"good" And "evil"

[The Sage Nabooru]

Do they even exist? Is there a universal morality? Maybe?

 

There are some moralistic beliefs I have that I hold to be universal. For example, I think intentionally or thoughtlessly killing is "wrong", no matter who does it. The same goes for theft carried out in greed, rape, etc.

 

But I'm not like my parents, either. I do not simply dismiss all sexual appetites or cultural differences to be "wrong" simply because I myself do not care for them or practice them. If you come from a culture that thinks filed teeth are beautiful, for example, I'm not going to decide that teeth-filing is oppressive and terrible and should be banned right off the bat just out of my own distaste for it. Unfortunately, for hundreds of years regions controlled by Christianity and Islam have approached any new or different ideas or societies with just that mindset.

 

Is there a universal morality, perhaps co-existing with regional or relative morality? What is the difference between the two? Or does all this morality and right-and-wrong stuff just not exist?

 

Sometimes I think the latter, ultimately, in the sense that I don't think certain actions warrant intervention from a Divine entity that brings about your permanent or temporary damnation. Nothing is "wrong" just because God says so. Things are "wrong" because they are bad or backward decisions to make.

[Rev R]

"good" And "evil", What are they?

 

adjectives.

[Robbobrob]

The problem is, good and evil, are human constructs. Yo uwould not make good and evil assessments about stars colliding, or planets being born.....or even plants gowing, or tigers eating gazelle.

 

Taoist, for example, tend to focus on proper action and improper action, and each is situational. An action is always right in the proper situation, always wrong in the improper one.

 

Killing is a form of death. And some killing is proper.

 

It all depends on how narrow you want to look at things. Universally, everything is acceptable, if possible.

[Kirangel]

I tend to lean more towards the notion of morality being defined by cultures with those moral values being relative to the culture. What is right and wrong is defined on the smaller level, and integration and cultural interaction is what spreads them on a larger wider scale. There are moral values that are similar around the world but I'm not convinced that it is because there is this overall universal morality (there will always be some similarities) I think it's mostly do to interaction between people.

[Jun]

Do they even exist?

 

In your mind.

[Thurisaz]

Good and evil are quite difficult to define once differing cultures et al enter into the equation. My personal favorite is roughly "Evil is whatever unnecessarily increases suffering"

[Robbobrob]

Good and evil are quite difficult to define once differing cultures et al enter into the equation. My personal favorite is roughly "Evil is whatever unnecessarily increases suffering"

 

By that definition, the tacos I had last night are EVIL!!!

[♦ nivek ♦]

Do they even exist?

 

In your mind.

 

That "mind" works to compel the feet and hands to act.

 

kFL

[♦ nivek ♦]

Sage:

 

In my world, "evil" is oft seen as causing or continuing to do harm when that harm is no longer needed.

 

Will never say *harm* is something that is bad, oft harm fixes or finishes things and issues that nothing else will.

 

The big however is that *evil* is judged by those seeeing the *harm* in the shades of their lives. What constitutes causing harm to me may be a grievious and hateful evil to you.

To me, it is just part of the job or the mission, the run, a necessary action or set of them.

 

Judging evil is something we can discuss until Goodwin's Law kicks in and we nazify the thread with the extreme ends of what we can see as *bad*.

 

Continuing to kick some poor schmoe when I've beaten him down and he's quit fighting is *evile* for me..

 

kFL

[Amethyst]

I think part of why our notions of good and evil were developed over the millennia were for survival purposes. A civilization isn't going to get far if its citizens kill one another off all the time. And even chimps display signs of altruism.

 

I also think part of it was for controlling the population. What better way to control a population of mostly primitive people but with superstition? Over time, it changed into religion, both organized and unorganized.

 

To me personally evil is doing unnecessary harm. Note that I said unnecessary, for sometimes it is necessary to defend yourself and/or your loved ones, as Skip says. Defining harm is debatable til the cows grow wings and fly over the moon, but I think we should carefully consider the ramifications of our actions before we do something.

 

Now, things that some Christians consider "evil": Loving another person just because they happen to be the same gender. Enjoying Harry Potter and other non Church-approved books. Listening to non Church-approved music. Drinking alchohol in moderation. Women wearing jeans instead of skirts. People dancing. Teenage guys and gals dating like normal teenagers do. I can't for the life of me see how any of those cause anyone harm, and yet they are supposed "sins".

 

And yet, those same people think that torturing someone for all of eternity is justifiable. Not just one person, but billions of them. No argument in the world can make eternal torture moral. None at all.

[Jun]

Do they even exist?

 

In your mind.

 

That "mind" works to compel the feet and hands to act.

 

kFL

 

 

Exactly!

[The Sage Nabooru]

Now, things that some Christians consider "evil": Loving another person just because they happen to be the same gender. Enjoying Harry Potter and other non Church-approved books. Listening to non Church-approved music. Drinking alchohol in moderation. Women wearing jeans instead of skirts. People dancing. Teenage guys and gals dating like normal teenagers do. I can't for the life of me see how any of those cause anyone harm, and yet they are supposed "sins".

 

All too true. If we're enjoying ourselves, we are "evil". Anything fun, liberating, delicious, etc. is inherently "wrong" because it gives you a good time. Wipe those smiles off your faces, your happiness is a sin!

 

I think such ideas developed over time. Our basest instinct is selfishness - the desire to claim and consume all for our own individual selves. But the paradox is that such behavior is not conducive to development of a healthy species, society or self as a whole, so when we are at our most primitive, in childhood, we are taught the virtue of sharing what we have. Because it's not always an easy thing to share, especially when we are children (how many kids want everything they see to be "mine" alone?), we don't always like to do so. In fact, we can feel a lot of grudge about it, and feel a lot more powerful when given the right to claim something as solely our own.

 

Because of this the giving-and-sharing virus developed among certain religious groups, whereby the idea that one should always share what one has and avoid selfish indulgence was taken to the extreme that one should always and constantly share what one has or even give it away, even if it means there is not enough for oneself; and, to have any kind of personal possession was selfish and against God's will (or, really, against society's will). This is most potent in Christianity, I think. This obviously denied people a lot of the pleasure of enjoying anything that one had, because one was never really allowed to have anything at all. If you liked having what you had, you obviously had too much of it to yourself, and you should share it or give it away until you were left with very little or nothing, leaving you hungry, thirsty, or cold, and understanding finally the real meaning of "sharing".

 

This idea was further developed into the idea that if you enjoyed anything at all, you were being selfish in one way or another. Until you were so totally selfless that you denied yourself anything at all, you were still a sinner. Even enjoying the sound of music or the taste of food was selfish, because it indicated you were thinking only of your own pleasure when others did not have the priviledge to do so. Because of the constant guilt-tripping over the destitute who did not have access to the music or food, your own indulgence in its beauty was selfish in that you allowed yourself what others could not have. At any rate, any kind of enjoyment whatsoever could be branded as taking your passions away from God when you ultimately owed Him everything.

 

Personally, I've known people who refuse to have things that others cannot, in the vein of, "I'm not going to eat well until all the starving kids in Africa can, too." Well, that's all well, if that's what you want, but if they're not eating well, and I'm not eating well, well then nobody is!

[Amethyst]

This idea was further developed into the idea that if you enjoyed anything at all, you were being selfish in one way or another. Until you were so totally selfless that you denied yourself anything at all, you were still a sinner. Even enjoying the sound of music or the taste of food was selfish, because it indicated you were thinking only of your own pleasure when others did not have the priviledge to do so. Because of the constant guilt-tripping over the destitute who did not have access to the music or food, your own indulgence in its beauty was selfish in that you allowed yourself what others could not have. At any rate, any kind of enjoyment whatsoever could be branded as taking your passions away from God when you ultimately owed Him everything.

 

And if people owned lots of things, that meant less money into the church's coffers. Another means of population control.