though tatter, the fact that even though they are hard to define and only exist in our minds, they still effect the world and have to be there, they cannot, not exist

They just can't be looked at in same way as physical things

[Tatterdemalion]

That is my point though tatter, the fact that even though they are hard to define and only exist in our minds, they still effect the world and have to be there, they cannot, not exist

They just can't be looked at in same way as physical things


But they don't effect the world any more than our perception dictates. If humans didn't call things right and wrong, things would not be right and wrong. The things would still exist, and their effects would be the same, but they would not be judged in terms of their rightness and wrongness.

[RationalInquirer]

There is no universal definition for Good and Evil. What we may percieve as barbaric and evil as extremists overseas detonate themselves in the name of some higher power, will seem righteous and good on the recieving end. For example take the ideas of well known horror writer H.P. Lovecraft. Lovecraft introduced the idea of cosmic horror in which extradimensional creatures in the works were described to be "so alien and terrible that the very sight of them would drive a person mad". These creatures had exceedingly alien behavior that their actions and goals were completely incomprehensible and indifferent to human thoughts. In other words they had no real definition of Good or Evil.They were considered good/evil based on sole human perception. This short video also contains some related things to ponder about, It is named The Adventures of Mark Twain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diVqham5cKA

By the way, the old guy in the first seconds of the clip is Mark Twain not Einstein! Pay attention to what Satan :eek: says in 4:19 of the clip regarding one problem of defining evil.

[Fat1Fared]

Tatterdemalion, that is true if no one thought of them, then yes they would not exist, but someone has thought of them and they are used, making them real

I mean you could say same thing about buildings, if no one thought to make them, they wouldn'y exist, but someone did, so do exist

Hell if want to go something as unphysical as W and R, you could say it about society, yet you cannot say society doesn't exist because we make it exist,

You could say your arguement about anything in truth, but that would take away the brilliance of mankind to effect its world and make its own reality

[Tatterdemalion]

Tatterdemalion, that is true if no one thought of them, then yes they would not exist, but someone has thought of them and they are used, making them real

Yes, but the fact that they exist as concepts does not mean that they are valid qualities that apply to things. Anyone can think something up, but something that exists only in thought.

I understand that the concepts of good and evil exist. What I am saying is that things in the real world do not actually have the qualities of being good or evil.

I mean you could say same thing about buildings, if no one thought to make them, they wouldn'y exist, but someone did, so do exist

This is the second time you've made that analogy. Have you been listening to Peter Gabriel or something?

Looking down on empty streets,
All she can see
Are the dreams all made solid,
Are the dreams made real.
All of the buildings, all of the cars,
Were once just a dream in somebody's head

Strange, eh?

[RationalInquirer]

But they don't effect the world any more than our perception dictates. If humans didn't call things right and wrong, things would not be right and wrong. The things would still exist, and their effects would be the same, but they would not be judged in terms of their rightness and wrongness.

Great point, we only percieve good and evil. These are intangible concepts that don't really have solid unshakable ground. It's simliar to happiness and sadness. These are also intangible concepts. Although happiness and sadness as a human emotion exists in all of us, it holds no authority over the physical world. There are also no 'levels' of happiness and sadness. Just as there are no distinguished 'levels' in Good and Evil. To what extent are you happy or sad, good or evil? These depend on individual perception. Of course, things like Good and Evil are reserved for philosophers to think about. And I'm not one.

[Fat1Fared]

Look I am going round in circles here and you clearly cannot understand my point, I will say it one last time, as simple as can. Just because something is intangible, doesn't stop it being real

[RationalInquirer]

Look I am going round in circles here and you clearly cannot understand my point, I will say it one last time, as simple as can. Just because something is intangible, doesn't stop it being real

Fat1fared,
Yes, but at what level is something considered real? I can believe that the Universe was created by two massive pink and green lobsters named Esmeralda and Keith. I have no evidence or proof that they actually real. But they're real in my mind. They're real in my human mind. The human mind that has reached a level of primitive sapience and understanding in the mental plane. Metacognition, self awareness, sapience, whatever. The human mind that seeks to breach the outer boundaries of possible thought and reach to infinity and beyond the limitless extremeties of known existence. The human mind that (cue maniacle laughter) mwahahahahahhahah.........Are you confused yet? Cause I am!

I'm just kidding, I know what your trying to say. That just because something cannot be targeted by the five senses, doesn't mean they don't exist. Love is intangible, but it still exists within us Humans as an emotion. Just because thoughts of wanting a burger cannot be smelt doesn't mean that people will stop thinking about burgers. At least, thats what I hope what you mean...

[Fat1Fared]

about right,
but chinese new year is a callin, so got to go get drunk

[Revenge]

ok let's say this.

Terroists attacked the twin towers killing many, many people. The U.S. had not done anything significant to the terroists before, yet they attacked and killed hundreds of innocent U.S. citizens.

would you consider this to be "Evil"?

I might.

[Tatterdemalion]

ok let's say this.

Terroists attacked the twin towers killing many, many people. The U.S. had not done anything significant to the terroists before, yet they attacked and killed hundreds of innocent U.S. citizens.

would you consider this to be "Evil"?

I might.

Why?

[Revenge]

because if you kill people for no good reason OR kill people who have not done anything to you, it should be considered "bad".

though, I can see how that could be called a "view"

[RationalInquirer]

ok let's say this.

Terroists attacked the twin towers killing many, many people. The U.S. had not done anything significant to the terroists before, yet they attacked and killed hundreds of innocent U.S. citizens.

would you consider this to be "Evil"?

I might.

Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar! Allah Akbar! (last words of twin tower plane hijackers)

Although religion is a bad choice for justification in flying planes into buildings, the terrorists thought what they were doing was good and just and the will of their God. We see it as evil. They do not.

[Revenge]

I thought so.

this only proves that good and evil do NOT exist.

as another example, christians killed Celtic people because they thought they were "evil"

[Tatterdemalion]

as another example, christians killed Celtic people because they thought they were "evil"

Isn't that ironic? That today we see a group's actions as evil when that group viewed itself as condemning the evil in the name of raighteousness? It's almost funny in a sick sort of way.

Although keep in mind RationalInquirer makes the very grave mistake of assuming that Al-Quaeda are an organization of purely religious fanatics. I'm not going to say they're not religious fanatics, but keep in mind that as most other terrorist organizations, they are still a political group with a political objective, not people driven to mass murder simply because of a religious belief with no worldly interests, understanding or goals. RationalInquirer's statement does not recognize this, but that doesn't make it any less true.

There's a tendency to downplay this essential factor of Al Quaeda's existence, namely because it helps to demonize them and to surpress any political message they have. Not that I'm trying to say I support Al Quaeda, but at the same time to suggest that an extremist group is motivated by the worldly political actions of your country is to make their mission real and worldly, and thus to make their views something to be considered. DOn't make the mistake of being suckered into it.

[grimfang999]

good and evil, as people are saying, is an image of the mind

however, good and evil can be defined as justice and injustice, good people are those who do not intend to be aggressive to hurt others or force something large onto others when they are unwilling, like rape. those who are greedy and selfish and just want everything and to control and use people and dispose of them after are, in this debates case, evil. those who prevent these from happening, without trying to kill or majorly people to solve it, are good. those who try and kill bad people are just to a degree, but if they go over the top with it, like light does in deathnote they soon become evil and have become what they hate.

the bible, dispite its many flaws and errors and contradictions, did set good bounderies to what we can call good and evil. i may not believe in christianity, but i follow the 10 commandments because they are fair and forthright. try to imagine civilisation without the standards that are set, people would run wild and the population would be uncontrolable, money would be stolen from the rich and the theifs will get stolen from and so on and also we can never move on because nobody would care, we would be idiots with no respect for others, chances are no race wil ever had been united with the others and nothing would happen, its this view of good and evil that contributes to our civilized sentience