Is there such a thing as Good and Evil?

[Kamiel]

This is going to be fun. I was taking something I often say to atheists to hart. (What if you are wrong?) So I asked my self that question. what it led me to conclude that if there is no god then there are no absolutes. If there are no absolutes then can there be such a thing as good and evil? Where do you draw the line? Can you draw a line without some form of god? If what does not kill us makes us stronger then what is pain?

[Waelfwulf]

This is going to be fun. I was taking something I often say to atheists to hart. (What if you are wrong?) So I asked my self that question. what it led me to conclude that if there is no god then there are no absolutes. If there are no absolutes then can there be such a thing as good and evil? Where do you draw the line? Can you draw a line without some form of god? If what does not kill us makes us stronger then what is pain? Good and evil are what we perceive. If there isn't a god then there is no line ("Above this line is EVIL!!") because there are no absolutes. Some people like the guidelines that religion enforces, a code you follow that keeps you on the right path, all those who are not on the same path are, evil. Meaning, if there is not path to follow, there is no good or evil (in the eyes of a religion); rather a free-for-all anarchy where people use their own discretion and morals.

The only good and evil are the ones enforced by society. Here, if you eat animals we keep as pets, you're freaking twisted whereas in Korea, its common place to eat dogs. So now comes the views of the individual. "I think substance abuse is wrong " - evil. The guy shooting up in the alley will have a different sight on the topic "I use it because I have such n' such disease and I makes me feel good". But, under society's absolute gaze the latter example is wrong, despite a strong population that thinks opposite.

Really, on the global scale, there is no good or evil, simply what you are doing at the moment and how others view it, neighbors, friends... If it doesn't fit into society's mold then you're wrong. From your point of view, you're still right. positive and negative will cancel. There is no good, no evil, no god, no satan. just a state of being, observed and judged.

[blueeyes]

From one perspective, there's nothing in this world but good and evil, heros and villians, all of whom assume that they are on the side of the right. From that perspective, there are simply people who, according to you, are good, and those who are evil. The people whose culture allows them to eat dogs or make sacrifices, those poor beings who decide to murder because that's the ONLY choice... heh.

Just because it is subjective doesn't mean it is non-existant.

Of course, from another point of view, it is simply a matter of right and wrong just being innate things everyone knows, either as a curse from a diety or an evolutionary reaction, and may we all have mercy on those fools stupid enough to ignore those innate feelings, or worst of all, try to justify breaking their minds against those instincts.

[LV426]

You answered your own question. There is no absolute good and evil.

[Kamiel]

If there are no absolutes and no god. Then why have we insisted on haveing gods for most of our known history? What is the problem that we cant solve that some god can for us? Were there any atheistic peoples in ancient times? If so where did they live? How did they live?

[Waelfwulf]

The athiests all died in flames (I have no idea!) We have gods because - creation especially, because it's easy. to simply say, god made everything and that's that is much easier than wondering. It's the answer to our simple questions with a glorified twist. Many people need and like direction, someone else to answer life's tough questions for us.

[LV426]

Gods evolved with humanity. As more questions arose, from the ashes of the imagination people began to try and explain the world around them. And so the gods arose, at first as spirits and elementals. Then they began to take on more form and shape, evolving with every generation becoming more and more complex with each person that passed on their "beliefs". Now of course we have no need for gods, or perhaps we have a greater need for gods. For we have explained the universe and still find no comfort in the stars.

[McKitty]

If there are no absolutes and no god. Then why have we insisted on haveing gods for most of our known history? What is the problem that we cant solve that some god can for us? Were there any atheistic peoples in ancient times? If so where did they live? How did they live?

There are gods in man's history because ancient man *needed* his world explained. So the thunder-bolt was a strike from a wrathful god.

[LycanSpectre]

Just because someone is godless does not mean that they are immoral, or a-moral. It is still obvious to most healthy human beings, athiest or otherwise that some actions are wrong (immoral) or right(moral).

Morality (good and evil, as the case may be) is less a function of religion, and more a function of society. From birth, people are trained to think that certain actions are wrong (IE rape, murder, genocide, etc), and that others are right. Religion is merely a method of further reinforcing those values.

I think that for too long atheism has been equated with immorality, and religion with purity. The two have no bearing on the other.

How can morality be equated with godliness when so many have been excuded, or worse, killed because they called thier god(s) something else? Is that moral? I think not.

[McKitty]

Just because someone is godless does not mean that they are immoral, or a-moral. It is still obvious to most healthy human beings, athiest or otherwise that some actions are wrong (immoral) or right(moral).

Morality (good and evil, as the case may be) is less a function of religion, and more a function of society. From birth, people are trained to think that certain actions are wrong (IE rape, murder, genocide, etc), and that others are right. Religion is merely a method of further reinforcing those values.

I think that for too long atheism has been equated with immorality, and religion with purity. The two have no bearing on the other.

How can morality be equated with godliness when so many have been excuded, or worse, killed because they called thier god(s) something else? Is that moral? I think not.

Thankyou. I couldn't rewrite that better if I wanted to. Reps for you.

[Buddha Monkey]

As has been beaten to death, good and evil do not need God/gods to exist. All it needs is humanity to believe that something is good.

Ask your atheist friends is they think that killing is good? Is it evil?

And, if they keep saying that there is no good or evil, get onto them everytime they say something's good.

There will always be good and evil, as long as there is a creature with a higher thought process.

[Kamiel]

How do we determine morality? If we determine it based on what we think is good, then what about the society where murder and rape are normal things maybe even lauded?

[Redwolf_Claw]

In most civilized societies rape and murder are wrong and usually the civilized societies are the ones in power, therefore, they are the ones that usually determine morality for everyone else.
(What usually happens to those societies where rape and murder are encouraged? They either fall or are taken over by missionaries. They usually do not last very long. Take the Manson family for example....)

[Kamiel]

So power determines what is right and wrong?

[Vendetta]

It is still obvious to most healthy human beings, athiest or otherwise that some actions are wrong (immoral) or right(moral).
I would refute that. I don't think being amoral marks one as being unhealthy in a societal sense. And in fact I think mankind as a whole is amoral for the most part. Morals are just those things which he or she uses for convenience sake. As soon as the going gets tough see how little people cling to their "morals". They are simply a paper-thin veneer around the beast that is man.

From birth, people are trained to think that certain actions are wrong (IE rape, murder, genocide, etc), and that others are right.
What I find more interesting is the fact that often these moral imperatives are instilled in us by people who themselves don't adhere to said morals (hell, witness the whole Catholic Church scandal.)

I agree with you though for far too long has any sort of difference of faith or religion been an excuse to regard people as immoral or wrong. But that's a religious issue, not a philosophical one.

Morals are what we like to sugar-coat our world with. We are often flexible in our moral attitudes, often dispensing with them altogether at our convenience.

[Vendetta]

As has been beaten to death, good and evil do not need God/gods to exist. All it needs is humanity to believe that something is good.

Ask your atheist friends is they think that killing is good? Is it evil?

And, if they keep saying that there is no good or evil, get onto them everytime they say something's good.

There will always be good and evil, as long as there is a creature with a higher thought process.
I might say a food is "good" or that an actor was "bad" in a film. I do not mean this in any sort of moral good/evil value judgement.

Good and evil are manmade creations, and as a man myself, I can fully dispense with them and see them as the uneccessary terms they are.

[Lycan_bites]

So power determines what is right and wrong?

Well that's the way it certainly seems. Majority wins, eh?

[McKitty]

So power determines what is right and wrong?

In the human society, yes. Look at the Catholic church history: They had the entire land of Erope fearing that if they did not act 'morally' the way the church wanted, then they die.

[LycanSpectre]

I would refute that. I don't think being amoral marks one as being unhealthy in a societal sense. And in fact I think mankind as a whole is amoral for the most part. Morals are just those things which he or she uses for convenience sake. As soon as the going gets tough see how little people cling to their "morals". They are simply a paper-thin veneer around the beast that is man.

It sounds like you have a black and white picture of what is right and wrong. Yes, some things are unquestionably wrong, but many others fall into that expansive grey area. Indulging in a little selfishness isn't something I would consider immoral in most minor circumstances. And in times of crisis, reverting to a survival of the fittest response is only natural. Its in our genes.

And yes, peole do lie about what their morals are. Such is life. But I'd say that most people have some degree of ingraned morality that society has instilled in them. When someone deviates from the social norm and engages in harmful behavior (to themselves or others) then it is considered unhealthy. Being selfish is in itself a code of ethics (AKA morality). And not everyone has the same set of morals within a socitety. Yes within the natural residents of a country, the same socity raised everyone, but different aspects of that socity impact people in different ways. You cannot expect someone who was raised in poverty to have the same moral code as someone from an affluent background.

We are not all the same. We do not have bar codes tattooed on our foreheads. Different things will impact different people in different ways. And through these differing experiences, and differing interpretations of these experiences, people will develop different morals.

And even someone raised in poverty knows that murder, rape, and genocide are wrong. When they engage in any of these, it is considered unhealthy, and immoral.

What I find more interesting is the fact that often these moral imperatives are istilled in us by people who themselves don't adhere to said morals (hell, witness the whole Catholic Church scandal.)

Amazing, isn't it?

[FMtRIS]

Human created concepts. Are there natural equivalents? Are trees good? Are trees evil?

[Kamiel]

If might makes right then who is to say that Hitler was wrong when he controlled most of Europe?

[J.L.R.]

Is there such a thing as Good and Evil...

Yes...

"How do you know?"

Because Necro was born! :D

Okay a more serious, less satiric answer...

Good and Evil are concepts...words to behavior that is acceptible or unacceptable in a given situation and culture. We could define such concepts as to what would promote survival or as to what would be counter-survival. So any behavior that would promote the well-being of our species to further our existance, would be considered good. Any behavior that is counter-survival, in such a way that it would lessen our chances of survival, would be considered evil.

Some would try to argue that killing off another species could then be considered good, if such killings would promote the existance of the "higher" species... However, this is not the case. In any ecosystem there is symbiosis. When symbiosis is disturbed it creates a rift that could be catastrophic, and thus cause mass extinction.

We have seen this many times, where we have wipped out alpha carnivores, such as wolves in order to promote our own agriculture. In such cases, prey animals, then become too numerous, and thus millions of dollars is spent each year, to take care of animals, that the natural predators took care of in the first place.

[LycanSpectre]

Human created concepts. Are there natural equivalents? Are trees good? Are trees evil?


I dont think inanimate objects are capable of being inherently good or evil.

If might makes right then who is to say that Hitler was wrong when he controlled most of Europe?

The victor of war gets the privelidge of writing history the way they want it. I'm sure that if Hitler had won WWII, he would have made the history books say he was virtuous and good.

Fortunatly for the world, his might was opposed, and the Allies won. So, no, Hitler was not right. Not even when might makes right.

[FMtRIS]

I dont think inanimate objects are capable of being inherently good or evil.


That was not meant as a literal analogy. Okay, take an animate being and apply the same analogy. Your pick.

[LycanSpectre]

That was not meant as a literal analogy. Okay, take an animate being and apply the same analogy. Your pick.

Again, I'd say no. Posessing morality implies posession of sentience, and higher thought processes. As far as I know, no animals posess either. And if they did, morality would probably be overrided by the need for survival. After all, Darwin doesn't really care much about the morality of the weak. Morality is a luxury we have been able to develop since we reached the top of the food chain.

Now that I've said that morality is a luxury, let me clarify. It is a luxury when you look at it from the darwinian aspecty, but a necessity when you take the societal aspect.

[FMtRIS]

Again, I'd say no. Posessing morality implies posession of sentience, and higher thought processes. As far as I know, no animals posess either. And if they did, morality would probably be overrided by the need for survival. After all, Darwin doesn't really care much about the morality of the weak. Morality is a luxury we have been able to develop since we reached the top of the food chain.

Now that I've said that morality is a luxury, let me clarify. It is a luxury when you look at it from the darwinian aspecty, but a necessity when you take the societal aspect.

Frederick Neitzsche wrote "An animal which could speak once said, At least humanity is a prejudice of which we animals are free." If taken into the context of sentience, then his quote would appear to be contradictory. I wonder if that was his implication? Probably. However, that illustrates the state of the human equation in good and evil. Its a conceptual state to describe extremes of human behavior. I might add that nature is not evil, rather it might be destructive but it doesn't have a choice in that process.

[Vendetta]

It sounds like you have a black and white picture of what is right and wrong.Actually I think you missed my point entirely. I don't have ANY picture of right and wrong. My point was these are manmade precepts and as far as I'm concerned serve no real purpose to a true thinking man (or woman.)

Yes, some things are unquestionably wrongThey ARE? To whom?? Sounds like YOU are the one who has a black and white definition of right and wrong.

Indulging in a little selfishness isn't something I would consider immoral in most minor circumstances.Look around you! Mankind does't just engage in small selfish acts; we like to be selfish and aggrandizing on a HUGE scale. Mankind is a selfish, greedy animal. That isn't an opinion, that is FACT.

And in times of crisis, reverting to a survival of the fittest response is only natural. Its in our genes.The problem is most overtly selfish and "immoral" acts you see perpetrated today AREN'T done out of neccessity.

And yes, peole do lie about what their morals are. Such is life. But I'd say that most people have some degree of ingraned morality that society has instilled in them. When someone deviates from the social norm and engages in harmful behavior (to themselves or others) then it is considered unhealthy. Being selfish is in itself a code of ethics (AKA morality). And not everyone has the same set of morals within a socitety. Yes within the natural residents of a country, the same socity raised everyone, but different aspects of that socity impact people in different ways. You cannot expect someone who was raised in poverty to have the same moral code as someone from an affluent background.

We are not all the same. We do not have bar codes tattooed on our foreheads. Different things will impact different people in different ways. And through these differing experiences, and differing interpretations of these experiences, people will develop different morals.Wow. I don't know where ANY of that came from. My point was that morality, as it were, is a ridiculous concept that man perpetrates on himself, and is for the most part useless. I don't CARE what moral code people from different backgrounds have.

And even someone raised in poverty knows that murder, rape, and genocide are wrong. When they engage in any of these, it is considered unhealthy, and immoral.There you go again applying YOUR morality on everyone. If people raised in poverty KNOW that murder, rape & genocide are wrong why do so many impoverished neighborhoods see an increase in violent crimes?

[Hellcat]

The vast majority of the human race (and most other animals come to think of it) have an instinct to survive. Survival is the basic instinct of most, if not all animals. If killing another means self preservation moral code no longer has a meaning. Evil and its opposite are nothing more than man made concepts that hold together the structure of modern human existence. Without these concepts human society would rapidly decline into something we might (in our present moral judgement) assume as barbaric. The only evil that exists is that everyone sees it differently. If everyone shared the same opinion only then could evil exist. Until that time it remains a matter of opinion.

Is murder wrong? by moral interpretation it is wrong, but without morals would it still be wrong? Lets pretend we are still living in a modern existence with the same laws, but we have no morals. This means we can whatever the hell we like so long as we don't break the law. Now is murder wrong? Illegal yes, but is it wrong? I think not,there is nothing wrong with murdering your next door neighbour just because you don't like his shirt... it's not wrong, but it is illogical. Your neighbour isn't a threat to you, you just hate his taste in clothes. You could kill him because you feel like it, but that would put you in a position in which you are under threat. You can be punished by the law, you may be incarcerated or worse. So where is the logic in killing your neighbour just because you feel like it?


[edit] my computer dsylexia seems to be getting worse :P I think I've covered the errors now, but correct me if I'm wrong