NationStates Jolt Archive

In my personal opinion good could be given a name to be used. Without evil you could not say that saving someone's life was a "good" thing because they don't know that killing someone is "evil". This is also why I don't believe in the Messiah.

I do not believe in good and evil at all, as they are constants of absolute morality, and I do not recognise such a thing.

Moral relativism 4tw.

Good is relative. It needs something to be based on.

You need to be able to effectively define what good and evil are without any reference to each other before you can even begin debating their relativity.

Remember the cardinal rule of definitions, you can't use the word to define itself.

what is good without evil? what is evil without good. without the one of them, then there is neither. good is the opposite of evil, and evil the opposite of good, without one, then there cant be any. in my opinion.

Could you perhaps have good exist if, rather than evil, there was "not-good" or neutrality? I think that as long as there's something other than good - regardless of whatever that other is actually evil or simply neutral - then good can exist. Of course, then you have to wonder if "not good" or neutral is simply evil with another name.

Clearly there are things which are neither "good" nor "evil;" They fall in that funny grey fuzzy area:
You can take an action which does not hurt anything, nor does it aid anything - it is an ambiguously neutral action.
Thereby you can already begin determing that it is not so simple as two sides.

A difficulty that arises are the expectations of what good and evil entail. Furthermore is the attempt to specify exactly what "good" or "evil" is when they have come to relate to so many different things that they are gargantuanly broad in their meanings.

I tend to see things more as a giant blur of gray, rather than black and white, but no "good" can't exist without "evil".

Without "evil" there would be no concept of "good". Everything would be "good", and there'd be nothing else, so therefore you'd have no concept of things being "not good". The absence of a concept of "evil" negate's the existence of a concept of "good".

A similar(or exactly the same) example would be, what if everything in the world was white. You'd have no concept of the color white, because there would be nothing to compare it to. There'd be no reds, blues, or yellows to make a white thing appear white.

I tend to see things more as a giant blur of gray, rather than black and white, but no "good" can't exist without "evil".

Without "evil" there would be no concept of "good". Everything would be "good", and there'd be nothing else, so therefore you'd have no concept of things being "not good". The absence of a concept of "evil" negate's the existence of a concept of "good".

A similar(or exactly the same) example would be, what if everything in the world was white. You'd have no concept of the color white, because there would be nothing to compare it to. There'd be no reds, blues, or yellows to make a white thing appear white.

You're assuming that just because there is no evil, everything is good. Your argument supports itself by assuming that it is already true.

IF there is only "good", then sure, you may have a point. But just because no evil exists, that doesn't mean that everything has to be good. Evil is not the opposite of good. "Not-good" is the opposite. And there are types of not-good that are certainly not evil.

I must quote Joan of Arcadia, if I can dig up the quote:



God - Evil is not a word to use lightly. It's only the darkest end of a broad spectrum.

Joan - You mean like light?

God - Exactly like light. Nobody is born in total darkness. Most of you live on the grey end of the spectrum, a lie here and there, jealousy, wrath. But you only get to absolute evil by doing one thing after another till eventually you're transformed.

Joan - Like...into a monster.

God - A monster is a creature with no consciousness. They're extremely rare, but they do exist.

Joan - Have you watched the news? I'm not sure they're so rare.

God - Almost everybody has some light somewhere. And light is always worth fighting for.

This reflects my beliefs of good and evil. They compliment each other, they are a part of a broad spectrum. There is true good and evil, but it's extremely rare.

I believe good and evil do not exist. 'Evil' itself is a term coined by bigots to describe their enemies, and 'good' has no meaning. You cannot say someone is a 'good' person, for that definition will be different between an ordinary, honest college student and a Mafia top drug dealer.

Therefore, 'good' and 'evil', since they do not exist in the first place, can exist independently of each other. If they did exist, however, they could not exist independently.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I believe good and evil do not exist. 'Evil' itself is a term coined by bigots to describe their enemies, and 'good' has no meaning. You cannot say someone is a 'good' person, for that definition will be different between an ordinary, honest college student and a Mafia top drug dealer.

Therefore, 'good' and 'evil', since they do not exist in the first place, can exist independently of each other. If they did exist, however, they could not exist independently.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

That's just arguing against absolute morality. Relative morality can still exist given your objections.

If you view morality as relative, then Good requires Evil to make sense.

However if you view morality as absolute, then Good does not require evil, it is a property of existence in some way instead.

Take the standard Christian story of creation, in the beginning God was still perfectly Good wasn't God, even though God was all that existed.

Now on the relative end of things, it is possible that only one of Good or Evil is actualised, but the concept of the other is required.

If you view morality as relative, then Good requires Evil to make sense.

...

Now on the relative end of things, it is possible that only one of Good or Evil is actualised, but the concept of the other is required.

I don't think that Evil needs to exist for Good to exist. There has to be something other than good, yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to be evil.

I don't think that Evil needs to exist for Good to exist. There has to be something other than good, yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to be evil.

As, on the relative view, these are value judgement labels rather than properties in the world then there is a logical requirement that there is some value by which they are judged. Typical values would be utility or pleasure with the good being that that increases these. Unless you can find a value that can not be decreased, but can be increased, it seems necessary that for good to exist, then evil has to as well.

I don't think that Evil needs to exist for Good to exist. There has to be something other than good, yes, but it doesn't necessarily have to be evil.Then what does it have to be -- stupid? Neutral? Purple? ;)



~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

As, on the relative view, these are value judgement labels rather than properties in the world then there is a logical requirement that there is some value by which they are judged. Typical values would be utility or pleasure with the good being that that increases these. Unless you can find a value that can not be decreased, but can be increased, it seems necessary that for good to exist, then evil has to as well.

I think that neutrality in regard to good and evil can exist. That's the thing that lets good exist without evil.

For example, a person may not speak Portuguese. The fact that Portuguese exists certainly isn't "evil" to this person, but it's not good either. It's neutral.

Of course, on this scale you may end up with more of a "more good" and "less good" sort of designation, rather than having an actual neutrality.

Then what does it have to be -- stupid? Neutral? Purple? ;)



~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Neutral's what I've always gone with.


(lawful neutral, actually </d&d_dork>

“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.”
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

I thought that relevant. There’s a couple of chapter about how the world can’t exist as a dual-system of equal good and equal bad, but rather, that evil cannot exist without good, but good exists all on it’s own.

However: I also read this once; This guy wrote a review of this old book, saying that Catholics shouldn’t recommend C.S. Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity, anymore because frankly, it’s right, but the young people of the late twentieth and early twenty first century or too stupid to be able to grasp it and entirely miss the boat… it never occurred to me that way. Are you people too stupid to understand it? I don't know, I'm not catholic so I suppose I can still recommend it?
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May1999/delusion.html

Can good exist without evil or the other way around?

yes

it just wont seem so... special

if it were never dark, light would still exist, we just wouldnt notice it.

Can good exist without evil or the other way around?

yes

it just wont seem so... special

if it were never dark, light would still exist, we just wouldnt notice it.
we would notice light because light is a physical object. good and bad are points of view and are subjective. If there was no good, then people wouldn't have bad because one can't exist without the other. They are two sides of the same coin.

Sorry it's taken me awhile to reply to this, I'd just assumed that no one would challenge my view on this, because it's just so obvious I'm always right.(lol j/k)

You're assuming that just because there is no evil, everything is good. Your argument supports itself by assuming that it is already true.

IF there is only "good", then sure, you may have a point. But just because no evil exists, that doesn't mean that everything has to be good. Evil is not the opposite of good. "Not-good" is the opposite. And there are types of not-good that are certainly not evil.

You make a good point, I did assume that.

I don't place neutrality in the actual good/evil spectrum, but as something separate that exists alongside good/evil. I think that too place it in the spectrum of good/evil makes the assupmtion that something is both good and evil, rather than being neither. Because of this, I hold the belief that evil is the opposite of good, and neutral things are soemthing else entirely.

But wouldn't "good" be relegated to just part of the neutral scale. Having nothing to compare it to, would just make you think of it as something that happens, like a sneeze or wind. If there was evil, you'd be able to say, "This thing/event/person is better(or more good/less evil) than this thing/event/person."

good once existed without evil...but now, we experience good as nothing more than the lack of evil. if u have nothing, it seems good, until you realise you could have something, and then it seems bad. u get something, and that seems good. then the lack of it seems bad, and eventually the thing itself seems no longer good. then something more, or better seems good. etc. i do not understand how believing that there is a difference between good and evil leads you to disbelieve in the messiah....

Good and evil are part of a spectrum. If there is no evil, then there is no distinguishing feature of good.

Karidnosen']You need to be able to effectively define what good and evil are without any reference to each other before you can even begin debating their relativity.

Remember the cardinal rule of definitions, you can't use the word to define itself.


From a Christian's perspective, God is good. The absence of God is evil.
When Lucifer rebelled against God, evil came into existence -- not as a "power" created by Lucifer (he has no ability to "create"), but as a condition of life without God.

From a Christian's perspective, God is good. The absence of God is evil.
When Lucifer rebelled against God, evil came into existence -- not as a "power" created by Lucifer (he has no ability to "create"), but as a condition of life without God.

So does that mean a person who doesn't believe in God is incapable of good?

Aside from the fact that one can argue good and evil are purely value judgements and as such totally subjective--an arguement I don't personally agree with, but can understand. Aside from this I would say that good can exist without evil existing at the same time. However, the concept of evil has to exist in order for Good to make any sense. Even if there is nothing in the universe classified as evil at present, there has to be the potential for it to exist.
Another example would be the concepts of perfection and imperfection. Casting aside again the argument that these too are subjective concepts i.e. I have the perfect boyfriend, I have the perfect dog etc., there is nothing in this world that can be classified as perfect i.e. without flaw. Yet we are able to classify things as perfect and imperfect without actually having witnessed anything that is perfect. So, maybe I'm just rephrasing an argument already stated or not making sense at all (and for the record I'm open to both possibilities as its nearing 5 am and I spent the last three hours watching VERONICA MARS), but I guess I'm just trying to say that as concepts both have to exist even if actual examples of them don't. It's sort of one my own personal justifications in believing in a higher power--we have the concept of perfection yet its not realized anywhere on this earth and it had to come from somewhere. Not concrete proof mind you but enough to perhaps think on. I don't know, good night!

I do not believe in good and evil at all, as they are constants of absolute morality, and I do not recognise such a thing.

Moral relativism 4tw.

Right. For the same reason, I don't believe in the color red. It's just purple with most of the blue missing. Not that I believe in Blue either. They're both just absolutes of purple. :D

I don't care what any of you think. When the bullets start flying and you see a buddy goes down. Evil Exists, there will be no doubt in your mind.

If there was only good, and not evil, then would we as humans not loose our freedom of choice and free will? Without evil, the world becomes out of balance, and in doing so, our whole way of life, thinking, and perspecitves become imbalanced also. Is that not correct?

Liverbreath']I don't care what any of you think. When the bullets start flying and you see a buddy goes down. Evil Exists, there will be no doubt in your mind.

No one doubts that evil exists(in their own way, they may not call it evil per se, but they still believe in it). The arguement is hypothetical; whether or not good exists when evil doesn't(or vice versa).

If there was only good, and not evil, then would we as humans not loose our freedom of choice and free will? Without evil, the world becomes out of balance, and in doing so, our whole way of life, thinking, and perspecitves become imbalanced also. Is that not correct?


If I'm understanding it correctly, the idea isn't removing evil from the world, but referring to a hypothetical world where evil doesn't exist. It's not the removal of the choice to do/be evil, it's eliminating the possibility of evil at all. You can't choose to be what doesn't exist.

Good and evil are merely just opinions. It's either they both exist, or they don't.

It's not like we'll find out in this universe. We're stuck with both.

Good and evil do exist, most certainly. It doesn't matter if you believe in absolute morality or not; some things are right and some things are wrong. I defy anyone to prove to me that murdering an innocent person in cold blood is not inherently wrong. Admittedly, it is more difficult to define 'right' than 'wrong'.

As for the threadstarter's question: No, good cannot exist without evil, nor can evil exist without good. I read somewhere that (and I'm paraphrasing) that "light cannot exist without casting a shadow, and a shadow cannot exist without a light to cast it."

That pretty much somes up my view on the subject.

Good is evil. On the other hand, Evil is not good.

Let's go back to simple "good" and "bad," which are actually opposites.

In my opinion, good and evil are states of mind(yessssssss, I kwow I use that way too often). If it was not told to us what is good or evil, we would not know, and therfore, render good/evil obsolete. :mp5: