Is Good the Absence of Evil?

[Meow Mix]

I've seen an argument in many places that "evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light." Taken at face value, this seems like a plausible scenario. However, I've come to wonder whether it may actually be the other way around.

For instance, let's consider the poster child of evil: murder.

In what sense is murder the absence of good? Well, it's easy to suggest that it's the absence of a sense of morality or self-control. However, it seems to actually boil down to an absence of an inclination not to murder.

Here's a fairer way to pose the question: What is NOT-murdering? Do we walk around every day thinking about how we're going to not-murder people?

Murder seems very much more so a "presence" of something than the "absence" of something. Not-murder isn't a word because it's just the normal state of affairs, it doesn't bring anything conceptually into existence. There wasn't exactly a first "not-murder," but there definitely was a first murder.

Since an act of evil brings something conceptually into existence that wasn't there before, this seems to suggest that it isn't the absence of good -- rather, it seems that good is the absence of evil.

Consider what we consider many acts of good: what does giving money to the poor, healing the sick and an honest person turning in a wallet they found on a street have in common? They're all actions that alleviate or diminish acts of evil (or potential states of suffering). In other words, good appears to be defined by attempting to cause the absence of evil.

Is it good to watch a neighborhood to prevent thiefs from breaking in? Is it good to alleviate a rape victim's suffering through counsil and medical attention?

On the other hand, can we think of any blatant examples where evil is the absence of good? I can't think of any instances that aren't better stated the other way around. Can you folks?

If good gains its meaning by the alleviation or prevention of suffering then the ultimate good would be the ultimate prevention of suffering: by preventing it from ever existing.

Enter, my Amended Problem of Evil elsewhere on this board.

Anyway, what do you folks think about "good as the absence of evil?" Can you think of counterexamples?

 

[footprints]

I've seen an argument in many places that "evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light." Taken at face value, this seems like a plausible scenario. However, I've come to wonder whether it may actually be the other way around.

For instance, let's consider the poster child of evil: murder.

In what sense is murder the absence of good? Well, it's easy to suggest that it's the absence of a sense of morality or self-control. However, it seems to actually boil down to an absence of an inclination not to murder.

Here's a fairer way to pose the question: What is NOT-murdering? Do we walk around every day thinking about how we're going to not-murder people?

Murder seems very much more so a "presence" of something than the "absence" of something. Not-murder isn't a word because it's just the normal state of affairs, it doesn't bring anything conceptually into existence. There wasn't exactly a first "not-murder," but there definitely was a first murder.

Since an act of evil brings something conceptually into existence that wasn't there before, this seems to suggest that it isn't the absence of good -- rather, it seems that good is the absence of evil.

Consider what we consider many acts of good: what does giving money to the poor, healing the sick and an honest person turning in a wallet they found on a street have in common? They're all actions that alleviate or diminish acts of evil (or potential states of suffering). In other words, good appears to be defined by attempting to cause the absence of evil.

Is it good to watch a neighborhood to prevent thiefs from breaking in? Is it good to alleviate a rape victim's suffering through counsil and medical attention?

On the other hand, can we think of any blatant examples where evil is the absence of good? I can't think of any instances that aren't better stated the other way around. Can you folks?

If good gains its meaning by the alleviation or prevention of suffering then the ultimate good would be the ultimate prevention of suffering: by preventing it from ever existing.

Enter, my Amended Problem of Evil elsewhere on this board.

Anyway, what do you folks think about "good as the absence of evil?" Can you think of counterexamples?

Is good the absence of evil? Not by a long shot.

Let me start off by saying Good and Evil are perception based. What one person may consider evil, another person may look upon as being good.

Good and Evil coexist. It is Yin and Yang. It is positive and negative. Good cannot exist without Evil and Evil cannot exist without good. Good creates Evil, and Evil creates Good. They both live and feed from each other.

If we didn't have Good and Evil, Good and Evil would not exist, not even as a concept. All we would have is life.

Can Good be put in a perpetual motion state whilst Evil is put in a domant state, you better believe it can. Just because something isn't used and is dormant, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Can Evil be put in a perpetual motion state, whilst Good is put in a domant state, you better believe it can. Just because something isn't used and is dormant, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[McBell]

Is good the absence of evil? Not by a long shot.

Let me start off by saying Good and Evil are perception based. What one person may consider evil, another person may look upon as being good.

Good and Evil coexist. It is Yin and Yang. It is positive and negative. Good cannot exist without Evil and Evil cannot exist without good. Good creates Evil, and Evil creates Good. They both live and feed from each other.

If we didn't have Good and Evil, Good and Evil would not exist, not even as a concept. All we would have is life.

Can Good be put in a perpetual motion state whilst Evil is put in a domant state, you better believe it can. Just because something isn't used and is dormant, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Can Evil be put in a perpetual motion state, whilst Good is put in a domant state, you better believe it can. Just because something isn't used and is dormant, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Believe it or not.....

I agree.

 

[Riverwolf]

Good is defined by evil, and evil is defined by good. They are interdependent; one cannot exist without the other.

 

[cottage]

I've seen an argument in many places that "evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light." Taken at face value, this seems like a plausible scenario. However, I've come to wonder whether it may actually be the other way around.

For instance, let's consider the poster child of evil: murder.

In what sense is murder the absence of good? Well, it's easy to suggest that it's the absence of a sense of morality or self-control. However, it seems to actually boil down to an absence of an inclination not to murder.

Here's a fairer way to pose the question: What is NOT-murdering? Do we walk around every day thinking about how we're going to not-murder people?

Murder seems very much more so a "presence" of something than the "absence" of something. Not-murder isn't a word because it's just the normal state of affairs, it doesn't bring anything conceptually into existence. There wasn't exactly a first "not-murder," but there definitely was a first murder.

Since an act of evil brings something conceptually into existence that wasn't there before, this seems to suggest that it isn't the absence of good -- rather, it seems that good is the absence of evil.

Consider what we consider many acts of good: what does giving money to the poor, healing the sick and an honest person turning in a wallet they found on a street have in common? They're all actions that alleviate or diminish acts of evil (or potential states of suffering). In other words, good appears to be defined by attempting to cause the absence of evil.

Is it good to watch a neighborhood to prevent thiefs from breaking in? Is it good to alleviate a rape victim's suffering through counsil and medical attention?

On the other hand, can we think of any blatant examples where evil is the absence of good? I can't think of any instances that aren't better stated the other way around. Can you folks?

If good gains its meaning by the alleviation or prevention of suffering then the ultimate good would be the ultimate prevention of suffering: by preventing it from ever existing.

Enter, my Amended Problem of Evil elsewhere on this board.

Anyway, what do you folks think about "good as the absence of evil?" Can you think of counterexamples?

At last! Someone else who questions 'Evil is a privation of good' theodicy'.

See my posts 38 and 50 in the Response to Epicurus' famous argument thread.

And welcome, Erin, I remember you from the AOL Religion site.

Regards, Cottage

 

[cottage]

Good is defined by evil, and evil is defined by good. They are interdependent; one cannot exist without the other.

All that is being said here is if there was only the one descriptive term its correlative could not exist. But in fact ‘good’ is the absence of evil! If for example we dispense with light, that is to say not just the term but the state itself, we are left with 'dark' the condition, but not the term, which is now redundant. Similarly if we annihilate evil, the condition and behaviour that we knew previously as 'good' will simply continue as before, unaffected and now without the need for any distinction.

Evil doesn't depend upon the existence of 'good' in order to give it meaning. Murder is evil, but not murder is simply the former possibility not enacted: there isn't a state or condition of not murder. However, the term 'good' (but not the state) is dependent upon evil. Conceive of the non-existence of evil. What would the state of 'goodness' comprise? How could one be good when it is impossible to be bad? And now if we reverse the situation, where we have only an evil existence, we find we don't need the correlative 'good' to identify this negative state. In sum, the state of evil and badness, eg hurt, injury, death etc, exists as a proper state, but 'goodness' is merely a descriptive term for the theoretical absence of that negative state; it is not a state in itself.

 

[Forkie]

I've seen an argument in many places that "evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light." Taken at face value, this seems like a plausible scenario. However, I've come to wonder whether it may actually be the other way around.

For instance, let's consider the poster child of evil: murder.

In what sense is murder the absence of good? Well, it's easy to suggest that it's the absence of a sense of morality or self-control. However, it seems to actually boil down to an absence of an inclination not to murder.

Here's a fairer way to pose the question: What is NOT-murdering? Do we walk around every day thinking about how we're going to not-murder people?

Murder seems very much more so a "presence" of something than the "absence" of something. Not-murder isn't a word because it's just the normal state of affairs, it doesn't bring anything conceptually into existence. There wasn't exactly a first "not-murder," but there definitely was a first murder.

Since an act of evil brings something conceptually into existence that wasn't there before, this seems to suggest that it isn't the absence of good -- rather, it seems that good is the absence of evil.

Consider what we consider many acts of good: what does giving money to the poor, healing the sick and an honest person turning in a wallet they found on a street have in common? They're all actions that alleviate or diminish acts of evil (or potential states of suffering). In other words, good appears to be defined by attempting to cause the absence of evil.

Is it good to watch a neighborhood to prevent thiefs from breaking in? Is it good to alleviate a rape victim's suffering through counsil and medical attention?

On the other hand, can we think of any blatant examples where evil is the absence of good? I can't think of any instances that aren't better stated the other way around. Can you folks?

If good gains its meaning by the alleviation or prevention of suffering then the ultimate good would be the ultimate prevention of suffering: by preventing it from ever existing.

Enter, my Amended Problem of Evil elsewhere on this board.

Anyway, what do you folks think about "good as the absence of evil?" Can you think of counterexamples?

I've never actually considered this problem in either direction, this is the first time I've really thought about it. Am I automatically doing good, because I'm not doing evil? Perhaps both good and evil are branches away from "the norm". I'm sitting here looking on the internet. Am I doing an evil deed? No. Am I doing a good deed? Not really. I'm not actively doing either.

I'd say both good and evil could be relative to a state of neither and require positive activity in either direction for them to become recognisable.

 

[John D]

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and blessing and calamity you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Good and evil are fruits of the same tree called knowledge. So the starting point should be the knowledge that we gained - Evil and good are known to all men, it all depends on which fruit's taste are the one you desire. The bitter sweet of "good" or the sweet and sour of "evil"

 

[footprints]

Believe it or not.....

I agree.

Be careful then, you might start considering yourself delusional.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

In answer to your question, I should think it fairly obvious that the sort of evil act you describe reflects a gross absence of such virtues as love, caring, etc.!

It is for this reason that evil is described as the absence of good.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[McBell]

Greetings!

In answer to your question, I should think it fairly obvious that the sort of evil act you describe reflects a gross absence of such virtues as love, caring, etc.!

It is for this reason that evil is described as the absence of good.

Peace,

Bruce

Unless of course the person in question takes great care when planning and executing something they love....

 

[Walkntune]

On the other hand, can we think of any blatant examples where evil is the absence of good?

Many, many, many, many cases of human evil start out with an unheard cry from a baby.(absence or lack of love that also matures as rejection and lack of love from society.)

 

[McBell]

Many, many, many, many cases of human evil start out with an unheard cry from a baby.(absence or lack of love that also matures as rejection and lack of love from society.)

One could argue that your example is merely evil perpetuating itself.

 

[Walkntune]

One could argue that your example is merely evil perpetuating itself.

I would argue that you are correct.Does lack of good produce lack of good or does evil produce evil?

 

[McBell]

I would argue that you are correct.Does lack of good produce lack of good or does evil produce evil?

Based on my experience I have to go with evil produces evil.

 

[2nd mouse]

Keep in mind that you can't really have this discussion of good and evil with out defining the terms. In my case I use the perspective of good and evil that is eluded to in the Bible.

I've seen an argument in many places that "evil is the absence of good in the same way that darkness is the absence of light." Taken at face value, this seems like a plausible scenario. However, I've come to wonder whether it may actually be the other way around.

For instance, let's consider the poster child of evil: murder.

I know this isn't your point but i can think of many things much worse than murder to be the poster child of evil.

In what sense is murder the absence of good? Well, it's easy to suggest that it's the absence of a sense of morality or self-control. However, it seems to actually boil down to an absence of an inclination not to murder.

It seems you may have inadvertantly answered your own question. The inclination NOT to murder is good.

Here's a fairer way to pose the question: What is NOT-murdering? Do we walk around every day thinking about how we're going to not-murder people?

I think a distinction must be made between the inclination and the act. The "good/evil" happens at the inclination stage. I think this point is based on a false premise. You cannot be inclined toward anything without first having considered it. Most people have never considered the prospect of murdering someone so the inclination to NOT murder logically would never come up.

Murder seems very much more so a "presence" of something than the "absence" of something. Not-murder isn't a word because it's just the normal state of affairs, it doesn't bring anything conceptually into existence. There wasn't exactly a first "not-murder," but there definitely was a first murder.

Again, the distinction must be made between the inclination and the act. The act is merely the logical outcome and evidence of the inclination. So as I stated, the "good/evil" happens at the inclination stage.

Since an act of evil brings something conceptually into existence that wasn't there before, this seems to suggest that it isn't the absence of good -- rather, it seems that good is the absence of evil.

Actually I believe the evil comes into existance at the point of inclination. The act is merely the logical manifestation that evil exists. The inclination caused the act so the inclination is whats evil. Since the "normal" state of a person is to not be inclined to murder, then the reasonable explanation would be that the normal or "good" inclination of that person has been displaced by the "evil" inclination. You must remember that the default inclination intended by the designer and built into people was GOOD. That is evidenced by the fact that the overwhelming percentage of people are not and never will be inclined to murder.

Consider what we consider many acts of good: what does giving money to the poor, healing the sick and an honest person turning in a wallet they found on a street have in common? They're all actions that alleviate or diminish acts of evil (or potential states of suffering). In other words, good appears to be defined by attempting to cause the absence of evil.

This perception would make evil the default postion. The intended, designed state of a person or people. You can make an argument for that position I suppose but not using the perspective set out at the top of this post.

Is it good to watch a neighborhood to prevent thiefs from breaking in? Is it good to alleviate a rape victim's suffering through counsil and medical attention?

On the other hand, can we think of any blatant examples where evil is the absence of good? I can't think of any instances that aren't better stated the other way around. Can you folks?

Again, how you approach this topic is dependent on your perspective. The main factor is what do you believe is the original designed intent of the creator when he created people. Did he create people to be good or evil? Which ever you decide is the default condition. In order for a different condition to take the place of the default condition the default condition must give way.

On the other hand, if you do not believe in a creator God then you logically would hold the position that people were created in some sort of nuetral state and good and evil are just 2 ends of a sliding scale.

 

[Riverwolf]

All that is being said here is if there was only the one descriptive term its correlative could not exist. But in fact ‘good’ is the absence of evil! If for example we dispense with light, that is to say not just the term but the state itself, we are left with 'dark' the condition, but not the term, which is now redundant. Similarly if we annihilate evil, the condition and behaviour that we knew previously as 'good' will simply continue as before, unaffected and now without the need for any distinction.

Evil doesn't depend upon the existence of 'good' in order to give it meaning. Murder is evil, but not murder is simply the former possibility not enacted: there isn't a state or condition of not murder. However, the term 'good' (but not the state) is dependent upon evil. Conceive of the non-existence of evil. What would the state of 'goodness' comprise? How could one be good when it is impossible to be bad? And now if we reverse the situation, where we have only an evil existence, we find we don't need the correlative 'good' to identify this negative state. In sum, the state of evil and badness, eg hurt, injury, death etc, exists as a proper state, but 'goodness' is merely a descriptive term for the theoretical absence of that negative state; it is not a state in itself.

I don't believe I argued that the term is the same as the state.

Without the negative state to help define the positive state, the latter would be worthless and, knowing human nature, dull. In the end, it would be a negative state on its own. This is based on what I know of human nature.

Consider this: humans laugh at the misfortune of others (when serious injury or death is not resultant, for the most part.) Think about it: classical comedy is about people who are "lesser" than us receiving misfortune. (Aristotle defined it thus, if I remember correctly; it's been a while since I read Poetics.)

Stories are driven by antagonistic forces, whose job it is to dispense negative states on the protagonist(s). Without that antagonistic force, there is no story, and no entertainment; there is pure boredom and nothingness.

We'd rather sit through 2 hours of a 12 year old girl being possessed by a demon that's causing her to molest herself, distort her body, prevent her from eating, and vomiting violently; than sit through 2 hours of casual conversation.

So, even though we desire an end to evil, that end is usually the actual end of the story. What actually happens after the Apocalypse of John, when heaven and earth are fully established and all wickedness is destroyed, is not made clear. It's just "now all evil is destroyed and all things are great. The end, worship God. Amen." I think the reason for that is because 1. to go into detail describing it would have made for bad storytelling and therefore nobody would read it (imagine if, at the end of The Lord of the Rings, it went into great detail describing everyone's subsequent lives rather than dedicating some paragraphs in the Appendices to them), and 2. I'd postulate that such a state cannot be fully understood, because we really can't imagine what things would be like without negative states. I'd almost be willing to bet that another Satan would just mess things up all over again just to make things interesting again.

It's also the reason why you see a report of a pregnant woman getting shot on the news, but you don't see anything about someone lending some money to a person trying to get on the bus. "Bad news is good news and good news is no news."

So, my conclusion is, while we outwardly desire an end to evil, we inwardly thrive on it.

 

[RomCat]

Evil is the absence of good.

 

[Riverwolf]

Evil is the absence of good.

Did you even READ the OP?

 

[lunamoth]

Anyway, what do you folks think about "good as the absence of evil?" Can you think of counterexamples?

Evil is also the twisting of good.


Life, health, nourishment, knowledge, truth - all of these are good and can be sustained without evil

Death, illness, starvation, ignorance, lies - in the absence of good, all of these are self-extinguishing or degrade into meaninglessness.