Evil?

[My Word Is Law]

I have talked to a lot of people and read a lot of stuff saying that there is really no good and evil, because evil depends on your perception of it. Like if Hitler thought that killing all the Jews was a good thing to do and would better the world and Germany, then his act wasn't really evil.

To me that doesn't really make sense. There are certain standards that the world judges by, and breaking those is evil. Sure, there's some grey area, but I think most things are either good or evil.

Your thoughts?

[Asa Adams]

Utilitarianism holds that the right is fixed by the good. the ends justify the means. meaning that "good" is "hapiness" therefore if one were faced with a decision, he should take the route that brings him the most "hapiness" which could arguably be something horrible to sociatal exceptances. what i mean is that if hitler were to do what made him happy, (eradicating the jews) then this is nolonger a correct or "right" conclusion. Therefore, the Utilitarianism (the ends justify the means) does not apply.

So one can assume that, good is a perception, as well as evil, therefore one can conclude that this is true.

very nice, got me thinking there.

[Kardis]

People have goals that are intended (extermination of all jews) for them to be happy in the end but even getting what want you want doesn't guarantee happiness. For me though good and evil is more than a percetion. Its part of peoples personalities. No one if pure evil or good but there is a choice.

[Union Jack]

I did a longer post on this board about this topic, check the "Why do I have to Die post."

But I will summarise here...


There is no ultimate, overriding "good and evil" which governs our existance.

There is an accepted cultural norm which defines actions as good or evil.

Good and evil are interpretations of an action, they do not define the action.

Example, Hitler and the Jews...

Hitler fully belives that what he is doing is "good" and for the betterment of society and humanity.

Thus, the act is innocent.

I look at his act, and based upon my internal value system, come to the conclusion that what he did seems evil to me.

I THINK his act is evil.

My thinking so does not define his act as evil, it is merely my impression that it was, this does not make it so.

[jackyyyy]

Evil is a wrong with intent to do a wrong. Falls into lots of categories when I think about it, interesting stuff.

[My Word Is Law]

I think I agree with jackyyyy. If you commit a wrong with intent to cause harm, or knowing that it will cause harm and doing it anyway, then it is evil. If you do something like eradicating all of the Jews, but you think it will make things better, then you are just insane.

[Bandini]

Evil is a wrong with intent to do a wrong. Falls into lots of categories when I think about it, interesting stuff.

The above is quite a Kantian notion of evil. The idea that evil is culturally defined, and thus differs over space and time is, of course, quite Nietzschean - he refered to the '...moiling, toiling sands of morality...'. I could get quite into the this thread, but up to me eyeballs with work at the moment - so will probably just post scraps here and there.

Colin Turnbull's 'The Mountain People' (about The Ik, a people who have norms and values that Western Contemporary society would consider evil, but - it is argued - are necessary in the harsh environment in which they live) is quite a good case study for the cultural relativist argument.

[IrishCanadian]

As dark (literally) is an absence of light (which we can measure, unlike dark), evil is an absence of Good.

[jackyyyy]

As dark (literally) is an absence of light (which we can measure, unlike dark), evil is an absence of Good.How about...

Evil is an absence of Good
Good is an absence of Evil.

or better maybe:

Evil is an absence of Good and Godliness is an absence of Evil.

Thanks, IrishCanadian.

[jackyyyy]

The above is quite a Kantian notion of evil. The idea that evil is culturally defined, and thus differs over space and time is, of course, quite Nietzschean - he refered to the '...moiling, toiling sands of morality...'. I could get quite into the this thread, but up to me eyeballs with work at the moment - so will probably just post scraps here and there.

Colin Turnbull's 'The Mountain People' (about The Ik, a people who have norms and values that Western Contemporary society would consider evil, but - it is argued - are necessary in the harsh environment in which they live) is quite a good case study for the cultural relativist argument.I looked the word up, and of course the Devil did get his mention. I don't think I'd think someone evil for knowingly parked their car in the wrong place, but hey.

[Arethusa]

I looked the word up, and of course the Devil did get his mention. I don't think I'd think someone evil for knowingly parked their car in the wrong place, but hey.

That's quantifying evil. What if he parked his car in the wrong place and because of that, the building he parked in front of burned to the ground and many people were killed and/or injured in the fire because the 'wrong place' happened to be in front of the only fire hydrant?

Now say that the man who parked there, did so because it was the only place to park near a hospital emergency room and he did so without thinking because his child was bleeding to death and every second counted.

Then let's say, the reason that the child was bleeding to death was because the man was drunk and accidently caused the child's injury.

No situation defining good or evil is black and white. Millions of extenuating circumstances affect the outcome of every good and bad action. Do we judge this man evil based on the first paragraph or do we take into account his extenuating circumstance? If so, how far back do we go? What if he was drunk for a reason one would consider valid, (there may be many valid reasons, depending on your own perception)? What does that make him? Good or evil?

There is no absolute good or evil, imho. With the exception, and only for some people, of God and Satan.

[Bandini]

That's quantifying evil. What if he parked his car in the wrong place and because of that, the building he parked in front of burned to the ground and many people were killed and/or injured in the fire because the 'wrong place' happened to be in front of the only fire hydrant?

Now say that the man who parked there, did so because it was the only place to park near a hospital emergency room and he did so without thinking because his child was bleeding to death and every second counted.

Then let's say, the reason that the child was bleeding to death was because the man was drunk and accidently caused the child's injury.

No situation defining good or evil is black and white. Millions of extenuating circumstances affect the outcome of every good and bad action. Do we judge this man evil based on the first paragraph or do we take into account his extenuating circumstance? If so, how far back do we go? What if he was drunk for a reason one would consider valid, (there may be many valid reasons, depending on your own perception)? What does that make him? Good or evil?

There is no absolute good or evil, imho. With the exception, and only for some people, of God and Satan.


He's a prat - but not evil. I don't agree with Kant wholeheartedly, but there has to be some degree of volition involved with evil, I reckon.

[Arethusa]

So...being a prat is not evil? Not even just a tiny leetle beet?

What if you are without evil intent but so self absorbed that you cause injury to others, perhaps even on a regular basis? Do you have to be consciously evil to be evil? Do I have enough question marks in this post?

[jackyyyy]

That's quantifying evil. What if he parked his car in the wrong place and because of that, the building he parked in front of burned to the ground and many people were killed and/or injured in the fire because the 'wrong place' happened to be in front of the only fire hydrant?

Now say that the man who parked there, did so because it was the only place to park near a hospital emergency room and he did so without thinking because his child was bleeding to death and every second counted.

Then let's say, the reason that the child was bleeding to death was because the man was drunk and accidently caused the child's injury.

No situation defining good or evil is black and white. Millions of extenuating circumstances affect the outcome of every good and bad action. Do we judge this man evil based on the first paragraph or do we take into account his extenuating circumstance? If so, how far back do we go? What if he was drunk for a reason one would consider valid, (there may be many valid reasons, depending on your own perception)? What does that make him? Good or evil?

There is no absolute good or evil, imho. With the exception, and only for some people, of God and Satan.If he parked in the wrong place to get the sick child to a doctor and the child was not saved, a huge pile up occured, the building collapsed and 1000s were killed. The intent is not there, its not evil. Interestingly, 'manslaughter' is classed as voluntary or involuntary, negligence being an example. I can see differences between 'with intent' and 'without intent' and quantifying it is precarious. But, who and what would the exceptions be?

[Bandini]

So...being a prat is not evil? Not even just a tiny leetle beet?

What if you are without evil intent but so self absorbed that you cause injury to others, perhaps even on a regular basis? Do you have to be consciously evil to be evil? Do I have enough question marks in this post?

I think it does have to be conscious to be evil - you can still be a proper wanker who should take himself right out of the gene pool; but not evil.

[Arethusa]

If he parked in the wrong place to get the sick child to a doctor and the child was not saved, a huge pile up occured, the building collapsed and 1000s were killed. The intent is not there, its not evil. Interestingly, 'manslaughter' is classed as voluntary or involuntary, negligence being an example. I can see differences between 'with intent' and 'without intent' and quantifying it is precarious. But, who and what would the exceptions be?

Un momento, mon frere, let's say...

The intent to park in front of the fire hydrant was there...also, let's say that he would be fully aware, somewhere in his li'l head, of the possible ramifications of doing so and yet not care. Would that not make this act, ergo this man, evil? Is any act completely void of either good or bad intent? What if his foremost intention of taking the child to the hospital and saving his life were to avoid getting into more trouble for having not simply injured the child, but inadvertantly caused his death? Cuz he's a bas...prat, and isn't terribly fond of the kid. What if, in the back of his head, he's hoping the kid dies anyway? Do any of these things make his parking in front of the fire hydrant any more or less evil in the eyes of man? What about in the eyes of his prefered deity? See, this is why I think some religions believe that their god doesn't quantify evil. Any act resulting in evil consequences, is in and of itself evil, (not that I personally believe this to be so). I mean really, considering all the cases on a deity's docket, he probably doesn't have time for quantification. Sure is headache inducing though, innit?

[Arethusa]

I think it does have to be conscious to be evil - you can still be a proper wanker who should take himself right out of the gene pool; but not evil.

Now there's a tagline for someone at LoveMatch.com

Hopeless romantic seeks proper wanker....but not evil :lol:

[jackyyyy]

Un momento, mon frere, let's say...

The intent to park in front of the fire hydrant was there...also, let's say that he would be fully aware, somewhere in his li'l head, of the possible ramifications of doing so and yet not care. Would that not make this act, ergo this man, evil? Is any act completely void of either good or bad intent? What if his foremost intention of taking the child to the hospital and saving his life were to avoid getting into more trouble for having not simply injured the child, but inadvertantly caused his death? Cuz he's a bas...prat, and isn't terribly fond of the kid. What if, in the back of his head, he's hoping the kid dies anyway? Do any of these things make his parking in front of the fire hydrant any more or less evil in the eyes of man? What about in the eyes of his prefered deity? See, this is why I think some religions believe that their god doesn't quantify evil. Any act resulting in evil consequences, is in and of itself evil, (not that I personally believe this to be so). I mean really, considering all the cases on a deity's docket, he probably doesn't have time for quantification. Sure is headache inducing though, innit?I take your point, which I guess is why we need so many lawyers to plead manslaughter. So.., 'completely void of good intent', does that exist? What can we say is completely bad, and with no trace of good?

[Arethusa]

I take your point, which I guess is why we need so many lawyers to plead manslaughter. So.., 'completely void of good intent', does that exist? What can we say is completely bad, and with no trace of good?

Hehe, I was going to throw in an indictment of lawyers, but chickened out...

Even if your actions are utterly benevolent, isn't one's motivation based somewhat on ego. I feed the poor, it makes me feel good, thus feeding the poor is an act of selfishness. From a judeo/christian point of view at least, the selfishness taints the purely benevolent act.

At any rate, my personal belief is that there is no absolute good or evil act or person in 'this' world. When I write, I like to take a character, and regardless of his/her actions, try to make him/her sympathetic...although I've never been interested in taking on Hitler. One of my favorite things to do is to take a seemingly unsympathetic character from literature or history, and give him/her motivation for actions that make you think twice about judging him/her so harshly. Though the outcome of the action remains the same, the way you look at it can be altered completely depending on motivation.

[jackyyyy]

I think it does have to be conscious to be evil Yes, we don't think Tyrannosaurus Rex is evil because he likes to eat meat, and if he did eat a whole city of people, he is still doing only what he can do, devoid of conscience. And, how about a human, devoid of any conscience? I know lots of people that display very little consciousness.

[jackyyyy]

Hehe, I was going to throw in an indictment of lawyers, but chickened out...

Even if your actions are utterly benevolent, isn't one's motivation based somewhat on ego. I feed the poor, it makes me feel good, thus feeding the poor is an act of selfishness. From a judeo/christian point of view at least, the selfishness taints the purely benevolent act.

At any rate, my personal belief is that there is no absolute good or evil act or person in 'this' world. When I write, I like to take a character, and regardless of his/her actions, try to make him/her sympathetic...although I've never been interested in taking on Hitler. One of my favorite things to do is to take a seemingly unsympathetic character from literature or history, and give him/her motivation for actions that make you think twice about judging him/her so harshly. Though the outcome of the action remains the same, the way you look at it can be altered completely depending on motivation.Oh, go ahead, throw it in... :lol: I think the ego part is always present in our conscious, that kind of selfishness you're describing is perfectly acceptable. I was just thinking another way to quantify 'intent' might be to evaluate what possible 'good'. If there was any possible good from for example, 'hurting someone you never met'. There is no reason we can think of, just a completely random act, and we just give up trying to find anything good in it. Now, would that be classed as evil? I am thinking 'intent' must be established either way.

[BeingaBunny]

Un momento, mon frere, let's say...

The intent to park in front of the fire hydrant was there...also, let's say that he would be fully aware, somewhere in his li'l head, of the possible ramifications of doing so and yet not care. Would that not make this act, ergo this man, evil?

But the man did not intend to have people killed. The fire is what would kill them. If anything, this man is maybe rebellious, pretentious, stupid, i dont know - but not evil.

Also, I do not think evil is an absence of good or the other way around. What about neutrality? Also, if Germany had won WW2, everyone would probably love Hitler right now and would remember how terrible everyone else was before. There would be all kinds of different philosophies and literature. The world would be flipped. :thumbs_up

[Arethusa]

Yes, we don't think Tyrannosaurus Rex is evil because he likes to eat meat, and if he did eat a whole city of people, he is still doing only what he can do, devoid of conscience. And, how about a human, devoid of any conscience? I know lots of people that display very little consciousness.

Well, T-Rex probably did not have rational though processes and more than likely was a creature of utter instinct. That's why no one evangalizes puppies. However, you have an excellent point...what of the sociopath/psychopath? I lump them together here because the DSMIV does now too. In the DSMIV, a sociopath/psychopath is described as someone who has:

A personality disorder characterized by amorality and lack of affect; capable of violent acts without guilt feelings.

In other words, a person without conscience, all though there are many 'degrees' of sociopathy/psychopathy. Disclaimer here: Not all criminals are sociopathic, not all sociopaths are criminals.

But then, lets ask another question, cuz I love the question mark. Is a sociopath created or born? If created, have they no memory of conscience and is that memory not sufficient that it should be a deterrent and remind them, at the least, that good and evil exist, allowing them to still form a choice? If born, then what of that passage in the bible that says something to the effect that all men are born with the inherent knowledge of good and evil, therefore, the sinner is without excuse?

[Arethusa]

What about neutrality?

Thanks for sending my mind on another tangent, BB... :D

Well, beats staring at stuff on the walls to avoid work. I'm just wondering, can you think of a completly neutral act? I can't think of a single act that is utterly void of negative or positive, either intent or outcome. Taking as a truth the statement that "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." It stands to reason that every good act results in a bad act and vice versa. I'm getting a headache. :confused:

[jackyyyy]

Also, I do not think evil is an absence of good or the other way around. What about neutrality? Also, if Germany had won WW2, everyone would probably love Hitler right now and would remember how terrible everyone else was before. There would be all kinds of different philosophies and literature. The world would be flipped. :thumbs_upWell, off the top of my head, WWI/II was won by the allies and Hiroshima ended that War, they may have been popping champagne immediately afterwards, but not for very long, when they woke up to the carnage, its hard to realize there were actually any 'winners'. Whats an example of neutral?

[jackyyyy]

Well, T-Rex probably did not have rational though processes and more than likely was a creature of utter instinct. That's why no one evangalizes puppies. However, you have an excellent point...what of the sociopath/psychopath? I lump them together here because the DSMIV does now too. In the DSMIV, a sociopath/psychopath is described as someone who has:

A personality disorder characterized by amorality and lack of affect; capable of violent acts without guilt feelings.

In other words, a person without conscience, all though there are many 'degrees' of sociopathy/psychopathy. Disclaimer here: Not all criminals are sociopathic, not all sociopaths are criminals.

But then, lets ask another question, cuz I love the question mark. Is a sociopath created or born? If created, have they no memory of conscience and is that memory not sufficient that it should be a deterrent and remind them, at the least, that good and evil exist, allowing them to still form a choice? If born, then what of that passage in the bible that says something to the effect that all men are born with the inherent knowledge of good and evil, therefore, the sinner is without excuse?
Wow, you mean there is a department set up for this now.... DSMIV ( I think thats what you mean ).. and strange to think. To answer your question, I guess its in conflict with the bible.

[Arethusa]

Something else that concurs with your thoughts regarding what society sees as acceptable determining good and evil BB. The following addendum to determining sociopathic behavior is also in the DSMIV:

Dissocial Personality Disorder (F60.2), usually coming to attention because of a gross disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and characterized by:

DPD encompasses sociopathic and psychopathic behavior. I just think its interesting to ponder, as you did, the fact that it's based on prevailing social norms. So if we lived in a society where it was perfectly acceptable for party clowns to eat little boys, John Wayne Gacey would be like...the head of some freakish Royal Order of The Clown social club. With pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey night instead of bingo night. Kinda scary.

[Bandini]

Now there's a tagline for someone at LoveMatch.com

Hopeless romantic seeks proper wanker....but not evil :lol:

If I wasn't already taken I'd have to answer that one.

[Arethusa]

Wow, you mean there is a department set up for this now.... DSMIV ( I think thats what you mean )..

Sorry, I am SUCH the ugly American with my assumptions.

DSMIV is the diagnostic and statistical manual used by the mental health community in the US for diagnosing mental disorders.

Another interesting point...albeit completely irrelevant, homosexuality used to be listed in this manual as a personality disorder...but wait! Not so irrelevant if we harken back to the issue of acceptable social mores.

Yeah me for staying on topic! :banana:

[Bandini]

Something else that concurs with your thoughts regarding what society sees as acceptable determining good and evil BB. The following addendum to determining sociopathic behavior is also in the DSMIV:

Dissocial Personality Disorder (F60.2), usually coming to attention because of a gross disparity between behaviour and the prevailing social norms, and characterized by:

DPD encompasses sociopathic and psychopathic behavior. I just think its interesting to ponder, as you did, the fact that it's based on prevailing social norms. So if we lived in a society where it was perfectly acceptable for party clowns to eat little boys, John Wayne Gacey would be like...the head of some freakish Royal Order of The Clown social club. With pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey night instead of bingo night. Kinda scary.

Kinda scary? I won't sleep tonight!

[jackyyyy]

"John Wayne Gacey a famous serial killer brought to you by All Serial Killers dot Com."

I had to look that up. Interesting its a .com, eh. You got a good point.

[Arethusa]

If I wasn't already taken I'd have to answer that one.

hehe, me too, and I'm not a lesbian...at least, I don't feel like a lesbian.

[jackyyyy]

Another interesting point...albeit completely irrelevant, homosexuality used to be listed in this manual as a personality disorder...but wait! Not so irrelevant if we harken back to the issue of acceptable social mores.I guess they had to decide it was acceptable. Take that a step further, maybe they will decide eating people is acceptable if enough people are so inclined.. wow again.

[Arethusa]

Warning: This site is probably one of the most offensive on the internet, (and one of my faves :brow: ), although this page...not so much.

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=509

[Arethusa]

I guess they had to decide it was acceptable. Take that a step further, maybe they will decide eating people is acceptable if enough people are so inclined.. wow again.

Now that reminds me of a stupid argument I read from one of the people who head up NAMBLA. His assumption is that society is slowly moving toward an age where pedophilia, like wife swapping, homosexuality, and other once morally questionable practices will soon become perfectly socially acceptable. If so, I'm moving...

But then, he may not be so terribly far from the truth. Ancient Rome immediately springing to mind. OH man! Okay, but...marrying a 13 year old in ancient Rome was socially acceptable for reasons brought about by conditions that no longer exist today. Namely, the life expectancy of the average plebian in ancient Rome was about 27. Can you imagine marrying at 12 now and living your entire life with that person???? In the immortal words of Clive Owen, Yeeesh!

[Gallantry]

With regards to harmful acts coming from self absorption I would say that is evil. Humility is good and here I would agree with the statement that evil is the absence of good. Lack of humility and a mindset based on others leads to evil results. Sorry if this has been said already, I was skimming the thread.

[jackyyyy]

Now that reminds me of a stupid argument I read from one of the people who head up NAMBLA. His assumption is that society is slowly moving toward an age where pedophilia, like wife swapping, homosexuality, and other once morally questionable practices will soon become perfectly socially acceptable. If so, I'm moving...

But then, he may not be so terribly far from the truth. Ancient Rome immediately springing to mind. OH man! Okay, but...marrying a 13 year old in ancient Rome was socially acceptable for reasons brought about by conditions that no longer exist today. Namely, the life expectancy of the average plebian in ancient Rome was about 27. Can you imagine marrying at 12 now and living your entire life with that person???? In the immortal words of Clive Owen, Yeeesh!Reminds me of when Aids was the big scare, it sure changed a lot of people's habits. I wonder if we are in for a wake-up call in the not so far future. Seems in history, after a relaxing of attitudes, there followed a kind of a tightening up of attitudes. Like, society fixes itself somehow.

[Arethusa]

I can see it now...dateline 2006:

Attention, ladies and gents, our newly innaugurated Commander in Chief, President Nero, will now play a little ditty on the fiddle. Let us not forget, lest history repeat itself.

[Arethusa]

Reminds me of when Aids was the big scare, it sure changed a lot of people's habits. I wonder if we are in for a wake-up call in the not so far future. Seems in history, after a relaxing of attitudes, there followed a kind of a tightening up of attitudes. Like, society fixes itself somehow.

So our modern, post Aids, (well post discovery thereof), society could well be though of as a sort of Victorian Rennaisance? There's a scary conept, cuz we all know what was going on in the drawing rooms and coat closets of the Victorian era. Let's hope we're older and wiser and people will actually grasp the imperative of 'wrappin' it up'. Pfft, yeah, that'll happen.

[Dilettantia]

Hi guys,

It looks like I'm entering this discussion a little late for the comment I am about to contribute. There are already a wide range of very well developed views being shared. Really a very interesting discussion!

But I'm sorry, before I add my two-cents I just wanted to be a stickler and make a small correction to something that Asa Adams said early in this discussion.

Utilitarianism holds that the right is fixed by the good. the ends justify the means. meaning that "good" is "hapiness" therefore if one were faced with a decision, he should take the route that brings him the most "hapiness" which could arguably be something horrible to sociatal exceptances. what i mean is that if hitler were to do what made him happy, (eradicating the jews) then this is nolonger a correct or "right" conclusion. Therefore, the Utilitarianism (the ends justify the means) does not apply.
Utilitarianism, properly conceived, is actually a social theory and not an individualist model of morality. The epitome of utilitarian thinking is the phrase: 'the greatest good for the greatest number'. In a nut-shell it's about acheiving the best balance between ends and means so to satisfy the greatest number of people to the greatest possible extent.

I think what Asa Adams was calling utilitarian sounds a bit more like an existentialist approach, which focuses on each person's psychic isolation, the lack of outside derived standards or principles, and the necessity to therefore construct our own morality.

And of course many philosophical thinkers have equated an achievement of 'the good' as the same as achieving 'happiness'.

((Sorry to digress to a prior stage of the discussion when everyone has obviously progressed onto more specific aspects!)) :eek2:

Back to the present, I was interested to see that noone has brought up that old trope, 'If God exists then why is there evil in the world?'. Which, of course from a theological perspective runs straight into concepts like free will etc.

Groove on! :p

[lucimi]

That's quantifying evil. What if he parked his car in the wrong place and because of that, the building he parked in front of burned to the ground and many people were killed and/or injured in the fire because the 'wrong place' happened to be in front of the only fire hydrant?

Now say that the man who parked there, did so because it was the only place to park near a hospital emergency room and he did so without thinking because his child was bleeding to death and every second counted.

Then let's say, the reason that the child was bleeding to death was because the man was drunk and accidently caused the child's injury.

No situation defining good or evil is black and white. Millions of extenuating circumstances affect the outcome of every good and bad action. Do we judge this man evil based on the first paragraph or do we take into account his extenuating circumstance? If so, how far back do we go? What if he was drunk for a reason one would consider valid, (there may be many valid reasons, depending on your own perception)? What does that make him? Good or evil?

There is no absolute good or evil, imho. With the exception, and only for some people, of God and Satan.
I strongly agree with you.Yes,no one can says that the evil is black and the good is white.And aslo no one can say that the black is bad but the white is good.All these prejudices are formed in the people's hearts.People always use their hobbies to judge the nature of the things.This is unfair,I think.
Actually,the black sometimes can bring people the peace and calmness.Similarly,the white aslo can provide the terror and uncomfortableness for you.Everything has two sides.So it is really difficult for us to define a situation is good or bad.It is our hearts at work,I feel.Just like the the person who parks the car in the wrong place.If he is sitimulated by his own profit,for example,in order to decrease his pace and lazy himself,but this time he just goes to rescue a child.The value of a life is over the wrong of parking the wrong place.

[lucimi]

More and more people admit that the a good quality is not only the competence of study but aslo the sociality ability,the capacity of doing a good statement in the public,the good professional technique and so on.So under the heavy burden of the employment,the employor asks more and more requirements for the employee.To seek a decent job,the employee are forced to accept all kinds of skill training and attain all kinds of diplomas or certificates.They think they are qualitified by these .They have owned the comprehensive qualities.
With the hope of getting a good job,they are thumed again.When they enter the company,they are kicked because of having picked a nail or a broom in the floor.It is demonstrated that nowadays the escape of the quality is the morality.All the people become self-centralled and pay little attention to the other things around them.
So how make the people do it naturally and instincly.That is to make them civilized and educated.But I aslo become confused.Because I saw so many uncivilized actions done by civilized persons.Does it mean that a educated person indeed exist the quality and certainly can emerge the quality?

[Gallantry]

Education and career choice has little to do with good and evil.

[sHaRp12]

Good and evil,

Right and wrong,

Are standards imposed on us by society which we should all follow. When someone fails to understand the difference between right and wrong the person is defined as insane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insane) .

To answer your question yes there is evil and there is wrong. And Its not at how you look at it.

And to your Hitler analogy, I say that Hitler simply used the jews as a vehicle to rise to power and as a means to get Germans on his side. It wasnt that he thought it was the right thing to do but the right action to assert his power.

[Sabo]

I don't like the ideas like good or evil. Sure, it's difficult to avoid them completely, and sometimes you might be convinced that someone or something is evil, but these ideas are so abstract and so easily manipulated that it makes me sick. Take for example Hitler. I always feel that simply but putting the label on him that he was "evil", he's alienated from the the rest of the humanity. "Look at the evil deeds he has done. Look at the hatred those people felt. That's not normal. That's sick. That's evil." I think that the risk of similar thing happening again increases if we insist on seeing them as acts of some abstract evil that we our selves are immune against.

Another aspect is the subjectivity of the judgment. The scientist actively working with eugenics in the beginning of the XX century really believed they were doing something good for the human race. Not many people would agree today. Examples are many.

[Arethusa]

Education and career choice has little to do with good and evil.

But what if you choose to be an executioner?

[IrishBlues]

If Hitler killed the Jews purely because he thought that the mass murders of their race was for the betterment of the world, then yes we cannot say that he was in fact evil. But I do not believe that is the case. I feel that he used the Jews as a way to gain power.

I think the only way you can define evil is the will to exert harm on someone or something else knowing that it is wrong.

[PierreGringoire]

I'll go as far as to say that it doesn't matter if someone does something and you believe they have the right or wrong intent for doing it. The real question is do you do what you feel is right?
How can one judge the gravity of the doer of an objective wrong when no one knows the intent of the the "evil doer," his state of mind (is he mentally ill, does he have a low iq), does he percieve that what he's doing is really the right thing?
Which leads me to my next topic. Who is innocent? Who has not done something with "evil" intentions. Just because a subjective sin is more objectively blatant than another sin, what decides which sin is worse? If one thinks evil things: with a passionate heart; with sincere pondering of murder in his head-- what makes him so different than the blatant murderer? Fear?
Is that what decides values? Those who fear doing a certain action are more upright than the sociopath who actually carries it out?
Nay, intent decides what is wrong and what is not; what is a sin and what is not. It is our duty to be the judges of ourselves. And do the right thing. The "right thing" is a subjective thing, a loving thing, a mutual thing... Would I have another do this thing that I am about to do...to me? Leave it at that, people. Don't make it any more confusing for yourselves.

[cuppajoe_9]

"There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just things people do. Some things I wish they wouldn't do and some things I wish they'd do a little more, but that's all any man's got a right to say."

As usual, John Steinbeck says it much better than I ever could. Perhaps that's why he has a Nobel Prize for literature and I don't.

[PierreGringoire]

Cuppajoe - I strongly disagree with that statement. Although virtue may not be seen with pure objectivity does not mean it does not necessarily exist.
One of the best virtues we as individual people can exercise in this imperfect world is forgiveness

[cuppajoe_9]

I believe Steinbeck would qualify forgiveness as one of those things that he wishes people would do more often, rather than virtue. In context, 'sin' and 'virtue' refer to things that are objectively sinful and virtuous, specifically those dictated by God.

[Redzeppelin]

I did a longer post on this board about this topic, check the "Why do I have to Die post."

But I will summarise here...

There is no ultimate, overriding "good and evil" which governs our existance.
There is an accepted cultural norm which defines actions as good or evil.
Good and evil are interpretations of an action, they do not define the action.
Example, Hitler and the Jews...
Hitler fully belives that what he is doing is "good" and for the betterment of society and humanity.
Thus, the act is innocent.
I look at his act, and based upon my internal value system, come to the conclusion that what he did seems evil to me.
I THINK his act is evil.

My thinking so does not define his act as evil, it is merely my impression that it was, this does not make it so.

Which means there really is no such thing as "good" or "evil" just our (open to endless revision) interpretations. How can that be? Subjective "good" and "evil" paints us into an uncomfortable corner where we lose all prerogative to make judgments about the nature of a particular action or behavior. That is a powerless position because it gives you no moral grounds for any discrimination between "good" and "evil" and "right" and "wrong." We thus become incapable of solving conflicts between people and cultures. Yikes.
You actually are going to define Hitler's actions based on his (supposed) mindset? Huh? Intention decides interpretation? What about the emotional stability or rational mindset of he who is deciding what his actions mean?

And, as per your comment about "value system" well what is that? Where did that come from? In the Nazi "value system" the extermination of Jews was a postive thing - who (aside from anti-semitics) is going to go along with that?