• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Good the Absence of Evil?

Dan4reason

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
Some things are more or less more or less morally neutral so a statement like evil is the absence of good or the inverse of that makes no sense.
 
Dan4reason

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
BruceDLimber said:
Yes: I was pointing out that most of us have no problem with the concept of treating them either as opposites or one as the lack of the other.

Peace,

Bruce
Click to expand...

Evil of course lacks good just like good lacks evil (at least the absolute forms and assuming morality exists). You are right. But to say that everything that is not good is evil, or that all that is not evil is good seems to be dichotomizing everything. Some things are morally neutral.

What good or presence of God is there in a pulsar in space, and what evil or lack of God (according to Christians and others) is in this stellar object? Can this object be morally good or morally evil? Goodness and evil may exist in the use of this object but not in the object itself.
Cycle_of_pulsed_gamma_rays_from_the_Vela_pulsar.gif
 
D

drsatish

Active Member
Violence is EVIL


Non-Violence is GOOD.


Don’t believe?


.when I twist your elbow behind your back and plaster your face sideways to the

Brick-Wall?


Satish
 
Penumbra

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't think good is the absence of evil, or that evil is the absence of good. I don't think "good" and "evil" are precise enough words either.

Benevolence is more than just doing nothing, and malevolence is more than just doing nothing. Doing nothing probably falls on the "good" side since at least one isn't getting in anyone's way, but in some contexts, doing nothing can reasonably be considered quite unethical by many standards.
 
BruceDLimber

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Dan4reason said:
You are right. But to say that everything that is not good is evil, or that all that is not evil is good seems to be dichotomizing everything. Some things are morally neutral.
Click to expand...
And exactly where and when did I say such a thing?

It might help to recall that one of the Baha'i teachings is that truth is relative (the only absolute being God Himself).

Peace,

Bruce

 
S

smoothcriminal12

Member
I believe that, because of the moral law, and the standards that make up the moral law, that evil is the absence of good. If the moral law is the basis for absolute morality, or goodness, then anything working against that absolute morality is evil. Because the moral law instinctively tells us what good is, then bad is anything that does not fit the standards of that good. For this reason, and this reason alone, evil is the absence of good, and not the other way around.

Evil is only seen as evil because it defies morality. If the moral law told us to instead do what we now regard as evil, then what we now regard as good would be seen as evil, and vice versa.

EDIT: I'd also like to say that, in regards to your murder scenario, I do not think that the moral law has to say outright "Do not murder." It could go as far as saying "Be kind to others," or "Always act kindly." In this case then, murder and rape is not kind to others, neither is it acting kindly to the one being murdered or raped. And we know, deep inside, unless you are a psychopath, that you will know that what you did is wrong. You will know that what you did was morally abhorrent and disgusting. Even when you do something smaller, like lying or stealing, you will feel guilt. It is because of this that I believe that evil is the absence of good. If evil was not the absence of good and good was the absence of evil then we would not feel the way we do when we know that we are doing something wrong. Instead, we would feel the way that we do when we are doing what we define as "good" things: we'd feel happy, self-satisfied, etc. The problem of empathy can be cited as proof that evil is the absence of good.
​
 
Last edited:
Dan4reason

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
BruceDLimber said:
And exactly where and when did I say such a thing?

It might help to recall that one of the Baha'i teachings is that truth is relative (the only absolute being God Himself).

Peace,

Bruce
Click to expand...

Ok then. So you agree then that evil is not SIMPLY the absence of good?
 
Dan4reason

Dan4reason

Facts not Faith
smoothcriminal12 said:
I believe that, because of the moral law, and the standards that make up the moral law, that evil is the absence of good. If the moral law is the basis for absolute morality, or goodness, then anything working against that absolute morality is evil. Because the moral law instinctively tells us what good is, then bad is anything that does not fit the standards of that good. For this reason, and this reason alone, evil is the absence of good, and not the other way around.​


Evil is only seen as evil because it defies morality. If the moral law told us to instead do what we now regard as evil, then what we now regard as good would be seen as evil, and vice versa.​
Click to expand...

Again there is the problem of the morally neutral. Something can be both not good and not bad.
 
earlwooters

earlwooters

Active Member
Good and evil exist only as concepts of the human mind. Without humans on this Earth, the concept and supposed reality of good and evil could not exist. Nature is neither good nor evil, it simply is. If a person kills someone he believes needs killing, they may think they have done a good deed, however the deceased persons friends and relatives may believe he is evil. Good and evil are opinions and nothing more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top