Does good and evil exist?

[Zeeboe]

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.

 

[Madhuri]

Good and Evil are man-made concepts imo. And our perception of right and wrong is entirely subjective.
What we have is knowledge and ignorance, and the suffering and joy that results from both.

 

[SoulTraveler]

Good and Evil are man-made concepts imo. And our perception of right and wrong is entirely subjective.
What we have is knowledge and ignorance, and the suffering and joy that results from both.

Part of the answer lies within the quote above. Here we have knowledge and joy as positive (existing in some way, even if just as thought) and their opposites as representing their absence (and not actually existing). Other examples are: Love and fear, hot and cold, light and darkness, either/or, all or nothing, this or that, right and wrong. The list is endless because we live a reality that appears inherently dualistic.

But the fallacy in all of those examples is that duality they assume, when in fact they are different points on the *same* continuum (think of a thermometer for hot and cold). The subjectivity comes in when we each decide what is hot and cold, where that line is arbitrarily drawn, but the continuum exists independent of any of us.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Part of the answer lies within the quote above. Here we have knowledge and joy as positive (existing in some way, even if just as thought) and their opposites as representing their absence (and not actually existing). Other examples are: Love and fear, hot and cold, light and darkness, either/or, all or nothing, this or that, right and wrong. The list is endless because we live a reality that appears inherently dualistic.

But the fallacy in all of those examples is that duality they assume, when in fact they are different points on the *same* continuum (think of a thermometer for hot and cold). The subjectivity comes in when we each decide what is hot and cold, where that line is arbitrarily drawn, but the continuum exists independent of any of us.

Excellent answer...
However all these scales can contain points that are "Ideal to a circumstance".

In the case of Good - Evil, It could be construed as the point of "greatest good" . This still might be "bad for a minority" who them selve fall rather low on the scale.

 

[micrurus]

IMO,
good and evil are man made concepts nessecery to preserve a stable society.
an act that benefits a society would be seen as good.
an act that puts personal gain before the benefit of society would be seen as evil.

ultimatly good and evil don't exist.

I have a friend who once told me that if Hitler died in one of the assasinationattempts atleast 2 years before the end of WWII, that many would now think of him as a hero that stood up against the injustace of the treaty of versailles.

I should also ad that me and my friend do not condone any of Hitlers actions. its just an example of how subjective "right" and "wrong" is.

 

[gnostic]

Define "normal", please.

 

[micrurus]

Define "normal", please.

Normal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SoulTraveler]

"Normal" is a bell curve drawn by the collective consciousness of a majority.

 

[PolyHedral]

Define "normal", please.

...Not what you wanted, I guess?

 

[OnlyTheGoodDieYoung]

good and evil is what society deams good or evil. in our society, it is evil to kill a man, but is some civilizations, it is ok to kill and even eat another man.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Clockwise and widdershins. We live in a positive universe of matter and time; evil, to me, has no separate meaning. It is like cold. Technically there is no cold, only varying quantities of energy.

 

[Penumbra]

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.

Yes, morality is subjective. There are, however, objectively better or worse ways to achieve a given goal, so if a goal is agreed upon, then morality becomes objective in relation to that goal.

Your one statement in particular isn't true:
"That becoming a serious crime had more to do with the horrible after effects on society then for any "moral" reasons."

It's considered immoral precisely because of the horrible effects. That's what morality is in most cases. Morality and effects aren't separated, at least rationally. There is the occasional person that comes along and uses the appeal to authority fallacy to assert flawed morality rather than practical morality, but other than that minority case, things are considered moral or immoral because of their effects.

 

[gnomon]

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.

To me, good and evil are nothing more than subjective expressions of an individual's likes and dislikes.

Far too often I find the labeling of people or societies as intrinsically evil or even intrinsically good it seems we exaggerate the subject and learn nothing from it. More often it is the labeling of people, such as Ed Gein, as evil in an attempt to distance ourselves from that actions of that person which can lead to denial of what human beings are actually capable of doing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

But the fallacy in all of those examples is that duality they assume, when in fact they are different points on the *same* continuum (think of a thermometer for hot and cold). The subjectivity comes in when we each decide what is hot and cold, where that line is arbitrarily drawn, but the continuum exists independent of any of us.

That's a good way of explaining it. My version of what is hot and cold may not directly coincide with another's view of what hot and cold is. I have views of which to some people dependent on their own views of any given matter, can be noticeably different.

 

[BruceDLimber]

What many call good or evil is apart of human nature.

First off, you apparently intended to say "a part of" above rather than "apart from."

But in any case, I would suggest that only one of them exists! I quote:

Chapter 74.

THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL

“The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
“Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man's characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
“Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
“In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence—that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
“Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind—that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements—that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
“The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
“Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent.”
— 'Abdu’l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 282-284

Peace,

Bruce

 

[SLAMH]

I believe that both solid good and solid evil exist. In relation to the subjectivity of the issue, deciding what is good and what is bad could be a subjective matter. Nevertheless, good verses evil isn't the same as good verses bad. Good verses Bad will be more likely to deal with individuals and societies at a whole in relation to the influence and the effects of the environment on both. For example, in the Middle East countries it is good for woman to wear a scarf covering her head, while it could be considered as s sign of ignorance (bad) in other countries. Good verses Evil will be defined due to the consequences of actions in relation to the society and the surrounding. If positive impacts stems of specific strategy, then it will be good and the same applies for evil. Ignorance is the line between good and evil. I think good will arise of one's knowledge and intention for doing good. Ignorance will result undesirable effects. One has an intention for doing good, but suffering the lack of knowledge. Evil is the knowledge of the harmful consequences of one's action, but the intention is to fulfil selfish desires without any consideration to the effects on the public.

 

[SoulTraveler]

Excellent answer...
However all these scales can contain points that are "Ideal to a circumstance".

In the case of Good - Evil, It could be construed as the point of "greatest good" . This still might be "bad for a minority" who them selve fall rather low on the scale.

Thank you.

 

[lilmama1991]

evil and good does exist. evil is from satan and good is from jehovah

 

[Rainbow Mage]

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.

I think that humans cannot know what good and evil are objectively. I will say there probably is an objective standard, but humans need not know what it is. I think some probably come closer then others.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Good and evil are subjective and abstract concepts that are generally determined by a society as a whole.