Good, evil and neutrality.

[Totenkopf]

Or 'wrong, depending on the point of view', for that matter. However, I said there is no good and evil, not no right and wrong....I think morality is an absolute thing. Right and wrong, however, is not.

 

What then determines right and wrong from your pov? If it is not anchored in some form of morality, then perhaps expediency? Efficiency? Or...?

[Ray Jones]

You'll have to put 'right or wrong' in perspective to determine whether something is 'right' or 'wrong'. That could be morality, but also anything else.

[Totenkopf]

But that is exactly what's being asked of your position. What types of parameters are you using for dertermining right and wrong if not some type of moral code? Afterall, I didn't get the sense we were talking about whether it was right to use a hammer or screw driver when trying to nail something together. Or to use a gun instead of a knife to kill someone/thing.

[Ray Jones]

But that is exactly what's being asked of your position. What types of parameters are you using for dertermining right and wrong if not some type of moral code? Afterall, I didn't get the sense we were talking about whether it was right to use a hammer or screw driver when trying to nail something together. Or to use a gun instead of a knife to kill someone/thing.

If I wanted to act moral, not to kill any people would be one of the right things to do. If I wanted to kill my neighbour, telling the police about it beforehand seems like the wrong thing to do, but killing him would be the right since that is the goal.

 

If saving a million people from starvation meant mankind would go extinct 200 years later, what would be the right thing to do, regarding whether you wanted to trigger that event or not? And how does this relate to what you'd have to do 'right' to get laid every day?

[Totenkopf]

then perhaps expediency? Efficiency? Or...?

 

Ok, most of your examples fit into either of the 2 categories mentioned above. Noone is saying (far as I can tell, anyway) that all "right/wrong" decisions are questions of morality. But good/evil do fall in that category (ie morally right/wrong). For instance, robbing a bank during a blackout might be tactically right vs doing it in broad daylight w/a ton of witnesses, but robbing the bank would be immoral. Threatening to kill hostages may be right b/c it enables you to escape, but making such threats would also be immoral, especially if you carried them out. Unless, of course, it helped get you laid later that night. (obvious hint: being facetious here).

[EnderWiggin]

Even though atheism does not imply rationality in an individual, most secular people I know prefer to call themselves 'agnostic atheists', in that they are open to the existence of a deity if sufficient evidence is provided.

 

Well that seems dumb. Is this as opposed to 'atheist atheists' who would view this "sufficient evidence" (ie God talking from Heaven, etc) and then say, "I guess it was just thunder"?

 

I should hope that all atheists fall into your silly category. I've not met someone who has professed to being so anti-theism that they'd refuse to believe in the face of overwhelming Proof.

 

And if everyone falls into your category, why have a subcategory at all?

 

_EW_

[Totenkopf]

Well that seems dumb. Is this as opposed to 'atheist atheists' who would view this "sufficient evidence" (ie God talking from Heaven, etc) and then say, "I guess it was just thunder"?

 

Never underestimate people's capacity for self-delusion.

 

I should hope that all atheists fall into your silly category. I've not met someone who has professed to being so anti-theism that they'd refuse to believe in the face of overwhelming Proof.

 

Agnostic-atheism stikes me as trying to have it both ways. While Skin assures that such creatures exist, seems more like they are agnostics than atheists. They don't really know whether God exists, but assume for the sake of argument He doesn't. The problem often comes in getting them to concede what would constitue irrefutable proof.

If such an entity appeared, to what extent would they believe it was an advanced ET or mind trick versus a supernatural being.

[mur'phon]

Tot: I am such a creature, I do not believe that there is any god(s), as I have not seen any evidence. Until I see such evidence, I am an atheist, not an agnostic as I do not believe there is (a) god(s).

As for bothering to make it a separate category, I find it hard to fantom why someone wouldn't believe in god(s) given evidence, but then again, i find it hard to fantom why people believe in god(s) despite lacking evidence;)

[Darth_Yuthura]

Tot: I am such a creature' date=' I do not believe that there is any god(s), as I have not seen any evidence. Until I see such evidence, I am an atheist, not an agnostic as I do not believe there is (a) god(s).[/quote']

 

There is nothing wrong with believing a god, so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. That is why religion ends up causing more harm than good, because the whole monotheism dilemma encourages people of a certain religion that anyone else's god is false.

[Arcesious]

Well that seems dumb. Is this as opposed to 'atheist atheists' who would view this "sufficient evidence" (ie God talking from Heaven, etc) and then say, "I guess it was just thunder"?

 

I should hope that all atheists fall into your silly category. I've not met someone who has professed to being so anti-theism that they'd refuse to believe in the face of overwhelming Proof.

 

And if everyone falls into your category, why have a subcategory at all?

 

_EW_

 

Good point, you are correct that whether or not a person calls himself/herself an atheist or an agnostic atheist, there really isn't any difference. Thank you for correcting me on that.

 

If such an entity appeared, to what extent would they believe it was an advanced ET or mind trick versus a supernatural being.

 

Well if something appeared to be God-like, I'd expect that science would be attempted to be applied to determine exactly what that something was; before assuming it to be a diety, alien, illusion, or something else altogether.

 

It seems unlikely that self-delusion would end up being a factor in the conclusion of what the God-like thing was if logic was applied in analyzation of that thing.

[Totenkopf]

Tot: I am such a creature, I do not believe that there is any god(s), as I have not seen any evidence. Until I see such evidence, I am an atheist, not an agnostic as I do not believe there is (a) god(s).

As for bothering to make it a separate category, I find it hard to fantom why someone wouldn't believe in god(s) given evidence, but then again, i find it hard to fantom why people believe in god(s) despite lacking evidence;)

 

Right and you call yourself an atheist, not an agnostic atheist (unless I misinterpreted you here). I have no problem with people not believing in dieties. I just think the term "agnostic atheist" is like try to have it both ways, especially when some of those people go to lengths to also mock other people and their beliefs. It's just not rational to expect people to take one seriously about being open to a possibility when one's behavior demonstrates the exact opposite. Doesn't help being cagey about what they claim they're willing to accept as "evidence". To your last observation, I guess that's why they're beliefs and not cold hard facts.

 

Well if something appeared to be God-like, I'd expect that science would be attempted to be applied to determine exactly what that something was; before assuming it to be a diety, alien, illusion, or something else altogether.

It seems unlikely that self-delusion would end up being a factor in the conclusion of what the God-like thing was if logic was applied in analyzation of that thing.

 

Unfortunately, with no experience w/said type of entity or basis for comaprison, how would scientists really be able to distinguish one (God/god) from the other (extremely advanced ET)? I half imagine many of them exhorting "God" to create a rock so big that "He" couldn't lift it.

[Darth_Yuthura]

Well given that I haven't been able to throw in my interpretation of the original question until now; good, evil, and neutrality...

 

I would say that good and evil do exist beyond a doubt. They ARE extremely relative, as they depend upon the perspective of the individual in question.

 

Good, kindness, and honor are all values generated by humans; but they are different from person to person. What some would call a terrorist, the opposite side would call a freedom fighter. What one side would call a liberator, the other would call an invader. What one would call revenge, another would call justice.

 

Any act which surmounts to a conflict results in two or more sides fighting to make the opposite side see things their way. Anything other than a mutual resolution will always cause evil/malice/cruelty on both sides. Each side will call the opposite 'evil.' Which side is evil? They both are from the perspective of their adversary.

[ironheart]

I think religion is the source of almost all our problems. If we could just ditch it we'd all be a lot happier. I think of it as a human construct that helps us cope with the idea of death. It isn't so scary to die if you think you're going to get paradise or whatever after words.

 

Good and evil also a human idea. Everything else couldn't care less- animals, nature, whatever, they just -are-. A natural state of chaos, if you will. And then again, I don't think it's always as simple as good and evil. Sometimes we do some darned distasteful things for what we think is "right". It's all point of view. The tyrant doesn't think of himself as evil, but the people he's oppressing sure do.

 

If that makes sense at all.

[Totenkopf]

I don't think it's religion so much as man's apparent need to force others to be like himself. Religion is one of the many types of ideologies that mark mankind, but its elimination isn't likely to make mankind any happier. People will kill and abuse each other for just about any kind of reason. Tribalism, nationalism, communism, etc...

 

The problem with reducing concepts like good and evil to arbitrary constructs is that you ultimately make allowances for all types of behavior. Once you call all things essentially equal, you lose any authority to condemn anything. Man serial kills/rapes 1000 women? Well...from his pov he had some kind of biological/psychological need to carry out those "crimes". Who are we to judge? I agree that sometimes the forces of good and evil use similiar tactics (there was an OT Trek episode that dealt with that problem). Frankly, I think many practioners of "evil" both know what they're doing is wrong and just don't care. Hell, may even revel in that knowledge.

[Web Rider]

Is life black and white to your thinking?

Yes, and no. There is not simply 1 and -1, but there are opposites, where being one implicitly means that you are not the other, or cannot be the other.

 

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

Good and evil are abstract definitions of motive and action based upon what others find, or do not find appropriate at the time. Assuming there are no others, then good and evil are more or less non-existent and their personal equivalents will only form when the individual has time to spend upon them. If a person does not devote time to this, then they simply are. Others may judge them to be good or evil, but in a vacuum, they just are.

 

We of course, do not exist in a vacuum, and good and evil, right and wrong, are not limited to humans, even if we claim to have the greatest development of the concept. Certainly animals do not express what they feel to be right and what they feel to be wrong in the same manner that people do, but that is then of course, their sense of right and wrong developed differently than ours.

 

Neutrality doesn't exist. And people commonly confuse "neutrality" with balance. Simply existing causes a person to take a stand on something, and they are therefore not neutral, even if the subject they are not neutral on, such as feeling they have a right to breathe, seems stupid. A person who takes no opinion on a subject is not neutral either, as subjects can't be looked at in a 2 dimensional perspective. Their opinions on other subjects, even if their only opinion is that they like breathing, will pull them away from the central "ideal" neutrality. Refraining from expressing a perspective is not the same as not having a perspective, and ignorance of the subject is not neutrality.

 

Neutrality, like the number "zero" doesn't really exist, it's a place holder for a lack of value. People can however be balanced in their actions and opinions, but that doesn't make them neutral on the subject, if you cut down a tree and plant a tree, you can call the equation balanced, but not neutral. Action was taken, and another action was taken to counteract the effects of the previous action. Inaction is still action, allowing good or bad to happen is not because you have no position, but because you have no side, or the side you're on says not to take action. But again, not taking action is still an action, and is still a statement, and therefore an expression of your position on the subject.

 

 

The source of all of mankind's problems is of course, mankind. Without it, mankind would have no problems(since not existing can't be a problem for something that doesn't exist). As long as there is any remnant of mankind, there will be problems, problems with others, problems without others, problems because of too many others, because of too few. I'm sure we could eliminate a few things to improve the general state of mankind, but I'm also sure that those "few things" would soon snowball into "everyone but me", and that would again, be a problem for mankind.

 

The problem with reducing concepts like good and evil to arbitrary constructs is that you ultimately make allowances for all types of behavior. Once you call all things essentially equal, you lose any authority to condemn anything. Man serial kills/rapes 1000 women? Well...from his pov he had some kind of biological/psychological need to carry out those "crimes". Who are we to judge? I agree that sometimes the forces of good and evil use similiar tactics (there was an OT Trek episode that dealt with that problem). Frankly, I think many practioners of "evil" both know what they're doing is wrong and just don't care. Hell, may even revel in that knowledge.

 

Yes, and no. On an individual basis, total relative morality means that no single person has any assigned power over another other than their own will to express their power over another. Which may or may not result in a successful suppression or support of another's own morality. On a social relative morality, yes, people do have the power to judge, as such power is assigned through social consent, through verbal, social, legal, and so forth contracts between individuals on what exactly "morality" is and how it should be implemented.

 

And again, a person couldn't commit a "crime" if morality was 100% relative. Once a person has agreed to live by a particular code of morality, then others who follow that code can take them to par for violations of it if they so choose.

 

Morality still remains relative to societies and cultures that do not have any interaction, but at this point relativity is less important than social power. It doesn't really matter if I don't have a "right" to judge you, if I'm stronger and can effectively enforce my social system upon you, then it doesn't matter whose system is right or wrong, I won.

[Totenkopf]

Perhaps I should have said "moral authority", though I thought that implicit. I don't disagree that people with power can ultimately do what they wish if they can get away with it, but they lack the moral standing to condemn something if they make morality relative. If everything is essentially morally equal, than nothing is ever morally wrong. Morality then seizes to be a real factor in decision making. Some other yard stick is used as a consequence.

[Web Rider]

Perhaps I should have said "moral authority", though I thought that implicit. I don't disagree that people with power can ultimately do what they wish if they can get away with it, but they lack the moral standing to condemn something if they make morality relative. If everything is essentially morally equal, than nothing is ever morally wrong. Morality then seizes to be a real factor in decision making. Some other yard stick is used as a consequence.

 

A "moral authority" is just a thing with a big stick to punish you for not following their rules. The only difference between God and the Government is that God has more power, and therefore, can make the rules. Sans god, moral authorities are what you make of them, books, rocks, people, places.

 

But all morality is is a compilation of "other sticks" by which we measure whether or not something is good or bad. You could use "social utilitarianism" in place of "morality" and you'd get essentially the same thing. A limiting of damaging effects on society due to a verbal, non-verbal or written code of ethics.

[Totenkopf]

You can think of "having moral authority" here as being consistent and possessing defined parameters (whether divine or manmade). When you talk relative morality you're always dealing with shifting guide posts. Mass murder is ok today, but maybe not tomorrow depending on how society feels at any given moment. Actually, regarding utilitarianism, I didn't mention it b/c I figured it was close enough to "conventional" morality, but essentially w/o God/dieties. Almost wrote "utilitarianism, expediency, etc..take your pick" but opted instead for "Some other yard stick".

[EnderWiggin]

Good point, you are correct that whether or not a person calls himself/herself an atheist or an agnostic atheist, there really isn't any difference. Thank you for correcting me on that.

I wasn't correcting so much as trying to rationalize it myself.

 

I was actually confused as to why the two terms actually existed separately, but I talked it over with Achilles and I understand it better.

 

Thanks though

 

_EW_

[Darth Avlectus]

On very rare occasions, I've met people who knew they were evil to the core. They reveled in their evilness. They had no qualms whatsoever about hurting anyone or killing someone to get what they wanted. They were quite frightening to be around.

 

Well, now, I did say without exceptions, didn't I?

 

Actually, yeah, I believe have met some of these truly whacked out individuals. They take themselves way too seriously, though. Ultimately these types really bring it upon themselves.

 

However, I have met those who steal or betray in a situation of trust. Their justificaitons either are for loyalty, that the others somehow "deserved it" or were "asking for it". Never really any righteous justificaiton for it. Few people when comitting these wrongs have any fair argument or true conviction. What many cannot figure out is why nobody helps them in these situations.

 

The others will tell a boldfaced lie.

 

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.

It manifests itself in a variety of ways. However intent would need to be verified in some way or another.

 

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.

This is sort of the case in which I was hinting at, yes. That one does not see what he has become over a course until the walls are falling all around him. Then at which point these people are left with the eventuality of choice: do they continue redeeming themselves or will they take their enlightenment and use it for an even greater ill? That point is truly the definition of a character if not the journey before that.

 

The other (where they actually know it) was basically the dementia manifested. This is evil, but I wonder just how much higher thought and awareness is sacrificed. (Jae, excellent example.)

 

 

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.

 

I suppose going at it from the other angle is too often overlooked. It does beg the question of intent again. However, you are touching upon contrast: the wisdom born of experience to actually both know and understand the difference of good and evil. Rather elusive concept, if I do say so myself. In order for there to be determination of some kind besides basis of some code of ethical conduct, some "reality testing" would be in order, yes.

 

 

At discussion:

 

I would say that there is a bit of a more primitive element to the sides of good and evil, though animals do not seem to show self awareness enough to know any difference between right and wrong.

 

Actually very frustrating in some ways, are the simpler creatures. I.E. My rat knows "Good Rat" and "Bad Rat", but she like a majority of past pets only knows this as what I find acceptable. She pushes the limits I give all the time. Not because she wishes to but due in large part of instinct and her being beholden to them. However I do think she is good natured.

Another rat I had, she cared nothing for human contact and wound up becoming my most vicious rat. She had a look to her early on like she's poised to attack. Not inherently good natured.

 

But, their behavior was largely independent of my handling; these creatures have little if any concept of/ability to process why. They do certainly know how b/c they do have enough cause and effect reasoning to realize action/reaction. They know basic logic. Source: The Rat: A study in behaviour, 1968. Confirmed by my own testing/training.

 

 

The human differs in that we do know why beyond just how. Maybe people need to be taught (I think indeed so). The types of evil we've discussed thus far is ultimately dependent on awareness and choice to act upon that one way or another. An animal alone cannot make that distinction, so far as I know. When people say that good and evil are human concepts not applicable in the animal kingdom nor found in nature, I'm inclined to say "no DUH". It's when people try to use the arguments that we are absolutely nothing more than animals to justify that there is no good and evil or right and wrong.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I believe that good/evil are constructs, but they are very real.

 

The problem is that they are both relative terms. They exist, but that they change from one person to the next. There are some who believe that 9/11 was a heroic act of sacrifice by the terrorists. To some, they were the good guys. They were freedom fighters.

 

I would say that 9/11 was an act of good... to those who believe that a brave force took on a juggernaut like the US. Does that make their beliefs worth any less than those who lost loved ones in the attack?

 

I would say that 9/11 was an act of evil... to those who consider the mass murder of American civilians is a cruel and heinous act. To those who hate the US, but think that the murder of innocent lives is wrong, they likely would call it a mass murder by the terrorists.

 

These are BOTH true of the same act. But because good and evil are relative perspectives, it depends upon the person who would define the terms.

[vanir]

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.

 

I haven't been in the thread for a while (internet was down for a bit and um...some subjects leave me in need of respite to centre), so I'm starting on the back page not far from where I left off.

 

I'm sure I've mentioned a homeless youth background. I met this feller once, brother of a good friend, we shared a unit but he kinda freaked me out, a weird thing considering some of the company I'd been keeping (had guns pointed at me over stupid arguments, knew people who became major crime figures and such). I just thought the guy was crazy, most people said he was a bit off. Later I researched Dahmer and I mean the general mannerisms and curiosities this guy had were such a distinct parallel it was uncanny. This is definitely the type of guy who'd drill a hole in your skull because you were asleep on the couch and he was bored.

 

Anyway at the time my guard was up 24/7 and of course I wound up moving when I could. So I was on top of it when he made stupid passes, was a step ahead when he came into my room at night, etc. We had an understanding where I would go to jail for putting him down if he put me seriously in that position, but it wasn't like he didn't try it on every second day.

 

This was one of my first major encounters with true evil.

[Q]

The thing is, are people like that evil or just extremely sick?

[True_Avery]

The thing is, are people like that evil or just extremely sick?

I think, for some people, this is the distinction that has to be made. "Evil" is such a tainted word through thousands of years of religious influence.

 

I can't say I've ever met an evil person. I've met selfish people. I've met sick people. I've met challenged people. I've met brats and so on. But never an "evil" person as it is not a word I use to describe people.

 

Everyone I guess you'd call "evil" to me are people who are driven. I'd sooner use the word "fanatical" than evil, as it is the closest thing to the word that I think can reasonably be used. Hell, I wont even call the punching bag himself, Hitler, evil. He was a driven man, torn down by a war and a country that had been ripped apart. He either made some leaps of logic, or made it appear he did and, for the most part, he was a fanatical, possibly sick man (it is said that he had a twitch in one of his arms that could have been related to mental illness).

 

Evil is, in my opinion, a stupid, ignorant word used to describe things by people unwilling to look deeper into intentions, or what have you.

 

My 2 cents.

[Q]

Really? I think that in a nutshell evil is an accurate description of people who know better, and choose to do wrong to others because they get off on it in one way or another.

 

That's my 2 cents.