Does good and evil exist?

[mohammed_beiruti]

In my opinion, whoever has won any war decided what was good/normal, and what was evil/weird/scary because the winners write the history. It's all based on historical and cultural values. I personally think "good", "evil", "scary", "normal", and "weird" are all within the eyes of the beholder, and I've decided for myself in my life who and what those things are. I believe everyone lives by this same type of thinking I do. The thing is, the majority thinks, lives and speaks for what is currently socially acceptable at this point and time in history. So it's just a question of who manipulates the media, and who has the most money, but the truth is laws and everything else changes with cultural tides, and what is " normal" changes with the weather. I don't think one can honestly say something or someone is "good" or "evil".

There was a time when it was legal for someone to drink alcohol and drive a car. I happen to strongly disagree with drinking and driving because it has have been proven to be horrible for society, which is it is now illegal. That becoming a serious crime had more to do with the horrible after effects on society then for any "moral" reasons.

I think morality is a relative issue, and no one can fairly and honestly decide what is good or evil. I think there is no good or evil. Only human beings doing what they think is right and what works for them. What many call good or evil is apart of human nature.

is the drunk conscious about the consequences of driving?

 

[PolyHedral]

is the drunk conscious about the consequences of driving?

Generally, no. That's the reason it's illegal in the first place.

 

[Ben Masada]

IMHO, evil does not exist. It has to be done as we misuse our attribute of freewill. If you read Genesis, only in the first chapter good is mentioned seven times for the things God has created. Even man himself was created straight, according to Ecclesiastes 7:29. But he has sought out many inventions.

 

[Danmac]

In my opinion, whoever has won any war decided what was good/normal, and what was evil/weird/scary because the winners write the history. It's all based on historical and cultural values. I personally think "good", "evil", "scary", "normal", and "weird" are all within the eyes of the beholder, and I've decided for myself in my life who and what those things are. I believe everyone lives by this same type of thinking I do. The thing is, the majority thinks, lives and speaks for what is currently socially acceptable at this point and time in history. So it's just a question of who manipulates the media, and who has the most money, but the truth is laws and everything else changes with cultural tides, and what is " normal" changes with the weather. I don't think one can honestly say something or someone is "good" or "evil".

There was a time when it was legal for someone to drink alcohol and drive a car. I happen to strongly disagree with drinking and driving because it has have been proven to be horrible for society, which is it is now illegal. That becoming a serious crime had more to do with the horrible after effects on society then for any "moral" reasons.

I think morality is a relative issue, and no one can fairly and honestly decide what is good or evil. I think there is no good or evil. Only human beings doing what they think is right and what works for them. What many call good or evil is apart of human nature.

You will be fair then and keep your opinion to yourself correct? You will not force your views on your children and if they happen to disagree when you tell them not to drink and drive you will understand when they tell you to mind your own business. My question is, why did you voice your opinion in this post as though others should consider it?

 

[Ben Masada]

Good yes, evil no. Evil is only the absence of good. To do good is natural; to do evil one has to go out of his way.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Good yes, evil no. Evil is only the absence of good. To do good is natural; to do evil one has to go out of his way.

That depends on what you mean by evil. Some believe that basic human nature and instinct is evil.

 

[Danmac]

That depends on what you mean by evil. Some believe that basic human nature and instinct is evil.

If this were not true we would need no laws to deter people from inappropriate behavior. Children naturally tell lies without ever being instructed on how to do so.

 

[PolyHedral]

If this were not true we would need no laws to deter people from inappropriate behavior. Children naturally tell lies without ever being instructed on how to do so.

Well, yes. They make the logical deduction that telling the truth is not in their benefit before they make the realization that other people think like them.

 

[Danmac]

Well, yes. They make the logical deduction that telling the truth is not in their benefit before they make the realization that other people think like them.

Small children are often incapable of thinking logically, but they lie anyway, because it is in there best interest. That is because lying is a characteristic of our warped human nature.

 

[Onlooker]

I think morality is a relative issue, and no one can fairly and honestly decide what is good or evil. I think there is no good or evil. Only human beings doing what they think is right and what works for them. What many call good or evil is apart of human nature.

You are correct if you dont believe in a spiritual life (that is to say, is there a God/angels/demons/satan etc.).
If you had a country to populate and rule (or even a world), how would you set up the rules, ultimately its for the populace benefit to be somewhat sustainable. [look at the vikings, they showed up to americas long before columbus, but their "eat **** and die" attitude had them killed by local peoples].
Once you start believing in "outside" influences such as spiritual stuff, then you muddy up the waters.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

[look at the vikings, they showed up to americas long before columbus, but their "eat **** and die" attitude had them killed by local peoples].

It seems to me that the English had pretty much the same attitude. Our forefathers seemed fond of wiping out the natives because they felt it was "god's will" that the Christians take over this land from the so-called 'heathens'.

 

[Onlooker]

It seems to me that the English had pretty much the same attitude. Our forefathers seemed fond of wiping out the natives because they felt it was "god's will" that the Christians take over this land from the so-called 'heathens'.

I think you are right. Im not a historian, but like to read. It seems that our "forefathers" looked favorably toward the local natives. It wasnt until Andrew Jackson (7th US president) that things changed.
The hypothesis of the tragedy that occurred with this president involved a "storm" of forces. Economy, Science, Politics and Religion.
All of these forces combined to "rationalize" the destruction of our native population (Current science was backed up by Smithsonian Institute scientist [founded about the time of A. Jackson term], current religion backed up the savage's lack of "God", the current economy was favorable, and the current president who battled the "savages" in the past had no issue with what occurred).
So the moral to this story, watch out when current economy, science, politics and religion gang up together for a cause (global warming, multiculturalism, genocide, jihad, globalization or whatever else, in your opinion, fits).