|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Nov 4, 2008 23:09:49 GMT -5
Can there be any definitive definition of good or of evil? Is there such thing as a 'good' or an 'evil', or is it simple a distinguishment between what causes suffering and what does not? If there can be any good or evil, then how is it determined?
I will try (as best I can) to facilitate discussion for both sides of this argument, if need be. Also, realize that any 'my religion says this is good and this is bad, so that's the only truth to the matter' will not suffice. This is a logical debate, and you must have complete answers with good explanations. I do not mind if you say that your religion is what makes you think one way or another, but you must go more in depth than that.
|
|
|
Post by bubblon on Nov 5, 2008 15:34:24 GMT -5
There is no good or evil, only conflicting views. I can give you the perfect example: Adolf Hitler & the Holocaust. Just about everyone here can agree that what he was doing was just about the worst acts in recorded history. What he did was horrible, disgusting, and... evil! <-- That right there is nothing more than my own opinions. Hmmm... but you have to think... What was going through Hitler's mind? If he thought what he was doing was "evil", would he have still done it? I don't think so, he thought he was doing the world a favor, and he was trying to rise his country up above everyone else. He must've believed that what he was doing was a good thing, to get his country it's "rightful position" in the world.
There are bad things that people have done and acknowledge themselves that it's evil and terrible, such as drugs, murder, revenge, and cheating on loved ones. Not all people will think of them as evil. Drugs are stupid, says I. Pothead Jerry on the other hand believes it's just good clean fun. Murder is terrible, says I. Hmmm... the man who lost his wife to a corrupt police officer might think otherwise. Though it would be "righteous" to sue the man and send him to prison, yet condemning someone to life in a cage sounds cruel as well. Evil? Not to most people. Good? Not to the man being sued and his family. And on to cheating, 'tis one of the worst things to do when you're in love, says I. Hotshot Robert over there might consider himself a "player". He probably doesn't see the evil in his actions, believing either women are objects, or believing he's above everyone else.
Simply put, no one wants to believe what they are doing is evil, and if you tell them that it is, most of the time, they'll have an excuse to "prove" what they are doing is "okay".
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Nov 5, 2008 20:46:33 GMT -5
I agree that hardly anyone believes their own actions are evil. Or, more accurately, they believe that their actions are justified in some way. They can believe something like murder is necessary, and still believe that it is a horrible thing to do.
But if you say that there are only conflicting viewpoints, and not a good vs. evil, how can you say that Hitler was evil? Or even that what he did was bad at all? Without a good and evil, there is no way that Hitler's actions can be the worst in history. From your first sentence, what Hitler did was just him carrying out one view of how the world should be. No different than Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and other such figures. They all had an ideal of how the world should be - they each carried out furthering their cause in their own manner. How is any worse than another when there is no such thing as good vs evil?
(Please understand that everything I say may not be in concordance with my own views. I am doing this to stimulate discussion on the matter. However, I will admit that this is a view on life that I debate about - hence the fact I made this topic. Right now, I'm heading for the POV I'm arguing, but either raw instinct or the views that culture impresses upon me - and other people - keep me from totally thinking that I truly believe this.)
|
|
|
Post by khaos54321 on Aug 8, 2009 15:27:35 GMT -5
I believe that there is absolutely a visible difference between good and evil. We all have free will, and with it also comes one major limit which I believe is to restrain from taking away the free will of others. That is why rules and regulations are set, to make sure we don't interfere with the free will of others. Because of that, if you take away the free will of someone you are in fact bad, and to which degree will determine whether you really are evil.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Aug 12, 2009 14:40:20 GMT -5
I disagree for a couple reasons. One, I simply don't believe there's a right and wrong. However, even if there is a right and a wrong (which I'm not letting myself completely rule out), then I believe there is some grey area in between what is right and what is wrong. Take this, for example: if 'wrong' is really when you infringe on someone else's freedom and 'right' is when you avoid that, what about putting a murderer in prison? Wouldn't that be wrong, since the murderer no longer has the freedom to go where he/she wants or do what he/she wants?
|
|
|
Post by khaos54321 on Aug 17, 2009 13:01:49 GMT -5
That's why at least the majority has accepted a set of rules that allows the separation of right and wrong. So since the murderer took away someone's freedom, the rules state that their freedom be taken away. Free will isn't a birthright, it's a privelige, and if you take that privilege away from someone, then you must face the appropriate consequence.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Aug 17, 2009 13:35:19 GMT -5
[sorry, unimportant point, but I've had definitions for both 'free will' and 'freedom' ingrained in me during morality class last semester. For me, free will means the ability to choose, and that can never be taken away, not even when you're put in prison. I disagree with the Catholic definition of 'freedom', however, and I'll be using it in the same sense you've been using it. And by my definition of both terms, 'freedom' would be a more accurate substitute for how you've been using free will. I don't need you to change your terminology or anything - this simply clarifies what I mean whenever I use either term in the discussion]
Let me make sure I understand you correctly. Do you say that an action that takes away someone's freedom is always wrong? If so, then no matter the context of the situation, putting someone in jail takes away that person's freedom, and would thus be wrong. If not, then please explain more on what you think defines 'right' and 'wrong' actions.
|
|
|
Post by khaos54321 on Aug 20, 2009 15:33:16 GMT -5
Well, right and wrong has been set up by common moral stature. It's obviously wrong to kill someone, as everyone agrees, and it's right to provide charity. Most of it incorperates free will and opportunity, so if one decides to take away such a right, then punishment should follow, which is also considered right because you are preventing the continuity of such actions.
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Spirit on Aug 23, 2009 19:30:03 GMT -5
Okay, so what about this. A woman and her children are starving, but there is no way she can possibly get a job. She manages to steal repeatedly from a local grocery store, though the store is currently very close to bankruptcy and henceforth needs the money that they would have gotten for those stolen food items. Would you say the woman is good (or at least neutral, since she's only trying to survive), bad (since she's stealing), or somewhere in between (since she has good intentions, but bad actions)?
|
|
|
Post by khaos54321 on Aug 26, 2009 14:42:15 GMT -5
Ok, that's a very low level of unlawful activity. I guess to clarify what approach I go towards is that there are levels, ranging from peer outlook law abiding, going onto conditioned charitability, and the highest would have to be pure selflessness in the "Good" category while there are misguided law breaking going onto corrupted acts of terror to being absolutely evil. So the lady that steals in desperation would be, to me, considered misguided law breaking, but something like Michael Myers would be true evil, and I'm sure you'll find maybe only a small minority of them, but they are there.
|
|