My Extremely Annoying Opinions About Good and Evil!

[Revoltingest]

Peas are evil.

 

[suncowiam]

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:

​

Very nicely written!

Being as lazy as I am I would have simply summarized it as not black and white but then would have done a disservice to the topic.

[Edited]

Concerning the bonus question...

There are many things I would "love" to do but the laws probably will not agree with me.

 

[sealchan]

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:

​

I am coming to believe more and more that we, as a global culture, are having to come to terms with understanding much that is of a cultural and a personal consciousness nature. These things seem immaterial, yet important. They cannot be made objective yet we seem to demand some consensus around them (laws and regulations and such).

Common sense which would teach us traditionally that God has provided these standards which we, in our very heart and soul, know are there but often fail to live up to (as per C.S. Lewis). But such an explanation is no longer sufficient. We now have too much knowledge in human psychology and neurology. We see people as products of their culture, their abusive or not upbringing, their genetic predispositions, their diagnosed mental and physical abnormalities. We see all of this and we also demand equal respect and equal treatment for all even going so far as to provide accommodation for the few (wheelchair access for instance) at the distributed cost of the many as a requirement.

The more our actions and choices are found rooted in a physiological ground the more we seek in a non-xenophobic, pluralistic and essential democratic society to eliminate those inequalities with physical accommodations.

So what's left for good and evil? Good and evil is, perhaps, a now older cultural way of describing what Carl Jung might call the feeling function. The feeling function is a rational cognitive function of the human brain that assigns "value" (essentially how important vs unimportant or how good vs bad is something). That is a natural (God-given) function of the brain which we all make use of. It is not so much a set of principles as it is a way that the brain has evolved to process our world.

What is the goal of the feeling function? To augment our survivability through the assessment of the world and the objects and people in it for the purpose of making decisions meant to enhance and increase one's survival. This can be oriented toward the individual (self) or the group. An assessment of values in a social being such as ourselves of necessity considers not only what is important and good for the individual but also for the group which is a vital extension of the individual's survivability.

The world's religions all teach something which I think is often forgotten in the desire to get to a simpler teaching in the form of a set of rules to remember and follow...and that is that being moral in an amoral reality is really, really hard and complicated even in spite of the fact that we can feel what that is inside as a given. Whether you choose to take a simple-minded, rule-based approach or you focus always on context and intent, the more you seriously look at choices, actions, and outcomes the more difficult it becomes to be clear on what is right or wrong. This is especially true when you try and project forward the outcome of a choice before you make it. Religions also teach that out of this struggle to "do what is right" there are certain revelations which seem to hold out some real light for guidance.

There is a kind of principle of indeterminism that often arises where if a moral choice is simple, it is not easy or if it is easy then it is not simple. j This is a clue to the fact that our sense of morality is not best described as a set of rational principles that we can make judgments based on like some proof in geometry, but it is ALSO a kind of complex, creatively evolving psychological reality that responds with great dynamism to sometimes very small differences in context. Rules always break down at some point and contextual considerations loose a sense of the feeling of good moral judgment with often convenient conclusions.

Morality is not a thing to be measured or analyzed, it is a living system of rational value evaluation in a Universe that is continually evolving . Morality is a complex, adaptive system which has developed out of the realities of our biological world as experienced by the individual and group psychologies of the human species and evolved into cultural belief systems which in turn interact with other cultural systems and all of these have mutual influences with a subjective, historical context. As a result we have a variety of moral codes and systems throughout the world and an evolution and propagation of value principles within those systems which are both similar and different, universal and unique.

The Bible and the Mahabharata both speak eloquently to this state of affairs. The Bible shows its cast of God's chosen ones (with one exception) as all morally flawed in some way shape or form. Yet they are representatives of what God claims are the best of us. The Mahabharata shows how difficult it can be to make good choices once the historical outcomes are known. Bhishma's rash but celebrated but terrible oath that was meant to be absolutely supportive of his father's needs and desires. How could celibacy and dedicated loyalty ever cause a problem? Arjuna's failure of motivation to blow on the conch and start the great war of brothers against brothers despite all the suffering and effort that had gone into preventing that war...and Krishna's glorious answer. How can we ever be sure of the outcome of our actions? One can read a simple biography of Hitler and easily imagine a number of possibilities that might have derailed what would become World War II.

 

[osgart]

So free will is removed.

Then volition doesn't exist.

Now good and evil don't exist.

Next justice will be removed.

And anarchists will finally be able to do as they please, with complete lawlessness removing all accountability.

Relegating good and evil, and words like faith and belief to total irrelevance. Denying there is a nature of intentions that all humans are. Simply because they wish it to be true.

Utterly going about changing and diluting all words and meanings so that anything is acceptable.

To me there is no God. But this all sounds like a intellectual cloak and dagger attempt to subvert law, and impose a new philosophy of anarchistic superiority with it's new language of no accountability and no equalities of right.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

Good and Evil are powerful, useful Archetypes. The struggle of Good vs Evil is common in literature and common in how people think about their decisions. People want to do what is "right" and a good amount of time is spent thinking about the things that we ought to do (what what we ought not to do). Whether you regard them as purely subjective or truly objective realities, Good and Evil nevertheless remain powerful archetypes that reflect patterns of thought. Even when we question the notion of what is Good vs what is Evil, we still find ourselves wanting to know what really is Good or Evil. Perhaps Good and Evil is an illusion, but it would still remain an archetypal one.

We understand that internal struggles exist within the consciousness of man rather than as concrete physical objects. Vegetables, when viewed as purely physical objects, lack an internal landscape that defines them as good or evil, but someone who is jealous of his neighbor is experiencing something that takes place within the landscape of consciousness: meta-physical reality. Love also exists within the metaphysical framework. While there may be correlations between internal physical chemistry and particular feelings/ideas within our minds, we understand that these are non-obvious interactions in our daily life. It usually isn't particularly useful to view them physical objects instead of metaphysical ones while talking to our neighbors.

Was Nietzsche right?

The question belies the answer: what do you mean "right"? Perhaps you think it means "correct" or "factual", but the notion of rightness relates itself to two forms: apparent factual statements and deep ultimate verdicts. Was he "right"? Meh: who care. But was he right? Hmm, let me get back to you on that one.

 

[Riders]

I don't know where you live but Texas is still very conservative. Still a lot of people who believe in Satan. Technically I don't believe in a real devil but I do believe Satan and hell exists in our hearts and can represent evil. So even though I'm not Christian even though I don't believe in the real physical devil and hell still believe in the concept of light and dark.

Technically Zen meditation has become more popular along with other religions like they are in the USA. However in Buddhism they use terms like what is skillful and what is not skillful right thinking right doing. Its another way of saying good and evil for me anyways other Buddhists may not agree.

But unskillful,acts include addictions like sexual promiscouity drugs and alcohol to me all addictions represent evil. So for me yes its just another way of saying the same thing so yes evil still exists.There is light and dark and cant have the light without the dark but that doesn't make the dark good.

 

[Thief]

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:

​

the simple definition for evil......doing harm
and even God has repented the harm He would do
(therefore did not)

but then comes the lengthy effort to know when some level of harm has been dealt
and if it was a gray matter......was harm done at all?

was it evil to taste forbidden fruit
I don't think so

and many other events would be well done at the right moment
and frowned upon on some other occasion

 

[Thief]

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.

so...ignorance is evil?
I've heard....ignorance is bliss

if ignorance is evil....then partaking of the forbidden fruit was a good thing
acquisition of knowledge....knowing what is good.....knowing what is evil

 

[Buddha Dharma]

so...ignorance is evil?
I've heard....ignorance is bliss

In Buddhism, ignorance is something like the chief evil, yes. Because in ignorance of the animal faculties, we are misled into greed, hatred, anger- so on...

Doesn't the Bible see ignorance as bad also, at least in Chronicles? I don't feel like googling the exact verse, unless you insist

if ignorance is evil....then partaking of the forbidden fruit was a good thing
acquisition of knowledge....knowing what is good.....knowing what is evil

I don't accept the garden narrative, but Christian gnostics do- try asking any of them you may find around about that. As I understand it, the gnostics thought the fruit partaking event was positive.

 

[JustWondering]

My definition of evil is that it is the conscious choice to cause needless harm to another. If someone shoots someone in self defense, not evil, there was a need. Shooting someone just because, evil, there was no need.

 

[Thief]

In Buddhism, ignorance is something like the chief evil, yes. Because in ignorance of the animal faculties, we are misled into greed, hatred, anger- so on...

Doesn't the Bible see ignorance as bad also, at least in Chronicles? I don't feel like googling the exact verse, unless you insist



I don't accept the garden narrative, but Christian gnostics do- try asking any of them you may find around about that. As I understand it, the gnostics thought the fruit partaking event was positive.

seems I might be somewhat Gnostic....
I grew up thinking Adam and Eve took a chance
and we have suffered the upgrade ever since

we have our problems with our instincts.....but we have the knowledge of good and evil
we can sort through it