Does Good & Evil Exist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jgweed

"1) If the meaning is provided only by humans and has no corresponding reality exterior to human conception then would it not be incredibly fortuitous that any meanings ever seem to work at all? How would science be possible if there was not some logic to the exterior world?"

What if there are many kinds (levels, perspectives, horizons) of meanings. Should we demand of these that they operate in exactly the same way, or all "correspond"---for lack of a better word---to reality with the same strength and precision?

Another path of thinking opens up when we ask, are their private meanings, or are all of them linked to and shared with, Others, but in different ways. One opens an old book and finds a flower pressed between two pages. The flower obviously was put there for a reason by Another, and it had a special and private meaning for that person, but at the same time, this meaning (or meanings because I can imagine many interesting stories about it being there) is shared by me.

We sometimes think of science as one way in which we interpret the world as meaningful. It is a very complicated---even for some a specialised--- way that provides meaning to our (shared) world. Yet to call it, loosely speaking, an interpretation need not relegate it to the status of personal preference or (shudder) opinion; that would be to completely misunderstand how it works to provide meaning. We don't "make upmeanings willy-nilly; we find them "ready made."

Wittgenstein argued that a private language was an impossibility; perhaps this applies to meanings as well. [Or at least insofar as meaning itself is tied to language, a path of thinking I mention without wanting to lead to a digression].

We find all sorts of meanings which in fact do seem to work, and have worked in the past and have worked for untold and countless Others.

---

I agree. Which is why I was struck by the "only" in your original quote. Interpretation covers quite a lot of ground.

While I agree that meanings are not derived or made-up willy-nilly, I don't entirely agree that we find meanings ready-made either. Consider the Ptolemaic versus the Copernican models. Both systems 'work' (on a purely predictive level the Ptolemaic was superior to Copernicus), and in fact since there is no privileged center in our current understanding of space, we could in fact choose either model, or even another center. Cattus multifarium deglubitur

My point is that it appears that meaning is not solely the construction of the sentient observer, nor is it entirely "out there," but may arise from the interplay of the two.

There are certainly some parts of this discussion which really lead to an intellectual challenge, indeed, only, I do not have the time right now to torture my own thought processes toward a premise of either/or.

We have the contemporary example of Michael Vick, but there is another as well. The microwave baby story. Here is a digg url, out of hundreds on the incident:

http://digg.com/world_news/Prosecuto...ave_on_purpose

The crime was apparently so heinous that the defendant chose to hear the judge's verdict on video camera. Everytime I think I know the worst of what the fine citizens of my country are capable, there is a new incident to defy comprehension, but even with that caveat, I am not entirely comfortable with abstract absolutes.

I hope I'll be able to return to this, by and by.

Let me ask a specific question, however, before returning to more theoretical complications. Let us say, for sake of argument, that the murder case against the mother holds, and the evidence remains solid--was the jury wrong in not giving this woman the death penalty, especially if she doesn't have the moral development to realize the horror of her crime?

Infanticide is a fairly common occurrence in our species, as it is for most great apes, but usually, the pregnant women guilty in such cases are traumatized in some manner, and not entirely rational on the issue of vulnerability, and if it is a man, again, it falls under domestic abuse and lack of impulse control.

This death is greatly different in degree, and I wonder if execution here would protect society from such brutality?

They exist side by side, coexisting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

If you are really confused about what is good or bad go directly to nature and observe natural phenomena you will see that there is nothing called good or bad and things happen their with the same theory

of cause and effect.

In the wilderness they live with primeval motives and there is nothing called good and bad.

They do things not good or bad and there is no judgment at all in nature. We use our judgment here and we value insubstantial things in society.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

They exist side by side, coexisting

---

These two posts looks contradicting.

Let me pitch in some idea here, :)

I think that it is true that everything happens in cause and effect. And from this cause and effect, human mind perceive good and evil. Evil and good are being perceived by human mind, a rational being so I dont get the point why we need to apply it on non-rational beings such as animals. ( I think animals act on instincts not on any rational grounds)

With good and evil existing through the human minds, and yes they dont actually contradict.

Let me give an example, if an old woman is going to cross the street and you accompany her, you do good but doing otherwise does not do evil.

It is human perception and in substance they are two sides of the same coin.

so does it mean that good and evil exist because of human perception?

Well I agree about that one but I dont think that the analogy you used (coin) suits well for this argument.

good and evil does coexists without eliminating the other. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

What we call good and bad do not exist, and as a matter of fact, it is a matter of perception, and our perception of things make good or bad in point fact and at a deeper level all converge into the same state.

---

Nice in theory - how does this play out in reality? Which part of child rape, female genital mutilation, genocide and torture is merely a "matter of perception," and at what deeper level will these things converge into the same "state" as sacrificial love, charity giving, commitment and loyalty?

I'm sorry - but this abstract idea that things are merely due to our perception creates an unstable world where reality is all self-referential - a dangerous relativism to indulge in because I then get to claim that my morality is based upon my perception - and if I'm stronger than you, my perception "wins."

What?

The Bible's distinction isn't as clear in translation from the Hebraic sections. Good is more Righteous, and seems to follow the Rabbi Akiba Maxim of Treat thy neighbor as you would treat thyself. In truth, the Torah seems to make distinctions between Man to Man, Man to God, and Man to the earth. Good exists in a moral sense, being that social responsibility is central to the tradition, yet bad isn't manifested in the way we see it, that is more a Christian creation. The theory of a negative rival to God isn't even apparent in the tradition, as god is All Powerful in every sense of the word, and can do, see, and be everywhere at once. In truth, the morality therefore stems from the canonization of Mosaic law, and not from a clear line of distinction.

The Christian sense of morality is different, because there is the fear of the devil mixed in, and there you get a clear line between what is right, and what is satanic. In Christianity they exist, but as absolutes, being that one is either right or wrong.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Nice in theory - how does this play out in reality? Which part of child rape, female genital mutilation, genocide and torture is merely a "matter of perception," and at what deeper level will these things converge into the same "state" as sacrificial love, charity giving, commitment and loyalty?

I'm sorry - but this abstract idea that things are merely due to our perception creates an unstable world where reality is all self-referential - a dangerous relativism to indulge in because I then get to claim that my morality is based upon my perception - and if I'm stronger than you, my perception "wins."

What?

---

GOOD point!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikolaiI

GOOD point!!

---

Thank you, my friend. It's been a long time since we exchanged posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

if I'm stronger than you, my perception "wins."

What?

---

See in nature all observable phenomena. In nature the mighty subdue the weaker ones and weaker beings have to always keep themselves from the aggressions of the mightier ones as a matter of fact.

Survival of the fittest is the theory that applies in nature and human beings have to succumb to the the theory ultimately.

Is not there the mighty are not ruling over the weak here notwithstanding the fact that there are signs of compassion and love prevailing at times?

i think good and evil is being imposed to us.

By what?
~ By the the strong. ( Here I mean, the strong in physique, able to harass the weak to swallow what he calls good; the strong in influence and rhetorics able to persuade the weaker ones.)

Through what?
~ Through our conscience, or through our fears.

I may say that good and evil exist. But our true conception of good and evil must be relative, since we are all unique and with different lived experiences. However, if one calls an act as good such as euthanasia, he should not only regard his concept of good since the act of euthanasia involves other human being, at least the person who will be mercy-killed, which also may have a different conception of good and evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kristian

i think good and evil is being imposed to us.

By what?
~ By the the strong. ( Here I mean, the strong in physique, able to harass the weak to swallow what he calls good; the strong in influence and rhetorics able to persuade the weaker ones.)

Through what?
~ Through our conscience, or through our fears.

I may say that good and evil exist. But our true conception of good and evil must be relative, since we are all unique and with different lived experiences. However, if one calls an act as good such as euthanasia, he should not only regard his concept of good since the act of euthanasia involves other human being, at least the person who will be mercy-killed, which also may have a different conception of good and evil.

---

The history of ethics and morality in point of fact has episodes the mighty always force the weak ones to accept lies. That is why both good and white are not absolutes they are relatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blazeofglory

The history of ethics and morality in point of fact has episodes the mighty always force the weak ones to accept lies. That is why both good and white are not absolutes they are relatives.

---

yes, thats exactly my point ;)

I agree on some level with rose07 that " It’s just based on our way of thinking"
good and evil are terms which humans create to help them get their minds around what they cant understand our concepts of good or evil differ form person to person, obviously, so it is such a complex thing to explain what one person deems evil can be a perfectly reasonable act to someone with a different way of thinking and what two people have exactly the same way of thinking? so good and evil cant be clearly explained only generalised to the way majority think about certain acts