Philosophy Where is the line between good and evil?

If someone is raised with different values then yourself, and thinks what you think is good is infact evil, who is right?

 

Neither. That line is imaginary, defined by your own set of morals and thinking. What he believes to be evil may not be the same as what you percieve as evil, but that doesn't mean one of you is wrong. It's a personal viewpoint. Not so much a defined fact.

Of course, there are things that are pretty much universally evil, such as... say, eating babies, (eew) or... say, dismembering someone just for fun. But again, that's a viewpoint. Those are universally evil only because all of society views them as such.

So, to answer your question, that line is wherever you believe it to be. Others may put that line elsewhere, but that's their view of things. Yours is what's important to you.

 

Many cultures have been known to eat children, babies and older. Even during the bubonic plague that hit europe in the middle ages. Or during the massive starving in Ireland after the potaote shortage they had....Baby eating isn't that evil to some. I eat baby cow...How is that different?

Dismembered someone isn't evil to me either. I see it as necessary at times. During a war, you can dismember someone in torturing them, or in blowing them up. Is the army evil for being in the war? They dismember people, so they must be, right? No, I'm sorry, but those things arn't that evil to me.

 

Personally I'll have to differ with you.

I believe that there is innate value to human life because we are more then just animals, call it soul or spirit or whatever. Since there is a value to human life then things that intentionally harm or abuse human lives are wrong.

If there's no absolute right and wrong then whats the point of believing that anything is right or wrong. Seems kind of futile if theres no weight to it. Lets say I do something that I believe is wrong, whats the point of getting up set with myself, I can just change my beliefs to fit my actions - believing whatever I do is good if there is no absolute good or evil. If this is the case then why even think about it?

Hmmm interesting question, I dig this.

 

You missed what I said. I was using those as examples, not as absolute truth. The examples I used are not the core of what I said.

Those are the important parts of what I said. But you see, the very fact that we disagree over my examples, proves my point. You don't percieve baby eating or dismemberment as evil, and I do. Your line is in a more tolerant place than mine.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

 

You like that word, don't you??
Well, Only some value the lives of others...And very few in comparison value the lives of all....Humans, animals and the earth in general.

 

I would have to agree with you. Personally thats why I think we have so many problems around here.

What this place needs is some lovin. Make babies not bombs kids.

 

Then how can one individual justify their ideas of good and evil, or hold them into law? If they are infact just ideas, then they can't be forced upon others.

Are we smothering them in bbq sauce, or dipping them in breading....?

 

Exactly. If there is no moral absolute then the entire question and idea of morality is a waste of time. If its all relative then heck, whatever you can get away with you should do.

I dunno but just thinking about that rubbs me the wrong way. What kind of a world would we live in if everyone really believed that all right and wrong were relative. Im sure pleanty of people say they believe morality to be relative but if they really did wouldnt they just use people as much as possible and break whatever "rules" got between them and their goals? Its mindsets like these that get you Enron scandles and shady reports of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"

 

Because of society. We have socially acceptable rights and wrongs, that, while not accepted by everybody, are accepted by almost all of society. yes, they're ideas, but they're ideas that almost everybody agrees with. And, majority rules, right?

Whichever way you prefer, love. :Saucy Grin: (How about raising them in a nice home with loving parents, instead?)

 

Bah, who needs that...

A little disfunction is good for a person, builds character

 

But among all the societies, which is the one to follow as a whole? Do you know how many we are talking about....It's not just the good ol' USA.

 

Hmm yeah good point. With the logic of moral relativism its arrogent presumtion to attack a country and take out the leader if he/she is killing their own people. If its merely relative then it can be right for their culture. We shouldn't interfere. Just let them genocide away, its right for them.

 

Exactly. You cannot interfer just because you do not believe it is right....

 

Which I think is rediculous, hence there must be moral absolutes

 

Although, referring to society to decide what is right or wrong is an appeal to the people, a logical fallacy. But yes, our definitions of right and wrong are a defined by society.

What's good and what is evil depends on the circumstances. If a man has to steal bread to feed his starving family, this does not mean that he did something evil. Due to environmental circumstances, such as a society that demands too much money for bread, he was forced to take that action.

So, take the holocaust for example.. we should have just left them to do that because it was 'right for them'? I'm a bit confused by what you mean.. I suppose.

Edit: heh, missed the irony there

 

Interesting question...


Well to start off, I believe that there is a line between good and evil.

e·vil Audio pronunciation of "evil"
adj. e·vil·er, e·vil·est

1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.


n.

1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness.
2. That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do both good and evil.
3. An evil force, power, or personification.
4. Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice.


This one is too big to paste...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=good

There is ovbiously a fine line between this. So if there was someone that thought killing and putting fear in the lives of people is good than can we consider it good? And if you say yes, can you please explain your answer...

 

[/jedimdo]Well, for the first question, there are many lines! In fact, there are more or less 6.000 million lines . Each one is different to the others.

Except for a few things, I agree with Shinryu. Society doesn't make it's own moral code because it wants to. We, each member of society, 'know' what's right and wrong. We also want to become part of the society, right? Well, most of us . To be able to become that we must sacrifice and/or adapt our moral code. No, wait, that's wrong, we must accept the society moral code. It is not a recent creation, but a more than thousand years old.

Also, returning to [jedimdo] mode, I have to add this: There is not such line between evil and good. How can something be good but not so far away from evil and not being evil? Actually, this is like a gradient from evil to good. But, as Shinryu said, it is within your own moral and thinking.

 

Umm I have to be honest. I have no idea what your talking about. Could you please explain?

Sorry I have a tendency to be slow at times, must have been all that Jack Daniels as a child.

 

I feel that the line between good and evil is entirely percieved within the mind of the one judging, and can be drawn directly from what that person fears inherently. For example, most people are afraid to die, thus murder, suicide, and corpses are all placed under the "evil" category for most people. This is also where the debates of the death penalty and abortion fall under. While I personally percieve murder as wrong, I do not like to apply the "evil" label to it. (Not saying I'm not afraid of death, but look at soldiers - they commit what could be considered murder daily, and yet one often fits them under the "good" pile.)