My Extremely Annoying Opinions About Good and Evil!

[Sunstone]

The sexy thing for cool kids to do these days is deny that "good and evil" exist. But -- so far as I've been able to find out -- few if any of the kids can give a coherent reason for such a denial.

The best I've heard so far in my 61 years is that good and evil are wholly subjective concepts. But logically speaking, the subjectivity of good and evil is not a reason to deny they exist -- it's merely a reason to deny that their existence is independent of what anyone might think of them.

For good and evil to exist objectively they would need to have some kind of ontological status. That is, they would need to exist independently of what anyone might think of them. So, for instance, if it could be said that "abortion is objectively evil" then that would mean that it was evil regardless of whether anyone considered it evil.

The problem with asserting that good and evil exist objectively is that there appears to be no means, procedure, method, or other route to conclusively demonstrating that they have any ontological status at all. The notion they exist objectively is certainly not subject to empirical verification. You can't see, taste, touch, smell, or otherwise empirically sense the goodness or evil of something in the same way you can empirically sense, say, garlic.

Of course, you might argue that good and evil exist objectively, but not physically -- that is, not in any manner or degree subject to empirical verification. Instead, you might say they objectively exist metaphysically. Perhaps you think they metaphysically exist as Platonic Forms or Ideals. Or perhaps you think they metaphysically exist as ideas in the mind of a god. Or maybe you have some other notion of how they could metaphysically exist. But regardless of how you think good and evil metaphysically exist, you are without any means, procedure, method, or other route to conclusively demonstrating that they metaphysically exist -- let alone any specifics about them (specifics such as precisely which things are good and which are evil). Your notion they metaphysically exist is mere speculation.

I've heard people argue thus:

1) God exists.
2) God has ordained somethings to be good and other things to be evil.
Therefore good and evil objectively exist.​

But such an argument -- and its variations -- are laughably weak.. How does one know a god exists? If so, how does one know that god has ordained somethings to be good and other things to be evil? Even then, how does one know which things are good and which are evil? Etc.

Having said all of the above, I conclude with these opinions:

1) Contra the notion that good and evil do not exist, they at the very least exist subjectively in the minds of some people.

2) Contra the notion that good and evil exist objectively, their objective existence cannot be conclusively demonstrated, and is therefore merely speculative. That is, they might or might not exist objectively, but we have no way of conclusively knowing whether they do or don't.

3) Rather than ask whether good and evil exist, perhaps it is more fruitful to ask whether or not, or in what way(s), are the concepts of good and evil useful?

4) And finally, contra the notion that @SalixIncendium has any fashion sense whatsoever, his taste in socks alone is clearly an abomination to all known aesthetic values - and don't get me started on his taste in ties! Paisley socks with plaid ties, Salix? Really, Salix? Really?
​

Comments?

BONUS QUESTION: Is Nietzsche right when he says:

​

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If good and evil are subjective than their emotional and argumentative potential loses its power. It's mostly used in arguments as an expression of outrage and as a way to dehumanize and "other" those who are viewed as transgressors. Then the only use of the concepts is as tools for social shaming, which I don't think are the best ways of regulating behavior.

As for Nietzsche's quote, it's wrong because someone could participate in genocide out of love for their in-group but we shouldn't say that genocide is an act that is beyond our moral code.

 

[Enoch07]

I'll skip everything and go straight to the bonus question.

BONUS QUESTION: Is Nietzsche right when he says:

No

I would say nothing exist outside of good or evil. It can be a mixture or in the grey area in between. But nothing exist outside of either for any reason. Imho

 

[Sunstone]

I would say nothing exist outside of good or evil. It can be a mixture or in the grey area in between. But nothing exist outside of either for any reason. Imho

Are you sure you want to say that nothing -- including peas, carrots, concrete sidewalks, blue skies, the moon, color preferences, tastes in music, Chinese cuisines, and aardvarks-- "exists outside good or evil"? If so, then are peas, carrots, concrete sidewalks, etc good or evil?

 

[Enoch07]

Are you sure you want to say that nothing -- including peas, carrots, concrete sidewalks, blue skies, the moon, color preferences, tastes in music, Chinese cuisines, and aardvarks-- "exists outside good or evil"? If so, then are peas, carrots, concrete sidewalks, etc good or evil?

Maybe I don't like vegetables? Which I don't haha! Carnivore all the way! Vegetables come from Satan's gooty hole.

Sidewalks are evil when your trying to do a kick flip and mess up!

Blue skies are evil for the farmers who desperately needs rain for his crops to go.

Aardvarks are the devourer of worlds, ant and termite worlds that is.

But at the same time.

Vegetables are good. They give you nutrients and vitamins needed to sustain a healthy body.

Sidewalks are good for the people who need a safe place to walk.

Blue skies are good for the farmers who has had too much rain and his land is saturated and needs to dry out a bit before fungi's,mold, and rot set up ruining crops.

Aardvarks are saints that rid us of the terrible ant and termites that plaque humanity.

Do you see where I am going with this?

I think I made my point.

 

[Grandliseur]

Comments?

Just a tiny observation that not all shall understand or agree with. The tree of knowledge of good and evil had nothing to do with mystical gained knowledge; it was purely about recognizing that God had the right to establish what is good and evil for man. Rejecting this, we chose to establish for ourselves what we like as good and evil, the do what you want philosophy.

Having said the above, it becomes quite clear that humans were not given the qualities enabling us to be able to establish for ourselves what is objectively evil or good. That this is true we need only look around ourselves in the world to see. Our disagreements on this issue cannot be in doubt.

However, looking at what Hitler, Stalin, Mao and others have done; there should be little doubt about evil indeed existing both mentally and physically. From some, it is as if their evil is an emanation that is physically palpable in their faces, or person.

 

[Grandliseur]

BONUS QUESTION: Is Nietzsche right when he says:

I think this painting lacks details. The strokes are too broad. It is a wash out.

 

[William Milverton]

.
You can determine God’s intention on a topic by tracing the root of the word
The origin of the word ‘evil’ is obscure
but authorities suggest it developed from the roots ‘over’ and ‘up’
Evil is that which exceeds reasonable limits


Humans have developed this theme on, to include anything which is opposed to the well-being & health of body or mind – that which promotes human survival is ‘good’. That which depresses human survival is ‘bad’


You have asked :-
”How does one know a god exists? “


God the Father exists in eternity – outside of matter, energy, space and time
He also exists in your soul
You know him as your conscience
He is responsible for everything good and bad that happens to you


If you develop a relationship with your own conscience
to the extent that you follow its direction even when you don’t agree
your life will slowly start to go right again
and you will be steered in the direction of your life purpose


You have stated :-
”good and evil, their objective existence cannot be conclusively demonstrated”


Evil is excess and addiction. Good is moderate living and contentment
Evil is the hand that wounds you. Good is the hand that heals you
What else needs to be demonstrated?


The Creation was constructed from equal parts of The Holy Ghost and Living Darkness
Humans call this ‘the scales of justice’
You were born with an instinctive desire for fair play
When evil is allowed to develop and mature it could overbalance those scales


Developed Evil is settled by blood sacrifice
When the scales of justice are in danger of overbalancing
the gates of the Upper Hell swing open and warriors pour into your world
by every means imaginable and unimaginable
Then there is war – blood sacrifice


"Whatever is done for love always occurs beyond good and evil"

Nitzsche believed that good and evil are a creation of humankind
which, in fact, is the Eden story
He believed that love was neither good nor evil
but was a third member of that group


God is love
When two people fall head over heels in love
that love is God
Father, Son & Holy Ghost are right there, in one being
They create their own religion
.

 

[Sunstone]

Nitzsche believed that good and evil are a creation of humankind
When it came to 'love' he was as clueless as everyone else
so he came up with this line as a patch to his presumptions


God is love
When two people fall head over heals in love
that love is God
They create their own religion
.

Everyone is clueless about love except for you, eh? That's good to know.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The sexy thing for cool kids to do these days is deny that "good and evil" exist. But -- so far as I've been able to find out -- few if any of the kids can give a coherent reason for such a denial.

The best I've heard so far in my 61 years is that good and evil are wholly subjective concepts. But logically speaking, the subjectivity of good and evil is not a reason to deny they exist -- it's merely a reason to deny that their existence is independent of what anyone might think of them.

For good and evil to exist objectively they would need to have some kind of ontological status. That is, they would need to exist independently of what anyone might think of them. So, for instance, if it could be said that "abortion is objectively evil" then that would mean that it was evil regardless of whether anyone considered it evil.

The problem with asserting that good and evil exist objectively is that there appears to be no means, procedure, method, or other route to conclusively demonstrating that they have any ontological status at all. The notion they exist objectively is certainly not subject to empirical verification. You can't see, taste, touch, smell, or otherwise empirically sense the goodness or evil of something in the same way you can empirically sense, say, garlic.

Of course, you might argue that good and evil exist objectively, but not physically -- that is, not in any manner or degree subject to empirical verification. Instead, you might say they objectively exist metaphysically. Perhaps you think they metaphysically exist as Platonic Forms or Ideals. Or perhaps you think they metaphysically exist as ideas in the mind of a god. Or maybe you have some other notion of how they could metaphysically exist. But regardless of how you think good and evil metaphysically exist, you are without any means, procedure, method, or other route to conclusively demonstrating that they metaphysically exist -- let alone any specifics about them (specifics such as precisely which things are good and which are evil). Your notion they metaphysically exist is mere speculation.

I've heard people argue thus:

1) God exists.
2) God has ordained somethings to be good and other things to be evil.
Therefore good and evil objectively exist.​

But such an argument -- and its variations -- are laughably weak.. How does one know a god exists? If so, how does one know that god has ordained somethings to be good and other things to be evil? Even then, how does one know which things are good and which are evil? Etc.

Having said all of the above, I conclude with these opinions:

1) Contra the notion that good and evil do not exist, they at the very least exist subjectively in the minds of some people.

2) Contra the notion that good and evil exist objectively, their objective existence cannot be conclusively demonstrated, and is therefore merely speculative. That is, they might or might not exist objectively, but we have no way of conclusively knowing whether they do or don't.

3) Rather than ask whether good and evil exist, perhaps it is more fruitful to ask whether or not, or in what way(s), are the concepts of good and evil useful?

4) And finally, contra the notion that @SalixIncendium has any fashion sense whatsoever, his taste in socks alone is clearly an abomination to all known aesthetic values - and don't get me started on his taste in ties! Paisley socks with plaid ties, Salix? Really, Salix? Really?
​

Comments?

BONUS QUESTION: Is Nietzsche right when he says:

​

It all depends what is meant by 'evil'. I tend to think that good and bad exist. Evil is a little trickier.
Ultimately, it's just people who commit what we call evil, in my opinion. Flawed, desperate, unbalanced, narcissistic...whatever the driver...just people.
It strikes me as problematic that we split them apart as ''evil", since it seems like they should stand out. Like they're monsters.

Afterwards, of course, we know they were 'evil', that they were monsters. But before? Not so much.

Robespierre is an interesting figure to me, since he avoids the modern black and white arguments. Distance gives perspective. Hitler looks 'evil' and monstrous, because his narcissistic personality, his charisma, circumstance, etc all collided. But there are a lot of Hitler's we never found.

Still, some people use evil in the same way I would use 'very bad', 'terrible', etc. No doubt there are some truly awful humans.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Oh dear, you're about to see one of my arguably Buddhist heresies come out- though I don't doubt the Greco-Buddhists might have thought something like it given the Hellenist obsession with 'the good'.

I actually take Dharmas to be real forms of Nirvana, which is not an unheard of, but rarely encountered position in Buddhism. This means the Paramitas are objective ethics, in that they project from the Buddha as skillful action.

If these virtues are objective and project from the Buddha, then evil is their opposite, though it has no independent existence. Evil is like everything else born out of the ignorance and delusions of the world of forms. It is a distortion. It has no existence without opposing Buddha-action.

However, that Buddha-action exists means the distortions of it persist as long as ignorance does

After all, that virtues in fact generate Bodhisattva fields and bad action causes suffering- this is objective as the Buddha was concerned.

 

[Onyx]

I tend to think the concepts of good/evil are more social and emotional in nature - mental constructs humans use to control their behaviors instead of killing each other off, with varying levels of success. At least we haven't nuked each other out of existence.. yet.

I'll offer some more useful terminology: "common sense", because conventional religion continues to fail in providing a magic potion of ethics that actually works. Sometimes you have to "live and let live", other times you "live and let die" depending on the situation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Having said all of the above, I conclude with these opinions:

1) Contra the notion that good and evil do not exist, they at the very least exist subjectively in the minds of some people.

2) Contra the notion that good and evil exist objectively, their objective existence cannot be conclusively demonstrated, and is therefore merely speculative. That is, they might or might not exist objectively, but we have no way of conclusively knowing whether they do or don't.

3) Rather than ask whether good and evil exist, perhaps it is more fruitful to ask whether or not, or in what way(s), are the concepts of good and evil useful? ...
​

Comments?

So:

• Would the above hold if we were to simply replace "good and evil" with "categories"?
• What is the relevance of the Korzybski observation that "the map is not the territory"?

BONUS QUESTION: Is Nietzsche right when he says:

​

I have absolutely no idea.

 

[Stevicus]

Would an "evil" person even know that he is evil? Humans often see things within a certain gray area, where we accept the "lesser of two evils" or a "necessary evil" when we believe we're doing things for the "greater good."

I think of cartoon villains in some dark castle or laboratory cackling "Bwahahahahaha! I am evil!" Or the Star Wars philosophy of "dark side" and "light side" of the "force," as if there's a definite and knowable line between the two (which they defined more as an emotional state, regardless of motives, results, or consequences of actions). But is it really like that in real life? Can't a "good" person feel anger, hatred, and fear? Can't an "evil" person feel love and peace? Emotions are always in flux, as they're responses to whatever stimuli one experiences or observes.

I could never really get into the philosophy of Nietzsche. One thing I took from his view was his ideas of nature. For example, a lion or wolf or other predatory animal is not "evil" just because it kills and consumes some weaker animal. It's just following its natural course. If it didn't, it would starve. Some might apply that same philosophy to humans and believe that only the strong should survive, while the weak should perish or be dominated by the strong. That's just following the laws of nature, which are neither good nor evil - they simply are.

Ironically, dogs and cats are humans' favorite animals, yet they're part of a species of the most accomplished and successful predators in the animal kingdom, apart from man. We love kittens and puppies and think they're cute and cuddly, and yet, they're a killer species, just like us. Maybe that's why we love them so much.

The West became powerful by embracing a similar philosophy, when we went to other continents and found peoples and tribes which appeared weaker and more primitive. So, we decided "let's just kill them and take their land for ourselves." We've idolized and admired the Romans for what they did, while paying lip service in condemning many of their evils - but that's before they converted and became "good Christians." We fooled ourselves into thinking that it was our "Manifest Destiny" to kill others, enslave them, take their land, and rule over the continent. Because it was all for the "greater good" that we did so. We called it "civilizing the savages" and making "good Christians" out of them, too.

Even our modern ideas of capitalism seem to share a similar philosophy, that humans are essentially greedy and selfish, yet "greed is good." If a predatory capitalist screws the people and winds up on top, that's just part of nature, where the strong dominate the weak. The philosophy holds that the poor and disadvantaged deserve their lot in life and that there's nothing inherently "evil" about that.

But then, if those who might have once been weak decide to toughen up, become stronger, and embrace the same philosophy, then we hardly have a leg to stand on in condemning them as "evil," otherwise we'd be hypocrites, which may be the ultimate lie. This might lead to the idea that there's no greater "evil" on this earth than the deception rooted in hypocrisy.

It could be said that the tyrant who kills tens of millions might still hold the moral high ground over the hypocrite who pretends to be "good" but is ultimately "evil."

 

[PureX]

Comments?

Excellent opening post! Thank you.

The one way I can envision "good and evil" being objective is via the 'ontological' assumption that it is better to exist than not to exist. As everything that does exist, does so through persistent effort, and thereby is an expression of this 'ontological good'. To continue existing appears to require that existence is of greater value than non-existence

BONUS QUESTION: Is Nietzsche right when he says: ...

Not objectively. Because to love, one must first exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I avoid the word evil. It's unnecessary and has metaphysical / religious implications. It suggests the existence of a disembodied force or in the case of Christianity, for example, a supernatural entity that exists outside of the minds of sentient, moral creatures.

So, if there are no evil people, just malicious ones, no evil processes, just harmful ones, and no evidence of any evil principle warring against good, what use is a word that carries so much metaphysical baggage that I prefer not to give credence to?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The sexy thing for cool kids to do these days is deny that "good and evil" exist. But -- so far as I've been able to find out -- few if any of the kids can give a coherent reason for such a denial.

The best I've heard so far in my 61 years is that good and evil are wholly subjective concepts. But logically speaking, the subjectivity of good and evil is not a reason to deny they exist -- it's merely a reason to deny that their existence is independent of what anyone might think of them.

For good and evil to exist objectively they would need to have some kind of ontological status. That is, they would need to exist independently of what anyone might think of them. So, for instance, if it could be said that "abortion is objectively evil" then that would mean that it was evil regardless of whether anyone considered it evil.

The problem with asserting that good and evil exist objectively is that there appears to be no means, procedure, method, or other route to conclusively demonstrating that they have any ontological status at all. The notion they exist objectively is certainly not subject to empirical verification. You can't see, taste, touch, smell, or otherwise empirically sense the goodness or evil of something in the same way you can empirically sense, say, garlic.

Of course, you might argue that good and evil exist objectively, but not physically -- that is, not in any manner or degree subject to empirical verification. Instead, you might say they objectively exist metaphysically. Perhaps you think they metaphysically exist as Platonic Forms or Ideals. Or perhaps you think they metaphysically exist as ideas in the mind of a god. Or maybe you have some other notion of how they could metaphysically exist. But regardless of how you think good and evil metaphysically exist, you are without any means, procedure, method, or other route to conclusively demonstrating that they metaphysically exist -- let alone any specifics about them (specifics such as precisely which things are good and which are evil). Your notion they metaphysically exist is mere speculation.

I've heard people argue thus:

1) God exists.
2) God has ordained somethings to be good and other things to be evil.
Therefore good and evil objectively exist.​

But such an argument -- and its variations -- are laughably weak.. How does one know a god exists? If so, how does one know that god has ordained somethings to be good and other things to be evil? Even then, how does one know which things are good and which are evil? Etc.

Having said all of the above, I conclude with these opinions:

1) Contra the notion that good and evil do not exist, they at the very least exist subjectively in the minds of some people.

2) Contra the notion that good and evil exist objectively, their objective existence cannot be conclusively demonstrated, and is therefore merely speculative. That is, they might or might not exist objectively, but we have no way of conclusively knowing whether they do or don't.

3) Rather than ask whether good and evil exist, perhaps it is more fruitful to ask whether or not, or in what way(s), are the concepts of good and evil useful?

4) And finally, contra the notion that @SalixIncendium has any fashion sense whatsoever, his taste in socks alone is clearly an abomination to all known aesthetic values - and don't get me started on his taste in ties! Paisley socks with plaid ties, Salix? Really, Salix? Really?
​

Comments?

BONUS QUESTION: Is Nietzsche right when he says:

​

Great post!

I stand by my proposition that good and evil are merely socially based human constructs used to intellectually understand its perception of its environment. The concepts are purely subjective, as is demonstrated in human behavior.

And you would realize you are pretty much spot on with sock selection if you had an opportunity to see my sock drawer. Not only are they loud and obnoxious, but I often mismatch them intentionally. I suppose this is my rebellious side displaying my dislike of having to wear uniforms. Is that evil?


Oh yeah, almost forgot the bonus question...

Hmm...taking a subjective term to assess a subjective statement. Answering this would be little more than and exercise in futility, no? You would leave with nothing more than my subjective opinion.

 

[Curious George]

The sexy thing for cool kids to do these days is deny that "good and evil" exist. But -- so far as I've been able to find out -- few if any of the kids can give a coherent reason for such a denial.

The best I've heard so far in my 61 years is that good and evil are wholly subjective concepts. But logically speaking, the subjectivity of good and evil is not a reason to deny they exist -- it's merely a reason to deny that their existence is independent of what anyone might think of them.

For good and evil to exist objectively they would need to have some kind of ontological status. That is, they would need to exist independently of what anyone might think of them. So, for instance, if it could be said that "abortion is objectively evil" then that would mean that it was evil regardless of whether anyone considered it evil.

The problem with asserting that good and evil exist objectively is that there appears to be no means, procedure, method, or other route to conclusively demonstrating that they have any ontological status at all. The notion they exist objectively is certainly not subject to empirical verification. You can't see, taste, touch, smell, or otherwise empirically sense the goodness or evil of something in the same way you can empirically sense, say, garlic.

Of course, you might argue that good and evil exist objectively, but not physically -- that is, not in any manner or degree subject to empirical verification. Instead, you might say they objectively exist metaphysically. Perhaps you think they metaphysically exist as Platonic Forms or Ideals. Or perhaps you think they metaphysically exist as ideas in the mind of a god. Or maybe you have some other notion of how they could metaphysically exist. But regardless of how you think good and evil metaphysically exist, you are without any means, procedure, method, or other route to conclusively demonstrating that they metaphysically exist -- let alone any specifics about them (specifics such as precisely which things are good and which are evil). Your notion they metaphysically exist is mere speculation.

I've heard people argue thus:

1) God exists.
2) God has ordained somethings to be good and other things to be evil.
Therefore good and evil objectively exist.​

But such an argument -- and its variations -- are laughably weak.. How does one know a god exists? If so, how does one know that god has ordained somethings to be good and other things to be evil? Even then, how does one know which things are good and which are evil? Etc.

Having said all of the above, I conclude with these opinions:

1) Contra the notion that good and evil do not exist, they at the very least exist subjectively in the minds of some people.

2) Contra the notion that good and evil exist objectively, their objective existence cannot be conclusively demonstrated, and is therefore merely speculative. That is, they might or might not exist objectively, but we have no way of conclusively knowing whether they do or don't.

3) Rather than ask whether good and evil exist, perhaps it is more fruitful to ask whether or not, or in what way(s), are the concepts of good and evil useful?

4) And finally, contra the notion that @SalixIncendium has any fashion sense whatsoever, his taste in socks alone is clearly an abomination to all known aesthetic values - and don't get me started on his taste in ties! Paisley socks with plaid ties, Salix? Really, Salix? Really?
​

Comments?

BONUS QUESTION: Is Nietzsche right when he says:

​

Good unfortunately has multiple meanings that lead to equivocation. But if we are using the righteousness (opposite of evil), then I would say that they are abstract concepts used to vilify or exalt people places and things. They place intention to benefit or harm from a perspective. Something evil seeks to harm you or something you cherish whereas something good seeks to benefit you or something you cherish.

They are relative, but they exist as much as other abstract relative terms exist. Does tallness exist?

Bonus question:
I want to say yes, because Love as idealized is altruistic. Because good and evil relate to self, love is done regardless of goodness or evil.

But something someone on hear recently alluded to was that love was seeing something other as a part of self and vice versa. I think this rings true. So, then I would have to say no.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Are you sure you want to say that nothing -- including peas, carrots, concrete sidewalks, blue skies, the moon, color preferences, tastes in music, Chinese cuisines, and aardvarks-- "exists outside good or evil"? If so, then are peas, carrots, concrete sidewalks, etc good or evil?

Peas are evil.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I avoid the word evil. It's unnecessary and has metaphysical / religious implications. It suggests the existence of a disembodied force or in the case of Christianity, for example, a supernatural entity that exists outside of the minds of sentient, moral creatures.

So, if there are no evil people, just malicious ones, no evil processes, just harmful ones, and no evidence of any evil principle warring against good, what use is a word that carries so much metaphysical baggage that I prefer not to give credence to?

Language is tricky.