Debate What is the true meaning of Good and Evil?

Good and evil... do that have a real meaning?

To do good is to be nice, or do something good...
To do evil is to do something bad...

So is there a real meaning to Good and Evil???

Remember, something that is good to one person may be bad to another...

GOOD FOR ME---> Hurricanes miss my place more then once
BAD FOR THEM---> Other people suffer what we did not

Anyone have a good explanation for this???

Kokoro

 

You can't attribute good and evil to a natural phenomena. It can be beneficial or detract from you in some way, but that doesn't make it good or evil. It's not like this hurricane decided to go one way because it thinks you're pretty cool or hates a minority.

Now, as far as good and evil as moral guidelines go, it's generally accepted that abusive policies and needless excess are evil. When I say excess, I don't mean making a larger pot of macaroni than you can eat. I do mean making a larger pot than you can eat, eating a small portion, and tossing the rest out when it could be saved as leftovers. That's not an incredibly evil act or anything, but it is wasteful, and small bits of wastefulness accumulate into large bits of wastefulness, and THAT becomes a big evil.

Chaos and law are not inherently evil and/or good either. There can be a law which serves the people, or a law that brutalizes the people, for example. And chaos is not only not inherently good or evil, it's necessary to keep change and prevent stagnation of society.

Well, I'm rambling now... but hasn't this discussion arisen elsewhere on this board?

 

looked it up in the dictionary...
1good. better, best 1 : of a favorable character or tendency 2 : bountiful, fertile 3 : comely, attactive 4 : sutiable, fit 5 : sound, whole 6 : agreeable, pleasant 7 : salutay, wholesome.... there's too many!!!

okay, so evil... evil... 1 : wicked 2 : causing or threatening distress or harm

stuff like that.. (why am i writing this down?)

anyway, for me good means... um, maybe to get into a fight... or save a little birdy!

and evil is to kill animals and the world.....

 

Good and bad

There is no real meaning I think.
Isn't good and evil just a state of mind? That's what I tried to say the first time I posted, but it didn't come out right.

Dictionary meanings aren't always used the way they are suppose to be. So again I ask, what is good and evil? Is it such a fine line that some people can't tell the difference?

Let's try to think this out... leaders. When they think they are doing something GOOD for their people (Whoever they may be) the people might think that it is a BAD decision. So, that wasn't a real GOOD thing because everyone didn't think it was good.

Right?

Kokoro

(oops, put a lot...)

 

Well I agree with you in the respect that good/evil can't accurately be defined (since we all have different perceptions of what categorizes good and evil), however, the majority of the population have fairly common views of what actions fall into each category, since *most* people have a moderately distinct moral compass (and before anyone points it out to me, I'm aware that not all possess this). Even those who we may view as "evil" or "lacking any morals" may just have different perceptions on the world then we do. Say some guy was strongly against a new governmental policy, so he decides to take matters into his own hands and rid himself of the "vermin" who executed it. To us, taking a human life is percieved as malicious and cruel, but he did it because he considered the previously mentioned policy to infringe on his rights as a human being. In short, he justified it for the sole reason that he felt provoked. To him, his actions were noble and virtuous.

So I'll finish up my rambling by concluding that, personally, I think "good" and "bad" are just perceptions, though most share common views regarding what falls into each category.

 

Yeah!!

That is JUST the answer that I was looking for!

Thank you!

You know how many people can't answer that question???

Good and Evil are just a STATE OF MIND... like a persons paradise.
It's all in our heads...

I guess that ends this thingy... I guess...

kokoro

 

Doesn't mean we should just ignore a murderer though.

 

You guys are actually referring to a type of thinking, not the state of mind.

But, I think it depends on the [physical] state of mind, and that it depends not on the subjective thinking. That is, good and evil are defined quite clearly to sanity where good and evil should be obvious to recognize.

It should be noted that good and evil are nothing confusing to the typical mind. To a mind of insanity, good and evil may be difficult to distinguished, as right and wrong.

That is, the condition/state of the mind (how healthy the mind is) really affects the recognition of good and evil.

Then, it would be expected of me to say that the difference between good and evil should be instinctual or natural to the mind, unless the mind has a disability of some kind, such as insanity.

So, there is no reason for any typical person to say that good and evil are subjective or unclear. :anger2:

 

As much as I was tempted to go through your quoted post and get rid of all those annoying italicized words that you throw throughout the entirety of your posts in a wishy-washy attempt of some strange form of pseudo-emphasis as if you were preaching on top of a very, very large soapbox to a sandbox full of little farting toddlers and washed-up Muppet Babies and Rugrats (not saying that a few of the people here aren't at that stage of mentality... But really, c'mon)... I'll get right to the point...

You're wrong.

Seriously, though, you have a habit of trying to clean things up too nicely, while in the same breath, not only proving yourself wrong, but making any number of philosophers spin in their bloody graves.

Sanity and insanity is HARDLY, or Hell, just flat out is NOT what decides good and evil. Hell, I believe Richard Simmons is evil... though, I'm pretty sure I'm sane (for the most part... c'mon guys... help me out here... please?).

Some religious and more ethical folk find abortion to be evil... others to a necessity... using your... ahem.. "logic".. that makes one side or the other clinically insane. Oh, wait, did you mean clinically insane? Or did you mean some form of higher-conciousness insanity while we're tossing in absurd theories?

And... I would assume that, in a state of mind, you have a type of thinking. It's really not that complicated... you think... with your mind (your mental mind, of course... I know not of this physical mind you speak of, unless of course we're going to get into a discussion on full-frontal labotomies).

A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-anyways, as I came here to say...

Good and evil are subjective and unclear. In my opinion, at least.

 

Sanity?

Whoa, this is getting deep... I LOVE IT!!!

The line between sanity and insanity is very thin. Like a keychain I has says, There is a fine line between genius and insanity, but Genius has it's limits.
(I think it went like that)

What I'm trying to say is that still doesn't define good and evil. Just because one person is crazy and one is somewhat crazy doesn't mean that they don't know what is good and what it bad. They just think differently then others. Everyone thinks different, meaning that everyone has different Goods and Evils... thus again I go to my state of mind or way of thinking idea.

It's all in the head, but still doesn't mean a person can get away with murder.
To the murderer that might have been something good to do, but to everyone else it was something bad.

Take assassinations for example. I say that no matter what that is bad, and evil thing to do, but what about the assassin? They think they are doing something good, and not all assassins are crazy. Some are the most sane people that you could know.

I think I've rambled on too much again... I'll let you think on that.

Kokoro

 

Does anybody else feel literally disgusted that Kokoro wanted to end this once she got an answer that was in line with her beliefs?

 

That's not what I meant...

Sorry if that sounded mean... I didn't mean it like that...

I just meant that I might not post in here anymore because I got MY answer, I didn't mean for it to end for the entire thing...

Sorry again...

kokoro

 

Why stop the search for truth because you happen to find an answer you like? You're essentially willing to remain ignorant of opposing theorems if you find an answer you simply like. Is that not in itself an awful, if not evil act?

 

You folks think good and evil are subjective and unclear? Then, you have your opinions, and I have mine?

Please take this time now to consider. I would like to have you know first of all that our opinions are never wrong and never pseudo (fake).

To the typical (average) mind, the difference between good and evil should simple and clear.

When we observe something to categorize as either good or evil, the consensus (of average minds) makes it simple and clear as obvious to the population. Like minds share a common understanding and a common perspective.

But to the few opinions out there (of extreme minds), that something may not fall under good or evil. These few opinions come from a small population (of unusual minds). Unlike minds are unusual, and the difference between good and evil is only unclear and subjective to the state of mind (of confusion).

By general understanding (of the typical population), the difference between good and evil is clear and objective.

As we carefully consider the meaning of good and evil, we should also know that good and evil are already defined and they are discrete. We should consider a dictionary sometimes, as someone has already presented the definitions of good and evil earlier.

 

What if I decided 2+2= fish? Are you saying I'd be correct in my assumption?

Not neccasarily. Kokoro defined good as "doing something nice" and bad as "doing something bad". Of course that definition is subjective and unclear, seeing as (and she even stated this later in her post) what's considered "nice" to one individual might not hold true for another. For instance, say a local resturaunt decided to raise their prices to increase the wages/benefits for its employees. Those working for the resturaunt would consider this fortunate (good), but from the perspective of consumers it would be irksome (bad). Even the most typical of minds can't separate every possible scenario into two vague categories.

A small suggestion, dusk, can you ease up on the italicized words? It makes your posts rather difficult to read since our eyes are involuntarily drawn to them, cutting down on retaining previous information. In short, I had to quote this post and read it without the italics in order to grasp anything you were saying.

Maybe my eyes are just screwed

 

answer

I don't think keeping this thing open is an evil act.

I might have my answer, but some other people are still looking. I mean... look at the posts, there have been more sense I said that I would stop. Plus, I am getting more answers to my answer.

I'mm letting this thing go until the end. You never know what some people think about the meaning of Good and Evil.

Kokoro

PS, sorry if this seems like a deviant act to you, but I think it's a very doog thing to do...

 

Because you are referring to the fact of 2+2, it must be true that fish = 4 or 2+2. Then, you would be correct.

That might not hold true for some second individual who is confused.

But it is true that first individual uses the common definition or meaning of good and evil in such discrete and objective way as to distinguish by the customary understanding. The first individual is clear and objective in his or her expression of what is good and what is evil.

However, the typical mind has only one perspective in actuality. That is why the typical mind cannot be in two or more places at the same time. At a single moment in time and space, there should only one category for a example situation, such as the one you provided about the restaurant. Thus, the employees have only the perspective that is most useful or likely and the consumers have only the perspective that affects them.

All employees should have the same positive reaction and all consumers should have the same negative reaction, unless some employees and some consumers are individuals who are confused.

Sorry!? :dizzy2:

 

But fish has absolutely no relation to the number four, nor to the equation two plus two. Let's pretend I'm totally math impaired (not too far off base there...), and haven't the slightest idea what two plus two equals. If I truly believed that 2+2 is another way of phrasing "fish" (and by fish I mean the slimy organisms found in hydrated areas), would I be correct?

I think abortion was brought up somewhere earlier in this thread (apologies to whoever this pertains to, but I'm incredibly lazy and would rather not use the back browser to indentify you), and I think it provides a good example. A "typical" individual would be able to formulate an opinion on the subject, but this is an incredibly divided issue, and the majority of those with strong views on the issue (whether pro-choice or life) *are* typical individuals and therefore either view it as morally right or wrong (or floating amongst those in the grey area). However, the point I'm attempting to get accross is that perspectives do differ, even amongst typical minds.

I realize this probably wasn't meant to be taken literally, but obviously the typical mind can only be in a single place at any given moment - mine is currently residing in my head ^_^, lest I'd be having an out of body experience. But either way, that's more greed then morality, seeing as the consumers (or the majority) desire only what's beneficial to them without considering the needs of the dutiful employees, likewise the employees are jubilant about the raise, without considering the desires of their faithful customers. Some situations *aren't* "good" or "bad", and they shouldn't be forced into categories they don't portray. Some situations just exist, without tacking on needless labels. Personally, I think that's what "good" and "bad" truly are (other then perspectives, obviously). Labels placed by individuals to fill the gaps of confusion or hesitation on instances that can't truly be defined.

Don't worry about it. After all, "Wise men learn from their mistakes while fools continue to make them". (I think I got that off a poster somewhere at school, not entirely sure. )

 

Lol, now it's time to work out my philosophy lectures into visible forum. What we are left with is commonly named the Euthyphro problem. Euthyphro was a "holy man" during the ancient Greek empire. Socrates came to him and asked him the question, "What is pious or good?" The Euthyphro problem is thus:
This worry about what side of equivalences like "Holy <=> Loved by the Gods" is known as the 'Euthyphro problem', and Socrates's opinion is that things are not holy because they are loved by the gods, but rather that the gods love things because they are holy. Being loved by the Gods is thus not the essence of holiness, but rather just a property that holy things happen to have, hence Socrates's complaint to Euthyphro that: "you appear to me, Euthyphro, when I ask you what is the essence of holiness, to offer an attribute only... the attribute of being loved by all the gods. But you still refuse to explain to me the nature of holiness"

The 'euthyphro problem' arises for topics other than just the nature of piety. For instance, it is widely thought to apply to those account of goodness which try to explain it in terms of what is loved by God. If something is good because it is loved by God, then it can't be the case that God loves something because it is good (since that would amount to saying that God loves something because it is something that God loves). If God's choice of what to love is not to seem completely arbitrary, it is better to see God as an infallible 'detector' of goodness rather than a 'creator' of it.

Consequently, while a picture of the world in which God doesn't exist may make it hard to see how their could be room for a property like objective goodness, simply adding God to the picture doesn't seem to make the problem go away. It may be harder to see, but it is still there.



In much the same way, the problem of what sort of 'deeper' meaning life could have can seem much more salient if you have a picture of the world that is 'Godless', but the problem doesn't go away just because you start believing in God. God may recognize that our lives are independently meaningful, but unless it is to be completely arbitrary what God finds meaningful (in which case its hard to see why we should consider him finding something meaningful important), God needs to be responding to something that is independent of this sort of divine response.

What I meant by this, is that in the case of Good vs. Evil (from a religious perspective) Good and Evil will constantly be a problem we are faced with. Without either, howeverm, we would not have the eternal balance that makes up everything.


Thats my spiel...

 

Are we sure "fish" has absolutely no relation to 4 nor to the fact of 2+2 but we are sure to believe that 2+2 is another way of phrasing "fish?"

Then, we should wonder why in the world do we believe that. That is, how do we come to believe 2+2 is another way of phrasing "fish?"

It is an invention, then?

But, we are either both confused or both just pretending.

Not so to commonness. Whether we are for or against a subject, we should already know the difference of the views by generalization and by nature. But, a mind of confusion (or the foggy area) may ignore or avoid the issue. A mind that takes either of the sides is motivated enough somehow. Sides have their own reasons to do as they will. The truth (or morality) of the matter should already be known to all unless ther is no such thing as truth or morality.

Inevitable suppression of commonness, then?

Thus, it is not a subjective perspective, but it is an objective perspective. Tangible effects make objective perspectives.

Um?

Then, a fool learning from mistakes is the better way to go.