NationStates Jolt Archive

I am curious as to people's opinions on this matter. The terms "good" and "evil" have been thrown around a lot recently, particularly by politicians. However, when pressed, it is extremely difficult to produce a working definition of the terms as they are used.

Myself, I have come to the conclusion that "good" and "evil" are merely man-made abstractions, which do not exist in their own right. The idea of an overarching, objective morality is practically laughable, given that, in situations like that in the Middle East, everyone involved is sure they're doing the "right thing." It's all a matter of viewpoint; human beings generally call killing without good reason "evil," but tend not to include animals (hunting for sport, anyone?). Do you think that, were there sentient rabbits or deer, they would also refrain from calling sport hunting "evil?" Human beings can't even agree between themselves; Osama Bin laden is as convinced that Bush is "evil" as vice versa.

Now, many people claim that religion points the way very simply; that anything done for God is "good," and anything done against God is "evil." This makes the assumption of a purely good God. Well, the idea intrigues me, so let's look at that. Since most of those who say this around me are Christian, I will use the example of the Christian God.

Now, to say that God is perfectly good on it's own, is fine. However, when one combines that with the ideas of an omnipotent, omniscient, and (depending on who you ask) omnipresent God, it falls apart. The argument goes like this:
God creates Lucifer, a beautiful, powerful angel. Lucifer later rebels and is cast down, becoming "evil." However, if God is omniscient, then it was known beforehand that the rebellion was going to take place. God created evil. This is further enhanced by the idea that angels lack free will (as most everyone agrees). A being without free will cannot rebel; it cannot do anything save what it is told, or perhaps "programmed" to do. This suggests that God not only created evil, but did so directly and with the intent to do so. Now, it can be argued that angels do, in fact, have free will, in which case God might not have directly created evil. However, this then gives the lie to an omniscient God, as if the fall was not planned, it was a mistake. A being that knows all of the consequences of it's actions beforehand cannot make mistakes. Now, we add to this the idea of omnipresence. This means, that God is present in all things. Let's read that again: ALL things. God is then present in the murderer, in the rapist. God is present in all sin. God is present in the will to do evil. God is present in Satan and the Antichrist. A God that is part of all evil cannot logically be pure good. Now, some say that God created and maintains evil to test the faith of humanity. Again, the omniscience argument applies, as testing would not be needed (God would simply know who would and would not pass the test). Therefore, God is either not purely good, or not omniscient and/or omnipresent.

Fun to think about, no?

Interesting...

I can't really explain evil, but I can give some good examples: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mussolini, Tojo, Dubya, Kerry, Ho Chi Minh, Alfred Kinsey...

I can't really explain evil, but I can give some good examples: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Lenin, Mussolini, Tojo, Dubya, Kerry, Ho Chi Minh, Alfred Kinsey...
Can you? As far as I can tell, each one of these either thought they were doing good, or were absolutely insane.

Good secondary question: if one does believe in good and evil, what effect does insanity have upon the judgement of a person's actions?

Can you? As far as I can tell, each one of these either thought they were doing good, or were absolutely insane.

Good secondary question: if one does believe in good and evil, what effect does insanity have upon the judgement of a person's actions?

You are correct. Most if not all of them did think they were "good."

As for Kinsey, he was just plain evil incarnate.

A quote:

"One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist"

Nothing is objective, but I think there are a few moral statements that can be said to be true for everyone.

Nothing is objective, but I think there are a few moral statements that can be said to be true for everyone.

Such as?

Good and evil exist only in the mind. But then again so does the color green.

You are correct. Most if not all of them did think they were "good."

As for Kinsey, he was just plain evil incarnate.

Who was Kinsey?

Such as?

Given that almost everyone doesn't want to die, I think we can be sure that murder is wrong, for one thing.

Who was Kinsey?

A "sex researcher" who did many very, very disturbing things. A highly recommended source is Dr. Judith Reisman's meticulously researched book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences.

Given that almost everyone doesn't want to die, I think we can be sure that murder is wrong, for one thing.
Not when it better serves your purpose
:mp5:

A "sex researcher" who did many very, very disturbing things. A highly recommended source is Dr. Judith Reisman's meticulously researched book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences.

Sickening. Who did he work for and whered he live?

I have to say that until recently I didn't accept the concept of evil. I was certain that people that do bad things are merely mentally deranged. Then I read a long study of the Yorkshire Ripper and his methods. I have had to concede that the man was not 'ill', he was evil. Whether a God has a hand in it I don't know.

A "sex researcher" who did many very, very disturbing things. A highly recommended source is Dr. Judith Reisman's meticulously researched book Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences.

Like what?

Good and evil are based on what actions are helpful and harmful for humans as a whole.

Eating raw lard is evil
genocide is evil
memocide is good (it's based on creating a utopia)
corn is neuteral (it tastes nasty, but provides nourishment.)
rape is evil
Jesus was good
FDR was good
Hitler was neuteral (good for Germans, bad for everyone else)
Bush is...neuteral (sorry to say)
Pol Pot was evil
kittens are good
weapons are neuteral.

Some things you may want to add or subtract from this list, but that is the whole idea. Those things which did nothing to help a people are evil. Those things that only help everybody are good. Everything else is some shade of grey.

Alfred Kinsey was the writer of the Kinsey reports, which was (and in many ways still is) the most comprehensive report on human sexuality to that time (the late '50, IIRC). He was the one who pointed out that such "abnormalities", such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and sodomy, are in many ways fairly common. For example, it was Kinsey who came up with statistical evidence supporting the much-cited 10% of the population being homosexual. His findings were used to advance a less stringent sexual code, on the grounds that the old natural law we got handed down from Thomas Aquinas, in which all things not related to strictly up-down missionary sex for procreation only were immoral on the grounds of being "unnatural", were clearly absurd.

I tend to differ rather strongly on the idea that terms like "good" and "evil" are man-made abstractions, and to be quite honest, I think the justification given for thinking it is simply a case of the naturalistic fallacy: it assumes that what does happen and what should happen are necessarily one and the same thing. In the case of the Middle East, while I fully agree that each side thinks that they are in the right, this is hardly evidence for the existence of multiple, equally-valid moral codes. It's simply evidence for the fact that people can rationalize any kind of behavior, whether or not it conforms with the moral.

Going further, moral relativism, as is actually seen in the world (and not in the manner it was initially introduced, as a sociological ideal of getting preconceived notions out of mind to eliminate biases that were screwing up anthropological studies of the day) and espoused. . .well, usually by high-schoolers, although lots of Americans of all stripes hold to parts of it, is actually logically impossible. The reason why is because moral relativism, in order to actually exist, depends on a premise that the entire theorem rejects: that there exists a moral rule that applies in all circumstances. Moral relativists state that there can never be such a rule, while at the same time forgetting that to say that such a rule can never exist is in itself to establish an absolute. Ergo, the fact that for such a rule to exist depends upon the nullification of the very rule being discussed makes it fundamentally self-contradictory.

In case that last paragraph was a little confusing, let me put it more simply in the context of what's known as a reductio ad absurdum, or the Latin for "reducing to an absurdity". The basic idea of a reductio is take a premise as true and see what follows from it. If the idea leads to a self-contradiction, the premise is clearly false, and supposing there is only two options (the defeated premise and it's opposite), then the opposite must necessarily be true. Now, accepting the idea that moral relativism is "The doctrine holding that there can be no moral rules that apply universally to all individuals" (which is correct, because in the two forms of moral relativism, morals apply only on an individual or a social group level, never a universal scale), and that moral absolutism, conversely, is "The doctrine holding that there is at least one rule that applies universally to all individuals" (again, a correct formulation of every absolutist system), we get a logical argument something like the following.

Premise 1: Moral Relativism is correct.
Premise 2: There can be no rules that apply universally to all individuals. (this is derived simply from the definition of moral relativism. If you accept premise 1, you have to accept that the definition for what moral relativism is must also be true)
Premise 3: The rule "There can be no rules that apply universally to all individuals" is a rule that applies to all individuals. (This again must be true if moral relativism is to be taken as true, because if it were not, then then there would be instances in which universal rules would be applicable to all people, and that would simply reintroduce the idea of moral absolutism that the moral relativist wishes to avoid).
Premise 4: The rule "There can be no rules that apply universally to all individuals" is absolute (Again, this is simple exchange of a term for the definition of that term, and must therefore logically be a valid move).
Premise 5: Moral relativism is self-contradictory (if there are rules that exist universally, then Moral relativism is false. Unfortunately, moral relativism itself proposes to establish itself as a universal doctrine, ergo, it is self-contradictory).
Premise 6: Moral Absolutism is correct.

As for what that moral rule is, the ultimate (or at least, the closest approximation to date) rule is that of Jesus: do unto others as you would have do unto you. Other people like Socrates, Buddha, and Confucius came close, but Jesus hit the nail on the head, or at the very minimum came closer than any other religious thinker/philosopher in history.

As far as God is concerned, that doesn't attack God as much as it does the traditional conception of him in theology (and to some extent, it doesn't even do that. As Augustine defined evil as the absence of good, it is perfectly legit to say that God both cast Lucifer out of heaven and yet was not responsible for evil, as it would be tantamount to saying that God can both exist as a good, and not exist simultaneously as an evil, which violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. I have my own reasons for thinking that evil is not an absence, which leads me to reject Augustine's interpretation, but as this was not the argument, a good reading of theology as is would reveal that this topic was one of the first covered by Christian thinkers). The ultimate argument that God is simultaneously all-powerful and all-good in a world where evil exists is not tenable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that God does not exist. It only means that the Bible was wrong in certain passages.

Myself, I have come to the conclusion that "good" and "evil" are merely man-made abstractions, which do not exist in their own right. The idea of an overarching, objective morality is practically laughable, given that, in situations like that in the Middle East, everyone involved is sure they're doing the "right thing."
Evil is in the eyes of the beholder, as is good. I for one agree with your conclusion and I also dont think that there is an objective 'good' or an objective 'evil'. The concepts as abstracts do serve linguistic purpose as they do at times convey personal feeling or emotion quite well but thats the extent of their usefulness.

Alfred Kinsey was the writer of the Kinsey reports, which was (and in many ways still is) the most comprehensive report on human sexuality to that time (the late '50, IIRC). He was the one who pointed out that such "abnormalities", such as homosexuality, bisexuality, and sodomy, are in many ways fairly common.
Hasnt Kinsey been discredited now for his dubious methods of research

Give me one instance in historical societies where moral relativism allowed or condoned random mass murderers, rapists and theives.

RoachBusters:
Why is Kerry evil?

Like what?

Sexually tortured infants and small children, circumcised himself without an anesthetic, had sex with all his visitors (who also ended up having sex with his wife), etc. Most of the people he interviewed when he wrote the books were sex criminals, inmates in prisons, prostitutes, sexual deviants, etc. His research was extremely fraudulent.

RoachBusters:
Why is Kerry evil?

He's not really evil. I was only semi-serious when I put his and Bush's names on the list. ;)

Hasnt Kinsey been discredited now for his dubious methods of research

You are correct. All his research was fraudulent, especially what he said about 10% of the population being gay. I don't know what the percentage is, but there's no way in hell it could be that high. I've met hundreds, maybe thousands, of people, only one of whom was gay.

Hasnt Kinsey been discredited now for his dubious methods of research

Lots of people have questioned his statistical sampling methods (usually religious conservatives objecting to his claim about the prevalence of said "unnatural" activities), but I've not really found any evidence that he was completely debunked. The assertion that most of his subjects were sexual deviants is complete bull, as is the assertion that he had sex with all of them. He did engage in some sexplay with people other than his wife, but IIRC they were all colleagues of his, not subjects. As for the subjects in question, they ran the gamut of society, from housewives and line foremen to farmers and prostitutes. Given that many of his findings were in large part verified later, the Kinsey Report to my knowledge still stands as an outstanding and groundbreaking use of statistics (still fairly new in the '50's) as applied to human sexuality. Masters and Johnson might have improved upon it, but given how Kinsey was the very first to ask such questions on such a wide scale, he still deserves significant credit.

Give me one instance in historical societies where moral relativism allowed or condoned random mass murderers, rapists and theives.

Erm, that's kind of a fallacious thing to ask, because moral relativism has only existed as a doctrine in sociology since about the early 1950's, and it certainly hasn't been employed as an operating strategy by any government. The closest I can come to an official answer to your question is to point out how often the phrase "Well I wouldn't like it, but that isn't true for everyone" or something like it is used as a rationale for refusing to condemn things like the Holocaust, the Great Leap Forward, Stalin's 5-year plans, the actions of Pol Pot in Cambodia, the genocide in Rwanda, Slobedon Milosevic' and Radovan Karadic' actions in Bosnia-Herzegovinia and Kosovo in the '90's, etc. Since the removal of moral relativism from where it should be (a methodology in sociology) and placement into where it eminently does not belong (post-modern philosophy), it seems that just about every instance of action by the U.S., oftentimes to do eminently just things like ending genocide or famine, is accompanied by people on the left pointing out that "Who are we to say what is right (forgetting of course, that every rational being has at once that right, ability, and obligation)?", every bit as much as people on the right offer relativism's close cousin egoism in the form of "What can we possibly gain out of doing this?"

Secondly, you assume that if you accept absolutism as a doctrine, the justification of rape and pillage is the inevitable result. This is baloney. That's the result of using (usually poor) moral doctrines to rationalize clearly immoral behaviors. That doesn't mean that absolutism is wrong. It means that the doctrine that led to those actions is wrong.

he still deserves significant credit.

Kinsey was just pure evil, a completely degenerate sexual psychopath. No wonder the guy went bonkers before he died.

By the way, I'd recommend giving Kinsey: Crimes and Consequences a look. It's a damn good read, very well researched.

By the way, Xenophobialand, you have hereby earned my respect. You disagreed in a clean, civil, intelligent, logical, and respectful manner, for which you have my thanks.

*A bit confused*

Well, sure. Thanks very much. Right back at you.

That being said, I still think you're wrong about Kinsey.;-)

That being said, I still think you're wrong about Kinsey.;-)

That's okay. I never object to anyone disagreeing with me, as long as they do it respectfully.

well i think you have both pretty much confirmed what i though about kinsey, dubious methods, dodgy statistics but nevertheless intersting and thought provoking whether right or wrong. Roach busters, have you seen Roachsylvania in the forum at all. I think you need to find him and squash him if only for the insolence of his name.

My views on morality are basically that there are no hard and fast rules. You can figure out what is moral, but there are few, if any rules that have no exceptions or don't vary based on the situation. That isn't the same thing as moral relativism, which states that there is no right or wrong.

Secondly, you assume that if you accept absolutism as a doctrine, the justification of rape and pillage is the inevitable result. This is baloney. That's the result of using (usually poor) moral doctrines to rationalize clearly immoral behaviors. That doesn't mean that absolutism is wrong. It means that the doctrine that led to those actions is wrong.

First, you misunderstood. I am not alluding to national morals, I am asking when there has ever been a time in history when any society has condoned random mass murder, rape and theft within. I am assuming no such acceptance of absolutism. I am, by my question, pointing out that never has there been a society that condoned the crimes I note above. Not even a completely atheistic construct could accept such behaviour. Perhaps these things are above morals?

Secondly, you assume that if you accept absolutism as a doctrine, the justification of rape and pillage is the inevitable result. This is baloney. That's the result of using (usually poor) moral doctrines to rationalize clearly immoral behaviors. That doesn't mean that absolutism is wrong. It means that the doctrine that led to those actions is wrong.

First, you misunderstood. I am not alluding to national morals, I am asking when there has ever been a time in history when any society has condoned random mass murder, rape and theft within. I am assuming no such acceptance of absolutism. I am, by my question, simply pointing out that never has there been a society that condoned the crimes I note above. Not even a completely atheistic construct could accept such behaviour. Perhaps these things are above morals?

Secondly, you assume that if you accept absolutism as a doctrine, the justification of rape and pillage is the inevitable result. This is baloney. That's the result of using (usually poor) moral doctrines to rationalize clearly immoral behaviors. That doesn't mean that absolutism is wrong. It means that the doctrine that led to those actions is wrong.

First, you misunderstood. I am not alluding to national morals, I am asking when there has ever been a time in history when any society has condoned random mass murder, rape and theft within. I am assuming no such acceptance of absolutism. I am, by my question, simply pointing out that never has there been a society that condoned the crimes (and I understand the paradox of the use of the word crime in this context, I use it for brevity) I note above. Not even a completely atheistic construct could accept such behaviour. Perhaps these things are above morals?

Good vs. Evil, is as night and day, white and black,
hell, the ying and yang, comes to mind, as well as a headache.
Its a way to keep balanced in an unbalanced, chaotic system.

Now, i think you heard this argument before "if God is all powerful and omnipotent, can he create a boulder as big and heavy that, even he can't move?"
catch 22, damn if he is, damn if he don't.

Good and evil have always been thrown 'bout, to either explain, or the lack of explanation of why things happened.
Its easier to just name something to end all arguments, rather than actually, investigating it, and finding the truth of it all.

as to Osama, well, he's just an evil bastarde, and no matter who says it, its all the same.

Neither exist, but there exist acts of "good" and acts with "evil" intent. But, I do not believe that just good and evil exist because this world is not black and white, there are many shades of grey.

well i think you have both pretty much confirmed what i though about kinsey, dubious methods, dodgy statistics but nevertheless intersting and thought provoking whether right or wrong. Roach busters, have you seen Roachsylvania in the forum at all. I think you need to find him and squash him if only for the insolence of his name.
Different kind of roach, buddy.

You are correct. All his research was fraudulent, especially what he said about 10% of the population being gay. I don't know what the percentage is, but there's no way in hell it could be that high. I've met hundreds, maybe thousands, of people, only one of whom was gay.
And I'm sure you got to know all of them well enough for them to openly discuss their sexuality with you. Just to clarify, I am not trying to defend Kinsey in any way shape or form.

calling people evil is a way of not having to deal with them in a truely respectful manner

so we call osama bin laden evil, that way we dont have to look at his reasons for doing what he does. we can just hunt him down (or not, that seems to have fallen off our agenda) without worrying about motives

(after having looked at bin ladens reasons, i find them to be inadequate to justifying the murders he plans. i hope his corpse has been rotting in a blown in cave in afghanistan for the past 2.5 years)

but there are things that happen that are so incomprehensibly wrong to me that it makes me wonder about the objective existance of evil.

when i think of those 2 boys in columbine went through their school randomly shooting people who were "innocent" of doing anything bad to them, i feel that they were consumed by evil.

when i read newspaper stories about parents torturing and starving their own children, it is as if they were taken over by evil.

when i think of tim mcveigh, an otherwise not so bad man, planning to blow up a building that he knew had babies in it, well, its enough to make an atheist believe in satan.

i suppose its the minds way of trying to deny that any of us could, given the right circumstances, do the unthinkable.

Evil and good are subjective. There is nothing that can define universally good and evil. Just like sanity and insanity, right and wrong etc. Everything is subjective, even 'reality'.

You are correct. All his research was fraudulent, especially what he said about 10% of the population being gay. I don't know what the percentage is, but there's no way in hell it could be that high. I've met hundreds, maybe thousands, of people, only one of whom was gay.
How do you know? Did you ask each one, Hello. What's your sexual orientation, please?

Everything is subjective, even 'reality'.

Right on!

First, you misunderstood. I am not alluding to national morals, I am asking when there has ever been a time in history when any society has condoned random mass murder, rape and theft within. I am assuming no such acceptance of absolutism. I am, by my question, simply pointing out that never has there been a society that condoned the crimes (and I understand the paradox of the use of the word crime in this context, I use it for brevity) I note above. Not even a completely atheistic construct could accept such behaviour. Perhaps these things are above morals?
I'm no history buff, but... the Vandals? the Mongol Hoards?

Evil and good are subjective. There is nothing that can define universally good and evil. Just like sanity and insanity, right and wrong etc. Everything is subjective, even 'reality'.
If everything is subjective, then you have to accept that you're all alone in the universe, and even these boards are a figment of your imagination. Because as soon as you admit there are other people, you create an objective viewpoint.

I am curious as to people's opinions on this matter. The terms "good" and "evil" have been thrown around a lot recently, particularly by politicians. However, when pressed, it is extremely difficult to produce a working definition of the terms as they are used.

Myself, I have come to the conclusion that "good" and "evil" are merely man-made abstractions, which do not exist in their own right. The idea of an overarching, objective morality is practically laughable, given that, in situations like that in the Middle East, everyone involved is sure they're doing the "right thing." It's all a matter of viewpoint; human beings generally call killing without good reason "evil," but tend not to include animals (hunting for sport, anyone?). Do you think that, were there sentient rabbits or deer, they would also refrain from calling sport hunting "evil?" Human beings can't even agree between themselves; Osama Bin laden is as convinced that Bush is "evil" as vice versa.
Good is that which is beneficial to life; bad is detrimental to life. I don't believe in "evil". Good and bad, or evil, do not exist as things themselves in the physical universe, which is composed mostly of energy and matter.

Good can be objectively observed, as can bad things; or subjectively done.

I think that Good and Evil only purely exist in God and the Devil. Nobody is pure evil, most people only wish to do good and think that theyre doing the right thing. Others however enjoy to kill people, these people have made choices which haev lead them down this route, these are often insane . God doesnt create any evil people. They dont exist only people who do bad things.

This only really applys if you believe in God or a controlling power.