Do 'Good' and 'Evil' exist?

[TheFifthElement]

Following on from the most interesting discussion on the HP thread, I was wondering what Lit-netters views are on the nature of Good and Evil? Accepting that most people are morally ambiguous, i.e. a mix of both good and bad, can there be such things are true 'Goodness' and true 'Evil', or are these just convenient names for characteristics which we find socially unacceptable, and therefore will change depending on the social order prevalent at the time?

Discuss......

[MaryLupin]

Personally I go with the second bit. Good and evil are human concepts that encapsulate what we need as beings and as social members. The content of these concepts varies with societies. Some societies have ritual cannibalism. One such society eats of its dead to formally say "we will not forget you." Not an evil ideal. Yet in European-based society the idea of cannibalism is decidedly evil. There are some pan-human ideas that get the name of good and evil. Love of family is always considered good although how that love is expressed will change from group to group. Incest is always considered evil, although what counts as incest changes dramatically according to society and even to class within the society. There have been times when a brother-sister marriage is not considered wrong, after all: not defined as incest. Yet to most of us it is one of the key defining practices included in the term incest. So while the existence of such pan-human ideals may appear to suggest one-rule-for-everyone, what we think the Other means by incest may not at all be what we think it means, and therefore, of course, they are not one-rule.

I suppose you can argue that these people just got it wrong and that there is a immutable standard of good and evil. The problem with that is that there are as many immutable standards as there are groups to create a divine to utter them. You may believe you got the right divine, but everyone else believes the same thing. The simplest, most elegant way around that basic "I'm right. No. I'm right" argument is to acknowledge that they both think the are right and to accept that they are both wrong because of it...that is, to accept that there is no right way and learn to live with others on a contingent basis.

[NikolaiI]

Yes, perhaps also supposing there is ultimate right, let's even suppose it's from a God who wishes best for us; then we don't know what is good or bad for us ultimately, as good things sometimes come out of bad, and bad things sometimes come out of good. I was reading this in a book by Suzuki, yet it's also a facet of Christianity: let they will be done. Suzuki was talking about that a fair bit, the idea is that we surrender to God (Amida's)'s will, and then trust that the ultimate good will come, instead of trying to decide what is right on our own.

Maslow had some ideas about values inherent to being, and he came up with the idea that there are values that everyone believes in. Being right is one of them; well, he doesn't say that, but it seems like it. He came up with 15 or 16, I remember the # 16, but a couple websites have 15. Anyway, among them are truth, beauty and completeness, and things like that. So I guess what he is saying is everyone desires good.

I don't believe in any divine rights, however. Mary Lupin said it fairly well. It's like East and West. They have meaning to us, but if we look up at the sky we don't see them.

[Lote-Tree]

Following on from the most interesting discussion on the HP thread, I was wondering what Lit-netters views are on the nature of Good and Evil? Accepting that most people are morally ambiguous, i.e. a mix of both good and bad, can there be such things are true 'Goodness' and true 'Evil', or are these just convenient names for characteristics which we find socially unacceptable, and therefore will change depending on the social order prevalent at the time?

Discuss......

Define Good. :D


Define Evil :D

[Redzeppelin]

Good and evil are human concepts that encapsulate what we need as beings and as social members.

No (but you knew I'd say that if I showed up); this view (which sounds like pragmatism) puts us in the uncomfortable position of making morality relative. Once morality becomes relative, it no longer becomes binding beyond social agreement or might-makes-right.


The content of these concepts varies with societies. Some societies have ritual cannibalism. One such society eats of its dead to formally say "we will not forget you." Not an evil ideal. Yet in European-based society the idea of cannibalism is decidedly evil. There are some pan-human ideas that get the name of good and evil. Love of family is always considered good although how that love is expressed will change from group to group. Incest is always considered evil, although what counts as incest changes dramatically according to society and even to class within the society. There have been times when a brother-sister marriage is not considered wrong, after all: not defined as incest. Yet to most of us it is one of the key defining practices included in the term incest. So while the existence of such pan-human ideals may appear to suggest one-rule-for-everyone, what we think the Other means by incest may not at all be what we think it means, and therefore, of course, they are not one-rule.

The fact that cultures disagree with each other doesn't mean 1) that all are correct, or b) that there is no standard of morality. What you've done is describe the differences - but just because "we do things this way here" does not tacitly mean that "the way we do things here" is morally correct. Just because a cannibalistic tribe says "we do this to honor" so-and-so doesn't mean that this method of "honoring" is necessarily correct, right or appropriate. Some African cultutures practice female genital mutilation as a way of controlling their women - anybody want to tell me that that is morally correct behavior?


I suppose you can argue that these people just got it wrong and that there is a immutable standard of good and evil. The problem with that is that there are as many immutable standards as there are groups to create a divine to utter them. You may believe you got the right divine, but everyone else believes the same thing.

Hence the difficulty of morality being defined solely by culture; without a transcendant moral law, everybody thinks they're right.



The simplest, most elegant way around that basic "I'm right. No. I'm right" argument is to acknowledge that they both think the are right and to accept that they are both wrong because of it...that is, to accept that there is no right way and learn to live with others on a contingent basis.

Right; that's why a transcendant moral law is helpful: it exists outside culture and as such can be used to evalutate culture. But you can't evaluate another culture by your culture because who's to say who's right? If, however, we have transcendant moral law given by a Divine Figure, then it becomes easier to make judgments because the law was not created by human beings, but by a perfect judge.


Define Good. :D

Easy: that which is in harmony with God's character is Good.



Define Evil :D

Ditto: that which is contrary to God's character is Evil.

[Lote-Tree]

I was after a non-theistic definition of Good and Evil.

[RichardHresko]

I think Lote-Tree had an excellent point in asking the fundamental questions of what exactly we do mean by the terms "good" and "evil".

I would argue that MaryLupin and NikolaiI seem to be discussing the sociological/psychological implications of a society having a particular set of standards of good and evil. These are indeed important in terms of developing an ethical philosophy.

RedZeppelin appears to be discussing the question of good and evil on a metaphysical level.

These different approaches might well cause us to talk at cross-purposes.

My contribution, such as it is, is on the metaphysical end of the discussion. I am borrowing from Aristotle and Aquinas in the main here.

Good, following the Philosopher, is the fulfillment by a thing of its nature (how well it achieves its final cause). Thus it would not be inappropriate to describe a good ebola virus as one that can replicate and spread most effectively (even though that would mean it is killing a lot of other creatures, including us).

Aquinas would add, that the final cause for humans is the achievement of a beatific vision of God. Thus for Aquinas those acts that lead us to God are good.

Evil does not have an independent existence in this view. Evil is merely the failure to achieve the final cause.

Note 1: Notice that it follows that existence is good. This dovetails nicely with Augustine's remark in the opening prayer at the beginning of the Soliloquies where he says that because God is good all of creation is good.

Note 2: Doing evil is therefore not doing a "naughty thing," but acting in a way that separates you from the experience of God. This I find a far more mature and satisfying outlook on the question of sin than the "follow the rules or you go to Hell" mentality that is all too common.

[MaryLupin]

These different approaches might well cause us to talk at cross-purposes.

Exactly so.


My contribution, such as it is, is on the metaphysical end of the discussion. I am borrowing from Aristotle and Aquinas in the main here.

Good, following the Philosopher, is the fulfillment by a thing of its nature (how well it achieves its final cause). Thus it would not be inappropriate to describe a good ebola virus as one that can replicate and spread most effectively (even though that would mean it is killing a lot of other creatures, including us).

Yep. An evolutionary thought. Rather reminds me of sociobiology.



Aquinas would add, that the final cause for humans is the achievement of a beatific vision of God...

Even if on having the vision one knows it is the brain and not a sign of a real big-guy-in-the-sky? So an atheist mystic is a morally good thing? I like that.


Evil does not have an independent existence in this view. Evil is merely the failure to achieve the final cause.

So in a sense evil doesn't exist. It is just the absence of the fully realized being. So in other words the gnostics were right and the earth is evil, or at least human beings are since basically none of us ever achieve our full potentials. I also like that. Nice way to handle the concept of evil. Remove its teeth and give it pablum.


Note 1: Notice that it follows that existence is good. This dovetails nicely with Augustine's remark in the opening prayer at the beginning of the Soliloquies where he says that because God is good all of creation is good.

Well, for people goodness seems to hinge on more than mere existence. It seems to be dependent on following the rule book. Because he also says "The woman together with the man is the image of God, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned as a helpmate, which pertains to her alone, she is not the image of God: however, in what pertains to man alone, is the image of God just as fully and completely as he is joined with the woman into one" (De Trinitate, 12, 7, 10). Unless by people (as part of creation) he really meant "men." So not all creation is equally good.


Note 2: Doing evil is therefore not doing a "naughty thing," but acting in a way that separates you from the experience of God. This I find a far more mature and satisfying outlook on the question of sin than the "follow the rules or you go to Hell" mentality that is all too common.

Me too. Except I wouldn't say "from the experience of God." I would use another noun, maybe happiness (thinking of the Dalai Lama's book).

Still a sociological understanding of good and evil is the only thing we can really assess from a practical point of view. I mean I like your explanation of evil better but where does that get us? I mean can it be lived with? We know what living with the "go to hell" conception is like so it probably isn't any worse. But is it better? How will we know? By living it, and by assessing it with the tools sociology (and such disciplines) give us. That's why I like it better. It has teeth.

[TheFifthElement]

Define Good. :D


Define Evil :D

He he he touché :lol:

Good = morally excellent; virtuous; righteous

Evil = morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked

[Lote-Tree]

He he he touché :lol:

Good = morally excellent; virtuous; righteous

Evil = morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked

Define Moral, Virtuous and Righteous

Define Wrong, Bad, Immoral, Wicked.

[Niamh]

Define Moral, Virtuous and Righteous

Define Wrong, Bad, Immoral, Wicked.
always looking for definitions!
Care to tell us yours?:p ;)

[Quark]

Another way to think of morality--outside of religious or social definitions--would be the Stoic doctrine. People exist in an absolute reality called nature or the one Self which individuals can choose to either accept and do "good" or reject and turn "evil". The strictures or plaudits of the community don't change how close to good or evil a particular person or action is; only the strict adherence to the absolute can give a clear conscience. As Marcus Aurelius says, "As the same fire assumes different shapes When it consumes objects differing in shape, So does the one Self take the shape Of every creature in whom he is present...Praise is no part of it, for nothing is made worse or better by praise". The Stoics awarded not only good and evil to nature, but also bravery and intelligence. The difference between a craven fool and a virtuous hero isn't based on the adulation that's received or the pious self-sacrifices made. It's merely a matter of conforming to the truth of your surroundings. In Richard III, for example, Richard is considered by others to be a rightful king, but his own knowledge of his sordid deeds rises up to his consciousness to convict him of evil: "O Coward Conscience. How dost thou afflict me". This revelation that Richard has isn't brought about by society or God.

[TheFifthElement]

Define Moral, Virtuous and Righteous

Define Wrong, Bad, Immoral, Wicked.

Cor, don't you own a dictionary?

Moral : of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong

Virtuous :conforming to moral and ethical principles; morally excellent; upright

Righteous :characterized by uprightness or morality

Wrong : not in accordance with what is morally right or good

Bad : having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible

Immoral : violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

Wicked : evil or morally bad in principle or practice; sinful; iniquitous; mischievous or playfully malicious (aka Lote-tree!) ONLY JOKING BUD, WELL APART FROM THE MISCHIEVOUS BIT!

Are we clear now? I could define some more words if you like.

MORALITY, is the subject which I would like to discuss.

[RichardHresko]

MaryLupin writes:
"Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Aquinas would add, that the final cause for humans is the achievement of a beatific vision of God...

Even if on having the vision one knows it is the brain and not a sign of a real big-guy-in-the-sky? So an atheist mystic is a morally good thing? I like that."

I don't know one could know that the vision is in the brain and not a sign of God. Nor do I know that the two ideas are mutually exclusive, either.

MaryLupin writes:
"So in a sense evil doesn't exist. It is just the absence of the fully realized being. So in other words the gnostics were right and the earth is evil, or at least human beings are since basically none of us ever achieve our full potentials. I also like that. Nice way to handle the concept of evil. Remove its teeth and give it pablum."

Not at all. What exists is, and is good. This is emphatically the opposite point of view of the gnostics. Further, it is not necessarily true that humans never achieve their full potential. They just do not achieve it during this life.

MaryLupin writes:
"Except I wouldn't say "from the experience of God." I would use another noun, maybe happiness (thinking of the Dalai Lama's book)."

That would be where Aristotle would leave it. A lot would depend on what the final cause of humans truly is.

MaryLupin writes:
"Still a sociological understanding of good and evil is the only thing we can really assess from a practical point of view."

I disagree in two ways. First I doubt we can "really assess from a practical point of view" from a purely sociological point of view, since inevitably you must move from a mere description of mores to one of value judgment, and hence either abandon relativism or remain stuck.

Second, I don't accept that sociology or psychology provide the "only" route to knowledge here.

In other words, I think a sociological starting point is doomed. It may provide material as the idea is developed.

[Lote-Tree]

always looking for definitions!


Yep. You need this before you start on anything ;-)

And FifthElement only used other words to describe it and not define it.


Cor, don't you own a dictionary?


Yes. But you have not defined anything initially only used others words to describe it :D



Moral : of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong


That is better!




Virtuous :conforming to moral and ethical principles; morally excellent; upright

Righteous :characterized by uprightness or morality

Wrong : not in accordance with what is morally right or good

Bad : having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible


Have you noticed that you have used other words to describe but not define it. What is "morally"?



Immoral : violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.


Even better!



Wicked : evil or morally bad in principle or practice; sinful; iniquitous; mischievous or playfully malicious (aka Lote-tree!) ONLY JOKING BUD, WELL APART FROM THE MISCHIEVOUS BIT!


I own up to "mischieveous" bit but malicious? Bit unfair :D



MORALITY, is the subject which I would like to discuss.
[/quote]

Bueno!

Lets define a Moral action shall we?

You go first ;-)

[TheFifthElement]

Yes. But you have not defined anything initially only used others words to describe it :D

Indeed, I challenge you to define anything without drawing reference to other words.



Lets define a Moral action shall we?

You go first ;-)

No, I think it's your turn!


I own up to "mischieveous" bit but malicious? Bit unfair :D

Mischievous indeed ;)

[Lote-Tree]

Indeed, I challenge you to define anything without drawing reference to other words.


Yep draw references to other words but don't use to describe another word.

eg. Nail - Fastener made from endless wire by cutting a point and forming a head at the shank end

But you don't define it with another word: eg Pin.

[TheFifthElement]

Yep draw references to other words but don't use to describe another word.

eg. Nail - Fastener made from endless wire by cutting a point and forming a head at the shank end

But you don't define it with another word: eg Pin.

So define:

Fastener made from endless wire by cutting a point and forming a head at the shank end

See, you've used lots of words to define a word, putting it in narrative form doesn't alter the fact.

[Lote-Tree]

So define:

Fastener made from endless wire by cutting a point and forming a head at the shank end

See, you've used lots of words to define a word, putting it in narrative form doesn't alter the fact.

But I did not use Pin to define Nail. That is the point I was making :D

[TheFifthElement]

But I did not use Pin to define Nail. That is the point I was making :D

he he he, so literal.

Please define pylon :D

[Lote-Tree]

he he he, so literal.

Please define pylon :D

Now now lets get back to the topic :D

Are there any Universal Evil or Universal Good? - going back to your question ;-)

You say there aren't any.

And I say we have the innate ability to be moral. Evolved no doubt over the millions years of our evolution.

[TheFifthElement]

Now now lets get back to the topic :D

Are there any Universal Evil or Universal Good? - going back to your question ;-)

You say there aren't any.

And I say we have the innate ability to be moral. Evolved no doubt over the millions years of our evolution.

Well, I'm not sure I said there aren't any, but rather questioned whether there were.

In terms of your point 'we have the innate ability to be moral', I'd agree with this in the sense that, as social animals, we have an innate desire to conform to the social norm, i.e fit with the group and thereby receive the benefit of group protection. So we adapt to the morals of the group, albeit that this invariably leaves room in which we can also assuage our need to remain certain individualistic characteristics. But what is it that defines what is moral, and what is not? Is it just the rules of the strongest lion in the pack?

I supppose why I struggle with this concept is because I cannot think of anything which is definitively morally wrong, without exception or qualification or circumstances in which it would be, or has been perceived to be right. I'm prepared to accept that this could be lack of vision on my part, but only if an example is raised which falls into the category of 'Universal Evil' or 'Universal Good', as you so neatly penned it.

[RichardHresko]

I don't think that "morally right" and "morally wrong" are synonyms for "good" and "evil" because the former two requires an obligation between two beings who both possess certain attributes (awareness, ability to feel, etc.) while the latter two are qualities of an individual entity, and not necessarily restricted to those entities with the attributes mentioned earlier (for example, a "good book").

It would be necessary for Lote-Tree to properly define what properties he would require for goodness, and in what sense he would mean "universal" for us to answer his question.

[Lote-Tree]

In terms of your point 'we have the innate ability to be moral', I'd agree with this in the sense that, as social animals, we have an innate desire to conform to the social norm, i.e fit with the group and thereby receive the benefit of group protection. So we adapt to the morals of the group, albeit that this invariably leaves room in which we can also assuage our need to remain certain individualistic characteristics.


Evolutionary Thesis makes sense because it give us some idea how our ethics may have developed.



But what is it that defines what is moral, and what is not?


Moral could be defined as whether an action is beneficial to individual AND of the species.



Is it just the rules of the strongest lion in the pack?


Not exactly. We have evolved so much that we make sure the weak live and strong do not take advantage of the weak.



I supppose why I struggle with this concept is because I cannot think of anything which is definitively morally wrong, without exception or qualification or circumstances in which it would be, or has been perceived to be right.


We can say Murder is wrong? And that is our "Moral" as human species?


It would be necessary for Lote-Tree to properly define what properties he would require for goodness, and in what sense he would mean "universal" for us to answer his question.

How about if we define as:

Good= any actions that has "beneficial" consequeces to the indvidual and the species?

[TheFifthElement]

We can say Murder is wrong? And that is our "Moral" as human species?

But even murder has boundaries in which it is, or has been 'acceptable', for example, in self defence or defence of others, human sacrifice, execution (state sponsored murder.), war.

[Lote-Tree]

But even murder has boundaries in which it is, or has been 'acceptable', for example, in self defence or defence of others, human sacrifice, execution (state sponsored murder.), war.

Then self-defence is Universal.

As for Execution European and other societies have done away with capital punishment. May be all societies will in due course accept it as Universal.


So you can argue Universality comes about from evolution of human ethics.

[TheFifthElement]

So you can argue Universality comes about from evolution of human ethics.

But doesn't 'universal' imply that it is always so, regardless of when in history it is viewed, or in what context? By its nature an 'universal' ethic must always be, and must always have been considered morally right, or morally wrong, whereas evolution implies changability, that it may be morally right at this time, in these circumstances, but not in others.

[Lote-Tree]

But doesn't 'universal' imply that it is always so, regardless of when in history it is viewed, or in what context?


Not in the evolutionary context. Does morality exists without humans? The question would be irrelevant since we have said ethics have evolved. And some ethics has become universal in the human species as in it applies to all humans of the species as oppose to "Universal" which exists with or without the participation of humans.

So your question: Does Universal Morality exists of itself?
The answer would be no.



By its nature an 'universal' ethic must always be, and must always have been considered morally right, or morally wrong


In evolutionary context this is not true because Ethics have evolved. Evolved to become Universal to the human species.

So back to your question - Is Universal Morality exists of itself.
The answer is No.

[RichardHresko]

Lote-Tree writes:
"Good= any actions that has "beneficial" consequeces to the indvidual and the species?"

There are a few problems with this definition. First, as you yourself note by your quote marks, how are we to define "beneficial" without being circular? Second, the interests of the individual and the species do not necessarily coincide. Third, if we restrict ourselves to actions, what is the role of intention?

[Lote-Tree]

Lote-Tree writes:
"Good= any actions that has "beneficial" consequeces to the indvidual and the species?"

There are a few problems with this definition. First, as you yourself note by your quote marks, how are we to define "beneficial" without being circular? Second, the interests of the individual and the species do not necessarily coincide. Third, if we restrict ourselves to actions, what is the role of intention?

Good point.

I would say:

Beneficial = anything that allows the individual and the species a survival value.

[RichardHresko]

Lote-Tree writes:
"Beneficial = anything that allows the individual and the species a survival value."

So, by your definition, any art or knowledge that does not contribute to survival is at minimum not good, if not actually evil.

[Lote-Tree]

Lote-Tree writes:
"Beneficial = anything that allows the individual and the species a survival value."

So, by your definition, any art or knowledge that does not contribute to survival is at minimum not good, if not actually evil.

Yes. But we have evolved so much that we can afford to accumulate useless knowledge. If our survival was at risk we would burn art to keep us warm :D

[TheFifthElement]

If our survival was at risk we would burn art to keep us warm :D

That's a very perceptive point.

Do we then make knowledge useless? Art began life as cave paintings, which over time became writing (and therefore useful, in my opinion) but we evolved it some more to make it something not useful. Is it our goal in life to make everything superfluous?

[RichardHresko]

Yes. But we have evolved so much that we can afford to accumulate useless knowledge. If our survival was at risk we would burn art to keep us warm :D

The basic problem with this definition is that it is evidently too restrictive in that it does not take into account that humans are rational beings. Without invoking the whole Aristotelian idea of vegetative, animal, and rational souls, it is reasonable to suppose that what is "good" for humans should not be reduced to what is necessary for survival.

[Lote-Tree]

The basic problem with this definition is that it is evidently too restrictive in that it does not take into account that humans are rational beings. Without invoking the whole Aristotelian idea of vegetative, animal, and rational souls, it is reasonable to suppose that what is "good" for humans should not be reduced to what is necessary for survival.

Aristotlian view is that of philosophical and Metaphysical view. The Survival view is that of evolution and in that whatever allows the individual and the species to survive can be termed beneficial?

[Lote-Tree]

That's a very perceptive point.

Do we then make knowledge useless?


Not just useless but irrelevant. Just like Quill pens are irrelevant to our writing. Just like pen is becoming irrellevant as keyboard has taken over.


Is it our goal in life to make everything superfluous?

There is no Goal in evolution. We just become better at surviving that is all.

[RichardHresko]

Aristotlian view is that of philosophical and Metaphysical view. The Survival view is that of evolution and in that whatever allows the individual and the species to survive can be termed beneficial?

The problem here is that questions of the ultimate nature of things are metaphysical questions. You are using the wrong tool here.

Further, you are misstating and misinterpreting evolutionary theory here by 1)ascribing a value to the process (the correct term here is "fitness" and describes the reproductive success of the organisms) and 2) fitness for the individual organisms is restricted entirely to reproductive success and not their individual survival.

[RichardHresko]

There is no Goal in evolution. We just become better at surviving that is all.

This is, on the face of it, contradictory. Since as written it appears the goal is being better at survival. The use of the word "better" implies a progression. There is no such thing in evolutionary theory.

Evolution is a process in which there are random changes in the organisms and in the environment. Those organisms that are successful at reproducing contribute to the next generation. The more viable offspring produced, the greater the contribution.

[Lote-Tree]

The problem here is that questions of the ultimate nature of things are metaphysical questions. You are using the wrong tool here.


Not wrong tool - but an alternative approach?



Further, you are misstating and misinterpreting evolutionary theory here by 1)ascribing a value to the process (the correct term here is "fitness" and describes the reproductive success of the organisms) and 2) fitness for the individual organisms is restricted entirely to reproductive success and not their individual survival.

Yes, sloppy language. I will try better next time :-)

[RichardHresko]

I would have to say that it is actually the wrong tool. Evolutionary theory is not capable of answering questions of the ultimate nature of reality, nor to provide prescriptive statements. It is like asking algebra to describe the taste sensation of a steak. This is not flaw of either evolution or algebra, but a recognition that all tools have limitations. It is manifestly not true that if all you have is a hammer that therefore everything becomes a nail.

[Lote-Tree]

I would have to say that it is actually the wrong tool. Evolutionary theory is not capable of answering questions of the ultimate nature of reality, nor to provide prescriptive statements. It is like asking algebra to describe the taste sensation of a steak. This is not flaw of either evolution or algebra, but a recognition that all tools have limitations. It is manifestly not true that if all you have is a hammer that therefore everything becomes a nail.

Your points noted.

Peace.

Regards,
Lote.

[RichardHresko]

I think that a fruitful area to explore here would be the metaphysical underpinnings of the idea that evolutionary theory provides a complete explanation of reality, at least as far as living organisms go. Such an argument would almost have to be based on the concept that all of reality is material (or, in light of Einstein, energy-matter).

[Lote-Tree]

I think that a fruitful area to explore here would be the metaphysical underpinnings of the idea that evolutionary theory provides a complete explanation of reality, at least as far as living organisms go. Such an argument would almost have to be based on the concept that all of reality is material (or, in light of Einstein, energy-matter).

Indeed. Me thinks a new Thread is required :D

[DeathAngel]

i dunno, when i think of religious texts that mention good n evil, evil is usually the one thing that destroys humanity, goodness, love, happiness,
good would of course relate to god, angels, love, blalbla

doesn't one have the choice to be evil or not, or good or not, i mean free will right,

can you be born evil/good?

hey yin yang...

[RichardHresko]

[QUOTE=DeathAngel;433119]i dunno, when i think of religious texts that mention good n evil, evil is usually the one thing that destroys humanity, goodness, love, happiness,
good would of course relate to god, angels, love, blalbla

doesn't one have the choice to be evil or not, or good or not, i mean free will right,

[QUOTE]

There are arguments that can be made that evil does not have substantive existence, meaning that it is a state marked by a lack rather than the presence of something. An analogy can be made with respect to blindness. Blindness is not something that has independent existence, but rather denotes a state in which something that is normally sighted lacks the ability to see (rocks can not be blind, since sight is not part of the essence of a rock).

If one can not choose to act, in other words, if one lacks free will, then it would follow that one could not be held responsible for one's acts, and therefore one's acts would not be moral or immoral.

[NikolaiI]

I think there is no actual "ultimate" good or evil, but that does not mean I am hostile to or against the idea of good and evil. They are necessary for our society. However, I think too much is made out of them; they should be considered and taught to be simple, based on empathy and compassion. If we say something is so alluring, it will be alluring, but for others who view things more simply, it is not.

I think we are part of each other, so when we hurt someone else we hurt ourselves.