Define the difference between good and evil

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

This is not meant to be a theological question. I know this question has been done a million times, and I am familiar with how most of the major philosophers have dealt with the subject.

This question was recently posed as an essay assignment in a college Comp II class. I am not looking for someone to write the essay. What I am looking for are differing views on several key questions that must be addressed in order to begin to tackle the big question. Here they are, and remember these are not to be answered from a religious perspective.

Define Good
Is Good equivalent to Positive?
Is Good equivalent to Constructive?

Define Evil
Is Evil equivalent to Negative?
Is Evil equivalent to Destructive?

If the thesis is not theological should it read “Define the difference between good and bad?”

Are Good and Evil opposites?

Must all events fall into one and only one of these two catagories?

Was the “invention” of these concepts required to make society possible?

If these concepts are the constructs of man does the majority define them? (For instance, the majority calls the color red “red.” It remains to be “red” even if the minority begins to call it green.)

Feel free to answer one, all, or as many as you like. Thanks for the help.

2

I believe that the idea of Good is equivalent to being positive, because I believe good is the elimination of suffering. Being good is basically being desirable and good in nature. It may be something that benefits society,yourself, or other individuals. It is also being equivalent to constructive, because maybe your good efforts and contributions to society can make society more peaceful and united? It is basic of idea of the “common good” of the people. While the “greater good” is something that illuminates the human species as a whole which creates something positive. At the same time, you are being constructive, because you have benefited the world in some way.

In Plato’s, The Republic, it mentions that you can’t really speak of the idea of GOOD in and of itself, but what is OUTSIDE of Good. Meaning, what is the root of good? Human conscience? Human Nature no matter how neutral it is? Plato goes on to say that good may be manifested (constructive) when placed into practice, in his case, it was to create a unity in the state of Greece. Do you see what I mean? “Good” is the prime-mover behind actions-intent.

Good is merely what is desired by society as a whole. What “benefits” society, including the individuals within it. Then again, what may always be “good” to society is not always good to the “whole.” Take the Industrial Revolution as an example. Everyone was fine and dandy about it at the beginning, but look at the environmental condition we are in now. Basically, we have added more pollutants, toxins, GHG’s, etc to the environment causing Global Warming.

Once again, it depends what it is meant or intended by OUTSIDE of evil. Evil to someone may be constructive/beneficial to another individual. But, taking “evil” in full context, it is basically the CONTRARY of Good. Evil can bring about suffering, inflict harm, etc

But I believe that everything that occurs is NEUTRAL. Nothing can be COMPLETELY GOOD OR BAD. Much like not everything is black and white.

Evil destructive? Well, sometimes destruction is necessary to bring about creation (e.g.: “new things”)

Good and Evil is basically justified by what is meant, which is why philosophical language is so important. What is meant by your good? What is meant by your evil?

Well, we certainly have “accepted morale” society has established. We have laws that say “killing” is evil-which, in societal perspective, it is (and hopefully by everyone in here, lol). This is why there is such thing called “social order”, social order being “good”–but then again, many issues arise. We destroy “social order” when we protest, right? This would be considered “evil” to authority figures, government, etc Then again, protesting can contribute alot to society and even bring about great change, which would be a “GOOD” thing.

Do you see what I mean?

Everything is about neutrality.

3

Good is what I like
Evil is what I don’t like.

4

ditto

-Imp

5

I agree with Aquarian. Theres a phenomenon too worth considering that whenever something reaches its extreme, that it will change towards its opposite.

Good cannot exist without evil, and no evil exists without good… in most cases we can come up with things being ‘oppsitite’, love and hate, war and peace, good and evil, but each opposite is part of the same entity and they define one another as black defines white. Being human though we naturally define them based on our own interpretations.

(Btw Paulo Coelho wrote a couple of fictional novels that you may find interesting to read: The Alchemist and The Devil and Miss Prim… both touch on the issues of good and evil and whether they can exist alone and how they work within us.)

6

My thoughts on good and evil is that it is the result of a thinking species being able to think about the universe. They are concepts as a way explaining the world. For me to notice the only way is through contrast. When you notice you can then work with it and think about it. A thinking species that succesfully evolves would be one that has come with the idea of morality, it’s a way of agreement. A species with morality is more likey to have unity and therefore more likely to survive. The ideas of good and evil are concepts only, because we think by way of contrast.

7

Hi Andromeda.

You hit the nail right in the head. Good will never exist without an element of evil, and evil will never exist without the element of bad. Yet, I also believe that the definition of “Evil” itself is more of a specification condition. Let us say that someone harms someone else’s property and steals many things that are personally owned. It is a wrong and it is a crime, so far a temporary evil. But, if the person allocutes sincerely, repents (possibly serving time in the criminal justice system), etc and pays back the owner, it is not REPETITION. Evil requires a special condition to identify its nature,and existence. And that special nature is repetition.

a. in order for evil to exist, good must exist,
b. good exists
c. therefore, evil (necessarily) exists

Hi w_eslin.

I also agree with you. The concepts of good and bad are based on a social agreement between people and their ability to think about the external universe around them.

8

That was affirming the consequent – a fallacy.
E=>G does not imply G=>E

But you could say, if good did not exist, evil would not exist.
E=>G does imply not G=>not E

Signed, your neighborhood logic police,
my real name

on one level good and evil are what you do or don’t want, but upon thinking of what is truely good, or most good, we say with more insight what is more truely good or evil.

evil is the disease of being.

Regards,
as afore-signed

9

I agree. Good and evil are just a matter of preference. Confusion can arise when the term “good” get used as a noun instead of an adjective.

10

How do you know if there is a good unless you can contrast it with it’s opposite you might not label it as bad but the only way to know good is if there is a contrast by what it is not.

11

Well spoken like a true superman. As the definitions of good and evil are merely at the whim of those who have the will to power, nuetrality becomes the remaining eternal constant. However Nietzsche made an interesting comment on the definition of something that is bad as being useless as opposed to something be good as useful. Merely stating that if something doesn’t benefit you, why should you bother with it? So then you cast it out, and it becomes useless…or…bad.

12

enslin, i don’t know if that is true. it seems you could enjoy good as good (perhaps in the Garden of Eden) even if you find yourself saying – “Look, another good!” all the time, and not know any evils.

but if it were true that you could not know good without having and knowing evil (and these might be different), it seems knowing good and evil would be had at the expense of enjoying unalloyed good.

does that make sense to anyone else?

un chevalier mal fet

13

How do you discriminate between something as nuetral and something as either good or bad?

14

To sum this up quickly, there is no such thing as good and evil. The acts that one calls “good” are not selfish acts and the acts that one calls “evil” are more selfish acts

The degree of “selfishness” of an act all depends on the person judging that act’ That is why to some people an act maybe be good, whereas to another person that act would be evil.

15

Well I agree. I guess it’s not much to agree to if it is fact. As a point it makes good and evil arbitrary, being that it’s a personal judgement. Morality is an attempt to make an agreement out if it. I would like to believe it’s the result of a thinking species succesful evolution due to the fact that a thinking species with morals will be more likely to survive than one without.

16

True, a species with morals would be more likely to survive. But what I disagree with is your claim of morality being an attempt to make an agreement out of it. I would say that for Absolute morality but not necessarily morality unto itself.

17

That’s a good point can you expand on that? What is the difference between Absolute morality and morality unto itself?

18

I’d say that Absolute Morality is a certain standard of morality, as in a set of “laws” that are black-and-white. Such as not killling another human, not providing false testimony, etc. These “laws” should not, in any circumstance, be ignored.

As for morality itself I think it fits nicely with my definition of “good and evil”. A person’s morality would revolve around whether an action was “good” or “evil”.

Using my definition from earlier, all the actions that were not selfish would be “good” actions wereas the selfish acts would be “evil” actions. A person would base their morality around trying to only commit “good” actions and refraining from committing “evil” ones. But remember the judgement of the selfishness of an action depends on the person, so it is subjective, thus making morality different for each individual.

19

Ok so what you mean by morality unto itself is as an equivalent to good and bad both are the results of a judgement. What you mean by Absolute morality is kinda like the rules of conduct. Thanks for that. Something interesting as an aside, that I would like to suggest is that perhaps all humans are doing what ever it is that they perceive as the good. Would that mean that all humans are basically good or at least attempting to be their version of good?

20

theyre arent all doing good, they just happen to all know exactly what it is they should be doing. people still steal or make unethical corporate policies or endorse things that are hurting people or pay their workers less than they know they deserve (which is subjective and pretty close to some line).

there are a lot of people that would suddenly repent if they were confronted with the up-close personal results of their selfishness. as soon as all the mtv execs have little pre-teen whores of their own, they are either really incredibly stupid/greedy or they will change some of their programming.

theres no way that bush really thinks keeping so much of his shady crap a secret is what the american people and our allies want. its what he wants. if a person thinks that what they want is better and more important than what any others want, they are evil.