Is Good the Absence of Evil?

[McBell]

Evil is also the twisting of good.

I agree.

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

I would argue that keeping someone who is in pain alive merely to fulfill some nonsensical belief of lifes supposed sanctity is in fact evil and not good.

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

What do you mean by "in the absence of good"?

 

[lunamoth]

What do you mean by "in the absence of good"?

They all depend upon the good values listed above them to be sustained. There can be life without death, but no death without life.

There can be health without illness, but illness upon illness degrades to death.

There can be nourishment without starvation, but continual starvation without nourishment degrades to death.

Knowledge can increase continuously. Ignorance upon ignorance (without knowledge) degrades into senselessness.

There can be truth without lies, but lies alone degrade into meaninglessness.

 

[McBell]

They all depend upon the good values listed above them to be sustained. There can be life without death, but no death without life.

I would argue that there is nothing that lives that does not die.

There can be health without illness, but illness upon illness degrades to death.

There can be nourishment without starvation, but continual starvation without nourishment degrades to death.

Knowledge can increase continuously. Ignorance upon ignorance (without knowledge) degrades into senselessness.

There can be truth without lies, but lies alone degrade into meaninglessness.

Ah.
so death, ignorance, and meaninglessness are all evil...?

 

[2nd mouse]

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

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

Very interesting take.
Cottage, if we were looking for the most concise definition of evil how would this rate?

Evil is anything that impeeds perfection of anything good.

 

[lunamoth]

Ah.
so death, ignorance, and meaninglessness are all evil...?

I think so. What do you think they are?

 

[McBell]

I think so. What do you think they are?

Death is merely the result of life.
Everyone is ignorant of most things.
Most things are meaningless to people.

Seems to me that you are saying that everyone is evil....

 

[lunamoth]

Death is merely the result of life.
Everyone is ignorant of most things.
Most things are meaningless to people.

Seems to me that you are saying that everyone is evil....

No, people are not evil. But yes, we are all affected by evil. It's called Original Sin.

 

[McBell]

No, people are not evil. But yes, we are all affected by evil. It's called Original Sin.

Due to there being so many descriptions of "Original Sin" would you describe what it means to you?

 

[lunamoth]

Due to there being so many descriptions of "Original Sin" would you describe what it means to you?

Inclination to sin.

 

[cottage]

Very interesting take.
Cottage, if we were looking for the most concise definition of evil how would this rate?

Evil is anything that impeeds perfection of anything good.

Question: So what would make a world morally good? Answer: the absence of evil. Once again, 'good' is only a term to describe the absence of evil. We can describe any number of evil acts without referring to goodness, but 'goodness' is only intelligible where evil acts or thoughts are possible: no evil then no goodness.

 

[2nd mouse]

Question: So what would make a world morally good? Answer: the absence of evil. Once again, 'good' is only a term to describe the absence of evil. We can describe any number of evil acts without referring to goodness, but 'goodness' is only intelligible where evil acts or thoughts are possible: no evil then no goodness.

I believe you may be right about the term good. But the state of goodness is actually the intended normal state of existance thereby it doesn't neccessarily need a description.

I am contemplating the concept of good down to it's most basic form. I think automatically linking exclusively morality to the idea of good and evil actually limits your perspective and ability to look at it in a more broad context. Could there be good and evil in the earth if there were no people? Not withstanding the Bibles explanation of how evil got here in the first place,I believe there could.

I think good is good whether there is evil present to illustrate the distinction or not.

Like I briefly illuded to, when I picture in my mind what ultimate good is I see it as perfection. Further I don't think you can have the concept of perfection without intent. The term perfection implies the potential concept and condition of imperfection the same way the term good implies the potential counter condition of evil or not good or less good. But in order to determine whether a given state is perfection or not, or good or not you have to know what the intent of the state or object to be considered is.

A simple example might be a ball. The designed intent of the ball is to be round, perfectly round. To be able to efficiently roll in any direction. Anything added to or taken away from the ball that impeeds it's ability to be pefectly round would be a corruption of the perfectness and perfect intent of the ball. I see this as evil.

Now all that can change with a different intended purpose for the ball. For example a golf ball and a bowling ball. Both can be perfect balls even though their only similarity is roundness because they both fullfill perfectly the intent for which they were designed.

I also mentiond earlier that without accepting the premise of the existance of a creator God the concept of good and evil having absolute definition is moot.

 

[Mister Emu]

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

Indeed...

Negatively, Greed is the inclination to accumulate lacking care for the cost of your personal accumulation(good)...

On the positive side, Charity is not just a lack of malice towards people, but an active desire for their good-will.

 

[cottage]

I believe you may be right about the term good. But the state of goodness is actually the intended normal state of existance thereby it doesn't neccessarily need a description.

I am contemplating the concept of good down to it's most basic form. I think automatically linking exclusively morality to the idea of good and evil actually limits your perspective and ability to look at it in a more broad context. Could there be good and evil in the earth if there were no people? Not withstanding the Bibles explanation of how evil got here in the first place,I believe there could.

If there are no people in the universe then surely the terms ‘good’ and ‘evil’ have no meaning. The problem of evil isn’t restricted to moral evil, but it is definitively that of pain and suffering.

I think good is good whether there is evil present to illustrate the distinction or not.

Like I briefly illuded to, when I picture in my mind what ultimate good is I see it as perfection. Further I don't think you can have the concept of perfection without intent. The term perfection implies the potential concept and condition of imperfection the same way the term good implies the potential counter condition of evil or not good or less good. But in order to determine whether a given state is perfection or not, or good or not you have to know what the intent of the state or object to be considered is.

A simple example might be a ball. The designed intent of the ball is to be round, perfectly round. To be able to efficiently roll in any direction. Anything added to or taken away from the ball that impeeds it's ability to be pefectly round would be a corruption of the perfectness and perfect intent of the ball. I see this as evil.

Now all that can change with a different intended purpose for the ball. For example a golf ball and a bowling ball. Both can be perfect balls even though their only similarity is roundness because they both fullfill perfectly the intent for which they were designed.

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.

I also mentiond earlier that without accepting the premise of the existance of a creator God the concept of good and evil having absolute definition is moot.

Indeed. The controversy exists because of the existence of supposed benevolent creator.

 

[cottage]

Indeed...

Negatively, Greed is the inclination to accumulate lacking care for the cost of your personal accumulation(good)...

On the positive side, Charity is not just a lack of malice towards people, but an active desire for their good-will.

I agree that charity isn’t just a lack of malice, but a charitable concern for another person’s well-being implies that the person’s circumstances are in want of improvement; the negative condition must exist before the positive action is deemed necessary.

 

[2nd mouse]

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?

exactly

A thing that is well made or efficient may be described a ‘good’ or ‘perfect’ without any reference to evil

Thats true. Good does not rely on evil for it's existance because it is the normal designed intent of the original state.

An example of bad workmanship isn’t evil, unless someone suffers as a result.

That by implication would mean that if no one gets hurt then it's not evil. That of coarse is incorrect. Since man cannot produce ultimate good in any capacity, according to the standard of good intended by the designer (God), All we can go on is man's intent behind his workmanship. While man can't produce perfection or ultimate good because he himself is an imperfect creature , he can maximize his abilities with a perfect or good intent. If the persons bad workmanship is due to sloth, lack of commitment, dilligence, concentration or disregard for prescribed order, I think you can call it evil.

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.

Yes, I agree. What it would imply is a degradation or corruption of the ultimate good which was the original intent. And the corruption or degradation of good is evil.

Indeed. The controversy exists because of the existence of supposed benevolent creator.

Indeed.

 

[kemal kurniawan]

Good and Evil humm, what good for me could be evil to you.
if i murdered a guy who rape someones girl, my act would consider good to the girl family And evil to the guy family for not giving him second chances.

 

[footprints]

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.

 

[Mister Emu]

I agree that charity isn’t just a lack of malice, but a charitable concern for another person’s well-being implies that the person’s circumstances are in want of improvement

Let's look at two of the more prevalent charitable concerns... starvation, and homelessness.

Starvation is the lack of nourishment, it is countered through the addition of food.
Homelessness is the lack of shelter, it is countered through the building of houses.

 

[2nd mouse]

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

 

[cottage]

exactly

Thats true. Good does not rely on evil for it's existance because it is the normal designed intent of the original state.

That by implication would mean that if no one gets hurt then it's not evil. That of coarse is incorrect. Since man cannot produce ultimate good in any capacity, according to the standard of good intended by the designer (God), All we can go on is man's intent behind his workmanship. While man can't produce perfection or ultimate good because he himself is an imperfect creature , he can maximize his abilities with a perfect or good intent. If the persons bad workmanship is due to sloth, lack of commitment, dilligence, concentration or disregard for prescribed order, I think you can call it evil.

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. 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’.

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.