Good in itself

[angellous_evangellous]

With Aristotle and others I affirm that virtue is a good in itself. As a theist, I believe that God is the highest good. As a Christian, I affirm with the Church that Jesus Christ is the expression of the highest good.

Because I affirm that ethical actions and virtues are good in and of themselves, I find certain dualisms destructive for ethics.

These dualisms that I despise are rooted in the faulty premise that evil must exist good to exist or that we can only know good in contrast to evil.

The dark conclusion of this thinking is that the presence of evil is constructive because it allows for good to exist.

Because I affirm the good in itself, I can argue that the existence of evil is wholly destructive and unneeded. We can work together as human beings to annihilate evil and only participate in the good, striving onward in progress rather than destruction, only knowing the good.

 

[evearael]

I'll bite... as soon as my daughter goes down for her nap.

 

[Comet]

With Aristotle and others I affirm that virtue is a good in itself. As a theist, I believe that God is the highest good. As a Christian, I affirm with the Church that Jesus Christ is the expression of the highest good.

Because I affirm that ethical actions and virtues are good in and of themselves, I find certain dualisms destructive for ethics.

These dualisms that I despise are rooted in the faulty premise that evil must exist good to exist or that we can only know good in contrast to evil.

The dark conclusion of this thinking is that the presence of evil is constructive because it allows for good to exist.

Because I affirm the good in itself, I can argue that the existence of evil is wholly destructive and unneeded. We can work together as human beings to annihilate evil and only participate in the good, striving onward in progress rather than destruction, only knowing the good.

If evil is destructive, then wouldn't destroying it in the name of good be evil since destructiveness is evil?

To participate in the good only would mean to not participate in the evil and thus destructive activities.

Thoughts?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If evil is destructive, then wouldn't destroying it in the name of good be evil since destructiveness is evil?

To participate in the good only would mean to not participate in the evil and thus destructive activities.

Thoughts?

I have to approach your points seperately.

Yes, evil is only destructive and never constructive. However, like a surgeon who cuts the body to heal it, good can have destructive elements for the good of the body. So I confess that I do have a utilitarian ethic when untilitarianism is balanced with justice. Unfortunately, because evil exists and the world is not as it should be, justice requires surgical action.

The good in itself principle is not dependent on not participating in evil in order to participate in good. It is possible, of course, to choose between two goods rather than choosing good over evil. Therefore, one can choose good from an array of not only evil and good actions, but the evil can be eliminated and only choose good actions from only good possibilities.

 

[Comet]

I have to approach your points seperately.

Yes, evil is only destructive and never constructive. However, like a surgeon who cuts the body to heal it, good can have destructive elements for the good of the body. So I confess that I do have a utilitarian ethic when untilitarianism is balanced with justice. Unfortunately, because evil exists and the world is not as it should be, justice requires surgical action.

The good in itself principle is not dependent on not participating in evil in order to participate in good. It is possible, of course, to choose between two goods rather than choosing good over evil. Therefore, one can choose good from an array of not only evil and good actions, but the evil can be eliminated and only choose good actions from only good possibilities.

By point one- good contains evil principles in it and therefore you can't take the evil out of it without changing what good itself is.

By point two- if two goods exist, then by default of "good in itself" is null and void. If you can choose between something then it is not in itself but separate. Plus, one man's good is another man's evil - so too are two goods turned into evil again.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

By point one- good contains evil principles in it and therefore you can't take the evil out of it without changing what good itself is.

Not so. Evil is destructive, and destructive alone. It's evil to cut off your healthy arm, but not if the arm has gangrene and will kill the entire body.

By point two- if two goods exist, then by default of "good in itself" is null and void. If you can choose between something then it is not in itself but separate. Plus, one man's good is another man's evil - so too are two goods turned into evil again.

Your point #2 is not logical at all, and I cannot address it.

 

[stemann]

With Aristotle and others I affirm that virtue is a good in itself.

I apologise for jumping into the middle of a different discussion, but I don't fully understand the concept of 'good in itself.' Do you know of an explaination of this term? Thanks, it would really help my understanding of this topic.

 

[Comet]

Not so. Evil is destructive, and destructive alone. It's evil to cut off your healthy arm, but not if the arm has gangrene and will kill the entire body.

See your point,(though I don't view things as such)

Your point #2 is not logical at all, and I cannot address it

Good is a relative state of mind to the viewer, thus if there is more than one good somebody else can see the "other good" as an evil. More than logical I think as I see your point of view on this matter not logical at all, unless you make everything the same to all somehow.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I apologise for jumping into the middle of a different discussion, but I don't fully understand the concept of 'good in itself.' Do you know of an explaination of this term? Thanks, it would really help my understanding of this topic.

I am following Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1 and perhaps I may be mediating him through the Stoics. Basically, I believe that human beings can naturally pursue their own happiness without evil as a choice - that is, we naturally seek to live by reason and pursue our happiness even if evil were not to present itself.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054&query=head%3D%231

You really should read all the introductory material, but he specifically discusses the "good in itself" in 1096b 1.

 

[Comet]

Because I affirm the good in itself, I can argue that the existence of evil is wholly destructive and unneeded. We can work together as human beings to annihilate evil and only participate in the good, striving onward in progress rather than destruction, only knowing the good.

My point with this is that each human views things differently. What you view as good is not what another would view as good. So how can you annihilate evil and only participate in the good when the good is something else to everyone?

Destroying that which is destructive is just more destruction in the name of the good you see as progress. Good is just the side you choose to rid the world of the other, if you are on the other side: then good is evil for it wishes to destroy it in the name of itself to be the only one.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My point with this is that each human views things differently. What you view as good is not what another would view as good. So how can you annihilate evil and only participate in the good when the good is something else to everyone?

Destroying that which is destructive is just more destruction in the name of the good you see as progress. Good is just the side you choose to rid the world of the other, if you are on the other side: then good is evil for it wishes to destroy it in the name of itself to be the only one.

I'm not God. I cannot look into a person's soul and find out what subjective truth that they are self-actualizing.

Perhaps I am approaching the problem as a Buddhist - the evil is annihilated only with respect to my relationship with it as an ethical choice.

Nevertheless, we can agree that there are certain evils that are evil to all people: injustice, poverty, terrorism, disease, hunger. If you'd like to argue that any of these evils are good from a certain point of view, then be my guest. There are plenty of things that are not up for debate as to their lack of goodness.

Good and evil are not subjective. Murder destroys my body just as easily as it destroys yours.

 

[Comet]

Nevertheless, we can agree that there are certain evils that are evil to all people: injustice, poverty, terrorism, disease, hunger. If you'd like to argue that any of these evils are good from a certain point of view, then be my guest. There are plenty of things that are not up for debate as to their lack of goodness.

Good and evil are not subjective. Murder destroys my body just as easily as it destroys yours.

I don't view disease as evil at all. That would be to say that some bacteria are evil and some have a right to live while others should be annihilated. If poverty is evil, then why do some people renounce all their material objects in pursuit of a higher spiritual self? Some cultures believe in hunger strikes, fasting, or as some Cathar's practiced a "death fast" of sorts. I don't view any of those things as evil at all. It is perfectly subjective.

Yes murder destroys all equally, how does that make it evil? Sounds as if it is a bit more fair since it treats all the same and doesn't discriminate as to who was good or who was evil......

Perhaps I am approaching the problem as a Buddhist - the evil is annihilated only with respect to my relationship with it as an ethical choice.

That I can understand, for you make it relative to yourself only.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't view disease as evil at all. That would be to say that some bacteria are evil and some have a right to live while others should be annihilated. If poverty is evil, then why do some people renounce all their material objects in pursuit of a higher spiritual self? Some cultures believe in hunger strikes, fasting, or as some Cathar's practiced a "death fast" of sorts. I don't view any of those things as evil at all. It is perfectly subjective.

Disease is not subjective - it only brings destruction, so it is evil. If you're going to argue that you would not support medical science because you don't think that disease isn't evil, that would be incredibly inhumane and wreckless. I would support the annihilation of all bacteria that is only destructive - or at least its absolute containment. Some bacteria are good - your intestines are full of helpful bacteria. You're not arguing this point very well.

Yes murder destroys all equally, how does that make it evil?

 

[Comet]

Nevertheless, we can agree that there are certain evils that are evil to all people: injustice, poverty, terrorism, disease, hunger. If you'd like to argue that any of these evils are good from a certain point of view, then be my guest. There are plenty of things that are not up for debate as to their lack of goodness.
.

Again, bacteria is just bacteria and is trying to live just like anything else. You seem to think it is evil in the form of disease. Relative to you, not to me. To me it is just a life-form surviving how it must. I see that we are a part of a greater whole. Disease is a much needed thing in regards to how the Earth as a whole functions. Why is it evil then? It is not evil by any means to me.... nor poverty, nor hunger, etc....

Disease is not subjective. Some bacteria are good - your intestines are full of helpful bacteria. You're not arguing this point very well.

You debate on your subjective view of this matter as to what is good to you. So I guess I should say the same in return on your last sentence

 

[Comet]

Disease is not subjective - it only brings destruction, so it is evil. If you're going to argue that you would not support medical science because you don't think that disease isn't evil, that would be incredibly inhumane and wreckless. I would support the annihilation of all bacteria that is only destructive - or at least its absolute containment. Some bacteria are good - your intestines are full of helpful bacteria. You're not arguing this point very well.

Since this was edited-

Disease doesn't just bring destruction..... it also life itself and makes way for more life to take its place. How is this evil?

View my take of this as inhumane or wreckless if you wish to. It may sound harsh to say such things, but it is part of how life in this place works. I don't view it as evil at all. If you choose to see it as unfair and evil, again that is subjective.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Since this was edited-

Disease doesn't just bring destruction..... it also life itself and makes way for more life to take its place. How is this evil?

View my take of this as inhumane or wreckless if you wish to. It may sound harsh to say such things, but it is part of how life in this place works. I don't view it as evil at all. If you choose to see it as unfair and evil, again that is subjective.

But you're failing to argue that disease is relative. In what way is it constructive for you or anyone else to get AIDs? Using your construct we can argue that we should not seek the annihilation of disease simply because it does not affect you personally. This disease, as with all others, deserve nothing less than irratication or at least containment because they bring nothing but destruction in the lives of people.

There is nothing subjective about that.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Again, bacteria is just bacteria and is trying to live just like anything else. You seem to think it is evil in the form of disease. Relative to you, not to me. To me it is just a life-form surviving how it must. I see that we are a part of a greater whole. Disease is a much needed thing in regards to how the Earth as a whole functions. Why is it evil then? It is not evil by any means to me.... nor poverty, nor hunger, etc....

If this is how you want to explain your harmful views to a family suffering because their little girl has cancer, be my guest.

Disease is evil because of the destruction that it brings to the life of people. It is inhumane not to support every effort, every stride forward for the betterment of healthcare around the world - in addition to the irraditcation of poverty and hunger.

It is evil to you because you are a human being!

 

[Comet]

But you're failing to argue that disease is relative. In what way is it constructive for you or anyone else to get AIDs? Using your construct we can argue that we should not seek the annihilation of disease simply because it does not affect you personally. This disease, as with all others, deserve nothing less than irratication or at least containment because they bring nothing but destruction in the lives of people.

There is nothing subjective about that.

So things that are destructive to humans should be erraticated because humans are good and that which isn't healthy for them is evil?

It destroys lives of people, but without people some bacteria and "disease" bacterium would not survive. So we should destroy them because we don't wish to be a part of the symbiotic relationship we have in our existence here? I still don't view AIDs or any other disease as evil.

You may view it evil to humans, but it doesn't effect trees, cats, etc.... Again you speak from a relative perception to yourself and what you view as your kind. It just is what it is. You make it an evil for it effects humans, how is it evil to the Earth, a tree, a whale, etc.... You fail to make it evil by any means other than your subjective view of it as a human.

Something surviving and multipling doesn't make it evil in itself. That would be to say that humans are evil and should be erradicated for they destroy the ozone, rain forests, kill countless species of animals, etc......

 

[Comet]

If this is how you want to explain your harmful views to a family suffering because their little girl has cancer, be my guest.

Disease is evil because of the destruction that it brings to the life of people. It is inhumane not to support every effort, every stride forward for the betterment of healthcare around the world - in addition to the irraditcation of poverty and hunger.

It is evil to you because you are a human being!

Who are my views harming? I wasn't aware I was being destructive in any manner by believing what I do.... I am not destroying anything as you say evil does. If people don't understand life and that everybody suffers loss, then I don't care to explain it to them. Not relavent to this debate though

Disease is evil due to the relativity of it to humans. Lions eat Zebras. To Zebras they may be evil, are you to tell me lions are evil then? Some people choose to live a humble life of poverty. Monks for example: should we banish that way of life and make them take money for poverty is evil and we must erradicate it? Force feed the person on a hunger strike for it is erradicating the evil hunger?

I don't view it as evil to me just because I am human being! Please don't tell me what is evil to me or not, now you are just subjecting your subjective views on others that are not yourself.

 

[Comet]

It is constructive to destroy evil, and it is destructive to destroy good.

It is destructive to build evil, and it is constructive to build good.

Evil destroys good, and good destroys evil.

Being good is to have desirable or favourable qualities or characteristics; morally excellent.

Being evil is to be morally bad or wrong; causing harm or any other undesirable result.

Is it not morally desirable to destroy evil? Is it not morally undesirable to destroy good?

Good and evil are still subjective. Favorable qualities and being wrong is subjective as well. People view them differently and each have their own list.

By this rational death would be evil. Death merely is and I don't view it as evil at all.

The only way to harm evil while continueing to be good is to harm the evil that is inside of you by flooding the people around you with the goodness that you desire.

Good advise.