Good and Evil?

[Tre-L]

What is good and what is evil? Do these two 'forces' exist at all, or are they simply concepts dependent upon the subjective experiences of man? What is good for one may not be good for another, and the opposite is true for evil. How then do we identify and express the specific and distinguishing qualities between the two?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

[Tre-L]

Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Yes, I am aware of this passage, but what exactly is good and evil as it applies to mankind?

 

[Nerthus]

I think there is good and evil potential in everything, and of course both are subjective.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, I am aware of this passage, but what exactly is good and evil as it applies to mankind?

You could ask what is the meaning of the Genesis metaphor concerning the warning to man to avoid eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

God Absolute is omnipresent and therefore non-dual. Duality therefore is an illusion that arises when consciousness identifies with a differentiated aspect of the integral whole and apparent relativity is observed,..i.e, a house divided can not stand!!! Ying and yang, good and evil, I and not-I, here and there, now and then, etc., etc..

 

[Tre-L]

You could ask what is the meaning of the Genesis metaphor concerning the warning to man to avoid eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

God Absolute is omnipresent and therefore non-dual. Duality therefore is an illusion that arises when consciousness identifies with a differentiated aspect of the integral whole and apparent relativity is observed,..i.e, a house divided can not stand!!! Ying and yang, good and evil, I and not-I, here and there, now and then, etc., etc..

I think the account in Genesis depicts mankind's struggle between two seemingly opposing forces, i.e. A positive and creative force Vs. a negative and destructive force. Both of which mankind are capable of tapping into. Even so, how does the concepts of good and evil apply to mankind? Is one preferred above the other, or are both necessary to our existence? You suggest that a house divided cannot stand, so what exactly does that mean to you in terms of good and evil?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It means that GOD is ONE and is omnipresent and indivisible, i.e. there is nothing else in existence that is not of GOD.

For any consciousness whatsoever that sees its self separate from God, it has fallen from the non-dual 'heavenly' realm into the error/illusion of a conceptual dualistic reality,..and its all the way down hill from there.

Every human soul has the potential to realize what and who they really are, and when they do, they too will be able to say the Father and I are ONE.

Until then, well so long as they see reality in dualistic terms, then they are still 'eating' of the metaphorical fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (duality) and hence live a mortal life that is constituted conceptually of complimentary opposite experiences, i.e. happiness and sadness, pleasures and pains, good and evil, etc..

 

[Tre-L]

It means that GOD is ONE and is omnipresent and indivisible, i.e. there is nothing else in existence that is not of GOD.

I do agree with your sentiments, but I wish to take it a step further. What I mean is [if] God is everything, then there can be no evil as many define evil today. Even so, mankind are but a tiny part of Gods reality, and we are subject to certain physical and spiritual laws. If evil does not apply to man, then there can only be what is wise and what is unwise for mankind.

For any consciousness whatsoever that sees its self separate from God, it has fallen from the non-dual 'heavenly' realm into the error/illusion of a conceptual dualistic reality,..and its all the way down hill from there.

Perhaps God exists both within and without, yet we (Mankind) are still subject to the universal law of cause and effect.

Every human soul has the potential to realize what and who they really are, and when they do, they too will be able to say the Father and I are ONE.

I think that all are one with God; and that we are not, nor can we ever be separated from Him, except in our own minds.

Until then, well so long as they see reality in dualistic terms, then they are still 'eating' of the metaphorical fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (duality) and hence live a mortal life that is constituted conceptually of complimentary opposite experiences, i.e. happiness and sadness, pleasures and pains, good and evil, etc..

Life consists of pleasure and pain, just as it consists of positives and negatives, but it is true that they are experienced subjectively by each individual. If a person is bludgeoned over the head with a baseball bat, then for most people that would be a painful and negative experience, no? So .... Where does all this leave us in terms of what is best for us as a peoples? A house divided cannot stand after all, so either we embrace both the negatives and positives, along with pleasure and pain or we resist one and love the other, right?

What I'm suggesting is that we can grow, and learn, and come to realize what is and what is not wise for mankind through our experiences. The lasting positives in life are like a rewards from God, but the negatives are like corrections from God. I'm reminded of a couple passages in the bible:

"My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD, neither be weary of His correction" Prov 3:11

"Correction is grievous unto him that forsaketh the way, and he that hateth reproof shall die."

All things when embraced and learned from can lead us to follow the path of righteousness, but those who hate correction will never learn, and will likely continue on their path of destruction. Good and evil then (As it applies to mankind) is simply the difference between acting wisely or unwisely. One way is a tree of life, whereas the other way leads us to death.

"Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. For the merchandise of it is better than the merchandise of silver, and the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. Length of days is in her right hand; and in her left hand riches and honour. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace. She is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her: and happy is every one that retaineth her." Prov 3:13-18

Tre-L

 

[Reptillian]

I think there is good and evil potential in everything, and of course both are subjective.

I prefer to think of good and evil as perceptions rooted in some objective truth. I think of our sensation of hot and cold. We associate them as opposite sensations but both are rooted in an absolute external quantity. (absolute because there is a lowest possible temperature but no high limit) Our feeling of hot and cold is quite different from the underlying physical cause, but there still is an objective component. I think our sense of good and evil evolved in response to an objective external moral truth...like eyes evolving in response to the sun's light.

You could ask what is the meaning of the Genesis metaphor concerning the warning to man to avoid eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

God Absolute is omnipresent and therefore non-dual. Duality therefore is an illusion that arises when consciousness identifies with a differentiated aspect of the integral whole and apparent relativity is observed,..i.e, a house divided can not stand!!! Ying and yang, good and evil, I and not-I, here and there, now and then, etc., etc..

The story of the fruit in the garden of Eden always seemed to have a really straightforward interpretation to me. "Ignorance is bliss and blind obedience is a virtue." There are a lot of stories in Genesis with this interpretation. Its a story concocted by authorities to keep people ignorant and easy to manipulate. If there is a good lesson to be taken from some of those stories, its a warning against pride and arrogance. I would think that God would be dual, not neutral. Who wants to worship a neutral indifferent deity? Truth is by its very nature a very dual concept. I would think you would want God to be full of truth, beauty, justice, and all sorts of extreme qualities.

 

[Nerthus]

I prefer to think of good and evil as perceptions rooted in some objective truth. I think of our sensation of hot and cold. We associate them as opposite sensations but both are rooted in an absolute external quantity. (absolute because there is a lowest possible temperature but no high limit) Our feeling of hot and cold is quite different from the underlying physical cause, but there still is an objective component. I think our sense of good and evil evolved in response to an objective external moral truth...like eyes evolving in response to the sun's light.

I think it depends on what good or evil is occurring. What you may, for example, consider too 'cold' might be perfect for me. I think good and evil can be disguised - weeds may look pretty, but many can kill your flowers.

There are many acts that we will share as universally good or evil, but many smaller acts are dependant on the individual in my opinion. In religious terms, some might say that the act of homosexuality is evil, whereas I don't. Or that the death penalty is a good thing. Which again I don't.

I think they are both similar, but the way I look at it does depend on what is occurring.

 

[Reptillian]

I think it depends on what good or evil is occurring. What you may, for example, consider too 'cold' might be perfect for me. I think good and evil can be disguised - weeds may look pretty, but many can kill your flowers.

There are many acts that we will share as universally good or evil, but many smaller acts are dependant on the individual in my opinion. In religious terms, some might say that the act of homosexuality is evil, whereas I don't. Or that the death penalty is a good thing. Which again I don't.

I think they are both similar, but the way I look at it does depend on what is occurring.

I may think that 50 farenheit is warm and you might think its cold, but that doesn't change the underlying physical phenomenon giving rise to that temperature. I guess I just think there might be an underlying absolute component to morality despite our feelings about good and evil.

 

[it's_sam]

It is real and you can see it in your thoughts. Hitting your finger with a hammer is bad, and eating something yummy is good. They are real forces and our senses are tuned for them in ways im sure we dont fully understand. These are forces but there is another force behind these wich is more abundant wich would be time. Without time there would be no action, no movement, and no foundation for reality. I dont think its in someone to be of pure evil if rational thought is obtainable though, and same with rightous. We arent perfect but we also try our best. Because of our consciousness coinciding with our subconscious (memory), we are able to discuss and build thoughts with eachother wich makes good and bad just the best way or the hard way. I have found most people would do the "good" thing if the availability was exposed to them. For example if you knew someone was wanting to rob a bank because they were behind on money, would they still do it if that money was offered by someone as a gift instead?

 

[wmjbyatt]

"Good" and "evil" are words that describe actions. Those actions which are called "good" are generally understood to be those actions which lend towards a peaceful, stable, harmonious society. Those actions which are called "bad" tend to create chaos, instability, and violence with the social fabric. Both happen.

 

[Meow Mix]

What is good and what is evil? Do these two 'forces' exist at all, or are they simply concepts dependent upon the subjective experiences of man? What is good for one may not be good for another, and the opposite is true for evil. How then do we identify and express the specific and distinguishing qualities between the two?

A popular argument from the theist crowd is that of St. Augustine's privatio boni, the notion that evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light.

However, I would like to offer privatio malum as what seems to me a better explanation. It seems to me that good as actually the absence of evil. For instance, "not-murder" is the every day state of affairs: before the first murder in the world, not-murder was always the case. But not-murder doesn't really exist as an action, does it?

Murder, however, does exist as an action; and we wouldn't really define murder as "the absence of not-murder," would we?

In the same sense, consider most actions that are considered good: mercy, heroism, charity, etc.

What do these actions do? They alleviate or prevent the occurence of evil/suffering. Good, then, is the absence of evil: it is the attempt to lessen evil's effects (i.e., suffering) or prevent it altogether.

 

[wmjbyatt]

A popular argument from the theist crowd is that of St. Augustine's privatio boni, the notion that evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light.

However, I would like to offer privatio malum as what seems to me a better explanation. It seems to me that good as actually the absence of evil. For instance, "not-murder" is the every day state of affairs: before the first murder in the world, not-murder was always the case. But not-murder doesn't really exist as an action, does it?

Murder, however, does exist as an action; and we wouldn't really define murder as "the absence of not-murder," would we?

In the same sense, consider most actions that are considered good: mercy, heroism, charity, etc.

What do these actions do? They alleviate or prevent the occurence of evil/suffering. Good, then, is the absence of evil: it is the attempt to lessen evil's effects (i.e., suffering) or prevent it altogether.

But charity is a positive action. As is forgiveness, and other actions generally considered "good." You have to get into some weird and very subtle understandings of the moral fabric to make a universal case for privatio in either direction. If you posit the existence and positive meaning of good and evil, then I think that good and evil both exist in terms of themselves and ALSO in terms of the negation of the opposite. That is, there is good which is simply inherently good, and there is good which is simply the absence of evil. The reverse holds as well (as an aside, this is an interesting moral argument for the non-identity of the double negation, but that's something else entirely).

 

[Meow Mix]

But charity is a positive action. As is forgiveness, and other actions generally considered "good." You have to get into some weird and very subtle understandings of the moral fabric to make a universal case for privatio in either direction. If you posit the existence and positive meaning of good and evil, then I think that good and evil both exist in terms of themselves and ALSO in terms of the negation of the opposite. That is, there is good which is simply inherently good, and there is good which is simply the absence of evil. The reverse holds as well (as an aside, this is an interesting moral argument for the non-identity of the double negation, but that's something else entirely).

That's an interesting point actually, and you're right... charity is a positive action.

However charity is contingent on the existence of poverty, and the reverse doesn't hold true: you can only be charitable in response to alleviate suffering.

To use the light and darkness scenario, flipping *off* a lightswitch is clearly a positive action but doesn't negate the fact that darkness is the privation of light. I could argue, to be a devil's advocate, that charity is a positive action akin to "flipping off a lightswitch:" the suffering is the "light" that is being switched off by my action.

While less obvious, even generosity is the same: an action is "generous" only if the person needs something ("suffers," even if the suffering is very slight). If you give a man with a million dollars a penny, I'm not sure that action really carries any moral significance.

 

[wmjbyatt]

That's an interesting point actually, and you're right... charity is a positive action.

However charity is contingent on the existence of poverty, and the reverse doesn't hold true: you can only be charitable in response to alleviate suffering.

To use the light and darkness scenario, flipping *off* a light switch is clearly a positive action but doesn't negate the fact that darkness is the privation of light. I could argue, to be a devil's advocate, that charity is a positive action akin to "flipping off a lightswitch:" the suffering is the "light" that is being switched off by my action.

While less obvious, even generosity is the same: an action is "generous" only if the person needs something ("suffers," even if the suffering is very slight). If you give a man with a million dollars a penny, I'm not sure that action really carries any moral significance.

I like that line of reasoning. But, you say you can only be charitable to alleviate suffering, which is certainly true--that's embedded in the definition of charity. However, suffering only arises when there is something more that is desired. That is, one can only suffer as an absence of thing desired. So while charity only has meaning as a way to eliminate suffering, suffering only has meaning as a lack of things desired. In this sense, the "good" (charity) is defined as a lack of bad (suffering), but the bad (suffering) is defined as a lack of good (things desired). Again, at this point, it is not correct to define good as the lack of bad or bad as the lack of good, but only to define both in relation to each other.

Cyclical dualisms and relative definitions ftw. Lao Tzu would be proud.

 

[Meow Mix]

I like that line of reasoning. But, you say you can only be charitable to alleviate suffering, which is certainly true--that's embedded in the definition of charity. However, suffering only arises when there is something more that is desired. That is, one can only suffer as an absence of thing desired. So while charity only has meaning as a way to eliminate suffering, suffering only has meaning as a lack of things desired. In this sense, the "good" (charity) is defined as a lack of bad (suffering), but the bad (suffering) is defined as a lack of good (things desired). Again, at this point, it is not correct to define good as the lack of bad or bad as the lack of good, but only to define both in relation to each other.

Cyclical dualisms and relative definitions ftw. Lao Tzu would be proud.

Haha. Touche.

I suppose with murder you have a victim lacking the good of life... or some such?

Still, I wouldn't call the ideas equal even if neither is true. Or maybe I should just say privatio mallum subjectively makes more sense to me than privatio boni.

 

[it's_sam]

A popular argument from the theist crowd is that of St. Augustine's privatio boni, the notion that evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light.

However, I would like to offer privatio malum as what seems to me a better explanation. It seems to me that good as actually the absence of evil. For instance, "not-murder" is the every day state of affairs: before the first murder in the world, not-murder was always the case. But not-murder doesn't really exist as an action, does it?

Murder, however, does exist as an action; and we wouldn't really define murder as "the absence of not-murder," would we?

In the same sense, consider most actions that are considered good: mercy, heroism, charity, etc.

What do these actions do? They alleviate or prevent the occurence of evil/suffering. Good, then, is the absence of evil: it is the attempt to lessen evil's effects (i.e., suffering) or prevent it altogether.

HAHA love the work! thanks for posting.

 

[Mr Orange]

What is good and what is evil? Do these two 'forces' exist at all, or are they simply concepts dependent upon the subjective experiences of man? What is good for one may not be good for another, and the opposite is true for evil. How then do we identify and express the specific and distinguishing qualities between the two?

Someones good is somebodys evil.

To look at a rose, is good. To pick a rose could be 'evil'. By picking the rose, will course death to the rose. Yet if i give the rose to a friend. Isn't this good?