What's your understanding of good and evil?

Just for interest's sake.

Good is anything that you like and evil is anything that you dont like. Both are completely subjective to a particular point of view.

Personally I believe in the idea of Karma. Basically bad things we do will come back around to bite us. But to rigidly define good and evil is a matter of a personal truth. The ideas of good and evil are really pretty much abstract, besides the meaning that we each personally elaborate on. What is evil to one, may not be seen as that to all, and usually isnt.

There are no colors. There is no black and white. There is only gray in all of its wonderful vibrant and different shades. (An analogy) Personally I find gray very depressing.

I said the scientific one [img]tongue.gif[/img]

I suppose the vast majority of fantasy authors make use of the first option offered in my poll when composing their works. (Of course, it would be another matter whether they personally subscribe to it in their lives.)

The first one. ;)

Women are evil. Beer is good.

Oh, now thats terrible mean! [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] :D :D

You're the man. :D

Oh, now thats terrible mean! [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] :D :D </font>[/QUOTE]Now when was the last time you heard a beer complain because you brought a couple more home? LOL!

Oh, now thats terrible mean! [img]graemlins/1pissed.gif[/img] :D :D </font>[/QUOTE]Now when was the last time you heard a beer complain because you brought a couple more home? LOL!</font>[/QUOTE]Hmm...good point! :D

Good questions KT, never really thought of things in quite those terms. I picked the second one. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Thanx, ladyzekky. Hope you're not too angry with Animal for saying women are evil, BTW. ;)

I think she realizes she's evil! LOL (No offense Lady Z, just a little light hearted ribbing!)

Oh don't worry, I don't take Animals comments to heart KT, I mean, c'mon, he grubs and roots! :D ROTFL... (love ya Animal! [img]smile.gif[/img] )

No I'm not evil nah uh. Nope. :D

<font color="#00ccff">
My view of good and evil:

Good = you get to live, eat, drink and be merry

Evil = you go to jail and you become someone's Mary.</font>

:D

LOL Magik, that was the funniest thing I've heard all day.

I think to be evil, you have to do things that intentionally hurt other people for the sake of hurting them. That doesn't mean that there aren't some people who don't fit that profile that aren't @$$holes (backstabbers and the like) but they're not necessarily evil.

Evil is taking over Europe and killing millions of innocent women and children, as well as men, simply because they are of a different mindset. :(

<font color="#00ccff">
Thanks TM :D that is the response I was hoping to provide people tonight, sometimes it is just nice to make people laugh. Anyway I promise K.T. that I will give a more lucid response to your poll tomorrow. very worn out at the moment </font>

You're incorrect when you say just good and evil

Eden was the garden of good and evil... it bordered both...

I see that as ultimate neutrality... Atheism if viewed in a religeose aspect...

Why me and RedblueFlare were just talking about the subject so how about I post my *other* elaborated views here...

<tt>/)eathkiller says:
theres a store called "Safe Ameirca" now have you heard of it?
/)eathkiller says:
they cant keep any of their stuff in stock
/)eathkiller says:
Gassmasks, Anti-radiation suits, in adults and childrtens sizes
/)eathkiller says:
Bio Domes
/)eathkiller says:
Fallout Shelters
David says:
I think I have.
David says:
Although I'm not buying any of that crap that's for sure.
David says:
Think about it for a second.
/)eathkiller says:
I stocked up with their mail order system
David says:
If there actually is a nuclear war?
David says:
The world is basically dead anyway
David says:
So do you want to die in the blast or the aftermath?
David says:
Decisions decisions
/)eathkiller says:
not if you have a giant underground... thing
David says:
Yeah but how long are you going to survive on canned goods?
/)eathkiller says:
canned? Hydroponics man
David says:
lol
David says:
I'd rather just give up
/)eathkiller says:
I'll grow me a meat-plant
David says:
lmao
David says:
That'll be the day.
/)eathkiller says:
First priority would be making a large chunk of Earth into a space colony and destroying the earth behind it as it takes off into space as FAR freaking away from Andromida as possible
David says:
You can make a money tree while you're at it too.
David says:
okay...
/)eathkiller says:
then we can watch the two glaxies colide and laugh
David says:
...
/)eathkiller says:
and we'd make ourselves a new heaven and a new earth!
/)eathkiller says:
and the book of revelations would be carried out in man's will . . . but then again that's just a theory
/)eathkiller says:
OH and when the sun explodes we could watch that and laugh too
David says:
A new heaven? But we can't do that! God certainly exists
David says:
no doubt in ours minds remember?
/)eathkiller says:
by heaven i'm thinking the implied word was latin for "sky above earth" rather than "Plane of existance above earth"
/)eathkiller says:
but tha'ts why latin was made to be such a messed up langauge
/)eathkiller says:
look for duel meanings in everything
David says:
*you* look for dual meanings in everything.
/)eathkiller says:
lol
/)eathkiller says:
the whole bible is based on dual meanings
David says:
not *me*
David says:
correction the bible is based on lies
/)eathkiller says:
We have always said that Adam was the first man
/)eathkiller says:
First Man To Communicate With his God? YES... First Man? no...
/)eathkiller says:
Why else would lilith be there?
David says:
who's lilith?
/)eathkiller says:
she was a savage woman
/)eathkiller says:
she tried to intice adam in his younger years
David says:
Umm... mentioned in the bible?
/)eathkiller says:
yes
David says:
Cause I don't remember anything about her.
/)eathkiller says:
Depend which versino you read "And she sat on the faces of men and inticed them"
David says:
Not that I was the top student in bible study or anything obviously
/)eathkiller says:
fortunetly she went and spawned another race of humans that died out called the lillums
David says:
Okay... I didn't hear this version.
David says:
At *all*
/)eathkiller says:
lol
/)eathkiller says:
you know about adams sons though...
/)eathkiller says:
right?
/)eathkiller says:
and Jesus' brother?
David says:
Caleb and something
/)eathkiller says:
Caine and abel lol
David says:
*NOT* the top student in bible study!
/)eathkiller says:
heh
David says:
Caleb=Caine and Abel combined
/)eathkiller says:
LOL
/)eathkiller says:
now what i cant remember
/)eathkiller says:
si which one commited the first murder
David says:
I don't remember either.
/)eathkiller says:
i do know that the trees that God immediatley smited in anger around him still stand dead as ever today and petrified even down to the tiniest fabric of foliage
David says:
uh huh
/)eathkiller says:
I can point to Eden on a map
David says:
California the area of the petrified forest?
/)eathkiller says:
It's now a slum...
David says:
lol
/)eathkiller says:
in the middle of the himilayan rejoin, not too far from china, jerusalem, india, and Europe, kind of like in between all of them
/)eathkiller says:
and since its a slum it will never go back to the natural paradise that WAS eden and therefore man shall never set foot in the paradise of eden again
David says:
But they already have.
/)eathkiller says:
but its not a PARADISE its a SLUM
/)eathkiller says:

/)eathkiller says:
Athiests are the only humans who will ever see eden again...

And this is just a personal representation here.... But I have accounts of seriouse sinners with near-death experiences and near-saints as well as many MANY atheists who seem to get them the most. . .
/)eathkiller says:
Just as we have good and evil there is the neutral holding place for souls... where all knowledge is lost and all the people see is a bunch of trees and they dont recognize anyone
David says:
Okay enough with the religous lecture already.
/)eathkiller says:
Heaven however, reported to contain feilds of roses, houses of gold, no pearly gates, and family Hmm I wonder if they have phone lines in those gold houeses... and if so... how easy would it be to make a virtual valhala?
/)eathkiller says:
alright alirght
David says:
Thank you.
David says:
That's enough religion for one night.
/)eathkiller says:
heh
/)eathkiller says:
well now you might get the role of lillith in Evangelion more P
/)eathkiller says:

David says:
You want an honest answer?
/)eathkiller says:
sure
David says:
Not a chance
/)eathkiller says:
not a chance of waht?
/)eathkiller says:
LAN games in heaven?
David says:
Of me paying a great deal of attention to remember the stuff you typed for longer than two minutes
David says:
Although Cain and Abel still equals Caleb
/)eathkiller says:
oh LOL</tt>

*Wonders what /)eathkillers been smoking* :D

I think there is a little truth in all four queries.

I lean towards #2, for its effect. I would only submit that "good" doesn't exist relative to evil. "good" is much as we think and strive to do it as much as evil is. Just as both are opposites, neither is absolute.

I believe that people made up the concepts of "Good" and "evil" simply so that the people who were in power could keep a tighter leash on the citizens. It gives them perfect excuses to war, arrest and generally do what they want.
And though some people do things which others may very well classify "evil" it is all really up to your standards.

Different people find different things "evil"
While a person may find a simple prank which is humerous and the suffering of another evil another may find it really good.
I believe the general defenition of evil is measured up to ruthlessness, someone who is willing to do anything to get where/what they want is likely to be classified as an evil person.

Just my opinion [img]tongue.gif[/img]

In my way of thinking - Good & Evil are both very subjective concepts. And therefore can be bended at will, opportunity or time of day. They exist only to help someone to put his cosmic bewilderment into words. Being good ain't hard. With your own definition of "good", of course. If you want hardness, then try to do "what needs to be done" - and see how soon you are considered evil. I'ts good that we receive training from an early age on - beliving in santa , tooth fairy and such , so we can belive in justice, truth, mercy, law when we grow up.

Neuro

Did you ever wonder why chaos always beats order ?
Because chaos is better organized [img]smile.gif[/img]

i'm getting really tired of relativism, there is right and wrong. It's not culturally defined. It's not for you to decide, it just is.
I'll give you an example
Killing is wrong, it doesn't matter why you killed it's always wrong(when did Rage become a legal defense because the last time i checked getting angry and killing someone was still illegal)

Indeed. Says you...

Ah now here we come to a disagreement, You say that it is always wrong to kill...
So therefor one can assume that you do not support the death penalty?
If killing is wrong do you disagree with giving the American snipers the death penalty?

For some reason I would doubt that you would feel the same way if someone were to take the life of a family member... Its interesting how alot of people say that they hold their beliefs so close to heart when they would probably get rid of them at the first chance of power or revenge.

"I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws"

It won't go away - even If you are tired of it (unless you write your own mod, that is [img]smile.gif[/img] )

As for killing being always wrong and rage ==> killing. Ummm. Now,sorry, but I really can't be bothered with making a stand to oppose such a statement.

Neuro

<font color="#33cc33">Ahhh but Killing is not "always" wrong, it is only wrong when it is carried out capriciously or with out proper authorization....well at least as far as our legal systems are concerned. </font>

I'm going with the big name on this issue - Plato. :D

Well, I actually do agree with him in so far as I am a rationalist, so I'm not just name dropping and needlessly quoting. Honestly. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

If there is a "Good" it exists as a concept outside our normal understanding of substance and form. All things that are good share some common characteristics of the form of the Good, the ultimate concept. Therefore there are such things as good actions, but you need to be properly trained in order to recognise them. You need to be able to see the form of the Good and therefore recognise it in actions that are good. All actions that do not contain the form of Good are not good, however I don't believe in a strict concept of evil personally.

Right, thats a kind of summary, I hope.

Heres a sort of related question though - are you Consequentialist or Deontological. Consequentialist means that the good of an action is defined through its consequences. There are no essentially good actions when abstracted from their results. Deontological states that there are actions that are good, these must be undertaken no matter what the circumstances. For example it might always be bad to lie, or always bad to kill. Any thoughts?

<font color="#33cc33">Not that I want to be associated witht he political person who used this paraphrased quote but..."I can not always define evil, but I always know it when I see it". [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

IMO Good and Evil exist as absolute limits of an infinite line. Any action taken can be placed on this line based on its quantitative results.

The people who say Good/Evil are relative are saying that each of us, given the ability to place an action somewhere on this line, will put it in a place depending on our frame of reference... thus we will all "grade" an action differently. This is true, but I also believe that an action will have an absolute placement on this line, irrespective of frames of reference (and thus irrespective of your or my opinion on the matter [img]smile.gif[/img] ).

The people who say that Good/Evil don't exist are saying either :
that the only place an action can fall on the line is at the 50% point. Thus a murder (evil) will be offset by other factors (community coming together, outporing of goodwill to victem's family, etc...) I don't believe this because there have been too many evil actions for which there was no corresponding good to offset (communist purges for instance... tens of millions killed for nothing)
OR, that since we're all just recycled dirt anyway, the murder of one of us is irrelavent. The universe is based on order, and this is perhaps the most chaotic concept imaginable... our existance depends on the fundamental assertion that the above concept is false. If you believe it's true then we might as well not exist... because the state of our existance is irrelevant... whether your dirt in a hole or a living thinking entity (whatever that is). I gues I tend to think that if our optimum configuration were dirt... then we never would have evolved as a species into anything other than dirt. The universe has a plan for us, and who are we to second guess the universe (or God or whoever)

[ 11-08-2002, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

I'm definitely consequentialist Barry - the end sometimes justifies the means.

Interesting thread by the way!
Well for one I am an atheist. Two, mostly my personal philosophy and the way I live my life day to day is largely Epicurean (ethical hedonism) so I suppose to deconstruct it to a basic level good=pleasure and evil=pain and misery. On a personal level and a global one.

To do good, I would therefore seek to maximise my own pleasure and happiness, thus lessening the total amount of misery in the world, which can only be a good thing. I must stress that this is never at the expense of others, which would cause misery, it is equally important to enhance the lives of others and reduce suffering and unhappiness as a general thing.

But as absolutes, no I don't believe in forces of good and evil. It's about what we can do in the here and now to make our own lives happy and the world a better place.

But if you are a consequentialist then do you reject the idea of any kind of intrinsically "right" action? If you think the merits of the action depend entirely on its consequences then there can be no good or evil at all. Not saying this is a bad thing, just seeing if you agree with my conclusion. And it does seem to fit with the rest of your answer.

Either way, I'm just trying to get a discussion going here...

Hail the evil pumpkins.

...what?

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. In my post I was trying to fit in with the topic of the poll, but more along the lines of what would be a good end result (pleasure & happiness) or a bad end result (pain & misery), but this is not the same thing as good and evil. The actions you take to achieve those results don't necessarily have any intrisic right or wrong, but of course that doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware of the impact of your actions on yourself or others. The merits of your actions are dependent upon the results they achieve.

I understand. I wasn't saying in the first place that because an action had no intrinsic good (in other words it was taken for its consequences) that it wasn't the right thing to do. How you view yoru classification of actions doesn't change the fact that you take the good ones and avoid the bad ones, or you are supposed to. It just means you define them differently.

And you are right, lets keep this on topic. So lets Smash those evil Pumpkins!

evil is negatively affecting other beings.
good is positively affecting other beings.

whether the evil or good being done is intentional or not really doesnt affect the act being classified as good or evil. If the result is bad but the intentions are good then the act is evil. And if the result is good but the intentions are bad, then the act is still good.

shooting a cow to eat it is evil, so is eating your vegetables. One being is suffering/dieng for you to live. You can try to justify eating your vegetables as being better than eating the cow because the cow is more like us than the plant, but it is still an evil act because you are still killing one being to live. So, in a sense just living is evil (unles your a plant in which case your not eating anyone). *note that not all plants dont eat beings tho, there are evil plants*

[ 11-08-2002, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Ok then, what if you made someone where a seatbelt in a car when they didn't want to? You would be negatively affecting them as you were forcing them to do something against their will. But you are also positively affecting them as the seatbelt could save their life.

You could say the same about forcing someone to quite smoking. Or something like that.