Good Doesn't Require Evil

[Skwim]

Came across another claim declaring that things need their opposite so as to define them. Here's the latest example.

"Creation requires opposites. You can't determine sweet if there is no sour. For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction. A proton has a positive charge whereas an electron has a negative charge. If the world was made only of nuetrons, then what would hold the physical world together?"
source
​

This "argument," like many others of its kind, is typically in response to the fact that evil exists despite the fact that everything was created by an all-loving god. The follow up question is usually something like, "If god didn't create evil how could anything be good?" Of course most people don't go to the lengths given in the example here, pitting physical objects against one another in order to give each meaning, but rather confine it to our subjective notions wherein there may be a continuum existing between two concepts: dark to light, smart to dumb, good to bad, etc.

The basic thrust to the "Good needs Evil" argument is that acts would lose their intrinsic goodness if it wasn't for evil to contrast them to. So what would such an act be if goodness wasn't around as a definer? How about acceptable. Wouldn't that be enough? And couldn't there even be undesirable acts---those not good, or "bad"--- without evil around? And couldn't there also be desirable acts---some even great without evil around? I can certainly regard a piece of art as great without the need for some malicious intent lurking around the corner. And this is how I regard evil, as "malicious intent."

Others may a have a different definition, if so, ask yourself why your evil would be needed to distinguish a "good" steak from a "bad" one? Wouldn't good still be a functional concept without evil? And how about what we do, which is where evil is most commonly applied, to our actions. Do we really need evil in the world to appreciate acts of kindness---good acts? Could we not still value a great deed over an average deed without malicious intent residing in our souls? How about a good acting performance over a poor one. Do we need evil for that? Of course not.

So I can easily see a world without evil in which we could still evaluate our actions on some scale that goes up to "Good," and even beyond. Necessary evil just ain't necessary. . . . . . . except for those who need to explain what an all-loving god has done to the world.

 

[4consideration]

Came across another claim declaring that things need their opposite so as to define them. Here's the latest example.

"Creation requires opposites. You can't determine sweet if there is no sour. For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction. A proton has a positive charge whereas an electron has a negative charge. If the world was made only of nuetrons, then what would hold the physical world together?"
source
​

This "argument," like many others of its kind, is typically in response to the fact that evil exists despite the fact that everything was created by an all-loving god. The follow up question is usually something like, "If god didn't create evil how could anything be good?" Of course most people don't go to the lengths given in the example here, pitting physical objects against one another in order to give each meaning, but rather confine it to our subjective notions wherein there may be a continuum existing between two concepts: dark to light, smart to dumb, good to bad, etc.

The basic thrust to the "Good needs Evil" argument is that acts would lose their intrinsic goodness if it wasn't for evil to contrast them to. So what would such an act be if goodness wasn't around as a definer? How about acceptable. Wouldn't that be enough? And couldn't there even be undesirable acts---those not good, or "bad"--- without evil around? And couldn't there also be desirable acts---some even great without evil around? I can certainly regard a piece of art as great without the need for some malicious intent lurking around the corner. And this is how I regard evil, as "malicious intent."

Others may a have a different definition, if so, ask yourself why your evil would be needed to distinguish a "good" steak from a "bad" one? Wouldn't good still be a functional concept without evil? And how about what we do, which is where evil is most commonly applied, to our actions. Do we really need evil in the world to appreciate acts of kindness---good acts? Could we not still value a great deed over an average deed without malicious intent residing in our souls? How about a good acting performance over a poor one. Do we need evil for that? Of course not.

So I can easily see a world without evil in which we could still evaluate our actions on some scale that goes up to "Good," and even beyond. Necessary evil just ain't necessary. . . . . . . except for those who need to explain what an all-loving god has done to the world.

Very well said! I agree with you.

(Although I think evil exists, it is not necessary.)

 

[Skwim]

Very well said! I agree with you.

(Although I think evil exists, it is not necessary.)

Thank you, and I agree that evil certainly does exist, but it's something we could do without.

 

[orcel]

St. Augistine suggested evil was like darkness, not the opposite of goodness but rather the lack of it. Just as darkness is the lack of light Evil is the lack of good. Hence evil requires goodness, but good does not require evil, just a goodness source. Like how light require a light source.

 

[Skwim]

St. Augistine suggested evil was like darkness, not the opposite of goodness but rather the lack of it. Just as darkness is the lack of light Evil is the lack of good. Hence evil requires goodness, but good does not require evil, just a goodness source. Like how light require a light source.

So if I don't do good I'm doing evil? I don't think so Mr. Augustine.

 

[Quintessence]

Good and evil have always been a matter of point of view, as with all value judgements. Slice the categories however you want, but people still need to categorize and contrast things in order to understand them. Seems like much fuss over semiotics/semantics.

 

[Skwim]

Good and evil have always been a matter of point of view, as with all value judgements. Slice the categories however you want, but people still need to categorize and contrast things in order to understand them. Seems like much fuss over semiotics/semantics.

Agreed to a point; however, the dispute isn't about what may or may not be evil or good, or how they're understood, but the issue described in the OP.

 

[Quintessence]

Oh, I meant to make it clear that what I said can apply to this issue if you're interpreting it as "degrees of goodness" in the absence of using the term evil. You're still putting things in categories that in some way contrast with each other to understand the world around you. Put another way, you're still doing the same thing as the "good vs. evil" crowd by creating contrasts and categories. The nuances and philosophical implications are somewhat different, granted, between "degrees of goodness" versus "good vs. evil" paradigms, though.

 

[Skwim]

Oh, I meant to make it clear that what I said can apply to this issue if you're interpreting it as "degrees of goodness" in the absence of using the term evil. You're still putting things in categories that in some way contrast with each other to understand the world around you. Put another way, you're still doing the same thing as the "good vs. evil" crowd by creating contrasts and categories. The nuances and philosophical implications are somewhat different, granted, between "degrees of goodness" versus "good vs. evil" paradigms, though.

Absolutely. but what I'm not doing is claiming that evil is needed in the world to make "good" meaningful, which is the argument of some Christians, and the point I'm addressing in my OP.

 

[Quintessence]

Gotcha. "Need" versus "can be used" distinction.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

Evil doesn't need good, it simply needs humans.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Evil doesn't need good, it simply needs humans.

It needs a definition. If humans are all that is needed, then whatever definition they supply is adequate.

 

[Hevenly Heathen]

That's the idea. Without humans, what would there be to commit or define evil?

 

[orcel]

So if I don't do good I'm doing evil? I don't think so Mr. Augustine.

Not exactly. If we are not blocking out the goodness we are not creating evil.

 

[Skwim]

Not exactly. If we are not blocking out the goodness we are not creating evil.

I agree, but of course that isn't what "evil was like darkness, not the opposite of goodness but rather the lack of it" suggests.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If there was no evil, we certainly wouldn't need a word for "good," but there's nothing inherently logically inconsistent about a world without evil.

 

[Willamena]

The basic thrust to the "Good needs Evil" argument is that acts would lose their intrinsic goodness if it wasn't for evil to contrast them to. So what would such an act be if goodness wasn't around as a definer? How about acceptable. Wouldn't that be enough? And couldn't there even be undesirable acts---those not good, or "bad"--- without evil around? And couldn't there also be desirable acts---some even great without evil around? I can certainly regard a piece of art as great without the need for some malicious intent lurking around the corner. And this is how I regard evil, as "malicious intent."

The issue isn't having an absolute "opposite" for good or evil, it's about contrasts. Regardless of what you use to contrast with "good," you need the contrasting thing to make "good" recognizable. For instance, if you replace "good" with "acceptable," you have the same issue: "acceptable" compared to what? What things are "unacceptable" that other things might be deemed acceptable?

Others may a have a different definition, if so, ask yourself why your evil would be needed to distinguish a "good" steak from a "bad" one? Wouldn't good still be a functional concept without evil? And how about what we do, which is where evil is most commonly applied, to our actions. Do we really need evil in the world to appreciate acts of kindness---good acts? Could we not still value a great deed over an average deed without malicious intent residing in our souls? How about a good acting performance over a poor one. Do we need evil for that? Of course not.

So I can easily see a world without evil in which we could still evaluate our actions on some scale that goes up to "Good," and even beyond. Necessary evil just ain't necessary. . . . . . . except for those who need to explain what an all-loving god has done to the world.

That "evil" is chosen to contrast with "good" lends flavour to good: it tells us that it's not about the taste of steaks, but about moral issues.

If everyone were doing kind acts, there would be no kinds acts --that is to say, we could not know "kind acts" from any other kinds of acts.

 

[InChrist]

Came across another claim declaring that things need their opposite so as to define them. Here's the latest example.

"Creation requires opposites. You can't determine sweet if there is no sour. For every reaction there is an opposite and equal reaction. A proton has a positive charge whereas an electron has a negative charge. If the world was made only of nuetrons, then what would hold the physical world together?"
source
​

This "argument," like many others of its kind, is typically in response to the fact that evil exists despite the fact that everything was created by an all-loving god. The follow up question is usually something like, "If god didn't create evil how could anything be good?" Of course most people don't go to the lengths given in the example here, pitting physical objects against one another in order to give each meaning, but rather confine it to our subjective notions wherein there may be a continuum existing between two concepts: dark to light, smart to dumb, good to bad, etc.

The basic thrust to the "Good needs Evil" argument is that acts would lose their intrinsic goodness if it wasn't for evil to contrast them to. So what would such an act be if goodness wasn't around as a definer? How about acceptable. Wouldn't that be enough? And couldn't there even be undesirable acts---those not good, or "bad"--- without evil around? And couldn't there also be desirable acts---some even great without evil around? I can certainly regard a piece of art as great without the need for some malicious intent lurking around the corner. And this is how I regard evil, as "malicious intent."

Others may a have a different definition, if so, ask yourself why your evil would be needed to distinguish a "good" steak from a "bad" one? Wouldn't good still be a functional concept without evil? And how about what we do, which is where evil is most commonly applied, to our actions. Do we really need evil in the world to appreciate acts of kindness---good acts? Could we not still value a great deed over an average deed without malicious intent residing in our souls? How about a good acting performance over a poor one. Do we need evil for that? Of course not.

So I can easily see a world without evil in which we could still evaluate our actions on some scale that goes up to "Good," and even beyond. Necessary evil just ain't necessary. . . . . . . except for those who need to explain what an all-loving god has done to the world.

I agree that evil is not needed for goodness to exist. This idea of evil being necessary to show goodness or to be the balance of evil is based in eastern philosophy and is not biblical. Yet, it seems that the possibly of evil occurring was a necessity and has become the reality of giving creatures volition or the ability to make choices.

I do not agree that an all-loving God caused evil to occur. Besides being a contradiction of an all-loving God, this idea is totally contrary to the scriptures which show that evil arose within the heart and mind of Lucifer. It was his own decision to indulge his thoughts of exalting himself and asserting his will over his Creator. He then to put these thoughts into actions of outright rebellion, thus introducing evil into the universe.

 

[Skwim]

The issue isn't having an absolute "opposite" for good or evil, it's about contrasts. Regardless of what you use to contrast with "good," you need the contrasting thing to make "good" recognizable. For instance, if you replace "good" with "acceptable," you have the same issue: "acceptable" compared to what? What things are "unacceptable" that other things might be deemed acceptable?

Well, that is an issue, but another one from what my OP addresses.

That "evil" is chosen to contrast with "good" lends flavour to good: it tells us that it's not about the taste of steaks, but about moral issues.

It certainly seems to put "good" at the top of the idealistic ladder. And of course one can set the issue within a moral framework if you want.

If everyone were doing kind acts, there would be no kinds acts --that is to say, we could not know "kind acts" from any other kinds of acts.

Yup. However, I don't see the necessity of evil just to define good. Good can just as easily be regarded as the opposite of bad---no malicious intent (evil) required.

 

[orcel]

I agree, but of course that isn't what "evil was like darkness, not the opposite of goodness but rather the lack of it" suggests.

I have to disagree. If we are not blocking out the goodness then our action what ever it is, is full of good. just as that which does not blot out the light is full of light.