Good and evil

One of my major permanent itches with monotheist religion is that it usually wants to define things as inherently either good or evil.

Now, I'm not after the subjectivity of it. That's an interesting topic in itself of course.

What concerns me more is that I find the good/evil dichotomy so sadly lacking in content, and not very useful. The answer I'm often given is, "Yeah but, but... hating all (X minority) IS evil, isn't it?"

Yeah sure. You can describe it like that. But isn't it much, much more descriptive to say that if you hate all (X), it will probably feel uncomfortable, it might lead you to acts of violence that might land you in jail, and on top of it all, (X) will most probably not go away just because you decide to hate them so much. So it might just be more useful to learn to live with them, and get your emotions straight. There will probably be many other interesting aspects to it, as well. How does it actually HELP you to hate (X)? What do you need that feeling for? Etc.

If you just insist on it being evil, you cannot hope to ever get to the bottom of those feelings.

Note that I'm not necessarily *denying* good and evil. (I am, but that is not necessary for my point here). I just doubt that it's a very useful distinction if you want to help someone improve themselves.

In short, insisting on everything being either good or evil seems to me to block further exploration and rational, calm discussion. And if anything will help resolve conflicts, calm and rational discussion will surely be a huge part of that.

edited 17th Nov '10 1:00:50 PM by vijeno

Yeah I think about that too. The problem is that constantly thinking about the moral gray areas will lead to a very messy text on how to handle one's religious society. Also, it's naturally so much easier to take a trouble to put it on someone else that blame it on ourselves...

Defining an action as "good" or "evil" isn't really that simple. Based on what I know, every action can be broken down into three things:

• Intention: What you mean to accomplish with the action.
• Reasoning: The rationale why this action will accomplish what you want it to.
• Result: What the action actually accomplishes.

In order to accurately classify everything as "good", "evil", or somewhere between, you have to cover all the possible combinations of these three factors. Obviously this isn't possible, so oversimplification occurs. And the most common oversimplification is to eliminate part or all of the middle ground between "good" and "evil".

And people wonder why we have so many arguments on This Very Wiki over Character Alignment...

Religion used good and evil as a set of rules based on how it affected (effected?) society. Murder led to bad things so it was bad. Adultery normally led to murder or at least conflict, so it was bad. Being nice to everyone, respecting them and helping the poor helped elevate a society so therefore, it was good.

In today's society it's easy to say "well yeah, that's obvious stuff." But you have to remember that these people drank the same water they relieved themselves in, they were not the brightest bulbs in the world.

I find that good and evil are things that only truly exist within the realm of fiction - even actions thought most horrifically heinous have reason, and have more to do with a degree of... for lack of a better word, sociopathy for that specific given situation - near always of which is the result of some form of reasoning one makes to give such a reservation for that particular instance, action, or mindset.

If you filter out the superstition, you find that good behavior tends to benefit the tribe as a whole, while evil behavior tends to harm the tribe. Murder is evil, for instance, because it removes a member from the tribe, which makes the tribe less able to get food and defend itself. Avoiding pork is good, because then you don't get trichinosis from undercooked pork.

The trouble starts when you develop competing types of good. Keeping the tribe "pure" leads to intolerance and worse, and it conflicts with compassion for others.

<Sorry, thatguythere47, I just noticed that I restated your points.>

edited 22nd Nov '10 1:52:59 PM by RalphCrown

The problem, of course, is that every one of these ideas, while not wrong per se, have exceptions that are unaccounted for by the principle being proposed.

@Vijeno: If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that just labeling something as good or evil simply shuts down debate and prevents any further analysis. I think everyone would agree with that, but there is a problem in going to the other extreme, and dispensing with the terms themselves (if that is what you are implying). The utility of labeling something as evil is precisely to prevent anyone from using intellectual justifications in order to rationalize extreme behavior.

"You can describe it like that. But isn't it much, much more descriptive to say that if you hate all (X), it will probably feel uncomfortable, it might lead you to acts of violence that might land you in jail, and on top of it all, (X) will most probably not go away just because you decide to hate them so much. So it might just be more useful to learn to live with them, and get your emotions straight. There will probably be many other interesting aspects to it, as well. How does it actually HELP you to hate (X)?

The danger here is that there might easily be circumstances where a group of people believe that they can answer your questions in the affirmative: i.e. "Yes, we have empirical and logical reasons, if not to hate, then at least to eliminate the presence of (X)." Learning to live with objectionable others has costs, and the cost/benefit analysis might be seen to favor genocide. Can you assure yourself that no one could ever come up with logical reasons to justify something like that? If, on the other hand, we label certain things as evil in principle, then it no longer matters what justifications they might come up with.

This topic so far seems very vague.

If, on the other hand, we label certain things as evil in principle, then it no longer matters what justifications they might come up with.

Interesting. Still too vague to me.

edited 22nd Nov '10 3:40:43 PM by ViralLamb

^^ Can you reassure yourself that there will never be genuine reasons why following the rules rather than breaking them would lead to significantly increased suffering? (We've certainly got oodles and oodles of fiction on the subject—I'll just link the obvious.)

edited 22nd Nov '10 3:46:00 PM by feotakahari

To answer whether evil exists and/or is necessary, I ask the topic to do one thing:

Please provide a justification for rape.

edited 22nd Nov '10 4:57:21 PM by KingZeal

Now that I've looked up the definition of justification:

Because I wanted to. just typing that made me feel dirty

These morality topics just don't do it for me. Perhaps I should make my own!

edited 22nd Nov '10 5:10:51 PM by ViralLamb

@King: She (he) ended up liking it.

@Feo: Of course not, but that wasn't my argument. We need the rules, then we need a method for exceptions.

That only "justifies" one half of the crime: the act. It does not justify the premeditation.

Please provide a justification for rape.

How about a super-exaggerated situation like that you have to do it or the universe explodes or an orphanage full of babies or something similarly contrived happens?

Anyway I don't see what that has to do with the existence of evil.

Please stick to real world examples. Mate or Die is not currently a problem for humanity.

It's relevant because for one to debate "evil" well, you have to acknowledge the existence of an unjustifiable crime. If a crime can be justified by both its premeditation and its action, then it is not inherently "evil".

edited 22nd Nov '10 6:35:30 PM by KingZeal

I'm arguing exactly the opposite. It isn't evil because it cant be justified, it's evil in spite of the justification. You can justify your act any way you want to, but it doesn't matter because we have previously defined it as wrong. That, in fact, is the purpose of labeling something as evil or wrong.

Please stick to real world examples.

But it is a possibility.

If you want another one: Member of rather backwards society sees you flirting (or at least, talking to, and he assumes it flirting) with his sister. Their society's laws dictate that you immediately mate and marry. He says if you don't then her honor will be tarnished and he'll kill her.

You can come up with any number of things...

If a crime can be justified by either its premeditation and its action, then it is not inherently "evil".

You seem to be assuming that quite a bit about the definition of evil is understood, when this is not the case.

Aaaaand ninja Marquis proves my point. Thanks.

edited 22nd Nov '10 5:34:50 PM by Tzetze

For the sake of this converation, let's eliminate the idea that "justification" is an opinion" (i.e., an "excuse"). For example, "justifiable homocide" can include self defense. If the only way for me to live is to kill someone else, then I'm justified.

But it is a possibility.

No it isn't. Imagining a justification does not mean one exists.

If you want another one: Member of rather backwards society sees you flirting (or at least, talking to, and he assumes it flirting) with his sister. Their society's laws dictate that you immediately mate and marry. He says if you don't then her honor will be tarnished and he'll kill her.

You said "backwards society", which inherently makes your example wrong (as the very definition is claiming that the society's methods are illogical). Furthermore, if the woman is not consenting, then it is rape just the same as any African nation which believes rape cures AIDS.

edited 22nd Nov '10 5:41:54 PM by KingZeal

Oh- well then the question you posted in #10 seems to be meaningless. "Rape" is a crime by definition, just like murder is, so if I can justify forcible sex, it cant be rape.

You said "backwards society", which inherently makes your example wrong (as the very definition is claiming that the society's methods are illogical)

...what? So rape only counts as rape when it doesn't make sense? Of course I'm not going to be able to justify that, it would be a contradiction in terms.

Except that "justifiable murder" requires that the victim's death was the only means of escape.

The difference between "self defense" and "excessive force" (which does NOT justify murder) is that once you've gained control over the situation, further assault is no longer justified. Similarly, if you're able to perform rape, you now have control, and thus the assault is not justified.

...what? So rape only counts as rape when it doesn't make sense? Of course I'm not going to be able to justify that, it would be a contradiction in terms.

No. YOU, on your own merit, described the society as "backwards". That meant that whatever example you used from that point on was being made by someone who couldn't possibly justify themselves. Again, it's like claiming that someone is justified for raping a woman because he thought it would cure his AIDS.

edited 22nd Nov '10 5:49:27 PM by KingZeal

Is it just me or does this thread seem to be going in a bad direction? By which I mean, a dead end.

edited 22nd Nov '10 5:56:37 PM by ViralLamb

That meant that whatever example you used from that point on was being made by someone who couldn't possibly justify themselves.

Um, yes, the person who is threatening you is acting irrationally. I don't see how this changes anything; I could have written «Somebody tells you to rape somebody or else they will be killed», I just added context since you seemed to want that.

Then it's definitely not justified. Making someone rape someone else under threat of death is no different than raping someone yourself under threat of death.

You misunderstand. I'm not saying that the threat is justified, I'm asking if you would consider raping somebody if the other option was their death ethical.