Major Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Judge Not... There is nothing wrong with mankind any more than there is anything wrong with nature. I believe man is no more good or evil than a dog or horse or tree. Man is a creature of this earth, blessed with astonishing intelligence that allows him to choose to behave well or badly. There is no good or evil, only choices and consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddbird1963 Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I believe there are certain actions and intentions that can be described as evil due to their intent to deprive people of, say, life, well-being, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, etc. I believe evil can be used to describe the trend of one's life in doing significant harm to others as a pattern over time. It's opposite concept "good," I believe, can be described as the tendency to promote and seek the restoration of well-being, liberty and health in others. Collections or institutions of people can display a tendency to perform good or evil as a pattern over time. I do not believe in "sin." Nor do I believe that things in and of themselves are good or evil. There are no external supernatural forces of evil such as a devil or demons, or a god to create "evil." There are no evil objects that are "cursed" and act as a source of evil. Conversely, there are no intrinsically good creatures or objects. Both "evil" and "good" come from people. The problem with words like good or evil is that they are often used by judgmental people to make assessments that are of limited or no usefulness to society. But, that doesn't mean there are not people or institutions that can rightly be labeled "good" or "evil." That's my initial take on the concept, anyway. Nice topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hereticzero Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Religion perverts human nature in order to claim it is evil. In reality there is no sin. Human nature is what is natural for people to do, even things we find shameful is normal for people to do. Society regulates itself through laws. Religion tries to have such laws protect its beliefs rather than protect individual rights. Often our laws show the workings of religious beliefs, such as our war on drugs and in laws regulating prostitution. When people control their impulses, our society does well. When people act like jerks, in mass, our society suffers. When we try to label what is good or what is evil, many times our perception of the subject is bent and twisted by religious bigotry, in such cases as homosexuality. It would be interesting to see our society and what its laws would look like without the interference of religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 There is no good or evil, only choices and consequences. I completely agree. However, as Oddbird pointed out, there are things we collectively agree to call "good" and "evil." But as far as universal standards of good and evil, no, I don't believe such things exist. "But then other cultures could define murder and rape as good, and helping others as evil," some will argue. True, but the culture which glorifies destructive behaviour will never last. Human beings have evolved societies that look out for each other and which agree that some things are universally evil. Prohibiting and preventing destructive behaviour is what allows them to last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlene Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Judge Not... There is nothing wrong with mankind any more than there is anything wrong with nature. I believe man is no more good or evil than a dog or horse or tree. Man is a creature of this earth, blessed with astonishing intelligence that allows him to choose to behave well or badly. There is no good or evil, only choices and consequences. Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Of course there is good and evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. There's no such thing as 'evil' as a literal force or entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shyone Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Is circumcision evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Try reading my posts again. We call raping babies evil because, as human societies, developed over millions of years, we have all decided to agree that such a thing IS evil because it harms the baby, harms the future of the tribe and is cruel (something else we have decided to define.) Everyone alive would NEVER agree that raping a baby was OK. Your argument is a total non-starter. The idea that good and evil are natural laws defined by some hazy invisible being who can't even get his fucking definitions of what is good and evil straight, depending on which religion you ask, is more ridiculous than my supposition. Let me sum up in words you can understand. There is no universal law of good and evil. Humans decide what is good and evil. Humans everywhere have certain things they consider evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 There is nothing wrong with mankind any more than there is anything wrong with nature. I believe man is no more good or evil than a dog or horse or tree. Man is a creature of this earth, blessed with astonishing intelligence that allows him to choose to behave well or badly. There is no good or evil, only choices and consequences. What do you call a man who consistently chooses to behave badly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko47 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Although I agree with Clay here, it still has nothing to do necessarily with a "God". In a way, only humans can decide what is evil for things involving humans. We are the best equipped to determine what is evil, not a detached deity who has never suffered a day in it's life, apparently. (The cross doesn't count Clay, because God knew the cheery outcome) Violating another human being for selfish purposes is inherently evil, and every human culture that has ever existed knows that. Again, no "guidance" from a God is required for these issues. In fact, I would say quite the opposite, since there has been so much evil committed by believing that it was "sanctioned" by a God; we don't even need to go there. (Nobody was ever burned at the stake for not believing in evolution or gravity) All evil however is context-sensitive. That is why we have a complex justice system, where evidence is given and a judge decides upon the wieght of someone's act, and it's overall context. If I strike a man in self-defence and he unfortunately dies, I may be found innocent, especially if witnesses say that I only struck once. On the other hand, if I defended myself but took it too far, and beat a man to death when it was not necessary, I could go to prison for many years. Point being, every act and every "evil" act has a context which must be examined. Thus another criticism of the Bible. It seldom delves into context. It does not make distinctions about how, why, where, and in reaction to, many events happened. Turning a woman into a pillar of salt ? Was that really necessary ? Oh, I forgot. Only God can get away with evil, and never has to explain his reasons or context. The ancient barbarian mind desperately wants absolutes all the time; and guidance from "out there". Christians want the ultimate black and white experience of all; those going to Heaven and those going to Hell, based on only one singular criteria that has no proper context and certainly isn't "justice". It's over, Rover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagan Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think we're all getting hung up on the definition of "EVIL." We all agree certain things are evil. I am NOT suggesting that morality is individually relative. I am suggesting that humans developed an instinctive concept of good and evil over millennia. What we consider good and evil is part of the human group dynamic. I think that all animal societies do this. Wolf packs follow certain rules about what's good and bad for the pack. Even insect societies follow rules. And closer to humans, so do chimpanzee and bonobo societies, which evolved very different group dynamics, which makes for an interesting comparison. According to the article, male chimps often kill babies of other males to assert their dominance over the tribe. Bonobos, on the other hand almost never do this. Chimps use sex for reproduction only, and have a male-dominated society. Bonobos, on the other hand, have a lot more recreational sex, making paternity uncertain, and removing the incentive for infanticide. As well, because they can spend less time alone collecting food, unlike female chimps, female bonobos form stronger bonds, even if they're unrelated. This makes them more able as a group to protect their infants than female chimps who were not able to form strong bonds, simply because of an environmental factor (see the article for a fuller explanation). What I reject is the notion some will certainly present that, since we all seem to have a universal concept of good and evil, therefore, it must have come from God. This is a failure of an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Is circumcision evil? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Would you know its wrong, if everyone in the world thought it right, and since you are apart of the world, even you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Although I agree with Clay here, it still has nothing to do necessarily with a "God". In a way, only humans can decide what is evil for things involving humans. If only humans can decide then you are claiming all good and evil is subjective. What Pol Pot did was evil even if every human decided it was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Hmmm to choose to behave well or badly....so where does that leave murder, incest, and the most vilest depraved things a human can do? is that not evil? Im not so sure. You missed the point. They're evil because we humans decided they are evil, because they are destructive to us and to others, not because an invisible super-being created a universal law of good and evil. I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Although I agree with Clay here, it still has nothing to do necessarily with a "God". In a way, only humans can decide what is evil for things involving humans. If only humans can decide then you are claiming all good and evil is subjective. What Pol Pot did was evil even if every human decided it was not. Pol Pot killed, which is evil, because of the harm we perceive killing causes. Good and evil are labels places on actions. Harm is evil. nonharm is good. and you can't say in these things like murder would be alright anyway, because if murder was ever permissable we would not have survived as a species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think we're all getting hung up on the definition of "EVIL." We all agree certain things are evil. I am NOT suggesting that morality is individually relative. I am suggesting that humans developed an instinctive concept of good and evil over millennia. What we consider good and evil is part of the human group dynamic. Instinct? Please define exactly where "instinct" begins and ends in human behavior. You can not. Your claim to evolutionary advantage is empty. Clearly there would be acts that would still be evil even if we had "developed an instinct" to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think we're all getting hung up on the definition of "EVIL." We all agree certain things are evil. I am NOT suggesting that morality is individually relative. I am suggesting that humans developed an instinctive concept of good and evil over millennia. What we consider good and evil is part of the human group dynamic. Instinct? Please define exactly where "instinct" begins and ends in human behavior. You can not. Your claim to evolutionary advantage is empty. Clearly there would be acts that would still be evil even if we had "developed an instinct" to do so. He highlighted a point that would have followed mine. Morality was are next stepped needed evolutionary speaking to survive. It became instinct, like a evolutionary change would became apart of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Would you know its wrong, if everyone in the world thought it right, and since you are apart of the world, even you? You are conflating knowing and thinking. It is evil even if no mind thought it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Is circumcision evil? No. Even if the infant has no way to reject or accept it? Is that not exploitation? Based on your questions, I assume you agree there is an objective good and evil. 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist 2) Objective moral values do exist 3) Therefore, God exists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think you missed the point. Even if everyone alive thought raping a baby was okay it would still be evil. Would you know its wrong, if everyone in the world thought it right, and since you are apart of the world, even you? You are conflating knowing and thinking. It is evil even if no mind thought it was. either I need to improve my skills at writing or you need to not be so prone to regurgitating apologetics. Hypothetically lets say. We survived at a survived and got by as a species raping a baby, and it was accepted by everyone in our species. Would you know its wrong. I am not conflating thinking with knowing, though I am using the term think it was meant to be read as knowing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Valkyrie0010 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Is circumcision evil? No. Even if the infant has no way to reject or accept it? Is that not exploitation? Based on your questions, I assume you agree there is an objective good and evil. 1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist 2) Objective moral values do exist 3) Therefore, God exists you got to prove god is needed for objective moral values, which the last time this came up you failed to do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 If only humans can decide then you are claiming all good and evil is subjective. What Pol Pot did was evil even if every human decided it was not. Pol Pot killed, which is evil, because of the harm we perceive killing causes. Good and evil are labels places on actions. Harm is evil. nonharm is good. and you can't say in these things like murder would be alright anyway, because if murder was ever permissable we would not have survived as a species. You are mixing in some kind of philosophical precept ("harm is evil") with evolutionary mechanics ("advantageous instincts"). This does not work. Harm is very often evolutionarily advantageous. Lions kill, but they don't murder. IOW, your gross generalization does not work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts