The exsistence of good and evil?

[Hippolord]

I have created this topic for the discussion of whether good and evil exsist or whther it is far to relative to say as such.

1.) Any information relavant ot the subject is allowed on this topic

2.) As always no insulting

3.) no point is pointless

Okay so let me start, I have come to believe that there is no such thing as good or evil or really anything in between.

My reasoning for this is as follows (i'll try to make it short): When you are born you come into a world in which you now as compared to your parents,nothing. You have no perception of good or evil,these things only cmeinto your mindas you are taught them. You are taught that killing is wrong and giving is right but really it is up to you,just as everything else is really in the end up to you.

Your definitions of good and evil are just like your religon they are yours and yours alone. So in the end i believe that everyone has there own definitions of good or evil but i for one have none. There is only perspectives and motives while one person might seem evil to you they might not be evil to another.

So just because you say they are evil does that make it so, no the fact is, is that you just don't have that kind of power as to decide what is good and what is evil.

Let me show you an example by showing you someone pretty universally seen as evil: Adolf Hitler. I for one do not support him in anyway and am only using him to further my point i could have used any number of "Evil" people he is just a very well known person.

Hitler believed threw and threw that he was just trying to make the world a better place thats all he wanted to do. So how can you really call him evil for wanting to make the world a better place. We consider him evil only because he does not share our beliefs of a better world. So in an attempt to denounce him we through blackening titles on him such as "evil".

This is an extreme shortening of what i believe but i am trying to keep it short and as a good opening. So in generl i belive that it is far to relative,personall, and perseptual to say that there is a finite definiton for good and evil.

Let the debate begin!

[Fight!]

Wow, there is nothing i can add to that really, thats spot on with what i think about good and evil.

[LegionnaireX]

You bring up some valid points. Moral relativity, however, is a very dangerous philosophy. If everyone believed that people had the right to do anything they desired we would have no basis for determining right and wrong. All religious faiths provide absolutes as to good and evil.

Anything with the intent to harm is considered evil by most people. Hitler was murderous, therefore he was evil. It doesn't matter what he believed himself to be, society has come to the consensus that he was evil based on universally held moral principles. Your philosophy seems to suggest that he was just "living an alternative lifestyle." This idea is dangerous because it takes away a person's ability to perceive right and wrong. If I decided that it was in society's best interest for me to murder all new born babies, you would not say that I have an alternative moral code, you would say that I am a psychopath. Your inner morality would tell you that I have done a great injustice. If it doesn't, there is something wrong with you.

[Fight!]

what about the men that died on the crusades? Were they evil for killing muslims?

[Hippolord]

I believe that an attempt to put an absoelute on good or evil is foolish as there are far to many different beliefs in the matter. The closest in my opinion you can get to evil is if you do something for what is in you opinion "evil" and for no other reason.

If i kill your mother and you say it is wrong and say it is right then who is right? (no offense to your mother im sure shes a lovely women)

It doesnt matter if 6 billion people tell you it is wrong. If 6 billion people tell you 2+2=5 that does make it right?

[Playfishpaste]

I, like you, don't consider good and evil existent. However, I do consider morality important, and am I strong critic of moral relativism.

[Hippolord]

I, like you, don't consider good and evil existent. However, I do consider morality important, and am I strong critic of moral relativism.

Awww man im a moral relativist.... Then again im an everything relativist!

I think that all things are relative to who you are because to put in simple terms, everyone lives in different circumstances therefore there lives call for different morals,definitons, and perceptions. If we all shared the same morals definitons and perceptions you would begin to see errors in the "system" as people would begin to find out that this ethos did not fit the means and ties of there life so they would ineveitably begin to divulge.

So i belive that everyone may not belive in moral relativism but are none the less part of it.

[Bovril]

There are two models which I think combat the arguments of moral relitivists most effectively. They are the argument from genetically determined human nature, and the existential argument.

Humans seem to have an inate ability to aquire morality. This ability is, of course, in part genetic. Because it is a limitted ability, just like every other human ability, it can only manifest within certain limits. Consequenty the moral codes of humans and their cultures tend to be fairly similar. This theory parallels very closely the main themes of modern liguistics and the theory of generative grammar. It also implies that there are people with better or worse moralities, just as there are people who are better and worse at using language.

The existential argument claims that thefact of human existence dictates the nature of good and evil. This argument has been made by existentialist theologians who say the the seperation of humans from their essential state by the fact of their existence is the root of their sinfulness, and that actions which transcend this sepperation are what constitutes goodness. Similarly, secular philosophers have argued that transcendent and productive concerns, for example with love, are what constitutes goodness, and destructive and limitted concerns are what constitutes evil.

[LegionnaireX]

I believe that an attempt to put an absoelute on good or evil is foolish as there are far to many different beliefs in the matter. The closest in my opinion you can get to evil is if you do something for what is in you opinion "evil" and for no other reason.

True. If one has an understanding of good and evil and choose to do what is evil, then they are in fact evil.

If i kill your mother and you say it is wrong and say it is right then who is right? (no offense to your mother im sure shes a lovely women)

This is the exact problem with moral relativism. You would have no basis from which to judge criminals. The burden of proof would be on you to prove that murder is somehow "right." My definition of evil would be the intent to harm or manipulate those who have done no wrong to you. Hence evil would be violating the golden rule. Self-defense on the other hand, would not be evil, neither would fighting for those who cannot defend themselves.

It doesnt matter if 6 billion people tell you it is wrong. If 6 billion people tell you 2+2=5 that does make it right?

This is where religion steps in for most people. All religions provide moral absolutes that guide people's lives. If you are an atheist, you would find that morals are a development of society meant to ensure prosperity. In either case, people in general share a common moral code. They would never tell you that 2+2=5 and this is a non-argument.

what about the men that died on the crusades? Were they evil for killing muslims

It is possible for people to act in an evil manner and not be an evil person. Certainly those crusaders who made a career of preying on unarmed trading caravans were acting in an evil manner. They were definately misguided to say the least.

Moral relativity can be defeated using the golden rule. Certainly some ethics or morals (such as sexual practices, eating habits) are relative. Humanity in general, however, shares a set of common morals that can be summarised in the golden rule. It is a fact that people have the capacity to feel pain both physically and emotionally, therefore it is a fact that people can recognize the opposite of such inflicted pain: Good. Anyone who desires to harm others in a way that they would not want to be harmed, in general, is acting in an evil manner. If one always desires to harm others in ways that they would not want to endure, it would suffice to call them evil. This is the general rule, but it can be developed further because there are a few exceptions.

People have the innate ability to recognize what is right and what is wrong in general. It is sometimes hard to express this ability in words.

[Hippolord]

This is the exact problem with moral relativism. You would have no basis from which to judge criminals. The burden of proof would be on you to prove that murder is somehow "right." My definition of evil would be the intent to harm or manipulate those who have done no wrong to you. Hence evil would be violating the golden rule. Self-defense on the other hand, would not be evil, neither would fighting for those who cannot defend themselves.



This is where religion steps in for most people. All religions provide moral absolutes that guide people's lives. If you are an atheist, you would find that morals are a development of society meant to ensure prosperity. In either case, people in general share a common moral code. They would never tell you that 2+2=5 and this is a non-argument.

I Don't really see it as a "problem" more or less as an aspect of it that people don't like. A problem would be something about it that did not make sense and helped to only disprove it's exsistence. The lack of a moral base does not prove the non-exsistence or moral relativism if anything it helps it. What people don't like is the fact that if there is no moral base i could kill your mother and have no external consequence. This is not a problem with the theory this is a problem with peoples acceptance of a possibly true thory.

The fact that people share a common moral code just means that they are probably in similar situations where the development of certain moral codes would be benefical. And my 2+2=5 thing was just an example maybe not a very good one but an exmple none the less. So really you have helped prove my point, you just pointed out that Morals are relative to your current situation. so thanks!

[Old_Scratch]

This is the exact problem with moral relativism. You would have no basis from which to judge criminals. The burden of proof would be on you to prove that murder is somehow "right." My definition of evil would be the intent to harm or manipulate those who have done no wrong to you. Hence evil would be violating the golden rule. Self-defense on the other hand, would not be evil, neither would fighting for those who cannot defend themselves.

The basis for which to judge criminals has always been whether or not a person disrupts his own society, or class. Laws are made around this and not moral absolutes. Example; In many cultures through history it was acceptable to rape and kill your slaves. If that same person went next door and killed his neighbor though, that would be a crime. He has disrupted the society in which he lives.

This is where religion steps in for most people. All religions provide moral absolutes that guide people's lives.

Religious "absolutes" are as relative any any other concept of morality. Pre-Colombian Mesoamericans practiced human sacrifice in the name of religion. Is this a good moral absolute?

It is a fact that people have the capacity to feel pain both physically and emotionally, therefore it is a fact that people can recognize the opposite of such inflicted pain: Good. Anyone who desires to harm others in a way that they would not want to be harmed, in general, is acting in an evil manner. If one always desires to harm others in ways that they would not want to endure, it would suffice to call them evil.

That isn't universally true. In ancient Rome people people would pack arenas to watch other people die in painful ways. It was entertainment, and entirely acceptable. The definitions that you have laid down for absolute morality would make most people in history evil.

[LegionnaireX]

That isn't universally true. In ancient Rome people people would pack arenas to watch other people die in painful ways. It was entertainment, and entirely acceptable. The definitions that you have laid down for absolute morality would make most people in history evil.

This is because society corrupts people's moral understanding. Everyone holds the golden rule as the highest form of moral truth, yet society indoctrinates and influences people's perception. The audience in the arena most certainly would not have desired to have been a part of of the entertainment, but what society taught them influenced their perception. Society taught them to view other men has lower than themselves. In the present, we view this line of thinking as immoral due to our higher understanding of the golden rule. We have broken from such societal influences. It is in fact a form of moral relativity that led to such institutions as slavery to becoming permissable in the first place.

Many philosphers would argue that society is a negative influence on a person's innate sense of morality. Anti-semitism during the middle ages was a result of a society's influence on people. If a palestinian was not indoctrinated to believing an israeli was evil, they most likely would not hate them. Hence society may not be the result of a relative morality, it may in fact be a force against an absolute morality. People have the ability to recognize injustices, thus they have the ability to generally recognize a pattern of right and wrong. This, again, is universally true. No matter what age you live in, if a person steals, you would say what they have done is wrong. You would not say "they are just following their subjective morality, it is permissable because what they believe they are doing is okay."

Society must adhere to a moral code in order to function. If the morals of a religion such as Christianity were followed without societal influences, the world would be a much better place. If we all loved our neighbors as ourselves we would eliminate a lot of the problems in the world. These principles ring true for all ages and all people. As evident by history, people turn away from this spiritually important truth in favor of their own devices.

[MaximiIian]

I don't think evil actually exists, as an objective, solid thing.
Oh sure, there's people that do bad things; there are cruel, mean, and plain nutty people out there who do horrible, twisted, and reprehensible things. But I wouldn't say they're "evil". Just dickheads.
To me, it comes down to this:
Evil is relative. Being a dick isn't.

This does lead to another question though: does good exist?
It's probably as relative as the notion of "evil".

[Kiljan Arslan]

I very much believe Evil actually exists and I fear that its well lure is much stronger than the lure of good will ever be.

[Hippolord]

I don not at all diasgree with the fact that society has a large effect on peoples morals some times to a realtivly "negative" outcome. But this really only helps prove my point. Morals and are definitons of good and evil are the most relative and subjectivve things we may have. They subjectivve to war, religion, society, crime etc. But i belive most of all they affected by our innate human caring for ourselves A.K.A. our morals as i have said before our most changed and effected by our current situation. Whethere we are porr or rich whethere we a christian or muslim, and certainly what the majority of peo[ple around us believe.

This is because morals are so relative and uncertain that one of the first things a new society does is set down the laws/morals of the society. This is because of our fear of the lack of order in society so we set up a common consenses of morals. People who disagree with theses tend not to live in theses societies. ex: christians do not migrate towards fundamently islamic areas typically, because this does not suite you.

When you have lived in a society for a while and the moral values no suite you, you come to crossroads you either change with the morals or you rebel in protest and attempt to change them to better suite your needs. So morals then becomes subjective/relative to an individual/s needs.:hmmm:

[basics]

" Hitler believed threw and threw that he was just trying to make the world a better place thats all he wanted to do. So how can you really call him evil for wanting to make the world a better place. We consider him evil only because he does not share our beliefs of a better world. So in an attempt to denounce him we through blackening titles on him such as "evil"."

Hippolord,

Like all of us, Hitler had people who liked him for what he was, some still doing so, but like all of us we are not measured by what we do to our fellow man but how we behave towards God. It was God who made us under a curse, that made us capable of both good and evil, but worse still that the evil in us is stronger than the good. We were handed over to the power of evil right down to our very nature.

Now many have thought the way Hitler thought and many more easily persuaded by how he thought and still are, but the difference between him and us is that he managed to have enough power for himself to make his thoughts a reality. All over this world there are men and women like him who never thankfully get that power yet somehow manage with what they do have to be just as evil.

For most us us left, if we are honest with ourselves, we all have done things to others that perhaps we shouldn't have. Yes to others we might well be good, but it is just as likely that there are people out there who are agrieved at how we have treated them. That is natural but it is not in accordance with how God demands that we should live our lives and moreso how we should disregard that which He does demand.

I know that you won't accept this, but in effect it is for that very reason that He came into this world so that some might be delivered from the price that has to be paid by each one of us for our nature. The price being death for disbelief and disobedience in that order. So you can see that Hitler's crimes at the end of the day carry the same penalty as us who think we are above doing what he did yet nonetheless carry out our own version of what is distasteful to God.

[The Good]

Good and evil do exist. You see them around you every day.

[Hippolord]

Good and evil do exist. You see them around you every day.

Care to back up your point? your opinion is appreciated!

[The Good]

Care to back up your point? your opinion is appreciated!

Thank you, but I thought it was more obvious... here, let me demonstrate good and evil to you.

Good:




Evil:

[Fight!]

Thank you, but I thought it was more obvious... here, let me demonstrate good and evil to you.

Good:




Evil:

(Finally something short and with pictures )

What if the terrorist was doing that to save the lives of more people? And you just know those soldiers are going to kill as many people as they can