Is there such thing as good and evil?

Right and wrong are one hundred percent arbitrary. Look at the idea of killing, and you can see the truth there. Some say that if they have to kill someone to save others, then that is what they will do. Others say that if they won't kill that man, because the blood would be on their hands then, and there is always the chance that the man they would kill would change his mind at the last second and not do it. From the latter perspective, the first one looks evil, because they have killed a man- and vice versa, as the first would argue that the other is evil because they let those people die.

What are good and evil? Good and evil are labels that we stamp onto things so that we have an excuse never to reform the way we think. That way, the conservatives can always be conservative without a problem, and the liberals can be liberal without a problem- a debate between the two of them isn't to actually convince the other that they are wrong, it is to poke them into a corner that makes them look stupid- whether they are or not. You must never label something as evil, because you can never see the world as the person who did the act did- you can never understand what they were thinking, or what their justifications were. No one ever knowingly does evil- if someone truly believes something is evil, they won't do it, ever. If they doubt, though, then they might give in to their temptations. This may look evil to others, but it may look perfectly moral to others yet. It is a matter of culture, and when you close your mind, you close off other possibilities. And if you are sure you are right, then there isn't any hope for you- because no one is perfect.

Different cultures notwithstanding, I still think I'd recognize human kindness and cruelty anywhere.

Foley, WELCOME to A2K. Your thesis on right and wrong are right on target. We all perceive right and wrong in different ways - even when we belong to the same culture. Look at the war in Iraq; some still think it's right, and many now think it's wrong.

Again, WELCOME!

Exactly. You'd recognize your version of it. To them, it may be perfectly acceptable. To you, it is cruel, unusual, and inhumane.

No, that's not what I meant. And I understand you're saying it's all subjective, but I disagree.

But that is entirely my point! You disagree because to you, right and wrong look undeniable. You claim there is only one right and wrong- but who determines them? They are from you.

Your opinion. You're not too good at simply agreeing to disagree, are you?

Exactly my point. It is purely my opinion.

And I'm sorry, but the fact that you disagree fuels my argument, so we're stuck :wink:

Foley.
You are correct, your are "not wrong" you are right-"not left"... the English language, languishes in it's use as a means of expressing one's self... unfortunately most of us " believe " that words mean what they says and don't understand, that they don't away's say what they mean.

Whether the word is "correct" or "right" - the issue is still a matter of opinion.

I understand that certain concepts of good and evil depend on the cultures, on which times we are living in, and on the persons themselves how they perceive them.

However, aren't there at least some concepts that are common to all cultures and to all people? I would have to think about which ones they could be, there are not so many probably.

On the contrary, I think people are far more alike than they are different.

Also to cello. This is true, but still there are major differences. And you have to remember, that we are [most likely] not the only intelligent life in the universe. And you must also understand that sometimes it is a matter of simple psychology, not necessarily culture- because even within a culture there a many different types of people, all with different opinions.

Look how different the Far Eastern cultures are to us. And they are still human- imagine life on another planet- it could be vastly different, if not completely the opposite of our own morals.

And simply the fact that I hold this different view of good and evil as my opinion proves me correct: they are purely opinion.

Why everything varies froms extreme good to extreme evil, and most forms of the extreme are evil !

Seriously though, a definition for evil must exist, whether or not a person has convinced themselves that they are good.

For example, genocide in the name of religion is evil, yet I dare say those committing the genocide have convinced themselves that they are doing it for 'the good'.

A 'Superior' (rich) government purposely indebting an 'inferior' (poor) country, tripling the % of subsistance poverty, then calling in 'favours' on that loan...displacing hundreds/thousands of people from their homes so that said superior government can allow it's Oil Barons to drill for oil, then giving said poorer government only 5% of said oil monies (75% to oil co, 15% to debt repayment, 5% to infrustructure support for said Oil rig, leaving 5%)...where said countries resources use to reach the people at 20% of resources, then only 5% reached them...is this evil? Is it deliberate fraud, theft, and placing of people into poverty, or have the people who imposed such simply told themselves it was good economic policy (by the superior government)?

Would the American/Brittish blockade of Iraq (before the war) be considered evil? (UN stats say it lead to the deaths of 500,000 children, and about 1,000,000 dead all up) Or was it judicious use of force to prevent more lives being lost?

War is perhaps the most obscure when it comes to what constitutes evil. There was a study done in world war 2 on battle fatigue, and it found that 90% (or 95% - can't remember) of soldiers in sustained combat operations suffered battle fatigue. It also found that the remaining percentages were sociopaths (they enjoyed killing). Sociopaths excluded, this is a good argument that killing, in any form is considered wrong (by the human body). Yet what about defence of ones country, it's freedom, it's way of life, and ones family and property?

Personally I think 'evil' is a religious term. 'Wrong' is the correct term, and it should be measured in terms of the negative effects on others.

That said...sometimes any action will have a negative effect on one group of people, but not doing that action will have a negative effect on another group of people. In this instance it comes down to balance. That said, most governements (because of interest group pressure - this occurs in both dictatorships and democracies - they are just different types) go absolutely one way, to the major detriment of one group (ie there is little to no balance).

If that sounds complicated (and it's really just the very very tip of the iceberg), that's because it is. I think all we can do is be watchful, and try not to contribute to other peoples misery if we can help it, and try to contribute to positive outcomes for everyone if we can enable it to be so.

PS I can think of many good things : Cheering someone up, giving a present, helping them in tough times etc...and I can think of many 'bad' things (relevant to 'most' cases) 'spreading vicious rumours, stealing, most cases), driving whilst so intoxicated that you kill someone etc

Somewhere in all that, must be a definition for good/evil, nice/bad etc (whether or not shades of grey exist - as they do in most things)

vikorr, Good addition to the disussion. I don't think it's those greys that are confusing, but the interpretation of black and white for many - depending on which side of the cultural, political or religious spectrum one happens to reside. You do make some good points about "harm to others" at the expense of one group to another.

All wars are stupid; it kills many innocent people, and ends up costing in human lives and treasure that could be used to help everybody through generosity.

As long as we have politics and religion, this world will never have peace.

Can we then say, there are big and small good, and big and small evil/bad/wrong things? Although the term wrong seems to imply a morality code which would be relative and subjective also.

And maybe, intermediate good/bad in between, i.e. not so good but not so bad neither?

Would things that are done for self-interest and/or self-defence/protection be OK and justified, never mind the consequences to the others? Whatever the others do to counter or disturb our above acts are "bad"? And vice-versa, depending on whose point of view you are looking from?

Could good v. bad things be done on an overall basis (country to country, groups of persons), or could they be done only on a personal basis (person to person)?

Nothing is ever only "person-to-person."

I see what you are saying, but you say it as though that you are right and they are wrong. You say "they have convinced themselves it is good", whereas I say that to them, it is good.

Why?

Was the bombing of Hiroshima evil? We ended the war and won by killing innocent civilians. There are obviously two views, whether you think that you are "good" or not.

"The dropping of the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was pure evil. We killed innocent civilians for the sake of our war, and poisoned their nations people for years to come. There is no excuse for a mass murder like this."

"Dropping the bombs on Japan was good. If we hadn't the war could have gone on, and if we had refrained from using our most powerful weapon, who knows how many of our people they could have killed. We did right by ending the war and achieving victory."

Now, whether or not Japan could have actually kept fighting and doing damage to us at that point is irrelevant, it's just an example. I could have made up one, but this was better.

But do you see my point? Who is "good" there? Whoever you agree with, obviously.

Hi

I can't be saying "I'm right" when there is no specific subject. That was purely a generalisation on the topic.

As for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, when America invaded Iwa Jima (part of Japan), they lost something like 8,000 troops, while Japan lost almost 30,000. From this experience, America believed that if they invaded Japan, they would loose 1,000,000 soldiers, and if the ratio's stayed the same, Japan would lose almost 3,500,000 soldiers. That's 4,500,000 soldiers - not including civilians (so maybe another 500,000?), and catastrophic destruction of industry and essential services (electricity etc), which likely would have lead to mass poverty and deaths related to the destruction of essential services etc, so maybe another 500,000? So an estimate in deaths of 5,500,500. Was dropping the bomb evil? I personally think there is no point in debating such a supposition.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not the point of discussion. It was an example that there are many different views of good and evil. Also, if saving lives is the only point, then why not simply surrender to spare us a war? Or is fighting them a greater good?