Both Good And Evil Are Life's Indestructable Forces

Glad to be here. Smile

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

K.VEE.SHANKER wrote:
My contention is that nothing worthwhile is possible without a minimum contribution from Evil.Do you all agree on it or not?

No, I don't agree, but I would be interested in your reasons for believing that. Granted that we live in societies where self-interest can induce us to harm others while rationalizing that it is for the best, but accepting that evil happens does not mean that it is required for any good things to be accomplished.

Dear Terry I'm glad you asked for reasons.The necessity of evil, in getting any thing done is due to the ever increasingly changing circumstances.It is many times unfavorable and things and people you thought were with you keep slipping out of your side.Though the opposite is also true sometimes generally the circumstances are against one's efforts.This will be particularly evident if you try to do some uncomfortable things.Uncomfortable either to you or to the public.I'm not referring to illegal or immoral issues.The issues may be very valid.Still one may encounter many hurdles and opposition at every turn.This is besides the people who assured support reneging it latter.People demand unreasonably.Sooner or latter intentionally or unintentionally out of frustration or urgency one will lie or cheat to get over the block reach the goal.

Jonat 3 and others wrote about relative perception.Please forget about relative and debatable actions.I'm urging you all to take up simple and recogonised acts like cheating ,lying, exploiting etc.There is no need to consider uncertain and insignificant differences.

0 Replies

Quote:

Dear Terry I'm glad you asked for reasons.The necessity of evil, in getting any thing done is due to the ever increasingly changing circumstances.It is many times unfavorable and things and people you thought were with you keep slipping out of your side.Though the opposite is also true sometimes generally the circumstances are against one's efforts.This will be particularly evident if you try to do some uncomfortable things.Uncomfortable either to you or to the public.I'm not referring to illegal or immoral issues.The issues may be very valid.Still one may encounter many hurdles and opposition at every turn.This is besides the people who assured support reneging it latter.People demand unreasonably.Sooner or latter intentionally or unintentionally out of frustration or urgency one will lie or cheat to get over the block reach the goal.

Jonat 3 and others wrote about relative perception.Please forget about relative and debatable actions.I'm urging you all to take up simple and recogonised acts like cheating ,lying, exploiting etc.There is no need to consider uncertain and insignificant differences.

If you read my post, i said that the whole point of Good and Evil is that it is NOT relative. I give a clearly defined universal meaning to Good and Evil, so that it is not relative. If Good and Evil are relative, it would have no clearly defined meaning.
Self interest in itself is merely a product of Power. Power is used for oneself. However, the way we decide to use that Power determines if it is called Good or Evil. Power that benefits the masses most is called Good. People who lie, cheat, etc. are people unable to look at the BIGGER picture. They see direct results from their lying and cheating, so they think it is the best way to have Power.
Theoretically, it is not necesary to be Good. Since Power is ALWAYS used for oneself, it is not necesary to use that power for others. People who are Evil clearly understand that. However, why does Good exist then? Because by using Power to benefit others beside oneself, would ultimately benefit oneself in the end. It is thus based on the concept of mutual benefition. Essentially, Good follows the way to exist by symbiosis. Evil chooses the way of the parasite to exist.

0 Replies

K.VEE.SHANKER, thanks for the clarification. I think I understand what you are saying now, and it may be a cultural perspective.

In your society, you feel that it is necessary to lie, cheat, and/or exploit people in order to overcome obstacles and reach your goals. Therefore evil is necessary in order to accomplish anything.

From my perspective, it is possible to accomplish anything I wish without resorting to lies, cheating, or exploiting people. Therefore I do not feel that evil is necessary in the world, but acknowledge that it exists because others are willing to resort to it in order to reach their own goals.

0 Replies

jonat3, I do not see the logic in your argument.

Why can't good and evil be relative? Some things (such as genocide) are far more evil than others (stealing food). Good comes in degrees also, and some things (welfare, lobbying for tax breaks) are both good and evil because their effects are complex.

Why is god necessary for good and evil to exist? Granted if they actually were positive and negative powers, god could be the source of that power, but you have not shown us that good and evil are Powers, but simply the outcome of choices made by ordinary people in their pursuit of benefits for themselves and/or others.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why can't good and evil be relative? Some things (such as genocide) are far more evil than others (stealing food). Good comes in degrees also, and some things (welfare, lobbying for tax breaks) are both good and evil because their effects are complex.

Like i said. Other opinions are the imperfect form from what i mentioned. I know that the world is not black and white, but also has many shades of gray in between.

Quote:

Why is god necessary for good and evil to exist? Granted if they actually were positive and negative powers, god could be the source of that power, but you have not shown us that good and evil are Powers, but simply the outcome of choices made by ordinary people in their pursuit of benefits for themselves and/or others.

Cannibals do not believe it to be evil to eat our own kind, yet others would be horrified by it. However, who can say that it is evil? In the case that God doesn't exist, all we may be are a bunch of molecules held together with an illusion of self consciousness. The murder of a human being is then just an assimilation of particles from the perspective of the universe, nothing more , nothing less. In this case only a supreme being would then be able to determine what is truly Good and what is truly Evil.
However terms like Good and Evil do exist today. Meaning that a universal definition exists in the event that God doesn't exist. That's why there is an important requirement for the determination of what is Good and what is Evil. Good must be supported by the MAJORITY. In my argument i stated that the masses prefer Good, because it benefits them most. Even though the cannibals do not find their act evil, the majority of mankind shuns it.

And the reason i equate Good and Evil with Power? Simple. People, in the pursuit of power, often ignore things like good and evil. But only someone who is either Good or Evil can truly achieve ultimate power. That is why Good and Evil is actually Power in itself.

This definition of Good and Evil in the case that God doesn't exist is of course only a shadow of the real thing, in case he DOES exist. That Good and Evil are TRULY unrelative.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

K.VEE.SHANKER, thanks for the clarification. I think I understand what you are saying now, and it may be a cultural perspective.

In your society, you feel that it is necessary to lie, cheat, and/or exploit people in order to overcome obstacles and reach your goals. Therefore evil is necessary in order to accomplish anything.

From my perspective, it is possible to accomplish anything I wish without resorting to lies, cheating, or exploiting people. Therefore I do not feel that evil is necessary in the world, but acknowledge that it exists because others are willing to resort to it in order to reach their own goals.

Dear Terry Where do you live ? Paradise? Not on Earth I suppose!

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

MORALITY demands a god. NOTHING is moral or immoral unless a god has dictated that it is.

Frank, I know you've said this, or something similar, in the past, but I don't know if you've ever given an explanation as to why morality requires a god. Could you please enlighten us?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
MORALITY demands a god. NOTHING is moral or immoral unless a god has dictated that it is.

Frank, I know you've said this, or something similar, in the past, but I don't know if you've ever given an explanation as to why morality requires a god. Could you please enlighten us?

Joe

I may get more involved here than absolutely necessary, but I want to be as clear in my position on this matter as possible.

I realize that most people consider morals and ethics to be synonymous. I don't -- but I hate when I have stated that position as categorically as the illustration you offered. I try to be more careful than that...but sometimes screw up.

Allow me to digress for a second.

The AOL desktop message today was that John Kerry had used a "curse word" -- a "profanity" when he reacted to a question from Rolling Stone Magazine about his early support of Dubya's war in Iraq. His exact words were: "Did I expect George Bush to **** it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did.''

Well, Joe, as you well know, the word "****" is not a "curse word" and it is not a "profanity" -- although most people would consider it both. "Cursing" is very specific -- it involves calling upon a god to condemn someone's soul to Hell. "God damn you!" is a curse -- and "damn" is a curse word. "Profanity" also is very specific -- and involves profaning something -- which is to say, making worldly, something that is considered holy. "Jesus Christ" used the way I used it several times yesterday while watching the Giants sleep-walk through yet another football game -- is a profanity.

"****" ain't. "****" is a vulgarity.

End of digression -- but the digression plays a part in what I think about the words "morals" and "ethics."

It seems to me (I may get nobody else on the planet to agree with this!) that "morals" deal with comportment with the dictates of a deity -- where "ethics" seem to deal with norms established by society (often derived from morals) -- but which often transcend (and at times, obviate) obligations toward a deity.

Most people would not call homosexuality unethical -- but a huge number of people would call it immoral.

Slavery, according to the Bible is not immoral -- but a huge number of people would call it unethical.

The dictionaries do not often differentiate between "cursing" "swearing" (yet another specific meaning), "profaning" or "a vulgarity" -- but that really has to do with the common usage. I suspect the same is true of "ethics" and "morals" -- although I would have a hell of a time trying to document that.

Here are two articles that I was unable to cut and paste. Just take a look at the first three paragraphs of each link. They seem to head in the same direction I was taking -- but are much easier to understand.

http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/ethics

http://www.so.wustl.edu/science_outreach/curriculum/genetics/pdfs/ModGen_4B_SP.pdf

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

"****" is a vulgarity.

Quite right. And a damned fine vulgarity at that.

Frank Apisa wrote:

It seems to me (I may get nobody else on the planet to agree with this!) that "morals" deal with comportment with the dictates of a deity -- where "ethics" seem to deal with norms established by society (often derived from morals) -- but which often transcend (and at times, obviate) obligations toward a deity.

Count me among the many who will not agree with you (I have already given my definitions in another thread). But I understand your position: if you define morality as something derived from a belief in a deity, then of course you're right in saying that morality requires a belief in a god. It's just that your definition is, I would suggest, rather idiosyncratic.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Most people would not call homosexuality unethical -- but a huge number of people would call it immoral.

Slavery, according to the Bible is not immoral -- but a huge number of people would call it unethical.

Agree with the first statement, disagree with the second. I would imagine that most people would describe slavery as "immoral" rather than "unethical," regardless of what the bible might say on the subject.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Here are two articles that I was unable to cut and paste. Just take a look at the first three paragraphs of each link. They seem to head in the same direction I was taking -- but are much easier to understand.

http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/ethics

http://www.so.wustl.edu/science_outreach/curriculum/genetics/pdfs/ModGen_4B_SP.pdf

The second link gives a rather naive and simplistic definition of "morals" -- it relies on a kind of "common usage" definition that, at most, shows that many people are confused about the concept. The first link is just plain weird. A church for viruses? What the devil is that all about?

0 Replies

Okay, Joe, let's agree to disagree on portions of my argument.

I am not in love with the concept -- but I see some value in differentiating ethics from morals -- and I will stick with it. But I will attempt to be more careful to identify it as an idiosyncratic bent.

0 Replies

Hmmm, i see your point. Morals would then deal with right and wrong. Ethics would then deal with accepted behaviour in society. Morals and ethics do not exactly have the same kind of meaning, however they do kind of overlap each other.
But back to the main point. Good and Evil REQUIRE the existence of a supreme being. From the perspective of the universe, something like murder would merely be the rearrangement of molecules. Cannibilism would then merely be the assimilation of molecules. Do you see? Without the existence of a God, something like murder would merely be, like Centroles said, an example of natural physical laws and chemistry. Only a supreme being can point out what is truly evil and what is good.

0 Replies

Well, Jonat, I think "good" and "not good" do not require a god -- although I can't even imagine a concept of "evil" without one. (Terry, one of those rare instances where we disagree!)

Society (a bunch of individuals all acting in concert) certainly can say: We don't want people murdering other people indescriminately -- and we consider that to be "not good" -- and will toss your ass in jail forever if you do it.

No god necessary.

It is not an intrinsic fact of nature -- just a joint decision.

0 Replies

I already gave a definition of Good and Evil before. This definition gave it a more "defined" meaning, but without the existence of a God, this definition can not completely escape relativity. And the whole point of Good and Evil is that it is not relative.
Like i said before, the definition of Good and Evil, in the absence of God, is only a shadow of the real thing, in case he DOES exist.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

MichaelAllen wrote:
God exists because I find that easier to believe than evolution. Good comes from me choosing God's intervention. Bad is the absence of God's intervention. He doesn't always intervene so that you know the difference.

Your personal inability to understand evolution is not proof of God's existence. :wink:

Even if God exists, how do you know that his intervention is "good"? Based on what I have observed of biology and history, any being that deliberately created all of this is either unethical or incompetent.

My statement was misunderstood by several people. In later posts, I explained in greater detail. But, most people are only interested in dissecting words rather than understanding the entire thread and knowing the essence of what someone means when they say it.

My belief in God is established on the fact that I find it easier to believe than evolution. Evolution takes a greater stretch of the imagination than believing that a higher power guided everything to bring it all together and create the universe.

0 Replies

Both Good And Evil Are Life's Indestructable Forces

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know