NationStates Jolt Archive

What defines "Good?" Or "Evil," for that matter? Can you quantify either of these qualities--can you say X is 46.7453% more good than Y? Or is it so subjective that nothing is evil or good unless you think so? Or am I spouting nonsense, and it is something else that you can explain?

Excellent idea for a poll.

Keep up the good work.

There is no good and evil, there are only the consequences of our own actions.

I answered subjective, though truth be told I don't think in terms of good and evil, and certainly don't use those terms if possible, rather what I percieve to be morally justifable.

It's easier for people to think of evil as a unique and individual entity (e.g christianity = satan), it's a way for us to distance ouselves from the bad things that happen in the world. Evil is just something that exists in all of us, it's completely human. But I think that their is a good and bad though in our world.

Good and Evil hold no metaphysical standards or meaning beyond those you have attributed to them, which as much as you might not want to admit it are not universal.

I would like to hear from those who voted that there is a definate "good" and a definate "evil." To those people, is it reasonable to assume that you also believe in a definate "right" and a definate "wrong?"

Well I'm not going to say that someone is relatively evil...

Good is letting your best friend know his fly is down. Evil is saying it in a clearly audible voice at his wedding. :)

I hate the very concept of the word evil. Such a narrow minded approach to classifying a very broad and complex set of circumstances. People mostly only use it when they’re referring to something that they disagree with. Therefore what is and what isn't evil is open to interpretation and could be debated. But many people probably wouldn't even see past their own label and would just bitch bitch bitch.

I tend to avoid the words "good" and "evil". Too many people seem to use them to paint the world in simplistic black and white, a perfect way to ignore the complexities of the real world.

I go by my own sense of ethics, my own sense of right and wrong, which I try to conform to. Hence to me there is no such thing as "objective" evil.

i'm for relative good and evil in a socially moral context.

My concept of "good" and "evil" is rather simple in principle, but difficult to determine in life.


In it's simplest for it can be expressed thusly:
The "good"/"right" action is the one that created the most happiness/least pain for the greatest/least amount of people.

The "evil'/"incorrect" action is that which creates the most pain/least happiness for the greatest/least amount of people.

Due to the inability to definitely decide upon what creates the most/least happiness/pain in many circumstances, I voted "other."

Thus, consenting protected sex is one of the "most good," or "best" actions possible. ;)

Edit: WTF? It says I'm logged in as Intellocracy! Is there any way to change this post so it's posted by Intellocracy?

I think one needs to rely on the concept of natural law: if something is considered evil by every culture, it is evil. The only example of this i know, however, is inbreeding.

Good and evil are both social constructs that change with time and location. A reasonable example of this would be divorce laws in the United States versus the divorce laws in Saudi Arabia. Almost half (if not more) Americans have commited a grevious evil in the eyes of many Saudi's, unless the man initiated the divorce and the woman was properly punished, in accordance with Saudi customary law. Too many variablies for absolutism and nothing is more absolute than good and evil.

People mostly only use it when they’re referring to something that they disagree with.
Why yes, I do disagree with things like rape, and the casual murder of civilians. How interesting.

The only example of this i know, however, is inbreeding.
Look at the Greek Gods.

How about the idea that the majority rules? If the majority of people say something is evil, they must be right! But if that is the case, things could go from evil to good to evil...does anything truly last?

I would like to go phylosophical on you and ask:

What would good be without evil and evil without good?

They are human expersions for things we accept as good and things we don't. They have no meaning beyond what we personally quantify them as, whilst there are socially accept good/evil acts it is much in the eye of the beholder.

I have multiple opinions on this subject and I'm not sure which is right, so I'll post them all:
1. Utilitarianism: total help/harm. Simple, logical, but I often don't care.
2. Biology: the code that worked. Guilt comes because we evolve to feel gulilty, it all exists to make packs work better, so there is no obligation to people you don't know. Pretty realistic description.
3. Rawlsian Justice: technically a way of making a just society, Rawl's veil of ignorance makes a decent moral standard that somehow makes sense.
4. UNDHR: if you take away rights, that's evil. Absolute and inflexible, but easily agreed on
5. Religion: whatever your religion defines as evil is evil. This makes it good to be an atheist.
6. Truth Standard: so long as everyone knows you know what harm you're doing it's not evil. Works in most social settings, I've used it on this forum more than once.
7. Absolute: I know who's good and who's evil. Yes, I often feel like that.
8. Reverse: everyone says they're good but they oppose eachother and since when two goals are opposed one must be bad one of them must be bad and its better to just be evil like me.

I answered subjective, though truth be told I don't think in terms of good and evil, and certainly don't use those terms if possible, rather what I percieve to be morally justifable.
Me too. It's all relative. One person may think someones evil, but what about the evil person? What do they think?

I've had a lot of conversations about the nature of "good" people versus "evil" people. My and my brother's current definition:

A good person is one who never ever ever intentionally harms people.

A bad person goes out of their way to cause pain and misery.

Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

Note the "intentionally": A good person can be deceived or misguided and hurt people, but they don't do it on purpose. I tend to be pretty loose about my definiton: lashing out because you're hurt and scared and lost and confused and don't know what to do is, in my eyes, unintentional.

Evil people have rationalizations, a lot of which is "they deserve it" (the fun kind of serial killer) or "They're subhuman anyway" (Hitler) or "They secretly wanted it" (rapists)

I've had a lot of conversations about the nature of "good" people versus "evil" people. My and my brother's current definition:

A good person is one who never ever ever intentionally harms people.

A bad person goes out of their way to cause pain and misery.

Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

Note the "intentionally": A good person can be deceived or misguided and hurt people, but they don't do it on purpose. I tend to be pretty loose about my definiton: lashing out because you're hurt and scared and lost and confused and don't know what to do is, in my eyes, unintentional.

Evil people have rationalizations, a lot of which is "they deserve it" (the fun kind of serial killer) or "They're subhuman anyway" (Hitler) or "They secretly wanted it" (rapists)

What's the difference between a rationalization and unintentional harm? They seem pretty similar.

That's why I don't even go for rationalizations, my justification of harm is pure fun.

I believe that good and evil do exist in the world. I have found there to be a *lot* less contradictions in objectivism than relativism (leastaways concerning the idea of a moral truth like good and evil).

Good/Bad

Wrong/Right

Evil - not Evil


All opinion....


How is this one - There is no wrong or right? No Good or Bad.. No evil .....

Only opinion of all those things... :p

Why yes, I do disagree with things like rape, and the casual murder of civilians. How interesting.
Meh, nothing wrong with the casual murder of civilians. :mp5:

I would have to say that there are things that are deffinatly good and deffinatly evil, but it's hare to really define something as evil. A good thing would be something that is for lack of a better word, innocent - like a little fish, which can be defined as good. However, said goldfish (or whatever fish you want it to be) does not have the mind power to know that there are good and bad things - therefore, it is only good because it knows no other way. As humans, we might define a mountian lion as being evil if it kills a human. But to the mountian lion, it's only trying to eat - it's not wrong when it kills and eats something small and furry. I think that good and evil actions depend on the individual commiting the action. I would have to guess that something is evil when you know that your hurting someone else when you do it, but don't care. If you don't know how your actions affect others, it can't really be evil. I don't think that there are things that are deffinitaly good or evil, every living thing (well most of them anyway) have the potential to do good and evil. Whate defines that creature is how they use thier potential.

Evil is humanity, enough siad

What's the difference between a rationalization and unintentional harm? They seem pretty similar.

That's why I don't even go for rationalizations, my justification of harm is pure fun.


The way I see it, unintentional being that you truely did not mean to harm them. Rationalization being that you KNEW it would harm them but felt justified.

And again, it has to be intentional or you're not evil. I maintain there is a LARGE grey area with only a few extremes of good or evil people. Jesus, Buddah, Muhammed, Hitler, serial rapists, serial killers, Scott Peterson, Bush (JK)...

Interesting...but would it still be "evil" if you deliberately harmed someone, knowing it would hurt them, to do "good?" Such as, say, torturing someone to obtain information that will save millions? Or would the "evil" cancel out the "good," leaving you in that gray area?

Without evil there can be no good, so it must be good to be evil sometimes...

Interesting...but would it still be "evil" if you deliberately harmed someone, knowing it would hurt them, to do "good?" Such as, say, torturing someone to obtain information that will save millions? Or would the "evil" cancel out the "good," leaving you in that gray area?

This puts you in the gray area on the "good" side of the spectrum, because the good outweighs the bad. But you can't be perfectly good, you'd be tarnished.

Note that this is an agreed upon definition between a christian and a witch, which is why there's both absolutes and grey areas.

There's only one good thing in this world and that's Peanut Butter Crunch.

The rest of it is either in the gray (grey?) or evil.

There is good and evil, but you can't put it down in numbers. It's called "qualitative data" not "quantitative", if my science teacher is to be believed.

There is no good and evil, there are only the consequences of our own actions.
This is what i think. U can only say if your toughts, talks and acts have bring pain and sufferance or peace and compassion toward others :fluffle:
Of course when thinking, speacking or acting, it's hard to know exactly what consequencies will be carried out (i think of a recent war... oups sry off-topic). so notions and good or evil do not exist, intrinsequely (dunno if its proper spelling), i mean by themselves in an absolute way and not relatively to someone or something. It's just like the I like / I dislike ideas.
However, things are universally regarded as bad (to murder, harm or thieve) or good (being honest , upright, generous etc...) but that does not prove the existence of good and bad as absolute concepts.

Oops. ter-Clicked Quantifiable.

Meh, nothing wrong with the casual murder of civilians. :mp5:
As a civilian, I fear I must object. Can't we all just... :fluffle:

I think the question would be better if it used "good" and "bad." "Evil" is a bit of a loaded term, I think. Perhaps it is just me, but I always take that term to highlight some act that relates to Satan or something like that.

Are there objectively "good" and "bad" or "right" and "wrong" actions? Well, by the way that we use language and by the fact that nearly EVERYONE argues about ethical principles (and uses these terms), I think that nobody, when it comes down to it, can believe that their ethical principles do not hold for all. If not, they would not hold them and they would not get so upset when someone else violates them and they certainly could NOT argue about what the right course of action is. So, anyone who holds ethical beliefs is mistaken when they say that these "properties" do not exist or are subjective because claiming the latter undercuts ones right to assert the former.

Think about it: can anyone here arguing for subjectivism or some form of moral nihilism really believe that killing and torturing a two year-old for the fun of it IS NOT WRONG universally? I really doubt it.

How about the idea that the majority rules? If the majority of people say something is evil, they must be right!

No. I will not let my concept of right and wrong be dictated by majority rule. I go by my own sense of ethics.

For example, something which is frowned on by "morals" but which does no harm to anyone cannot be "evil", or wrong, or a sin, or whatever, in my eyes.

And there are things that I consider wrong which most people would consider all right, precisely because they do cause harm.

I've always thought of 'evil' as consciously choosing to cause others harm by an action that is not ultimately beneficial to them.
I'll explain - you may be causing an anorexic harm by committing them to a hospital, but the action is ultimately an attempt to help them.
Evil would be encouraging their bad habits.
I think of good and evil as a spectrum of social ethics, and I honestly don't believe that anyone lies upon the endpoint of extreme good and extreme evil.

As a civilian, I fear I must object. Can't we all just... :fluffle:
Can I kill you first? :)

Can I kill you first? :)
I'd prefer not. Will that actually be taken into acount? If so, you are the most well mannered psycho killer I've ever met.

If there is no good or evil, what is murder? is that not evil?

I'd prefer not. Will that actually be taken into acount? If so, you are the most well mannered psycho killer I've ever met.
I've met a few with better manners than me. We're a rare breed though but we have formed an organization. We get together every now and then and basically stare at people who walk by. I can't give much information other than that so don't expect it. We also have a few lady members and I really must say that they disturb me more than most of the other guys.