Is there such thing as good and evil?

Using Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you were attempting to show that different people can see the same event as either good, or evil. I was providing background to your post, which helps explain why it can be argued either way. And it seems, from your reply, that it created the 'questions' in your mind that you ended up asking. Why then do you object to the post (ie saying Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not the point of the discussion - which they aren't, and were never intended to be - that should have been clear from my last line).

There is no such "thing" as good and evil; there ARE our "ideas" of good and evil. Now just because our ideas of the evil status of the holocaust and the bombings of Nagasaki are SO strong, that does not justify the moral objectification of our ideas concerning them.

I believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki are difficult examples of good and evil. Many can rationalize both sides of this event as good or evil.

We need to look at the harm and benefit of each action on their own merits. Where one benefits from any action while harming the other person(s), we might get close to what good and evil is.

Example: If one lies and steals from a company that harms other employees, investors, and the commnity, can it be objectively determined to be evil?

I wonder.

Regarding Hiroshima / Nagasaki, you have read the posts wrong. No poster is arguing that they constitute good or evil.

Regarding 'the holocaust' - I doubt that any person can successfully argue that attempted Genocide of a race on propoganda/economic grounds does not constitute extreme bad.

Evil, as I've previously said, I think is a religious word.

I was just making a point about the status of morality in general. There are only moral judgements not moral facts.

JLN, Even so, moral judgements are based on how we perceive events or actions. Morals are not always consistent within and without cultures. We must define good and evil based on benefit and harm.

That's true, C.I., but what you are saying, I think, is that morality amounts to judgements ABOUT facts?

Facts are essential to determine its moral basis.

It's more easily distinguished than truth..


For those of you who have never witnessed or encountered evil--I hope you never do.

IMHO--Pain is the proof of existence and evil is the proof of Good.
The meaning of life is in the choice between the two; and whether or not you chose to believe does not alter what is...

Well, we've had this discussion on more than one occasion in more than one form. Definitions of what things are good and what things are bad are always ultimately subjective. The use of the term "evil" carries this to another level, as it entails an implication of a universal force, a presence of "evil," which seeks to disseminate that which is "bad" throughout the cosmos.

No, there is no such thing as good; no there is not such thing as bad; particularly, there is no such thing as evil. There are only subjective judgments about what is or is not good, bad or evil.

I saw an interesting experiment that had to do with human empathy. I think the children involved were 3 or 4 years old - possibly as old as 5 or 6, but I don't think so.

In the experiment, the child is allowed to see someone make a show of losing something ( a ball, a toy) or being hindered by an obstacle (a closed door with a handle only on one side). Without any direction from anyone, most of the time the child would come to the aid of the person in "distress". The point was that there appears to be some kind of altruism inherent in humans.

For one who believes that all things moral are relative - where does he say that the instinct to help comes from? Does he say that no matter how young, the child has absorbed enough of the parents "right and wrong" to know that helping find the toy or open the door is the thing to do?

This is an interesting point. But then again, think about it this way: which would be a better way to determine if there is a good and evil: experimenting on children who go by instinct, or experimenting on adults who have already developed their own ways of thinking? Both sides have merit, I guess, but I view the results of the experiment this way: Humans have a built in subjective view of reality inherent in (practically) all of us.

When you look at other matters, humans are inherently evil. Until children are taught otherwise, they like to fight with siblings over toys, and kick, scream, and yell to get their way. This comes naturally to them; that's why we have spoiled brats when parents don't punish their children.

I believe that we cannot possibly hope to understand the universe until we can let go of all of our instincts: both "good" and "bad". Once you can see the world exactly as it is, you will make far more sound decisions.

And I suppose you know "how the world really is" (whatever that means)?

Anyway, I was not so much making a point as asking a question of the moral relativists - I'd be a little interested how they explain the altruism from the toddlers. And I'd appreciate it if everyone tried to keep things in layman's terms and not get too clinical, if possible.

I totally agree that once we let go of our "instincts" both good and bad, we will be able to make more sound decisions. Also, the words good and bad are just words that we as a society use to label things the way we see them. We are all individuals with different beliefs, thoughts, etc. It's up to the individual to decide if he/she believes in good or bad.

Okay, maybe three's a charm...

Snood,

My 4 year old is certainly capable of expecting a reward for "good" behaviour.... a smile from a parent is worth more than gold at that age. She's also capable of deliberately not helping when she's in the mood, and sometimes volunteers to go to "time out" rather than do as she's asked.

But let's assume altrusim is entirely instinctual for the sake of the argument. People with a stronger instinct to help each other will survive those with a weaker one. So nothing is proven concerning an objective good and evil.

There is no such thing as good and evil. There is no good and evil in nature. There is mean, selfing, kind, caring, but no good or evil.

As a point of contention :

...even though we argue there is no good an evil, humans by nature interpret things through emotions. The emotions come in, and are reflected back out...but just how are they reflected back out?

To reflect a feeling, people may act on their feeling, OR they may talk about their feeling. To talk (and to justify actions), people need to name their feelings - in order to identify them and explain them.

The same way people came up with the word 'evil' to describe how they feel of an event/action, is the same way they came up with the word 'kind', and 'good', and 'empathetic' etc.

In fact, all words in our language are just 'ideas'. Some represent gramattical ideas, while other words represent an 'object' or, more importantly to this topic, a 'concept'. With these conceptual words - what a particular word means to me, may not have the same meaning to another. Love is the most most obvious example of this - most people can't even agree on a definition for it, and there are many different 'types' of love (as such, it is perhaps the most conceptual of any word in the English language). Yet not one suggests that love doesn't exist.

Should we take it to the 'n'th degree, the arguement that good and evil doesn't exist, is also says that our language doesn't exist, for good and evil are just words representing idea's - just like every word in our language.

There is no getting away from the fact that we instinctively interpret/react to actions/events in our world. And in order to understand our emotions/reactions better, and also to enable explanation of such, we must name those reactions/feeling. As such, how is the word 'evil' any more right or wrong than any other word in our language.

With love, we feel a warm fuzzy feeling. With genocide, we can feel horror, sorrow, bewilderment, fear, loathing, disgust etc etc etc...and can anyone say that the name 'evil', being a conceptual word, is wrong for genocide?

It's quite possible, even if there is consensus on what is good, that should this action be enabled, the results could be bad.

- Life extension versus over population
- Robotics versus autonomy

It's quite possible, even if there is consensus on what is bad, that should this action be enabled, the results could be good.

- Elimination of a deadly genetic disease through sterilization, without which the human race would not survive.
- Hoarding of global resources, allowing a small number of humans to leave earth, without which the human race would not survive.