Question about Good and Evil

[2-0-NINE]

I took this class recently The Philosophy of Religion, basically analyzing whether you can prove one's religion to be true or not. I was posed a good question, well it may sound good to me, to the more advanced minded or above Novice Minds, it may not be. How can you Define or Prove that anything is good or evil? If you can neither see, touch, hear, taste, or smell God, then through logical reasoning there is no existence of God.

How can you define what is good, if I help a dying women is that good, if I give money to the Poor is that good, or an act thereof? Define Evil, what is evil, the word evil at a time meant something horrible like an illness or a sprained ankle, not necessarily an action. So today, I ask, if we cannot prove the Existence of God, because we can't view him through the 5 senses, what makes us think, know or believe that what we know/think/believe to be good or evil, is the absolute definition of it?

If a man were to murder a child or molest him/her, how would you know that it is evil or an act of evil? How can we prove it's evil. Some philosophers have said it's because you force your will upon another, How does this prove it's evil or not? Other philosophers say you use them as a tool, and it's against the laws of nature.

So my question is, if We theists cannot prove God through physical logic, maybe someday which I believe and KNOW will come to pass, how you can prove that what is evil is evil, and what is good is good?

 

[Gizmo]

Answer a question with a question? How can you tell a positive from a negative? Most times by the outcome. I will add more later.

 

[JLMACN]

I took this class recently The Philosophy of Religion, basically analyzing whether you can prove one's religion to be true or not. I was posed a good question, well it may sound good to me, to the more advanced minded or above Novice Minds, it may not be. How can you Define or Prove that anything is good or evil? If you can neither see, touch, hear, taste, or smell God, then through logical reasoning there is no existence of God.

How can you define what is good, if I help a dying women is that good, if I give money to the Poor is that good, or an act thereof? Define Evil, what is evil, the word evil at a time meant something horrible like an illness or a sprained ankle, not necessarily an action. So today, I ask, if we cannot prove the Existence of God, because we can't view him through the 5 senses, what makes us think, know or believe that what we know/think/believe to be good or evil, is the absolute definition of it?

If a man were to murder a child or molest him/her, how would you know that it is evil or an act of evil? How can we prove it's evil. Some philosophers have said it's because you force your will upon another, How does this prove it's evil or not? Other philosophers say you use them as a tool, and it's against the laws of nature.

So my question is, if We theists cannot prove God through physical logic, maybe someday which I believe and KNOW will come to pass, how you can prove that what is evil is evil, and what is good is good?

huh?

5000

 

[ThaG]

If you can neither see, touch, hear, taste, or smell God, then through logical reasoning there is no existence of God.

this answers your question

you can't prove God exists so if there's no God (as the overwhelming evidnce points) there is no reason to think about what's wrong or right, what's evil or good

these are vague terms invented by people who chose to waste their energy writing 100s of pages of BS about things like moral, good, evil and so on, that really don't mean shit, instead of putting their energy into something actually useful

all that matters is whose genes survive

evolution favoured the development of society and altruism in our society so that's the closes you can get to a basis for what's evil and good

 

[FunK-3-FivE]

A more anthropologic explanation is thus;

It's quite interesting how society and civilization has progressed, we owe much of our advancement to religion and laws thereof. I myself am agnostic, it is self-evident in my past posts I have an atheist slant. However, I don't care what you say about religion being the basis for most conflict and wars, religion is the PRIMARY reason civilization advanced, period. Humans being selfish in nature (like all other living things) would only respect each other if there was a higher being or deity to be feared. Politics and laws started with religion, anyways I'll get to the point;

Evil: in classic religion and ethics all definitions of evil have something in common, PRIMITIVE EGOCENTRISM (animalistic selfishness). Any behavior that is primitive and selfish is usually considered evil; rape, murder, stealing, deceiving, betraying, disobedience. These behaviors bring us back to an animalistic way of life and impede social and civil progress, progress of mankind.

Good: in classic religion and ethics all definitions of good deeds have something in common, unselfish acts that improve mankind and civilization. Any unselfish act that uses higher thinking; loyality, honesty, social work, charity, donating, obedience, working together and helping the entire species as a whole. In this definition good deeds are the basis for civilization and progress. It's the difference between an uncivilized primitive human and a civilized modern human. And what can we owe to this detour towards progress in human history? FEAR OF GOD. In it's infancy, civilization had nothing else but fear of god to enforce it's laws.

There you have it, although I don't believe in God, the concept of God and religion were the foundation of civilization. And Good vs. Evil is basically Progressive Civilized Behavior vs. Primitive Selfish Behavior.

 

[I AM]

Definitions are left up to the individual, however, social institutions within this country (and most others) try to get you to have the same definitions, therefore, being the same person as the next man/woman.

As long as people communicate properly about what they mean by what they say, there won't be a problem...but 95% of the human population is fucking retarded and doesn't understand that.

 

[nhojsmith]

i dont really believe in "good and evil" or god, but certain things deifnitely make me feel happy. certain things i do can also bring joy to other people. when i make a gain from someone elses loss, i call it balance, when two parties both gain, i call it harmony, when both lose, maybe you could call that evil or some other word with a negative connotation.

 

[ThaG]

A more anthropologic explanation is thus;

It's quite interesting how society and civilization has progressed, we owe much of our advancement to religion and laws thereof. I myself am agnostic, it is self-evident in my past posts I have an atheist slant. However, I don't care what you say about religion being the basis for most conflict and wars, religion is the PRIMARY reason civilization advanced, period. Humans being selfish in nature (like all other living things) would only respect each other if there was a higher being or deity to be feared. Politics and laws started with religion, anyways I'll get to the point;

Evil: in classic religion and ethics all definitions of evil have something in common, PRIMITIVE EGOCENTRISM (animalistic selfishness). Any behavior that is primitive and selfish is usually considered evil; rape, murder, stealing, deceiving, betraying, disobedience. These behaviors bring us back to an animalistic way of life and impede social and civil progress, progress of mankind.

Good: in classic religion and ethics all definitions of good deeds have something in common, unselfish acts that improve mankind and civilization. Any unselfish act that uses high thinking; loyality, honesty, social work, charity, donating, obedience, working together and helping the entire species as a whole. In this definition good deeds are the basis for civilization and progress. It's the difference between an uncivilized primitive human and a civilized modern human. And what can we owe to this detour towards progress in human history? FEAR OF GOD. In it's infancy, civilization had nothing else but fear of god to enforce it's laws.

There you have it, although I don't believe in God, the concept of God and religion were the foundation of civilization.

no

the reason we developed the norms of behaviour we obey today is that those groups that did that survived because they gained selective advantage by setting rules that helped organize them better

religion was established as an easy way to control large masses of people

the beauty of evolutionary principle is that it is aplicable to everything

 

[FunK-3-FivE]

no

the reason we developed the norms of behaviour we obey today is that those groups that did that survived because they gained selective advantage by setting rules that helped organize them better

religion was established as an easy way to control large masses of people

the beauty of evolutionary principle is that it is aplicable to everything

That's exactly what I just said buddy. Fear of God was the only way to enforce laws, laws that improved and strengthened the society and kept them working together to survive and spread. You're just adding on with evolution (which I was trying to implement anyways), and I agree entirely. Show me why you disagreed? Or did you mean to put "yes" in place of "no"?

 

[MEXCOM]

Well the whole evil/good arguement only holds weight if you believe in free will. If you believe everything has been predestined (either because of religion/piylosophy/physics) then neither is a choice but has been predetermined due to a divine being or an infinite amount of what at the time seemed to be arbitrary choices/events that one has gone through.

This is taken from another site where I was reading the following:

No, the concept of choice you're using is too vague.

How do you arrive at any choice? Chocolate instead of vanilla, for instance. The causes that preceded it, however random and arbitrary they may seem, force that outcome. If you choose, say, chocolate, the universe would not allow for any other choice other than "chocolate" given the circumstances that preceded the choice....simply because that's the one that happened.

Saying something like "well, I could've chosen vanilla" is false, because if you had chosen vanilla, the causes that preceded it would have allowed for the choice, and we would exist in a differently ordered universe. Thus, "chocolate" affects everything in the universe that follows it, just as everything that that preceded it caused "chocolate" in the first place.

In such a system of thought, choice itself is an illusion. Concepts of choice and free will are themselves determined by causes, and not exempt from determinism.

The choices are already made....or at least they are inevitable. We just don't know what they'll be, thus our continued excitement in life.

 

[ThaG]

That's exactly what I just said buddy. Fear of God was the only way to enforce laws, laws that improved and strengthened the society and kept them working together to survive and spread. You're just adding on with evolution (which I was trying to implement anyways), and I agree entirely.

I am EXCLUDING the "animalistic selfishness", "primitive and civilised humans" and other definitions I don't find appropriate

 

[FunK-3-FivE]

I am EXCLUDING the "animalistic selfishness", "primitive and civilised humans" and other definitions I don't find appropriate

What, is a caveman going to be offended? HAHA why the political correctness?
Reminds me of those insurance commercials where the caveman is offended by their advertisements "So easy a caveman could do it".

Anyways I wasn't implying any type of human that exists today, look at my definitions of "primitive selfish behavior" (rape, murder, stealing). All societies, groups, tribes today have rules and laws. I wasn't stepping on anyones toes, and if you know any cavemen please send them my apologies, LOL.

 

[FunK-3-FivE]

Well the whole evil/good arguement only holds weight if you believe in free will. If you believe everything has been predestined (either because of religion/piylosophy/physics) then neither is a choice but has been predetermined due to a divine being or an infinite amount of what at the time seemed to be arbitrary choices/events that one has gone through.

This is taken from another site where I was reading the following:

No, the concept of choice you're using is too vague.

How do you arrive at any choice? Chocolate instead of vanilla, for instance. The causes that preceded it, however random and arbitrary they may seem, force that outcome. If you choose, say, chocolate, the universe would not allow for any other choice other than "chocolate" given the circumstances that preceded the choice....simply because that's the one that happened.

Saying something like "well, I could've chosen vanilla" is false, because if you had chosen vanilla, the causes that preceded it would have allowed for the choice, and we would exist in a differently ordered universe. Thus, "chocolate" affects everything in the universe that follows it, just as everything that that preceded it caused "chocolate" in the first place.

In such a system of thought, choice itself is an illusion. Concepts of choice and free will are themselves determined by causes, and not exempt from determinism.

The choices are already made....or at least they are inevitable. We just don't know what they'll be, thus our continued excitement in life.

MexicanCommando is reading universalism with a touch of zen... interesting, thats different conversation all together... and using that very argument I can say Destiny vs. Choice is all relative as well... because what you'll do is what you'll do, get it?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I took this class recently The Philosophy of Religion, basically analyzing whether you can prove one's religion to be true or not. I was posed a good question, well it may sound good to me, to the more advanced minded or above Novice Minds, it may not be. How can you Define or Prove that anything is good or evil? If you can neither see, touch, hear, taste, or smell God, then through logical reasoning there is no existence of God.

There is a brand of logic that approaches understanding of a supreme being. Although it is inductive, not deductive in process.

You know what else is understood outside the realm of sense-experience? The conscious self. In fact, being the understander, it understands itself, in itself, and thus transcends sensual considerations.

How can you define what is good, if I help a dying women is that good, if I give money to the Poor is that good, or an act thereof?

In what way are you "helping" the dying woman?

How are you donating this money to the poor? Did you just see a bum on the street and give him some cash? If so, then your answer is, no. You did not do good. Your intention may be good, but you have acted in the mode of ignorance. This guy will most likely spend it on some nonsense. Or even if he spends it on some food, he will go right back to his previous condition. So the key is to find out that which has lasting benefit.

Define Evil, what is evil, the word evil at a time meant something horrible like an illness or a sprained ankle, not necessarily an action. So today, I ask, if we cannot prove the Existence of God, because we can't view him through the 5 senses, what makes us think, know or believe that what we know/think/believe to be good or evil, is the absolute definition of it?

Evil is taking shelter of that which is not absolute, which includes fleeting sense gratification. Good would of course be the taking shelter of that which is absolute.

If a man were to murder a child or molest him/her, how would you know that it is evil or an act of evil? How can we prove it's evil. Some philosophers have said it's because you force your will upon another, How does this prove it's evil or not? Other philosophers say you use them as a tool, and it's against the laws of nature.

If evil is taking shelter of that which is not absolute, then this man would have to be able to demonstrate this specific act of killing or molestation as taking such absolute shelter in order for society to know it is good. This is like someone saying, "God told me to kill". Okay, maybe He did. Unfortunately, we don't just whimsically believe you and therefore you will suffer the full extent of the law. Maybe his act was good, but given the understanding God has allowed us, the punishment for that act must also be good.

So my question is, if We theists cannot prove God through physical logic, maybe someday which I believe and KNOW will come to pass, how you can prove that what is evil is evil, and what is good is good?

One can't always prove that a specific act done by a specific person is good or evil. There are always the anomaly, "God told me to do it" situations. Our responsibility is to act with the best of knowledge. That is all we can do.

I don't think it is an issue of proving God through physical logic. Those who have no realization of the Personality of God should seek goodness so far as they can as per the definition I gave. This will ultimately lead them to God. Those who are devotees of God and know Him Personally will act for His desire to the best of their knowledge. The concept of loving God and loving others is rather universal in religion.

 

[Gizmo]

If you are getting sucked off is it feeling good? If you got stabbed in your hand does it feel bad?

 

[Deadpool]

Questioning Good or Evil negates their existence. For them to exist requires the absolute belief in them as two equally opposite absolutes.

Perceptions of good and evil (become known as morality) have evolved and are currently evolving based on constantly evolving cultures, religions, histories. For example slavery in other times was thought of as acceptable or even good and natural, while today it is viewed as a great evil. Morality was introduced to human thought through the concept of dualism (good vs. evil) and has only maintained through religion. Thus moral judgments are aesthetic considerations and are not based on rational analysis. Morality is entirely subjective and personal and is beyond the judgment of others. Standards of morality are societal or personal and not universal (the way 1+1=2 is a universal truth).

 

[2-0-NINE]

If you are getting sucked off is it feeling good? If you got stabbed in your hand does it feel bad?

Do emotions count? I don't think so, I'm speaking in terms of ethics and morals here homeboy. What if I stabbed myself in the hand, would that be evil? Or is self infliction my own fault therefore it's up to the spectators, if there is any to judge whether it is evil or not, like MEXCOM said Free will. But what if there are some that don't believe in free will and that we are subjected to specific things in life, then how could you explain good and evil.

@916, I'll get back at you buddy, I'll add an edit to this post, I dropped the class in order to get another class, I think I'll get it next semester, with the same teacher.

 

[Gizmo]

Its giving and taking. If your actions take away from another in a negative manner such as rape that would be classed as "Evil" or bad. yet taking away in a possitive such as taking away the hunger they have by feeding them would be "Good. Yet giving in a negative such as giving your girl an STD would be classified as "Bad or "evil yet giving bread to the poor would be "Good". There is a good and evil even if there is arguement of God. Intruding on my space in any negative way or acting against me in anegative way is classed as both good and evil. Example You rob and kidnapped me:EVIL. I killed your mom and the Police come after me and shackle me: Good. IMO anyhow.

 

[Hutch]

Morality is entirely subjective and personal and is beyond the judgment of others.

I agree.

Good and evil are simply labels that we attribute to certain behavior. They are subjective in that what is considered 'evil' differs between different cultures and at different stages in their civilisation. When law comes into the picture, the terms 'evil' and 'good' are still subjective, but they're universal definition becomes democratically subjective (if the majority agree that something is evil, then that becomes evil).

Religion doesn't come into it. Normal people don't develop their morals from religion and thus it hasn't significantly impacted on what is considered 'evil' and 'good'. I consider religions definitions of 'good' and 'evil' to be metaphors, open to interpretation, and therefore it doesn't deserve any special consideration with regards to the development of morals.

 

[Hemp]

I agree.

Good and evil are simply labels that we attribute to certain behavior. They are subjective in that what is considered 'evil' differs between different cultures and at different stages in their civilisation. When law comes into the picture, the terms 'evil' and 'good' are still subjective, but they're universal definition becomes democratically subjective (if the majority agree that something is evil, then that becomes evil).

Religion doesn't come into it. Normal people don't develop their morals from religion and thus it hasn't significantly impacted on what is considered 'evil' and 'good'. I consider religions definitions of 'good' and 'evil' to be metaphors, open to interpretation, and therefore it doesn't deserve any special consideration with regards to the development of morals.

you got it.
this is a perfect time to understand what i say , n that is each of our individual reality differs from each other, based on our differing and unique differences, experiences, understanding, capability to understand, and the list goes on. This is why it is utterly difficult to convince somebody with a totally different belief system that a certain belief,which ranges from what religion is the way, to which movie or food is the greatest.
This is why i left religion as a whole because i can clearly see the very low chance one has of
1. becoming suspicious of his religion
2. looking in the "right" and EXACT direction
3. not only finding the religion, but the sect, since some sects are considered null.
4. being convinced of it enough to convert (the hardest process)
5. and not fucking up and blaspheming unknowingly.

Now does this man who ONLY wants to find the truth to be good and true to God, really deserve an ETERNAL torture?
Eternity will never even equal a 1000 nor a billion years of living.
And tell me, do you really think an average life of say 70 years is enough time for all people to really see the big picture clearly, especially when in a time like this people are just "born" into a religion and for the rest of ones life, he never even thinks of theology except for acknowledging the fact that he is a certain religion?

There are wayy wayy too many probabilities that the chance for one to succeed is very VERY low, and i can name you as many realistic probable situations as you like.
Therefor, an eternity of punishment for the reason of not being smart enough to succeed in all of those obstacles, is pretty Evil.
If so, then this God sounds ALOT like a dictator than like a loving Jesus-like character.



but back to stocktons question ill continue:
Like to those born into false islam, going around killin ppl and calling it Jihad is absolutely normal with no reason whatsoever to even be suspicious of a wrongdoing.. All because of their perception which is dictated by their fundamental belief of All That Is.

The same as believers in the top 3 religions, seeing nothing wrong with an eternal torture, because to their perspective, it matches completely according to the "Truth" of All That Is.

And, just as hutch mentioned , i believe that how we define what is truely evil or good needs to be based according to what all humans, including athiests, muslims, etc. see as evil or as good. And this isnt a difficult thing to do, trust me.

sorry for making you guys read alot, but i think my english is a wee-bit better, and my replies are much shorter than before.