Is Good the Absence of Evil?

[cottage]

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.

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.

Very simply, if there is no suffering then there can be no evil. The problem of evil doesn’t concern misguided or errant intentions, it identifies the existence of suffering and the lack of compassion in the presence of an all loving and benevolent God. That is the contradiction.

The only thing that defines evil is suffering: no suffering, then no evil. And the only thing that defines ‘good’ in the context of evil is a lack of suffering.

 

[cottage]

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.

Well of course! Time and again we see this non-sensical statement that 'volcanoes aren't evil' as if it were implied that they might be. Evil means suffering and suffering is an effect, not a cause.

Suffering is not measured from mankinds perspective, though it is where mankind is concerned.

I'm sorry but that makes no sense.

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.

Pain and suffering is a biological safeguard, necessary for our survival, and not something we will grow out of.

 

[Riverwolf]

If you experience pain then by definition you are suffering.

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

Then, I think we are defining "suffering" a bit differently. I'm going by what the Buddha called "dukkha," a word that doesn't have a perfect equivalent in English.

Do you think it's possible to have the same evenness of mind in pain as in pleasure?

 

[cottage]

Then, I think we are defining "suffering" a bit differently. I'm going by what the Buddha called "dukkha," a word that doesn't have a perfect equivalent in English.

Yes, I believe the term represents an aspect of the temporal world, where all contingent things erode, degrade and expire, and this inevitability causes despair, anguish, and uncertainty, and in that sense that we suffer because cannot accept or escape the constraints of this material existence.

Do you think it's possible to have the same evenness of mind in pain as in pleasure?

Without doubt there are some who willingly suffer physical pain as a pleasure, just as others inflict pain for their pleasure.

 

[footprints]

Well of course! Time and again we see this non-sensical statement that 'volcanoes aren't evil' as if it were implied that they might be. Evil means suffering and suffering is an effect, not a cause.



I'm sorry but that makes no sense.




Pain and suffering is a biological safeguard, necessary for our survival, and not something we will grow out of.

Suffering has absolutely nothing to do with evil. Suffering is not a biological safeguard necessary for our survival and pain like an itch and many other feeling type sensations can make us aware of a problem with our body.

Each to our own belief.

 

[dust1n]

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.

I'm not sure, but we rest assure that 'God' isn't the opposite of evil.

 

[cottage]

Suffering has absolutely nothing to do with evil.

Okay, so explain to me how evil could exist without suffering.


Suffering is not a biological safeguard necessary for our survival and pain like an itch and many other feeling type sensations can make us aware of a problem with our body.
[/quote]

You've disagreed with me and then agreed with me, all in one sentence! I'm sorry but I don't know what it is you mean to say.

 

[footprints]

Okay, so explain to me how evil could exist without suffering.


Suffering is not a biological safeguard necessary for our survival and pain like an itch and many other feeling type sensations can make us aware of a problem with our body.

You've disagreed with me and then agreed with me, all in one sentence! I'm sorry but I don't know what it is you mean to say.[/quote]

I doubt you need me to explain how evil can exist without suffering.

I disagreed with you pertaining to suffering having anything to do with a biological safeguard and agreed with you pertaining to pain being a part of our natural senses.

 

[cottage]

You've disagreed with me and then agreed with me, all in one sentence! I'm sorry but I don't know what it is you mean to say.

I doubt you need me to explain how evil can exist without suffering.

I asked you for an explanation how evil can exist where there is no suffering!

I disagreed with you pertaining to suffering having anything to do with a biological safeguard and agreed with you pertaining to pain being a part of our natural senses.

Pain is a sense content, an indication that there is some biological fault occurring, and it also acts as a safeguard by giving warning and thus preventing us from coming to harm. We learn by cause and effect. I put my hand in a flame: it hurts, and in future I avoid the flame.

 

[footprints]

I asked you for an explanation how evil can exist where there is no suffering!

And again I say to you, I doubt you need me to explain this to you. You already have your own belief.

Pain is a sense content, an indication that there is some biological fault occurring, and it also acts as a safeguard by giving warning and thus preventing us from coming to harm. We learn by cause and effect. I put my hand in a flame: it hurts, and in future I avoid the flame.

Repeating what I have previously said, doesn't say anything new, it only agrees with me. Thank you.

Suffering of course, doesn't enter the picture where biological reasoning is concerned. Albeit, each to their own belief.

 

[cottage]

And again I say to you, I doubt you need me to explain this to you. You already have your own belief.

Got nothing at all to do with beliefs: it’s about one thing being logically dependent upon another. You have alluded to an explanation to the contrary, and I am asking you what it is?

Repeating what I have previously said, doesn't say anything new, it only agrees with me. Thank you.

So we’re agreed that pain is a necessary safeguard for our continued welfare and survival?

Suffering of course, doesn't enter the picture where biological reasoning is concerned. Albeit, each to their own belief.

This isn’t ‘biological reasoning’; it is empirical reasoning. Pain allows us to avoid suffering by making us aware of its causes. If you think otherwise I’ll be very pleased to hear your argument to that effect.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yes, I believe the term represents an aspect of the temporal world, where all contingent things erode, degrade and expire, and this inevitability causes despair, anguish, and uncertainty, and in that sense that we suffer because cannot accept or escape the constraints of this material existence.

Yes, that is how he used it, and I do agree with what he said. The only thing that's universally certain that the Buddha taught that I think is highly unlikely is his theory of reincarnation. But I do believe what he otherwise taught (the Four Noble Truths and the doctrine of no-soul) are certainly true in my opinion.

Without doubt there are some who willingly suffer physical pain as a pleasure, just as others inflict pain for their pleasure.

That's not at all what I mean.

I mean, do you think it's possible that a guy can just shrug off both pain and pleasure equally? He does not rejoice in pleasure, nor does he feel sorrow in pain. Inwardly, though he feels both, he is calmly indifferent to both. Do you think that's possible?

 

[idea]

Is Good the Absence of Evil?

No.
Does the absence of cyanide make food good? no. The proper spices and fresh ingredients make the food good. Good is about what’s there – not about what isn’t there. If there’s nothing there it isn’t good or bad – it isn’t anything.

 

[cottage]

Yes, that is how he used it, and I do agree with what he said. The only thing that's universally certain that the Buddha taught that I think is highly unlikely is his theory of reincarnation. But I do believe what he otherwise taught (the Four Noble Truths and the doctrine of no-soul) are certainly true in my opinion.

Not all Buddhists accept reincarnation, of course, just as Buddhists who believe in some form of God seem to be in the minority. In my view the metaphysics of Buddhism aren’t vulnerable to sceptical attack in the way that other belief systems are. However, I’ve always taken issue with the notion of Nirvana because the (supposed) cessation of suffering implies a primary consideration of the self, which contradicts the very definition of Buddhism, as I understand it. Someone who is completely removed from suffering cannot share the suffering of others. Our being affected by others’ plights enables us to demonstrate our greatest virtues in a world where pain and suffering is only too real.

That's not at all what I mean.

I beg your pardon, I misunderstood you.

I mean, do you think it's possible that a guy can just shrug off both pain and pleasure equally? He does not rejoice in pleasure, nor does he feel sorrow in pain. Inwardly, though he feels both, he is calmly indifferent to both. Do you think that's possible?

No, I’m afraid I do not. I think it is illusionary. But if it were factual I would feel uncomfortable with a concept that borders on self-regard, for the reasons I’ve given above.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not all Buddhists accept reincarnation, of course, just as Buddhists who believe in some form of God seem to be in the minority. In my view the metaphysics of Buddhism aren’t vulnerable to sceptical attack in the way that other belief systems are. However, I’ve always taken issue with the notion of Nirvana because the (supposed) cessation of suffering implies a primary consideration of the self, which contradicts the very definition of Buddhism, as I understand it. Someone who is completely removed from suffering cannot share the suffering of others. Our being affected by others’ plights enables us to demonstrate our greatest virtues in a world where pain and suffering is only too real.

People who have achieved such a state do feel pain, and are aware that others suffer. However, because they are also clear of mind, they can think clearly to help in the best way possible.

I beg your pardon, I misunderstood you.

No problem.

No, I’m afraid I do not. I think it is illusionary. But if it were factual I would feel uncomfortable with a concept that borders on self-regard, for the reasons I’ve given above.

Not self-regard, though I can understand the connection, and the reason you gave: it's an easy conclusion to draw.

Though your argument could certainly be used against ascetic practices, and I'd understand. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of trying to escape the world rather than dealing with it.

Besides, the Fourth Noble Truth, dealing with the Eightfold Path, is all about ethics. In other words, enlightenment is dependent on helping others.

 

[cottage]

People who have achieved such a state do feel pain, and are aware that others suffer. However, because they are also clear of mind, they can think clearly to help in the best way possible.



No problem.



Not self-regard, though I can understand the connection, and the reason you gave: it's an easy conclusion to draw.

Though your argument could certainly be used against ascetic practices, and I'd understand. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of trying to escape the world rather than dealing with it.

Besides, the Fourth Noble Truth, dealing with the Eightfold Path, is all about ethics. In other words, enlightenment is dependent on helping others.

I’m slightly reticent to criticise Buddhism because, unlike certain other belief systems, mischief and bloodshed have never been carried out in its name and it is unquestionably morally aspirational. But treating it as just another metaphysical system there are some points to be made. My view is that human nature is inherently and necessarily selfish, and this is represented in all systems of belief, Buddhism not excepted, and they exist to make us feel better about ourselves. The Noble Truths, with the exception of the First, which is really self-evident, are not truths at all, but a doctrine that is held to be true by its followers. I don’t accept that the cessation of suffering is attainable, and nor do I accept the notions of craving and clinging as the sole or fundamental cause of suffering. As the First Truth informs us, life means suffering, and suffering exists notwithstanding any high-minded conception of dispassion or mental detachment. And to be free from worries or anxieties is to be removed and set apart from humanity at large in my view. Buddhism is centred on the individual by definition, and while self-improvement and a philosophy of doing no harm to others is entirely laudable, it answers first to the prior-self (which is supposed not to exist) and in that one respect it is no different from other belief systems. And of course we don’t need a codified exemplar, telling us what is good and desirable behaviour, but that is where Buddhism becomes a religion: we can identify with its goals and it enables us feel good about our motives and our place in the world.

 

[Falvlun]

Suffering has absolutely nothing to do with evil. .

I too am curious as to how you define evil. It seems to me that suffering is at root of the things we humans consider to be evil.

 

[footprints]

Got nothing at all to do with beliefs: it’s about one thing being logically dependent upon another. You have alluded to an explanation to the contrary, and I am asking you what it is?

If you read my first post in this thread I have already given my interpretation. But just to repeat it again just for you.

1: Good and Evil are perception based. What one person will define as evil another person will define as good and vice versa.

2: Good and evil are an association of relationship to each other. If one didn't exist nor would the other. Good and evil are a comparison drawn against an invisible line in the sand.

3: Take Evil away from Good, and you are not left with good, you are left with normal. Take Good away from Evil and you are not left with evil, you are left with normal.

4: The world we all share today, Our normal, is a mixture of Good and Evil. What the percentage of this mixture is, will be dependent on who's perception (belief) you get. This will change from belief to belief.

To quote Biami an Australian Aboriginal teacher; The cycle of life unfolds as it should according to the path that we walk.

So we’re agreed that pain is a necessary safeguard for our continued welfare and survival?

We are agreed that the sense of feeling, or touch, is part and parcel of the base survival instinct of human beings. Pain, tickaling, tender touch, et al all fall under this category.

This isn’t ‘biological reasoning’; it is empirical reasoning. Pain allows us to avoid suffering by making us aware of its causes. If you think otherwise I’ll be very pleased to hear your argument to that effect.

There is nothing empirical pertaining to this reasoning. Suffering is not part and parcel of base human survival instincts, it is a side effect or symptom of pain, irrespective of whether the pain is generated by a physical or mental state of anguish.

 

[footprints]

I too am curious as to how you define evil. It seems to me that suffering is at root of the things we humans consider to be evil.

I do not define evil, yet I have a multitude of definitions of evil in my memory.

Suffering is a side effect or a symptom to a root cause.

 

[cottage]

I do not define evil, yet I have a multitude of definitions of evil in my memory.

Then may we please hear what they are?

Suffering is a side effect or a symptom to a root cause.

And...?