Evil, the absence of good?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Is evil merely the adsence of good, and conversely, is good merely the absence of evil? I’m using good and evil in a general sense. My opinion is they both exist in their own right. For example, hate/sadism isn’t the absence of love, indifference to anothers feelings and/or well being is the absence of love. Hate/sadism is the presence of something, the desire to inflict pain and suffering on others. Hate is motivated by the desire for revenge. In the case of sadism, apparently inflicting pain and suffering on others is an end in itself. Conversely, the absence of love is also indifference. Therefore, both hate/sadism and love are forms of existence, not non existence. Epicurus said that the highest form of pleasure was the absence pain. Personally, I think the absence of pain is just that, the absence of pain. How could the absence of one thing be equivalent to the presence of something else?

In my opinion, there are two kinds of opposites. One, is when two forms of existence conflict with one another, such as gravity and repulsion. Gravity is the tendency for objects to move toward one anther, repulsion is the tendency for objects to move away from one another post-collision. In one way, these forces are opposed to each other, in another, they are complimentary, because if one were to dominate the other, the universe as we know it would cease to exist. If gravity existed and repulsion did not, the universe would eventually collapse in on itself. If repulsion existed and gravity did not, objects would never hook up with one another. Life, at least as we know it, would be impossible. Thus, it is presence of both these conflicting yet complimentary forces, in proportion and balance with one another, that make existence as we know it possible. Perhaps the same could be said of love and hate, pleasure and pain. Could life exist without pain? what would keep us from accidentally injuring ourselves? Lepers lose their sensation of pain in their hands, feet and face, consequently they end up inadvertently destroying their hands, feet and face. I’m not suggesting that we should welcome/pursue pain, but perhaps a certain amount of pain in our lives is normal, natural, and necessary for the continuation of our existence. Heroin addicts and drunkards feel little or no pain, at least while they’re high, but they also end up endangering themselves and others. The absence of life necessitates the absence of joy and sorrow. Perhaps we need a modicum of hate in our lives too, but not sadism, unless the recipient of our sadism is a masochist. Hate keeps us from being harmed by others. Sadism makes others want to harm us, so forget sadism.

The other kind of opposite is like hot and cold. Now, I think we can all agree that cold is really just the absence of hot. I think the scientific community have long sinced resolved this issue.

Maybe we need two different words for these two opposing/distinct kinds of opposites. like opposite (good and evil), absentate (hot and cold). yeah, opposition and absentation, i don’t know, what do you think?

i think there’s three kinds of things in the universe, two opposites eg. male and female, and one absence eg. asexual. Or is female really just the absence of male. penis (presence of something), vagina (absence of something). A woman is kind of like a bucket, or an empty vessel, lol. A bucket (womb) isn’t valuable for what it is, but for what you can fill it with (baby).

So yeah, in conclusion, I think evil is not the absence of good, and good is not the absence of evil. Like all opposites, we would do well to find the right balance between them, not to futily try and eliminate one or the other, no? Maybe I’m wrong.

Well, I think I’ve done enough rambling for now.

2

The absence of one another is merely speculation in opinion on some parts. One can generate love and hate projecting both “good” and “evil” and dispense any of these feelings, with the will of wanting to, when waning to do so.
To bind both good and evil is saying we bind together, hate and peace, which is possible but couldn’t work well together if these feeling are meshed and are distributed by a person constantly. Than again, one wouldn’t need to distribute them constantly yet only provide each, having the will, when a person feels the need to do so. It’s obviously simple, with reason, to join both and not necessarily, constantly, mold a new expression or emotion when dealing with any situation.
Both evil, and good, can be divided among each other and given by a person when ever with what ever the mood seems to be, be separately drawn.

3

Me too. If there is no good in you, it does not mean that you are bad or evil. It could mean you haven’t been informed of good vs. bad/evil and even if you were, supposing you were told, “this is the way to goodness,” – then where are you? You experience what you were told. This knowledge you are going to use and create a state of being and think that you have experienced ’good’. But that is not Good. You don’t know what is Good, you only know what is good for you.

Likewise, if there is no bad or evil in you, it doesn’t mean you’re good.

4

I’ll imply, evil is obscure and if one said death isn’t better than hell or complete darkness is better than hell, I wouldn’t know about either and still be considered wrong in my way of putting forth any opinion.
Just as, hell and heaven. Now if one were to be giving examples of, why one is better providing your information on the subject; It’s tracked back to your lack of knowledge (relating to the matter of hell and heaven) or your inexperience toward the both. It could be that one is sought as good or better for someone else than the other but who’s to say? On the subject of good and evil, if there were an absence than we would be better off cause neither is explained or given reason to why it’s a better choice. i.e. The fish, your pet, the one you were close to dies, and someone says well at least it’s in heaven, how often would one think that death is good cause you go to heaven?

5

‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are two sides of the same notion, moral value, and therefore dependent upon one another. We posit what is ‘the Good’, and moral value is an approximation to that ideal. The result is perspectival evaluation of causal necessity. Thus, the two cannot exist independently (or in absence) of one another, both as antitheses and companions.

In short, there are no moral absolutes – ‘Good’ and ‘evil’ coalese in all moral value.

6

First, true evil cannot exists, for if it were it would destroy itself the very moment it would come into existence.

Second, evil or bad, are simply by-products of natural ignorance (limited awareness).

Third, evil/bad and love/good can be both used to describe the same thing. Hitler tried to make a suicide (when imprisoned, before WW2) but someone (helped) saved him, was this act of saving him good or bad? It was both good and bad at the same time, depending from the context you look at it.

7

To all concerned.

I think I know what some of you philosophers are saying. There is no objective good and evil. I’d have to agree with you. Nonetheless, certain things cause us to feel positively and/or negatively towards them. Feeling negatively about something isn’t merely the absence of feeling positively about something and vice versa. Also, the presence of a thing may cause you to feel negatively towards it (eg. loud music), not merely because it’s the absence of something you feel positively about (eg. quiet music), but because you inherently hate it’s presence. Thus, when we deem something evil, it isn’t always because it’s the absence of something we deem good and vice versa.

Capiche?

I don’t know how to explain it in simpler terms than that.

8

There are never good or evil, simply people’s innate desire to survive and to do better than your neighbor (satisfying his or her EGO)! Once you get this, many of the philosophical debates simply lose its importance! Any disagreement???

9

You don’t know what is good; you only know what is good for you. That’s all you are interested in, that’s a fact. Everything centers around that. All your ideas and reason centers around that. That’s a fact. Nothing wrong with it. I’m not saying anything against it. The situations change, but it is that which is guiding you through all situations. I’m not saying it is wrong. If it is not so, something must be wrong with you.

As long as you are operating in the field of what they call the ‘pair of opposites’, good and bad, you will always be choosy, in every situation, that is all—you cannot help doing that.

10

I take exception at the notion of hate and sadism being linked as the interplay between sadism and masochism results in one of the most profoundly beautiful expressions of love that can exist. I do recognize that hate isn’t the opposite of love, those two emotions are complimentary in such a way that each of their opposite is apathy. If you imagine the range of human emotional expression as a circle, those three emotional states are separated from each other by 120 degrees, and the line of symmetry draw within the circle places both “hate” and “love” within the same semicircle and “apathy” in the mirror semicircle. So on that account, we do agree.

As for evil being the absence of good, while I have great respect for the Scholastics, since I don’t share their metaphysical conception of the universe so I’m not really even sure how to meaningfully address this distinction. The good/evil distinction requires a broader metaphystical framework in order to be meaningful and so whether “good” and “evil” merely reflect a presence or absence (of either) or whether the two elements are indeed distinct depends on the particulars of the narrative being considered.

But to examine the issue irrespective of particularist elements, the word of “evil” in pretty much all languages subjected to rigorous historical analysis was originally lexically indistinct from “ugly”. The same applies to “good” and “desirable/beautiful”. Using this analysis, what physical characteristics separate the desirable from the undesirable? You know, like at a bar. Take weight as an example, it is the presence of fat (which assumes skinniness as the norm) that renders a person unattractive or is it the absence of fat (which assumes fatness as the norm) which renders a person attractive? Is it the fitness of an individual (presuming a lack of fitness) that makes them attractive or is it the lack of fitness (which presumes fitness) which makes them unattractive? That sort of analysis can be employed for a wide variety of physical, intellectual, and emotional traits but always takes a particular standard as a given. But such standards are not always reliable from a demographic perspective. Two dated examples would be the eyes of Brittany Speares and Shannen Doherty. The unusually wide spacing of Speares’ and the asymmetry of Doherty’s eyes are both consistent with fetal alcohol syndrome, something not commonly associated with sexually desirable individuals. While deviations from the norm are occasionally considered desirable, asymmetry almost never is, but in each of their days, the “striking” nature of their eyes was favorably commented upon. So you have the presence/absence of something ugly/beautiful yet the reverse response occurs.

That tells me that we may be dealing with two distinct elements as opposed to a single element on a dimmer switch. Think about other aesthetic elements, there is a deli near my house that is known for making amazing sandwiches. And boy, do they. Now, personally, I don’t much care for pickled things or vinegar in general, and their sandwiches routinely incorporate both. Despite my aversion to those things, the good elements of the sandwiches substantially outweigh the bad and I freakin’ adore everything I’ve ever had there – including sandwiches incorporating ingredients I would never normally choose to eat. For me, the absence of pickled items does not make food good, nor does the presence of pickled things demand that a particular food item is bad. The presence of pickled things is undesirable, but given different, desirable things, the overall product can be considered desirable.

While it is tempting to try and apply a moral mathematics to those sorts of systems and come up with a coherent framework, such an analysis really doesn’t prove fruitful. People have been trying since Bentham, and each resulting framework has been more absurd than the last.

So, no. Aquinas and his buddies were wrong on this account.

11

A very thorough and thoughtful analysis Xunzian.

Indeed, Aquinas and his minions were wrong. Repulsion/evil isn’t the absence of attraction/good, inactivity/neutrality is the absence of repulsion/evil and attraction/good. Sweet isn’t the absence of sour and sugar isn’t the absence of acidity, no taste and no food is the absence of sweet/sugar and sour/acidity.

12

Does there seem to be a problem with your present life?

If there seems to be, is coming to terms with your life as it is (the absence of solution) what keeps you from thinking there’s a problem in the first place?

Is it the thought of a better state (the presence of solution) that keeps you from coming to terms with your life as it is?

What tells you if there is or isn’t a problem with your life?

13

I’m sorry finishedman, I’m not following you.

14

NO

evil is the battle between religious beings

within which we , as Humans , are caught in the middle

15

There is no problem with your present life. Only for thought could there be the possibility that there is.

Where does good/beauty lie? In the object or in the mind of the one that’s looking? It is thought induced. Culture supplies the directing as Xunzian pointed out.

Aside from the comparisons and judgments that thought makes there are no opposites.

16

[quote=“finishedman”]
You don’t know what is good;

Accurate description is there is no good or evil in a ‘absolute’ sense, thus ‘nobody’ knows what is good! What is good for me is to serve my self interest, that is correct! And self interest is about ‘survive’ in this harsh human jungle and fulfilling my ‘ego’ (vanity and competitive-ness etc). There is absolutely nothing more or less!!!

17

[quote=“Lucis Trust”]
the absence of love is also indifference.

In my view, love is nothing other than ‘attachment’, desire or preference. Thus opposite of the preference is HATE or aversion! IE I love abundance and hate poverty. I am NOT indifferent to people, who are cheap (to pay for my profession or service), but HATE them!!! Sometimes I feel I want to strongly ruin their lives forever!

18

[quote=“Xunzian”]
my aversion to those things, the good elements of the sandwiches substantially outweigh the bad

So you equate good as simply ‘desirable’? I agree since there is no good, evil, beauty, ugliness in the ‘absolute’ sense!

19

evil is the absence of not only good , but the absence of any form of Human survival

20

Not even!
Evil is the absence of what you think good is.