Good vs Evil - What does it mean?

[Margim]

Mother Theresa is generally regarded as the epitome of good.
Adolf Hitler is usually considered the embodiment of evil.

What makes someone good, and what makes someone evil? What, ultimately, defines evil, and where does it come from?

 

[cgannon64]

Good is compassion for other living things. Evil is the opposite of that. Good stems from God, Evil stems from rebellion against God.

 

[Margim]

Possibly - in many ways this reflects my own view. I'd be interested to get a perspective on good and evil from the athiests/agnostics out there, too.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Imagine a world populated by six billion yous, all copying your behavior.

Would you like to live in that world? If so, then you're good. If not, then whatever it is about your behavior that you wouldn't like to see in the rest of the world is evil.

Note that within some common sense boundaries [no murdering, no lying, etc] morality is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE. If you wouldn't mind living in a world where all property is shared and women are the rulers [the Iroquois adopted those ideas] then that's what's "good" to you. If you wouldn't mind a world where polygamy, or homosexuality, are allowed, then they're good - if you feel the reverse, then they're evil.

Everyone has a right to push his own personal morality - even a "morality" like Hitler's or Falwell's - but they shouldn't expect the world to necessarily agree with them.

I expect Newfangle to vehemently disagree

 

[Margim]

So you are saying, basically, that existance is what you make it?

 

[sysyphus]

That's pretty much it.

 

[Richard III]

Golly.

 

[Margim]

Pilate - Can you clarify a little. You state that there are common sense boundaries, but then state everyone has a right to push their own 'morality'. If that is so, then wouldn't I be right in suggesting that in such a world there would be no boundaries at all?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I would say disco is the epitome of ultimate evil; the embodiment of ultimate good is some cape wearing combination of Ronald Reagan and Captain America.

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
I would say disco is the epitome of ultimate evil; the embodiment of ultimate good is some cape wearing combination of Ronald Reagan and Captain America.

No room for a bit of Robert Menzies in the mix?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Hush now, you are giving away next season's episodes.

 

[privatehudson]

I think we're all a combination of both to a certain degree, all we can do I guess is try to be more good than evil... should we want that :d

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Pilate - Can you clarify a little.

Sure

You state that there are common sense boundaries,

For example, lying, murdering, stealing. All sane people will agree that if everyone did these things, the world would be a "bad" place. Thus, no sane person is going to call these things "good", or include them in his [what I call for lack of a better word] "personal morality".

"Common sense boundaries" means the common ground all sane humans share.

but then state everyone has a right to push their own 'morality'.

Absolutely, even the lunatics who'd LIKE the sick kind of world I just described. By "push" I mean "advocate, suggest, propose". I suppose you know that.

If that is so, then wouldn't I be right in suggesting that in such a world there would be no boundaries at all?

No, because we're not obliged to listen to the wackos or share their views. Society's justice should be built on the consensus of the largest number of sane humans possible. When every individual human [and his personal morality] has a vote in the issue, what many see as "bad" is impossible to legislate.

But if somebody, or rather a group of people, have a personal morality that's different but isn't harming anyone, society should let them be. There is no "absolute" morality besides the very common sense rules [those I already mentioned, which would obviously harm everyone if everyone did them]. But things which we currently see as "immoral", such as polygamy, prostitution, homosexuality, etc [just to cover the sexual issues!] are not necessarily so, according to my system. Therefore, they should be allowed.

All my point can be condensed down into this: Morality is relative to the individual, and that should be respected, unless that morality, applied universally, would have bad effects overall.

By the way, by my system, suicide should be made illegal, but not necessarily euthanesia. Pretty strange outcome

 

[floppa21]

'Good' is what we like.

'Evil' is what we don't like.

Maybe a bit simplified but true. Most people generally like nice and kind, unselfish and honest. Most people dislike mean and cruel, selfish and er, dastardly.

 

[Mrogreturns]

I'n not sure that evil is the opposite of good. Good can occur by intention or by accident, but evil implies intention.

Perhaps its just semantics, but that how it seems to me.

 

[Margim]

"Society's justice should be built on the consensus of the largest number of sane humans possible."

You little democracy cheerleader you .

But seriously, who is to judge what is sane or not? If the majority of humans decided that genocide of a particularly annoying subsection of humanity was ok, would that automatically make it good? Or is there someone that could claim a higher moral purpose and direction (what in biblical lingo would be called a prophet?)

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Only the insane have strength enough to prosper.
Only those who prosper may truly judge what is sane.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

If the majority of humans decided that genocide of a particularly annoying subsection of humanity was ok, would that automatically make it good? Or is there someone that could claim a higher moral purpose and direction (what in biblical lingo would be called a prophet?)

Have you already forgotton?

That higher moral purpose is the Rule that I just cited [apply any act to the whole world to see if it's right]. Genocide is OBVIOUSLY wrong because if everyone did it, there'd be nobody left

Democracy is all well and good, but it should never be allowed to supercede the Rule of Universality.

I see a perfect society as a tripod balancing between three apexes: respect for individual morality [tolerance], respect for majority rule [democracy], and respect for the Rule of Universality [compassion/sanity].

 

[Mrogreturns]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate


All my point can be condensed down into this: Morality is relative to the individual, and that should be respected, unless that morality, applied universally, would have bad effects overall.

When you say "applied universally" do you mean if everyone followed that code of ethics- e.g. performed act A, or if everyone had act A performed on them, or both?

 

[Margim]

Pilate - sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just want to get my curious head around this perspective .

"I see a perfect society as a tripod balancing between three apexes: respect for individual morality [tolerance], respect for majority rule [democracy], and respect for the Rule of Universality [compassion/sanity]."

Ok, I think I've got a grasp from where you are coming from now. But still, another question, if you can bear with me...

What determines these principals, and makes them 'right'? You mentioned that "Genocide is OBVIOUSLY wrong because if everyone did it, there'd be nobody left".

That implies that there is a purpose for the existance of the human race. What creates this purpose, and the 'principals' that govern it? Surely, we could be meant to die out just asa thousands of other species have.
If not, then morality lies as a glorified form of self-preservation, ultimately self centred - which then contradicts its own core value in the above stated 'Rule of Universality'. Or not. What do you think?