Does Good & Evil Exist

[blazeofglory]

In point of fact this is all what we call good and bad are responses. People respond to stimuli and they respond differently to different stimuli. In one situation he behaves in one way and in another that way. When he becomes sad he frowns and when he is happy he smiles, and indeed both internal and external conditions.

All who commit crimes and all those involving themselves in altruism are ssimply reactive, not proactive, and of course particular circumstances force him to react him the way has to.

Justification of crimes has roots in its own domains. For example when a thief sees depravity and poverty in one circumstance thinks the other is rich and he sees in the other's house even a dog lives luxuraintly and in his own whereas even a baby has nothing to eat and as such he justifies it and it so happens and the habit of theft grows and with that habit he is likely to commit bigger and higher crimes in life. He must not be subjected to the penalities and of course the society he lives in also accounts for all his acts.


Indeed our socioeconomic conditions account for immensely as to why man becomes a criminal. No body is a born criminal and maybe he is born to a cirminal parent or community, but he is pure while born and indeed it is in the course of making the reactions he makes to many external factors, and that ultimately leads him to be the ciriminal he is deemed socailly in point of fact.

[skasian]

Yes, of course it exists. God emits good where as the devil emits bad. It is either one of them that influences mankind to act good or bad.

[blazeofglory]

Yes, of course it exists. God emits good where as the devil emits bad. It is either one of them that influences mankind to act good or bad.

And skasian, both God and Devil are within us, our own states. externalization of it is an illusion.

[skasian]

And skasian, both God and Devil are within us, our own states. externalization of it is an illusion.

Maybe. However it depends on whether we sway towards one of them than the other when we act good or evil.

[Jozanny]

Personally, I don't believe in Good or Evil. I think it is all subject to point of view, and anything that does not effect others should not even be viewed by others. Philosophers try to codify ethics, but really, time has proved that ethics are relative to the society, and will constantly be changing as the world has changed. Attempts like Utilitarianism seem the closest, but even they are ideologically driven, and subject to corruption and subjectivity, which causes there faults.

Perhaps JBI. I think mouthing platitudes on the basis of one's religious faith is a tad ad hoc, and lessens discussion rather than makes it interesting, but I also think Good and Evil as both relative and absolute values are more complicated than the issue of divine existence. Maybe the example of a mother microwaving her child is too difficult for most of us to wrap our heads around--but it seems an intrinsically evil act because it was gratuitous in the most horrifying sense. Infant death is one thing, but microwaving? It causes recoil, disgust, much like Vick's questionable conduct.

If it was up to me, I'd execute the mother--not torture her, in as far as killing her makes that possible, but certainly kill her, because I have no ability to conceive how, or why, she would do such a thing. I can conceive of why mothers and fathers kill newborns in a panic, or in denial--and those situations may call for mercy, but to use something like microwave technology to cook a child to death, this seems to call for the removal of such an actor who'd be capable of it--even though I grant you that such conceptual values as good and evil are difficult to define and may exist only as a cognitive self-interest. Metaphysics may be an occasional impatient field of inquiry, but I don't think it can be dismissed entirely, even if one is careful to stay secular, or struggles to do so--as Kant came up with his own version of the golden rule despite all that brainwork.

Somewhat dissatisfied with my pre-bedtime laziness, let me rephrase in a more discursive manner: Is it a question of *believing in* good and evil, or asking whether universal values can stand independently of behavior? Kant's categorical imperative is a universal conclusion, of a sort, and Levi-Strauss makes one of the most towering cases for universal valuation in The Raw and The Cooked. Have you read this JBI? If not I'd recommend it as a boost to analytical reasoning.

Foucault, otoh, eschews universal concerns, and I think he has a valid point in his strategic reasons for doing so.

That is the tension, essentially, whether a value has universal application, or specific instances simply engage the self-interest of a particular time and place. For me, at least, murder has shadings, with sadistic torture being a line I am unwilling to tolerate.

[0=2]

hahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha

You guys are... really... ...

funny.

Do good or bad exist? Is existence... of itself?

Yes, they exist if you say so. But really people, independently of you? Of us?

They are variables.

But really, this thread is awesome.

People die. You reasoning why doesn't change this fact.

[Jozanny]

People die. You reasoning why doesn't change this fact.

Of course people die. Most living things die, but that does not mean discursive argument is not a valid way to examine morality, in both its positive and negative aspects.

The argument, 0=2, is all we have. Now, a few of my philosophy e-list friends balk at that assertion, but what else is there for language to do? We do not need the minds we evolved. Ants and other social insects are still, to this day, humans only real rivals, which proves the mind as luxury. But the mind is our luxury, and so why not apply it? Or is serious discussion another of those things you mistrust to the masses?

[0=2]

Apply it as long as it remains luxury. By all means, go ahead, and do not let my reactive application have any effect on yours.

But, for many, the mind becomes a trap, a trick. It has the power to trap an individual so completely that their very understanding of "freedom" becomes another self imposed box.

Philosophy is a great example. Most of this chit-chat? Dead. No application. Most people talk, and because talk is thought and thought it God they leave the walking to the cripples... A philosophy not acting upon is a dead philosophy.

But I can assure you I am by no means supporting any of you in acting morally justified. Some philosophies are better left to the junkyards of our minds.

[Redzeppelin]

In point of fact this is all what we call good and bad are responses. People respond to stimuli and they respond differently to different stimuli. In one situation he behaves in one way and in another that way. When he becomes sad he frowns and when he is happy he smiles, and indeed both internal and external conditions.

But we would judge someone as having some sort of emotional/mental problem if he chose to smile at the sight of a baby being tortured; similarly, we might wonder about the sanity of someone who frowns when given a sincere compliment. Certain truths persist - good and evil cannot be mere abstractions - once those terms become meaningless, we cut from beneath our feet the moral prerogative to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an act; at that point, we become paralyzed.

[skasian]

But we would judge someone as having some sort of emotional/mental problem if he chose to smile at the sight of a baby being tortured; similarly, we might wonder about the sanity of someone who frowns when given a sincere compliment. Certain truths persist - good and evil cannot be mere abstractions - once those terms become meaningless, we cut from beneath our feet the moral prerogative to evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an act; at that point, we become paralyzed.

I see you bring up the subject of the state of sanity and truth.
Some one who is insane do not have the sense of right or wrong, therefore they cannot judge whether something is good or evil. Therefore their acts for us can be recognised as neutral, neither good or evil as they cannot distinguish between the two.

[Redzeppelin]

I see you bring up the subject of the state of sanity and truth.
Some one who is insane do not have the sense of right or wrong, therefore they cannot judge whether something is good or evil. Therefore their acts for us can be recognised as neutral, neither good or evil as they cannot distinguish between the two.

Well, kind of; what I'm focusing on is the idea that there are certain aspects of reality that are "stable" in terms of agreed meaning - especially in connection to things we perceive as "good" and "bad." Smiling at the torture of a baby would be interpreted as being either a) emotionally disfunctional (which suggests a "normal" response) or b) insanity (a response that does not accord with our shared sense of reality).

[skasian]

Well, kind of; what I'm focusing on is the idea that there are certain aspects of reality that are "stable" in terms of agreed meaning - especially in connection to things we perceive as "good" and "bad." Smiling at the torture of a baby would be interpreted as being either a) emotionally disfunctional (which suggests a "normal" response) or b) insanity (a response that does not accord with our shared sense of reality).

Ah, nice to bring a new context to link morality. But I have to ask, why is emotionally disfunctional suggest a normal response? Sorry, but I do not understand the word "normal", how can we put a borderline between the normal and the abnormal? For example smiling at the tortured baby in my point of view is abnormal response while you think that it is a normal response. And if you suggest that this is a normal response, this person should have a correct sense of good and evil as their response is a normal. But this person cant. But again it depends on what this normal is, in my view, normal means someone that is capable of distinguishing good and evil correctly.

[OhReally?]

The question - does good and evil exist?
Yes. But think about this - if there is no good, does that mean there is evil? It's like light and dark - if you've lived in the dark all your life and you've never seen light, you would not think that you lived in the dark. Because 'good'and 'evil'are so subjective, they almost (ALMOST, not completely) define each other.
Responding to previous posts on how primitive animals in the jungle have no morals and do whatever they like: Ok then. Are you an animal living in the jungle? No. That's demeaning everything anyone has ever discovered, knowledge, hopes, dreams, sorrows and pain into muscle,tissue and atoms. Personally, I cannot come to terms with that, because we are much more than instinct: we have a concience. If, for example, I hurt my friends feelings, I would feel guilty and not do it again. Do animals do that? I don't think so.
Good and evil are always tied with happiness and sadness. The Ancient Greeks believed that the point in life was to acheive the ultimate goodness, which was happiness. But I can't agree to that, because what if it makes you happy at the expense of someone else? That's not goodness.
By saying that good and evil don't exist - well, the impression that I got was that you may as well agree that since charity isn't good, then we don't have to donate, and let the people starve. Obviously good and evil exist, but they need each other. For instance, if there was no starvation in the first place (which is evil) then people wouldn't donate, and then no one would appreciate or be grateful to what they have.
That's what I think anyway

[hoope]

Yea .. ! they do exist.. just like how there is good ppl .. u can also say they r bad ppl ..
Evil is there around us inside ppl too..
And God Doesn't like evil.. but tis created to test human being.. in what way he want to chose .. in how he wants to live. ...

Thats what i believe...

[Redzeppelin]

The question - does good and evil exist?
Yes. But think about this - if there is no good, does that mean there is evil? It's like light and dark - if you've lived in the dark all your life and you've never seen light, you would not think that you lived in the dark. Because 'good'and 'evil'are so subjective, they almost (ALMOST, not completely) define each other.

I will have to disagree. Dark is the absence of light - it is not an entity unto itself. In the same way, evil is the absence or the distortion of good. It does not have an equal existence. Good and evil are not subjective - they cannot define each other because they are opposites and evil is parasitic - it can only "exist" in relation to good. Good, however, can exist on its own.

. Obviously good and evil exist, but they need each other. For instance, if there was no starvation in the first place (which is evil) then people wouldn't donate, and then no one would appreciate or be grateful to what they have.
That's what I think anyway

Good does not need evil. It can exist on its own. I have never starved and do not need to do so to appreciate the taste of food. I do not need to be slapped to understand the beauty of a hug.