Is Good the Absence of Evil?

[footprints]

Thats right..... it depends on intent.

I would say, a mother who stole a loaf of bread to feed her children when no other option was left available to her, is stealing, albeit it isn't evil. Evil would be in those who could have helped, but didn't. The mother did the right thing.

Murder is the wrong word to use for your example. Murder automatically implies evil. The word you want is kill, is killing good or evil. And the answer is that it depends on the intent.

Like many words we tend to relate and associate to them in a certain way. Murder is one such word, its very connotation infers the essence of evil. In most countries murder is defined as the premeditated intention of ending another persons life. Euthanasia falls into this category and in Australia anyway, many people have been charged and found guilty of this alledged crime.

This is a good one, we could get all tangled up with this one ...once again .... I think it depends on intent.

We do not live in a world based on reality, we live in a justified world. In a justified world we all have our excuses and reasons which make us look good and feel comfortable with our actions.

I like reading your posts footprints, how is this one evil?

Your kindness is noted. Please also note, this says more pertaining to the kindness in you, than it does to anything in me. I bow humbly in your direction.

Something taken, even inadvertently without the original intent to steal, but never returned, is paramount to stealing if the pen is never returned or offered to be paid for.

Again we live in a justified world and not a world of base reality. For most part people will say, it is only a pen or, I worked an hour for nothing the day so I have paid for it, there are many reasons and excuses in a justified world.

 

[cottage]

Questions:

As I stated originally, Good and Evil are perception based.

1) Is stealing Good or Evil? ........ I will tell you it can be either.

2) Is murder Good or Evil? .......... I will tell you it can be either.

3) Is knowing you have a hundred dollars or more in the bank, and not giving that money to help needy people, Good or Evil? ......... I will tell you it is Evil.

4) Is inadvertantly taking home a pen which belongs to your employer without the intent of stealing, but never remembering to take it back, Good or Evil? ...... I will tell you it is Evil.

The Problem of evil, the argument and its theodical objections, is traditionally divided into two elements: moral evil and metaphysical evil (the latter also known as 'natural evils'). But in both cases it questions the existence of suffering and the absence of a supposed benevolent being. There are various apologetical offerings, one of which is that evil is the absence of good, which is being vigorously disputed in this thread. But the controversy isn't resolved by identifying particular situations where evil might be interpreted differently, since the problem is fundamentally one of suffering - howsoever and wheresoever it occurs.

 

[Mr Cheese]

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

and it is the mystic's goal to transcend both...

Light and Darkness, life and death, right and left, are brothers of one another. They are inseparable. Because of this neither are the good good, nor evil evil, nor is life life, nor death death. For this reason each one will dissolve into its earliest origin. But those who are exalted above the world are indissoluble, eternal.

--Gospel of Philip

 

[Kilgore Trout]

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

I think it appeals to peoples' propensity to incorrectly simplify everything to two dimensions.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Looking at it from an anthropological standpoint, we can define "good" as that which is beneficial to society as a whole, and "evil" as that which is counterproductive to the survival of society.
A continued "evil" would eventually lead to extinction, while at least a majority of "good" keeps the species going.
This would make "good" the default position for survival. In a complete absence of "good", the species does not survive.
So, looking at the above from a philosophical standpoint. If "good" is the default, then "evil" is the absence of "good", for if "evil" were the default, there would be no species to to define either "good" or "evil".

 

[Riverwolf]

I’m sorry but I must disagree, especially with your last sentence. Sloth, a lack of commitment or a disregard for a prescribed order is not evil. Evil only follows if someone is harmed as a result of those things.

Sloth, a lack of commitment, and a disregard for a prescribed order ARE harmful... to the individual.

Let’s just stop for a moment and remind ourselves of what we mean by the term ‘evil’. It has nothing to do with possible perfection or degrees of efficiency, but can be summed up in two-words: ‘pain’ and ‘suffering’.

Two things that all people, regardless of situation, have to go through.

What's the difference between pain and suffering?

Events happening in the world can be logically explained as being perfect because perfection is very simply whatever God means it to be. On that account a tree that blows down in a gale hasn’t demonstrated a fault or omission in the design and placement of its root structure, but is merely an event that follows from the expression of God’s perfect will. Now, while in that sense, and that sense only, the world can be said to be good, a contradiction is involved if we want to say God is morally good. The tree was blown down in the gale according to God’s will, but if a person was killed by that occurrence then that too must be by God’s will or permission. Self-evidently it cannot be said that God is a morally good agent, while at the same time acknowledging the existence of suffering.

Hence why I believe that God is amoral; I believe morality to be a purely human invention. (And NOT a bad one at all.:no

 

[2nd mouse]

Theres been quite a bit of input on this topic. I wonder what happened to our thread starter.

Like many words we tend to relate and associate to them in a certain way. Murder is one such word, its very connotation infers the essence of evil. In most countries murder is defined as the premeditated intention of ending another persons life. Euthanasia falls into this category and in Australia anyway, many people have been charged and found guilty of this alledged crime.

Yes but I would add the term unlawful, since murder is a legal term. It is the unlawful dimension that makes a killing murder. I believe their are killings that are lawful therefore not evil.

We do not live in a world based on reality, we live in a justified world. In a justified world we all have our excuses and reasons which make us look good and feel comfortable with our actions.

Thats true but that is just deception or delusion. An excuse for evil in my opinion is worse than the evil itself because it gives the evil power and support. To make an excuse is to embrace said evil.

Your kindness is noted. Please also note, this says more pertaining to the kindness in you, than it does to anything in me. I bow humbly in your direction.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the intent of this one. I will say though, the remark about reading your posts was indeed sincere, the ones i find most enjoyable are on the topic of evolution. The way your opponents get frazzled by your calm unwavering reason is quite entertaining.

Something taken, even inadvertently without the original intent to steal, but never returned, is paramount to stealing if the pen is never returned or offered to be paid for.

Agreed, but that wasn't the premise in the original version. The original held the distinction of "not remembering to return it" if I'm not mistaken. Inadvertantly and forgetfullness does not imply malicous intent. Therefore not evil.

Again we live in a justified world and not a world of base reality. For most part people will say, it is only a pen or, I worked an hour for nothing the day so I have paid for it, there are many reasons and excuses in a justified world.

Justifying wrong is a disease, a disease of the soul

 

[2nd mouse]

What you describe above is not really relative to the problem of evil. I believe it says in Genesis that God created the world and ‘saw that it was good’. That is the sense I think you’re referring to? A thing that is well made or efficient may be described a ‘good’ or ‘perfect’ without any reference to evil. An example of bad workmanship isn’t evil, unless someone suffers as a result. To describe a thing in positive terms still implies that the opposite may have been the case, but the ‘opposite’ in those terms doesn’t necessarily imply pain or injury or any form or any form of moral suffering.

Hey Cottage, you rightly discern that I do make a distinction between moral evil and it's relation to people and metaphysical evil. It's imparrative to maintain the distinction in order to get clarity on both perspectives. Lets focus on the metaphysical perspective.

If something was created "good" what would you call an action taken upon that thing that diminished, perverted, or corrupted it's goodness?

 

[footprints]

The Problem of evil, the argument and its theodical objections, is traditionally divided into two elements: moral evil and metaphysical evil (the latter also known as 'natural evils'). But in both cases it questions the existence of suffering and the absence of a supposed benevolent being. There are various apologetical offerings, one of which is that evil is the absence of good, which is being vigorously disputed in this thread. But the controversy isn't resolved by identifying particular situations where evil might be interpreted differently, since the problem is fundamentally one of suffering - howsoever and wheresoever it occurs.

Good and Evil must coexist, it is an impossibility to have it any other way. Take one away and the other doesn't exist, simply because there is no comparison, and all that would be left is natural life. The most classic example of this is in the infant child, without knowledge of good and evil, good and evil simply do not exist. If the infant child is only exposed to perceived good living in an isolated state from the rest of society, they would not know they were living a perceived good life, they would only know it as normal. Vice versa if the child were raised in an isolated, perceived evil state.

Like good and evil, suffering is also a matter of human perception. Although suffering is suffering, to be realistic to align this with evil, one must divide man made suffering from natural suffering. Natural suffering isn't evil, it is a natural part of life, just as birth and death are. Mankind caused suffering though is another matter, this is needless suffering and just isn't warranted.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

 

[footprints]

Theres been quite a bit of input on this topic. I wonder what happened to our thread starter.

This is what happens when a thread or a debate goes too long, it diverges off into many tangents as associations are made and followed, trying to prove a point.

Yes but I would add the term unlawful, since murder is a legal term. It is the unlawful dimension that makes a killing murder. I believe their are killings that are lawful therefore not evil.

I can concur with you here. I wouldn't consider a soldier evil for just doing their job and protecting their loved ones and country from harm. Albeit I would consider the act of having an armed services to fight wars evil.

Thats true but that is just deception or delusion. An excuse for evil in my opinion is worse than the evil itself because it gives the evil power and support. To make an excuse is to embrace said evil.

The essence of the path of enlightenment left by Jesus, is to remove all the justifications, excuses and reasons we give ourselves, for all wrongs we commit, both big and small. This takes us back to base reality, and not held aloft in a justified world.

I'm not entirely sure I understand the intent of this one. I will say though, the remark about reading your posts was indeed sincere, the ones i find most enjoyable are on the topic of evolution. The way your opponents get frazzled by your calm unwavering reason is quite entertaining.

I took your words as sincere. To put it another way for you, my intent was; You are a beautiful person, and why I bowed to you.

Pertaining to evolution, I have an upper hand in evolution debates. For most part, debaters have never encountered a person like me who bases themselves in reason, so I don't fit their cliche'd answers.

Agreed, but that wasn't the premise in the original version. The original held the distinction of "not remembering to return it" if I'm not mistaken. Inadvertantly and forgetfullness does not imply malicous intent. Therefore not evil.

A good person based in reality, would make it their highest priority to return their employers property. Not remembering to return it is just another in the long list of justifications people give themselves for not doing the right thing. I myself have been guilty of this crime, now I do my utmost to make sure they are always returned and I make sure I humbly apologise to my employer for this wrong. To further prevent myself from doing this wrong, I buy most of my own stationary now, so now it is other people borrowing off me and never remembering to return them. I will let you in on a little secret though, when I lend them, I actually give it to them never expecting it to be returned, that way there is no wrong generated.

Justifying wrong is a disease, a disease of the soul

Justifiing is what human intelligence has led us to.

The cycle of life unfolds as it should, according to the path that we walk.

 

[cottage]

Sloth, a lack of commitment, and a disregard for a prescribed order ARE harmful... to the individual.)

If that's the case then it is suffering and therefore evil.

Two things that all people, regardless of situation, have to go through.

What's the difference between pain and suffering?)

They are essentially the same thing. If one has, or causes, pain, then someone suffers. We also suffer pain in a non-physical sense.

Hence why I believe that God is amoral; I believe morality to be a purely human invention. (And NOT a bad one at all.:no

I agree. The concept of an amoral God fits with what we know from experience and is not therefore contradictory.

 

[cottage]

Hey Cottage, you rightly discern that I do make a distinction between moral evil and it's relation to people and metaphysical evil. It's imparrative to maintain the distinction in order to get clarity on both perspectives. Lets focus on the metaphysical perspective.

If something was created "good" what would you call an action taken upon that thing that diminished, perverted, or corrupted it's goodness?

You get caught on the horns of a dilemma with that approach. Let's consider that the world was created 'good', to mean perfect or exactly as intended. Now, if something occurs to diminish or pervert that state of affairs we will have a contradiction if it is no longer 'good' - or the defence can be mounted that what occurred was meant to occur by defintion of its being perfect! But in either case, if someone is harmed then the contradiction stands, because even with the metaphysical evils there has to a moral implication where suffering involved, since there is a supposed morally good agent who is the cause and conserver of the world.

 

[cottage]

Good and Evil must coexist, it is an impossibility to have it any other way.

Take one away and the other doesn't exist, simply because there is no comparison, and all that would be left is natural life. The most classic example of this is in the infant child, without knowledge of good and evil, good and evil simply do not exist. If the infant child is only exposed to perceived good living in an isolated state from the rest of society, they would not know they were living a perceived good life, they would only know it as normal. Vice versa if the child were raised in an isolated, perceived evil state.

Like good and evil, suffering is also a matter of human perception. Although suffering is suffering, to be realistic to align this with evil, one must divide man made suffering from natural suffering. Natural suffering isn't evil, it is a natural part of life, just as birth and death are. Mankind caused suffering though is another matter, this is needless suffering and just isn't warranted.

The path to hell is paved with good intentions.

This thread is discussing whether 'good' is the absence of evil. We use the terms relative to one another, similar to heat and cold, but there is no logical necessity for such a relationship. Evil is a state of negative or harmful thoughts and actions, while ‘good’ is a term meaning those things are absent. A state of harm and suffering can exist independent of the term 'good', while goodness is a descriptive term that depends for its very meaning upon the existence of evil.

Here is the argument I posted in the Epicurus thread: Conceive of a world without evil (a world that is logically possible, incidentally, which God could have created). But now God creates evil. He has created evil at the flick of a switch. And then, at the flick of the switch once more, he puts a stop to the evil. Those who did the killing will stop killing and those did the robbing will stop robbing; volcanoes would cease swallowing up villages; flood and pestilence would be no more. By flicking the switch God hasn't introduced ‘goodness’. The inhabitants did not suddenly become ‘good’; they simply ceased doing what they were doing previously, and the mountain didn’t of a sudden become ‘good’ but just stopped spewing forth its deadly larva. Evil exists on its own account, but without evil the concept of goodness has no existence and no meaning. You can’t heal where there is no sickness and you can’t aspire to be moral if there is no immorality.

 

[Riverwolf]

They are essentially the same thing. If one has, or causes, pain, then someone suffers. We also suffer pain in a non-physical sense.

They appear to be the same thing, but they aren't. Pain is the external feeling of extreme discomfort felt after, say, hitting your finger with a hammer. Suffering is the internal, non-physical pain that occurs subsequently, say, as a result of thinking, "how could I have been so stupid!" in the hammer scenario.

I know the difference seems inconsequential, except for the fact that, in my opinion, even though pain doesn't go away, suffering can be permanently ended through various methods.

 

[cottage]

They appear to be the same thing, but they aren't. Pain is the external feeling of extreme discomfort felt after, say, hitting your finger with a hammer. Suffering is the internal, non-physical pain that occurs subsequently, say, as a result of thinking, "how could I have been so stupid!" in the hammer scenario.

I know the difference seems inconsequential, except for the fact that, in my opinion, even though pain doesn't go away, suffering can be permanently ended through various methods.

It makes no sense to say that someone who experiences pain doesn't suffer. The bottom line is suffering, whatever the form or circumstances. Physical pain is suffering; mental distress or depression is suffering. It is all suffering.

 

[2nd mouse]

You get caught on the horns of a dilemma with that approach. Let's consider that the world was created 'good', to mean perfect or exactly as intended. Now, if something occurs to diminish or pervert that state of affairs we will have a contradiction if it is no longer 'good'

I don't understand why you believe a contradiction exists. If the thing created good has been acted upon by another agent and that act takes away from the originally intended goodness, that act would be termed evil. Now if you are refering to a designed process and not an object, then you would have to know if the intent of that designed process made room for fluctuations in the process. For example the weather and changeing seasons. Individually taken, the four seasons are in conflict with one another. However, considered as a whole process they are quite complimentary.

- or the defence can be mounted that what occurred was meant to occur by defintion of its being perfect! But in either case, if someone is harmed then the contradiction stands, because even with the metaphysical evils there has to a moral implication where suffering involved, since there is a supposed morally good agent who is the cause and conserver of the world.

This idea of harm being the determining factor in deciding if evil has occured is flawed. Harm, pain, and suffering can occur without direct evil involvement. Take fire for example. Is fire good or evil? If someone is burned in a fire does that make fire evil ? Of coarse not.

I must reiterate, you must maintain the distinction between moral and metaphysical. You can't combine them when you are trying to define good and evil because they are 2 comletely different perspectives.

The only thing that determines good and evil is intention.

 

[footprints]

This thread is discussing whether 'good' is the absence of evil. We use the terms relative to one another, similar to heat and cold, but there is no logical necessity for such a relationship. Evil is a state of negative or harmful thoughts and actions, while ‘good’ is a term meaning those things are absent. A state of harm and suffering can exist independent of the term 'good', while goodness is a descriptive term that depends for its very meaning upon the existence of evil.

Here is the argument I posted in the Epicurus thread: Conceive of a world without evil (a world that is logically possible, incidentally, which God could have created). But now God creates evil. He has created evil at the flick of a switch. And then, at the flick of the switch once more, he puts a stop to the evil. Those who did the killing will stop killing and those did the robbing will stop robbing; volcanoes would cease swallowing up villages; flood and pestilence would be no more. By flicking the switch God hasn't introduced ‘goodness’. The inhabitants did not suddenly become ‘good’; they simply ceased doing what they were doing previously, and the mountain didn’t of a sudden become ‘good’ but just stopped spewing forth its deadly larva. Evil exists on its own account, but without evil the concept of goodness has no existence and no meaning. You can’t heal where there is no sickness and you can’t aspire to be moral if there is no immorality.

Simply put, good and evil are a product of the human brain. It is the line drawn in the sand which shouldn't be crossed. There are literally billions of lines drawn in the sand, right across the world and all in a different spot. Unlike heat and cold (temperature) which can be measured along a calibrated scale, we have no technical instrumentation capable of measuring good and evil (love) in a person. So to this extent we have to judge by a comparison and our own imagination.

Volcanoes are not evil. Nor is the damage they inflict on the world. This is a volcanoes normal life cycle. Just as mankind slaughters a lamb, slices a bean or picks an apple from a living life form, volcanoes erupt as part and parcel of their normal life pattern.

Suffering is not measured from mankinds perspective, though it is where mankind is concerned. One day mankind in general, will out grow this selfish, spoilt brat, type behaviour when they see through the eyes and the beauty which the great teachers gave them the possibility of seeing. Sigh, many in our lifetime, the good, the bad and the ugly, will never see through such eyes, though all will believe and conceive they do. Such is human intelligence for you.

 

[Tiberius]

The absence of evil is indifference. The absence of good is indifference.

It's like the acid/base scale. Just because something's not a base doesn't make it an acid. It could be neutral.

 

[Riverwolf]

It makes no sense to say that someone who experiences pain doesn't suffer. The bottom line is suffering, whatever the form or circumstances. Physical pain is suffering; mental distress or depression is suffering. It is all suffering.

You don't believe you can experience pain without suffering? What about those people who have a high pain tolerance, let alone those who actually train their minds to not let pain, fear, etc. affect them?

 

[cottage]

You don't believe you can experience pain without suffering?

If you experience pain then by definition you are suffering.

What about those people who have a high pain tolerance, let alone those who actually train their minds to not let pain, fear, etc. affect them?

I think we can agree that all sentient creatures suffer, even those with a high pain tolerance and those who meditate etc.