The neseccity of evil

Given JM's notion of the factual nature of evil as unnecessary harm, the title of this thread, on the necessity of evil, makes sense only with regard to the conception of evil and how that conception necessitates the complementary concept of good. So I'm differentiation the "factual nature" from the "conceptual nature" of evil.

Re: The neseccity of evil


PEACEFULNESS CAN BE AN INDIVIDUALISTIC PARADIGM WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO OTHERS AND IT CAN BE PERCEIVED TO BE GOOD OR EVIL - SOME ARE AT EASE WITH MASOCHISM WHILE OTHERS ARE AT EASE WITH PACIFISM

-I-1-2-No-U-

RE:


Is it your purpose here to imply that an individual is evil by indulging in his/her pleasure to be dominated or have pain inflicted upon themselves (masochism)?

Additionally, peacefulness, regarding individuals, is a state of being whose hallmark is passivity and thus totally dependant upon the whims of external entities and forces. Pacifism is an active choice that requires constant monitoring of events and course corrections regarding reactions to those events. Indeed, one can participate in pacifism while never achieving peacefulness.

Relying totally on the actions of others rarely results in individualistic long term peacefulness. Pacifism, in principle, would seem to have a major flaw. Is the individual to always eschew forceful behavior? Most observers would say that, at some point, the pacifist must stand his ground if only to insure his share of bread and water for his survival. But most of these would probably agree that man does not exist by these alone. This would imply that at some point the pacifist must become an activist which would then require physical action. The debate then shifts to the pacifist community. Should they fight for the land to grow their own bread or wait until that land is taken by less pacific beings and then merely fight for the law that mandates that all pacifists must be fed by the aggressors?

Respectfully,

JM

JL:

You are missing the point of this post. By saying that Evil is not good - Augustine is not saying that evil exists metaphysically or even physically. Reality is not some admixture of evil and good - it is all good.

This is called Natural Evil - and there is none of it. Natural Good - in my opinion - does not get its Good from its elevated metaphysical position - it gets its good from its being. It is better to be - than to never have been. So if it is - it is good.

I think oddly this is in align with with BoGoWo. There is no natural evil - there is only natural good - because there is only one thing - that is being. You can call this heat - or energy - but to call it something is to call it existing - and in my opinion good.

Thus, human action, with its intent known is the only evil. This is moral evil or moral good. Anything that does not maximize good is not perfect. Thus moral action can be mixed with good and evil - but it does not have to be - and I see no reason for needing evil - in order to be good. One could simply maximize good with his or her decisions for the length of thier life.

But in attempting to make that decision - I don't have to 'know' evil. I can simply view that what is not maximizing good is not what I want. But it no way to I 'know' evil.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Morrison that it is the unecessary part - the part that is wontonly viscious with no repurcussions to good (perhaps other than simple enjoyment of the human - which I argue is not intrinsically good) that makes his action truly evil.

TTF

TTF, you say that I am missing the point of the discussion because I am treating good and evil as natural phenomena existing in their own right either metaphysicallly or physically. And you understand me to be arguing that evil is the absence of good, and vice versa. Is that correct?
Actually, I do not believe in the absolute existence of either natural good or natural evil. To me they are no more than linguistic categories, and I was arguing that as such they are the two parts of a conceptual contrast set, in which each component requires the other for its meaningfulness. I, for one, think that Reality is morally indifferent, except to the extent that we humans are facets of Reality and hung up with morality, an issue totally of our own making. You are arguing for a natural good, are you not? I take this from your equation of the good with existence itself. From the perspective of Buddhism, as I understand it, existence (form) and non-existence (emptiness) are the same thing. An object both exists and does not exist at the same (thus violating our logical axiom that A either does or does not exist at one point in time). All things are essentially transitory (verbs rather than nouns), coming into existence (symbolized in Hinduism by Vishnu) and going out of existence (symbolized by Shiva) in an on-going seamless process.
Notice that I do not argue that your position is wrong; I only present mine. Ultimately, I think both are far from the Reality that is essentially mysterious. And if it were known, that knowledge would be ineffable. Imagine that language that could capture and relate that knowledge.
Metaphorically, philosophy ostensibly pursues the goal of expanding mind to the size of the Cosmos, but in reality it attempts to shrink the Cosmos to the size of the mind.
JLN

Nice post, JL. I'd be interested in seeing how you would relate this to the "Utopia" thread; I just made a post which mirrors yours very nicely. As far as this thread goes: I agree that morality is a social construction, but there seems to be some evidence presenting the view that morality is really just another evolutionary adaptation to contend with/control the conscious mind; that all our morals are really just ways to keep us from harming others of our species.

Yes, it seems that all societies, whether small primitive bands or large complex nation states, institutionalize critically essential behavioral rules as sacrosanct so that punishment for their violation becomes morally justified and obligatory.

I'd make a comment on good and evil, but it's been explained better than I could more than once, and, besides, my head is still spinning on my neck from this circular logic, and I can't stop laughing.