Good and Evil

[ramenkage]

do they exist, if so define them

good and evil is relative what may seem like good to one person is evil to another

in a general sense, i see good as a mutual or even altrustic (sp?) act and evil as a selfish act

[Zero]

Evil: Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.

Assuming Good(pure is a better word, IMO) is the complete opposite of Bad we have the definition as:

Pure : Morally good or correct; virtuous.

Or something like that, now the keywords in both of these definition is Moral

Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.

Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.

Which, in the end just means what you think is right, and what you think is wrong. Meaning what's Good for one is Evil for another. What's Evil for one is Good for the other. Which just jumbles everything into opinions.

Now, I think they exist, it's just undefinable, seeing as it changes person to person.

"There is always an act of evil in a gest of kindness. There will always be light in the darkest deeds.", I forget who said that, I'm just repeating it from memory.

In the end, they exist. You just can't define them properly.

[kinonai]

It's different for each person. (Although I think that killing should be 'evil' for everyone. Then again, from someone else's point of view, I may seem completely wrong.)

[ramenkage]

if its relative, then does that mean that it is inappropriate(sp?) to label someone as either good or evil?

[Zero]

if its relative, then does that mean that it is inappropriate(sp?) to label someone as either good or evil?

Of course it is, you have no right to judge someone. We have no idea what has happened to them. We can not fully understand their inspiration of being like what they are. So it's just not appropriate to judge people. We can judge their acts of being wrong or correct, but nothing more.

[ramenkage]

We can judge their acts of being wrong or correct, but nothing more.
then can you tell me what a wrong or correct act is?

[Zero]

A wrong act is something inmoral. A correct act is something moral. :p

[ramenkage]

A wrong act is something inmoral. A correct act is something moral.
haha were back to square one
for me at least, morality is as relative as good and evil

[Schoulayer]

Would a retard who bludgeons somebody to death be evil, if he truely thinks hes just playing a game (because hes retarded?) ... no. An act itself isn't innately evil, the motivation behind it is what makes it evil. I'd define evil as doing something you KNOW is wrong. "Somebody who has the intelligence to see his griefing others in his act and does it anyway because he feels like it."

There are different degrees of "evil." Somebody pops random peoples tires, knowing they could be inconvenienced for hours for no reason whatsoever has commited an evil act. Aswell as somebody who tricks two people into fighting eachother for his own sadistic amusement. While they're minor acts, nonetheless they're born of malicious intent.

Good is the polar opposite. Sacraficing yourself for others. Taking in a homeless man, and feeding him is "good." Your losing something (food) and gaining nothing personally to aid a stranger. Testifying in court against a murderer regardless of threats against your life is "good." Your not just putting him away, your saving the life of every victim he might kill in the future - and risking yourself in the process.

Thats my take on it anyway.

[ramenkage]

Would a retard who bludgeons somebody to death be evil, if he truely thinks hes just playing a game (because hes retarded?) ... no. An act itself isn't innately evil, the motivation behind it is what makes it evil. I'd define evil as doing something you KNOW is wrong. "Somebody who has the intelligence to see his griefing others in his act and does it anyway because he feels like it."
what you say may be true, but what if that evil people believes that his act are justified?

im curious as to why some people are good and others are evil. ive discussed before that religion scares people into being good because they are otherwise doomed to damnation. however, there are those who dont consider the consequences of their actions and act upon their conscience. why would they put themselves in harms way if they are not quaranteed anything in return?

[Jedimuse]

well to me evil is doing something to which you know will cause harm to others and do it disregarding the other person's feelings or well being. For example if u chose to speed in front of a school zone just when the kids are coming out and u know some kids may get hurt, but u do anyways because u want to, then that's evil. So it comes down to a person's knowledge of what he/she is doing, their understanding of how it affects others and whether or not they give a rat ass abou the other people.

[ramenkage]

well to me evil is doing something to which you know will cause harm to others and do it disregarding the other person's feelings or well being. For example if u chose to speed in front of a school zone just when the kids are coming out and u know some kids may get hurt, but u do anyways because u want to, then that's evil. So it comes down to a person's knowledge of what he/she is doing, their understanding of how it affects others and whether or not they give a rat ass abou the other people.speeding isnt a very good example.there is almost never a situation where a choice is purely good or evil. if it was, than the world would be simple.
take for instance, if you had the power to kill every one with aids would you do it? to kill everyone with aids would solve a world epidemic at the cost of millions of lives. to not do it would be to threaten the lives of millions.

[Zero]

speeding isnt a very good example.there is almost never a situation where a choice is purely good or evil. if it was, than the world would be simple.
take for instance, if you had the power to kill every one with aids would you do it? to kill everyone with aids would solve a world epidemic at the cost of millions of lives. to not do it would be to threaten the lives of millions.

I'd do it in the blink of an eye, if I knew for sure that it would eradicate AIDS and won't up-bring any new virus in the process.

Now would I be considered evil? Of course, by those that have lost people. Would I be considered good? It's possibly, from people who view it from an unbiased position.

Would that change who I'm though? No, of course not. I would still be who I an. Yet likewise, would be considered someone as bad I don't know, lets say Hitler. Or I could be considered one of the greatest developpers for the new generation.

[Chase-Kun]

Well "Chase-kun" is my screename here usually i use "MegaEvils" mainly cause I'm evil in all my games,..

Evil in my opnion is not really evil,... its just being selfish... "I WANT TO RULE TEH WORLD!!".... thats being selfish... or when someone is dieing and you point and laugh cause its not you,.. selfish....

and good is being loveing and careing,... you see a kitten in teh rain,... you take it inside,.. you see someone drop a wallet,.. you give it back... those are examples of good,...

I personally dont really belive in good or evil but i do belive in Karma,...>.>.. i rack enough good Karma points i can steal someones wallet and still be good.. where as if i did nothing but jack wallets and steal thats alot of bad karma points and you get caught stealing and your thrown in jail... works the same way with good Karma points,.. get enough good Karma and you might win teh lottery.....

thats just my opnion... >.>

[Schoulayer]

what you say may be true, but what if that evil people believes that his act are justified?

In that case I don't believe the person is evil. I'd define an evil act as "knowing your doing something wrong and doing it anyway." If you believe your justified your act isn't born of evil intent.

P.S. Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy

[ramenkage]

In that case I don't believe the person is evil. I'd define an evil act as "knowing your doing something wrong and doing it anyway." If you believe your justified your act isn't born of evil intent.

P.S. Sorry for the late reply, I've been busy
no worries, were flexible around this forum

were discussing this in health class a few years back. the topic was about psychotics and how when they murder they see their victims as inanimate objects and thus in their minds they are not killing. also there are cases like hitler, where he may have believed that the elimination of the jews would be for the betterment of the world. would that be evil?

[nighthawksw]

even if you're doing something that is wrong, it doesn't necissarily mean it's evil. it's "wrong" to betray a friend or family, but if it saves their life are you being evil? Granted, that's an extreme situation, but the point stands. There aren't wrongs or rights, just opinions in the form of morals and views. I'm not condoning anything, merely stating that if the general public agree with views, things that are "right" and "wrong" can swiftly change. Our right's and wrong's, even if we do agree with them, were taught to us by our peers and parents. There's a majority concensus now that having slaves is wrong, but back when they were commonplace, people thought having slaves was right. Our morals are built first on our society, then by our peers/experiances. And what is it, if not our morals, which decides evil from good?

[ramenkage]

even if you're doing something that is wrong, it doesn't necissarily mean it's evil. it's "wrong" to betray a friend or family, but if it saves their life are you being evil? Granted, that's an extreme situation, but the point stands. There aren't wrongs or rights, just opinions in the form of morals and views. I'm not condoning anything, merely stating that if the general public agree with views, things that are "right" and "wrong" can swiftly change. Our right's and wrong's, even if we do agree with them, were taught to us by our peers and parents. There's a majority concensus now that having slaves is wrong, but back when they were commonplace, people thought having slaves was right. Our morals are built first on our society, then by our peers/experiances. And what is it, if not our morals, which decides evil from good?
i believe that there is a common good and evil belief in humans, in all cultures we condemn many of the same evil acts. about slavery, it is all prespective. if you see blacks as humans, then its an evil act, if not then its not. to the southerners, slaves were nothin but talking cattles. its not wrong to put a cattle to work

[crazyazn]

the line that defines that is but a blurr....
each and every person has their own difinitions about that...
but it is society's(the people at large) that decides if your definition is ok or not..
sad enough as it is..:(

[Sgt.Reaper]

The definition of Good and Evil lies in the eye of the beholder and is strickly a thing that is interpreted diffrently by everyone.

I personally think that there are to much moral bullshit that says that u are Evil, just becouse of the methods that u use to change something.
I think that there It sometimes are nessecary to do "imoral" acts to reach a goal that are good for humanity in an efficient way.

But that just me thinking humanety are to shortsighted for theire own good and is going to pay for it in the near future.

Easiest way to define it:
Good:Humanity gains from the act.
Evil: Humanty suffers from the act.

Then tere is just the question if humanty needs to suffer to learn certain lessons.

[freja9]

sometimes good and evil is dictated by the society. a good act performed by someone might even endanger another person. an evil act might also benefit others. the line for good and evil is just a gray line.

[Sgt.Reaper]

When i mean that an act is good for humanity i mean that humanity is driven forward by that act.

[kinonai]

Of course it is, you have no right to judge someone. We have no idea what has happened to them. We can not fully understand their inspiration of being like what they are. So it's just not appropriate to judge people. We can judge their acts of being wrong or correct, but nothing more.
Exactly. Had we gone through the exact same experiences as them, we might actually relate....then on the other hand...maybe not. It really just depends.

[Kiechi]

I think it just boils down to subjection. Like Zero said, "It can not be defined". In aspects I agree, in others I don't. Someone previously mentioned "killing is evil". I don't comply. Not in all cases soemone who kills someone always have evil intentions. For example doctors who take people off life support machines because they are unable to live without the aid of a machine. Is that considered "evil"?

[Tanpaku]

good and evil are determined by the morals of the society they are in. they are just opinions. since religion pretty much dictates a person's morals it is natural that religion would make a person good or bad.

after the 9/11 bombings i remember hearing someone saying that "one country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter" things like this are based on a persons beliefs and opinions. there is no universal right or wrong or good or evil.

on another note, there is no good without evil and no evil without good. the two need to coexist for a person to be able to form an opinion of what moral standards should be. without any kindness or love in the world 'evil' wouldn't exist. it would be considered standard and you would come to expect to see people being killed and other acts like that. the situation would be the same if there was only good.

[sinkinswimmer]

I think it's easier to put a label on things than to actually define "good" and "evil". But I do believe such things exist.

[Kiechi]

I also believe both have to counter balance.

[Sgt.Reaper]

Both need to exist in order to define the other. If there would be "good" without "evil" how would we know it to be "good".

[Kiechi]

Both need to exist in order to define the other. If there would be "good" without "evil" how would we know it to be "good".

If a rose wasn't red how would we know it was a rose? We wouldn't.

[Ryudell]

Err... that wasn't quite it, but I do get the point.

[Porkchop Express]

If a rose wasn't red how would we know it was a rose? We wouldn't.

ah... but roses also come in pink and peach and white and black... I may be making a point, I may just be being a little disagreeable. Either way I refuse to discuss this subject further.

...smooth...

[Kiechi]

Both need to exist in order to define the other. If there would be "good" without "evil" how would we know it to be "good".

Fine fine fine. Disregarding my previous post, I think we would be able to know it as "good". Reason for this is everything has an opposite. There is always something on the other side of the fence. So if the world was full of evil, I'm sure people would think what would it be like if it were the oppoisite. Right?

[Sgt.Reaper]

Fine fine fine. Disregarding my previous post, I think we would be able to know it as "good". Reason for this is everything has an opposite. There is always something on the other side of the fence. So if the world was full of evil, I'm sure people would think what would it be like if it were the oppoisite. Right?
But if people never new the exsitence of "Good" they wouldn't it was in fact "Evil" or "bad". Therefore they wouldn't look for anything else.
For people to complain about something they must have something to compare it to. To call something "Evil" or "bad" they need to know about something that is better/different from theire current situation.

In the end Good and Evil are concepts that only lies in eyes of the beholder and are not percepted if not both exist in the world of the beholder and can be compared with each other.

[Tanpaku]

yes, think of the citizens from orwell's 1984. they were brought up believing that their life was the best anywhere in the world although by our standards they would be considered enslaved and opressed.