Is Good the Absence of Evil?

[cottage]

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

Thank you.

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

Everything is perception. But evil is suffering, and all suffering if evil. This applies even to necessary evils, where pain must be inflicted in order to prevent further injury or greater suffering.

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.

Not true! No contradiction is involved in conceiving a world without evil. Good and evil are relative terms. But suffering is evil, and it exists not just as a relative term but a state or condition. But ‘goodness’ is merely a term for the absence of evil.

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.

It doesn’t make any sense to speak of taking evil away from good, or good away from evil! In fact they are contradictory statements. (I notice that you capitalize the words 'good' and 'evil', as if to give the terms some form of special status!)

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.

If you’re saying there is good and evil in the world, then of course! But evil is suffering and suffering isn’t a matter of belief: it is about physical or mental pain and distress.

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.

Yes exactly and what purpose do those sensations serve? And what would be the result if we were without them!

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.

Excuse me! ‘Empirical’ means reasoning; we reason from experience. Pain alerts us to danger, which we then store in our memories to make us aware of future hazards. Or did you want to disagree with that?

 

[Falvlun]

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

And do any of them not result in causing suffering to some entity capable of experiencing suffering?

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

The root cause being....?

Everything is perception. But evil is suffering, and all suffering if evil. This applies even to necessary evils, where pain must be inflicted in order to prevent further injury or greater suffering.
/snip/
Yes exactly and what purpose do those sensations serve? And what would be the result if we were without them!

We hold the same view that evil is suffering; eliminate suffering and there would be no evil.

But the brick wall I run up against is the argument that some suffering is necessary for continued survival-- something you have fully acknowledged. How do you contend that all suffering is evil, when in this current universe, some suffering is required so that we may learn how to survive?

 

[cottage]

We hold the same view that evil is suffering; eliminate suffering and there would be no evil.

But the brick wall I run up against is the argument that some suffering is necessary for continued survival-- something you have fully acknowledged. How do you contend that all suffering is evil, when in this current universe, some suffering is required so that we may learn how to survive?

You’ve raised an important question.
The premise is that if suffering is unnecessary then suffering is evil, no exceptions. Suffering is necessary in the context of our world – but our world isn’t necessary - and therefore all suffering within it is unnecessary and evil. In other words, it is evil because there has to be suffering.
I’ll put this in its theistic concept: God is omnipotent, and so to say the world is as it is because it couldn’t be created differently, or not created at all, is a direct contradiction. It is also contradictory because we can annihilate the world in thought or conceive of a world without suffering. We frequently come across situations where pain and suffering must be caused in order to alleviate or prevent even greater suffering. In such cases we wouldn’t normally describe such laudable actions as evil, quite the contrary in fact. The evil isn’t ascribed to the helper, but to God, the author of the (unnecessary) necessity.

 

[Riverwolf]

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.

Well, I believe the Four Noble Truths to be truths; they make sense to me. The goals of dharmic religions is far more than just "making us feel good." Pain is still felt, fear is still felt, etc, after enlightenment (or whatever it's called), but they don't affect the individual at all. I'd say that's a bit more than the feeling felt when watching Holy Grail. Hindu Scriptures (such as the Bhagavad-Gita), for example, often equate the feeling to that which is felt during and immediately after sex: nothing except the moment. (It should be noted that the Buddha didn't quite agree with the Hindu priests on enlightenment, and taught that what is felt during that "realization" is part of Dukkha; he never really explained what nirvana really is, because the Pali language didn't allow for it, and I doubt any modern language does, either.)

Then again, different belief systems really arouse because of different ways of viewing the world. The Buddha tried to be as objective as possible with the view he presented, but his view still would have been dependent on the combination of his life as a spoiled prince and his life as an ascetic eating one grain of rice a day, and he taught from that point of view. It happens to agree with how I view the world.

 

[cottage]

Well, I believe the Four Noble Truths to be truths; they make sense to me. The goals of dharmic religions is far more than just "making us feel good." Pain is still felt, fear is still felt, etc, after enlightenment (or whatever it's called), but they don't affect the individual at all. I'd say that's a bit more than the feeling felt when watching Holy Grail. Hindu Scriptures (such as the Bhagavad-Gita), for example, often equate the feeling to that which is felt during and immediately after sex: nothing except the moment. (It should be noted that the Buddha didn't quite agree with the Hindu priests on enlightenment, and taught that what is felt during that "realization" is part of Dukkha; he never really explained what nirvana really is, because the Pali language didn't allow for it, and I doubt any modern language does, either.)

Then again, different belief systems really arouse because of different ways of viewing the world. The Buddha tried to be as objective as possible with the view he presented, but his view still would have been dependent on the combination of his life as a spoiled prince and his life as an ascetic eating one grain of rice a day, and he taught from that point of view. It happens to agree with how I view the world.

When I speak of feeling good about ourselves I’m not referring to the banishment of pain and wretchedness, but rather the sense of belonging that the affiliation to a doctrine affords, which seems to make sense of our lives, especially where moral pronouncements are concerned. This is not restricted to Buddhism, of course, but applies to other belief systems as well. For example we are aware of our moral responsibilities and duties without having recourse to the Ten Commandments, and yet by associating with it the believers are declaring themselves to be on the path to righteousness (or doing the right thing, in general parlance). It’s all just psychology, really.

Buddhism identifies many of humanity’s lesser qualities and appears to say that they may all be overcome! But perhaps the teaching means we should studiously endeavour to overcome them? And I’m not sure that ‘the greatest goodness is a peaceful mind’, as I remember reading somewhere, unless that condition is universally and concurrently achievable rather than applying to individuals. But all in all, Buddhism is heads and shoulders above other belief systems because of its doctrine of benevolence and goodwill and the lack of authoritarian decree. And unlike the theistic faith systems there are no contradictions or evident absurdities.

 

[Riverwolf]

When I speak of feeling good about ourselves I’m not referring to the banishment of pain and wretchedness, but rather the sense of belonging that the affiliation to a doctrine affords, which seems to make sense of our lives, especially where moral pronouncements are concerned. This is not restricted to Buddhism, of course, but applies to other belief systems as well. For example we are aware of our moral responsibilities and duties without having recourse to the Ten Commandments, and yet by associating with it the believers are declaring themselves to be on the path to righteousness (or doing the right thing, in general parlance). It’s all just psychology, really.

No arguments from me, here.

It's partially because of that, that I don't believe any religion or philosophy has a monopoly on truth.

Buddhism identifies many of humanity’s lesser qualities and appears to say that they may all be overcome! But perhaps the teaching means we should studiously endeavour to overcome them? And I’m not sure that ‘the greatest goodness is a peaceful mind’, as I remember reading somewhere, unless that condition is universally and concurrently achievable rather than applying to individuals. But all in all, Buddhism is heads and shoulders above other belief systems because of its doctrine of benevolence and goodwill and the lack of authoritarian decree. And unlike the theistic faith systems there are no contradictions or evident absurdities.

Well, considering the religious climate that he was born into, it makes sense that he would be rebelling against them. (Luckily, his teachings actually did help bring those religions now referred to as Hindu out of blind, priestly-dominated ritualism and into a more philosophical and universal form that I follow.)

My overall point is, with the Buddhist point of view, pain can be felt without suffering. However, because you're worldview is different, you disagree.

Therefore, once again we must agree to disagree. (Besides, I think I've derailed the thread long enough. ^_^)

 

[Falvlun]

You’ve raised an important question.
The premise is that if suffering is unnecessary then suffering is evil, no exceptions. Suffering is necessary in the context of our world – but our world isn’t necessary - and therefore all suffering within it is unnecessary and evil. In other words, it is evil because there has to be suffering.
I’ll put this in its theistic concept: God is omnipotent, and so to say the world is as it is because it couldn’t be created differently, or not created at all, is a direct contradiction. It is also contradictory because we can annihilate the world in thought or conceive of a world without suffering. We frequently come across situations where pain and suffering must be caused in order to alleviate or prevent even greater suffering. In such cases we wouldn’t normally describe such laudable actions as evil, quite the contrary in fact. The evil isn’t ascribed to the helper, but to God, the author of the (unnecessary) necessity.

I can defend, and fully understand, the "all suffering is evil" stance when used within the POE, to argue that God cannot be omnimax, or to argue that a kinder world could have been created.

However, I am trying to apply this viewpoint to reality (or at least reality as I perceive it). It is unlikely that God, omnimax or otherwise, exists. Thus, the world could not necessarily have been "created" some other way. We cannot assume that a world without suffering could exist. In fact, the configuration of this universe is the only configuration that we know is capable of existing.

So we are left with the fact that some suffering is necessary for survival. Would you still argue that all suffering is evil?

I am starting to wonder whether the best that can be said is that all evil involves suffering, but not all suffering is evil.

 

[cottage]

I can defend, and fully understand, the "all suffering is evil" stance when used within the POE, to argue that God cannot be omnimax, or to argue that a kinder world could have been created.

However, I am trying to apply this viewpoint to reality (or at least reality as I perceive it). It is unlikely that God, omnimax or otherwise, exists. Thus, the world could not necessarily have been "created" some other way. We cannot assume that a world without suffering could exist. In fact, the configuration of this universe is the only configuration that we know is capable of existing.

So we are left with the fact that some suffering is necessary for survival. Would you still argue that all suffering is evil?

I am starting to wonder whether the best that can be said is that all evil involves suffering, but not all suffering is evil.

Yes, I see your dilemma and I understand why you arrive at that conclusion. And I fully acknowledge that because of the way the world is some pain and suffering is absolutely necessary for our survival, even for just a mundane day-to-day existence. However, I maintain that all suffering is evil, even the necessary evil that I’ve just alluded to. If we see someone suffering we don’t say ‘Never mind, it’s for your own good’ or ‘That taught you a lesson to bear in mind for the future!’ even though such harsh sentiments may be quite true. In fact we show our abhorrence at the suffering, even where a cause requires suffering as an effect for the well being of the subject.

But I’m afraid I do not agree that it is true to say that the universe exists in the only possible configuration. Our nervous and cognitive systems match the perils and hazards of our surroundings, but the greatest degree of anything can also be the smallest, or any place in between, and whatever we can conceive to be existent we can also conceive to be non-existent, whether that is a falling rock or a stomach ache.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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 don't have a clue as to what you are asking. Are individual acts of goodness without evil. Probably, by definition. Can an evil person do good? Certainly. But what or whose definition of goddness or evil are you using? I guess I just wonder what you are driving at.

 

[footprints]

Thank you.

You are welcome.

Everything

is perception. But evil is suffering, and all suffering if evil. This applies even to necessary evils, where pain must be inflicted in order to prevent further injury or greater suffering.

Everything is perception based.

I told you, you had a belief and you didn't need me to explain it to you.

Not true! No contradiction is involved in conceiving a world without evil. Good and evil are relative terms. But suffering is evil, and it exists not just as a relative term but a state or condition. But ‘goodness’ is merely a term for the absence of evil.

Yes it was true.

I told you, you had a belief and you didn't need me to explain it to you.

It doesn’t make any sense to speak of taking evil away from good, or good away from evil! In fact they are contradictory statements. (I notice that you capitalize the words 'good' and 'evil', as if to give the terms some form of special status!)

Negative and can always be taken from positive, and positive can always be taken from negative.

LOL is that why I capitalised Good and Evil.

I told you, you had a belief and you didn't need me to explain it to you.

If you’re saying there is good and evil in the world, then of course! But evil is suffering and suffering isn’t a matter of belief: it is about physical or mental pain and distress.

Physical and or mental pain and distress, relate to physical and or mental pain and distress. Not necessarily suffering. Pain doesn't always relate and associate with suffering.

Yes perceived good and perceived evil, exist in this world.

I told you, you had a belief and you didn't need me to explain it to you.

Yes exactly and what purpose do those sensations serve? And what would be the result if we were without them!

I have already discussed our body senses and what purpose they serve, well at least where the sense of feeling or touch is concerned. Just to repeat it, this sense gives us the sense of pain and pleasure.

Excuse me! ‘Empirical’ means reasoning; we reason from experience. Pain alerts us to danger, which we then store in our memories to make us aware of future hazards. Or did you want to disagree with that?

I will excuse you, every time you do it.

Empirical means experimental, observed, pragmatic, practical.

Pain is part of the 5 body senses, having previously stated such, of course I agree with it. Suffering on the other hand is not part of the body senses, it is an emotional issue.

 

[footprints]

And do any of them not result in causing suffering to some entity capable of experiencing suffering?

Suffering is emotion based. Many life forms, humans included, are capable of this emotional experience. So yes, many of them have suffering in them, but not all relate and associate to suffering being evil.

The root cause being....?

Our five body senses and the way the environment impacts on them.

 

[cottage]

Everything is perception based.

I told you, you had a belief and you didn't need me to explain it to you.

This is supposed to be a debate! Facetious remarks add nothing to the discussion.
I responded to where you said ‘Good and evil are perception based’, and ‘what one person defines as evil another person defines as good’
The expression ‘everything is perception based’ is not disputed, just as the existence of suffering is not disputed. Suffering exists. The argument is whether evil is a privation of good, or the opposite. I’m saying evil and suffering is the same thing, and that where there is no suffering there is no evil. I’ve also shown that evil is predicated on suffering, whereas ‘good’ is a term dependent upon evil in order to have meaning. Perception is not in question.

Yes it was true.

I told you, you had a belief and you didn't need me to explain it to you.

You said: ‘Good and evil are an association of relationship to each other [sic]. ‘If one didn’t exist nor would the other.’ I replied by showing that ‘good’, unlike its correlative evil, is only a relative term, but evil is a state or condition that exists independent of ‘good’. If you disagree with that then please give me your argument to show how it is wrong, instead of responding repetitively with trite remarks.

Negative and can always be taken from positive, and positive can always be taken from negative.

I told you, you had a belief and you didn't need me to explain it to you.

That’s absurd. If a thing has the identity of evil then it is not ‘good’ by definition (A=A: a thing is the same as itself). You can take A from AB or B from AB, but you cannot take B from A or A from B.

LOL is that why I capitalised Good and Evil.

! Meaning...what?

Physical and or mental pain and distress, relate to physical and or mental pain and distress. Not necessarily suffering. Pain doesn't always relate and associate with suffering.

Pain is suffering, a personal, private sensation of hurt. A sensation isn’t always painful, but pain is always suffering. Give some examples when pain doesn’t relate to or associate with suffering.

I have already discussed our body senses and what purpose they serve, well at least where the sense of feeling or touch is concerned. Just to repeat it, this sense gives us the sense of pain and pleasure.

But you haven’t answered my question! I'm asking you what purposes do the sensations of pain serve?

Empirical means experimental, observed, pragmatic, practical.

'Empirical' is reasoning from experience, ref my question to you above.

Pain is part of the 5 body senses, having previously stated such, of course I agree with it. Suffering on the other hand is not part of the body senses, it is an emotional issue.

Suffering is a physical and a mental condition: explain to me the sensation of burned flesh?
(You’ve already agreed that pain alerts us to danger, which we then store in our memories to make us aware of future hazards.)

 

[footprints]

This is supposed to be a debate! Facetious remarks add nothing to the discussion.
I responded to where you said ‘Good and evil are perception based’, and ‘what one person defines as evil another person defines as good’
The expression ‘everything is perception based’ is not disputed, just as the existence of suffering is not disputed. Suffering exists. The argument is whether evil is a privation of good, or the opposite. I’m saying evil and suffering is the same thing, and that where there is no suffering there is no evil. I’ve also shown that evil is predicated on suffering, whereas ‘good’ is a term dependent upon evil in order to have meaning. Perception is not in question.

A debate is, I put my case, you put your case. Debate over. This is nothing like a debate.

You say pain and suffering are the same thing. You say suffering and evil are the same thing. Therefore pain equals evil. Personally I do not agree with that.

I see nothing evil in a child tripping over, as they learn to walk, skinning their knee in the process. That you see evil in this, all I can say is I am glad that is your perception and not mine. Pertaining to the same incident, some children will suffer and others will get up as if nothing has happened. Pain doesn't equal suffering, and suffering doesn't equal evil.

You said: ‘Good and evil are an association of relationship to each other [sic]. ‘If one didn’t exist nor would the other.’ I replied by showing that ‘good’, unlike its correlative evil, is only a relative term, but evil is a state or condition that exists independent of ‘good’. If you disagree with that then please give me your argument to show how it is wrong, instead of responding repetitively with trite remarks.

Good and evil are perception based, relative to each by the perception which holds it. This is an explanation, its depth more than a thousand words.

That’s absurd. If a thing has the identity of evil then it is not ‘good’ by definition (A=A: a thing is the same as itself). You can take A from AB or B from AB, but you cannot take B from A or A from B.

Good and Evil are human thought, human perception, they are not something different. Human thought can be subtracted from another thought, added to another thought, divided by another thought or multiplied by another thought.

! Meaning...what?

Trite remarks are not needed.

Pain is suffering, a personal, private sensation of hurt. A sensation isn’t always painful, but pain is always suffering. Give some examples when pain doesn’t relate to or associate with suffering.

In your world pain may be suffering. In my world, pain doesn't always equate to suffering and in some cases like stiking the funny bone, can even equate to laughter.

But you haven’t answered my question! I'm asking you what purposes do the sensations of pain serve?

This question has been answered. Pain is a related associative of our sense of feeling. Like the other four body senses, feeling (touch) is used by mind to determine what might hurt us and what might be good for us.

'Empirical' is reasoning from experience, ref my question to you above.

Reference my reason for giving meanings to empirical. Reasoning is never empirical, it is perception based.

Suffering is a physical and a mental condition: explain to me the sensation of burned flesh?
(You’ve already agreed that pain alerts us to danger, which we then store in our memories to make us aware of future hazards.)

Burnt flesh: The body senses through one of its five senses that the flesh is burnt. Depending on which sense picks this up first what the reaction will be. If it is sight, the body part burnt will generally pull away before the sense of feeling kicks in. If it is smell (burning hair) the eyes will generally glance around to see where the smell is coming from then take action from there if another sense doesn't take over first. If the sense of feeling detects this first, signals will be generated in the flesh which will travel via nerve cells to the brain where the signal of pain will be transmitted.

A burns victim may suffer from the pain generated, their suffering is not their pain, but an emotional attachment to their pain.

 

[cottage]

A debate is, I put my case, you put your case. Debate over. This is nothing like a debate.

You say pain and suffering are the same thing. You say suffering and evil are the same thing. Therefore pain equals evil. Personally I do not agree with that.

I see nothing evil in a child tripping over, as they learn to walk, skinning their knee in the process. That you see evil in this, all I can say is I am glad that is your perception and not mine. Pertaining to the same incident, some children will suffer and others will get up as if nothing has happened. Pain doesn't equal suffering, and suffering doesn't equal evil..

You are missing the point! There is nothing evil in a child tripping, as part of the process of learning to walk. If a child falls and doesn’t suffer any pain or distress then there is nothing further to be said. However, if the child suffers death, injury or distress as a consequence then it has experienced evil. In 2006, in the UK, an eighteen-month old child was scalded to death in an accident in the home under the most disturbing conditions, and it suffered appallingly. A lacerated knee and the resultant pain is a lesser evil by comparison, but it is still evil because the term has one and only one meaning, and that is suffering; by definition if there is no suffering then there can be no evil.

Good and evil are perception based, relative to each by the perception which holds it. This is an explanation, its depth more than a thousand words..

This doesn’t address what I replied to in your statement, where you said: ‘if one didn’t exist nor could the other’. I’ve argued that evil can exist on its own account, but ‘goodness’ is a term contingent upon evil. But you keep referring to perception, when everyone already agrees that there are acts perceived as ‘good’ and acts perceived as evil; so the issue is not whether we perceive them or how we perceive them, but a metaphysical question of whether a particular concept exists because the other is absent.

Good and Evil are human thought, human perception, they are not something different. Human thought can be subtracted from another thought, added to another thought, divided by another thought or multiplied by another thought..

The above is nothing more than obfuscation, which doesn’t even begin to address the foolish statement that you wrote. You said “Evil can be taken from ‘Good’ and ‘Good’ can be taken from ‘Evil.” It was absurd, as you are now aware.

In your world pain may be suffering. In my world, pain doesn't always equate to suffering and in some cases like stiking the funny bone, can even equate to laughter..

Again, you’re missing the point. You are speaking of sensation, which isn’t necessarily pain. No pain or distress: no suffering.

This question has been answered. Pain is a related associative of our sense of feeling. Like the other four body senses, feeling (touch) is used by mind to determine what might hurt us and what might be good for us.

Well, there you are then. Pain is feeling, and what hurts us causes suffering.

Reference my reason for giving meanings to empirical. Reasoning is never empirical, it is perception based.

This is utter nonsense. So what is perception, if not experience? Whatever we perceive we experience. And we reason in two ways: inductively through the empirical world (experience), and deductively through logic.

Burnt flesh: The body senses through one of its five senses that the flesh is burnt. Depending on which sense picks this up first what the reaction will be. If it is sight, the body part burnt will generally pull away before the sense of feeling kicks in. If it is smell (burning hair) the eyes will generally glance around to see where the smell is coming from then take action from there if another sense doesn't take over first. If the sense of feeling detects this first, signals will be generated in the flesh which will travel via nerve cells to the brain where the signal of pain will be transmitted.

It seems you will go to any length to avoid saying what is obvious, but then have to concur in the final sentence. Hair isn’t flesh, and the eyes only anticipate or confirm damaged flesh. The overriding, intense and immediate sensation of burned flesh is pain

A burns victim may suffer from the pain generated, their suffering is not their pain, but an emotional attachment to their pain.

‘Emotionally attached to pain’! Utter nonsense! Pain is a sensation, whether it is physically or emotionally caused.

 

[footprints]

You are missing the point! There is nothing evil in a child tripping, as part of the process of learning to walk. If a child falls and doesn’t suffer any pain or distress then there is nothing further to be said. However, if the child suffers death, injury or distress as a consequence then it has experienced evil. In 2006, in the UK, an eighteen-month old child was scalded to death in an accident in the home under the most disturbing conditions, and it suffered appallingly. A lacerated knee and the resultant pain is a lesser evil by comparison, but it is still evil because the term has one and only one meaning, and that is suffering; by definition if there is no suffering then there can be no evil.

This doesn’t address what I replied to in your statement, where you said: ‘if one didn’t exist nor could the other’. I’ve argued that evil can exist on its own account, but ‘goodness’ is a term contingent upon evil. But you keep referring to perception, when everyone already agrees that there are acts perceived as ‘good’ and acts perceived as evil; so the issue is not whether we perceive them or how we perceive them, but a metaphysical question of whether a particular concept exists because the other is absent.

The above is nothing more than obfuscation, which doesn’t even begin to address the foolish statement that you wrote. You said “Evil can be taken from ‘Good’ and ‘Good’ can be taken from ‘Evil.” It was absurd, as you are now aware.

Again, you’re missing the point. You are speaking of sensation, which isn’t necessarily pain. No pain or distress: no suffering.

Well, there you are then. Pain is feeling, and what hurts us causes suffering.

This is utter nonsense. So what is perception, if not experience? Whatever we perceive we experience. And we reason in two ways: inductively through the empirical world (experience), and deductively through logic.

It seems you will go to any length to avoid saying what is obvious, but then have to concur in the final sentence. Hair isn’t flesh, and the eyes only anticipate or confirm damaged flesh. The overriding, intense and immediate sensation of burned flesh is pain

‘Emotionally attached to pain’! Utter nonsense! Pain is a sensation, whether it is physically or emotionally caused.

Like I said cottage a few quotes back, you don't need me to explain it to you, you have your own beliefs.

On a personal level, I reckon anybody who finds evil in a child accidentally tripping over whilst learning to walk, is a little too much for me.

 

[Muffled]

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?

Good is good all by itself.

What is the case with murder? In a good world there is no murder but life is good without it. So I don't see the absence of evil as the creator of good but rather the presence of evil as the destroyer of good. For instance if I build a nice sand castle on the beach, it is good in my eyes but if someone comes it kicks it all apart I have lost that which was good through an evil act. Am I left with evil? No. The sand was good to start with and still is but if I wish to have a castle I must rebuild it.

Evil is nothing in itself because it is defined as an abnegation of good.

 

[LittleNipper]

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 would say the GOOD is the opposite of indifference. There can be no good with indifference; however, it would seem to me that one could hate indifference but that would be good...

 

[cottage]

Good is good all by itself.

What is the case with murder? In a good world there is no murder but life is good without it. So I don't see the absence of evil as the creator of good but rather the presence of evil as the destroyer of good. For instance if I build a nice sand castle on the beach, it is good in my eyes but if someone comes it kicks it all apart I have lost that which was good through an evil act. Am I left with evil? No. The sand was good to start with and still is but if I wish to have a castle I must rebuild it.

Evil is nothing in itself because it is defined as an abnegation of good.

To speak of life being good without murder is unintelligible if there is no such thing as murder; it’s simply ‘life’, and cannot be ‘good’ if it is not distinguished by its opposite: ‘evil’. It is just what it is. In contrast the word ‘evil’ is not just a term, dependent upon another, but describes negative and harmful actions and events. Example:

The sandcastle you built isn’t morally good, but the action of kicking it down is morally bad. Without the kickers-down, sandcastles are just what they are: structurally sound and aesthetically pleasing – or not! But the kickers are evil minded. Evil is about actions or thoughts that imply suffering, ‘good’ is simply a term to describe a state of affairs where evil is absent.

 

[cottage]

Like I said cottage a few quotes back, you don't need me to explain it to you, you have your own beliefs.

On a personal level, I reckon anybody who finds evil in a child accidentally tripping over whilst learning to walk, is a little too much for me.

The subject doesn’t reflect beliefs, but concerns the facts of good and evil and the existence of suffering.


There is no ‘evil in a child’ that falls, while learning to walk. It is only injury and pain that is evil. You can’t distinguish a supposed moral causation from the effects. Whether a child lacerates its leg in a fall, or is stabbed, the effect is exactly the same because the child suffers. The comfort and aid that we give to the child to address the suffering is the same in either case; the only difference is in our reaction to the cause. We of express concern in both cases but we also express outrage in the case of the latter.

 

[footprints]

The subject doesn’t reflect beliefs, but concerns the facts of good and evil and the existence of suffering.


There is no ‘evil in a child’ that falls, while learning to walk. It is only injury and pain that is evil. You can’t distinguish a supposed moral causation from the effects. Whether a child lacerates its leg in a fall, or is stabbed, the effect is exactly the same because the child suffers. The comfort and aid that we give to the child to address the suffering is the same in either case; the only difference is in our reaction to the cause. We of express concern in both cases but we also express outrage in the case of the latter.

The facts pertaining to Good and Evil is they are perception based. Both you and I have proven this point, we both have different beliefs.