Good and Evil

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Question: If that is so, then why is war never justifiable?

[BeardofPants]

Oh man, can't we keep war out of this, given how it's managed to spread en mass through every other thread?

[jerseydevil]

Gwaimir Windgem does have a point though.

Anyway - you can't have good without evil. nor can you have poor without rich, or smart without dumb. You need something at the opposing end to compare abstract concepts - otherwise they have no meaning. You can't phyisically see evil or good - so if everything was good - it would just "be".

[Coney]

There is a clear and distinct difference between good an evil.

Beer = Good
Hangover = Evil

The Universe, it appears, it not without a sense of Irony

Man, it seems, is the source of evil as......

Man created beer
God created cannabis........who do you put your Faith in?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Gwaimir Windgem does have a point though.

Not really. It all ties into that relative thing. One man's evil, is another man's good, so to speak.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

cannabis? Do you mean cannibals?

But if everything is relative, than it would depend on the situation, would it not?

[Elvengirl]

well, how would you view the situation?

[Coney]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
cannabis? Do you mean cannibals?

Erm no. Cannabis, the Herbal beer replacement (better known as Dope )..

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
But if everything is relative, than it would depend on the situation, would it not?

And exactly WHO is viewing it. I refer to my earlier statement: one man's good, is another man's evil. I don't know how much more obvious I can get than that, without deviating into a detailed explaination of ideologies, and memes.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

A-HA! I see now. I thought you were referring to situational ethics.

[BeardofPants]

You could also take a look at this thread sometime. I've bookmarked it to where I stumbled into it, but the rest of it is a pretty interesting read as well.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

-hops to first page-. Hmm, somehow I thought afro-elf would have started it...

[Lief Erikson]

I tend to disagree with everyone except Gwaimir Windgem on this argument, but that's only natural, isn't it ?

I will try to make my stance make some sense to some of you.

I think that good doesn't require evil to be good, and I also don't think good and evil are relative and evolving. If someone gives you a drink of cool water, that's nice. However, the fact that the person giving you that water could suddenly change their mind and smash the cup onto the floor doesn't effect the kindness of the act. It would be kind and thoughtful whether or not the person could smash the glass.

But here's what I think. I think that the presence of intelligence requires the possibility of good and the possibility of evil. They don't require each other or even effect each other. They're opposing things that stem from one root: intelligence.

Take courts for an example. Someone who's insane isn't punished as harshly for a crime that a sane person would be punished for. That's because they don't understand that it's wrong, and so aren't as responsible for their action. Someone sane knows what they're doing, so they are judged. Just as someone sane who does good, when it is recognized that they're doing good, is praised.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I think that good doesn't require evil to be good, and I also don't think good and evil are relative and evolving. If someone gives you a drink of cool water, that's nice. However, the fact that the person giving you that water could suddenly change their mind and smash the cup onto the floor doesn't effect the kindness of the act. It would be kind and thoughtful whether or not the person could smash the glass.

But here's what I think. I think that the presence of intelligence requires the possibility of good and the possibility of evil. They don't require each other or even effect each other. They're opposing things that stem from one root: intelligence.

But you wouldn't be calling the act "kindness" - if there wasn't a possibility of the person being unkind. If there was no meanness in the world - then you would just expect the person to give you a drink - and the act would just "be".

[Linaewen]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But you wouldn't be calling the act "kindness" - if there wasn't a possibility of the person being unkind. If there was no meanness in the world - then you would just expect the person to give you a drink - and the act would just "be".

You can't have a world of just 'good' - there'd be nothing to define it with. But if there is no good, as there is no evil to compare it to, then why would that person give the other a glass of water in the first place?

Sorry if I'm wrong here. This is just what I'm thinking.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
But you wouldn't be calling the act "kindness" - if there wasn't a possibility of the person being unkind. If there was no meanness in the world - then you would just expect the person to give you a drink - and the act would just "be".

I agree with you, jerseydevil, in that that would simply be the way things are, then. There wouldn't be kindness and unkindness; things would simply be that way. However, we would still all be very happy with things being that way. We would enjoy life to a degree utterly impossible now. We'd take that enjoyment for granted, true, but that wouldn't eliminate the enjoyment.

Meanwhile, we would be extremely miserable living in a hell-like world, even if there was no possibility of goodness. The hell-like qualities of that world would simply be the way things are, but that doesn't change our enjoyment of it.

Thus our pleasure at one kind of world and lacking pleasure in another kind of world, barring them from interacting with each other, would show that they aren't causing the effects of each other.

Now I'm not saying that good can heighten an individual's ability to perceive evil, or having experienced evil would heighten an individual's appreciation of good, but I don't think that they balance off completely.

If you live in a desert plain and have never experienced cold, you might not recognize that what you're feeling is heat, but that doesn't diminish the heat that you're feeling, and you still know that you're feeling it.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Take courts for an example. Someone who's insane isn't punished as harshly for a crime that a sane person would be punished for. That's because they don't understand that it's wrong, and so aren't as responsible for their action. Someone sane knows what they're doing, so they are judged. Just as someone sane who does good, when it is recognized that they're doing good, is praised.

It is true that the punishment may be handed out in different degrees depending on sanity and insanity, but if a insane man commits a horrific crime, and a sane man commits an equally horrific crime, is not the act of both crimes equally as evil? The punishment may differ and vary, but the evil is the same.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
It is true that the punishment may be handed out in different degrees depending on sanity and insanity, but if a insane man commits a horrific crime, and a sane man commits an equally horrific crime, is not the act of both crimes equally as evil? The punishment may differ and vary, but the evil is the same.

You know what, Sister Golden Hair? You've just become the second person on Entmoot ever to convince me that one of my arguments is wrong.

[jerseydevil]

I'm don't know if all this was directed at me - or if you were making general statements. I'm just responding as if you were directing your comments to me.

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I agree with you, jerseydevil, in that that would simply be the way things are, then. There wouldn't be kindness and unkindness; things would simply be that way. However, we would still all be very happy with things being that way. We would enjoy life to a degree utterly impossible now. We'd take that enjoyment for granted, true, but that wouldn't eliminate the enjoyment.

I never said it would eliminate it - did I? I said you wouldn't have anyway of camparing it - therefore you would have no way of describing or calling something an act of kindness or something evil. If there was no evil - then you have nothing to define an abstract concept like good. You need the opposing force to understand abstract concepts.

Meanwhile, we would be extremely miserable living in a hell-like world, even if there was no possibility of goodness. The hell-like qualities of that world would simply be the way things are, but that doesn't change our enjoyment of it.

Thus our pleasure at one kind of world and lacking pleasure in another kind of world, barring them from interacting with each other, would show that they aren't causing the effects of each other.

I never said they "are causing the effects of each other". Just that there would be no of comparing.

The only way people know they are "poor" is when they see people who are wealthy. The only way you know you are unhappy - is becuase you've experienced happiness.

Now I'm not saying that good can heighten an individual's ability to perceive evil, or having experienced evil would heighten an individual's appreciation of good, but I don't think that they balance off completely.

If you live in a desert plain and have never experienced cold, you might not recognize that what you're feeling is heat, but that doesn't diminish the heat that you're feeling, and you still know that you're feeling it.

You're talking in degrees now - and not absolutes. If a person lives in 110 degree deserts - like in Saudi Arabia and they come to New Jersey during the summer. Their concept of "hot" will be completely different. Whereas in New Jersey it would be considered "hot" at 90 degrees - the person from Saudi Arabia may just consider it comparable to a nice spring day.

If however the temperature was alway 110 degrees around the earth - no matter where you went - then it would not be considered hot. There would not be anything hotter or colder - so why would you say - "it's hot out". Since it would be the same temperature as when you were born and it would be the same temperature when you died? The only reason you can say that "it's hot out" is because you have experienced colder temperatures.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I'm don't know if all this was directed at me - or if you were making general statements. I'm just responding as if you were directing your comments to me.

I never said it would eliminate it - did I? I said you wouldn't have anyway of camparing it - therefore you would have no way of describing or calling something an act of kindness or something evil. If there was no evil - then you have nothing to define an abstract concept like good. You need the opposing force to understand abstract concepts.



The only way people know they are "poor" is when they see people who are wealthy. The only way you know you are unhappy - is becuase you've experienced happiness.

You're talking in degrees now - and not absolutes. If a person lives in 110 degree deserts - like in Saudi Arabia and they come to New Jersey during the summer. Their concept of "hot" will be completely different. Whereas in New Jersey it would be considered "hot" at 90 degrees - the person from Saudi Arabia may just consider it comparable to a nice spring day.

If however the temperature was alway 110 degrees around the earth - no matter where you went - then it would not be considered hot. There would not be anything hotter or colder - so why would you say - "it's hot out". Since it would be the same temperature as when you were born and it would be the same temperature when you died? The only reason you can say that "it's hot out" is because you have experienced colder temperatures.

That is true, and I probably agree with all of your post. I'm just expounding on it, and arguing with others who think that good and evil couldn't exist without each other.

Things wouldn't be considered hot or cold, simply the way things are. However, that merely effects our knowledge of the heat, it doesn't effect the heat itself. It would still be hot.

Yes, we wouldn't be able to tell that this is hot because we wouldn't have anything to compare it to. However, it still is hot. We can still feel it, and we still don't like it. Just like if we lived in a world full of evil, without any good. We wouldn't know about good, and we wouldn't be able to define what's happening as evil. However, we'd still be miserable.

Having experienced much good or much evil can heighten our perception of the other, but our perception isn't necessary for something to exist, as SGH just posted to say.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I never said they "are causing the effects of each other". Just that there would be no of comparing.

I think then that we're in agreement. Other people were saying that good and evil caused each other, and that good and evil couldn't exist without each other.