Right and wrong --- or Good and Evil?

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Republican Presidential candidate Nikki Hayley has just released her first campaign ad, and in it, I noticed, she said that "a President must know the difference between good and evil."

So, we can talk about "good and evil," and we can talk about "right and wrong," but what's the difference between those two dichotomies?

In my view, "good and evil" is a religious construct. Well, actually, only "evil" is religious, and "good" is the opposite of bad, and holy/sinless is the opposite of evil.

On the other hand, "right and wrong" seem to me to be moral terms.

These terms are not interchangeable, and their subjectivity makes them non-static positions. So my question is this: is Nikki Hayley making an attempt to introduce a religious plank in her platform?

 

[Eddi]

Right and wrong sound more practical

Good and evil sound more cosmic

I think ethics is about right and wrong and morality good and evil

Actions are right and wrong and people are good and evil

Those are my thoughts

 

[Soandso]

Possibly? Even as an atheist, ideas of "evil" aren't necessarily religious to me. Someone like Josef Mengele wasn't just "wrong." That word doesn't scratch the surface for just how wrong his actions were. "Evil" fills that role for me better

 

[fantome profane]

On the other hand, "right and wrong" seem to me to be moral terms.

If you are going to use those terms you need to make the extra effort to clarify that you you are referring to the moral aspect, rather than in the sense of correct or incorrect.

I am not a religious person, but I don't object to the use of religious terms as long as they are defined. I think whatever terms you choose to use, you might be required to explain what you mean by them.

 

[Stevicus]

These terms are not interchangeable, and their subjectivity makes them non-static positions. So my question is this: is Nikki Hayley making an attempt to introduce a religious plank in her platform?

Possibly. A lot of Republicans are quite religious, so it seems logical that she would include religious ideas into her campaign. The only trouble seems to be that, even though Trump's sins have been laid bare and known to his Christian fanbase, they don't seem to care one iota. But it could chip away some of his support, little by little.

I think phrases like that in campaign ads tend to come off a bit cheesy, melodramatic, and ultimately meaningless.

"A President must know the difference between good and evil."

We all know the difference; it's really very simple. When faced with a choice and weighing up one's options, the good choice and the evil choice will be manifested as such:

The good choice is the angel, and the evil choice is the devil. Pretty easy to tell the difference.

 

[blü 2]

In my view, "good and evil" is a religious construct. Well, actually, only "evil" is religious, and "good" is the opposite of bad, and holy/sinless is the opposite of evil.

Etymologically, 'evil' originally just meant 'bad'. However, for some centuries now it's usually carried with it the idea of malevolence. So a tsunami can be bad, but not evil unless we attribute intention to it. And cats are capable of bad attitude, so (as witches know) they can be evil in a manner generally denied to dogs.

On the other hand, "right and wrong" seem to me to be moral terms.

Would it be more accurate to say, 'secular moral terms'? I suspect 'good and evil' are moral terms too, but religious. Like the difference between 'crime' and 'sin'.

 

[Kfox]

Republican Presidential candidate Nikki Hayley has just released her first campaign ad, and in it, I noticed, she said that "a President must know the difference between good and evil."

So, we can talk about "good and evil," and we can talk about "right and wrong," but what's the difference between those two dichotomies?

In my view, "good and evil" is a religious construct. Well, actually, only "evil" is religious, and "good" is the opposite of bad, and holy/sinless is the opposite of evil.

On the other hand, "right and wrong" seem to me to be moral terms.

These terms are not interchangeable, and their subjectivity makes them non-static positions. So my question is this: is Nikki Hayley making an attempt to introduce a religious plank in her platform?

For me, right and good are equal. But Evil is an extreme version of wrong.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

For me, right and good are equal. But Evil is an extreme version of wrong.

Exactly. Evil is wrong doing with the intent to harm/malicious intent added to it. It's the same difference between virtuousness and wickedness.

 

[crossfire]

Republican Presidential candidate Nikki Hayley has just released her first campaign ad, and in it, I noticed, she said that "a President must know the difference between good and evil."

So, we can talk about "good and evil," and we can talk about "right and wrong," but what's the difference between those two dichotomies?

In my view, "good and evil" is a religious construct. Well, actually, only "evil" is religious, and "good" is the opposite of bad, and holy/sinless is the opposite of evil.

On the other hand, "right and wrong" seem to me to be moral terms.

These terms are not interchangeable, and their subjectivity makes them non-static positions. So my question is this: is Nikki Hayley making an attempt to introduce a religious plank in her platform?

Right & wrong = correct & incorrect (not necessarily moral--example: he wore the wrong shoes to the gym.)
Good = beneficial
Bad = not beneficial, faulty (not necessarily moral--example: the new battery does not hold a charge, it is bad.)
Evil = harmful

 

[Estro Felino]

A good person is a person who respects other people and their free will.

A wicked person is a person who hates other people and destroys their lives through wars, prevarications, unfair labor practices, and frauds.


Très simple, dear.

For example...a demon has recently died. He was wicked. Evil.

 

[Stevicus]

Etymologically, 'evil' originally just meant 'bad'. However, for some centuries now it's usually carried with it the idea of malevolence. So a tsunami can be bad, but not evil unless we attribute intention to it. And cats are capable of bad attitude, so (as witches know) they can be evil in a manner generally denied to dogs.


Would it be more accurate to say, 'secular moral terms'? I suspect 'good and evil' are moral terms too, but religious. Like the difference between 'crime' and 'sin'.

My main quibble with the whole concept of "good and evil" is that it's not really all that helpful or informative on explaining or analyzing aberrant and/or malevolent human behaviors. It seems to hearken back to times when people believed that one could be born "evil" or somehow be possessed by evil demons.

I'd like to think that we've advanced somewhat in the areas of psychology and neurology - at least in terms of understanding a bit more about how the human brain works. It seems that in order to defeat "evil," one has to have a rational idea of what, exactly, one is looking for and trying to examine. If we can agree that it emanates from the human mind, then that's what should be studied and examined. In my opinion.

 

[Estro Felino]

My main quibble with the whole concept of "good and evil" is that it's not really all that helpful or informative on explaining or analyzing aberrant and/or malevolent human behaviors. It seems to hearken back to times when people believed that one could be born "evil" or somehow be possessed by evil demons.

Hannah Arendt was certainly not a theist, yet she wrote a book called The Banality of Evil.
Which defines evil as the moment when we suppress our capability of thinking.
Animals don't think; they do what they do out of instinct. Survival instinct.

How many Nazis obeyed Nazi orders just because they didn't want to die? Many. Survival instinct.

How many German citizens were executed because they disobeyed the Nazis' orders, or because they spit a SS soldier in his face? Not many, but there were those who did that.

In the first case, there is the Banality of Evil. To act like animals would act: mechanically and out of instinct.

It is thinking that makes us different than animals. That doesn't make our existences utterly banal and primitive.

I'd like to think that we've advanced somewhat in the areas of psychology and neurology - at least in terms of understanding a bit more about how the human brain works. It seems that in order to defeat "evil," one has to have a rational idea of what, exactly, one is looking for and trying to examine. If we can agree that it emanates from the human mind, then that's what should be studied and examined. In my opinion.

For example, Heidegger and Arendt influenced each other. And Heidegger said that we as humans should exist as humans who are born, live and die. Ours should be a life for the sake of death. Sein zum Tode.

When humans understand that they are mortals, and their existence has an end called death, besides the beginning, they will stop acting like children and they will stop waging wars, and other destructive things.

 

[Stevicus]

Hannah Arendt was certainly not a theist, yet she wrote a book called The Banality of Evil.
Which defines evil as the moment when we suppress our capability of thinking.
Animals don't think; they do what they do out of instinct. Survival instinct.

How many Nazis obeyed Nazi orders just because they didn't want to die? Many. Survival instinct.

How many German citizens were executed because they disobeyed the Nazis' orders, or because they spit a SS soldier in his face? Not many, but there were those who did that.

In the first case, there is the Banality of Evil. To act like animals would act: mechanically and out of instinct.

It is thinking that makes us different than animals. That doesn't make our existences utterly banal and primitive.





For example, Heidegger and Arendt influenced each other. And Heidegger said that we as humans should exist as humans who are born, live and die. Ours should be a life for the sake of death. Sein zum Tode.

When humans understand that they are mortal, and their existence has an end, besides the beginning, will stop acting like children and waging wars, and other destructive things.

It seems that most people would want to be good - or at least try to be that. I can't imagine very many people consciously choosing to be evil - or if they do, they may not see it as evil or somehow believe that they're being good. Or, as we often hear, people might believe they're choosing the lesser of two evils, which is where it gets all the more complicated.

 

[Estro Felino]

It seems that most people would want to be good - or at least try to be that. I can't imagine very many people consciously choosing to be evil -

I can promise you that people consciously choose to do evil because they believe in the imperative the end justifies the means.
Which is known as the Machiavellian imperative.
Something utterly Satanic, I'd say. Because nothing justifies wars, prevarications, tortures and genocides.

It's the means that make an end worthy.
Using diplomacy to achieve a geopolitical goal. The geopolitical goal is good because diplomacy is a good tool. A peaceful one.

or if they do, they may not see it as evil or somehow believe that they're being good.

Absolutely not. They worship themselves. It's called autolatry.
They know they are doing evil, but they feel superior to others so they are entitled to harm or even kill others, because those are inferior and unworthy, in their twisted mind.
They do know they are doing evil: they just think they are entitled to do it, whereas others are not.

Or, as we often hear, people might believe they're choosing the lesser of two evils, which is where it gets all the more complicated.

Like: executing a person by lethal injection and not by electric chair is an example of the lesser of two evils?

 

[Alien826]

Possibly. A lot of Republicans are quite religious, so it seems logical that she would include religious ideas into her campaign. The only trouble seems to be that, even though Trump's sins have been laid bare and known to his Christian fanbase, they don't seem to care one iota. But it could chip away some of his support, little by little.

I fear that many you mention (and Trump as the ultimate example) define "good" as "that which advances my personal agenda" and "evil" as "that which impedes it".

The religious right (at least their spokespersons I have heard) admit that Trump is a "sinner" but claim that God sometimes uses bad people to accomplish good ends, with examples from the Bible.

 

[blü 2]

My main quibble with the whole concept of "good and evil" is that it's not really all that helpful or informative on explaining or analyzing aberrant and/or malevolent human behaviors. It seems to hearken back to times when people believed that one could be born "evil" or somehow be possessed by evil demon.

It's unlikely but not impossible that I might say in conversation "Putin's an evil [so-and-so]". It would convey my view that he's not just amoral but malicious.

I'd like to think that we've advanced somewhat in the areas of psychology and neurology - at least in terms of understanding a bit more about how the human brain works.

I agree, but I'm thinking of conversation after lunch with the port or spirits flowing.

 

[osgart]

Wicked, malevolent, and malicious explains a choice that occurs quite frequently in human nature. The other choice in human nature is to be innocent, benevolent, and fair minded. Most people find things to have either extremes that are morally acceptable or morally rejectable, or they use morality themes to advance their selfish agendas.

The word 'evil' often implies a force in the world that is working to conspire against the forces of good. The word evil is used to glorify those that are inclined to damage and destroy those they hate that have so called unrealistic, noble qualities. Good is portrayed as something that is old fashioned, weak, out of date and scarce in human nature.

Iow people like to twist these words good and evil to suit their agendas. They make a Halloween joke of evil when in actuality it carries serious accurate descriptions of something chosen in human nature.

Bottom line is that you can treat people good, or be neutral, or be downright evil. It does not imply religious, spiritual forces that control humanity. Good and evil are simply manifestations of conflicting human natures that arise generation after generation.

It should be noted that being good is not about someone who is a pushover. Goodness desires fairness, and cares about delivering consequences to things that are evil. If you eliminate moral terms from the dictionary you run the risk of ignoring very real traits that show up in actuality.

People love to create grey areas where neither good nor evil exist. They claim that there is no such thing as moral responsibility. There's no heroes nor villains. There's only human nature and subjective preferences. Perhaps Hitler can be rehabilitated, and pol pot as well. Did WW2 actually happen or is there another story behind those events? Sounds ridiculous, but perhaps a few generations later people will wonder or ignore all the lessons of history.

Ultimately goodness is what people that need trustworthiness actually look for. Evil people are just looking for reputation, wealth, power and control to dictate their malevolent will as pleases them with no other consideration for others. If you think these two kinds of people don't exist then good luck.

 

[Estro Felino]

It should be noted that being good is not about someone who is a pushover. Goodness desires fairness, and cares about delivering consequences to things that are evil. If you eliminate moral terms from the dictionary you run the risk of ignoring very real traits that show up in actuality.

I believe goodness is the consequence of being neutral about life.
It's the obsession with living and the survival instinct (which is an animal instinct) that destroys the goodness within our soul.

We are all good, but survival instinct makes us evil.

When you suppress your obsession with living, and you don't care about dying, you start to be good.
How many people were executed by the Nazis because they rebelled against them?
Many.
Did they care about dying? No, they didn't.

 

[osgart]

I believe goodness is the consequence of being neutral about life.
It's the obsession with living and the survival instinct (which is an animal instinct) that destroys the goodness within our soul.

We are all good, but survival instinct makes us evil.

When you suppress your obsession with living, and you don't care about dying, you start to be good.
How many people were executed by the Nazis because they rebelled against them?
Many.
Did they care about dying? No, they didn't.

That's an interesting distinction you make. How far do people go with the survival instinct?

Surviving at all costs ain't worth it. This isn't paradise. Who wants to be king of a dung hill?

Nature and people can push a person far beyond places they want to go, physically and spiritually.
What are we all willing to live and die for? Perhaps no one really lives until they know themselves this way.

I mean if people push me the right way I know then I'll have to put my life on the line like it or not.

Someone told me that I would do the unthinkable if I was forced into that situation. I disagreed, but I certainly don't want to test those waters because I'd choose death over crime any day no matter what.

Then only a psycho would throw unbearable torture out there to test what people would do.

There are things worse than death and torture.

 

[Estro Felino]

That's an interesting distinction you make. How far do people go with the survival instinct?

Surviving at all costs ain't worth it. This isn't paradise. Who wants to be king of a dung hill?

Nature and people can push a person far beyond places they want to go, physically and spiritually.
What are we all willing to live and die for? Perhaps no one really lives until they know themselves this way.

I understood it by reading The Drowned and the Saved. There is a chapter called the grey zone, where Primo Levi explains how the survival instinct pushed many people to cooperate with the Nazis. And to betray their own brethren, just because they wanted to live. To survive, to have a special reward, like a special and privileged treatment by the Nazis.

Of course one should be in that situation to understand what it felt like, but knowing myself, I don't know how long I would have endured the abuses and the oppression. I would have probably slapped a SS soldier and he would have shot me right away.
I am like that since I was a kid. I can't avoid speaking my mind. In middle school I told off a teacher for scorning a classmate.

Primo Levi also describes the Italy of 1944. If the fascists captured a group of partisans, they would ask each one of them: " how do you define yourself? Italian or Jew?". The Italian partisans were immediately executed, by a firing squad. The Jews were entrusted to the Nazis, since Jews were under their jurisdiction. So many Anti-Fascists never saw the horrors of Auschwitz because they were executed before they could see them.
Primo Levi said he was a Jew, probably because he wanted to live. But the Nazis took him to Auschwitz and there he saw the horrors of the Holocaust, which he describes in If this is a man.

So The Grey Zone is that zone where the victims can easily become perpetrators out of survival instinct.
That is why it's also necessary to repudiate evil and to shame evil people.
To dissuade people from committing those atrocities.

One last thing. Primo Levi committed suicide after writing The Drowned and the Saved.
Why do you think he did that? He survived the Holocaust.

I mean if people push me the right way I know then I'll have to put my life on the line like it or not.

Someone told me that I would do the unthinkable if I was forced into that situation. I disagreed, but I certainly don't want to test those waters because I'd choose death over crime any day no matter what.

I guess I would do the same thing.
I won't let anyone command me. I prefer to be shot in the head, right away.