Good, evil and neutrality.

[vanir]

Since many SW fans seem to find the Dark Side diametric a little too black and white, and many young people have a similar complaint about established religion, I thought it might make an interesting discussion.

 

Is life black and white to your thinking?

What do the words good, evil and neutrality mean to you?

 

Feel free to come from philosophy, religion, reference or any source you like.

[jrrtoken]

One thing that really gets me is the notion that if you do morally "good" deeds, then you, yourself, must be inherently and strictly good, and vice-versa with "bad". The same goes for those who consider the only way to fulfill our purpose in life is to be strictly good or bad.

 

I feel that the only way to live life to its fullest is to experience, and therefore do, what is considered good and evil in the world, without aligning to any particular end of the moral spectrum. By this, knowledge and experience becomes the prime aspiration of life, and through it, one gains a broader sense of the world as a whole.

[Jae Onasi]

Well, when you do evil to 'fully experience life' without the thought about the moral spectrum, I promise to come visit you in jail anyway.

[mur'phon]

I believe there is no good or evil because I A: don't believe in free will, because B: we always seem to make the choice that benefits us the most. clicky to thread where I explained it more fully

[Trench]

One thing that really gets me is the notion that if you do morally "good" deeds, then you, yourself, must be inherently and strictly good, and vice-versa with "bad". The same goes for those who consider the only way to fulfill our purpose in life is to be strictly good or bad.

 

I feel that the only way to live life to its fullest is to experience, and therefore do, what is considered good and evil in the world, without aligning to any particular end of the moral spectrum. By this, knowledge and experience becomes the prime aspiration of life, and through it, one gains a broader sense of the world as a whole.

 

So... When you go to prison, can I have your profile?

[Miltiades]

Morality is a human thing, it isn't natural. Therefore, I don't believe "good" and "evil" exist as universal terms.

[Alkonium]

I personally don't believe in moral absolutes, or at least not as rigidly as other people. Personally, I think that matters the most about a person's actions are how it affects others, not actually what the action is.

[Q]

Is life black and white to your thinking?

Yes, it is. I think that gray is just black in disguise.

good

It's desirable, but it can be a real liability around people who practice evil, because it enables them. It's best when equipped with an "on-off" switch, and that only comes with practice.

evil

I derive no pleasure out of doing evil, so I try not to do it as a rule, but I also acknowledge that sometimes it is very necessary and I no longer feel any guilt for doing evil when I believe the situation calls for it.

neutrality

No such thing, AFAIK. It's just evil in disguise, and evil can wear some very clever disguises.

Feel free to come from philosophy, religion, reference or any source you like.

Just my personal experience.

[vanir]

About to get picked up for work so I'll make this hasty.

 

Interesting that many associate good/evil with only moral choice, or regional politics. What about where it is thought of applied to the simplest easily observable life, plants? Something which kills it is bad. Something which makes it grow is good.

 

Does this sort of context change our view of good/evil?

 

Naturally it quickly gets about as complicated as we do about behavioural choices. What if the plant lives by usurping the nutrients of many more other types of plants? What if it grows by even more directly killing other plants?

 

Where does corrupt life fall into good/evil, good but with evil intent? Whereby in this hypothesis evil would be a lethal plague or an unlivable environment.

[Ray Jones]

There is no good and evil.

[vanir]

There is no good and evil.

 

...

 

Hitler will be pleased to hear you say this. Not so sure about his victims.

 

: |

[Q]

This isn't the first time that Ray has stated this, and my response would have been exactly like yours had I not known that Ray is German.

 

Perhaps I should have said it anyway.

[Salzella]

There is no good and evil.

 

I agree. too simplistic.

[vanir]

I agree. too simplistic.

 

Apparently not.

 

This isn't the first time that Ray has stated this, and my response would have been exactly like yours had I not known that Ray is German.

 

Me too (family escaped postwar Germany). I've spent several years learning to understand my Grandmother by getting to know Hitler and the Nazi regime and have become convinced he is the most public, excellent example of evil if we are to quantify its human existence. Certainly there are others we could pick but none got so far, none are such common knowledge and have been examined in such detail and with Mein Kampf you even have his own thoughts plainly presented.

 

Of justification, devolvement presented as revolutionary, subjective renditions of common ideals, dismissive regard for any concept of considerate behaviour. And always the undercurrent of hatred, arrogance and frustration.

 

 

 

I think the key point is that some behaviour must necessarily be considered aberrant if government is to exist. The day there is no good and evil among human behaviour is the day governments will no longer be required.

But then much aberrant behaviour may be attributable to economics and industry, so perhaps this will also be the day we construct or discover a slave race to replace the Third World and disadvantaged among us with...

[Ray Jones]

Are we gonna discuss who is 'evilest', and how bad mankind is, and are we gonna compare who has got the biggest Hitler card, are we gonna bitch about how the common 'Hitler-victim' has gone through the worst hell imaginable to man, or is this rather about the concept of good and evil?

 

 

Feel free to come from philosophy, religion, reference or any source you like.

Very obviously not.

[Lord of Hunger]

First of all I do not believe in human nature. While I may be half-Catholic (and half-Buddhist) in my religious beliefs I do not accept the Book of Genesis as valid not only due to the issue of evolution but the idea that somehow because two people made a transgression we are all born with some sort of inherent spiritual flaw. I do believe evil can be passed on by a disease, but I don't think that it is impossible to remove that evil without Christ since other religions do it as well. I do think that His teachings, however, are along with the Buddha's some of the most revolutionary ideas possible. I generally live my life on the principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

 

Now what is good and evil IMO? Good is the state of harmony, where reality functions as it should and people aspire for a higher state of being while not denying their own natures. Evil is the state of disharmony, where reality is dysfunctional and the spiritual condition of individuals is disrupted, causing them not only to function in extremes but pass on their disrupted state to others. What I would call sin is the harmful deeds done as a result of disharmony.

 

Thus I don't see the LS/DS/NS (neutral side) in my life or even in Star Wars. Most of what we consider good and evil is based on outdated societal norms or the teachings of abstract ideologies. Indeed, the greatest evil is the abstract, which has no relation to reality but causes disharmony by imposing itself upon it. That's why my view of "God" (whatever omnipotent, omnibenevolent progenitor that may exist) is not one of an abstract entity but one that is one in its creation. I feel that most religions see an abstract God and act in an abstract manner, causing disharmony and sins such as Islamo-terrorist and the Crusades. Yet since all beliefs in God have some base in the truth, they are nowhere near as bad as secular ideologies such as communism, nazism, utilitarianism, and nihilism. These have been the most damaging to the human condition.

 

Look at our society and try to tell me that there is not something wrong at the core of it. You have almost six billion people who have shatter personalities: who they are in relation to different scenarios is completely different from each one and from who they truly are. They lack true fulfillment, since most sources are scams that feed upon the ignorant. They are stuck in a state of triviality, their goals bound by a set of societal laws based upon no real life truths but the personal disharmony of the wretched idealists that form them (me being one of them once ).

 

One can only hope for harmony when one ignores the falsehoods of ideologies and society, and seeks truth in one's self. When one stops denying one's problems, one's nature, one can solve those problems and begin to find fulfillment.

 

This is why I favor the Sith over the Jedi in Star Wars. The Jedi inhibit their emotions and bind themselves to an abstract code which does not grant them the strength they need to survive and function in reality. The Sith created a code based upon accepting one's nature and seeking fulfillment. Unfortunately, their teachings have been corrupted by the idea that random cruelty and betraying one another advances one's self. In reality, it does not strengthen a Sith but weakens him/her. The Sith could achieve so much is they exhibited self-control after accepting their passions!

[Arcesious]

I generally live my life on the principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

 

Definitly a great absolute to live by, but it's not always that simple.

 

Now what is good and evil IMO? Good is the state of harmony, where reality functions as it should and people aspire for a higher state of being while not denying their own natures. Evil is the state of disharmony, where reality is dysfunctional and the spiritual condition of individuals is disrupted, causing them not only to function in extremes but pass on their disrupted state to others. What I would call sin is the harmful deeds done as a result of disharmony.

 

Ah but what are good, evil, harmory, and chaos but words representing our human interpretations of things? Good does not neccessarily equate to harmony, and neither does evil always equate to chaos. The thing we like to call morality is entirely subject to change because the idea of morality is a human construct.

 

Thus I don't see the LS/DS/NS (neutral side) in my life or even in Star Wars.

 

QFT.

 

 

Yet since all beliefs in God have some base in the truth,

 

Arguable...

 

they are nowhere near as bad as secular ideologies such as communism, nazism, utilitarianism, and nihilism. These have been the most damaging to the human condition.

 

Those are just the bad ones; but you have to admit, there are good ones too!

 

Look at our society and try to tell me that there is not something wrong at the core of it. You have almost six billion people who have shatter personalities: who they are in relation to different scenarios is completely different from each one and from who they truly are. They lack true fulfillment, since most sources are scams that feed upon the ignorant. They are stuck in a state of triviality, their goals bound by a set of societal laws based upon no real life truths but the personal disharmony of the wretched idealists that form them (me being one of them once ).

 

Perhaps, but not when a person 'thinks outside the box'.

 

One can only hope for harmony when one ignores the falsehoods of ideologies and society, and seeks truth in one's self. When one stops denying one's problems, one's nature, one can solve those problems and begin to find fulfillment.

 

[rhetoric]

Why would I deny/accept my problems when I can confront, dissect, and then correct them?

 

Is truth in us - mere primates, prone to error and irrationality; or is truth in that which is to be learned and discovered?

[/rhetoric]

 

 

 

This is why I favor the Sith over the Jedi in Star Wars. The Jedi inhibit their emotions and bind themselves to an abstract code which does not grant them the strength they need to survive and function in reality. The Sith created a code based upon accepting one's nature and seeking fulfillment. Unfortunately, their teachings have been corrupted by the idea that random cruelty and betraying one another advances one's self. In reality, it does not strengthen a Sith but weakens him/her. The Sith could achieve so much is they exhibited self-control after accepting their passions!

 

This discussion is getting interesting. I think you're approaching the concepts of natural law with these ideas.

[vanir]

Are we gonna discuss who is 'evilest', and how bad mankind is, and are we gonna compare who has got the biggest Hitler card, are we gonna bitch about how the common 'Hitler-victim' has gone through the worst hell imaginable to man, or is this rather about the concept of good and evil?

 

 

 

Very obviously not.

 

Well, we'll be rushing to you to see how to be dismissive about discussion topics. Thanks for the input Ray.

 

First of all I do not believe in human nature.

I haven't the slightest idea what you mean. It's an important sounding statement, something you seem to have put some thought into. Care to extrapolate?

 

in my religious beliefs I do not accept the Book of Genesis as valid not only due to the issue of evolution but the idea that somehow because two people made a transgression we are all born with some sort of inherent spiritual flaw.

Due to the nature of religion there are so many variables involved in perceptual renditions of scripture it is always more academically sound to quote specific references of it and examine those directly. Keep in mind both the Hebrew and Christian religions have been used for political purposes as well as philosophical ones through the ages, and many popularisations of scripture aren't entirely accurate.

 

I do believe evil can be passed on by a disease, but I don't think that it is impossible to remove that evil without Christ since other religions do it as well.

This is a fascinating sentence. I'd like to hear more.

 

I do think that His teachings, however, are along with the Buddha's some of the most revolutionary ideas possible. I generally live my life on the principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

An excellent rendition of secular Christianity. Very popular from about the Seventies.

 

Now what is good and evil IMO? Good is the state of harmony, where reality functions as it should and people aspire for a higher state of being while not denying their own natures. Evil is the state of disharmony, where reality is dysfunctional and the spiritual condition of individuals is disrupted, causing them not only to function in extremes but pass on their disrupted state to others. What I would call sin is the harmful deeds done as a result of disharmony.

 

By this state of "harmony" of course you are referring to what secular Buddhists describe as "enlightenment" whereupon a "state of Grace" is achieved via determined although not anxious, personal development. In one sense it is the retention of the incorrupt Self, in another an evolution of the spirit. A state of clarity is one good description, productive behaviour towards other life is a consequence, generally quite some academic potential is inherent.

But like fundamentalist Christians assert literal interpretations of often third party translated scripture, fundamentalist Buddhists assert that reincarnation is involved until such time as the immortal spirit attains such a state of nirvana, and rather oddly that it is the role of the otherwordly spirit to achieve this enlightenment whilst the human self simply goes through life doing what they are told. Fundamentalism of any flavour just loses the entire plot in my view.

[Darth Avlectus]

Good and evil. Hard to say.

 

I don't think anyone truly believes they are evil. Nobody does. It is more or less others' perceptions, and yours whether or not you truly are evil.

 

While it is not perceived in, say, the animal kingdom...it seems to be more or less a continuum in the world of those with higher awareness. And yet even so, nothing is quite so clean in our definitions...

 

I believe intent and will is the vital thing in making such determinations. Fate also is determined by your desires and wills, nothing more, nothing less. That is not to say, however, one can just make everything how one wishes. So oft, is it that persistence is underrated and talent overrated. But I digress. One can do what would be perceived as evil, but be doing it for the greater good.

 

A laxity in morals can be said to be a great evil. So often though we make compromises. So I really do wonder if self desire isn't an ultimate motivation. Self desire should not be confused with selfishness, though.

 

I don't care to get phillisophical about it, good and evil. My brain is tired right now. I'm sure I'll have much to say later on. Anyone curious as to my thoughts or beliefs on things, just ask.

 

There are, despite our wills and desires, inevitabilities. Things that cannot be stopped from happening ultimately--maybe delayed or altered in some way, but never really stopped.

 

I will give something to think about: Fighting for peace is a lie; a slogan. It is something, as a simple concept, to be championed. Peace is an unnatural state. Real, but unnatural. Which can only be achieved within society. Society is what is fought for. There are inevitable side effects with society: corruption, gangs, greed, outcasts, abuses, subversions, underhandedness. Ineffectiveness, inefficiency, ineptitude. Some way all these must be lived with one way or another: either culled and purged as one would dirt and trash in the house. Or lived with, maybe out of necessity. Then there is the other: that which is chosen; used on purpose. Careful though--you are being used back. But, all these follies exist in one form or another. It's how these are dealt with which, again, puts individuals at the center. Part of this was inspired by SW:Shatterpoint novel, in Matthew Stover's writings. Very morally gray, so's his version of ROTS.

 

What truly is evil or good...I have prettled on in other threads. I'll do again I suppose here, but for now, I'm tired.

 

I'll just end off on this one last note:

I personally don't believe in moral absolutes, or at least not as rigidly as other people. Personally, I think that matters the most about a person's actions are how it affects others, not actually what the action is.

 

So you're a moral situationalist?

 

Moral situationalist/situational ethics practitioner--I believe this is someone who, though believing in values/morals/beliefs etc. "rules" as their general code of ethical conduct, does not think every situation requires that you apply the same "rule" the same way. In other words it depends on the situation how you will act but you will try to maintain some significant semblance of a particular belief or another.

 

I.E.Thou shalt not kill can be interpreted a number of ways: Thou shalt not kill in the absolute sense means you'll never take another life no matter what. Situaitonal: maybe you won't murder another unprovoked or in cold malicious blood, but you'll defend yourself or others from harm or death from another, even if it means you must take an assailant's life.

 

You may believe something but you don't necessarily practice it the same as others.

[vanir]

I don't think anyone truly believes they are evil.

 

I really feel this is a primary point. In fact I don't think anyone is truly evil, but an act or pattern of behaviour I believe certainly can be.

I'll leave the case in point of Hitler, one mention is more than enough for any thread unless the topic is willingly pursued, although this is easily (as I mentioned) the best scholastic study example.

But a more winsome example might be say, have most of you seen the Keanu Reeves movie The Devil's Advocate? Look at how evil is portrayed here, not just the puppeteering Satan but Keanu's character, who through a series of eventualities finds himself alone on a deserted street with only one direction left to go, and a new father to inherit. Of course he used the default Catholic fineprint and made sacrifice, the only other option left, but the rendition of how he arrived there I think is a good one. He certainly didn't believe he was evil until he literally ran out of arguments otherwise and realised one shouldn't need to argue such a point, when all is said what's done is done and you are judged...you judge yourself.

 

 

Goodness per se I feel is a subject pertaining the most confusion. I feel it is the role of the manipulative to assert that evil is the absence of good (ie. do this, do that, or you are evil). Truth be told, and according to scripture, goodness is merely the absence of evil (careful not to do this or that and if you do, take some responsibility please because you'll wind up with it anyway).

 

I think understanding how not to be evil, learning as much as you develop is far more worthy of concern than stressing over what it means to be good. It's been said it doesn't buy you anything, but eventually or perhaps sooner, you'll find what others call good are the very things you quite enjoy doing, live for in fact.

[Ray Jones]

Well, we'll be rushing to you to see how to be dismissive about discussion topics. Thanks for the input Ray.

The idea that there is no good and evil has been offered multiple times in this thread, so I don't really understand why you started whining about Hitler when I said it. So much for being dismissive I guess.

[Jae Onasi]

It's pretty hard to dismiss good and evil when you see things like Mother Teresa's altruism or Jeffrey Dahmer's brutal torture, murder, and cannibalism of young boys.

[Fredi]

As Palpatin said, Evil is a point of view, for me good and bad is given it's own significance from each and everyone, My point of good might not be the same for you. Good, Evil and neutrality depends on you're believes and I am pretty flexible on this.

[Jae Onasi]

As Palpatin said, Evil is a point of view, for me good and bad is given it's own significance from each and everyone, My point of good might not be the same for you. Good, Evil and neutrality depends on you're believes and I am pretty flexible on this.

 

In some cultures they say 'love your neighbor'. In some cultures they eat their neighbors. Which 'point of good' do you prefer?

[Fredi]

In some cultures they say 'love your neighbor'. In some cultures they eat their neighbors. Which 'point of good' do you prefer?

 

haha I would choose Love your neighbor of course cause I have been thought that way, but if I wasn't maybe I would have picked the other option