The neseccity of evil

So if we only had good, and no evil. Would everyone not be happy? or would happiness cease to exist because sadness did not? I beleive that the fact that we realize evil exists is one trait that makes us undeniably human. If we did not seperate good and evil, we would live entirely for survival. If one does not have something good he wishes to attain, what else is there to live for other than mere survival?

Why would our moral standards be any different if the world were peaceful?

Evil does not define good. Good is defined by the positive effect an action has, for oneself (as long as it did not harm others) or for other beings. If we were programmed such that no one wished to inflict unnecessary pain on anyone else, good could still be defined since many actions would have neutral or only slightly positive or negative consequences, while actions that would significantly improve the general level of happiness would be "good."

Evil is not necessary to understand or appreciate goodness. Evil is not necessary for free will or morality to exist, since life provides us with more than enough natural challenges. The world would be a much happier place without the devastation caused by people who give in to their biological urges without regard for the pain they inflict on others.

A reading of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil would render this thread irrelevant.

Re: The neseccity of evil
You think in terms of absolute good and absolute evil.
But good and evil are nothing more than moral standards, changing according to history, culture, civilization.

Good point about living entirely for survival, Etruscia. But what do we know is good? What should we aim to please? Our senses? Then the heroin addict is doing what he should.

Terry, if "good" is defined by the positive effects of an action, how do you then decide? You cannot even contain in your mind the effects of one of your actions, much less predict them. All you have to go by is intention.

Don't you think that a concept that ensnares our entire civilisation is worth debating JL? I agree with you that a reading of the book would render the thread useless. I read it regulary. But has George Bush read it, the way he paints with black and white in his brilliant rethorics? He uses the phrase good agains evil a lot.

[this thread could be renamed 'the necessity of spelling" (oops sorry, couldn't resist.)]

there is no such thing as 'evil'; it is a concept invented to describe the extreme of following the paths of 'natural' instinct' beyond the envelope of the necessity for survival.
To survive on this planet, we must parasite other living entities, the biological system is based on a food chain in which there is a hierarchy of predation. It is the system which is at fault, not the practitioners - the concept of 'resident evil' is based upon membership!

No 'wild' animal does more harm to the environment than is necessary to survive, because it would require even more effort, than is required to simply survive, and there is no 'motive'.

The human animal, able to see farther than most other beasts, has, in many cases developed the habit of casting its 'net' further than necessary, in order to create a (larger, and larger) buffer against hardship; a 'nest egg' of predation; a well stocked 'larder'!
The human animal, more perceptive, than most other beasts, being subtly aware that it is exceeding the 'demands of mere survival' has developed (with the willing aid of a number of mystical institutions) the concept of 'guilt'!
Guilt is simply the knowledge that your behavior exceeds your need, and is defined socially as 'evil' (or 'smart', depending upon one's viewpoint, and level of 'wisdom').

[ i feel that participation in activities that are socially described as 'evil', indicates a flaw in the psychological makeup of the perpetrator, fueled frequently by erroneous standards of 'status' projected by society itself.]

and, if 'chance', hundreds of millions of years ago had opted for silicon creatures, operating on small, readily available quantities of solar radiation (not unlike plant life, as we know it), we would be witness to a completely different 'ballgame'!

[do you know any 'evil' trees?]

Evil spelled backwards is 'live'. I'm off to the Satan worshipping thread now. Now the real question is, if one is constantly late with their rent, in the eyes of the property manager, do you become 'resident evil?'

I know an evil tree, the Dutch Elm, not because it's a tree, but because it's Dutch, and has a disease named after it.

if you happen to live (like many other birds of a (similar) feather) in a Dutch elm tree; you simply become 'irrelevant evil'!

[you may want to wear elbow, and knee pads, for 'the event'!]

Good question BoGoWo. Evil trees. I can think of some people that would say that the cannabis plant is an evil tree.



I think this strikes a nerve I was aiming for. From this it follows that good and evil is like time. Real only in the subject. They are maya. A word that means both "illution" and "energy".

I find your post very interesting, BoGoWo, but I think your signature is more to the point than the post itself in some ways...

[i am more 'polar' than 'bi' and the 'bear']

and 'humanity' is, as you point out, an objective, not a 'given'!

Watching a grissly bear catch and kill a young deer of some sort on T.V. yesterday I was moved, even a bit outraged, but I knew that it was a necessary death, at least from the "perspective" of the bear's survival. What never occured to me in this state of outrage was that the bear was evil. If anything there was a subtle (unconsciousness) sense that Nature was evil. I realize this is not so.
Among humans, it is different. We SOMETIMES consider outselves guilty of "evil." I watch the news about Americans killing Iraquis in Falluja and know that we do not consider it evil, but when they kill us, we freely call them thugs, mugs, and murderers. Even when children are killed as a result of our bombings, we consider it unfortunate but not the result of evil. So evil, or what constitutes it concretely, varies across cultures, national interests and historical periods. One cannot think of good and evil as absolutes with a straight face.

There's a short story called "The ones who walk away from Omelas" that deals with this: It's the story of a 'perfect' society that keeps itself from becoming stagnant and cultureless by having one child grow up with out love, adequate food, or light, and every citizen must look at this child once a year. They say that without this child, all their culture, wisdom, and happiness would be destroyed. The child's misery defines their happiness. So, they say that this evil lets them be good.
I say it makes them evil, but that's just me. I do admit that some knowledge of evil must be known in order to be good, but how much evil is a conundrum.

Yes, Taliensin, the contrast has to do with concepts, not concrete realities. One does not have to actually see evil to do good, but one does have to have the concept of evil in order to have the concept of good(ness). Indeed, one would not recognize (be able to categorize) acts as evil or good without the conceptual contrast.

Cav, you got a problem with Dutch People?

Dan van Kessel(Etruscia)

Absolutely not. It's just a running joke. Never take me seriously if you find me slandering the Dutch. :wink: My grandfather was a field medic in Flanders, and Belgium during WWII. Believe me, I have no problems with the Dutch.

If the world was a peaceful place, or that if evil as we know it would suddenly disappear, we would create evil, not as bombing kids, raping girls or burning churches but maybe as selling a shirt for $1 more than its worth.

I have never understood the need for evil - if indeed there is evil - to know good.

I do not need to be blind to know I see - why is the polar opposite needed to define something.

Perhaps BoGoWo wants to jump here - it IS in his sig.

Jason